Hey, there! Log in / Register
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Adam I take your for more of
Adam I take your for more of a taxi guy. No?
No
No.
"Taxis, Uber always a debate"
Except when you're the consumer.
FTFY
Take your pick.
Ooooh.... someone just took a
Ooooh.... someone just took a dip in the ocean because you are salty.
Somebody call the licensing
Somebody call the licensing board!
Uninformed Consumer?
Really, is that why people are abandoning traditional taxis for a faster, more convenient, pleasant experience.
Risk Taker?
Obviously the taxis industry is trying to eliminate risk. So your point is mute.
Business models evolve over time and technology has helped to increase the rate of growth/change exponentially. But i guess you're tying this on a typewriter and still dial out using an operator.
Okay, I'll bite
Yes. Because when you get into a licensed hackney cab, you're betting that the driver has at least the minimum insurance, which might cover possibly up to $25k in the likely event that something goes wrong. But as the Globe showed, that doesn't often go very smoothly, so take the risk that nothing bad will happen!
Kinda like how cabs just lerv the out of towners who don't realize that when the credit card machine is "broken" they are technically not allowed to drive and the ride is free. Or how our streets are kinda tough to navigate if you're not from around here, and how easy it is to add another coupla bucks onto the fare with that "shortcut." Nothing pisses of a taxi driver than an empower consumer who knows their rights as a passenger and doesn't get screwed around.
Right. Because the regulation and taxation that exists in the medallion industry is completely for the benefit of the consumer. *rolls eyes so far back in his head he passes out*
Kinda like how cabs just lerv
I'm not even an out of towner and I didn't know this. Does it state in the law that the ride is free if the cabbie drives you with a broken credit card machine? I wish I knew about this before I switched to taking Ubers instead of cabs.
Somebody correct me if I have the particulars wrong
But essentially, in the City of Boston at least (because one of the most ass-backwards part of the entire hackney/medallion business is the fact that each G--Da-- city has its own system and drivers can't pick up in other cities when places like Somerville and Cambridge are interchangeable geographically holy shit I got started on this already) a cab must be fully-operational to be allowed on the road. When Boston required cabs to take credit cards and have functioning machines, that became as much a part of the rule as if their steering wheel was missing.
So if it isn't working, the cab itself shouldn't be on the road in the first place and wasn't technically allowed to take you. Thus you don't owe for the ride (or, more specifically, the driver has no complaint if you don't pay, since they are already breaking the law).
It's a dick move, yes, but the moment you let them now that a broken credit card machine means they shouldn't have even picked you up, can you share your license number so I can report it, etc, the machine starts to miraculously "work" again.
The first time you challenge a driver with this is a little nerve-wracking, I'll admit, but if we all did it they'd stop trying to get away with it. Remember: they got an obscene rate hike when the requirement for machines was passed, specifically to cover these costs. They can take their complaints about the "cost" of accepting cards and shove it for all I care, seeing as they are charging me more than $30 for a ten-minute ride that would cost $12 in NYC.
Complain all you want
You don't like cabs? Think the drivers suck? Think the owners suck? Think their behaviors are offensive to your very being?
Great. I don't give a flying fuck. My point is whether Uber is something to be promoted as the alternative or not.
Did I say that the cab industry is a shining example that Uber isn't living up to? Did I say that cabs are following every law to the letter of it right this very second? Did I say "we must have the regulation and taxation of the cab industry applied to Uber? No. Don't put words in my mouth. The corn is harvested, stop erecting scarecrows just to knock them down.
What I said is that consumers using Uber aren't informed of the risks they're taking. When you sign up for Uber to escape the cab industry, any concerns for your safety as a rider in someone else's vehicle are BURIED in the fine print. You don't have any visibility as to whether the driver is actually in compliance with Uber's contractor requirement that they maintain proper insurance. Uber's policies only pick up if the driver is in compliance with their own policies (which means they have to pay for commercial coverage as most personal coverage will be canceled upon learning the accident was while being an Uber driver). Uber doesn't require you to confirm your driver is who he says he is via photo ID in order to start the fare. They provide you information, but if it doesn't match, you don't have to report the driver/owner/whomever. NYC is the only city that uses their required Taxi/Limo Commission's background process for all Uber drivers as well. That's bypassed when friends let friends use their Uber account (happens all the time, riders don't harsh their buzz or don't even notice). There's no regulations on how long an UberX driver is allowed to continuously operate per day nor even if there were would you have any way of knowing how long they've worked since they're their own boss and there's nothing that forces Uber to tell you if they're likely to be safe driving or not. There's nothing that prevents Uber drivers from colluding to create artificial surge zones by staying off each other's turf. There's no regulation on pricing at all such that you can't know how much you'll need to pay until it's too late for it to matter and you have to pay whatever you have to pay. Pricing on Uber is black box and that's bad for economics and marketing and contract workers and the consumer and great for the company (in the short term). Uber is a common carrier (whether they like it or not) but they've segmented the public into those with smartphones and those without. It's like charter schools all over again. In places where charter schools are given free reign, they dump the worst kids and cherry pick the best kids. They have no reason not to filter for the kids with the most money, etc. This is a private company providing a public need (transportation) using lots of public resources in a lot of ways. But since drivers can pick and choose fares, they can do things like find out ahead of time that you've got a service dog and refuse to want your service dog in their personal car. Plus I haven't even talked about how screwed you are if an Uber driver hits you (because there's no regulation on being a safe Uber driver) as just some schmo on the street (in your car or not) and the entire insurance coverage situation unravels while your leg/car is flat-busted.
And then let's say you've pressured Uber with lawsuits or even market pressure to solve EVERY single one of these problems for themselves so that these problems and ones I haven't even thought of in the past 15 minutes are all super solved and you're once again able to tout Uber as your savior in personal transportation needs. Here comes Cab-A-Go-Go a new "rideshare" company who will undercut Uber by ignoring every new "feature" you've gotten Uber to agree to. And you're back to square one.
You have no reason to trust Uber to have your best interests at heart. You're underinformed as to what they're willing to cut corners or which risks they push to you or to the driver in order to make a buck. You're underinformed on how and when their prices will change or whether that's Uber's doing, the drivers' doing, or actual market effects. You're taking risks that we as a society should force Uber to take as a function of doing business ethically rather than forcing you to take as a contingency of wanting to escape cabs or mass transit problems (something not everyone has the ability to accept as risks and thus lose access to the public service). Drivers are frequently discussing how to shortcut both the consumer and their contract to pull together more money from a system where they have no protections and take all the employment risk (and thus rightly feel shafted and subsequently are more willing to cut corners on what their employer *does* require of them). And ultimately, we're losing much-needed revenue to keep up all of the public utilities needed to keep Uber undercutting the rest of the transportation industry.
So, you hate cabs? Cabs don't follow any part of what I just mentioned? Great. Beat a drum and fix the cab industry. That's not MY goal. But Uber as it stands isn't the solution and it's just creating new ways to screw everyone but Uber. You just have zero idea the value of how you're being screwed nor the interest in figuring out how to prevent yourself from being screwed evidently because you like the fact that it's "not a cab". Well, I'm glad your stance is that ALL of us have to take the same level of risks that YOU are willing to take because Uber > Cab. So noted. I'd rather we put better rules and enforcement in place to make the whole situation less hairy for EVERYONE even if it means Uber suddenly finds that's not conducive to their model (undercut, random ripoffs as necessary, zero expense on worker safety, etc.). Nothing I'm advocating for would create a situation where a company couldn't make money at personal transportation.
Small point here
I'm not sure why or how charter schools got brought into your reply. But you assertion that they cherry pick students is simply factually incorrect. They do not select students.
Given the gross misinformation that is repeated often enough that it becomes "true," I could not allow this to stand.
Now back to Uber.
Here in MA, you are correct
Charter schools across the nation (particularly in the South) do not operate the same. MANY pick and choose. In fact, it was part of the reason a judge in Washington State just laid the smackdown on charter schools receiving public funding.
Do you know why you're right?
Because we have BETTER REGULATIONS on charter schools than most of the rest of the country. We still don't have the right regulations to prevent things like selective expulsion and other ways they can filter and sift to find their star pupils. ( http://cleweb.org/sites/cleweb.org/files/assets/Legislative/CLE%20charte... ) But we do it better than most. That's still a very small peg with which to hang our hat (and, as an aside, certainly not a clarion call for the mayor to want to put more charters in place). But in context, it's relevant. Charter schools seem like a new concept. They act as though regulations in place for public schools don't apply. They have the same problem all of these "new" unregulated industry leaders have: privatized profit while pushing all the risk and problems onto the public.
You seem like a smart and thoughtful person
I look forward to further discussion of the MA charter schools with you on a more on-point thread.
Almost every single worst
Almost every single worst-case-scenario you bring up here can, and sometimes has already, happened with the traditional taxi industry in some way or another. In fact, many of these situations are the norm in the cab industry. Avoiding maintenance, insurance, bribing to get fares, the industry not protecting the consumer-- these are all things the medallion industry has been doing for years.
Amazingly enough, even though the traditional regulatory process is supposed to ensure a clean, safe, reliable vehicle, I have yet to get into an Uber/UberX/Lyft/etc that gets anywhere near as dirty, malfunctioning, and obviously unsafe as the average cab. And as the Globe's report made clear, that wondrous insurance that the regulatory framework requires is a joke and is open to horrendous outcomes for the rider if anything should go wrong. You complain about Uber riders possibly picking and choosing fares? Have you tried to hail a cab to East Boston or while being non-white?
So to point out opportunities where these are possibilities (or have sometimes occurred) with Uber or other rideshare companies doesn't solve the problem, either. The difference is that there is at least choice, and one that provides different levels of service and cost.
Anyone who thinks any private company has their best interests at heart is a fool, of course. But anyone who thinks Uber is the devil, and that rideshare systems in general are as bad as the worst case scenario that can be dreamed up is over-exaggerating to the extreme.
Jesus, where did you get that? That doesn't even make sense. Think about it. Cabs are awful, but they were the ONLY option until a few years ago. Now there are options. No one is making you take any risk you don't want to-- you're welcome to hail a cab like you've always been able to do. Or live in a bubble unconnected to the world and without taking any risk whatsoever. Or start your own stupid company. What does my support for rideshares have to do with your ability to live your life?
Hm...
I'm very informed that cabs illegally refuse to bring me home on a regular basis (or at least did when I used them), and are some of the most reckless drivers on the road.
I commute from Eastie to Washington Square and back daily, via Storrow and Beacon through Kenmore. The unsafe and illegal shit I see cabs pull every day blows my mind. I'd say on average, I say something to the effect of "wow, did that just happen?" out loud to myself 3 times a day. I especially love the u turns across multiple lanes on Beacon near the Citizens Bank and the Buckminster to pick up at the hotel, the blind merging into traffic from the Hotel Commonwealth, and the weaving in and out of lanes while cutting off as many people as possible approaching Leverett Circle from Storrow EB. A month or so back I even witnessed a cab rip someone's side view mirror off when he cut them off/merged without looking.
And you know what? The people that pull this are still allowed to be cab drivers. Uber and Lyft have very strict policies regarding ratings and it's very easy for them to fade a "bad" driver out. I started the driver process for Lyft (I backed out when I found out my insurance company has a task for just for this) and was surprised at how easy it was to effectively lose your job.
I'll admit that it is not a perfect system, and yes things have happened, but in the grand scheme of things, I still prefer other services to cabs. I'm actually a Lyft fan myself, Uber does't really do it for me. They don't have as big of a presence around here as other cities, but I live by it whenever I'm in San Francisco, and have never had anything but an A+ experience across dozens of rides.
And again, see my statement about ratings. Id be all for uniform vehicle regulations across the board regarding safety features, etc., and background checks are an obvious necessity, but can you honestly say with a straight face that current regulations are making the taxi industry safer?
Bottom line, I'm a consumer making my own choices. Nobody is forcing me to use either service. The fact that I, and countless others, feel more comfortable getting into a complete stranger's personal car than taking a taxi should be speaking volumes, but the opposition just wants to sit there and spew out complaints about regulations instead of addressing the actual problems.
Also...
How is the taxi industry "taxed" and the Uber/Lyft industry "untaxed"? Both pay gas tax, income tax, excise tax.
I think
cabs actually are taxed in a way that ridehails aren't, similar to the way Air BnB was skirting taxes that hotels pay. The latter is starting to be addressed across the country, and I think we'll see the same thing with services like Uber within the next year or two.
Uber drivers are not paying income tax
Uber doesn't withhold because the drivers are contract employees. Not only do most drivers choose not to report, but Uber and the IRS don't make it easy for them to report at all as they have to derive their net from the gross because Uber is using a new 1099 format to report (as if the drivers are online retailers and not contract employees). That form only requires Uber to put how much was pulled in to Uber via that contractor, not how much Uber then actually gave back to the contractor which makes a mess. Plus it would require quarterly reporting and so on.
Most treat it like cash under the table and know the IRS (let alone the state) has nowhere near the manpower to chase down every single UberX driver.
And the rest of us taxpayers pay for it...
...with a 50% reduction in our taxi bills. I'll take it.
That's on the drivers and governments
Is it legal for companies like Uber to use this 1099 form?
Yes? Then Uber is doing nothing wrong, and maybe the government should disallow this.
No? Then maybe the government should levy some fines.
And even if Uber is only reporting their cut from an individual driver, it's pretty easy to reverse calculate the amount that driver earned based on Uber's 30% cut. Uber made $3000 off of a driver last year? Driver made $10k. Now, there is is the issue of Uber's cut decreasing if a certain number of rides are given, but if the IRS can't figure it out and people are getting away with it, maybe the IRS has a problem that needs to be addressed.
It's a good thing regulations prevent cabbies from giving rides for cash with the meter off though...
"oh no"...
I forgot to turn the meter on....just pay me what you think it would be.
Do what?
Great. We're on the same side then. Smart regulations that protect the government from obfuscation by company accountants and give the contract employee an easy path to reporting are what are needed. But are you for Uber (don't regulate us, man!) or regulations?
Also, you're idea that the IRS should know Uber's internal machinations in order to figure out what a contract employee should be reporting is the backwards way to go about it! The IRS shouldn't have to reverse engineer anything. It should be told by income earner what the earner made and how much the earner thinks they have to pay based on that. And it should be told by the person paying the earner how much was sent the earner's way as a simple auditing check and balance. Anything deeper than that into the company's books are bad for both the IRS to have to deal with and the company for giving away/compiling too much info to need to hand over to the government.
Right now, Uber tells the government an impossible to use number for the government to use and gives that same number to its employee who has to basically correct the number immediately and then figure everything out on their own from there because the IRS and tax prep organizations would otherwise work from the wrong number. All so Uber doesn't have to do any of the legwork.
you're kind of right
If they're allowing the 1099 you speak of to be used, and there are (alleged) issues of drivers not paying, then yes, it is on the IRS if they want to recover that money.
Have another lie while you're at it!
"Uber drivers are not paying income tax"
What you're saying is that every. single. Uber driver cheats on their taxes? Is that based on proof, or just your own personal opinion devoid of any factual basis?
So, should we then say that waiting tables is a field where every single server cheats on reporting all of their tips, and thus they add zero value to the economy or society?
Or that other tip-based, self-reported income sources are all, 100% non-reported?
Or do you really just hate Uber?
I don't hate Uber
I hate that Uber (and its fandom) operates as if it's improved the situation when all its done is transferred the problems away to much BIGGER aspects of the system. It's a prime example of what happens when you unhook the regulations. They will do and say anything to make money at everyone else's risk and expense while masquerading as an example of "how to do it right". I'd love to dismantle the medallion system in favor of something else. Uber is NOT the something else that fits what we need right now. It could be with the right structure in place to keep it from acting unethically to its benefit and our pain. But it's arguing the exact opposite and, again, whatever we can get them to agree to means NOTHING to the next company to come along and try the same shit.
http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1947&context...
Oh, and here's a source for you to pour through (I did). The "tax gap" and "tax opportunism" are problems with independent contractor vs. employee designations that go all the way back to the 80's when companies started dismantling their obligations by hiring "contractors" rather than "employees". The IRS tries to do its best to force companies to correctly classify its employees. This isn't news.
But it's exacerbated by the "sharing economy" where "contractors" are the norm and they aren't come-and-go and part-time far more than "contractors" were in the 80s meaning an even BIGGER pool of people that the IRS is in need of auditing for compliance and companies like Uber are taking advantage of anything they can do to reduce compliance. That attitude falls onto their "contractors" as a result. We're just learning the tip of the iceberg is there...we have no idea how big the iceberg is under the water yet. But go on independent online forums where sharing economy entrepreneurs are congregating and look at the comments on taxes. If they're not about how to game the system, they're about how they lol at the idea of getting audited over $30,000 of income. NOBODY *likes* paying taxes...and the methods of sharing economy companies either make it easy to avoid paying them or make it hard to comply with paying them so even fewer "contractors" go out of their way to figure out how. This isn't rocket science and it's not just my opinion.
Okay
So what do you think about the bills that Uber and ridesharing companies support? So the situation is a bit wild-west-like right now: what would you suggest they do to change that, other than making the system just a larger medallion one?
Dot Rat's blog post below is a good start
Blow up the medallion system and hold Uber (and all the now unyoked cab companies) to the same high standards with protections for consumers and the rest of us that have to share the streets.
Something like that.
Quick question
Do you honestly think that the "credit card machine is broken" trick is about the fee on the credit card bill?
If so, you are amazingly naive. Underreporting tips is what that's about!
The Free Market System.....
.....Where an educated consumer, is our best customer.
Here a crazy idea
Instead of complaining about Uber, maybe you should be looking at how taxi's can be more competitive. You know like every other business does when facing competition.
FTFY
Except when you are penalized by scarcity artificially created by government action.
Except when you are finally able to escape paying into a protection racket.
The Herald has two short article
Outlining some of the major differences.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/opinion/editorials/2015/09/edit...
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/business_markets/2015/09/ride_haili...
I get the politics
I get the politics surrounding all of this and I understand how taxi drivers feel having their business taken away by a competitor that does not necessarily compete fairly. But the bottom line is the taxi industry did this to itself. If you can't provide a reliable service in a major city, you can expect your customers to look elsewhere.
Remember when gas prices were
Remember when gas prices were around $4 and taxi companies lobbied for and got a base fare price increase? Years later gas is cheaper and the price increase remains. It was about greed, not gas.
And its crazy in 2015 to expect anyone to make a phone call to maybe get a cab to pick you up when you need one.
Same story with bus tickets.
Same story with bus tickets.
If it were up to me
I'd have held the hearing in East Boston. No cab driver could have found it.
For the win!
Spot on.
actually
No, they know where it is, they would just refuse to show up unless you'd
tip thempay a bribe of $20.I've actually had a cabbie
Tell me to take Uber if I'm going to East Boston, because they hate going there. What I would give to have a video of that encounter...
wow
They actually said something to you? All my videos would just have been screeching tires as they pulled away. Though I really would like someone to put together a string of videos showing cab drivers refuse service to EB residents. I'd do it, but I stopped using cabs after being refused rides home over and over, which thankfully coincided with Uber's arrival in Boston.
I figure there will be more and more pressure on cab companies as tenants of Portside and the under-construction New Street project (among the many new developments in the area) are refused rides home.
From the city
Your experience is usually mine.
In this case I was taking an Uber home from Logan, albeit at 1am after a cross country flight that was delayed for a few hours. Normally I would walk, but lived at the top of Eagle Hill at the time and that walk was not happening. The cabbie knew I was waiting for an Uber and tried to give me a hard time until I told him where I was going, and then said they all hated East Boston and encouraged me to keep using Uber for those trips.
United together
At least Uber, Lyft and the Cab companies can agree to one thing: Parking in the bikes lanes it totally not illegal, nope not one bit.
http://i.imgur.com/Le4fNTI.jpg
Well,
the alternative is for the Uber driver to stop in a traffic lane, blocking the flow of traffic and potentially causing issues, to pick a potential passenger (who will have to cross the "bike lane" to get to said Uber vehicle) or the Uber driver can park on the sidewalk, which, I am sure you will agree, is not realistic as well as illegal.
Ya see, in the real world, cars pick up passengers and trucks make deliveries so that means, spin, they might have to move into the (gasp!) bike lane, from time to time, to do so conveniently as well as safely.
The alternative of course
Is parking in the parking spot that is right. next. to. the. car. You know, not break the law?
Another alternative is to turn some these parking spaces to loading/cab zones. We'll need a few of those every block or so, so it'll certainly cut down on available parking. But at least cabs/ubers and such will have a safe place to drop off/pick up, without blocking travel lanes.
So what other laws do you think are optional, in the name of business of course? You got no problem with cyclist running reds? Gotta make that delivery. Or how about trucks speeding? Gotta drop this beer off, no time to follow the law. Texting and driving? Ubers and Cabs need to find their passengers. How about dropping passengers off in the bike lane? Can't worry about dooring cyclists, they have another fare to pickup
Honestly, de facto is what we
Honestly, de facto is what we should look at. De jure law is all nice and pretty, but it's not real life. If everyone follow to the exact wording of the law - in this case travel lane, a lot more traffic, energy, time, and gas would get burned.
Following the current laws would means what I just said, I don't think that price is worth the gains of cyclist just having to go around (and remember, you see my posts in the past over the years that I been around and know my bikes, so don't just dismiss as some guy who don't know bikes).
Changing the laws to the alternatives, I'm not sure is such a good ideas you think. Parking the car lanes, I'm confident that causes far more disruption. Taking out parking sports every block - do you know how many blocks there are? I think you'll be taking out far more spots than you think.
All the scenarios requires sacrificing something for another. And honestly, blocking the bike lane scenario causes the least pain for the most gain.** One of traits of the bike has is flexibility, I think it is better for expectation is the bike to go around than the alternatives.
And if you fixated on that picture, I should mention that it looks really hard to parallel park. The cars on the left would keep that driver from going, even if he does, he could sit there for a while to get the chance.
**This does not mean for all cases. For example, at Warren Towers, would be a much better use to get with the plants for a loading/cab zone than the plants. That place gets blocked at a nearly 100%-of-the-time rate (unless its like 3 am).
De facto you are correct
We can't honestly expect the bike lane to be clear, I think you make compelling arguments that yes, blocking the bike lane is least pain for the most gain.
But that at its heart is the issue. Pain. Or rather, injury. Its not about the blocked bike lane, I can go around. Its about the bad habits people develop because everyone looks at blocking the bike lane as no crime no foul, except when that behavior and blocked infrastructure causes someone to get hurt or killed.
Its about that cab driver who drops off his passengers into the bike lane and they door a cyclist going by.
Its about the Uber driving, looking at his phone and the street addresses to find his pickup, who then swerves into the bike lane "for just a second" without looking and hits a cyclist.
Its about the driver who tailgates/buzzes/hits me because I had the audacity to leave the bike lane when it was blocked.
Its about how this city brags about the amazing cycling infrastructure we have, which is really nothing more than glorified space for double parking. The tiniest little sliver of pavement that we are so graciously given can't be protected, why even have bike lanes?
Photo
Is that image take from a scooter or motorcycle? The screen implies it. Are scooters allowed in the bicycle lane? I know motorcycles aren't, so I'm curious - I don't know the regs on this one.
Bicycle mounted GoPro
Certain motorscooters (I think under 200c) are allowed in the bike lane, I think.
Ah
Got it. That wire is the brake or shift control. I misunderstood it to be the rubber/plastic gasket around the edge of a windscreen and was ready to have a pot meet kettle routine. :)
Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.
Found it
Under 50cc: http://www.cityofboston.gov/transportation/mbikes.asp
Samsonite! I was way off!
Oh wow that is a much lower number, whooops!
Under 50cc AND below 35 mph top speed
It has to qualify for a "motorized bicycle" to be allowed use of the bike lane.
Anything 50cc and above OR with a manufacturer defined top speed above 35 mph becomes a "limited use vehicle" (just like a car except not allowed on a highway). Unless it's able to reach top speeds above 45 mph, at which point it's a "motorcycle" even if it has 3 wheels (for the most part, there gets to be some weirdness in what is a motorcycle versus passenger car based on whole other rules).
I love watching taxi owners/driver complain
before local or state officials and having them have to sit and (appear to) listen. Makes great theater and some of the most torturous testimony they have to sit through.
Said it before, I'll say it again:
Uber is the Napster of taxis.
http://dotrat.com/2014/07/31
http://dotrat.com/2014/07/31/the-uber-perspective/
This is very similar to my views on how we proceed
Nice post from a year ago. Thanks for throwing the link here.
Yup, nailed it. (n/t)
(n/t)
And you'll be wrong again
Uber ain't free, so bad analogy.
Not sure the analogy was
Not sure the analogy was pertaining to the price tag. It was about how a software changed an entire industry but thanks for chiming in Nappy McGenius.
Bogus arguments
The background check thing is bogus. Cab drivers are background checked and they pop up in the news occasionally for all sorts of things. Meanwhile, a taxi hailed on the street is completely anonymous, where with an Uber/Lyft, the company knows EXACTLY which car stopped when, and who it picked up.
This hearing is all about taxis losing business. A self-inflicted wound. And the elected officials who receive the largest donations from the Medalian Owners. (Or possibly, maybe in some of their defense, elected officials who represent large populations of cab drivers).
NYC partially figured this out
By having all "ride sharing" cars register as, and meet the standards of, Black Cars/Limos/"prearranged ride services." So cars and drivers are registered with TLC and have TLC plates. Using TNC services in this context makes me feel better/safer than getting in Joe Schmo's SUV for a ride to Logan. This works because there TLC is a strong regulatory body with a large geographical reach.
By contrast, the Massachusetts "livery" industry seems to be "regulated" at the "state" level and is little more than a license plate that requires you to buy lots of insurance coverage (I'm sure someone will correct me if my view is uninformed or incorrect).
Without a functional regional taxi system inside of 128, and with virtually no state oversight of the livery industry, there is no way this could work in Mass. Unless people wrote and enforced laws, but it sounds like Uber wants to do that for us.
but...
You know you don't HAVE to get in Joe Schmo's car for that right right? You're free to call a taxi, a black car, whatever you'd like. If you're concerned with your safety, you have the right to do whatever you'd like.
Deregulate it all - you
Deregulate it all - you simply can't have a double standard. Give the BPD access to tracking portion of the system. Create a single fee for all drivers to cover the costs of tracking and call it a day.
Report from the hearing
WBUR was there.