On the contrary, I am absolutely shocked that lawmakers do care about this since it goes to safety of the public. Lawmakers don't seem to give a crap about citizens these days.
if you can damage the device so that the user cannot detect the damage by visual inspection, you can perpetrate a denial of service attack because the user will no longer be able to use it to restart the service, they will have no idea it is broken and the service will not be able to be restarted until a replacement key is made.
Uber and Lyft have been running in gypsy mode for long enough that we should be able to identify the probability of such an occurrence, and actuarial tables should provide us with the cost.
yeah let's ask companies to provide their own unverified and unverifiable data to determine much money we should charge them, let's see how well that works out
the passengers should already have health insurance.
your health insurance will not cover injuries that are supposed to be covered by automobile insurance. if they did, there would be no need for auto insurance.
the laws they're bought to fix prices and prevent competition...
laws that limit the number of players in a market will always have this effect regardless of intent.
"preventing competition" is a good thing when the competition is unlicensed and uninsured
NYC was choked with taxis before they regulated. it was dangerous to the population, fire trucks and other emergency vehicles could not get through.
you can choose: you can have unregulated taxis and uncontrolled fires, or you can have regulated taxis and firetrucks that can get to their destination. NYC chooses to be able to put their fires out.
so you have to wait for a bad thing to happen first before you will regulate it?
Can you look at all of the incidents where underinsured passengers have lost their jobs and their income due to accidents? There is plenty of precedent for this. These people end up unemployed and on the dole and we pay for them with our taxes! With adequate insurance they can get treatment and physical therapy and head back to their jobs.
can you really tell me that this will never happen to an uber passenger?
There is a reason why NYC regulated taxis. Before they did, the streets were choked with them because the "free market" asked too many people to drive their taxis at the same time in the same place. Does NYC have the right to regulate its taxis? What about other places?
In my view the compelling reason for Uber and Lyft is that you can view the rating of your driver and have some confidence that the driver will be professional and courteous prior to ordering the service. You have no such luck at the airport taxi stand,
yeah, in my experience the ratings you see in the internet are always 100% accurate, people never lie or exaggerate on the internet.
The fact that you're in another person's non-taxi vehicle makes it different enough that it merits it's own word.
So you've never taken a taxi in a small town? This is pretty much how it works in rural america. The taxi driver drives his own car. You need a new word for that, too?
The problem is that if they make the driver get actual commercial insurance instead of driving around on a minimum liability private policy {even though it's still a piddly amount of coverage} the price goes up and makes it harder for them to find drivers.
this is not a "problem", this is how the market works.
there are many many tens of thousands of automobile accidents every year in this country. automobile accidents are not a "hypothetical" they are a fact
Why must an Uber driver have a different insurance plan from you and me? Any reasons you can come up with are none of the government's concern — they are between the driver and his insurance company.
so when you crash your uber car and the customer is badly injured and you don't have enough insurance, we taxpayers are supposed to pay out because it's none of our concern?
you are not "self employed" if you are being told what to do by a third party.
If you want to carry passengers for a profit, you have to pursue further certification.
yeah, that's the ticket. normal car insurance does not cover vehicles for hire. having a driver's license does not qualify you to help handicapped passengers in and out of your vehicle. maybe you are going to tell me that they don't have to take handicapped people? so uber sends a special vehicle? let's go back to this "self employed" thing you said earlier?
Slashdot Mirror
And for the record, turning off electric-mode in emacs is wildly difficult to actually do.
Can you follow along?
- click on the "C" menu
- mouse over the "Toggle" item
- click on the "Electric Mode" item
Is this really so wildly difficult?
On the contrary, I am absolutely shocked that lawmakers do care about this since it goes to safety of the public. Lawmakers don't seem to give a crap about citizens these days.
insurance companies want people to be insured
property owners want to minimize their losses
does it make sense now?
RTFM! it IS potted in epoxy. Guess what? Nasty solvents will dissolve epoxy!
if you can damage the device so that the user cannot detect the damage by visual inspection, you can perpetrate a denial of service attack because the user will no longer be able to use it to restart the service, they will have no idea it is broken and the service will not be able to be restarted until a replacement key is made.
so uber should be happy to have a new law that requires their competitors to do the same thing
Uber and Lyft have been running in gypsy mode for long enough that we should be able to identify the probability of such an occurrence, and actuarial tables should provide us with the cost.
yeah let's ask companies to provide their own unverified and unverifiable data to determine much money we should charge them, let's see how well that works out
It's only a concern for the drivers though, as a passenger you're always covered by Uber/Lyft.
so innocent property owners do not need to be concerned about uninsured uber vehicles destroying their property?
so if uber is insuring their drivers then they should have no problem with a law that stipulates that they must do so
the passengers should already have health insurance.
your health insurance will not cover injuries that are supposed to be covered by automobile insurance. if they did, there would be no need for auto insurance.
the laws they're bought to fix prices and prevent competition...
laws that limit the number of players in a market will always have this effect regardless of intent.
"preventing competition" is a good thing when the competition is unlicensed and uninsured
NYC was choked with taxis before they regulated. it was dangerous to the population, fire trucks and other emergency vehicles could not get through.
you can choose: you can have unregulated taxis and uncontrolled fires, or you can have regulated taxis and firetrucks that can get to their destination. NYC chooses to be able to put their fires out.
an uber driver who is on his way to pick up a passenger is most certainly on the job
he started working when he accepted the fare and headed to the pickup point
the uber driver's job starts when he checks his app to see if he has a ride available
If there ever was a contract, it was broken long ago.
Two wrongs make a right! Hooray!
so you have to wait for a bad thing to happen first before you will regulate it?
Can you look at all of the incidents where underinsured passengers have lost their jobs and their income due to accidents? There is plenty of precedent for this. These people end up unemployed and on the dole and we pay for them with our taxes! With adequate insurance they can get treatment and physical therapy and head back to their jobs.
can you really tell me that this will never happen to an uber passenger?
but matters of intent can get really hard to differentiate when it comes to law....
if you have an uber account and you are accepting rides then your intent is pretty clear
There is a reason why NYC regulated taxis. Before they did, the streets were choked with them because the "free market" asked too many people to drive their taxis at the same time in the same place. Does NYC have the right to regulate its taxis? What about other places?
In my view the compelling reason for Uber and Lyft is that you can view the rating of your driver and have some confidence that the driver will be professional and courteous prior to ordering the service. You have no such luck at the airport taxi stand,
yeah, in my experience the ratings you see in the internet are always 100% accurate, people never lie or exaggerate on the internet.
The fact that you're in another person's non-taxi vehicle makes it different enough that it merits it's own word.
So you've never taken a taxi in a small town? This is pretty much how it works in rural america. The taxi driver drives his own car. You need a new word for that, too?
The problem is that if they make the driver get actual commercial insurance instead of driving around on a minimum liability private policy {even though it's still a piddly amount of coverage} the price goes up and makes it harder for them to find drivers.
this is not a "problem", this is how the market works.
"hypothetical"
there are many many tens of thousands of automobile accidents every year in this country. automobile accidents are not a "hypothetical" they are a fact
normal automobile insurance will not cover the "Uber" car because it is being driven for hire, read your policy
Seems to me that insurance should cover that.
sure it will, if you buy that kind of insurance. should we all be forced to buy the insurance that covers taxi drivers?
Why must an Uber driver have a different insurance plan from you and me? Any reasons you can come up with are none of the government's concern — they are between the driver and his insurance company.
so when you crash your uber car and the customer is badly injured and you don't have enough insurance, we taxpayers are supposed to pay out because it's none of our concern?
It's generally used as an umbrella term
so this makes it a law?
which is basically self-employed taxi services.
you are not "self employed" if you are being told what to do by a third party.
If you want to carry passengers for a profit, you have to pursue further certification.
yeah, that's the ticket. normal car insurance does not cover vehicles for hire. having a driver's license does not qualify you to help handicapped passengers in and out of your vehicle. maybe you are going to tell me that they don't have to take handicapped people? so uber sends a special vehicle? let's go back to this "self employed" thing you said earlier?