California Sues Uber Over Practices 139
mpicpp writes with news that California is the latest government to file a lawsuit against Uber. "California prosecutors on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against Uber over the ridesharing company's background checks and other allegations, adding to the popular startup's worldwide legal woes. San Francisco County District Attorney George Gascon, meanwhile, said Uber competitor Lyft agreed to pay $500,000 and change some of its business practices to settle its own lawsuit. Los Angeles District Attorney Jackie Lacey partnered with Gascon in a probe of the nascent ridesharing industry. A third company — Sidecar — is still under investigation and could face a lawsuit of its own if it can't reach an agreement with prosecutors. Uber faces similar legal issues elsewhere as it tries to expand in cities, states and countries around the world. The companies have popular smartphone apps that allow passengers to order rides in privately driven cars instead of taxis."
Ride sharing? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Hey Ez, where are you going"?
"Up to the store".
"Mind if I go with you, I need a few things".
"Not at all".
"Thanks, here's a couple of bucks for gas".
That is ride sharing. Uber, Lyft, and the others are arranging drivers for hire. Just pointing out the obvious here.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right and you beat me to the post. Uber is a taxi service looking to earn a profit. Any other name for the service is just newspeak.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed - the only difference between Uber and traditional taxi services is that they've replaced "pick up the telephone and call" with "get on the internet and call."
Oh, and that whole "expectation that our commercial transport service not be considered a commercial transport service" attitude.
Re:Ride sharing? (Score:5, Insightful)
But ... but ... they're a tech company ... they have an app ... they dispatch using technology. My god, can't you see that this is completely different from a taxi company?
Why, being a tech company, and having an app ... they're nothing at all like a cab company.
Sure, they dispatch drivers to pick you up and drive you somewhere else for money, but ... it's done with a freakin' app, that makes it totally different. Because with an app, the cabs are dispatched with the help of unicorns and kittens.
Yeah, whatever.
My problem with Uber is there is no way to make their argument about being magically exempted from regulation stick. You can't just decree that laws don't apply to you. You can't just decree that your car-for-hire service isn't a car-for-hire service just because the drivers don't work for you.
Their spokespeople have been trained to sound collectively delusional, and either they know they're full of shit, or have drank so much of the kool aid they really believe they're a different kind of entity.
The problem is, they're not the ones who define what they are and what laws apply.
So, yawn, this is just a continuation of the .COM era, except this time it's with smart phones and apps.
You suddenly become worth billions of dollars, when you don't have billions in assets or even revenue. It's an overhyped stock, in an overhyped market, by people who are convinced they're something new.
Except for the GPS part, you've been able to dial #taxi for years. A cellphone doesn't magically make you not a taxi.
Uber is just hype, and once the law establishes they're just a taxi company trying to pretend otherwise.
Claiming you're a technology company who just enables scheduling for illegal cabs just won't cut it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well this is part of why the government sometimes keeps trying to pass "Doing X, but on the internet" laws. Because some jerk is always willing to try g
Re: (Score:2)
The reason that geeks get incensed about both things is because they like being incensed and will find any reason to do so, even if said reason is entirely incorrect. Not exactly 'sensible'.
In the case of patents, 'on the computer/on the internet' DOES in fact make a difference. The irate geeks focus on one of two things: they either claim that patents protect concepts, or they claim it is 'obvious'. Both are wrong. A patent does not protect 'display a moving picture', it protects HOW you do that. A fi
Re: (Score:2)
But ... but ... they're a tech company ... they have an app ... they dispatch using technology. My god, can't you see that this is completely different from a taxi company?
Actually, it is more accurately called a chartered car service such as used for town cars and limos. The thing is that smart phones and wireless means that these days anybody can essentially call a home office, charter a car for right then, and have it show up where they are in minutes. IIRC, those were the laws that Lyft was operating under in Seattle in the beginning because it was all kosher as chartered car drivers and companies weren't as regulated as taxis. When the laws were made, nobody thought you'
Re:Ride sharing? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Hey Ez, where are you going"?
"Up to the store".
"Mind if I go with you, I need a few things".
"Not at all".
"Thanks, here's a couple of bucks for gas".
That is ride sharing. Uber, Lyft, and the others are arranging drivers for hire. Just pointing out the obvious here.
You missed some more obvious:
(1) Ez and his ride-sharer knew each other. The ride-sharer doesn't have to worry about Ez robbing him and vice versa.
(2) Ez was going to the store anyway. The purpose of his trip was to go to the store. His purpose wasn't to make money out of the trip.
That's the difference between Uber and Ez.
If that's not obvious to you, it's obvious to Ez' insurance company if he gets into an accident.
Re: (Score:2)
"Ez and his ride-sharer knew each other. The ride-sharer doesn't have to worry about Ez robbing him and vice versa."
I can tell you never grew up in the ghetto!
Re: (Score:2)
That is ride sharing. Uber, Lyft, and the others are arranging drivers for hire. Just pointing out the obvious here.
Correct. Uber is, in most jurisdictions, an unlicensed jitney cab. And there's a reason they were outlawed in most places decades ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Ride Sharing vs Commercial already figured out ... (Score:2)
"Hey Ez, where are you going"? "Up to the store". "Mind if I go with you, I need a few things". "Not at all". "Thanks, here's a couple of bucks for gas".
That is ride sharing. Uber, Lyft, and the others are arranging drivers for hire. Just pointing out the obvious here.
The government figured out ride sharing vs commercial activity long ago in the area of a private pilot's license vs a commercial pilot's license. A private pilot can take a passenger who chips in for fuel. I think the chipping in has to be accurate with respect to fuel, no gross overpaying for the passenger's fair share. Also I don't think splitting rental or maintenance costs were allowed, just fuel. And the passenger can absolutely have no influence on where or when the plane departs and where it goes. Th
Re: (Score:1)
In your world is prostitution simply a pimp sharing with you one of his multiple girlfriends?
Re: (Score:3)
Not just India. Do a Google search for "uber driver criminal"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12... [nytimes.com]
Uber’s System for Screening Drivers Draws Scrutiny
By MIKE ISAAC
DEC. 9, 2014
Uber uses Hirease, a private company that says it has an average turnaround time of “less than 36 hours.”
Both services do drug and alcohol testing, but neither does fingerprint testing. And they rely primarily on publicly available information.
Although state background checks for taxi drivers vary by jurisdiction, lawmakers
Re: (Score:1)
Do you or I have access to that database? No. It isn't open to the public, which makes it private.
Not "ridesharing" (Score:5, Insightful)
The Uber drives have no intention to go from A to B themselves. They are sitting at home waiting from phone calls. It's a private hire car, where you rent out a car together with a driver, to transport other people for payment to places that you don't want to go yourself.
Re:Not "ridesharing" (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is this isn't ridesharing, neither carpooling. The driver has no intention to go where the passenger wants to go and he will do so only because he is paid for. You are not pooling anything here, you are doing what taxis are doing and taxis don't do carpooling because carpooling is primarily intent to ease traffic jams and taxis don't want to take rides in traffic jams. Bottom line, yes, you are right Uber is trying to pull some business away from the traditional taxi industry. It is then perfectly understandable the industry is trying to protect itself from this threat. I don't know what is the compensation for someone enrolled into Uber to provide the service, but here, after doing the math, I don't see how someone can even break even provided the charges. The lower rates are at the expense of the car owner. You can do a little money only if in fact you are giving rides to someone going approximately where you are going anyway.
Another point that is of very concern to the customer, what will happen if you have an accident? Will the car owner insurance pay for the passenger? Can the passenger sue the driver? Can the passenger sue Uber? As far as I know, the standard insurance does not cover such activity as taking passenger for a fee on a regular basis.
Re: (Score:3)
Another point that is of very concern to the customer, what will happen if you have an accident? Will the car owner insurance pay for the passenger? Can the passenger sue the driver? Can the passenger sue Uber? As far as I know, the standard insurance does not cover such activity as taking passenger for a fee on a regular basis.
Most personal car policy exclude commercial use, so no the owner's policy would not provide coverage; according to some news accounts insurers cancel policy if they find out your driving for Uber or Lyft or some other service. That's not surprising since they would not want to be held liable by a court despite their exclusion. While Uber advertises it has insurance for its drivers it's not clear policy exclusions are included. For example, it appears if the Uber driver fails to activate the ride there is no
Re: (Score:2)
Also as a side note: insurance fraud (like taking a far cheaper policy than you're actually required to have) passes the costs on to everyone else. And there are costs - that's the reason passenger-for-hire policies are so expensive, people who drive passengers around commercially average far more in claims.
When people underinsure, everyone else pays for it. You're paying to subsidize underinsured Uber drivers' claims.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised this hasn't been put to the test already. There are about 200 accidents and 1-2 fatalities per 100 million miles driven. Uber and Lyft must be closing in on that number by now, and since they're primarily about accident-prone city driving I'd expect it to be faster.
Surely something has happened by now that would have provoked the insurance companies' ire and make them start sending out warnings, but I haven't heard about it. Am I just missing it? Or have they handled it all in house so far?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised this hasn't been put to the test already. There are about 200 accidents and 1-2 fatalities per 100 million miles driven. Uber and Lyft must be closing in on that number by now, and since they're primarily about accident-prone city driving I'd expect it to be faster.
Surely something has happened by now that would have provoked the insurance companies' ire and make them start sending out warnings, but I haven't heard about it. Am I just missing it? Or have they handled it all in house so far?
My guess is insurance companies only worry about it after an accident; they simply can say "Sorry, not covered..." and walk away so their is no need to try to ferret out drivers in advance.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is this isn't ridesharing, neither carpooling.
Correct. These are unlicensed jitney cabs, which are illegal in most jurisdictions for a pretty damn good number of reasons. You cite most of them in the rest of your post.
Re: (Score:2)
A big problem today is the difficulty in making extra cash.
You can grow some food pr bake, find an empty spot in a public bazar and hoc your goods. (Your food needs to be checked by the FDA you will need to get and pay for a license to sell at that location).
Uber has its bad points but what it does is empower citizens to do things that will make them some extra money, If you are willing to drive people after work then go ahead, if you want to make a career out of it that is good too.
There is also similar s
Re: (Score:1)
I find it interesting that you didn't use the phrase "protect the individual". In order for an person to be empowered a person must be protected from those who would remove that power. Hell, we see many here who would support a system that would favor a system that offers no protection against entities who want nothing but to profit from their loss.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber has its bad points but what it does is empower citizens to do things that will make them some extra money, If you are willing to drive people after work then go ahead, if you want to make a career out of it that is good too.
Hiring these guys and paying them a wage would be a much much better way to give them some extra money. And do you really want to be driven around by a guy who is dog tired after a full working day? I'd rather be driven by a taxi driver who has just one job.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber has its bad points but what it does is empower citizens to do things that will make them some extra money, If you are willing to drive people after work then go ahead, if you want to make a career out of it that is good too.
LMAO. No one will ever make a career out of driving for Uber, even full time. Most cabbies don't make a lot per shift either, and Uber wants to try to be cheaper than a hailed cab? Won't ever happen.
There is also similar sites where you can rent your home. The cities are cracking down on this because it could be considered hotelling.
That's because it is hotelling. A lot of AirBNB seems to be people renting out apartments they don't own in contravention of local health and safety codes. Those codes are there for a reason. The rest are renting out their own condos illegally and in contravention to the terms of the condo corporation they agre
Re: (Score:2)
"Your food needs to be checked by the FDA"
That's just wrong. The local health inspector may need to inspect your kitchen or wherever you prepare your food for sale, but you don't need to involve the FDA to sell most foods.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Abso-fucking-lutely. I don't get why the media is participating in their lie or why there isn't some government action from the FTC to shut down that fabrication of their business model. Most drivers take you where you want to go for profit, period. I have nothing against Uber except that they are using the blatant lie of "ride sharing" to circumvent the regulations that apply to everyone else. Fuck anyone that engages in that deception. No responsible journalist should be willing to refer to Uber as a ride
Yes, let's get rid of alternatives. (Score:1)
I totally want to stay with the old taxi ways, where you have to call a cab company repeatedly over the course of six hours or more before they finally come pick you up or just flat out leave you stranded in the cold and never come... and have policies that if you give up on them after a few hours and call another company in the city, they'll just both refuse you service entirely or blacklist you. And then when or if they ever bother to show up, they charge you out the ass.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone wants to get rid of the alternatives.
A lot of aspects of Uber are great. GPS and billing aspects for a for-hire car service are a massive step up from traditional taxis and make the system far more convenient for the end-user. The cars are almost always nicer than taxis as well, as even though there are taxi standards, Uber drivers generally hold themselves to a higher standard.
However there are also some real downsides to Uber that need to be dealt with. Their flippant attitude aside,
Re: (Score:2)
It would also be nice if "our cake" included said company not being run by thin-skinned vengeful machiavellian sexist twits.
Unfortunately, as it stands, the cake is a lie.
Re: (Score:2)
All the times I used a taxi (which were because I needed to carry more stuff than it was possible to carry on the bus and was unable to get help from friends/family) I only had to make one phone call, they showed up reasonably quickly and got me and my stuff where I needed to go without any problems. As for costs, the costs for those taxis were quite reasonable (although you better carry cash or else they will sting you with a ridiculous 10% surcharge for card payment)
Better solution (Score:2)
Open up the Taxi licensing and charge reasonable prices....
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I hope we eventually agree on something like a private-commercial drivers license and car registration. That would make all this Uber stuff much easier to swallow.
Basically, just as there are federal rules for private liability car insurance, the government should define a new class of insurance coverage for drivers who do commercial ride sharing. Then let actual insurers figure out what to charge, and compete for customers. Maybe billing for some plans could be done by how active you are, instead of "all y
Re: (Score:2)
Check out how much insurance is for a limo driver. That kills Uber in a second.
What is the relationship between Dice and Uber? (Score:1)
And why is every single news item about Uber posted here? It's not news, it doesn't matter, and it sure as hell ain't nerdy. Someone at Dice or Slashdot has an negative interest in Uber and it hijacking Slashdot for that agenda.
Re: (Score:1)
an example of the abuse of technology to try to skirt laws does belong on /.
Using mobile phones to conduct business was tech "news" 20 years ago. Today, not so much.
HOLY ASTROTURFING FATMAN!!! (Score:1)
Well it's quite obvious that the special interest parties have astroturfed this topic. Seriously paradigm shifts need to happen, and apparently they've needed to happen to an embedded (corrupt?) industry such as this for a VERY long time.
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you for your comments, I believe the readers can tell who the actual "moron" is in this case!
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for your comments, I believe the readers can tell who the actual "moron" is in this case!
Well, yeah, it's you.
Nice to hear from someone on Uber's PR team, by the way. One criticism is that you failed to use the word "disruptive" but you got in a good old "paradigm shift", so overall not bad.
Re: (Score:1)
Right. So just because you can use 3 syllable words, you appear to be much more intelligent than everyone else, right? I really don't think that you considered the obvious leniency of all the comments posted against Uber/Lyft on this post. Nor did you stop to consider the implications of such. You simply undermined and poo-poo'd my observation, which is EXACTLY what one would expect from an Astroturfer. Which, I believe, has been quite evident to everyone reading these comments.
Furthermore, you immedia
Better business idea for Uber? (Score:1)
This would avoid having to take on the issues around engaging drivers, provide the tools to do the job better than trying to do the job better.
Re: (Score:2)
I took a taxi Melbourne last month. Booked it through an app. I got a confirmation message for the booking, and another message shortly before the driver arrived.
It seems taxi companies have no problems adpoting the 'good' parts of Uber's business model.
If Uber wants to compete, that's fine with me... but they're just another taxi company.
Suprised it took this long... (Score:2)
New Tech (Score:1)
Some of the laws are protectionist to keep others from offering the same service but bette
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
California isn't the problem. It's the south that has barely entered the 21st century that's the problem. These warmongering gun-toting redneck racist bible thumpers are what's giving the USA its bad reputation.
It was sarcasm. California is one of the best states to live in, althougjh I personally prefer the east coast. :)
As for all those regulations, it's the price to pay for not living in a polluted cesspool. Go California.
Uber can compete all they want. As far as they are subject to the same rules and regulations as everyone else is that has a taxi service is subject to.
If it walks like a dog, barks like a dog and eats dogfood it is not a cat. Uber is a taxi service in all but name.
Re: What did you expect from California ? (Score:1)
My city is large enough to have taxi service, but not quite large enough that taxis are out just trolling the streets for a fare. With the exception of some taxis that wait at the airport, if you want taxi service, you call them and request a that a taxi be sent to pick you up. From the perspective of a customer, whether I use a smartphone app or an old fashioned phone call to summon a taxi is irrelevant. Uber provides taxi service. Ergo they should be forced to adhere to the laws governing taxi service.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. Taxis are so heavily regulated for two reasons. First of course is taxes. Second, and more important in my opinion, is because they have a long long history of screwing their customers. They deserve every bit of regulation that's thrown their way, from licensing, vehicle standards, pay guidelines, etc. They're a very common and important service and they NEED to be heavily regulated or every tourist that visits your city gets screwed. It's not how cities want to present themselves to the world. Now
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In some cities no distinction is made between cabs that are 'hailed' and cabs that are phoned for.
In other cities (such as NY) they do make a distinction. 'Yellow cabs' are hailed, and can not be phoned for. 'Black cars' are phoned for, and can not be hailed. Both are regulated.
Re: (Score:2)
There are many cities where random pickups by taxi's (hailing) are illegal, you have to call and schedule a pickup, but they are still taxis, and still regulated.
Re: (Score:2)
If CA is so business hostile, why is CA the 7th largest economy in the world? Unless regulation helps a smoothly functioning economy. See also MA and contrast with TX, AL, and MS.
Re: Go California! (Score:4, Insightful)
What planet are you on? Or are you too young to remember how consumers got screwed before consumer protection laws. Yeah feel free to stop using the service after you get killed because your Uber driver was drunk. And it just isn't the passenger there are also other drivers who may be killed or maimed by an unqualified Uber driver. It's not just all about you. And try suing if you get hosed. You will find punishing Uber nigh impossible.
Re: Go California! (Score:5, Interesting)
What planet are you on? Or are you too young to remember how consumers got screwed before consumer protection laws. Yeah feel free to stop using the service after you get killed because your Uber driver was drunk. And it just isn't the passenger there are also other drivers who may be killed or maimed by an unqualified Uber driver. It's not just all about you. And try suing if you get hosed. You will find punishing Uber nigh impossible.
People, and free-market Libertarians in particular, have this idea that if there is a problem between two parties, one can just sue the other and it'll get worked out. They don't seem to realize that a lawsuit is a huge pain in the ass for everyone involved (except the lawyers), and is also very expensive. Lawsuits are out of reach for most people simply because of the cost. It's just not realistic.
For more insight, I would point you to Fletcher Reede in "Liar Liar", when his car is damaged by a tow company:
"You know what I'm going to do about this? Nothing! Because if I take it to small claims court, it will just drain 8 hours out of my life and you probably won't show up and even if I got the judgment you'd just stiff me anyway; so what I am going to do is piss and moan like an impotent jerk, and then bend over and take it up the tailpipe!"
Re: (Score:3)
"if I take it to small claims court ... you probably won't show up"
In which case you automatically win.
"and even if I got the judgment you'd just stiff me anyway"
In which case the court will help you garnish their wages, order their bank to pay you from any funds they have in the bank, suspend their professional license and/or drivers license until they pay you, and a range of other things that will make their life a complete misery (http://www.courts.ca.gov/1179.htm).
But yeah, it does take time. But layin
Re: (Score:2)
I've known people who took someone to small claims. First off the defendant is often given several chances to show. Meaning that the plaintiff, who was harmed, has to take time off of work to pursue the case. First problem.
Problem 2, small claims courts often have limited jurisdiction. You have to go to where the event happened. So if you were traveling in another city, on vacation perhaps, you will have to return to that city. Or hire a lawyer which is expensive, in my area about $400/hr.
Problem 3 if the d
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I'm not a libertarian :) In a 'libertarian paradise' pesky 'regulations' which establish things like renter's rights (probably the single largest use of small claims court is by renters trying to recover their deposit when leaving a rental and the landlord claims the money is now theirs because [insert minor wear and tear here]) don't exist. Because 'the market' will somehow stop all that from happening..
I think the precise details of how easy small claims is to use varies from state to state. I've o
Re: (Score:2)
Lawsuits are out of reach for most people simply because of the cost.
In Libertarian World, that's your fault for being poor.
Re:More likely to be killed by cops than Uber (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope. Uber is a bunch of pirates. If you think Uber or Lyft have your best interest and safety in mind think again. Uber and Lyft are answerable to one. If things get really bad people can scream at the PUC and vote elected officials out of office. You cannot fire the owners of Lyft and Uber. They don't care. They are making a profit by externalizing risk which is wrong wrong wrong. Greed is not good.
Re: (Score:2)
They can get their medallions pulled.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
After Uber advertises it as a cheap, easy, and safe service. Uber shares responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Go California! (Score:4, Interesting)
Consumers are terrible at protecting themselves. "Quality Products / Services" takes third place in terms of things that get a business to the top, after "Excellent PR Control / Advertising" and "Ruthless Business Practices". If you want to see what happens when you reduce consumer protections and monitoring, look to the third world where companies put melamine in their food to artificially inflate the protein count and fake baby formula with little to no nutritional value gets passed off as legit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Consumers are terrible at protecting themselves. "Quality Products / Services" takes third place in terms of things that get a business to the top, after "Excellent PR Control / Advertising" and "Ruthless Business Practices". If you want to see what happens when you reduce consumer protections and monitoring, look to the third world where companies put melamine in their food to artificially inflate the protein count and fake baby formula with little to no nutritional value gets passed off as legit.
Yeah, but what about Comcast? They're the most hated company in the country. They screw their customers and no one wants to do business with them. So everyone exercised their power as consumers and sued Comcast or simply took their business elsewhere. Eventually Comcast went out of business because they provided such terrible service.
Isn't that how it happened?
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that Comcast pays the politicians to protect them from their consumers.
Re: (Score:1)
, look to the third world where companies put melamine in their food to artificially inflate the protein count and fake baby formula with little to no nutritional value gets passed off as legit.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. In 2008 the NZ dairy corporate Fonterra had a Chinese subsidary (Sanlu) in which they had a minority interest (less than 49%) that produced baby formula. The subsidary had supply from local farmers who would get increased payouts with milk with more protein in it. These local suppliers found that melamine was a good way of 'supplementing' the protein count; this was not detected as no Dairy company (at the time) tested for melamine as it is usually used
Re: (Score:2)
So, no, the 'evil corporate' did not intentially poison its consumers, the dodgy suppliers did.
The dodgy suppliers are part of the corporate system too.
Re: (Score:2)
And politicians are great at protecting the rent seeking industries that pay them.
Re: Go California! (Score:5, Insightful)
Adam Smith's invisible hand didn't build those streets and highways that these cars drive on. They were built by the government with taxes.
If you're driving on a private road, you can ignore the regulations.
If you want to drive on the public roads, you have to follow the government regulations. License and registration fees for private cars are based on typical use. License and registration fees for taxis and limousines are based on heavy, 24 hours a day use, and cost a lot more. They set up regulations because with generations of experience they've seen all the problems that come up and don't want those problems any more. Passengers don't want to get robbed and raped by their drivers. They don't want drivers who are drunk. They don't want to be injured by uninsured drivers. The Uber free market isn't very good at eliminating those risks.
Re: (Score:1)
Saying stupid things like that makes you look like a childish libertarian type.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it happens less often when 'government regulations' prevent people with known histories of raping and assaulting people from driving taxis.
Whereas you seem to be arguing that the inconvenience of running a background check on someone before letting them drive a taxi is so onerous that it's worth letting known rapists drive taxis just to avoid the burden on the taxi industry of 'all that government red tape'.
Re: (Score:2)
Passengers don't want to get robbed and raped by their drivers. They don't want drivers who are drunk. They don't want to be injured by uninsured drivers. The Uber free market isn't very good at eliminating those risks.
Neither is your oh-so-precious government regulations. There are plenty of stories of people getting assaulted or raped by a 'legit' taxi driver.
So, because the system is not perfect, it is worthless and should be replaced by a free for all?
The laws against murder don't prevent a certain number of murders, therefore we should abolish the laws against murder?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
License and registration fees for taxis and limousines are based on heavy, 24 hours a day use, and cost a lot more.
No they aren't. They're based on regulatory capture to limit the amount of competition with a not to "public safety". The cost of an NYC medallion is due to artificial scarcity, not the amount of use cabs put on city streets.
What Uber is doing in these markets is illegal but the demand from consumers using their services shows the current system does not support competitive pricing.
Re: (Score:2)
If car A makes 1 trip to work and 1 trip back every day, and car B makes 100 trips every day ride sharing, do you think a city or state could reasonably charge car B more to pay for those roads than car A?
Re: (Score:1)
The cost of NYC medallions is not all that high. They are just not available, so people who already have one can sell it for a lot of money if they want.
Now, ask yourself why a city would want to limit the number of cabs, and if you can't come up with any reasons other than 'corruption' and 'bought by the taxi companies' then you can't think very well.
Re: (Score:1)
The cost of NYC medallions is not all that high. They are just not available, so people who already have one can sell it for a lot of money if they want.
Now, ask yourself why a city would want to limit the number of cabs, and if you can't come up with any reasons other than 'corruption' and 'bought by the taxi companies' then you can't think very well.
Asking why the number of taxis is limited for a certain geographic area is a stupid question. Too many taxis and the business is not viable. Too few and it's not as efficient as it could be.
The same thing applies to groceries stores, bookstores, any brick and mortar store. Ever wondered why we don't have 30 supermarkets in one city block ?
The problem is not the number of taxis, it's just that the medallions sell for huge amounts of money in the second hand market. We could change that if legislation made it
Re: (Score:1)
The same thing applies to groceries stores, bookstores, any brick and mortar store. Ever wondered why we don't have 30 supermarkets in one city block ?
with the obvious exception of Starbucks......
Re: (Score:2)
I heard about Uber after that and started using them, I'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Note, if you want proof of my employment I will happily provide it. I'm not a shill.
Re: (Score:2)
Also most consumers have no idea about the harm, even if it's done to them.
So trusting the free market will fix everything is pretty dumb and has failed many times.
Re: Go California! (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, horse shit.
You're delusional. The free market doesn't exist. It doesn't solve problems. It doesn't achieve optimal outcomes.
It's a fucking abstraction describing long-term outcomes under a perfect hypothetical model based on crap assumptions, not some divine entity.
In practice, the only thing Smith's "invisible hand" is doing is picking your pocket and giving you the finger.
It isn't some magical entity. It doesn't make good choices. It doesn't care what happens to you. It doesn't actually care if you have perfect information. It doesn't really exist.
The invisible hand is the collective actions of the market over an extended period of time -- and collectively the market is rigged, and people are gaming the system. The invisible hand won't fix that.
The premise that the free market achieves perfect outcomes over the long haul assumes the system isn't corrupt, and that the players aren't actively undermining it.
But humans are corrupt, and always will be. Which means in practice the "free market" devolves into cartels and other things which try to stop the market from being free.
It doesn't exist. Has never existed. Cannot exist. And if by accident it briefly existed, it would be undermined immediately by the humans.
Re: Go California! (Score:4, Interesting)
The free market doesn't exist. It doesn't solve problems. It doesn't achieve optimal outcomes.
It's a fucking abstraction describing long-term outcomes under a perfect hypothetical model based on crap assumptions, not some divine entity.
Blasphemy! Apostacy!
One wonders at the free marketeer's assumptions that government is always corrupt, and that private industry is always honest, and above reproach.
I liken the situation to vaccines, where some people wonder why a vaccine is needed, because it seems no one gets that disease any more.
It really wasn't teh eevlul cguvmint'z desire to hamstring the people's rights that got these regs started, it was things like plaster of paris in bread, bogus scale systems that give you 11 ounces of meat when you were paying for a pound, the Cuyahoga river catching on fire, and much more.
This is not to say that the selfsame impeccably honest free marketeers won't try to take advantage of those evul regulaytoons when it suits their purposes, wihness the conservative lynchpin states like Texas trying to keep Tesla sales out of their domains. Regulations are bad except when they aren't?
But that's a side issue, more to my point of the guvmint not being the sole home of corruption.
Re: (Score:1)
As opposed to your divine entity of government. Both (government and corporations) are just as equally fucked. Why do people not realize that the words "free market/business" and "government" can be fully interchanged in tirades like this and still be true. See below:
Oh, horse shit.
You're delusional. The (useful/open/representative) government doesn't exist. It doesn't solve problems. It doesn't achieve optimal outcomes.
It's a fucking abstraction describing long-term outcomes under a perfect hypotheti
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you are now being put on notice that you're a moron. :-P
I don't worship government. I don't trust it any more than I trust corporations. And I sure as hell con't trust corporations either. I think government needs someone to keep them in check. But I also think corporations need someone to keep them in check.
I'm not a communist, nor am I a capitalist. Because I think both taken to idiotic extremes are dangerous and toxic, and simply don't work as peo
Re: (Score:2)
In both cases, The Government acts purely to thwart the Free Market out of some sort of deadly socialist envy.
Re: (Score:2)
Evidence for your hypothesis being? OK, Uber did hire the NY Taxi Commission Board member.