SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Republican Governor Charlie Baker signed the nickel fee into law this month as part of a sweeping package of regulations for the industry.
Ride services are not enthusiastic about the fee. "I don't think we should be in the business of subsidizing potential competitors," said Kirill Evdakov, the chief executive of Fasten, a ride service that launched in Boston last year and also operates in Austin, Texas.
Some taxi owners wanted the law to go further, perhaps banning the start-up competitors unless they meet the requirements taxis do, such as regular vehicle inspection by the police.
"They've been breaking the laws that are on the books, that we've been following for many years," said Larry Meister, manager of the Boston area's Independent Taxi Operator's Association.
The law levies a 20-cent fee in all, with 5 cents for taxis, 10 cents going to cities and towns and the final 5 cents designated for a state transportation fund.
The fee may raise millions of dollars a year because Lyft and Uber alone have a combined 2.5 million rides per month in Massachusetts.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday August 22 2016, @05:34PM
Uber wouldn't have come into being if the Taxi business was doing its job properly. That's what's wrong. Uber wouldn't have become so popular if it didn't fill a vacuum left by the Taxis.
If a Taxi had an app. Could be easily scheduled. Was reliable. Was economical. Was not driven by a guy in a tank top smoking a cigar who hasn't had a shower in several days.
But mostly the app.
As for duck typing, I prefer strong typing for any project over a zillion lines. I like being to be instantly notified of a type mismatch once I've hit the actual keystroke that causes the error in the editor.
But if you like duck typing . . . if a Taxi acts like a pre-internet dinosaur business, walks like a pre-internet dinosaur business, then it is a pre-internet dinosaur business.
The people who rely on government handouts and refuse to work should be kicked out of congress.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @06:03PM
This guy gets it. The app is pretty much what sells it. If you have ever called a taxi you know that it is, frankly, a disaster. Here is a representative typical experiences, with highlighted changes where Uber makes the experience better:
- I am at a hotel and would like to go to the airport.
- I go to the receptionist and ask for him/her to call me a taxi (because taxi phone numbers, operational times, rates, and other things are not understood in foreign cities by travelers)
- The hotel gets a kickback for calling the taxi, kickbacks are larger in cities/countries with more corruption. (Uber flatly removes this crap)
- The taxi company makes up a time for when they will pick me up. Time has no basis in reality, typically "20-30 minutes". (Uber estimates are more-or-less to-the-minute, are frequently HALF the time of the taxi company)
- The taxi is late for reasons I do not care about. They do not provide notice, while I stand at the curb, frequently in an environment in which I would prefer not to. (The Uber app updates taxi position frequently, informs of delays)
- While standing at the curb, a taxi, frequently from a different company, pulls up for someone else and there is confusion about who called which taxi. (The Uber app clarifies this confusion)
- I find that a friend of mine has also called a taxi and we decide to ride together; this happens 25% of the time. One of us does the receptionist-to-call-the-taxi-company thing, and gets bitched at. (Uber suggests carpooling, provides easy cancellation without yelling)
- The taxi is, for the most part, shitty; 50% of the time it is a van. Doubly so in big cities. (Uber "taxis" are "well kept passenger vehicles", which is mostly what I want).
- The taxi charges me $75 for a 30 minute ride, and then asks for tip, which I have no idea how to value. (Uber fares include tip, and fare is more reflective of the skill it takes to perform the job, price is frequently HALF).
The taxi industry is such an unpleasant experience (time consuming, unsatisfying, expensive) that people literally risk their lives to avoid it by driving drunk and tired in an unknown city. Uber/Lyft/etc. provide an experience that DOESN'T SUCK for HALF THE PRICE and in HALF THE TIME. There are so many market inefficiencies solved by "tap here to get a ride, tap here to cancel, your ride will cost X, and would you like to carpool?".
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Monday August 22 2016, @06:36PM
Except for the safety inspection and the guaranteed insurance coverage. I totally agree with you regarding the app frontend, and have often wondered why a Taxi company didn't start using twitter or something similar to the Uber app for summoning. As for the cost of a taxi the rate is NOT set by them but by a commission of politicians so it is assumed it will be overpriced and inefficient.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by migz on Monday August 22 2016, @07:42PM
I don't want the safety inspection, nor the guaranteed insurance coverage. I want the freedom to pay less. Thanks. Please stop trying to decide what I want for me.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Francis on Monday August 22 2016, @08:05PM
You don't get that choice. Part of living in a civilized society is that you give up certain rights and freedoms in order to have some security.
We don't get to murder our rivals or steal their women without consequence anymore either. A detail that I wish people like you would consider. Requiring safety inspections is a reasonable step as it's unreasonable to expect everybody to know enough about cars and to perform their own personal inspection of all the relevant bits every time they want to take a cab ride. And no court anywhere in the world can order somebody back to life that was killed due to somebody elses incompetence.
How inexpensive is it when the cabbie runs somebody over because he isn't a good driver, destroys somebody elses car and hasn't got the insurance to pay for it?
You want freedom to pay less because you're either an extremely self-centered individual or you lack the ability to think the consequences through. regulations didn't invent themselves they were created because people got sick of being poisoned by unsafe foods and losing limbs to unsafe machines.
If you want that freedom, perhaps you should move to some failed state where a small bribe can get you around the regulatory issues. I doubt very much that you'd like it, but that's seems to be what you're wanting.
(Score: 3, Informative) by migz on Monday August 22 2016, @08:25PM
How curious. You believe it is fair for you to tell me how to live my life and that you know better than me, and everybody else what their needs are. We can sleep safe at night knowing that nanny Francis is absolving us of our desire to
Curious. I have not advocated neither murder, nor slavery, nor theft. I merely want to choose whether to use a regulated taxi or not.
Unlike you I have lived in a country with a regulated taxi industry, where the regulated taxis are unsafe, indeed they resort to murder and violence to protect their turf. Don't for a moment imagine that the reassurance stamp of government is worth a damn.
I want freedom to pay less, because the costs are insanely inflated by the government and the state sponsored taxi cronies who are protected from competition.
Why do you believe your argument as to why you believe regulation is a good thing, if valid, is extensible to the taxi industry?
Why do I need to go to a failed state to bribe my way around regulatory issues? Do you believe your state is immune to bribery? From where I sit a heavily regulated taxi industry looks just like bribery. I pay the government a large sum, to create regulations, that protect me from competition.
I would prefer not to have freedom to choose if I wish to participate in the regulations, without the threat of violence from the state.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @09:55PM
I want freedom to pay less...
And fuck everything and everyone else, amirite? It's all about my pocketbook/wallet/account. Fuck anything else!
Goodness, you're one jolly fellah
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Francis on Monday August 22 2016, @10:38PM
I'm sorry, but you're full of shit here.
You don't have the freedom to pay less, as I've already outlined we have these regulations because the lack of regulation led to all sorts of unsafe situations. If you're seriously looking to save money, buy yourself the cheapest car you can find and don't bother to maintain it. I'm sure before too long you'll have the price below what you would be paying for a cab anyways. Somebody I know is selling a used stick shift car for $500. It wouldn't take that many trips for it to pay for itself.
My state isn't immune to bribery, but there's no evidence to support the belief that this is the result of bribery and not a response to what happens when you have unlicensed cabs operating. This has existed since well before the era of legalized bribery started and exists for a good reason. Just look at other countries where the unlicensed cabs run the range from perfectly safe, albeit cheap, to run by kidnappers looking to turn a buck on ransom.
BTW, what you're advocating for here is more or less analogous to theft at the least and slavery at the worst. Regulations are one of the things that stops the race to the bottom where cabbies are under enormous pressure to charge less than the cost of providing the service in order to get people to agree to use them.
I've rarely found cabs to be affordable, but they are necessary to fill in gaps that mass transit leaves and the regulations are part of what allows them to continue to operate.
Uber could have gotten the rules changed by going through the normal process, but instead opted to pretend that the law didn't apply to them and in the process abused the hell out of the drivers. I take it you didn't notice the class action suit against them that just finished up over the way they classified the employees.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by NotSanguine on Monday August 22 2016, @10:57PM
I would prefer not to have freedom to choose if I wish to participate in the regulations, without the threat of violence from the state.
Because gub'mint thugs are going to beat you down, seize your house and throw you in jail or shoot you dead in the street if you don't use "traditional" taxis?
Do you even read what you write? Because you certainly don't *think* before you do.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by migz on Tuesday August 23 2016, @06:51AM
The threats are against the competition not the customers. How do you believe the government will enforce these laws? Through arrest and seizing assets. They might not be mine, but they are the property of the drivers.
Btw. In the country I used to live in the thugs did beat people down, seize peoples property, shoot and people in the street if they did not use "traditional" taxis, not only the competition, but customers too. They didn't need the government to do their dirty work, and the government did nothing to protect us. Why should they? They were illegals anyway? Right?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday August 23 2016, @07:26AM
So you're doing a complete 180 and backing off your statement that
I would prefer not to have freedom to choose if I wish to participate in the regulations, without the threat of violence from the state.
And you're also saying that there is no threat of violence against you from the state over this.
Is that correct? I just want to make sure I understand what you're trying to say.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @08:34PM
We don't get to murder our rivals or steal their women without consequence anymore either.
Murdering someone would directly infringe upon their rights. This is totally different from infringing upon people's rights to decrease the probability of some bad event happening.
As for 'stealing' women, you don't own women and they can make their own choices. Unless you meant taking them captive against their will, it doesn't make any sense.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Monday August 22 2016, @10:41PM
It's a related problem. We gave up a number of rights as part of the social contract. There's not much difference between banning murder and banning practices that are likely to result in death. Dead is dead and whether it's negligence or malice only matters for punishment; the deceased is equally dead either way.
And yes, that's exactly what I meant by stealing women, that's another right that we gave up as a matter of civility. It was a way of handling society that was deeply problematic for everybody involved.
People try to play this sort of thing off as a case of having done the homework and assessed the risk, but without the regulations in place there's no way of knowing what the risk even is. One unlicensed cab might be fine whereas another might be driven by a rapist and another by a team of kidnappers. That's not exactly unheard of in parts of the world where unlicensed taxis are common. more likely is a cabbie that uses a broken meter or none at all and insists upon being paid several times as much as what the fare is worth.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday August 23 2016, @12:58AM
You don't get that choice. Part of living in a civilized society is that you give up certain rights and freedoms in order to have some security.
This is the usual blather to put down someone doesn't like some part of "civilized society". Let's consider what Francis had to say [soylentnews.org] about this in the past:
He's [Bernie Sander] completely right about this. In the current environment the system is more about either gambling or breaking the law. The system has decayed to the point where the only option for getting rich is fixing the system in your favor and hoping that you have enough lawyers to get away with it. That's not a functioning system and people are going to be rioting in the street calling for a revolution if it continues into the future.
When it's something Francis wants, it's "You don't get that choice." When it's something Francis doesn't want, it's "rioting in the street calling for a revolution". The thing is here, Uber/Lynx/etc is the peaceful revolution throwing down taxi cartels, a violation of the social contract.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday August 23 2016, @01:53AM
You act like those statements aren't internally consistent.
This kind of ignorance is why I routinely call you out. It's not just that you're ignorant, it's that you work so hard to be ignorant.
As for the statements, there is a line where the social contract no longer holds up and that line tends to be after the soap boxes, jury boxes and ballot boxes have already failed and the only box left for use is the ammo box. Uber et al., could have gone about this the right way and went to the legislature for a proper legislative fix and proposed a means of adhering to the same standards that the cab companies had. But, they chose to break the law.
They're undercutting the cab companies by cutting corners like on things like insurance and not wanting to have the same regulatory oversight that the cab companies are. That's unfair competition and it's not something that's going to lead to improved safety or improved service. It's a cost cutting that comes with externalities that Uber doesn't feel like paying for.
This kind of behavior is the same sort of lawless behavior that's likely to drive a revolution in the future if it's not addressed. Why should I, or any other citizen have to follow the law if moneyed interests don't? The social contract depends upon consistent enforcement of the law, especially with regards to safety and fraud.
This kind of bullshit is why nobody has any respect for you khallow. You've got the time to look up what I said trying to find an inconsistency, but you're too lazy to actually bother to read what I've posted and understand. I feel very sorry for your miserable life, if you've got the time to go googling for things I've said because you're butthurt at being called out.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday August 23 2016, @02:26AM
You act like those statements aren't internally consistent.
It's because they aren't consistent, internally or otherwise. You can keep doing your cognitive dissonance thing, but I'll point out for any other readers out there that the "social contract" and "revolution" were both advocated by the same people who resorted hypocritically to the social contract when they wanted to preserve the status quo and revolution when they did not.
This kind of ignorance is why I routinely call you out.
Feel free to do that. But you better up your game.
As for the statements, there is a line where the social contract no longer holds up and that line tends to be after the soap boxes, jury boxes and ballot boxes have already failed and the only box left for use is the ammo box. Uber et al., could have gone about this the right way and went to the legislature for a proper legislative fix and proposed a means of adhering to the same standards that the cab companies had. But, they chose to break the law.
They're undercutting the cab companies by cutting corners like on things like insurance and not wanting to have the same regulatory oversight that the cab companies are. That's unfair competition and it's not something that's going to lead to improved safety or improved service. It's a cost cutting that comes with externalities that Uber doesn't feel like paying for.
And they're getting massive business because nobody else wants to pay for those "externalities" either. As to your concerns, these are already dealt with. Commercial vehicle insurance is already required by insurers. The regulatory oversight adds negative value (since it is the primary tool for enforcing the expensive and unreliable taxi cartels). And the competition is "unfair"? I'd rather double down on it and get rid of the taxi cartels altogether. While these ridership services might not be safer (that remains to be seen), they are definitely better service as has already been mentioned here, being cheaper, faster, more reliable, and with far better transparency for the customer.
This kind of behavior is the same sort of lawless behavior that's likely to drive a revolution in the future if it's not addressed. Why should I, or any other citizen have to follow the law if moneyed interests don't? The social contract depends upon consistent enforcement of the law, especially with regards to safety and fraud.
It should be a warning sign to all of us when companies can be massively profitable by avoidance of what should be small bits of regulation. It means the laws are deeply flawed and onerous, and there is a deep societal need which is not being addressed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @02:44AM
I modded you insightful solely for this line here :
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 23 2016, @03:03AM
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Monday August 22 2016, @09:23PM
I would not begin to try and decide what you want for you, my objection was purely from a selfish point of view. You are willing to ride in a vehicle that has no insurance for your medical injuries should an accident occur. I know that I am upset at the fact that I have to bear the additional costs for the medical care in the case that you are injured while on the road without proper insurance coverage and would just as soon see people who knowingly put themselves in that position put down rather than pay those costs.
As for regulating taxi's that is indeed a local government decision and I can fully support/understand your opinion on that issue. You have the right to do as you decide, but that right ceases to exist when it infringes on my life, income and my pursuit of happiness.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @11:04PM
By chance are you a Supreme Court justice? Because your ever expanding idea of what you are responsible to pay for fits nicely in their idea of the commerce clause.
Unless you can use your supernatural powers to verify that you live in the same local as OP, you aren't paying for shit. Insurance rates are set locally, as well as the uninsured costs borne by the healthcare system. Somewhere out in the world, someone is eating beans, which will contribute to the production of methane, which, is a greenhouse gas, which contributes to global warming, which affects the world economy, which increases the prices you pay.
That doesn't give you the right to "regulate" what that person eats.
And what's good for the goose is also good for the gander: I demand a full audit of every aspect of your life so I can determine which parts I have been subsidizing, with a check issued to me post-haste for any incursions beyond your allotment. I don't take kindly to freeloaders.
Uber is essentially a high tech version of sticking out your thumbing, catching a ride, and offering to chip in a couple bucks for the gas. It just so happens to also be a business model for taxi service as well, otherwise none else would really give a fuck and life could keeping humming along without you feeling imposed upon by a private transaction between two individuals that really has fuckall to do with you.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Tuesday August 23 2016, @03:47PM
Uh you really don't understand insurance liability do you ? Nor apparently do you approve of people having an opinion different from yours. The 'business' model of Uber is FAR from sticking out your thumb for an occasional ride otherwise there would be no business, just a few people getting a ride share. The medical costs alone far exceed the scope of what you are referring to. As to where the OP lives I'd be willing to bet based on the story we both reside in the US and that makes the medical costs part of my life. As for the full audit of my financial 'life', I send it to the Fsck'n Federal government every year just like every other citizen does to ensure that I pay my full share. While you seem to scoff at the idea of the butterfly in China affecting the weather in Cincinnati, most of us realize the world is a closed space and everything we do affects everyone else's lives.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @07:16PM
You're bitching about the taxi's not the regulations they fall under...
If Uber wants to play, there should be a level playing field. You wanna transport people for monies, you gon' follow the rules...
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday August 22 2016, @08:08PM
They do follow the rule... Except they (as described below) don't get to pick up people as a "hail and ride" service.
They ARE NOT a taxi service, in any market. They are a better "hire care" (that is the Australian term for pre-booked car and driver).
So, the rules are there to protect the existing taxi industry, despite the taxis (in almost every country) being expensive, and not driven by particularly "professional" drivers.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @07:58PM
The problem with Uber is that they, as far as I know, make you use proprietary software to use the service. And since paying with cash isn't an option, anonymity is reduced as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @10:47PM
If a Taxi had an app. Could be easily scheduled. Was reliable. Was economical. Was not driven by a guy in a tank top smoking a cigar who hasn't had a shower in several days.
But mostly the app.
cf. https://www.way2ride.com/user/login.form [way2ride.com]