Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're talking Germany here. Free healthcare.
That means, the public should pay for one companies profit?
[deleted]
Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are
41–50 of 120 posts
Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand that it's useful for a taxi driver to have this knowledge, but do we really need the government to impose it as a strict requirement? One could imagine multiple taxi services that compete on different axes. One service, competing on price, could have less knowledgeable drivers equipped with GPS devices. Another service, competing on its drivers' knowledge, would be more useful for taking you to obscure l…
For people who want to get around cheaply, London has an excellent mass public transport system, between the tube, buses, and intra-city train services.
You mean if you want to get around quickly. If you want to get around cheaply you need to buy a bicycle (or take a Barclay's bike and keep it under 30 mins).
Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are
#43>>Most notoriously, attaining “The Knowledge” required for a taxi license involves memorizing hundreds of routes, business locations, and places of interest throughout the city. Charming, but expensive — and quite unnecessary in the age of smartphones. Says a person who has never been to London and doesn't understand the enormous benefit of intimate knowledge of all the streets of London and how to navigate them quic…
I have a spinal cord injury (snowboarding) and use a wheelchair as a result of having no sensation/movement below my chest. One of the most annoying consequences is being unable to move around London quickly. The tube is inaccessible, buses are slow and you often have to have a pitched battle with pushchairs. Black cabs provided a relatively quick/convenient method of transport since they all have a ramp - not withou…
This is easily the best (and possibly only good) argument I've seen in favour of traditional cabs. The right kind of regulation can dramatically improve accessibility to people who are otherwise at risk of becoming marginalised.
Unregulated competition always has the risk of marginalising minorities because they might be too small to be an attractive market.
Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are
#44Of course regulation is needed. Insurance, car-standard, driver skill, all of that has to be known by the customer merely by the fact that you are stepping into a taxi.
Can there be too much regulation, too archaic? Sure, but I can't see how that motivates sidestepping it entirely.
In Stockholm, taxis (normal ones) are regulated in terms of insurance etc. but unlike most other cities, taxi prices are not regulated. This hasn't meant lower prices through healthy competition but rather hundreds of scam companies charging 10x the fares of the 2-3 largest companies that have 95% of the market. I miss the days of more regulation, but won't use Uber merely because they don't guarantee union wages etc like the other companies do.
Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are
#45I am not a fan of the medallion system, but Uber does seem to impact the businesses of traditional, local cab drivers while raking in profits on a global scale. It looks like a perfect middle-class job destroying operation that centralizes profits in one multinational company. As someone put it, those with the more powerful computers will win the economic spoils.
Are the taxi drivers allowed to use both Uber and the medallion system?
Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that really a problem? If he's not insured you're just gonna sue him or Uber.
You can't sue Uber if a driver crashes, because drivers are independent contractors. You can sue the driver, but he has no money and can just dodge the judgment in bankruptcy.
Are you sure? If I'm hit by a drunk driver I can sue the bar. All you need is one judge that thinks Uber has some culpability and you can sue away.
Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
For people who want to get around cheaply, London has an excellent mass public transport system, between the tube, buses, and intra-city train services.
You mean if you want to get around quickly . If you want to get around cheaply you need to buy a bicycle (or take a Barclay's bike and keep it under 30 mins).
By cheaply I meant cheaper than a taxi. There's always a limit to how cheap vehicles powered by electricity or fuel, and which involve human employees, and which use a common causeway (whether that's rail or road), can be.
£2 to rent a bicycle for 24 hours seems pretty reasonable, btw. I live in a city where I'd kill for that.
Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are
#48I am not a fan of the medallion system, but Uber does seem to impact the businesses of traditional, local cab drivers while raking in profits on a global scale. It looks like a perfect middle-class job destroying operation that centralizes profits in one multinational company. As someone put it, those with the more powerful computers will win the economic spoils.
As someone who regularly uses taxis in Melbourne, I don't care if it destroys the lives of taxi drivers. That's just another perk of switching to uber in my opinion.
And as someone who uses them on the Gold Coast and in Brisbane, I'm right there with you. A corrupt industry, where the drivers are being completely screwed over as-is, and a few people at the top rake in all the money... basically, the same as Uber, only Uber is cheaper and has nicer cars.
Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand that it's useful for a taxi driver to have this knowledge, but do we really need the government to impose it as a strict requirement? One could imagine multiple taxi services that compete on different axes. One service, competing on price, could have less knowledgeable drivers equipped with GPS devices. Another service, competing on its drivers' knowledge, would be more useful for taking you to obscure l…
For people who want to get around cheaply, London has an excellent mass public transport system, between the tube, buses, and intra-city train services.
Buses and trains are not exactly cheap, and trains stop at about 12.
Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean if you want to get around quickly . If you want to get around cheaply you need to buy a bicycle (or take a Barclay's bike and keep it under 30 mins).
By cheaply I meant cheaper than a taxi. There's always a limit to how cheap vehicles powered by electricity or fuel, and which involve human employees, and which use a common causeway (whether that's rail or road), can be. £2 to rent a bicycle for 24 hours seems pretty reasonable, btw. I live in a city where I'd kill for that.
It's actually £50 to rent a Boris bike for 24 hours. £2 is 24-hour access, but only if you keep the journeys under 30 mins. The £90/year is a pretty good deal actually (even after they doubled it from £45 which it was for the first year), I still pay for it even though I own a bicycle just for the convenience of supplementing my walking speed at will.