Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

thedailybeast.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 212 posts

Re: Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

#181

Post by Dylan16807 »

mrweasel wrote: post #38
marknutter wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A better service at a cheaper rate.

Which really only work if you're in the majority. Some groups of people rely on the rest of us to subsidise the services they require. If we allow companies to only service the group of people that are the most profitable, we risk excluding others from purchasing that service altogether. That's the exact same reason why Obama-care (sorry I don't know the correct name for it) disallows the insurance companies from exc…

I think it's been clearly shown that part of the regulation is harmful to both drivers and riders. Also that some of the beneficial regulation goes unenforced.

In many cities it's definitely possible to make a system that's better than the old one for everyone (except for certain investors).

Re: Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

#183

Post by vinceguidry »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #172
vinceguidry wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> predicated on the violation of transportation and disability laws. You forgot labor laws. I'm sorry you feel that way. I've attempted to lay out a rationale from as close to first principles as I can reasonably approach for the right relationship startups should have with the law and society and you've ignored it out of disgust. No alternatives given for fixing the problems that legislation engenders for commerce,…

> No alternatives given for fixing the problems that legislation engenders for commerce, just irrational hatred. Not hatred, disgust. There's a significant difference. What good is a service attempting to "disrupt" regulation if it lowers the quality of life for the most in need? THAT is not progress.

> There's a significant difference.

Not in that they're both irrational.

Re: Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

#184

Post by tzs »

The real model of many "disruptive" startups is to come into some regulated industry and only handle the easy cases/jobs/customers. Because they are only doing the easy cases, they can do it cheaper and make the experience more streamlined or friendly.

Their regulated competitors are required to handle all cases.

Since the easy cases are usually them most profitable, and the hard cases might even be money losers that are subsidized by the easy cases, this can be very bad. The disruptive startup might even kill off the competitors, and then those people who are the hard cases can be left unserved until regulators manage to catch up and put the startup under regulation.

Re: Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

#185

Post by shalmanese »

sillygoose wrote: post #169
true_religion wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the UK situation is fair. If the uber app lets you go to random destinations, or charges you extra per the mile, then it is a meter. Uber should be just like a black car service: point A to point B, with no extras. If Uber doesn't find this as profitable, they're free to open a segment of their company that actually is a taxi service and follows regulation in exchange for picking up the public and being able…

The problem is that taxi regulation doesn't make any sense to begin with. As you said, people get transported from Place A to B for a fee. Fundamentally, it's as simple as buying a pound of cheese from a supermarket. It's just a transaction between people. So why should taxi drivers have to get "licensed"? What exactly is that license? What does it represent besides going through a burdensome ordeal? How would gettin…

The logic for street hails is that it's fundamentally impossible to negotiate prices or quality of service ahead of time. Enforcing a uniform price & service standard lends predictability to the procedure.

Re: Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

#186

Post by toomuchtodo »

vinceguidry wrote: post #183
toomuchtodo wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No alternatives given for fixing the problems that legislation engenders for commerce, just irrational hatred. Not hatred, disgust. There's a significant difference. What good is a service attempting to "disrupt" regulation if it lowers the quality of life for the most in need? THAT is not progress.

> There's a significant difference. Not in that they're both irrational.

Wanting to be on the moral side of technological progress is by no means irrational.

Re: Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

#187

Post by vinceguidry »

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #173
vinceguidry wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "startup" isn't a synonym for "I am above the law!" It kinda is. Hear me out. Commerce is bound to be political. Offering up a product or service for sale isn't always going to be acceptable to everyone. So we pass laws to tell people what they can and can't do. So far, so good. Except that if this continues, the business landscape changes due to the collective weight of all these laws. Existing organizations that…

Should humans not get similar treatment, being allowed to ignore the law because it is bloated and outdated?

They do. Law enforcement resources are hopelessly and perpetually under-allocated. One can fly under the radar for a long, long time, so long as they don't start openly and flagrantly beg the "long" arm of the law to pay attention to them.

If you're both an under-privileged minority and you live in a heavily-policed area, this may not apply to you. But everyone else can operate based on a pragmatic assessment of the likelihood of getting caught.

Start a business that violates the law, so long as it's not one that invites the cops to bust through your doors, (i.e. drugs) your ability to operate will rest on society's judgment.

"Should be allowed" is language that hinges on a belief that the law is an inviolate arbiter of right and wrong. It is not. Crowd-sourced judgment is that arbiter. The law is just that arbiter's proxy.

Re: Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

#188

Post by vinceguidry »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #186
vinceguidry wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a significant difference. Not in that they're both irrational.

Wanting to be on the moral side of technological progress is by no means irrational.

The law is not necessarily moral.

Re: Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

#189

Post by true_religion »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #162
true_religion wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its fair to say... Follow all these regulations and we'll let you do business on the public streets. or Do business in private, via the phone or internet, and you don't have to follow these regulations. --- Don't force the choice by saying regulations apply to everyone, even people who aren't going to get any benefit out of it. Uber doesn't have to use wheel-chair accessible vehicles, but they also can't resp…

Or: You may do transportation business on our roads if you follow our regulations, with no regard to how the ride was arranged. Non-disabled rider's fares subsidizing accessibility for the disabled is no different than how health insurance works. Why would we allow Uber to freeload? Because they're "innovative"? Or "disruptive"? No. Follow the rules Uber or GTFO out of the market.

> Non-disabled rider's fares subsidizing accessibility for the disabled is no different than how health insurance works.

Well I guess I'm of the belief that health insurance is a doomed concept, and the government should directly manage and subsidise and industry of health care not insurance, and pay for it by directly taxing the citizens rather than expecting a private group to somehow work better than democratic process.

Re: Uber: Disability Laws Don’t Apply to Us

#190

Post by true_religion »

sillygoose wrote: post #169
true_religion wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the UK situation is fair. If the uber app lets you go to random destinations, or charges you extra per the mile, then it is a meter. Uber should be just like a black car service: point A to point B, with no extras. If Uber doesn't find this as profitable, they're free to open a segment of their company that actually is a taxi service and follows regulation in exchange for picking up the public and being able…

The problem is that taxi regulation doesn't make any sense to begin with. As you said, people get transported from Place A to B for a fee. Fundamentally, it's as simple as buying a pound of cheese from a supermarket. It's just a transaction between people. So why should taxi drivers have to get "licensed"? What exactly is that license? What does it represent besides going through a burdensome ordeal? How would gettin…

> So why should taxi drivers have to get "licensed"? What exactly is that license? What does it represent besides going through a burdensome ordeal? How would getting licensed increase safety in any way? It's not like anyone wants to experience a car crash.

All businesses must be licenced. Taxi licensing is special because of their special circumstance. They conduct their business primarily on public streets, and without licensing to ensure fair pricing and service to clientele they may:

(a) 'forget' about picking up people of a certain skin color (b) refuse fare to a certain district they don't like (c) arbitrarily set fares depending on what they see as people's willingness to pay--like say setting the fare for single women outside nightclubs to 3x the normal rate.

All of these things I've seen in unregulated environments and to a lesser extent (a & b ) in regulated environments too.

Post reply on HN