It's articles like these that make me wonder how many ridiculous laws there are that are not in the public consciousness. How can this possibly help make our lives better?
Like removing dead code.
We don't need the "citizens cannot keep goats on Tuesdays" type laws. And then we can graduate to the insidious stuff.
How does one define "support"?
I'm not convinced. What does the hour pre-booking requirement in Miami do to prevent previous abuses? What does the business test that drivers have to pass in Germany do to prevent previous abuses? What does NYC's 30+ day process to get the correct license do to prevent previous abuses? These all seem like laws regulating taxi-like services only for the benefit of making taxis more competitive.
The taxi industry in NYC has given the mayor over $500,000. Presumably they're looking to get laws passed (like the proposed cap on uber) in order to protect themselves, not to prevent abuses that previously existed. Maybe it's helpful to talk about what the previous abuses were, and then look at what are the best solutions to that in a world where everyone has smartphones. I'm not convinced that all (or even most) of the regulations out there are to prevent previous abuses, but maybe I'm missing something here.
You say this as if Uber isn't heavily involved in lobbying for their own benefit.
I'll consider Uber to be on a level-playing field when I can be certain that any car I climb into has the proper insurance required for transporting people commercially. Right now it seems like Uber is putting that responsibility on the drivers themselves (which, I suppose, is their right). But I believe that's a huge cost advantage (with associated externalities when someone is hurt badly).
No. I say it to point out that there are laws that aren't for the public good. At that point, we're free to have an open discussion about which laws are for the public good and which aren't. If we start by assuming all laws are enacted to prevent previous abuses, we miss a key point here.
They ask questions like "What insurance do I need?" and "Which taxes do I need to pay?". All those things Uber is good at...
The test was introduced after many small taxi companies failed to do even the most basic accounting. Not every driver needs to pass these tests but the employer. If you claim your drivers are all "independent" contractors, well that's another problem.
Striking taxi drivers was nothing new–the first strike took place in 1908, a year after the first taxi company was founded. But this strike had a hostile energy to it, as strikers went hunting for scabs to punish. As one driver put it, “the bastids that was scabbin’, we pulled the doors off their cabs.” Independent cab owners, who had nothing to gain by striking, had their windows smashed by blocks of ice and passengers thrown from their cabs. Police who tried restore order had their tires slashed and marbles thrown under their horses.
When you pre-arrange the ride through a third party, to obviates most of the potential for abuse that led to cries for taxi regulation:
- There's nothing to rob since payment is handled elsewhere.
- Ditto for the issue of overcharging or deceiving a customer.
- The driver is authenticated when your booking is confirmed ('look for a guy with this license plate ...') so you're not just getting into a random person's car.
- The passenger asks for it so they're not getting pressured by some rando with a car.
- There's a record of who was paired with whom so if someone goes missing, you know where to look.
So it doesn't make sense to object to Uber/Lyft because of some image of what gypsy cabs were like.