It means there is a "preponderance of the evidence", but not evidence "beyond reasonable doubt". Both are legal terms. I think they explicitly avoided the legal terms to not make a huge issue of it. The arbitration is likely binding under the league rules.
Many schools provide tutors as part of the sports scholarship. The tutors help the athletes, sometimes during tests. And professors "leaned on" to be lenient for retests and such.
I helped a friend with his bachelor of business. I'd tutor him for the basic algebra he couldn't do for the few classes that required you be able to do basic addition. There was no statistics or other advanced math required.
They owned it until they were invaded. And it changed hands many times before that, and the current owners claim ownership because of claims even older than the current objectors.
It seems to be equally insane to pick fights with insane people.
It's land. Just land. Land over which insane people have been fighting for just about ever.
So if all the people who have ever owned the land under your house came back and demanded it from you, or they'd kill you, would it make you insane to say "but it's mine now"? Would it make them insane? What about if the people with claims have claims dating back before the country who grants you exclusive use of the land existed?
States/Munis/etc come back and say "wait, but you're giving rides to people for money. That's functionally a taxi service, and you're subject to taxi service regulations."
The responses almost universally come back and make all ride sharing illegal. I've gone to the "travel" board at college and picked a name out, and accepted money to drive someone somewhere. I've taken gas money from a hitch hiker. The government response has almost always made those actions illegal. That was obviously not the intent of their taxi laws, and in most cases, isn't covered in the wording of them.
I think the issue is that the laws are vague, and the legal system is so tied up in what was said, and less in what was meant that Uber is right in almost (if not) all cases.
They are not a "taxi" by any definition I've seen. They do not respond to hails.
I think in places like NYC, they explicitly meet all the limo-service rules, and operate as such. They don't meet those rules elsewhere, because most cities haven't defined a multi-tier commercial driving arrangement, as NYC has to balance the too-few taxis with too many people.
I think Uber is in the legal right in most cases, fitting in a gap in the legislation where the legislators didn't consider a limo service priced below taxi. They presumed limos would be more than taxis, so they didn't regulate them like taxis. But Uber is a limo service, and from what I've seen, tries to target that as the minimums to meet in a jurisdiction.
The policies in Europe are much cheaper because there is reduced financial liability. In places with free health care, there is essentially no injury coverage in the auto policy. It isn't needed. In the US, the majority of the cost of the insurance is injury liability.
If the US was no-charge single payer health coverage, then insurance costs could drop. But that'll never happen because it would end the massive health insurance cartel. Also, in the US, the general costs of liability are higher than anywhere else. Too many lawyers.
There is a current monopoly. The monopoly is by the fixed number of medallion holders. You can call them an ologopoly, but they act as one and are allowed explicit collusion (in many cases collusion is required by law) to act as one.
If they aren't a monopoly, then ATT/MS/(whoever you hate and think was a monopoly) wasn't a monopoly because they all had multiple owners.
Uber isn't trying to make a monopoly. If they succeed in their goals of spreading, then the barriers are lower for the next entrant, not, as in the monopoly case, higher. They aren't pushing for new legislation. They aren't trying to close the door behind them.
Unregulated taxis in the US would be less regulated. Fraud and robery is still illegal, and would be aggressively persecuted. Try that in some 3rd world countries. If you get taken, the police will not care, well, other than wanting their cut of the take of whatever the result is.
You have a very narrow and sheltered idea of "unregulated".
And UBer is still, in some ways, more regulated than old Taxis. Why? Because you get rated, reviewed drivers you can verify the identity of before you get in. The taxi ID in many US taxis (most in NYC) is posted where you can't read it before you get in. Uber at least lets you check their pic to verify they are the real driver before you've gotten in. And you can check reviews and other things before agreeing to the trip. Something else impossible with old taxis.
My safety is likely higher on Uber than a hailed taxi.
Common insurances have low limits. The standard numbers for car insurance won't cover past a cap. Sure, it doesn't invalidate the insurance, but it will result in a lack of coverage past the limits. Home insurance will explicitly not cover items over a set amount, unless previously put on an item list. So your $15,000 diamond necklace is covered for $0, unless previously declared. The idea is to discourage fraud.
If I'm driving from my current location to the location of the customer it is commercial use (I wouldn't be doing it if wasn't working).
That's not the standard. If I'm driving from office A to office B between two offices while on the clock, I'm not using it for commercial use (unless I'm a Uber driver). I've even gotten that in writing from an insurance company. I'm not using it for commercial use while driving to a contract job. So why does that apply if the contract job is to build a house, but not if it's to drive someone as a Uber driver?
It's a subtle point, but a driver going to pick up a fare can get in an accident, and an insurance company can consider that commercial uncovered behavior (the driver was not using the car for pleasure, or commute purposes).
Wait, so commuting from home to your job (the pickup point), is not commuting, but driving from point a to point b to get to a paying job is commuting, so long as you aren't a Uber driver.
So if I put the Mona Lisa up for auction, what do I set the reserve at?
In a perfectly competitive market (I don't care which term you use, you understood what I meant, and I think they are used differently in different places/industries), you do what you do anywhere, set it at market price. If "market price" isn't cost plus, then you don't have a perfectly competitive market. Which is true for unique items. A commodity item, like a computer mouse, is cost plus. A monopoly (the only mona lisa, the only taxi medallion in an area, a telecom monopoly), cost plus wouldn't apply.
If you're a fugitive from the law but they suspect your mom is secretly sending you letters do they need a warrant to read the mailing address? Probably not, a court order will probably do since it's information that the post office obviously must have in order to deliver it, just like the number you dialed.
That's not what they did. They approached a private party he had private dealings with and demanded previous papers. That's getting old "private" letters from Mom or MetroPCS, not asking the Post Office or MetroPCS to monitor new ones.
Insurance companies. The requirement to hold a primary auto policy of $1,000,000 or more is restrictive and pointless. There are secondary insurance policies that would cover the same for less. So I think that the insurance companies are probably helping push for some of these restrictions. They would love all Uber drivers to be forced to have $1,000,000 of commercial auto insurance.
if you drive someone you also need primary automobile liability insurance that provides at least $1,000,000 for death, bodily injury and property damage. Which is more than most people get for their personal vehicle (especially in Kansas), but not at all unreasonable for a commercial policy.
That is a bit unreasonable. Why require it as a primary auto policy? That sounds like an auto-insurance cartel. I had a $1,000,000 policy that would have covered me as an Uber driver as a "secondary" umbrella policy. It's hella cheaper, and still worked for a Uber-type service.
Seems that some of these objections are from insurers, not taxi. There are a lot of corporations that would lose if taxis were restructured.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all in Europe only very few countries have free health care. E.g. Denmark.
A quick glance at Wikipedia turns up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... which indicates most of Europe has UHC.
"Virtually all of Europe has either publicly sponsored and regulated universal health care or publicly provided universal healthcare."
Yeah, "very few" it is.
No one remembers Nixon. It's Martha Stuart for the example now.
It means there is a "preponderance of the evidence", but not evidence "beyond reasonable doubt". Both are legal terms. I think they explicitly avoided the legal terms to not make a huge issue of it. The arbitration is likely binding under the league rules.
Many schools provide tutors as part of the sports scholarship. The tutors help the athletes, sometimes during tests. And professors "leaned on" to be lenient for retests and such.
I helped a friend with his bachelor of business. I'd tutor him for the basic algebra he couldn't do for the few classes that required you be able to do basic addition. There was no statistics or other advanced math required.
They owned it until they were invaded. And it changed hands many times before that, and the current owners claim ownership because of claims even older than the current objectors.
It seems to be equally insane to pick fights with insane people.
Compulsion like people have a compulsion to breathe.
It's land. Just land. Land over which insane people have been fighting for just about ever.
So if all the people who have ever owned the land under your house came back and demanded it from you, or they'd kill you, would it make you insane to say "but it's mine now"? Would it make them insane? What about if the people with claims have claims dating back before the country who grants you exclusive use of the land existed?
States/Munis/etc come back and say "wait, but you're giving rides to people for money. That's functionally a taxi service, and you're subject to taxi service regulations."
The responses almost universally come back and make all ride sharing illegal. I've gone to the "travel" board at college and picked a name out, and accepted money to drive someone somewhere. I've taken gas money from a hitch hiker. The government response has almost always made those actions illegal. That was obviously not the intent of their taxi laws, and in most cases, isn't covered in the wording of them.
I think the issue is that the laws are vague, and the legal system is so tied up in what was said, and less in what was meant that Uber is right in almost (if not) all cases.
They are not a "taxi" by any definition I've seen. They do not respond to hails.
I think in places like NYC, they explicitly meet all the limo-service rules, and operate as such. They don't meet those rules elsewhere, because most cities haven't defined a multi-tier commercial driving arrangement, as NYC has to balance the too-few taxis with too many people.
I think Uber is in the legal right in most cases, fitting in a gap in the legislation where the legislators didn't consider a limo service priced below taxi. They presumed limos would be more than taxis, so they didn't regulate them like taxis. But Uber is a limo service, and from what I've seen, tries to target that as the minimums to meet in a jurisdiction.
The policies in Europe are much cheaper because there is reduced financial liability. In places with free health care, there is essentially no injury coverage in the auto policy. It isn't needed. In the US, the majority of the cost of the insurance is injury liability.
If the US was no-charge single payer health coverage, then insurance costs could drop. But that'll never happen because it would end the massive health insurance cartel. Also, in the US, the general costs of liability are higher than anywhere else. Too many lawyers.
There is a current monopoly. The monopoly is by the fixed number of medallion holders. You can call them an ologopoly, but they act as one and are allowed explicit collusion (in many cases collusion is required by law) to act as one.
If they aren't a monopoly, then ATT/MS/(whoever you hate and think was a monopoly) wasn't a monopoly because they all had multiple owners.
Uber isn't trying to make a monopoly. If they succeed in their goals of spreading, then the barriers are lower for the next entrant, not, as in the monopoly case, higher. They aren't pushing for new legislation. They aren't trying to close the door behind them.
Sure it does. I just read your post. Your argument is it's circular because it's circular.
Unregulated taxis in the US would be less regulated. Fraud and robery is still illegal, and would be aggressively persecuted. Try that in some 3rd world countries. If you get taken, the police will not care, well, other than wanting their cut of the take of whatever the result is.
You have a very narrow and sheltered idea of "unregulated".
And UBer is still, in some ways, more regulated than old Taxis. Why? Because you get rated, reviewed drivers you can verify the identity of before you get in. The taxi ID in many US taxis (most in NYC) is posted where you can't read it before you get in. Uber at least lets you check their pic to verify they are the real driver before you've gotten in. And you can check reviews and other things before agreeing to the trip. Something else impossible with old taxis.
My safety is likely higher on Uber than a hailed taxi.
There's nothing to stop a taxi firm from accepting feedback from customers on individual drivers
They don't, and never will, unless required to by law.
They don't pick up hailed fares. Thus, they are not a taxi service.
I worked for a smaller company, about 50 employees. We self-insured.
Common insurances have low limits. The standard numbers for car insurance won't cover past a cap. Sure, it doesn't invalidate the insurance, but it will result in a lack of coverage past the limits. Home insurance will explicitly not cover items over a set amount, unless previously put on an item list. So your $15,000 diamond necklace is covered for $0, unless previously declared. The idea is to discourage fraud.
If I'm driving from my current location to the location of the customer it is commercial use (I wouldn't be doing it if wasn't working).
That's not the standard. If I'm driving from office A to office B between two offices while on the clock, I'm not using it for commercial use (unless I'm a Uber driver). I've even gotten that in writing from an insurance company. I'm not using it for commercial use while driving to a contract job. So why does that apply if the contract job is to build a house, but not if it's to drive someone as a Uber driver?
It's a subtle point, but a driver going to pick up a fare can get in an accident, and an insurance company can consider that commercial uncovered behavior (the driver was not using the car for pleasure, or commute purposes).
Wait, so commuting from home to your job (the pickup point), is not commuting, but driving from point a to point b to get to a paying job is commuting, so long as you aren't a Uber driver.
So if I put the Mona Lisa up for auction, what do I set the reserve at?
In a perfectly competitive market (I don't care which term you use, you understood what I meant, and I think they are used differently in different places/industries), you do what you do anywhere, set it at market price. If "market price" isn't cost plus, then you don't have a perfectly competitive market. Which is true for unique items. A commodity item, like a computer mouse, is cost plus. A monopoly (the only mona lisa, the only taxi medallion in an area, a telecom monopoly), cost plus wouldn't apply.
Yes, I know you are being deliberately obtuse.
If you're a fugitive from the law but they suspect your mom is secretly sending you letters do they need a warrant to read the mailing address? Probably not, a court order will probably do since it's information that the post office obviously must have in order to deliver it, just like the number you dialed.
That's not what they did. They approached a private party he had private dealings with and demanded previous papers. That's getting old "private" letters from Mom or MetroPCS, not asking the Post Office or MetroPCS to monitor new ones.
This is circular reasoning.
No, it's not. If you aren't wet, you aren't in a pool. That's not circular reasoning. That's clear, logical, and doesn't depend on itself.
Insurance companies. The requirement to hold a primary auto policy of $1,000,000 or more is restrictive and pointless. There are secondary insurance policies that would cover the same for less. So I think that the insurance companies are probably helping push for some of these restrictions. They would love all Uber drivers to be forced to have $1,000,000 of commercial auto insurance.
if you drive someone you also need primary automobile liability insurance that provides at least $1,000,000 for death, bodily injury and property damage. Which is more than most people get for their personal vehicle (especially in Kansas), but not at all unreasonable for a commercial policy.
That is a bit unreasonable. Why require it as a primary auto policy? That sounds like an auto-insurance cartel. I had a $1,000,000 policy that would have covered me as an Uber driver as a "secondary" umbrella policy. It's hella cheaper, and still worked for a Uber-type service.
Seems that some of these objections are from insurers, not taxi. There are a lot of corporations that would lose if taxis were restructured.
Because Uber wasn't breaking exiting laws. That's just a lie by the Taxi cartels to slander Uber.