4 ms·
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 regula
by 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 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.