3 ms·

I don't get the kick in the status quo,since they're doing exactly the same shit other taxi companies are doing, but with a nicer app and sidestepping regulatio

by rtpg 12y ago

I don't get the kick in the status quo,since they're doing exactly the same shit other taxi companies are doing, but with a nicer app and sidestepping regulations. At least for drivers, this doesn't seem like a better deal in the long term

icebraining 12y ago
Not the same thing. First, taxi drivers used to have to pay to lease the medallions. This article from 1995¹ talks about paying ~$100 per shift just for the lease. A quote from that article: In 1993, 32 to 45 percent of the income of a fleet or lease manager was profit, or $16,000 to $21,300 per car, up from $5,500 to $9,800 in 1986, according to the taxi commission. I very much doubt Uber makes anything close to that per car - even disregarding inflation. But besides that, do you think it's a coincidence that taxi drivers sued the companies last year, after decades of that system being established? When I said "kick the status quo", that doesn't mean they have any intentions of being better to drivers than taxi companies; but they still shook a broken system from its torpor and forced society to reevaluate it. To me, that's almost always an advantage. ¹ http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/09/nyregion/driving-a-taxi-difficult-in-best-of-times-gets-tougher.html http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/09/nyregion/driving-a-taxi-di...
dnautics 12y ago
regulations have to have a rational basis. Taxi regulations exist because it's impossible to hold them accountable because the taxi-passenger pair is not recorded (or particularly traceable) in the event that the taxi driver commits some sort of crime against the passenger. In exchange for those regulations, taxis also enjoy some really nice privileges. These are most apparent in downtown SF, where taxis get to use bus lanes. Rideshare drivers do not get that privilege. Also, taxis get to violate child safety seat laws, seat belt laws, etc, etc, etc.

by rtpg 12y ago

icebraining 12y ago

Not the same thing. First, taxi drivers used to have to pay to lease the medallions. This article from 1995¹ talks about paying ~$100 per shift just for the lease. A quote from that article: In 1993, 32 to 45 percent of the income of a fleet or lease manager was profit, or $16,000 to $21,300 per car, up from $5,500 to $9,800 in 1986, according to the taxi commission. I very much doubt Uber makes anything close to that per car - even disregarding inflation. But besides that, do you think it's a coincidence that taxi drivers sued the companies last year, after decades of that system being established? When I said "kick the status quo", that doesn't mean they have any intentions of being better to drivers than taxi companies; but they still shook a broken system from its torpor and forced society to reevaluate it. To me, that's almost always an advantage. ¹ http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/09/nyregion/driving-a-taxi-difficult-in-best-of-times-gets-tougher.html http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/09/nyregion/driving-a-taxi-di...

dnautics 12y ago

regulations have to have a rational basis. Taxi regulations exist because it's impossible to hold them accountable because the taxi-passenger pair is not recorded (or particularly traceable) in the event that the taxi driver commits some sort of crime against the passenger. In exchange for those regulations, taxis also enjoy some really nice privileges. These are most apparent in downtown SF, where taxis get to use bus lanes. Rideshare drivers do not get that privilege. Also, taxis get to violate child safety seat laws, seat belt laws, etc, etc, etc.