Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday August 22 2016, @04:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the taking-a-cut dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by migz on Tuesday August 23 2016, @06:51AM

    by migz (1807) on Tuesday August 23 2016, @06:51AM (#392017)

    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?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday August 23 2016, @07:26AM

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday August 23 2016, @07:26AM (#392021) Homepage Journal

    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