6 ms·
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 ca
by 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 agoAnd 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 agoIf 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 agoI do see the old taxi system as deeply corrupt. I just see Uber/Lyft is utterly corrupt in a different way.
- BurningFrog 7y agoIt's a rare day when I meet a bigger cynic than myself. It warms my heart in several ways :)
- jsight 7y agoNo, 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.
- contravariant 7y agoWhy? Taxis are part of public transport regulated by the city itself. There's no contradiction with them granting taxis special status within the city infrastructure. There is a contradiction with allowing regular drivers to use a road closed for cars just so those drivers can earn some money. If something is corrupt it's to do with the way permits are granted, not that those permits permit certain things.
- isoskeles 7y agoIt sounds like you think regulations should be used to punish businesses that wronged the government itself (as opposed to people).
- untog 7y agoIt sounds like you're projecting a straw man onto me.
- isoskeles 7y ago> Uber and Lyft sidelined the regulations around taxis when they launched because "disruption". This isn’t a reason to prevent them from being on Market Street as compared to taxis. Both serve the same function. Maybe I misinterpreted, but this sentence makes it sound like you think banning them from a street while not banning taxis is a reasonable way to apply regulations BECAUSE Uber and Lyft ignored regulations in the past. I agree in principle with what you follow up with, that there isn’t a limit to the number of rideshare vehicles in SF at any given time (at least not with current technology, although it wouldn’t be difficult to do).
- mrosett 7y agoMy point was that taxis should have been banned too.
- hindsightbias 7y agoThe muni drivers have a term for uturn accidents on Market - Uber Lefts, not taxi lefts. Taxi drivers used to be natives and typically older. You get ridesharing drivers from Orinda downtown and they do crazy stuff.