31–40 of 100 posts
Thank God regulations like this exist to make sure that everybody pays their protection money.
Anyone who disagrees clearly hates poor people and taxi drivers... or something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I was clear. In the cases I'm discussing, society has made an explicit deal with a group of providers within an industry. Essentially that deal is: purchase a license, run your business this way, charge these prices, etc., and we'll protect your market. NB this does not apply in equal degrees across all industries, and your horses -> cars example doesn't qualify. In addition, note that I was agreeing wit…
society has made an explicit deal with a group of providers within an industry Government is often a poor proxy for society. I suspect most people in any given US city would not like to artificially limit the supply of taxi drivers and were not consulted about the decision to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the drivers already have the required paperwork and insurance then why doesn't Uber just register as a taxi provider and submit it as CPUC requested? Is that really so onerous (honest question)?
Because cities limit the number of taxi drivers through the use of medallions or similar. https://www.google.com/search?q=taxi+medallion
Ok, now please pass a law saying internet providers can't limit how much data I can send each month nor prioritize one type of traffic over another. After all, that is hurting internet businesses!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unqualified statements of "X is unfair" are quite popular with unions in the northeast, to protest the hiring of any non-union labor. I guess one can't accuse them of libel or slander for accusations of "unfairness."
Oversimplified summaries of 'Y said "X is unfair"' are quite popular on the Internet. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uber claims their drivers already meet the requirements, but if Uber doesn't register with CPUC how can they know if it's true? Are they supposed to take Uber's word for it?
If you don't take Uber's word for it, don't use Uber. Given that there are alternatives available, I don't see the need for regulation here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that the cars Uber has are already insured as limos. Just by the parent company that they are getting them from, not by Uber itself.
If the drivers already have the required paperwork and insurance then why doesn't Uber just register as a taxi provider and submit it as CPUC requested? Is that really so onerous (honest question)?
I don't think it's a degree of how onerous the requirement is. It's more a matter of what does it accomplish? There's not a precedent for double covering in the industry, and Uber certainly isn't gaining a competitive advantage because of it. It seems strange that they're lumped in with the other two services who clearly use unlicensed drivers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't take Uber's word for it, don't use Uber. Given that there are alternatives available, I don't see the need for regulation here.
Except that's not how public safety works. Part of why this regulation exists is because having unregulated taxi drivers (at least to the judgement of lawmakers) poses a danger to everyone else on roads etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because cities limit the number of taxi drivers through the use of medallions or similar. https://www.google.com/search?q=taxi+medallion
State of california doesn't appear to require medallions, so I don't think that applies in this specific case.
Car services are licensed by the state instead of the city, and are not subject to medallion restrictions. However, they cannot legally make street hails.
This is outrageous that the taxi companies are just lobbying for laws that protect their business at the expense of other businesses! Ok, now please pass a law saying internet providers can't limit how much data I can send each month nor prioritize one type of traffic over another. After all, that is hurting internet businesses!
To your larger point, the disgusting part is the behavior of the regulators, who should not succumb to the lobbyists and campaign donations of the livery industry. However, it's also absolutely wrong to attempt to influence government for personal gain. We all have a moral duty to do what's good for everyone including ourselves. Taxi unions need to recognize that protecting incompetent systems to enrich their members at the expense of everyone else, by using government as a weapon, harms every user of public transportation and several businesses and in the long run sets the drivers up for an unnecessary catastrophic collapse of the taxi system when it becomes completely unbearable by the public.