4 ms·

Or, alternately, Uber ignores local taxi regulations and then is surprised when cities fight back. I haven't been following the Tesla issue closely, but their a

Or, alternately, Uber ignores local taxi regulations and then is surprised when cities fight back. I haven't been following the Tesla issue closely, but their attitude does not seem similar to Uber's, which, personally, makes all the difference.

AJ007 13y ago
The cynic says the more things you regulate, the more industries that can donate money to your political campaign and hire you when you retire. Some regulation serves a purpose. All regulation can be justified with some sort of logic. That doesn't mean it is either necessary or a net benefit to society. Proponents claim that cities need to regulate Uber to ensure passenger safety. Meanwhile an NYPost investigation found of the 16 fatalities caused by cab drivers since 2009, all but 2 kept driving cabs. ( http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/cabbies-who-kill-or-maim-in-nyc-keep-licenses-return-to-work/ http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/cabbies-who-kill-or-maim-in-nyc... ) May be its different in other cities. I haven't been kidnapped by a cab driver in NYC, yet at least. The Tesla dealership issue is more erroneous and transparent to me than Uber. Car dealerships are a public nuisance. No one would argue we need more middle men for electronics, clothes, or food. Why for cars? The current structure makes it easy for dealers to get away with dishonest business practices. Mechanics are paid to do repairs as fast as possible, increasing the chance of future failures. Car companies are vulnerable to large class action lawsuits while a single dealership is hardly worth an expert lawyer's time. Heavily regulated environments repel innovation. Regulations, both in Uber's case and Tesla's are written by the incumbents for the incumbents. Follow the letter of the law and instead of a sleek new structure you produce a disfigured chimera, which probably will piss money. Perhaps one of the best things the internet provided us was a regulation minimal environment. You could put up a website and try new things with out having to worry about getting shaken down. I hope the future web won't be full of rampant EU-mandated privacy notices and DMCA federal government web site registries. Uber and Tesla don't have a choice. If they want to provide high quality services, laws have to be broken. It is unfortunate that you need to be a large and well funded company to force much needed changes on state and local regulators. I predict that cities and states which are friendly toward innovation will do better by leaps and bounds in the long run. Betting against change and efficiency tends to be hazardous.
nickff 13y ago
Many states had pre-existing laws which barred auto-makers from selling directly to consumers, this is not significantly different from the many cities which have barred unlicensed taxi operators for a long time. The states are simply the ones 'fighting back' here.
baddox 13y ago
What makes you think that Uber is surprised? Or did you mean that Uber is upset? Being upset at an occurrence is perfectly reasonable, even if you predicted it would occur.

AJ007 13y ago

The cynic says the more things you regulate, the more industries that can donate money to your political campaign and hire you when you retire. Some regulation serves a purpose. All regulation can be justified with some sort of logic. That doesn't mean it is either necessary or a net benefit to society. Proponents claim that cities need to regulate Uber to ensure passenger safety. Meanwhile an NYPost investigation found of the 16 fatalities caused by cab drivers since 2009, all but 2 kept driving cabs. ( http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/cabbies-who-kill-or-maim-in-nyc-keep-licenses-return-to-work/ http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/cabbies-who-kill-or-maim-in-nyc... ) May be its different in other cities. I haven't been kidnapped by a cab driver in NYC, yet at least. The Tesla dealership issue is more erroneous and transparent to me than Uber. Car dealerships are a public nuisance. No one would argue we need more middle men for electronics, clothes, or food. Why for cars? The current structure makes it easy for dealers to get away with dishonest business practices. Mechanics are paid to do repairs as fast as possible, increasing the chance of future failures. Car companies are vulnerable to large class action lawsuits while a single dealership is hardly worth an expert lawyer's time. Heavily regulated environments repel innovation. Regulations, both in Uber's case and Tesla's are written by the incumbents for the incumbents. Follow the letter of the law and instead of a sleek new structure you produce a disfigured chimera, which probably will piss money. Perhaps one of the best things the internet provided us was a regulation minimal environment. You could put up a website and try new things with out having to worry about getting shaken down. I hope the future web won't be full of rampant EU-mandated privacy notices and DMCA federal government web site registries. Uber and Tesla don't have a choice. If they want to provide high quality services, laws have to be broken. It is unfortunate that you need to be a large and well funded company to force much needed changes on state and local regulators. I predict that cities and states which are friendly toward innovation will do better by leaps and bounds in the long run. Betting against change and efficiency tends to be hazardous.

nickff 13y ago

Many states had pre-existing laws which barred auto-makers from selling directly to consumers, this is not significantly different from the many cities which have barred unlicensed taxi operators for a long time. The states are simply the ones 'fighting back' here.

baddox 13y ago

What makes you think that Uber is surprised? Or did you mean that Uber is upset? Being upset at an occurrence is perfectly reasonable, even if you predicted it would occur.