If ride sharing services are doing the same thing as a taxi (ie. taxiing a passenger from point A to point B for profit) then they should qualify as a taxi and follow all taxi laws. Otherwise all taxi companies need to have their medallions bought out at market value by corresponding governments and we abandon all the regulation so that everyone can be on even ground again.
The anti-ridesharing laws weren't "made by millions of people", they were made by a small number of lobbyists and politicians to advance their own interests.
Fair enough, but don't punish the taxi industry for it.
There are plenty of laws I favor, just not the crony capitalist kind that people like you favor.
That's what I have been struggling with. The laws are the laws. It doesn't matter which ones we favor. We abide by them or we use a legal and political process to change them. That's all there is. How do you or Uber get to pick which laws are important? You're placing your own needs ahead of the millions of people that made those laws. After that, nothing matters.
I know a way that you can consume any content at the pace you want to. It's called READING. Maybe too many videos are being made when there should just be an article. Maybe kids aren't learning well enough how to skim for a topic or word and start reading from that point.
Well, Uber / Lyft are taxi companies, unless they're going to stop carrying passengers for profit. An app isn't enough to prevent them from qualifying as a taxi company. I'm not sure how preventing someone from building a flawed house and selling it to some unsuspecting person leads to the rich getting richer. If anything it protects the little guy from getting screwed over. The rich get richer by finding ways to screw people over. I favor people obeying laws in general. Obviously there shouldn't be crony capitalist laws but that's for the people to work out through the system of government. I think some people hide behind taxi laws but I also see the good that comes from them so I am not motivated to fight to change them. As I said before, apparently you don't favor laws at all and that is not a society I would like to live in.
So everyone should be able to move along and not follow the law in whatever way works for them? Restaurants can have vermin crawling around in their kitchen. Houses can be built in a way that will stand for 5 years and then fall over on the occupants despite outwardly looking like a luxury home... Definitely not the world I want to live in. To give everyone arbitrary right to do whatever they want as long as it is profitable. Buggy whips are a terrible analogy because it was never deemed illegal to make car accessories. You're basically inviting everyone to break the law in the way that suits them. Society can't function that way.
I'm getting so tired of typing this... taxi regulations are there to reduce the amount of cars on the road and to keep the industry safe. Taxi's are also forced to be a part of a city's overall transportation solution; they have to be in certain places, can't ignore fares, and have to provide services for the disabled. There is no researching this, it is a fact.
I would also think that taking a person's fingerprints and giving them a documented connection to the company they are driving for would dissuade them from committing further crimes. Even though they're obviously in need of improvement, background checks work for guns:
http://smartgunlaws.org/effect...
"Research has found that states with more expansive background check laws experience 48 percent less gun trafficking, 38 percent fewer deaths of women shot by intimate partners, and 17 percent fewer firearms involved in aggravated assaults."
Really it's pretty asinine to make the case that people who are completely anonymous would be as safe over a general population of people as people who are known. Look at how different people are on the internet under an alias versus in real life.
Ok so say you sit down to a game of monopoly with two other players. One player gets to make their own rules such as not rolling the dice and simply announcing the number of spots they wish to move and they move there. That's what Uber is doing to the taxi industry. How much longer do you think those other three players will be sitting at the table with their chance of coming out ahead being basically zero?
Someone suddenly lined up 10 shots of vodka, held the person down and made them swallow? Where are these places people go that force drinking upon entry? Can't say I've ever been to a place where I couldn't make a choice not to drink if I couldn't get home safely.
How does having cheap rides help:
- People in areas of the city where no Uber driver wants to go (taxis are regulated so that they accept all fares)
- The physically disabled (taxi regulations force taxi companies to have a certain number of specialized vehicles for special needs)
- People who drive cars (taxi regulations stop the roads from getting clogged with people looking for fares, yes it did happen)
- Riders (despite people trying to say the liability coverage is provided by Uber it is no where as close to comprehensive as full commercial coverage)
- Drivers (regulations have them put in stabbing shields and other safety equipment.. in my city there are strobes for someone to call 911)
- Public safety (no one looks at the real value of background checks and fingerprinting, it is not to catch the driver after committing the crime, it is about making a driver think ten times over before committing a crime in the first place BECAUSE of the information that the authorities have).
You're sacrificing all these things for nothing but a cheap ride.
That happens where I live. Taxi companies are contracted to have a certain number of cabs outside hotels and other spots. They are required to have a certain number of vehicles for the handicapped. They can't refuse a fare no matter where it is called from and who. That's kind of the point of government and regulations.. to ensure companies give you the service that people need.
Ah so it all comes down to cost for you. Or as so many have put it, "as long as I get what I want, screw the rest". Well I have news for you buddy, I drink the cheapest coffee available and I have taken the bus 100x more then I've taken a taxi.
So people don't have to be responsible for themselves now? There is no claw that will pick a drunk up at the bar and drop them safely in bed so what else can they do but drive home drunk? HOW ABOUT NOT DRINK.
You're saying that defending the little guy should involve defending a company that purposefully flouts laws that were put there for public safety, pays drivers a pittance while sitting on boat loads of cash, doesn't mind if they aren't properly insured, and has been up front about wanting to go with automation asap. Not following that logic. The taxi companies are the lesser evil here.
I'm just having trouble why the same people who argue that people should be personally responsible for themselves are now arguing FOR Uber because it seems to protect people from themselves. I personally think governments should protect people to a certain extent, but if you're out at a bar and haven't planned how you're getting home at 2am then you should be on your own.
Reading your post, I concluded how easy it is to cherry pick one statistic that got better while ignoring everything else that would get worse. Thanks for that.
Even if that were the case, the police will have to have some clear identifiable way to enforce the lanes. It an Uber car looks like a regular car driving down the road then how can that lane ever be enforced?
Slashdot Mirror
If ride sharing services are doing the same thing as a taxi (ie. taxiing a passenger from point A to point B for profit) then they should qualify as a taxi and follow all taxi laws. Otherwise all taxi companies need to have their medallions bought out at market value by corresponding governments and we abandon all the regulation so that everyone can be on even ground again.
The anti-ridesharing laws weren't "made by millions of people", they were made by a small number of lobbyists and politicians to advance their own interests.
Fair enough, but don't punish the taxi industry for it.
There are plenty of laws I favor, just not the crony capitalist kind that people like you favor.
That's what I have been struggling with. The laws are the laws. It doesn't matter which ones we favor. We abide by them or we use a legal and political process to change them. That's all there is. How do you or Uber get to pick which laws are important? You're placing your own needs ahead of the millions of people that made those laws. After that, nothing matters.
I know a way that you can consume any content at the pace you want to. It's called READING. Maybe too many videos are being made when there should just be an article. Maybe kids aren't learning well enough how to skim for a topic or word and start reading from that point.
Well, Uber / Lyft are taxi companies, unless they're going to stop carrying passengers for profit. An app isn't enough to prevent them from qualifying as a taxi company. I'm not sure how preventing someone from building a flawed house and selling it to some unsuspecting person leads to the rich getting richer. If anything it protects the little guy from getting screwed over. The rich get richer by finding ways to screw people over. I favor people obeying laws in general. Obviously there shouldn't be crony capitalist laws but that's for the people to work out through the system of government. I think some people hide behind taxi laws but I also see the good that comes from them so I am not motivated to fight to change them. As I said before, apparently you don't favor laws at all and that is not a society I would like to live in.
So everyone should be able to move along and not follow the law in whatever way works for them? Restaurants can have vermin crawling around in their kitchen. Houses can be built in a way that will stand for 5 years and then fall over on the occupants despite outwardly looking like a luxury home... Definitely not the world I want to live in. To give everyone arbitrary right to do whatever they want as long as it is profitable. Buggy whips are a terrible analogy because it was never deemed illegal to make car accessories. You're basically inviting everyone to break the law in the way that suits them. Society can't function that way.
I'm getting so tired of typing this... taxi regulations are there to reduce the amount of cars on the road and to keep the industry safe. Taxi's are also forced to be a part of a city's overall transportation solution; they have to be in certain places, can't ignore fares, and have to provide services for the disabled. There is no researching this, it is a fact.
I would also think that taking a person's fingerprints and giving them a documented connection to the company they are driving for would dissuade them from committing further crimes. Even though they're obviously in need of improvement, background checks work for guns:
http://smartgunlaws.org/effect...
"Research has found that states with more expansive background check laws experience 48 percent less gun trafficking, 38 percent fewer deaths of women shot by intimate partners, and 17 percent fewer firearms involved in aggravated assaults."
Really it's pretty asinine to make the case that people who are completely anonymous would be as safe over a general population of people as people who are known. Look at how different people are on the internet under an alias versus in real life.
I meant 'sit down with three other players'
Ok so say you sit down to a game of monopoly with two other players. One player gets to make their own rules such as not rolling the dice and simply announcing the number of spots they wish to move and they move there. That's what Uber is doing to the taxi industry. How much longer do you think those other three players will be sitting at the table with their chance of coming out ahead being basically zero?
Someone suddenly lined up 10 shots of vodka, held the person down and made them swallow? Where are these places people go that force drinking upon entry? Can't say I've ever been to a place where I couldn't make a choice not to drink if I couldn't get home safely.
Oh.. well then why even bring it up.
How does having cheap rides help:
- People in areas of the city where no Uber driver wants to go (taxis are regulated so that they accept all fares)
- The physically disabled (taxi regulations force taxi companies to have a certain number of specialized vehicles for special needs)
- People who drive cars (taxi regulations stop the roads from getting clogged with people looking for fares, yes it did happen)
- Riders (despite people trying to say the liability coverage is provided by Uber it is no where as close to comprehensive as full commercial coverage)
- Drivers (regulations have them put in stabbing shields and other safety equipment.. in my city there are strobes for someone to call 911)
- Public safety (no one looks at the real value of background checks and fingerprinting, it is not to catch the driver after committing the crime, it is about making a driver think ten times over before committing a crime in the first place BECAUSE of the information that the authorities have).
You're sacrificing all these things for nothing but a cheap ride.
That happens where I live. Taxi companies are contracted to have a certain number of cabs outside hotels and other spots. They are required to have a certain number of vehicles for the handicapped. They can't refuse a fare no matter where it is called from and who. That's kind of the point of government and regulations.. to ensure companies give you the service that people need.
Ah so it all comes down to cost for you. Or as so many have put it, "as long as I get what I want, screw the rest". Well I have news for you buddy, I drink the cheapest coffee available and I have taken the bus 100x more then I've taken a taxi.
Because now the races that were referred to with racial slurs are driving proper taxi's.
If just about everyone was a safe driver then there wouldn't be so many drunk drivers on the road for Uber to cause a 7.5% drop in.
left drunks without a plan
So people don't have to be responsible for themselves now? There is no claw that will pick a drunk up at the bar and drop them safely in bed so what else can they do but drive home drunk? HOW ABOUT NOT DRINK.
Sounds like a reason to complain to the local government, not to usher in a totally unregulated company.
If you don't understand the reasons why the taxi industry is regulated then just say so. You'll still look like an idiot, just a smaller one.
Just because you don't understand the reason why they are so expensive doesn't mean they are artificially expensive.
You're saying that defending the little guy should involve defending a company that purposefully flouts laws that were put there for public safety, pays drivers a pittance while sitting on boat loads of cash, doesn't mind if they aren't properly insured, and has been up front about wanting to go with automation asap. Not following that logic. The taxi companies are the lesser evil here.
I'm just having trouble why the same people who argue that people should be personally responsible for themselves are now arguing FOR Uber because it seems to protect people from themselves. I personally think governments should protect people to a certain extent, but if you're out at a bar and haven't planned how you're getting home at 2am then you should be on your own.
So you are the expert that alone will determine whether fingerprints work or not? That's for Austin to figure out.
Reading your post, I concluded how easy it is to cherry pick one statistic that got better while ignoring everything else that would get worse. Thanks for that.
Even if that were the case, the police will have to have some clear identifiable way to enforce the lanes. It an Uber car looks like a regular car driving down the road then how can that lane ever be enforced?