Ok I guess I know it.. I will ignore all the personal accounts of what went on in the cab industry before regulation, if it will make you happier. It stands to reason if you provide more cars with incentive to be on the roads longer (ie. all day) then there will be more cars on the road. You have your head in the sand if you think otherwise.
Taxis are on the road for an entire shift, as opposed to someone who leaves home, parks, does what they need to do, comes home, parks again. Some taxis are on the road 24/7.
It doesn't really matter why the rules are what they are. As people who live in a civilized society with a government, we accept that the rules were built by a system that takes into account the needs of all people. Our choices are to either accept it or change it through that same system, not disobey because we don't agree.
Apples to oranges. You're talking about comparing someone driving a car as a business to someone driving a personal vehicle. In a way personal vehicles are moderated by parking prices, available spots, toll booths, etc.
Again, come back when you have some proof to back that up. You aren't even bothering to say why it's stupid, because I think you don't even know. I know in the ciry I live in, it would be better if there were less cars on the road, not more.
Oh so I can just plop down a tower wherever I want? I don't have to find some available land that someone is willing to sell or lease to me for that tower? Maybe you don't want rules of land ownership to apply equally to everyone either?
They haven't limited competition, they have limited the number of cars on the roads. Before there was a limit to the number of cars on the roads, there was no room for people in their own cars. In most cities, there isn't enough room as it is.
"There are no regulations aimed at protecting my investment in my trade."
That doesn't matter. If you wanted to be protected by regulation you had every opportunity to go into a regulated industry. You didn't, so you can't really complain.
"Regulations limiting number of cabs on the road in regions that don't have sufficient public transportation are not intended to do anything at all other than keep those obscene profit margins for the Cab OWNERS sky high."
Again, where the frick are you hearing this from? This is your opinion, not mine.
If anyone doesn't like the way government operates, they have a full right and duty to engage in the process and change things. Let Uber change the rules unilaterally and not only are you decreasing the investment made by taxi drivers in their trade, but you also have to let any company change the rules as they see fit. Now you have builders who can use substandard materials and you get building collapses like they do in India. Now the companies trying to sell you v1agr4 have a legal right to operate. Good luck with that world.
If you have a solid case that it is ineffective and you care that much, then get off your ass and get the requirement removed. Otherwise, don't expect anything to happen if you're too lazy to go through the correct process.
Name one rule that applies to taxi's that doesn't protect the other users of the roads, customers, or drivers in some way. Fingerprints? Protecting customers from crime. Limited licenses available? Protecting other drivers from clogged roads and keeping driving reasonable and safe. Requirement for handicapped vehicles? Protecting the physically challenged. Requirement for presence at airports, hotels? Ensures there are no fights in the street over passengers. The list goes on.
Stop calling the taxi industry monopolistic, unless you can point to any market with only one company. You can't even call it an oligopoly because they didn't come up with the roles they have to follow.
There are plenty of restaurants around my city that would never be able to enter the business today, mostly because when they received their license there was no requirement to have all stainless steel cooking and preparation surfaces. The fact that they are not asked to shutdown and make tens of thousands of dollars worth of renovations immediately is more out of fairness than to protect them.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they're breaking the law. To change it you have to participate in the democratic process.
Ok I guess I know it.. I will ignore all the personal accounts of what went on in the cab industry before regulation, if it will make you happier. It stands to reason if you provide more cars with incentive to be on the roads longer (ie. all day) then there will be more cars on the road. You have your head in the sand if you think otherwise.
At that point it will become even more important to limit the number of cars on the road, not less.
Taxis increase congestion.
Taxis are on the road for an entire shift, as opposed to someone who leaves home, parks, does what they need to do, comes home, parks again. Some taxis are on the road 24/7.
Well, I can't drive where I am until I pay for vehicle insurance, so there you go.
It doesn't really matter why the rules are what they are. As people who live in a civilized society with a government, we accept that the rules were built by a system that takes into account the needs of all people. Our choices are to either accept it or change it through that same system, not disobey because we don't agree.
Well the good news is you don't have to support a local politician with your vote. So that solves that.
Oh, and let's not forget car pool lanes. Another form of regulation on personal vehicles.
Apples to oranges. You're talking about comparing someone driving a car as a business to someone driving a personal vehicle. In a way personal vehicles are moderated by parking prices, available spots, toll booths, etc.
Again, come back when you have some proof to back that up. You aren't even bothering to say why it's stupid, because I think you don't even know. I know in the ciry I live in, it would be better if there were less cars on the road, not more.
Oh so I can just plop down a tower wherever I want? I don't have to find some available land that someone is willing to sell or lease to me for that tower? Maybe you don't want rules of land ownership to apply equally to everyone either?
First valid point I have seen.
They haven't limited competition, they have limited the number of cars on the roads. Before there was a limit to the number of cars on the roads, there was no room for people in their own cars. In most cities, there isn't enough room as it is.
Protects other users of the roadways from congestion and unsafe roads. I mentioned that.
So? I can't start a celphone company either because it would cost millions to set up towers. That's life. Change it if you don't like it.
Ok so the taxi industry is monopolistic in Ottawa.
"There are no regulations aimed at protecting my investment in my trade."
That doesn't matter. If you wanted to be protected by regulation you had every opportunity to go into a regulated industry. You didn't, so you can't really complain.
"Regulations limiting number of cabs on the road in regions that don't have sufficient public transportation are not intended to do anything at all other than keep those obscene profit margins for the Cab OWNERS sky high."
Again, where the frick are you hearing this from? This is your opinion, not mine.
If you think that is the reason behind it, please site your source.
If anyone doesn't like the way government operates, they have a full right and duty to engage in the process and change things. Let Uber change the rules unilaterally and not only are you decreasing the investment made by taxi drivers in their trade, but you also have to let any company change the rules as they see fit. Now you have builders who can use substandard materials and you get building collapses like they do in India. Now the companies trying to sell you v1agr4 have a legal right to operate. Good luck with that world.
If you have a solid case that it is ineffective and you care that much, then get off your ass and get the requirement removed. Otherwise, don't expect anything to happen if you're too lazy to go through the correct process.
Name one rule that applies to taxi's that doesn't protect the other users of the roads, customers, or drivers in some way. Fingerprints? Protecting customers from crime. Limited licenses available? Protecting other drivers from clogged roads and keeping driving reasonable and safe. Requirement for handicapped vehicles? Protecting the physically challenged. Requirement for presence at airports, hotels? Ensures there are no fights in the street over passengers. The list goes on.
Agree... it kind of makes you wonder who Uber is trying to protect.
Stop calling the taxi industry monopolistic, unless you can point to any market with only one company. You can't even call it an oligopoly because they didn't come up with the roles they have to follow.
There are plenty of restaurants around my city that would never be able to enter the business today, mostly because when they received their license there was no requirement to have all stainless steel cooking and preparation surfaces. The fact that they are not asked to shutdown and make tens of thousands of dollars worth of renovations immediately is more out of fairness than to protect them.