What are the arguments in favor of this regulation? I'm sure that anti-competition lobbies from limos, cabs, etc. play a role, but is there something safety-related as well? And if so, why would 150 Lyft drivers be safer than 400 Lyft drivers?
I don't subscribe to it, but: Taxis negotiated their monopoly by giving us concessions for e.g. universal service (a taxi, unlike most businesses, is obligated to serve any customer regardless of whether their custom is the most profitable use of the taxi's time). This allows us to depend on taxis as an outsourced component of our public transportation infrastructure. If competition creams the really desirable fairs…
Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities
51–58 of 58 posts
Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are missing the point Taxi companies in Baltimore already have a regulation that they can't discriminate. They ignore it, there appear to be no enforcement consequences for doing so so why would they follow it? Uber has no such regulation yet people who use it report having an easier time getting a cab in parts of town Taxi's discriminate against. There are several things Uber does that make it less of a…
> You know the person you are going to meet must have it together enough to have a functioning credit card, smartphone, and cell service. That's a poor heuristic. Ted Bundy had it together enough to get into law school.
Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities
#53In Chicago all taxi drivers must obtain a Chauffeur's License before driving. The Chauffeur's license exam includes background checks, tests for common infectious diseases (tuberculosis), and a basic knowledge test of the city. Uber does background checks, but they don't test for TB and I've had three UberX drivers that didn't know where Lake Michigan was when we were two blocks away from it. Also, licensed taxi driv…
Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't subscribe to it, but: Taxis negotiated their monopoly by giving us concessions for e.g. universal service (a taxi, unlike most businesses, is obligated to serve any customer regardless of whether their custom is the most profitable use of the taxi's time). This allows us to depend on taxis as an outsourced component of our public transportation infrastructure. If competition creams the really desirable fairs…
The universal service concession is the most convincing argument to me; rape and kidnapping the least. After all, each DSX user by necessity has a mobile phone in their hand, and the entire trip from initiation to arrival is scrupulously monitored and recorded by DSX. Not much possibility of crime, at least without being quickly caught.
Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you understand that if people care about these things, they won't use Uber? Before reading your comment, I didn't know cab companies tested for TB and I never thought to care. If TB were a problem in cabs, I would care, and I would use a cab service that tested its drivers.
You and I didn't know that because the system works. Nobody gets TB from riding in cabs, so nobody knows it's a problem and nobody realizes unless they look into the regulation. This is the big problem I have with the libertarian free market ideal: it's fundamentally reactive, not proactive.
> "This is the big problem I have with the libertarian free market ideal: it's fundamentally reactive, not proactive."
I do not know if I should take that statement seriously. I expect if you think over that statement for even 30 seconds you can see why it is both a complete non sequitur and insane.
1) Laws are obviously reactive. I would bet all the money in my pockets against all the money in your pockets that TB testing was put in effect as a reaction to an event in which a taxi, bus, or train driver was spreading TB.
2) The free market is exactly as reactive or proactive as people are. This is its virtue. People providing other people what they want is the whole point, both of markets and, it is claimed by those who believe in the State, the government. No organization, government or otherwise, can get away from being reactive to human needs unless it provides things people do not want or need, and in what way would so doing be good?
3) It does not matter anyway. The point of all this is that people should be free to pursue their desires, regardless of the considerations of people who think they know better and are worried about things being "reactive" or "proactive". These concerns are simply petty against the moral position of freedom.
Look, I enjoy a good discussion on the internet as much as anyone. I have learned a lot from reading comments on HN. But I get the impression that you have not read any of the good arguments against your position. I am a poor substitute for any of the major thinkers in the libertarian tradition. If you want to save yourself reading, you can even watch videos of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, or Thomas Sowell on YouTube. I recommend Stefan Molyneux's show, Free Domain Radio. He discusses these issues often. You could even call into his show and have a long discussion with him on the topic. He entertains such calls often.
Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities
#56it is sad to see this but thoroughly unexpected. all these useful and innovative startups are great, but they need to learn the most basic respect for the law and its spirit. this is the nth time something like this has happened in the startup community and its embarassing. we have taxi driver licenses and regulations for a reason. naivete isn't an excuse for blatantly circumventing them - even if you provide a genui…
Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities
#57I'm genuinely curious: what is it that distinguishes these services from taxis? Why is it okay for one to be regulated but not the other -- or do proponents of these services generally think that taxis shouldn't be regulated either?
In a big city like NYC, taxis are part of an overall transportation system. Regulating them ensures that they are available where and when they are expected to be. People plan their activities around the functioning of that system. Naturally, a different system might work better or worse. A worse outcome would be more people taking their own cars into the city because they need or want quick access to a vehicle. Regu…
Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
The intermediary argument is over-used, but I doubt AirBnB is trying to fight hotel on the cost aspect: most of the time, they tend to be similarly priced. They don’t really recommend price at all. My impression was more that hotels (like taxis) abuse the market by strangling the offer, and forcing people to upgrade when they don’t care about luxury. The company was started to help political operative (the most amena…
A few things: - There's been several reports of SF landlords kicking out tenants from rent controlled apartments to lease out rooms on AirBnB. While I am against rent control (it's a terrible system that creates a few winners and fucks over most people who cannot get such a flat) it's obvious that this is an abuse of the system - Until recently, AirBnB fought tooth and nail against paying hotel taxes. I think safety…
That’s the opposite scenario of the one describe initially.
> Until recently, AirBnB fought tooth and nail against paying hotel taxes. > I think safety regulations
You appear to be conflating taxes (that do nothing for the end user, if increase budget pressure on safety and service) and safety -- and ignoring the fact that what is generally actually enforced are quotas. There is no significant taxes on taxis for instance: it's in every case I’ve heard about a self-enforced tacit price for recommending someone for a licence once you quit; the actual tax exist, but is generally negligible.
> while those regulations exist, you cannot simply outcompete other players that are forced to follow regulations you avoid.
Actually, if your service include a reporting tool, the HUGE and unquestionably largest addition of both AirBnB and Uber, but before them eBay, you end up having to follow far stricter practice that include service, and that, unlike regulations, can adapt.
Price control, quota, safety regulation, user reports… if you confuse those, you end up presenting a false dichotomy between two ways of organising a service.