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, 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