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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Monday August 22 2016, @05:19PM

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 22 2016, @05:19PM (#391732) Journal
    I thought Republicans were about government not interfering* with business?

    Should we have taxed the telegraph to subsidize the pony express?
    Should we have taxed the telephone to subsidize the telegraph?
    Should we have taxed the automobile to subsidize the horse and buggy industry?

    Especially that last one. Please consider. The new fangled automobiles are expensive, noisy, smelly, unreliable, difficult to start, they can break your arm if you don't crank them correctly, and worst of all, automobiles frighten the horses! So why should we allow them in our towns nice clean towns**?

    Should we have taxed the internet to subsidize the ${post office | newspaper | magazine | music | long distance phone | television | retail store} industries?

    * unless it affects their rich 1% friends
    ** except for the horse poop on the street
    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 2, Disagree) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday August 22 2016, @05:21PM

      by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Monday August 22 2016, @05:21PM (#391734) Journal

      Uber is in the business of interfering with your ability to travel, without first delivering them a rent.

      Make no mistake about it. "Convenience" is first the bait on that hook.

      --
      You're betting on the pantomime horse...
      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday August 22 2016, @05:26PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 22 2016, @05:26PM (#391738) Journal

        Convenience? Like a Windows 10 upgrade?

        Would you like to upgrade to Windows 10?
        To install simply click Yes, No, Cancel, or the X symbol in the title bar.
        Or for your CONVENIENCE, simply press Ctrl-Alt-Del right now to have Windows 10 conveniently installed on the next reboot.

        New business model . . .

        Windows 10 has been installed on this computer !
        To have this computer restored to a usable state,
        please send 3 Bitcoin to Microsoft.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @06:12PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @06:12PM (#391766)

          Convenience? Like a Windows 10 upgrade?

          He said convenience not curse.

          • (Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday August 23 2016, @03:37AM

            by anubi (2828) on Tuesday August 23 2016, @03:37AM (#391987) Journal

            Thought your parent was speaking English?

            He was speaking a dialect of English known as "Businesstalk".

            Warning... remember the phrase "Caveat Emptor" when you hear businesstalk being spoken.

            --
            "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday August 22 2016, @05:40PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 22 2016, @05:40PM (#391746) Journal

        I'm not quite sure what you mean about the 'rent'.

        Nobody forces you to use Uber. You can still take a Taxi if you prefer.

        Uber doesn't have a monopoly.

        Taxis want to have a monopoly.

        Prediction: Taxis will be strongly opposed to self driving cars. See my arguments above for why we should have stopped the rise of automobiles before it was too late. And now here we are. An unbroken strip of concrete from your doorstep to my doorstep -- no matter where you live. Being forced to travel in comfort at high speed. And no horse poop on the streets to enjoy.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Monday August 22 2016, @07:58PM

          by Francis (5544) on Monday August 22 2016, @07:58PM (#391848)

          Whether or not taxis ought to have a monopoly, there are licensing requirements that Uber and the other ride sharing platforms have been ignoring in order to undercut the taxi companies.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @09:19PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @09:19PM (#391883)

            We should also have a medallion system for restaurants. If we have too many, it would be a rush to the bottom!

            • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday August 23 2016, @03:27PM

              by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 23 2016, @03:27PM (#392171) Journal

              Forget Restaurants. How about a medallion system for Software Developers. After all, they should have certifications and insurance. What if their code were to have a bug in it?

              --
              People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
            • (Score: 2) by cykros on Tuesday August 23 2016, @08:33PM

              by cykros (989) on Tuesday August 23 2016, @08:33PM (#392283)

              They're called liquor licenses. If there were too many, places would have to stop just selling PBR and America because there'd be too much competition from those selling drinkable beer to try to edge into the market.

          • (Score: 2, Disagree) by cykros on Tuesday August 23 2016, @08:31PM

            by cykros (989) on Tuesday August 23 2016, @08:31PM (#392281)

            Those licensing requirements are archaic and in need of being revamped drastically.

            The taxi drivers aren't wrong, but Uber is right to be acting first and asking for forgiveness later. They've got the funds and in many cases public support now to really play a big role in fix the broken system. They should take their blows for breaking the rules, but I haven't seen them as being unprepared to do so, and in the end, I think the rules will end up breaking before they do.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @07:59PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @07:59PM (#391851)

          An unbroken strip of concrete from your doorstep to my doorstep -- no matter where you live. Being forced to travel in comfort at high speed.

          It's Volkswagens and autobahns all round.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday August 22 2016, @09:14PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday August 22 2016, @09:14PM (#391881)

          Taxis want to have a monopoly.

          Pedantic correction: taxis had a cartel, and want to maintain their cartel. Taxis never had a monopoly; a monopoly is a single company which has little to no competition. When a group of companies conspire to work together to shut out competitors (using "regulation", in the case of taxis), it's called a cartel. It's not quite as bad as a true monopoly because the cartel members do compete with each other to some extent, but it's not much better since they can all conspire to keep prices quite high.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @02:37AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @02:37AM (#391973)

            Or you could consider the medallion system to be a monopoly, with the taxi companies as contractors.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 22 2016, @07:53PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 22 2016, @07:53PM (#391845) Journal

        Make no mistake about it. "Convenience" is first the bait on that hook.

        Of course it is. They wouldn't have business without that. As to your "interfering", every transportation option currently interferes with your ability to travel. For the most part, it's in an enormously positive way, but protecting taxi cartels is not positive interference.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Capt. Obvious on Monday August 22 2016, @07:43PM

      by Capt. Obvious (6089) on Monday August 22 2016, @07:43PM (#391839)

      Taxis have to do a lot of high cost things, like have a certain number of handicap accessible cabs. They have to provide various unprofitable community services. If Uber is going to cherry-pick the profitable parts of the taxi service, they should have to subsidize the unprofitable parts... just like the taxi companies do.

      • (Score: 2) by tftp on Tuesday August 23 2016, @04:05AM

        by tftp (806) on Tuesday August 23 2016, @04:05AM (#391989) Homepage

        This amounts to off the books, hidden, uncontrollable tax on all taxicab passengers, so that the society can provide transportation to those who are less fortunate.

        It would be far more honest to (a) tax everyone to raise that money, (b) subsidize transportation needs of disabled people, and (c) report to the taxpayers all of the above, so that they can decide if they want this subsidy, and if yes - how much.

        It makes no sense to let the taxicab company or a clerk in the city hall to be a tax collector and an issuer of benefits to some people, with no oversight.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Capt. Obvious on Tuesday August 23 2016, @04:52AM

          by Capt. Obvious (6089) on Tuesday August 23 2016, @04:52AM (#391999)

          It's not off the books. There's a taxi commission everywhere that sets the rates. They do that knowing the various costs. And it makes sense because it localizes the costs/revenues of the taxi service in a few line items. The USPS's profitable routes subsidize delivering the mail to farms. That's just how public enterprises are set up.

          If someone really has a bee in their bonnet, they can petition their government to change the fares/requirements on the taxi service. I don't see why a complex issue should be phrased solely as a cost. Yes, it's not all spelled out in the way that you care about, and the way you may want to sell changing it. But the info is there, you could rewrite it. And I would prefer to hear two facts like "1 in 10 taxis can handle a disabled person" and "taxi's have a 5% profit on capital" than to combine them in a way that holds all other things constant, even if they aren't, just so you can say "every time you take a cab, 5% is subsidizing a disabled person, 2% subsidizing X...."

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @08:30PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @08:30PM (#391870)

      Massachusetts is nearly pure democrat in every way except for one oddity: they often choose a token republican to supposedly run the state.

      It's always a RINO, a Republican In Name Only. Maybe it's like affirmative action for political parties. Maybe the idea is that the difference of party puts at least a tiny limit on the crazy. In any case, the governor is barely a republican, and he's alone. When bills show up for him to sign, it's take-it-or-leave-it plus the obvious fact that a veto is trivial to override.

    • (Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Monday August 22 2016, @10:13PM

      by GungnirSniper (1671) on Monday August 22 2016, @10:13PM (#391897) Journal

      In Massachusetts our Republicans are the equivalent of Kansas Democrats. Sure they talk to the national talking points, but in practice they are the "light" version of the majority party.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @08:38PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @08:38PM (#392287)

        How terrible, to actually pay attention to the needs and wishes of your constituents rather than toe a national party line while ignoring the people you're elected to serve.

        Though fwiw, Baker's stance on gun control is pretty heinous for a supposed republican. He makes Bernie Sanders seem like a right wing gun nut.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @10:27PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @10:27PM (#391901)

      Where's that '-1, false equivalence' mod when you need it?

    • (Score: 2) by cykros on Tuesday August 23 2016, @08:28PM

      by cykros (989) on Tuesday August 23 2016, @08:28PM (#392279)

      For what it's worth, the whole taxi system is already interfered with by government, in the form of the artificially scarce taxi medallions, which, like liquor licenses in some areas, are routinely treated as a commodity, to be auctioned off to the highest bidder, and generally serve mostly to make it hard to enter the taxi business.

      This is entirely the wrong direction though. The taxi drivers to some extent have a right to be annoyed, having been unfairly made to jump through hoops to get where they are now, but rather than tax the ride share services, the whole medallion model should be scrapped in favor of a system of regulation (let's face it; the masses want at least some modicum of safety checks for people assigned to driving drunk college students around at 2 am) that is fair all around. The idea that a cab driver should have to pay a couple hundred grand to do what an uber driver does by downloading an app is a problem, but this isn't the solution. At the very least, there should be no cap on the number of medallions available, so that the cost for entering the business remains flat, rather than favoring those long entrenched at the severe expense to any new players and innovation in general. We've been seeing this shift in Massachusetts with liquor licenses in various municipalities (Cambridge, for instance, requested that the state remove the population-based limit on number of licenses as set by early 20th century anti-Irish/Italian immigrant legislation), with the overall effect being good. The only real thing holding this back is the amount of pushback by those clinging to their medallions and liquor licenses as commodities, and the lack of public awareness or care over how the whole system is set up. A lot more than we're often used to seeing happen in our modern democracy could actually be accomplished here with a relatively small scale media campaign due to how much this system is really only serving the interests of a few while the vast majority would benefit from it being overhauled.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @05:22PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @05:22PM (#391735)

    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.

    What's so wrong about the quoted thing again? (Don't drag in the you-gotta-pay-a-million-dollars-to-get-a-badge thing because I'm not quoting that...)

    With everyone being on JavaScript, isn't duck-typing the thing to do for cool kids? If you look like a duck/taxi, act like a duck/taxi, sound like a duck/taxi or smell like a duck/taxi, you *are* a taxi!

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday August 22 2016, @05:34PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 22 2016, @05:34PM (#391743) Journal

      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.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @06:03PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @06:03PM (#391758)

        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

          by archfeld (4650) <treboreel@live.com> on Monday August 22 2016, @06:36PM (#391790) Journal

          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

            by migz (1807) on Monday August 22 2016, @07:42PM (#391837)

            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

              by Francis (5544) on Monday August 22 2016, @08:05PM (#391854)

              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

                by migz (1807) on Monday August 22 2016, @08:25PM (#391866)

                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

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @09:55PM (#391891)

                  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

                  by Francis (5544) on Monday August 22 2016, @10:38PM (#391905)

                  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

                    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?

                    • (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
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @08:34PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @08:34PM (#391872)

                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

                  by Francis (5544) on Monday August 22 2016, @10:41PM (#391906)

                  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

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 23 2016, @12:58AM (#391954) Journal

                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

                  by Francis (5544) on Tuesday August 23 2016, @01:53AM (#391961)

                  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

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 23 2016, @02:26AM (#391969) Journal

                    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

                      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @02:44AM (#391977)

                      I modded you insightful solely for this line here :

                      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: 2) by archfeld on Monday August 22 2016, @09:23PM

              by archfeld (4650) <treboreel@live.com> on Monday August 22 2016, @09:23PM (#391885) Journal

              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 Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @11:04PM (#391918)

                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

                  by archfeld (4650) <treboreel@live.com> on Tuesday August 23 2016, @03:47PM (#392178) Journal

                  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

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @07:16PM (#391823)

          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

            by MostCynical (2589) on Monday August 22 2016, @08:08PM (#391857) Journal

            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

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @07:58PM (#391849)

          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

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @10:47PM (#391912)

        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]

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @06:36PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @06:36PM (#391788)

      Taxis can pick up fares off the street. Uber cannot. This is the key distinction between a taxi service and a private car-for-hire service (which existed long before Uber). If you don't like Uber, either change that distinction (and deal with all the unintended consequences), or impose additional regulation on car-for-hire services.

      I wonder why all these pro-regulation jerks are, in fact, too dumb to recognize a basic legal distinction; perhaps those who want more regulation are exactly the type of people who will spew a bunch of hot air on a topic they know nothing about...

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday August 22 2016, @09:45PM

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Monday August 22 2016, @09:45PM (#391888) Journal

        Taxis can pick up fares off the street. Uber cannot. This is the key distinction between a taxi service and a private car-for-hire service (which existed long before Uber). If you don't like Uber, either change that distinction (and deal with all the unintended consequences), or impose additional regulation on car-for-hire services.

        While that is true in most places, "car-for-hire" services (sometimes known as livery services) are generally regulated pretty strongly too, often requiring drivers to be specially licensed, to carry adequate insurance, etc. Uber and Lyft have historically fought to be exempt from these regulations in many municipalities too. (In fact, if you search for most major U.S. cities, you'll find that the regulations for taxis and livery services are part of one big set of mostly overlapping regulations.)

        In many cases the regulations to be licensed for "for-hire" and livery cars are more draconian than for taxicabs. Depending on the municipality, often the cars have to undergo the same sorts of inspections, registrations, driver background checks, etc. that taxicabs do PLUS agree to additional fee regulations (like a minimum charge per ride, which might be $40+), pre-booking, sometimes with a minimum booking time (often a few hours notice, sometimes 8 or more hours in advance is required), etc. Since "livery" regulations were traditionally aimed at limo services and other more elite driver services, the vehicle regulations for "for-hire" cars in some cities are even stricter, specifying things like greater legroom, etc.

        So, no, Uber and Lyft generally do NOT want to claim to be "private car-for-hire" services, since in many cities that would make the regulations even worse (or at least incompatible with their business model). This isn't true in every city, but it's true in a lot of places.

        (Note: I'm not arguing in favor of these regulations, only pointing out that claiming to be "car-for-hire" instead of "ride-sharing" doesn't magically make Uber or Lyft exempt from regulations either.)

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @10:50PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @10:50PM (#391914)

        Taxis can pick up fares off the street. Uber cannot.

        Not so much.

        1. Stand in the street
        2. Take out your phone
        3. Open Uber app
        4. Request a car
        ....
        n. Uber profits!

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday August 22 2016, @07:15PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Monday August 22 2016, @07:15PM (#391822)

      With everyone being on JavaScript, isn't duck-typing the thing to do for cool kids? If you look like a duck/taxi, act like a duck/taxi, sound like a duck/taxi or smell like a duck/taxi, you *are* a taxi!

      No, duck typing is an AND conditional. If you use OR, anything that satisfies any one of those things is suddenly a duck.

      P.S. also I don't like duck-typing :P

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @12:36AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @12:36AM (#391946)

    Tax the poors (people who have no full-time chauffeur) and give to the rich (medallion holders).