31–40 of 76 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because some would argue running a taxi-like business without a taxi license is breaking the law.
Sorry something doesn't strike me as correct here. Do you mean that "taxis" working with Uber don't actually have a Taxi-License? How is this even legal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because some would argue running a taxi-like business without a taxi license is breaking the law.
Taxis are striking in London specifically because the regulator has said that Uber is legal.
They'll still get hosed because without a medallion system bottlenecking the amount of suppliers, taxi service becomes a race to the bottom that can't support a decent living. But at least they won't be _twice_ hosed like they are now.
EDIT: I'm not saying Uber is wrong and should be stopped and the taxi drivers protected. On the contrary, the legislation could be opened up, dropping both protection and regulation of the taxi industry, now that Uber exists as a competing solution. However, the current state of affairs, where some drivers are taxed and regulated (taxis) and others are not (Uber drivers) is just going to make the former group collapse under the burden of regulation.
Also, I'm merely observing that opening the market to a huge supplier pool effectively means the end of the taxi driving profession (for reasons that have already been stated a hundred times before). Not saying this is good or bad, it's just the way the market works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why don't they become uber drivers, then? I guess that keeping the taxi driver status is quite expensive also.
Because they've already gone through the expensive, time consuming part. They would have very little to gain from switching from a black cab to an Uber car, and a lot of potential customers to lose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why don't they become uber drivers, then? I guess that keeping the taxi driver status is quite expensive also.
Because some would argue running a taxi-like business without a taxi license is breaking the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They've already invested an average of 34 months learning the London streets. You'd get a similar reaction if itw ere possible, say, for someone to become a doctor by signing up with a startup rather than going to medical school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#...
If you could be a 95% effective doctor by using a $200 consumer electronics device, it'd be perfectly fair for people to be "Uber doctors" without going to medical school. And existing doctors would be up in arms, because technology rendered their investment almost worthless, not because they could present a meaningful challenge to the usefulness of "Uber doctors". "The knowledge" may very well at one point have been…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why don't they become uber drivers, then? I guess that keeping the taxi driver status is quite expensive also.
They've already invested an average of 34 months learning the London streets. You'd get a similar reaction if itw ere possible, say, for someone to become a doctor by signing up with a startup rather than going to medical school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#...
So... taxi drivers go on strike to punish Uber? Why would uber care if they do? Or are they going on strike just to not work?
Taxi drivers went on strike because taxi drivers and uber drivers don't have the same requirements for doing what amounts to be the same job. In short, becoming a taxi driver is hard and extremelly expensive, becoming a uber driver is easier and cheaper. So these strikes are more against the unfair regulation than against Uber and the likes.
Not all unfair regulation, since one could argue that the regulation that protects the taxi drivers from incumbents it's pretty unfair. They are protesting just against unfair regulation that hurts them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They've already invested an average of 34 months learning the London streets. You'd get a similar reaction if itw ere possible, say, for someone to become a doctor by signing up with a startup rather than going to medical school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#...
If you could be a 95% effective doctor by using a $200 consumer electronics device, it'd be perfectly fair for people to be "Uber doctors" without going to medical school. And existing doctors would be up in arms, because technology rendered their investment almost worthless, not because they could present a meaningful challenge to the usefulness of "Uber doctors". "The knowledge" may very well at one point have been…
It's kind of like if travel agents were regulated, and suddenly expedia or kayak existed. They can do an almost-as-good job through technology, and a "mistake" analogous to the taxi driver taking a poor route, i.e. Expedia connecting you through a worse city or not finding a deal 10% cheaper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because some would argue running a taxi-like business without a taxi license is breaking the law.
Taxis are striking in London specifically because the regulator has said that Uber is legal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a misrepresentation. Taxi drivers are not protesting against the regulation. In fact, in most places taxi drivers and their unions are strong supporters of the said regulations and have worked for decades to get it in place. It's a typical situation where a bunch of "insiders" have striven for years to keep "outsiders" away with the goal of reducing competition. Another typical aspect to this situation is how…
Yes, because the only reason those regulations are in place is a lobbying industry trying for a monopoly. Care for the safety and treatment of the actual passengers would never enter the mind of a politician. And of course this is true for every country affected.