On one hand the taxi monopoly is certainly something which has to be reconsidered, on the other hand I'm not sure UberX screening and insurance is sufficient.
For similar reasons, I'm also pretty sure the insurance situation is solid. In direct contrast to Uber, where they actively disclaim any responsibility for their cars and drivers.
There are a lot of problems with the taxi industry. It's in deep need of reform. But in my view, Uber's cure is worse than the disease.
>>> Good luck doing that with some rando driving for Uber, though.
Why? Every driver is identified and known, and Uber has a lot of incentive to weed out bad drivers, especially when they are just starting the service and couple of bad reviews can kill adoption for a whole market. What incentive Uber has to support bad service? I can tell one incentive for city politicians to do it - taxi lobbyists pay into their campaign funds, and you do not (at least not as much, unless you are Zuckerberg, in which case you probably have your own limo anyway), so who has more influence on them?
>>> For similar reasons, I'm also pretty sure the insurance situation is solid.
Because Uber just dreams about uninsured million-dollar lawsuit. Nothing inspires investors to invest into a young business as much as an uninsured risk of a million-dollar lawsuits, right? And Uber doesn't care about investors or risks - unlike city politicians whose very future is linked to the fact whether city would be sued or not, since lawsuit cost comes out of their pockets... Oh wait, I got it in reverse - city politician could not care less if the city is sued since taxpayers would pay it anyway, while Uber guys risk their own money and their investors money. Yet somehow you trust more the guy who uses your money to insure your risks and has zero incentive to preserve it and large incentive to follow lobby interests over guy who uses their own money and has large incentive to preserve it. I wonder how it works out for you.
>>> But in my view, Uber's cure is worse than the disease.
Worse in what? Of course, if you refuse to trust anything that does not say "State Commission" and is not rules by an unaccountable bureaucrat, then every cure would be worse than the disease for you. However, do not be very surprised if you find no cures at all, because you seem to be insisting on having the disease as a precondition to finding the cure.
Because every taxi is marked with a number that I can see. Uber cars are just random cars. And Uber is just one of many services employing any warm body they can find.
The rest seems like generic Argument From Libertarian Fantasy, with the apparently requisite bad grammar and bad-faith assumptions about my views. And of course it's from someone who won't publicly stand behind their arguments.
>>> with the apparently requisite bad grammar
Yes, English is not my native language. You caught me. This invalidates all my arguments, of course. You won, take a cookie.
Not in my city. And many Uber cars display no logo at all.
> Yes, English is not my native language. You caught me. This invalidates all my arguments, of course. You won, take a cookie.
It is regrettably also how loons write. When combined with their typical arguments, it is going to get you written off as a loon. One way to fix this is to stand behind your words and just say something about yourself in your profile.
Wait, in your city cars don't have license plates? Which city is that?
I usually have no way to know which cars are Uber cars. Thus my point about lack of accountability.
If you're really having trouble understanding how this is a difference in accountability, I think I'm going back to my "anonymous loon" theory.
As for big logos, they are useless if you are not using the service - since then you have no reason to complain about it - and when you're using it you know how the specific car you're using looks like, so why you need the logo?
>>> I usually have no way to know which cars are Uber cars.
If you are using one, you do. If not, why would you need to know that?
>>> I think I'm going back to my "anonymous loon" theory.
If my arguments cause you mental anguish and you can not resolve it by finding counter arguments, it is always soothing to mark the opponent as "anonymous loon". I'm totally fine with it, if it makes you feel better. My arguments do not become worse because somebody on the internet failed to address them and resorted to name calling and focusing on my grammar, which is the lowest level of discussion above name calling.
It's almost like you didn't read my original comment here, the one where I said "If I see [a taxi driver] behaving badly, I call up the city taxi commission and let 'em know."
Which is an actual thing I actually do. Because it turns out private cars use public roads, ones other humans also have to get around on.
> My arguments do not become worse because somebody on the internet failed to address them
Statistically, they probably do. Sometimes people stop dialog because the thoughtful, reasoned, evidence-backed propositions make them realized they are wrong. Most of the time, though, it's people saying, "Well, I guess I have better things to do than argue with some anonymous goof with an axe to grind and no interest in understanding what I might have to say."
Your bad grammar doesn't make you wrong. But that plus the fundamentalist libertarian idiocy makes you look like a sort of wrong person common on Hacker News. If you don't want to be mistaken for one of those people, you'll have to try harder.
I thought you meant behaving badly while providing service. You mean just generally behaving badly, like spitting on puppies and cussing at nuns? Why you need to call taxi commission about it? If he's doing something illegal or disturbing the peace, call the police. If not, why you need to call anybody at all?
>>> Because it turns out private cars use public roads, ones other humans also have to get around on.
In other words, you like to control people around you, and not having everybody wear a number and a phone that you can use to tell on them disturbs you. I find that sentiment hard to sympathize with, sorry. People sometimes do behave badly, but they have no obligation to provide you with a phone number to tell on them.
>>> But that plus the fundamentalist libertarian idiocy
And here we are back to name calling. Take another cookie!
I like that in your world there is only "illegal" and "perfectly fine", with nothing in between. You should write about your homeland. Dystopian fantasy novels are so popular lately.
> People sometimes do behave badly, but they have no obligation to provide you with a phone number to tell on them.
People in general don't. People providing certain regulated services in fact do, at least around here. We like it that way.
> And here we are back to name calling. Take another cookie!
No, when I say "idiocy" I'm mocking your ridiculous ideas. If I'd meant to call you names, I would have said you were an idiot.