5 ms·

> Like avoid stopping in those areas That may be illegal due to various anti-discrimination laws: > But Free and other riders were baffled over proposed legis

> Like avoid stopping in those areas That may be illegal due to various anti-discrimination laws: > But Free and other riders were baffled over proposed legislation that would lower mandatory penalties for taxi drivers who refuse to pick up certain passengers, or turn down requests to take passengers to a specific destination. https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-metro-cabbies-fines-refusing-fares-20180705-story.html https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-metro-cabbies-fines-...

EdwinRobbins 5y ago
These are freight trains, so unlikely to fall under such laws.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  And they are through trains - they don't do local pickup and delivery.
cjbgkagh 5y ago
I figured cargo was separate to passenger. I assume they have their reasons to stop, like making way for traffic, or waiting for more cargo. Just wish they’d prioritize alternative solutions. At this stage I’m going to have to send packages by air instead. A little harder to hijack.
ip26 5y ago
Never taken cabs in New York, but that seems insane. How can cabbies be legally compelled to take fares e.g. somewhere they fear for their own safety, or on a route that will lose them money?
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  There are lots of laws like that. Yesterday, I went to a pizza restaurant. It was myself and another person waiting in the restaurant. A person walks in with a large pitbull. Immediately the other person ran to the opposite corner and asked the person with the dog to wait outside the restaurant because they had been a victim of a pitbull attack. And, of course, the person with the dog pulled the service dog card. At this point, the business owner can do nothing. Once someone says a dog is a service dog, no one can ask them to leave until after the dog causes damage, per the ADA. The person in the restaurant with the dog immediately claimed they forgot the vest that says their dog is a service animal. This tells me the dog was definitely not a service animal, because anyone who actually needs one knows that no proof is required. Anyway, my point is the laws in the US right now let any dog owner walk around with impunity and impose dogs on people who do not want to be around dogs. Which means I have to modify my behavior with my toddlers and leave places where any random person can bring a Rottweiler or pitbull. Edit: In the dog situation, you can even go further and see that NY state just forced owners of less dangerous and aggressive breeds to subsidize owners of more dangerous and aggressive breeds. Why would the government need to get involved in subsidizing risks of various dog breeds? https://www.syracuse.com/state/2022/01/new-ny-state-law-bans-insurers-from-rejecting-you-over-what-kind-of-dog-you-have.html https://www.syracuse.com/state/2022/01/new-ny-state-law-bans...
  - zebraflask 5y ago
    I don't think the problem is with service animal laws, which I think are genuinely well-intentioned, but with the type of people who would consider owning a potentially dangerous dog in the first place. Some animals really aren't suitable as pets for the vast majority of owners - which might be a more fruitful discussion than objecting to service animals too quickly.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      I did not write that I object to service animals. There is clearly no enforcement of service animal laws, which are lacking, and no recourse for anyone harmed by them, which is what I was trying to point out. There are already laws that ban dogs from restaurants and grocery stores. But there is a higher law that says if you say the words service dog, then no one can say anything to you and you do not have to prove anything, rendering the laws banning dogs from restaurants and grocery stores useless.
      - zebraflask 5y ago
        It might be a conversation for another time, but dog bite cases are a staple of basic tort claims. Plenty of recourse - an owner is responsible for any reasonably foreseeable harm caused by their animal. Doesn't stop certain obnoxious owners from taking their animals where they really ought not, etc.
        ip26 5y ago
        There may be recourse, but It would be greatly preferable to avoid the dog bite in the first place. They can leave life-long injury.
    - stjohnswarts 5y ago
      Any dog of substantial size can be “a dangerous dog”. I have owned two American Bulldogs and 1 “pit bull” and they were all well-trained and probably overly friendly. My cat has done more damage to me and to the dogs. The only dog that isn't potentially "potentially dangerous" are probably ones like the small breeds like chihuahuas and Pekingese. It really is 90% training/how-they're-raised and 10% genetics. Don't get a dog unless you can make him/her a part of your pack/family. Cats are much better if you just want a pet to chill with.
- eklitzke 5y ago
  Among other reasons, people's fear for their safety may be driven by reasons that aren't rational. For example, someone who is afraid to drive into neighborhoods that have a high percentage of black residents even when the neighborhood isn't particularly dangerous.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  Because those conditions are attached to operating a permitted cab in New York. The permits have changed hands for hundreds of thousands of dollars in recent years, they aren't agreeing to the terms by accident. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi_medallion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi_medallion
  - tata71 5y ago
    Didn't even see GP comment, but I can tell you many medallion holders have "agreed" under duress, one way or another.
  - jevoten 5y ago
    There is effectively no difference between the state placing those conditions on all taxis, or forbidding all taxis except those that have a medallion, to which those conditions are attached.
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      If the medallions are changing hands for more than $0 we can infer that most buyers are opting into the conditions attached to the medallion. They may not be happy with all of them, but they have had an opportunity to consider them.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Mostly in the past it has been to prevent racism from preventing a ride. Aka "he looked suspicious" was usually "he's a person of color"

EdwinRobbins 5y ago

These are freight trains, so unlikely to fall under such laws.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
And they are through trains - they don't do local pickup and delivery.

cjbgkagh 5y ago

I figured cargo was separate to passenger. I assume they have their reasons to stop, like making way for traffic, or waiting for more cargo. Just wish they’d prioritize alternative solutions. At this stage I’m going to have to send packages by air instead. A little harder to hijack.

ip26 5y ago

Never taken cabs in New York, but that seems insane. How can cabbies be legally compelled to take fares e.g. somewhere they fear for their own safety, or on a route that will lose them money?

lotsofpulp 5y ago
There are lots of laws like that. Yesterday, I went to a pizza restaurant. It was myself and another person waiting in the restaurant. A person walks in with a large pitbull. Immediately the other person ran to the opposite corner and asked the person with the dog to wait outside the restaurant because they had been a victim of a pitbull attack. And, of course, the person with the dog pulled the service dog card. At this point, the business owner can do nothing. Once someone says a dog is a service dog, no one can ask them to leave until after the dog causes damage, per the ADA. The person in the restaurant with the dog immediately claimed they forgot the vest that says their dog is a service animal. This tells me the dog was definitely not a service animal, because anyone who actually needs one knows that no proof is required. Anyway, my point is the laws in the US right now let any dog owner walk around with impunity and impose dogs on people who do not want to be around dogs. Which means I have to modify my behavior with my toddlers and leave places where any random person can bring a Rottweiler or pitbull. Edit: In the dog situation, you can even go further and see that NY state just forced owners of less dangerous and aggressive breeds to subsidize owners of more dangerous and aggressive breeds. Why would the government need to get involved in subsidizing risks of various dog breeds? https://www.syracuse.com/state/2022/01/new-ny-state-law-bans-insurers-from-rejecting-you-over-what-kind-of-dog-you-have.html https://www.syracuse.com/state/2022/01/new-ny-state-law-bans...
- zebraflask 5y ago
  I don't think the problem is with service animal laws, which I think are genuinely well-intentioned, but with the type of people who would consider owning a potentially dangerous dog in the first place. Some animals really aren't suitable as pets for the vast majority of owners - which might be a more fruitful discussion than objecting to service animals too quickly.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I did not write that I object to service animals. There is clearly no enforcement of service animal laws, which are lacking, and no recourse for anyone harmed by them, which is what I was trying to point out. There are already laws that ban dogs from restaurants and grocery stores. But there is a higher law that says if you say the words service dog, then no one can say anything to you and you do not have to prove anything, rendering the laws banning dogs from restaurants and grocery stores useless.
    - zebraflask 5y ago
      It might be a conversation for another time, but dog bite cases are a staple of basic tort claims. Plenty of recourse - an owner is responsible for any reasonably foreseeable harm caused by their animal. Doesn't stop certain obnoxious owners from taking their animals where they really ought not, etc.
      - ip26 5y ago
        There may be recourse, but It would be greatly preferable to avoid the dog bite in the first place. They can leave life-long injury.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    Any dog of substantial size can be “a dangerous dog”. I have owned two American Bulldogs and 1 “pit bull” and they were all well-trained and probably overly friendly. My cat has done more damage to me and to the dogs. The only dog that isn't potentially "potentially dangerous" are probably ones like the small breeds like chihuahuas and Pekingese. It really is 90% training/how-they're-raised and 10% genetics. Don't get a dog unless you can make him/her a part of your pack/family. Cats are much better if you just want a pet to chill with.
eklitzke 5y ago
Among other reasons, people's fear for their safety may be driven by reasons that aren't rational. For example, someone who is afraid to drive into neighborhoods that have a high percentage of black residents even when the neighborhood isn't particularly dangerous.
maxerickson 5y ago
Because those conditions are attached to operating a permitted cab in New York. The permits have changed hands for hundreds of thousands of dollars in recent years, they aren't agreeing to the terms by accident. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi_medallion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi_medallion
- tata71 5y ago
  Didn't even see GP comment, but I can tell you many medallion holders have "agreed" under duress, one way or another.
- jevoten 5y ago
  There is effectively no difference between the state placing those conditions on all taxis, or forbidding all taxis except those that have a medallion, to which those conditions are attached.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    If the medallions are changing hands for more than $0 we can infer that most buyers are opting into the conditions attached to the medallion. They may not be happy with all of them, but they have had an opportunity to consider them.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Mostly in the past it has been to prevent racism from preventing a ride. Aka "he looked suspicious" was usually "he's a person of color"