3 ms·
(arguably) less safety. I don't even think this is arguable - there is literally nothing that owning a taxi medallion does to improve safety.
by djrogers 11y ago
(arguably) less safety.
I don't even think this is arguable - there is literally nothing that owning a taxi medallion does to improve safety.
- Spooky23 11y agoThat's a ridiculous statement. The power to shut down a business gives a regulator a lot of power to do things like improve safety. In NYC, the Taxi and Limousine Commisson is a strong regulator the does a bunch of things to improve safety. Just because your city sucks and doesn't do it's job doesn't mean that the solution is to hope that Uber's army of independent contractors maintains their cars.
- SilasX 11y agoThe GP's point (under the most charitable interpretation) is that safety regulation is orthogonal to medallion limits. You can revoke someone's permission to drive for hire without also placing a limit on the total number of people who can drive for hire. Indeed, this is the typical model in Germany (IIRC): anyone who meets the standards and doesn't mess up can be a cab driver.
- djrogers 11y ago* The power to shut down a business gives a regulator a lot of power to do things like improve safety. * That can easily be done without the government provided monopoly of taxi medallions. Medallions (or any other form of monopoly granting) aren't required for regulation, enforcement, or any other aspect of keeping the public safe.
- Spooky23 11y agoSo, you don't think having 10x more cabs in midtown manhattan would cause potential safety problems? Taxis are a shitty business, no doubt, but replacing a government medallion with a corporate medallion isn't a solution. Uber has the valuation they have because after they kill off the competition, they'll limit the supply of rides and jack up the cost.