4 ms·

As to rights and privileges - should they? They are essentially illegal and unregulated. What rights and privileges should they get? Should they able to charge

As to rights and privileges - should they? They are essentially illegal and unregulated. What rights and privileges should they get? Should they able to charge fares? As to donations - Lyft regularly called them donations before they changed them to payment: "“Starting tomorrow, we’re transitioning from donations to regular payments in Seattle, providing increased transparency for passengers and greater peace of mind for drivers,” Lyft wrote in an email to customers." Common carrier abuse isn't dictated by the same terms as a free market economy precisely because the resource / infrastructure is subsidized. This is why regulatory limits are used. And as to having too many private cars - well that's certainly a problem we are having, and a problem that places like London are trying to address with their Congestion charge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge

rahimnathwani 12y ago
> And as to having too many private cars - well that's certainly a problem we are having, and a problem that places like London are trying to address with their Congestion charge. It's funny you bring that up as an example, because: 1. The congestion charge does not apply to London taxis. These are the same cars that spend the largest proportion of each day within the congestion charging zone, and so contribute the most to congestion. 2. These same taxis are allowed to use many 'bus lanes', thus slowing down buses (genuine public transport) and using parts of the scarce road infrastructure which is unavailable to higher-density vehicles (picture a family of 4 in a private car, vs. a taxi whose average occupancy is ~2 people including the driver). 3. London has 'minicabs' which are also commercial carriers. They fall under different regulation as taxis, and must be pre-booked (can't be hailed on the street). What's the sensible argument for allowing them to operate (using the roads), having specific regulation and insurance requirements in place, yet not allowing them to (i) pick up passengers waiting on the street, or (ii) using bus lanes, like London taxis? 4. London taxis are _expensive_. I lived in London for 31 of the first 35 years of my life, and I can count on my fingers (not including thumbs) the number of times I hailed a taxi in London.
- DanBC 12y ago
  > 3. London has 'minicabs' which are also commercial carriers. They fall under different regulation as taxis, and must be pre-booked (can't be hailed on the street). What's the sensible argument for allowing them to operate (using the roads), having specific regulation and insurance requirements in place, yet not allowing them to (i) pick up passengers waiting on the street, or (ii) using bus lanes, like London taxis? London black cabs get certain privileges. In return they have some obligations. They have fixed fare rates; they are wheel-chair accessible; they have tighter regulation about accepting passengers.
  - rahimnathwani 12y ago
    > London black cabs get certain privileges. Yes, some are related to transactions with passengers (black cabs can pick up passengers who flag them down) and others are related to the use of the roads (black cabs can use many bus lanes, and are exempt from the congestion charge). The latter category of privileges are not enjoyed by other users of private cars, regardless of the number of passengers. > In return they have some obligations. They have fixed fare rates; Yes, and they're pretty high. For a journey within central London (with an average speed of 8-12 miles per hour), you'll be paying over US$1 per minute. For a longer journey (Heathrow Airport to Central London) you'd pay US$70-$130. (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/modes/taxis-and-minicabs/taxi-fares?cid=fs159 http://www.tfl.gov.uk/modes/taxis-and-minicabs/taxi-fares?ci...) The fares charged by minicabs are lower than this. Under a free market, taxi prices would be lower. > they are wheel-chair accessible; OK. > they have tighter regulation about accepting passengers. What? Taxis have _looser_ regulations about accepting passengers. Minicabs drivers would probably love to be able to pick up passengers from the street, but they cannot.

rahimnathwani 12y ago

> And as to having too many private cars - well that's certainly a problem we are having, and a problem that places like London are trying to address with their Congestion charge. It's funny you bring that up as an example, because: 1. The congestion charge does not apply to London taxis. These are the same cars that spend the largest proportion of each day within the congestion charging zone, and so contribute the most to congestion. 2. These same taxis are allowed to use many 'bus lanes', thus slowing down buses (genuine public transport) and using parts of the scarce road infrastructure which is unavailable to higher-density vehicles (picture a family of 4 in a private car, vs. a taxi whose average occupancy is ~2 people including the driver). 3. London has 'minicabs' which are also commercial carriers. They fall under different regulation as taxis, and must be pre-booked (can't be hailed on the street). What's the sensible argument for allowing them to operate (using the roads), having specific regulation and insurance requirements in place, yet not allowing them to (i) pick up passengers waiting on the street, or (ii) using bus lanes, like London taxis? 4. London taxis are _expensive_. I lived in London for 31 of the first 35 years of my life, and I can count on my fingers (not including thumbs) the number of times I hailed a taxi in London.

DanBC 12y ago
> 3. London has 'minicabs' which are also commercial carriers. They fall under different regulation as taxis, and must be pre-booked (can't be hailed on the street). What's the sensible argument for allowing them to operate (using the roads), having specific regulation and insurance requirements in place, yet not allowing them to (i) pick up passengers waiting on the street, or (ii) using bus lanes, like London taxis? London black cabs get certain privileges. In return they have some obligations. They have fixed fare rates; they are wheel-chair accessible; they have tighter regulation about accepting passengers.
- rahimnathwani 12y ago
  > London black cabs get certain privileges. Yes, some are related to transactions with passengers (black cabs can pick up passengers who flag them down) and others are related to the use of the roads (black cabs can use many bus lanes, and are exempt from the congestion charge). The latter category of privileges are not enjoyed by other users of private cars, regardless of the number of passengers. > In return they have some obligations. They have fixed fare rates; Yes, and they're pretty high. For a journey within central London (with an average speed of 8-12 miles per hour), you'll be paying over US$1 per minute. For a longer journey (Heathrow Airport to Central London) you'd pay US$70-$130. (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/modes/taxis-and-minicabs/taxi-fares?cid=fs159 http://www.tfl.gov.uk/modes/taxis-and-minicabs/taxi-fares?ci...) The fares charged by minicabs are lower than this. Under a free market, taxi prices would be lower. > they are wheel-chair accessible; OK. > they have tighter regulation about accepting passengers. What? Taxis have _looser_ regulations about accepting passengers. Minicabs drivers would probably love to be able to pick up passengers from the street, but they cannot.