But why should any company be forced to provide services to drunk people? The government intervention here is the unfair bit.
“Oooo sorry Jim, there’s no money to be made in cancer patients.
The government has an interest in people having access taxi services 24/7 because it prevents DUIs and licensure/regulations is the means to ensure that.
“Well the government should provide that transportation then.” — They are via this regulation.
They should not, unless hospitals have the power to tax. Or the hospital is getting reimbursed by the government.
>“Well the government should provide that transportation then.” — They are via this regulation.
Politicians like to do it via mandates for businesses because they can avoid being responsible for problems and have a convenient third party to blame. It also avoids them having to increase taxes.
The important thing is the price for a hospital being able to provide highly qualified team of workers and equipment 24/7 to treat patients should not be obfuscated. It is valuable information for how many more hospitals/doctors/research/ whatever is needed and which kind of work society should incentivize people to do.
My guess is that governments have interest in making sure services are safe and reliable. Hence licenses. And rules for those licenses.
With a private pilots license you can't fly for money, but you can take your friends and family with you.
With a commercial pilots license you can fly for money.
Neither of these are capped, a commercial pilots license just requires slightly more education and experience. Why should licensing for taxis be any different?
For small private planes? Slots are hardly ever the limiting factor.
Taxis are more like private jets than Airbuses carrying hundreds of pax.
While taxis aren't as good for society as buses, they still reduce the total amount of car infrastructure required. The slot comparison doesn't seem apt.
No they don't. They choke up the most costly piece of car infrastructure - road space in the very centre of cities.
If I drive myself to somewhere in the centre, my car will sit there using up space while I'm doing my thing. If I use a taxi, the same car that delivered me will serve other people while I'm doing my thing.
Of course it would be even better if I used public transport, but I'm not going to do that because public transport is uncomfortable at best.
In the absence of terrible laws, it'll be stored somewhere that's more space-efficient (e.g. in a multistory car-park) compared to a taxi cruising around the main streets looking for fares.
But uber ignored all that anyway.
Just like you'd get in trouble for driving a car with a motorcycle license.
But that same agency didn't do shit to Uber for operation of a taxi service without meeting the requirements.
Going after the little people is easy, but give up when the target has a bunch of VC money and lawyers.
We have a similar problem with our courier drivers. Everyone is "totally not an employee, they run their own independent business".
Why should this enforcement be outsourced to Uber?