4 ms·

> head back to their garages after each fare What an odd rule in general

by kennydude 11y ago

sithadmin 11y ago
Protectionism at its finest.
- imglorp 11y ago
  In the bigger picture, no one benefits from protecting a failed business model. In the long run it even hurts the dinosaurs being protected.
FussyZeus 11y ago
You would think Parisians would oppose that since it increases the distance traveled by the vehicles which ramps up emissions for literally no good reason at all.
- Retric 11y ago
  Taxi regulations where added for a host of really good reasons. This 'rule' is likely an exception for non Taxi companies which Uber is abusing. As to pollution, it's common for taxi's to circulate on public roads while waiting for a fair. So, forcing people to go park may be better from a pollution standpoint.
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    In my experience (unless weather is a factor) most taxi's will park where fares may show up and wait with the engine off, but even if they leave it running idle, idle still uses much less fuel than traveling to the given home, which could be literally anywhere in comparison to where the vehicle is when it drops off a fare, or goes to where a fare may be found.
    - sheepdestroyer 11y ago
      In Japan, taxis do park opportunistically, waiting for customers ; but they let their engines run. All the time, winter like summer. Even when they leave the car to go for a piss/coffee/cigarette at the next convenience store.
  - SilasX 11y ago
    Park, yes, return to HQ, no. See my sibling comment about the logic behind the regulation and a better way to meet its goal: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10981731 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10981731
  - eloisant 11y ago
    Regulating taxis is good. Not issuing new taxi medaillons, creating a lack of taxis in Paris and making taxi drivers slaves to taxi companies (like G7) who rent them the medaillons (or slaves to banks when they have to pay back a huge loan to buy their own on the black market) is not. It's not good for consumers, it's not good for taxi drivers, it's only good for monopolistic taxi companies. Yet the drivers don't understand that and think their enemy is Uber.
    - Retric 11y ago
      The public benefits somewhat from by reducing the amount of taxi on the street due to external factors (pollution, accidents, congestion etc). The problem, is taxi companies benefit by further constricting supply beyond that point and regulatory capture means incumbents have far to much say. IMO, rather than let some companies sidestep the market by pretending not to be taxi while acting like taxi the correct solution is to issue more Taxi Medallions.
SilasX 11y ago
To put on my charitable hat for a minute ... I assume the reason for this law is part of an attempt to distinguish call-a-ride services (that can't accept line-of-sight street hails) from taxis (which can). The fear would then be that someone doing the former can do some of the nuisance stuff associated with the latter, but without passing the appropriate regulatory hurdles -- i.e., they might cruise around hoping to be near a ride, which medallion limits exist to prevent. Even then, I would think regulators would adapt this kind of thing to a world where a call-a-ride car is very likely to be near a person who specifically asks for them. At the very least, they should change it to something like, "you have to be pulled over when looking for rides". (Admittedly, that's all speculation.)
- adevine 11y ago
  > i.e., they might cruise around hoping to be near a ride, which medallion limits exist to prevent. I'd be interested to see how the extra traffic caused by drivers cruising around compares to the extra traffic caused by drivers needing to drive back to a garage, only to be called out again.
jngreenlee 11y ago
In networking terms...Analogous to having to send and receive traffic from localhome after each external packet received, no?
- Sir_Cmpwn 11y ago
  Not really relatable to networking terms. That analogy doesn't accurately convey the idea.

> head back to their garages after each fare What an odd rule in general

sithadmin 11y ago

Protectionism at its finest.

imglorp 11y ago
In the bigger picture, no one benefits from protecting a failed business model. In the long run it even hurts the dinosaurs being protected.

FussyZeus 11y ago

You would think Parisians would oppose that since it increases the distance traveled by the vehicles which ramps up emissions for literally no good reason at all.

Retric 11y ago
Taxi regulations where added for a host of really good reasons. This 'rule' is likely an exception for non Taxi companies which Uber is abusing. As to pollution, it's common for taxi's to circulate on public roads while waiting for a fair. So, forcing people to go park may be better from a pollution standpoint.
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  In my experience (unless weather is a factor) most taxi's will park where fares may show up and wait with the engine off, but even if they leave it running idle, idle still uses much less fuel than traveling to the given home, which could be literally anywhere in comparison to where the vehicle is when it drops off a fare, or goes to where a fare may be found.
  - sheepdestroyer 11y ago
    In Japan, taxis do park opportunistically, waiting for customers ; but they let their engines run. All the time, winter like summer. Even when they leave the car to go for a piss/coffee/cigarette at the next convenience store.
- SilasX 11y ago
  Park, yes, return to HQ, no. See my sibling comment about the logic behind the regulation and a better way to meet its goal: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10981731 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10981731
- eloisant 11y ago
  Regulating taxis is good. Not issuing new taxi medaillons, creating a lack of taxis in Paris and making taxi drivers slaves to taxi companies (like G7) who rent them the medaillons (or slaves to banks when they have to pay back a huge loan to buy their own on the black market) is not. It's not good for consumers, it's not good for taxi drivers, it's only good for monopolistic taxi companies. Yet the drivers don't understand that and think their enemy is Uber.
  - Retric 11y ago
    The public benefits somewhat from by reducing the amount of taxi on the street due to external factors (pollution, accidents, congestion etc). The problem, is taxi companies benefit by further constricting supply beyond that point and regulatory capture means incumbents have far to much say. IMO, rather than let some companies sidestep the market by pretending not to be taxi while acting like taxi the correct solution is to issue more Taxi Medallions.

SilasX 11y ago

To put on my charitable hat for a minute ... I assume the reason for this law is part of an attempt to distinguish call-a-ride services (that can't accept line-of-sight street hails) from taxis (which can). The fear would then be that someone doing the former can do some of the nuisance stuff associated with the latter, but without passing the appropriate regulatory hurdles -- i.e., they might cruise around hoping to be near a ride, which medallion limits exist to prevent. Even then, I would think regulators would adapt this kind of thing to a world where a call-a-ride car is very likely to be near a person who specifically asks for them. At the very least, they should change it to something like, "you have to be pulled over when looking for rides". (Admittedly, that's all speculation.)

adevine 11y ago
> i.e., they might cruise around hoping to be near a ride, which medallion limits exist to prevent. I'd be interested to see how the extra traffic caused by drivers cruising around compares to the extra traffic caused by drivers needing to drive back to a garage, only to be called out again.

jngreenlee 11y ago

In networking terms...Analogous to having to send and receive traffic from localhome after each external packet received, no?

Sir_Cmpwn 11y ago
Not really relatable to networking terms. That analogy doesn't accurately convey the idea.