Uber is full of it. Their business model was always centered around not having to follow the same laws and regulations that other companies in the same market were required to follow. Their excuse for not following them was simply "our customers use an app" and nothing else. Personally, I find it bizarre that they got away with it as long as they did.
"The same laws and regulations" means "participate in the government-controlled monopoly." This is not about being "fit and proper." Nor is it about safety. It's about money. Government sets onerous licensing requirements with huge fees. Once they are in bed with the service providers, they, in turn, block out all competition. The same has happened in the United States, with taxi medallions. This is no different than the mafia controlling the trash business. The only real difference is it's government doing the leg breaking.
The difference is you get to vote for your city council, mayor and the laws. If you see no difference then I suggest you move to a place without a government. What? You don't want to without your own private army? I wonder why.
I am not a pure libertarian, but nice try. I support things like public infrastructure, roads, bridges, airports, schools and hospitals. I support law enforcement and the armed forces. What I do not support is pure corruption and a tyrannical government that tells people what businesses they can run. Both the UK and the US have such governments, at various levels. Sure, we can vote. But that vote has become so far removed from the real decision making process that it has been rendered largely irrelevant. What, did you think they put this to a referendum?
OMG the hyperbole is hilarious. "I can't run a 24-hour heavy metal night club in my living room next to my neighbors? THIS IS TYRANNY!!!"
I'm guessing you aren't very involved in your community. I am, from voting to attending & speaking at city council meetings to working on my neighborhood board which in turn presents proposals to the council. Voting and participating in your local government is how you become part of the decision-making process. I'm a nobody, and if I can do it you can too.
Uber is full of it. Their business model was always centered around not having to follow the same laws and regulations that other companies in the same market were required to follow. Their excuse for not following them was simply "our customers use an app" and nothing else. Personally, I find it bizarre that they got away with it as long as they did.
"The same laws and regulations" means "participate in the government-controlled monopoly." This is not about being "fit and proper." Nor is it about safety. It's about money. Government sets onerous licensing requirements with huge fees. Once they are in bed with the service providers, they, in turn, block out all competition. The same has happened in the United States, with taxi medallions. This is no different than the mafia controlling the trash business. The only real difference is it's government doing the leg breaking.
Wrong. You clearly know nothing about the taxi system in London. Look it up: there's no expensive medallion system, nor is the number of issued licenses subject to a limit. Since 1865, the principal requirement for a taxi driver in London is the Knowledge of London, a series of oral tests that generally takes close to 3 years to learn and pass.
Part of the issue here is the way auto insurance commonly works in the UK. Depending on the policy you buy, it's common for a car to be insured only for specified drivers — say you and your wife, but not your brother-in-law or some other person you might lend it to. If your wife crashes the car it's covered, but not the brother-in-law or other person. The article clearly cites this issue with Uber drivers substituting for one another and leaving passengers without valid insurance coverage in case of a crash.
I've taken many Ubers and appreciate the customer convenience their technology has brought to the market, but face it, Uber as a company are slime.
I don't claim to know the taxi system in London. That said, I highly doubt that it's the free market subject to reasonable licensing requirements you claim.
So basically you're speaking out of willful ignorance. Got it.
As Neil said, there is no medallion system in London so your claims about onerous licensing designed to generate profit and lock out outsiders is just basically crank nonsense. "Get off my lawn!"
Uber is full of it. Their business model was always centered around not having to follow the same laws and regulations that other companies in the same market were required to follow. Their excuse for not following them was simply "our customers use an app" and nothing else. Personally, I find it bizarre that they got away with it as long as they did.
"The same laws and regulations" means "participate in the government-controlled monopoly." This is not about being "fit and proper." Nor is it about safety. It's about money. Government sets onerous licensing requirements with huge fees. Once they are in bed with the service providers, they, in turn, block out all competition. The same has happened in the United States, with taxi medallions. This is no different than the mafia controlling the trash business. The only real difference is it's government doing the leg breaking.
It may be about money, but when there is a system in place in the form of laws and regulations you have to follow them. Uber, Lyft, the various scooter companies, VRBO, HomeAway, etc made the decision to steamroll cities and then get the regulations adopted for them. The cities sat on the sidelines until they were inundated and now have to go back and fix the problems.
As for medallions you are talking serious money. In NYC you have to have one to operate a cab (transport people) and they are costly and the system is dependent upon selling them to someone else when you retire. Prior to Uber/Lyft I never had a problem getting a cab within a minute or two in NYC as was more than satisfied with the service so there was no need for Uber/Lyft and all they have done is flood the city with more cars. Their model makes sense in areas without public transportation of any type. Of course neither of them have turned anything close to a profit and most likely never will at the rate they bleed cash. Going public was a lifeline of cash as they could not raise anymore private equity. What we will most likely end up with is a mess to clean up when they go under with the cab service crushed and no one to take us where we need to go.
I obviously support following regulations, though the nature and wisdom of this regulations is up for debate. The problem is government never keeps up with the market and technology. Government taxes hotels, for example. But do they have a right to tax me renting my house for the weekend? Why do they get to tax the company helping the transaction? I don't have the answers.
The Airbnb debate is this -- if there is no regulation, your weekend renting of your house can become every single weekend, and you may not even live in the house you own, so its short-term tenants only, which is....a hotel. Which is....a commercial use. Which is...not intended for residential zonings, not commercially inspected, insured, etc. Use-base zoning exists for a reason.
Uber is full of it. Their business model was always centered around not having to follow the same laws and regulations that other companies in the same market were required to follow. Their excuse for not following them was simply "our customers use an app" and nothing else. Personally, I find it bizarre that they got away with it as long as they did.
"The same laws and regulations" means "participate in the government-controlled monopoly." This is not about being "fit and proper." Nor is it about safety. It's about money. Government sets onerous licensing requirements with huge fees. Once they are in bed with the service providers, they, in turn, block out all competition. The same has happened in the United States, with taxi medallions. This is no different than the mafia controlling the trash business. The only real difference is it's government doing the leg breaking.
I tend to agree this is mostly about show me the money both for Uber and the government.
However, in London they have a very high standard for their taxi drives. To drive a taxi in London you have to take classes for 2 yrs, you need to demonstrate by memory the shortest path between two points and the answer could be different at different times of the day. London requires drive to get someone on from point A to point B in the shortest and quickest possible way. Uber only requires you have a divers license, access to a car which is less then 10 yrs old and have cell phone. Does not mean you are getting the best driver or someone who knows and understands the city. At least London can claim they are trying to uphold the higher standard that most people in London have come to expect. Can not say the same in other cities.
Sucks for London, my trip there this summer would have been way more difficult to get around without it. I'm sure Uber and London will figure something out.
Why? Literally everywhere in London is served by the tube, if not a 5 minute bus ride. Unless you want to go literally door to door without a 5 minute walk to the tube, getting about in London is not difficult.
Uber is full of it. Their business model was always centered around not having to follow the same laws and regulations that other companies in the same market were required to follow. Their excuse for not following them was simply "our customers use an app" and nothing else. Personally, I find it bizarre that they got away with it as long as they did.
"The same laws and regulations" means "participate in the government-controlled monopoly." This is not about being "fit and proper." Nor is it about safety. It's about money. Government sets onerous licensing requirements with huge fees. Once they are in bed with the service providers, they, in turn, block out all competition. The same has happened in the United States, with taxi medallions. This is no different than the mafia controlling the trash business. The only real difference is it's government doing the leg breaking.
Wrong. You clearly know nothing about the taxi system in London. Look it up: there's no expensive medallion system, nor is the number of issued licenses subject to a limit. Since 1865, the principal requirement for a taxi driver in London is the Knowledge of London, a series of oral tests that generally takes close to 3 years to learn and pass.
Part of the issue here is the way auto insurance commonly works in the UK. Depending on the policy you buy, it's common for a car to be insured only for specified drivers — say you and your wife, but not your brother-in-law or some other person you might lend it to. If your wife crashes the car it's covered, but not the brother-in-law or other person. The article clearly cites this issue with Uber drivers substituting for one another and leaving passengers without valid insurance coverage in case of a crash.
I've taken many Ubers and appreciate the customer convenience their technology has brought to the market, but face it, Uber as a company are slime.
I don't claim to know the taxi system in London. That said, I highly doubt that it's the free market subject to reasonable licensing requirements you claim.
Uber is full of it. Their business model was always centered around not having to follow the same laws and regulations that other companies in the same market were required to follow. Their excuse for not following them was simply "our customers use an app" and nothing else. Personally, I find it bizarre that they got away with it as long as they did.
"The same laws and regulations" means "participate in the government-controlled monopoly." This is not about being "fit and proper." Nor is it about safety. It's about money. Government sets onerous licensing requirements with huge fees. Once they are in bed with the service providers, they, in turn, block out all competition. The same has happened in the United States, with taxi medallions. This is no different than the mafia controlling the trash business. The only real difference is it's government doing the leg breaking.
Huh? They already get fees. The issue is un-insured drivers being able to drive via the app. I'm sure if an uninsured driver crashed and broke your legs, you'd be quite upset that the regulatory body allowed uninsured drivers.
Or, I could take responsibility for myself. Caveat Emptor.
Uber is full of it. Their business model was always centered around not having to follow the same laws and regulations that other companies in the same market were required to follow. Their excuse for not following them was simply "our customers use an app" and nothing else. Personally, I find it bizarre that they got away with it as long as they did.
I basically agree with you. However, Uber and similar services legally take advantage of differences in the way pre-booked car services and cars picked up on the streets are regulated in many countries. To say "our customers use an app" is just shorthand for saying that the service is not a taxi service but a car hire service. In some places, the high cost of entry (through expensive "medallions" etc.) made taxi service way too expensive and ripe for some kind of competition. In a free country, why shouldn't a person be able to transport someone else for a fee? Should you need permission from the government to do anything? If you're not in a free country, you have bigger problems than this.
Yes, most/many commercial endeavors require permission from the government, even in free countries. Awarding of licenses to operate is the "carrot" and revoking licenses to operate is the "stick". Licenses are incentives for an operator to follow the various laws and regulations that govern being a good operator. Without operating licenses and the potential to revoke them, bad operators could do whatever they wanted without fear of consequence. You can come up with your own scenarios for this, but an easy one is a bar license -- the license (rather, the fear of losing it) is what ensures the bar owner is going to follow lawful operating hours, not be a nuisance to residential neighbors, etc.. It's a piece of leverage all stakeholders are mindful of.
So you ask why shouldn't anyone be able to transport people for profit? Ok, why shouldn't anyone be able to operate a bar in their living room? Or a strip club? Or a mining operation in their backyard? Etc etc... Regulation, zoning, licensing, all of this serves a purpose of ensuring operators work cooperatively for the greater civic good, both of their business and their community.
That is how things are, but it doesn't mean it's a great system. The free market has a way of sorting these things out. If Uber uses uninsured drivers, the market will eventually compensate for that. If a Skydiving company allows 1 out of 10 people to die because they don't know what they are doing, they won't be in business much longer. If a bar serves drinks that make people sick, that bar is going to go out of business. There's a strong argument to be made that the government isn't actually protecting anything. Oh sure, we have speed limits and building codes. Those are a matter of widespread public safety. But regulating how big a soda can be? Punishing Uber because some of their independent contractor drivers are uninsured? It's absurd.
Uber is full of it. Their business model was always centered around not having to follow the same laws and regulations that other companies in the same market were required to follow. Their excuse for not following them was simply "our customers use an app" and nothing else. Personally, I find it bizarre that they got away with it as long as they did.
I basically agree with you. However, Uber and similar services legally take advantage of differences in the way pre-booked car services and cars picked up on the streets are regulated in many countries. To say "our customers use an app" is just shorthand for saying that the service is not a taxi service but a car hire service. In some places, the high cost of entry (through expensive "medallions" etc.) made taxi service way too expensive and ripe for some kind of competition. In a free country, why shouldn't a person be able to transport someone else for a fee? Should you need permission from the government to do anything? If you're not in a free country, you have bigger problems than this.
Yes, most/many commercial endeavors require permission from the government, even in free countries. Awarding of licenses to operate is the "carrot" and revoking licenses to operate is the "stick". Licenses are incentives for an operator to follow the various laws and regulations that govern being a good operator. Without operating licenses and the potential to revoke them, bad operators could do whatever they wanted without fear of consequence. You can come up with your own scenarios for this, but an easy one is a bar license -- the license (rather, the fear of losing it) is what ensures the bar owner is going to follow lawful operating hours, not be a nuisance to residential neighbors, etc.. It's a piece of leverage all stakeholders are mindful of.
So you ask why shouldn't anyone be able to transport people for profit? Ok, why shouldn't anyone be able to operate a bar in their living room? Or a strip club? Or a mining operation in their backyard? Etc etc... Regulation, zoning, licensing, all of this serves a purpose of ensuring operators work cooperatively for the greater civic good, both of their business and their community.
Ah, the old slippery slope. If you let someone give people rides in their car for money, next thing you know, they'll be operating an asbestos factory/meth lab/strip club next to a nursery school. I'm not against reasonable regulation, zoning, licensing, etc. But does every damn thing have to be regulated? To what extent is a person free if they have no freedom of action without permission?
And a little more on topic, I found London very easy to get around by tube, on foot, and with the London cabs (not too often.) If there's Uber, choices are good.
Uber is full of it. Their business model was always centered around not having to follow the same laws and regulations that other companies in the same market were required to follow. Their excuse for not following them was simply "our customers use an app" and nothing else. Personally, I find it bizarre that they got away with it as long as they did.
"The same laws and regulations" means "participate in the government-controlled monopoly." This is not about being "fit and proper." Nor is it about safety. It's about money. Government sets onerous licensing requirements with huge fees. Once they are in bed with the service providers, they, in turn, block out all competition. The same has happened in the United States, with taxi medallions. This is no different than the mafia controlling the trash business. The only real difference is it's government doing the leg breaking.
The difference is you get to vote for your city council, mayor and the laws. If you see no difference then I suggest you move to a place without a government. What? You don't want to without your own private army? I wonder why.
I am not a pure libertarian, but nice try. I support things like public infrastructure, roads, bridges, airports, schools and hospitals. I support law enforcement and the armed forces. What I do not support is pure corruption and a tyrannical government that tells people what businesses they can run. Both the UK and the US have such governments, at various levels. Sure, we can vote. But that vote has become so far removed from the real decision making process that it has been rendered largely irrelevant. What, did you think they put this to a referendum?
OMG the hyperbole is hilarious. "I can't run a 24-hour heavy metal night club in my living room next to my neighbors? THIS IS TYRANNY!!!"
I'm guessing you aren't very involved in your community. I am, from voting to attending & speaking at city council meetings to working on my neighborhood board which in turn presents proposals to the council. Voting and participating in your local government is how you become part of the decision-making process. I'm a nobody, and if I can do it you can too.
Ah, the internet. What's hilarious is that you start with a straw man and move into an ad hominem argument.
As I clearly stated, I am not a pure libertarian. I support basic regulation and the rule of law. Opening a 24 hour heavy-metal club in my living room would clearly disturb my neighbors and a segment of the public. Noise regulations are obviously an appropriate and normal use of local authority. There is nothing tyrannical about such local ordinances. Nor is there about speed limits, drunk driving laws, etc. Do you know what is tyrannical? A government outlawing cigar bars. Liquor licenses that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The State controlling alcohol sales (such as my state). An auto inspection and licensing regime that costs hundreds per year. Regulating the size of sugary drinks. And these are just local issues. The amount of regulation at the state and federal level is unbelievable.
Now, as for your unprovoked personal attack, you're clueless. I not only vote and often attend meetings, but I former board of education director. Since you've offered unsolicited advice, I'll return the favor: Try understanding the relationship between the state, local and federal governments in just one area. Try, education, for example. You'll soon realize that unfunded mandates and central planners at the state and federal level have an inordinate amount of control of the local process. The Feds have no idea what is happening. In fact, most of the regulation at that level has nothing to do with the legislative branch. I'd advise you do some research on the so-called "fourth branch of government," the Administrative State.
Uber is full of it. Their business model was always centered around not having to follow the same laws and regulations that other companies in the same market were required to follow. Their excuse for not following them was simply "our customers use an app" and nothing else. Personally, I find it bizarre that they got away with it as long as they did.
"The same laws and regulations" means "participate in the government-controlled monopoly." This is not about being "fit and proper." Nor is it about safety. It's about money. Government sets onerous licensing requirements with huge fees. Once they are in bed with the service providers, they, in turn, block out all competition. The same has happened in the United States, with taxi medallions. This is no different than the mafia controlling the trash business. The only real difference is it's government doing the leg breaking.
Wrong. You clearly know nothing about the taxi system in London. Look it up: there's no expensive medallion system, nor is the number of issued licenses subject to a limit. Since 1865, the principal requirement for a taxi driver in London is the Knowledge of London, a series of oral tests that generally takes close to 3 years to learn and pass.
Part of the issue here is the way auto insurance commonly works in the UK. Depending on the policy you buy, it's common for a car to be insured only for specified drivers — say you and your wife, but not your brother-in-law or some other person you might lend it to. If your wife crashes the car it's covered, but not the brother-in-law or other person. The article clearly cites this issue with Uber drivers substituting for one another and leaving passengers without valid insurance coverage in case of a crash.
I've taken many Ubers and appreciate the customer convenience their technology has brought to the market, but face it, Uber as a company are slime.
I don't claim to know the taxi system in London. That said, I highly doubt that it's the free market subject to reasonable licensing requirements you claim.
So basically you're speaking out of willful ignorance. Got it.
As Neil said, there is no medallion system in London so your claims about onerous licensing designed to generate profit and lock out outsiders is just basically crank nonsense. "Get off my lawn!"
How about you post the actual requirements for taxis to operate in London. I'll wait.
Uber is full of it. Their business model was always centered around not having to follow the same laws and regulations that other companies in the same market were required to follow. Their excuse for not following them was simply "our customers use an app" and nothing else. Personally, I find it bizarre that they got away with it as long as they did.
"The same laws and regulations" means "participate in the government-controlled monopoly." This is not about being "fit and proper." Nor is it about safety. It's about money. Government sets onerous licensing requirements with huge fees. Once they are in bed with the service providers, they, in turn, block out all competition. The same has happened in the United States, with taxi medallions. This is no different than the mafia controlling the trash business. The only real difference is it's government doing the leg breaking.
It may be about money, but when there is a system in place in the form of laws and regulations you have to follow them. Uber, Lyft, the various scooter companies, VRBO, HomeAway, etc made the decision to steamroll cities and then get the regulations adopted for them. The cities sat on the sidelines until they were inundated and now have to go back and fix the problems.
As for medallions you are talking serious money. In NYC you have to have one to operate a cab (transport people) and they are costly and the system is dependent upon selling them to someone else when you retire. Prior to Uber/Lyft I never had a problem getting a cab within a minute or two in NYC as was more than satisfied with the service so there was no need for Uber/Lyft and all they have done is flood the city with more cars. Their model makes sense in areas without public transportation of any type. Of course neither of them have turned anything close to a profit and most likely never will at the rate they bleed cash. Going public was a lifeline of cash as they could not raise anymore private equity. What we will most likely end up with is a mess to clean up when they go under with the cab service crushed and no one to take us where we need to go.
I obviously support following regulations, though the nature and wisdom of this regulations is up for debate. The problem is government never keeps up with the market and technology. Government taxes hotels, for example. But do they have a right to tax me renting my house for the weekend? Why do they get to tax the company helping the transaction? I don't have the answers.
The Airbnb debate is this -- if there is no regulation, your weekend renting of your house can become every single weekend, and you may not even live in the house you own, so its short-term tenants only, which is....a hotel. Which is....a commercial use. Which is...not intended for residential zonings, not commercially inspected, insured, etc. Use-base zoning exists for a reason.
I don't buy that. You're talking about a single family residence or apartment. Things change entirely when it's not your primary residence or when it's a larger unit. We're not talking about zoning, we're talking about use taxes. If I want to rent my house every week, the only implications should be tax-related. Tell me, if you have rental property, is that a "hotel?"
Uber is full of it. Their business model was always centered around not having to follow the same laws and regulations that other companies in the same market were required to follow. Their excuse for not following them was simply "our customers use an app" and nothing else. Personally, I find it bizarre that they got away with it as long as they did.
"The same laws and regulations" means "participate in the government-controlled monopoly." This is not about being "fit and proper." Nor is it about safety. It's about money. Government sets onerous licensing requirements with huge fees. Once they are in bed with the service providers, they, in turn, block out all competition. The same has happened in the United States, with taxi medallions. This is no different than the mafia controlling the trash business. The only real difference is it's government doing the leg breaking.
It may be about money, but when there is a system in place in the form of laws and regulations you have to follow them. Uber, Lyft, the various scooter companies, VRBO, HomeAway, etc made the decision to steamroll cities and then get the regulations adopted for them. The cities sat on the sidelines until they were inundated and now have to go back and fix the problems.
As for medallions you are talking serious money. In NYC you have to have one to operate a cab (transport people) and they are costly and the system is dependent upon selling them to someone else when you retire. Prior to Uber/Lyft I never had a problem getting a cab within a minute or two in NYC as was more than satisfied with the service so there was no need for Uber/Lyft and all they have done is flood the city with more cars. Their model makes sense in areas without public transportation of any type. Of course neither of them have turned anything close to a profit and most likely never will at the rate they bleed cash. Going public was a lifeline of cash as they could not raise anymore private equity. What we will most likely end up with is a mess to clean up when they go under with the cab service crushed and no one to take us where we need to go.
I obviously support following regulations, though the nature and wisdom of this regulations is up for debate. The problem is government never keeps up with the market and technology. Government taxes hotels, for example. But do they have a right to tax me renting my house for the weekend? Why do they get to tax the company helping the transaction? I don't have the answers.
You renting your house is considered income, and is taxed as such, if you report it of course. Don’t forget that you really don’t own your property either, in the US at least. You merely rent it from the State government. If you don’t pay your property taxes for a long enough period, they can confiscate it from you.
That's true, and a separate issue. I was actually referring to "use" taxes, which can be even higher than income taxes. Property taxes are another matter.....a total mess.
I got ya. I am often guilty of sidetracking a thread here.
That is how things are, but it doesn't mean it's a great system. The free market has a way of sorting these things out.
The free market may have a way of sorting these things out, but that doesn't mean it's a great system.
Regulation of things like a taxi service exists largely for the protection of the public, which you've said you support - not necessarily for the service of the public. There are stories floating around (which may or may not be true) where taxi drivers have kidnapped unsuspecting members of the public and then committed horrific acts of violence to them. Do these things actually happen? It's not far-fetched. Would they happen with Uber? Again, not far-fetched.
The difference between Uber/Lyft/etc and a regulated taxi service is the paper trail that is left behind. If something goes horribly wrong, there's a way to determine the guilty party and pursue remedies. With government regulation, if the guilty party escapes (whether through failure to identify or absconding before apprehension) there are systems in place to provide the victim(s) with some sort of compensation for their experience. Society as a whole takes a hit from the bad actor, but the damage at an individual level is somewhat mitigated.
With the free market, if the guilty party cannot be located, brought to trial and forced to compensate the victim adequately (each step of which will be vigorously defended by the offender), the people harmed get bupkis. The guilty party and their associates may or may not suffer reputational damage, depending on their ability to distort information in publicly-accessible media.
Neither system is perfect. As a society, do we want to lend a helping hand to those in trouble, or offer a "sucks to be you" condolence?
From what I heard via other sources Uber self-reported the issue at the center of this controversy. So Uber is at least acknowledging their mistake. That’s a first step.
The authorities undoubtedly have been granted oversight and the ability to revoke Uber’s license, but to me it sounds like they are be purely punitive due to past violations and concerns for things that could have gone wrong in the past.
What’s missing, from what I can see is any sense of cooperation between the two parties. If Uber fixes their problems why would the authorities not stipulate a set of conditions that Uber must demonstrate in order to be granted a license to operate? The authorities can still impose a fine for past violations and make obtaining a new license conditional on demonstrated improvement and compliance but it doesn’t seem like anyone is talking to anyone except their lawyers.
Sucks for London, my trip there this summer would have been way more difficult to get around without it. I'm sure Uber and London will figure something out.
Why? Literally everywhere in London is served by the tube, if not a 5 minute bus ride. Unless you want to go literally door to door without a 5 minute walk to the tube, getting about in London is not difficult.
First of all, not everything is within a 5 minute walk of the tube. Two, there are plenty of situations where an Uber ride is more convienent or more practical than a tube ride.
This isn't about tube vs Uber, it's about having options and not being able to use Uber is a major loss for people who rely on it. I used the tube plenty when I visited London, but I didn't use it for every ride because it wasn't always convenient to use depending on a variety of factors, some being time or day, location to the tub, and/or weather. For people living in London it may be easier to use public service but when you are visiting London only for a few days, it's often times easier to catch a ride with Uber versus learning the tube or the bus system, even if the tube/bus isn't hard to understand with the use of technology these days.
That is how things are, but it doesn't mean it's a great system. The free market has a way of sorting these things out.
The free market may have a way of sorting these things out, but that doesn't mean it's a great system.
Regulation of things like a taxi service exists largely for the protection of the public, which you've said you support - not necessarily for the service of the public. There are stories floating around (which may or may not be true) where taxi drivers have kidnapped unsuspecting members of the public and then committed horrific acts of violence to them. Do these things actually happen? It's not far-fetched. Would they happen with Uber? Again, not far-fetched.
The difference between Uber/Lyft/etc and a regulated taxi service is the paper trail that is left behind. If something goes horribly wrong, there's a way to determine the guilty party and pursue remedies. With government regulation, if the guilty party escapes (whether through failure to identify or absconding before apprehension) there are systems in place to provide the victim(s) with some sort of compensation for their experience. Society as a whole takes a hit from the bad actor, but the damage at an individual level is somewhat mitigated.
With the free market, if the guilty party cannot be located, brought to trial and forced to compensate the victim adequately (each step of which will be vigorously defended by the offender), the people harmed get bupkis. The guilty party and their associates may or may not suffer reputational damage, depending on their ability to distort information in publicly-accessible media.
Neither system is perfect. As a society, do we want to lend a helping hand to those in trouble, or offer a "sucks to be you" condolence?
What you are talking about now is civil liability and criminal liability. None of it has anything to do with regulation. Regulation is not going to stop criminals. There is always a fine line in these things. Building codes and zoning restrictions? Probably a good thing. Building standards for public projects? Absolutely a good thing. But when it comes to policing uninsured drivers and holding a company responsible for them in all circumstances? I’m not sure that’s a good thing at all.
Uber is full of it. Their business model was always centered around not having to follow the same laws and regulations that other companies in the same market were required to follow. Their excuse for not following them was simply "our customers use an app" and nothing else. Personally, I find it bizarre that they got away with it as long as they did.
"The same laws and regulations" means "participate in the government-controlled monopoly." This is not about being "fit and proper." Nor is it about safety. It's about money. Government sets onerous licensing requirements with huge fees. Once they are in bed with the service providers, they, in turn, block out all competition. The same has happened in the United States, with taxi medallions. This is no different than the mafia controlling the trash business. The only real difference is it's government doing the leg breaking.
Oh look, more anti-government conspiracy-theorizing...
No one is having their legs broken by governmental regulating bodies.
Uber is full of it. Their business model was always centered around not having to follow the same laws and regulations that other companies in the same market were required to follow. Their excuse for not following them was simply "our customers use an app" and nothing else. Personally, I find it bizarre that they got away with it as long as they did.
"The same laws and regulations" means "participate in the government-controlled monopoly." This is not about being "fit and proper." Nor is it about safety. It's about money. Government sets onerous licensing requirements with huge fees. Once they are in bed with the service providers, they, in turn, block out all competition. The same has happened in the United States, with taxi medallions. This is no different than the mafia controlling the trash business. The only real difference is it's government doing the leg breaking.
Huh? They already get fees. The issue is un-insured drivers being able to drive via the app. I'm sure if an uninsured driver crashed and broke your legs, you'd be quite upset that the regulatory body allowed uninsured drivers.
Or, I could take responsibility for myself. Caveat Emptor.
Then take responsibility for your irrational antigovernment commentary and corporate bootlicking. Learn about the real world and stop acting like it should be made to arbitrarily conform to your impractical libertarian theories.
Comments
OMG the hyperbole is hilarious. "I can't run a 24-hour heavy metal night club in my living room next to my neighbors? THIS IS TYRANNY!!!"
I'm guessing you aren't very involved in your community. I am, from voting to attending & speaking at city council meetings to working on my neighborhood board which in turn presents proposals to the council. Voting and participating in your local government is how you become part of the decision-making process. I'm a nobody, and if I can do it you can too.
So basically you're speaking out of willful ignorance. Got it.
As Neil said, there is no medallion system in London so your claims about onerous licensing designed to generate profit and lock out outsiders is just basically crank nonsense. "Get off my lawn!"
The Airbnb debate is this -- if there is no regulation, your weekend renting of your house can become every single weekend, and you may not even live in the house you own, so its short-term tenants only, which is....a hotel. Which is....a commercial use. Which is...not intended for residential zonings, not commercially inspected, insured, etc. Use-base zoning exists for a reason.
However, in London they have a very high standard for their taxi drives. To drive a taxi in London you have to take classes for 2 yrs, you need to demonstrate by memory the shortest path between two points and the answer could be different at different times of the day. London requires drive to get someone on from point A to point B in the shortest and quickest possible way. Uber only requires you have a divers license, access to a car which is less then 10 yrs old and have cell phone. Does not mean you are getting the best driver or someone who knows and understands the city. At least London can claim they are trying to uphold the higher standard that most people in London have come to expect. Can not say the same in other cities.
Or, I could take responsibility for myself. Caveat Emptor.
That is how things are, but it doesn't mean it's a great system. The free market has a way of sorting these things out. If Uber uses uninsured drivers, the market will eventually compensate for that. If a Skydiving company allows 1 out of 10 people to die because they don't know what they are doing, they won't be in business much longer. If a bar serves drinks that make people sick, that bar is going to go out of business. There's a strong argument to be made that the government isn't actually protecting anything. Oh sure, we have speed limits and building codes. Those are a matter of widespread public safety. But regulating how big a soda can be? Punishing Uber because some of their independent contractor drivers are uninsured? It's absurd.
And a little more on topic, I found London very easy to get around by tube, on foot, and with the London cabs (not too often.) If there's Uber, choices are good.
Ah, the internet. What's hilarious is that you start with a straw man and move into an ad hominem argument.
As I clearly stated, I am not a pure libertarian. I support basic regulation and the rule of law. Opening a 24 hour heavy-metal club in my living room would clearly disturb my neighbors and a segment of the public. Noise regulations are obviously an appropriate and normal use of local authority. There is nothing tyrannical about such local ordinances. Nor is there about speed limits, drunk driving laws, etc. Do you know what is tyrannical? A government outlawing cigar bars. Liquor licenses that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The State controlling alcohol sales (such as my state). An auto inspection and licensing regime that costs hundreds per year. Regulating the size of sugary drinks. And these are just local issues. The amount of regulation at the state and federal level is unbelievable.
Now, as for your unprovoked personal attack, you're clueless. I not only vote and often attend meetings, but I former board of education director. Since you've offered unsolicited advice, I'll return the favor: Try understanding the relationship between the state, local and federal governments in just one area. Try, education, for example. You'll soon realize that unfunded mandates and central planners at the state and federal level have an inordinate amount of control of the local process. The Feds have no idea what is happening. In fact, most of the regulation at that level has nothing to do with the legislative branch. I'd advise you do some research on the so-called "fourth branch of government," the Administrative State.
How about you post the actual requirements for taxis to operate in London. I'll wait.
I don't buy that. You're talking about a single family residence or apartment. Things change entirely when it's not your primary residence or when it's a larger unit. We're not talking about zoning, we're talking about use taxes. If I want to rent my house every week, the only implications should be tax-related. Tell me, if you have rental property, is that a "hotel?"
Regulation of things like a taxi service exists largely for the protection of the public, which you've said you support - not necessarily for the service of the public. There are stories floating around (which may or may not be true) where taxi drivers have kidnapped unsuspecting members of the public and then committed horrific acts of violence to them. Do these things actually happen? It's not far-fetched. Would they happen with Uber? Again, not far-fetched.
The difference between Uber/Lyft/etc and a regulated taxi service is the paper trail that is left behind. If something goes horribly wrong, there's a way to determine the guilty party and pursue remedies. With government regulation, if the guilty party escapes (whether through failure to identify or absconding before apprehension) there are systems in place to provide the victim(s) with some sort of compensation for their experience. Society as a whole takes a hit from the bad actor, but the damage at an individual level is somewhat mitigated.
With the free market, if the guilty party cannot be located, brought to trial and forced to compensate the victim adequately (each step of which will be vigorously defended by the offender), the people harmed get bupkis. The guilty party and their associates may or may not suffer reputational damage, depending on their ability to distort information in publicly-accessible media.
Neither system is perfect. As a society, do we want to lend a helping hand to those in trouble, or offer a "sucks to be you" condolence?
This isn't about tube vs Uber, it's about having options and not being able to use Uber is a major loss for people who rely on it. I used the tube plenty when I visited London, but I didn't use it for every ride because it wasn't always convenient to use depending on a variety of factors, some being time or day, location to the tub, and/or weather. For people living in London it may be easier to use public service but when you are visiting London only for a few days, it's often times easier to catch a ride with Uber versus learning the tube or the bus system, even if the tube/bus isn't hard to understand with the use of technology these days.
No one is having their legs broken by governmental regulating bodies.