3 ms·
> Why? Like, I read the whole article twice, and I'm still confused. It's being presented as "Uber is literally unable to operate with this rule in place", but
by coherentpony 10y ago
> Why? Like, I read the whole article twice, and I'm still confused. It's being presented as "Uber is literally unable to operate with this rule in place", but why? Do they need to fund the background checks? Are they too expensive? Would their drivers refuse to undergo them? Would their drivers fail them? Do taxi companies face the same rules? How is it they can maintain service?
Because proposition 1 contained other parts. Not just the background check stuff: http://kut.org/post/explaining-exactly-what-yes-and-no-vote-prop-1-means http://kut.org/post/explaining-exactly-what-yes-and-no-vote-...
- paulmd 10y agoThey would also have to identify their vehicles with a logo (slap a magnet on the side of the car), avoid obstructing an active street or bus stop, and pay one of three fee options (at Uber/Lyft's choice). It's not going to cripple Uber/Lyft's business model. They disagree, of course, which is their prerogative. There are still taxi services available in Austin who find those regulations perfectly workable. If you dislike your health department making you wear hair nets or meet food-holding temperatures, you are perfectly free to discontinue providing a service that goes against the public interest.
- jon-wood 10y agoI find it strange that they're so against it in Austin when in my home town they just launched with much the same conditions - here Uber effectively operate as a private hire taxi firm, to the point that the only thing the local taxi companies could find to complain to the press about was Uber not being required to display a phone number on their cars.