61–70 of 76 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Beware that you may get fined in Melbourne because it is illegal. It's more likely your driver will get fined though.
How do they know who to fine? Aren't all these transactions done purely digitally? You could just be getting into a friend's car, there's always plausible deniability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
That's a great analogy. Its only flaw, as you say, is that doctors should be regulated closely- but to me this only brings up the question of why cabbies are as regulated. 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…
The same with self driving cars, its not like Uber or the taxi industry are long for this world without drastically changing business models (maybe 10 or 15 years tops).
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#...
In theory, that's great. In practice, cabbies still rip people off sometimes. I'd be happier if they always took the Google Maps route. It's sad but they are simply a victim of technology. Before sat nav, minicab drivers were very unreliable. They would get lost, they would have to consult maps, etc. Now, a minicab is as good or better than a taxi.
The disruptive nature of Uber will make policy makers eventually doubt who to support: should they keep protecting the jobs of the taxi industry while Uber is creating jobs at a much higher pace?
They are protecting tax revenues, not the taxi industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
A driver didn't have enough sleep or one whith medical condition might very well kill you in an accident though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are protecting tax revenues, not the taxi industry.
Then tax Uber in a special way?
1 medallion per car per shift [iirc] + the per-trip tax.
It is just they need to pass the laws to do that and haven't yet. Of course, I think Uber is lobbying against being taxed given that they've tried to evade paying taxi-like taxes so far.
But it is surprising to me that they don't complain about the fact that they laid down serious cash for a medalion, or pay other fees to the city to operate. I would especially think UberX would bother them. I think in the short term they are happy but I suspect they will start to get more upset if uberX starts to take away business. Right now, its earning them more money.
In Florida, they are having issues with UberX for that very reason (http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/06/11/4172680/miami-dade-tax...).
Its interesting to watch a number of industries just get blindsided by these disruptive technologies. Seeing it with crowd-sourced cab rides (uberX), direct autosales instead of dealers (Tesla dealer controversy) and crowd-sourced accommodations (airBnB). Some of the regulations placed on the older players in those spaces were put there to protect the consumer and/or the industry but my take is that consumer choice is providing better options and bypassing the need (or maybe it just hasn't come up yet) for these regulations. But then the people who played by the rules get mad or cling to them if it allows them to maintain their position a little longer.
Its interesting, every uber I take in Chicago (typically a yellow cab instead of UberX) and ask the driver what they think. They generally seem to like it because its safer, easier and more efficient for them (they always know where people are instead of having to hang around popular corners, they can skip on people if that last cab had bad things to say, etc.). But it is surprising to me that they don't complain abo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Income taxes for drivers likely do not benefit the municipalities where the cars are driving. e.g. The drivers would be consuming space and wear and tear in NYC, but living in Jersey. NYC roads and services necessary to support increased congestion get burdened, but no tax dollars help support them. A regressive policy has nothing to do with the goal of the medallions. They cost what market forces will support. The g…
Medallions are meant to regulate supply with demand, nothing more. Other fees go to road maintenance (gas tax, tab tax, tolls, etc...) and are actually sort of related to usage. Uber is doing what it can disrupt the status quo, the laws are ambiguous enough that they can get away with it. Admirable in my opinion.
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#...
In theory, that's great. In practice, cabbies still rip people off sometimes. I'd be happier if they always took the Google Maps route. It's sad but they are simply a victim of technology. Before sat nav, minicab drivers were very unreliable. They would get lost, they would have to consult maps, etc. Now, a minicab is as good or better than a taxi.
Part of being a good taxi-driver is knowing which parts of the city are going to busy at different points of time.
If a taxi takes a detour from the best map-presented route you don't know if they're giving you a faster journey, or ripping you off. Too often people assume the latter.