4 ms·

What the hell is going on? This is nonsensical now.

devindotcom 12y ago
What's nonsensical about it? Uber is operating in Portland without meeting local regulations. The city is suing them to make them stop.
- blisterpeanuts 12y ago
  The courts will have to decide whether they're violating local regulations. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion.
  - cardiffspaceman 12y ago
    In court, they won't be able to play their libertarian white night savior of the world cards, so foregone or not, reaching the conclusion through some sort of open process, would be welcome. I like the idea that Uber might just wait until they were clearly within the law before operating.
lkbm 12y ago
What do you mean? Uber is operating in the city in violation of various regulations (judging from the article: liability insurance requirements, background check requirements, access for disabled people requirements, and caps on fees) and they're being brought to court for it. What would you consider sensible? Here's Portland's official website on the issue: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/511920 https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/511920 > The Limited Passenger Transportation and Taxi Driver Permit requirements ensure the public that drivers have passed annual City-required annual background checks. > “If Uber thinks there should be no maximum price on what they charge Portlanders, they should make their case to the Portland City Council,” Novick said. “If Uber thinks taxi companies shouldn’t have to serve people with disabilities, they should make their case. If Uber thinks taxis should not have to have proper insurance in case of a crash, they should tell us why we should allow that.”
- blisterpeanuts 12y ago
  Is Uber a taxi service? If so, it might be violating some regs. But if it's a ride sharing broker, there probably aren't any specific regs to cover that. This is all about the money. Uber is suddenly rich, at least in terms of estimated valuation, and that makes it worth it to put lawyers to work trying to get a piece of that action. I'm cheering for Uber in this fight. The taxi industry has long been over regulated and much too buddy-buddy with city governments, to the detriment of both the drivers and their customers. When I lived in Asia, taxis were much less regulated, the drivers had a lot more autonomy, and you could go anywhere for a couple of dollars; it was a fantastic alternative to owning a car. We have regulated the taxi industry into an overpriced mess that poorly serves the cities, especially the lower income people who can't afford to buy and maintain a car, who would most benefit from a ride sharing service to get them where they're going quickly and cheaply. Just my opinion :)
emergentcypher 12y ago
What's going on is Uber decided that because it doesn't like laws regulating taxis, it should be allowed to just ignore them.
- SilasX 12y ago
  In sharp contrast to normal cabbies, who pick up the very first person hailing them without any discrimination, never refuse a destination, always have credit card machines that work, who completely don't expect you to pay them a dime beyond the regulated rate, are perfectly diligent in working with the disabled, and report every last dime that passes through their hands -- or, whey they fail to do these things, are prosecuted by the city with the exact level of vigor used in the current case against Uber. /s Sometimes it sucks when people ignore the law. So does selective prosecution.
  - emergentcypher 12y ago
    I missed the part where any of this justifies Uber's behaviour. This is just a bunch of baseless conjecture about what you think "normal cabbies" do.
    - closetnerd 12y ago
      I think your problem is that you assume that because Uber might be, in some cases, be ignoring regulations that that means that Uber's behavior is wrong. The law usually not a guideline for ethical behavior. Specially in a country as bureaucratic as ours. The law quickly becomes something that protects incumbents and stifles innovation.
- prawn 12y ago
  While the other companies followed those laws and helped refine them over time. Is there anything Uber have done in terms of improving user experience that they couldn't have done within the same framework offered to every other business? Maybe something to do with branding of cars? A legal taxi company could have created a great app, had some form of driver/user voting, presumably handled payment through apps?
dogecoinbase 12y ago
I agree. Willful, blatant, knowing violations of law on the part of corporations should not be met with injunctions or fines, but with revocation of the corporate charter, dissolution of the company, and criminal prosecution of the executives and of the board.
- brandonmenc 12y ago
  Hyperbole. It depends on what law they're breaking. You're proposing the equivalent of life imprisonment for unpaid parking tickets.
  - dogecoinbase 12y ago
    If done with malice aforethought on the part of a corporation, particularly a corporation with massive funding, I absolutely am. Companies cut down protected forests after doing a calculus that the resulting improvement in their housing development's view will be worth the fines. The punishments for this type of antisocial behavior need to be large enough to actually change the balance of their risk assessments.
    - nmjohn 12y ago
      > done with malice aforethought > massive funding Who gets to make that judgement? In my mind you are asking for punishment based on subjective criteria, which would be ripe for abuse.
      - dogecoinbase 12y ago
        Neither of those are in the least subjective, except in degree. I'm saying that permitting the wealthy to choose to violate laws by paying token fines is a fundamentally broken system.
      - mikeash 12y ago
        Um, is not the answer to your question obviously "the judge and jury"? You do realize that criteria like these are already central to deciding crimes and punishments for all sorts of offenses? For example, premeditated murder is a different crime with a substantially more severe punishment than deliberate murder in the heat of the moment, which in turn is different from and more severe than accidentally causing someone's death.

What's nonsensical about it? Uber is operating in Portland without meeting local regulations. The city is suing them to make them stop.

blisterpeanuts 12y ago
The courts will have to decide whether they're violating local regulations. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion.
- cardiffspaceman 12y ago
  In court, they won't be able to play their libertarian white night savior of the world cards, so foregone or not, reaching the conclusion through some sort of open process, would be welcome. I like the idea that Uber might just wait until they were clearly within the law before operating.

lkbm 12y ago

What do you mean? Uber is operating in the city in violation of various regulations (judging from the article: liability insurance requirements, background check requirements, access for disabled people requirements, and caps on fees) and they're being brought to court for it. What would you consider sensible? Here's Portland's official website on the issue: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/511920 https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/511920 > The Limited Passenger Transportation and Taxi Driver Permit requirements ensure the public that drivers have passed annual City-required annual background checks. > “If Uber thinks there should be no maximum price on what they charge Portlanders, they should make their case to the Portland City Council,” Novick said. “If Uber thinks taxi companies shouldn’t have to serve people with disabilities, they should make their case. If Uber thinks taxis should not have to have proper insurance in case of a crash, they should tell us why we should allow that.”

blisterpeanuts 12y ago
Is Uber a taxi service? If so, it might be violating some regs. But if it's a ride sharing broker, there probably aren't any specific regs to cover that. This is all about the money. Uber is suddenly rich, at least in terms of estimated valuation, and that makes it worth it to put lawyers to work trying to get a piece of that action. I'm cheering for Uber in this fight. The taxi industry has long been over regulated and much too buddy-buddy with city governments, to the detriment of both the drivers and their customers. When I lived in Asia, taxis were much less regulated, the drivers had a lot more autonomy, and you could go anywhere for a couple of dollars; it was a fantastic alternative to owning a car. We have regulated the taxi industry into an overpriced mess that poorly serves the cities, especially the lower income people who can't afford to buy and maintain a car, who would most benefit from a ride sharing service to get them where they're going quickly and cheaply. Just my opinion :)

emergentcypher 12y ago

What's going on is Uber decided that because it doesn't like laws regulating taxis, it should be allowed to just ignore them.

SilasX 12y ago
In sharp contrast to normal cabbies, who pick up the very first person hailing them without any discrimination, never refuse a destination, always have credit card machines that work, who completely don't expect you to pay them a dime beyond the regulated rate, are perfectly diligent in working with the disabled, and report every last dime that passes through their hands -- or, whey they fail to do these things, are prosecuted by the city with the exact level of vigor used in the current case against Uber. /s Sometimes it sucks when people ignore the law. So does selective prosecution.
- emergentcypher 12y ago
  I missed the part where any of this justifies Uber's behaviour. This is just a bunch of baseless conjecture about what you think "normal cabbies" do.
  - closetnerd 12y ago
    I think your problem is that you assume that because Uber might be, in some cases, be ignoring regulations that that means that Uber's behavior is wrong. The law usually not a guideline for ethical behavior. Specially in a country as bureaucratic as ours. The law quickly becomes something that protects incumbents and stifles innovation.
prawn 12y ago
While the other companies followed those laws and helped refine them over time. Is there anything Uber have done in terms of improving user experience that they couldn't have done within the same framework offered to every other business? Maybe something to do with branding of cars? A legal taxi company could have created a great app, had some form of driver/user voting, presumably handled payment through apps?

dogecoinbase 12y ago

I agree. Willful, blatant, knowing violations of law on the part of corporations should not be met with injunctions or fines, but with revocation of the corporate charter, dissolution of the company, and criminal prosecution of the executives and of the board.

brandonmenc 12y ago
Hyperbole. It depends on what law they're breaking. You're proposing the equivalent of life imprisonment for unpaid parking tickets.
- dogecoinbase 12y ago
  If done with malice aforethought on the part of a corporation, particularly a corporation with massive funding, I absolutely am. Companies cut down protected forests after doing a calculus that the resulting improvement in their housing development's view will be worth the fines. The punishments for this type of antisocial behavior need to be large enough to actually change the balance of their risk assessments.
  - nmjohn 12y ago
    > done with malice aforethought > massive funding Who gets to make that judgement? In my mind you are asking for punishment based on subjective criteria, which would be ripe for abuse.
    - dogecoinbase 12y ago
      Neither of those are in the least subjective, except in degree. I'm saying that permitting the wealthy to choose to violate laws by paying token fines is a fundamentally broken system.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      Um, is not the answer to your question obviously "the judge and jury"? You do realize that criteria like these are already central to deciding crimes and punishments for all sorts of offenses? For example, premeditated murder is a different crime with a substantially more severe punishment than deliberate murder in the heat of the moment, which in turn is different from and more severe than accidentally causing someone's death.