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: 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