5 ms·

I didn't realize that they allow taxis but not Uber/Lyft. How delightfully corrupt!

jacobush 7y ago
Uber is also corrupt so there's that.
kevingadd 7y ago
Imagine not rewarding regulatory arbitrage! Let's ban personal vehicles except for if the personal vehicle is owned by someone who claims to be a taxi cab driver despite minimal training and questionable familiarity with the city, being pressured by their passenger to drive quickly and drop them off promptly or risk getting a 4* or lower rating that pushes them towards getting kicked off the service. Taxis aren't exactly perfect but I've had some truly horrible experiences with unqualified Lyft drivers so anything that gets drivers of questionable skill away from pedestrians is fine with me. I use Lyft frequently and something like 80% of drivers make an illegal turn to get to my apartment because Google Maps tells you to do it, despite the fact that there's a super visible sign telling you it's illegal and unsafe. If I don't wave them away they love to pull into an exit only driveway, too. I'd be in favor of banning taxis from the street too - maybe you should contact local representatives and push for that.
untog 7y ago
I don't know about corrupt. Uber and Lyft sidelined the regulations around taxis when they launched because "disruption". There is no limit to the number of cars Uber and Lyft put on the road. And just about anyone can be a driver. So an Uber driver should be allowed to drive down these streets when carrying a passenger. But what about when they don't have one? How do you tell the difference between that and them just driving for their own purposes? In short, what's to stop me signing up to be an Uber driver, putting my little decal on my car then driving through downtown SF, parking up and going to the office job I've always had? Street closures would be totally compromised by giant loopholes like that. Uber and Lyft created this grey area, willingly. Unfortunately they now have to live in it.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  > How do you tell the difference between that and them just driving for their own purposes? The non corrupt version is of course that Taxis are not exempt from the car ban.
  - untog 7y ago
    And I'd personally be in favour of that. But is the argument really "taxis shouldn't be allowed to do X because the unregulated startup that ignored city regulations has worked itself into a position where it can't do X, and anything else is corrupt"?
    - BurningFrog 7y ago
      If you see the old Taxi system and its regulations as deeply corrupt, you see Uber/Lyft as civil disobedience heroes for crushing an oppressive system. You probably don't agree, but at least be aware of how we think.
      - untog 7y ago
        I do see the old taxi system as deeply corrupt. I just see Uber/Lyft is utterly corrupt in a different way.
        BurningFrog 7y ago
        It's a rare day when I meet a bigger cynic than myself. It warms my heart in several ways :)
    - jsight 7y ago
      No, I think the reasons for banning them both are the same. They both represent low-density car traffic in the same way that individual vehicles do. I don't see any reason that a taxi/uber/lyft should automatically get better treatment than any other random driver.
  - 7y ago
imtringued 7y ago
Uber is a ridesharing app. From the perspective of the government it's pure coincidence that the driver and the rider are going the same way and when the rider is paying he is merely splitting the gas bill and that means its a private car. There are two things the government could have done: 1. Exempt anyone with the ridesharing app 2. Fully regulate ridesharing so that they are no longer classified as private cars. 1. means abolishing the car ban and Uber will fiercely fight 2. This is a situation the ridesharing companies brought upon themselves so I don't see how you can describe the government as corrupt.
- wutbrodo 7y ago
  3. Not allow any cars on Market, including taxis This seems like the obvious solution to me.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- jsight 7y ago
  > From the perspective of the government it's pure coincidence that the driver and the rider are going the same way and when the rider is paying he is merely splitting the gas bill and that means its a private car. I feel like this assumption is no longer true. Many local governments do regulate ride-sharing companies.
scurvy 7y ago
If you want to talk corruption, just look at the areas that changed. Notice that one block of Market north of Van Ness still allows cars in one direction? Know why? It's because that's where the SFMTA HQ is, and they all drive to work from the burbs/Richmond/Sunset. They have 1 floor in the neighboring building and have an outsized amount of parking for 1 floor. tldr the SFMTA couldn't be bothered so carved out an area so they can still drive to work.
- jedberg 7y ago
  If that's true it sounds like some civil disobedience is in order. If some citizens helped police that section of road the SFMTA workers would get frustrated and just stop using it.
  - scurvy 7y ago
    SFMTA is on the south intersection of Van Ness and Market. They turn right off of Van Ness then right on 11th to pull into the garages (in the SFMTA building and 1455 Market). Check out the overhead map of Van Ness/Market and it becomes glaring.

Uber is also corrupt so there's that.

Imagine not rewarding regulatory arbitrage! Let's ban personal vehicles except for if the personal vehicle is owned by someone who claims to be a taxi cab driver despite minimal training and questionable familiarity with the city, being pressured by their passenger to drive quickly and drop them off promptly or risk getting a 4* or lower rating that pushes them towards getting kicked off the service. Taxis aren't exactly perfect but I've had some truly horrible experiences with unqualified Lyft drivers so anything that gets drivers of questionable skill away from pedestrians is fine with me. I use Lyft frequently and something like 80% of drivers make an illegal turn to get to my apartment because Google Maps tells you to do it, despite the fact that there's a super visible sign telling you it's illegal and unsafe. If I don't wave them away they love to pull into an exit only driveway, too. I'd be in favor of banning taxis from the street too - maybe you should contact local representatives and push for that.

untog 7y ago

I don't know about corrupt. Uber and Lyft sidelined the regulations around taxis when they launched because "disruption". There is no limit to the number of cars Uber and Lyft put on the road. And just about anyone can be a driver. So an Uber driver should be allowed to drive down these streets when carrying a passenger. But what about when they don't have one? How do you tell the difference between that and them just driving for their own purposes? In short, what's to stop me signing up to be an Uber driver, putting my little decal on my car then driving through downtown SF, parking up and going to the office job I've always had? Street closures would be totally compromised by giant loopholes like that. Uber and Lyft created this grey area, willingly. Unfortunately they now have to live in it.

BurningFrog 7y ago
> How do you tell the difference between that and them just driving for their own purposes? The non corrupt version is of course that Taxis are not exempt from the car ban.
- untog 7y ago
  And I'd personally be in favour of that. But is the argument really "taxis shouldn't be allowed to do X because the unregulated startup that ignored city regulations has worked itself into a position where it can't do X, and anything else is corrupt"?
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    If you see the old Taxi system and its regulations as deeply corrupt, you see Uber/Lyft as civil disobedience heroes for crushing an oppressive system. You probably don't agree, but at least be aware of how we think.
    - untog 7y ago
      I do see the old taxi system as deeply corrupt. I just see Uber/Lyft is utterly corrupt in a different way.
      - BurningFrog 7y ago
        It's a rare day when I meet a bigger cynic than myself. It warms my heart in several ways :)
  - jsight 7y ago
    No, I think the reasons for banning them both are the same. They both represent low-density car traffic in the same way that individual vehicles do. I don't see any reason that a taxi/uber/lyft should automatically get better treatment than any other random driver.
- 7y ago

imtringued 7y ago

Uber is a ridesharing app. From the perspective of the government it's pure coincidence that the driver and the rider are going the same way and when the rider is paying he is merely splitting the gas bill and that means its a private car. There are two things the government could have done: 1. Exempt anyone with the ridesharing app 2. Fully regulate ridesharing so that they are no longer classified as private cars. 1. means abolishing the car ban and Uber will fiercely fight 2. This is a situation the ridesharing companies brought upon themselves so I don't see how you can describe the government as corrupt.

wutbrodo 7y ago
3. Not allow any cars on Market, including taxis This seems like the obvious solution to me.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
jsight 7y ago
> From the perspective of the government it's pure coincidence that the driver and the rider are going the same way and when the rider is paying he is merely splitting the gas bill and that means its a private car. I feel like this assumption is no longer true. Many local governments do regulate ride-sharing companies.

scurvy 7y ago

If you want to talk corruption, just look at the areas that changed. Notice that one block of Market north of Van Ness still allows cars in one direction? Know why? It's because that's where the SFMTA HQ is, and they all drive to work from the burbs/Richmond/Sunset. They have 1 floor in the neighboring building and have an outsized amount of parking for 1 floor. tldr the SFMTA couldn't be bothered so carved out an area so they can still drive to work.

jedberg 7y ago
If that's true it sounds like some civil disobedience is in order. If some citizens helped police that section of road the SFMTA workers would get frustrated and just stop using it.
- scurvy 7y ago
  SFMTA is on the south intersection of Van Ness and Market. They turn right off of Van Ness then right on 11th to pull into the garages (in the SFMTA building and 1455 Market). Check out the overhead map of Van Ness/Market and it becomes glaring.