7 ms·

Well, things should be equal. Why should a taxi service have to perform a regular vehicle inspection and a an uber driver be exempt from it? Either make the Ub

Well, things should be equal. Why should a taxi service have to perform a regular vehicle inspection and a an uber driver be exempt from it? Either make the Uber driver go through regular inspections or cancel the regulation for the cabbies.

JoshTriplett 10y ago
None of which has anything to do with this tax. This is directly using taxation to hand one business a market advantage over another business.
- quickben 10y ago
  Well plenty of things don't make sense at a first glance but it's all connected. For example, and I'm going offtopic here, but in USA they have lobbying, which is basically legalized bribe. Then people wonder why they chose to do the taxation weirdness from the article. Somebody probably got paid to shave % off Uber income, and I'd bet it won't stop here too. When the system if flawed from the bottom up, you really can't be wondering why some parts of it are illogical. Especially when money are allowed to directly and openly influence people in power.
brightball 10y ago
Making Uber drivers abide by the same standards would make sense. This is using government authority to take money from one business and give it to another.
- rspeer 10y ago
  I think this legislation is a tacit admission that those standards don't make sense. If the taxi regulations had any benefit, then there would be something better about taking a taxi than taking an Uber. But in the real world (especially in Massachusetts) taxis completely suck. From the user experience point of view, Uber has done a great job of regulating itself. So the government has decided not to make things worse by putting the regulations on Uber. The taxi owners complain that this is unfair. The government says "you're right, have some money."
randyrand 10y ago
Taxi regulations were pushed by the taxi industry to keep out competitors. It's their own damn fault.
ars 10y ago
> Why should a taxi service have to perform a regular vehicle inspection and a an uber driver be exempt from it? All cars in MA have yearly inspections. Any extra inspection for taxi is total nonsense, probably invented by the taxi companies themself as a barrier to entry by others.
- stephenr 10y ago
  regular basic inspection/maintenance (in Australia it's once a day from memory) of taxis mean a customer is much less likely to get stuck somewhere because their taxi had a mechanical failure. Taxis drive a LOT more km/miles than regular cars - more driving, and particularly more city driving === more wear and tear on the cars systems. Yet again it seems to me that the fandom around uber in the USA is because your taxi regulations are just stupid. I've never heard of "the card machine was broken so I was forced to pay cash".
  - Malician 10y ago
    Except this doesn't actually happen. I have always had much better cars riding in Uber, much better service, and felt safer, too. There is nothing good about cabs. I have a list of cab horror stories long as my arm.
    - stephenr 10y ago
      So your argument is basically: the law says X must happen. X doesn't happen, so laws are inherently bad. Why are Americans so uniquely able to have terrible implementations of things and just treat the idea in general as the fault, not the implementation.
      - maverick_iceman 10y ago
        “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” ― Milton Friedman
orblivion 10y ago
Nobody should have to do any of it. That the taxi industry is stuck doing it is not Uber/Lyft's problem.
cpkpad 10y ago
Uber's reputation system and screening and similar play the same role (together with normal vehicle inspections). Uber vehicles in Boston are in much better shape than cabs.

JoshTriplett 10y ago

None of which has anything to do with this tax. This is directly using taxation to hand one business a market advantage over another business.

quickben 10y ago
Well plenty of things don't make sense at a first glance but it's all connected. For example, and I'm going offtopic here, but in USA they have lobbying, which is basically legalized bribe. Then people wonder why they chose to do the taxation weirdness from the article. Somebody probably got paid to shave % off Uber income, and I'd bet it won't stop here too. When the system if flawed from the bottom up, you really can't be wondering why some parts of it are illogical. Especially when money are allowed to directly and openly influence people in power.

brightball 10y ago

Making Uber drivers abide by the same standards would make sense. This is using government authority to take money from one business and give it to another.

rspeer 10y ago
I think this legislation is a tacit admission that those standards don't make sense. If the taxi regulations had any benefit, then there would be something better about taking a taxi than taking an Uber. But in the real world (especially in Massachusetts) taxis completely suck. From the user experience point of view, Uber has done a great job of regulating itself. So the government has decided not to make things worse by putting the regulations on Uber. The taxi owners complain that this is unfair. The government says "you're right, have some money."

randyrand 10y ago

Taxi regulations were pushed by the taxi industry to keep out competitors. It's their own damn fault.

ars 10y ago

> Why should a taxi service have to perform a regular vehicle inspection and a an uber driver be exempt from it? All cars in MA have yearly inspections. Any extra inspection for taxi is total nonsense, probably invented by the taxi companies themself as a barrier to entry by others.

stephenr 10y ago
regular basic inspection/maintenance (in Australia it's once a day from memory) of taxis mean a customer is much less likely to get stuck somewhere because their taxi had a mechanical failure. Taxis drive a LOT more km/miles than regular cars - more driving, and particularly more city driving === more wear and tear on the cars systems. Yet again it seems to me that the fandom around uber in the USA is because your taxi regulations are just stupid. I've never heard of "the card machine was broken so I was forced to pay cash".
- Malician 10y ago
  Except this doesn't actually happen. I have always had much better cars riding in Uber, much better service, and felt safer, too. There is nothing good about cabs. I have a list of cab horror stories long as my arm.
  - stephenr 10y ago
    So your argument is basically: the law says X must happen. X doesn't happen, so laws are inherently bad. Why are Americans so uniquely able to have terrible implementations of things and just treat the idea in general as the fault, not the implementation.
    - maverick_iceman 10y ago
      “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” ― Milton Friedman

orblivion 10y ago

Nobody should have to do any of it. That the taxi industry is stuck doing it is not Uber/Lyft's problem.

cpkpad 10y ago

Uber's reputation system and screening and similar play the same role (together with normal vehicle inspections). Uber vehicles in Boston are in much better shape than cabs.