Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing • Hacker News Board

Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing

#131

Post by ineedasername » Thu, Feb 07, 2019, 6:53 PM UTC

joecool1029 wrote: post #119

ineedasername wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can do it by making operators register with the town and provide accounting of their ride fares quarterly regardless of whether or not they had any fares within the town (Just like businesses in my state must file quarterly sales tax returns regardless of whether they had taxable sales in that quarter). It could be enforced the same way any other traffic-related law gets enforced: police can pull you over, and i…

> Sure, not everyone would get caught, but it would be a stiff enough penalty that drivers would either comply or avoid the town. Hi, part time taxi driver here. We still do prearranged pickups at airports where it might not be legal. Even with the potential risk of $1000+ tickets hanging over our heads. This logic is the same reason the drug war failed. If there's demand for a better/more effective service and we ca…

Sure, some do, but I'm sure some don't. I'm not saying such a law would make sense, or be even close to 100% enforceable, only that such a law a net negative effect for drivers and consumers.

Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing

#132

Post by NoblePublius » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 1:35 PM UTC

bobthepanda wrote: post #117

NoblePublius wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DeBlasio loves regressive taxes. His entire Vision Zero policy is nothing more than an excuse for the NYPD to issue more tickets to poor and middle class drivers.

Drivers in New York are not poor or middle class. A majority of households in New York don't even own a car.

Car ownership varies widely by borough with fewer than 1/5 in Manhattan, more than half in Queens, and over 85% in Staten Island. Ironically this correlates inversely with where live the richest New Yorkers. The vast majority of car owning New Yorkers are squarely middle class and Vision Zero is unquestionably a regressive tax on those citizens in the name of “safety”. A big target of Vision Zero is also Uber drivers who are mostly poor. DeBlasio has specifically said he won’t support scaling traffic fines to income. The real beneficiary here are the blood sucking NYPD who can point to their new stacks of summonses as proof that they care about the community when all they care about is padding their retirement accounts with assets from civil forfeiture.

Re: Lyft lobbying to prevent Portland from regulating impact of ride-sharing

#133

Post by beerlord » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 7:26 PM UTC

anth_anm wrote: post #111

beerlord wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because its much better, and so attracts more people to the service. Uber has a great potential to be used as public transport, with dynamic route pathing based on supply and demand. Something traditional public transport could never do.

Uber is a disaster as public transit. It's functionally little different than just having everyone drive themselves. Not needing parking is a big benefit, but it's still a bad idea.

It is functionally very different because:

-You dont have to drive around and find a park (less congestion and real estate)

-You can pool your trip with another user (Uber Pool)