3 ms·

Why should there be medallions at all? How do they benefit society as a whole or serve any legitimate government function, as opposed to shall-issue licencing f

• rprasad 14y ago
  Why should there be medallions at all? It would seem that the good people of San Francisco voted to require medallions and to impose regulation on taxi services.
  • Zak 14y ago
    I couldn't find the origin of the permitting system in a couple minutes of googling, but I did find that there was a medallion system at least as early as 1950. It therefore seems unlikely that many of the people who currently live in San Francisco voted to impose one. It does not appear that there has been any serious effort to eliminate the system.
  • smsm42 14y ago
    Most of the good people of San Francisco have no idea and couldn't care less until they need a taxi. Then they get ripped off, but then they forget about it in the next half an hour.
• tptacek 14y ago
  Medallions increase the cost to taxi operators of violations by threatening a difficult-to-recover license. Talk to Uber drivers, like friends of mine have, and you quickly learn that many Uber drivers like the service principally because no other licensed operator would allow them to drive; it's too risky for a cab or black car operator to hire on a driver with a suspension.
  • Zak 14y ago
    I can imagine a simple solution to this problem that doesn't require a complex regulatory framework or artificial restrictions on supply: require a large amount of insurance coverage. The insurance companies would do the rest.
    • tptacek 14y ago
      So, instead of a medallion system, we'd have a corporatocracy run by major insurers and the large companies that could afford long-term relationships with them, and instead of voting to decide how we'd regulate cabs, we'd be stuck with whatever rules the insurers came up with. This does not seem like a public policy improvement.
      • Zak 14y ago
        I believe a significant insurance requirement already exists for taxis. What I'm proposing is that, if it isn't already, it be worded such that it applies to anyone who regularly drives people for money. Fundamentally, what I want is for simple rules to exist that don't interfere with new business models and serve to align the interests of businesses with society as a whole. To mitigate the impact of corporate deals, each driver could be required to apply for insurance individually with the insurer of their choice and that the employer pay it (or not hire the driver if it's too much). This would allow competition to do its job.
        • tptacek 14y ago
          SF taxi insurance requirements are low: $1MM, on the order of what a typical sr. software engineer should already be buying for their own insurance. My point is, by delegating regulation of cabs to the insurance markets, you don't make the market any more transparent or efficient; instead, you cede it to private businesses who can make arbitrary decisions with no oversight at all. Crappy oversight is better than no oversight.
          • Zak 14y ago
            Crappy oversight is better than no oversight. I don't care about oversight. I care that the taxi I get in to doesn't crash. I don't have a lot of faith that regulators will do a good job reducing the probability of that outcome. I think they're likely to be corrupt, incompetent, apathetic or some combination of the three. I do have a lot of faith that insurance companies will do a good job maximizing their own profits. Those that fail to do so will cease to exist. If we can tie insurance company profits to my taxi not crashing, I think they'll do a near-optimal job of reducing the probability of that outcome. I agree that $1M seems low for a taxi. That doesn't even cover one wrongful death.