5 ms·

My, god people. The number of those supporting the useless regulation is so great it astounds me. If you want to regulate something as simple as driving people

by snitko 12y ago

My, god people. The number of those supporting the useless regulation is so great it astounds me. If you want to regulate something as simple as driving people around, claiming drivers need licences, permissions and passing some sort of exams certifying they are indeed capable of driving cars with passengers, why don't we regulate something much more critical, like software development? Software runs the world these days, you can't just let people with no licences write shitty code. Politicians and bureaucrats should join their forces and decide whether each individual programmer is of a certain level. If not, he is banned from writing code and should be fined or imprisoned if he ever tries to do that. Or let's regulate musicians. You know, it would do good. I'm so tired of all these useless crappy bands that write all the same music, thinking they are different. Even though I don't listen to them I also think others shouldn't be listening to them too, as this influences people's tastes in a direction I cannot approve of. So yes, licences for musicians!

anon1385 12y ago
So you think people should be able to drive around on the roads without valid insurance?
- snitko 12y ago
  Yes, I think people should have a choice. If the market wants insured taxis only, you will see that people only use those taxi-services that prove they have it. If not, then some will be using uninsured services at their own risk. No one has the right to tell me what choice am I supposed to make with my own money.
  - spdustin 12y ago
    I think if you were (as a third party) struck by an uninsured taxi/ride share driver (or underinsured driver whose insurer won't cover the incident because he was transporting a passenger), you'd change that tune with a quickness.
    - snitko 12y ago
      This is not an argument against allowing the freedom of choice of how to spend my money and time. If I want more risk, I should absolutely have it. What you're saying is like saying "if you surf and get bitten by a shark, you would start reconsidering your attitude towards surfing, thinking maybe you shouldn't have gotten into the water in the first place". Should we ban surfing on the grounds that some people may actually regret it? The point is to allow people to make their own choices. What you're advocating is depriving people of the choice of how to spend their money and manage their risk/reward options.
      - Tomte 12y ago
        In your surfing example the surfer is at risk. That's not what we're discussing here. You want other people to suffer a higher risk, just so you can save money. And no matter how often you try to frame it as a matter of "I choose for myself", you're actually choosing for others. That's highly illiberal and unfree, by the way.
        brokenmusic 12y ago
        So, let's leave out the insurance question and separate it from the taxi-licence issue. Provided that all cars are insured, how am I putting other people at risk by riding a cheaper unlicensed taxi?
  - Tomte 12y ago
    Society has every right to tell you not to severely other people's lives. I'm amazed that there are actually people who think it should be okay to drive around uninsured, so when you hit a pedestrian and he ends up a quadriplegic and in need of constant care, you just say "oh, I'm sorry, take all the ten thousand Euros I have and good life to you!". I'm certain you'd see the stupidity of your point of view if you were the quadriplegic without any compensation. Fortunately, in Europe we don't let those people learn their lesson the very hard way. We do the sensible thing and just demand insurance from everyone. Including self-proclaimed libertarian rebels against the system.
    - snitko 12y ago
      Am I not a part of the society? If I am, why is it that some part of the society, however big, is telling me how to spend my own money if it doesn't actually affect them at all? It is my choice whether to insure myself or not. It is the choice of the driver whether to insure himself or not. It is the responsibility of the road owner to demand all cars have insurance. Unfortunately, we mostly have only one road owner these days: government. If you had plenty, then some would allow uninsured cars and some wouldn't. Then it would be up to both drivers and pedestrians to use those roads (this is one possible solution). You're trying once again to draw an image of a libertarian as a ruthless individual who doesn't care about the misfortunes of other people. I do care very much about that and I would be happy to help out. What I am against is FORCE with which government demands people operate in the market very often against their will. Some people are riskier. Some people are careful. As long as it doesn't affect another person, everyone should be free to do whatever the hell they want. Finally, your elitist standpoint "we in Europe" is simply disgusting to me. I apologize for this emotional outbreak, but I have zero respect for collectivism. "You in Europe" are all different and by saying it they way you did, you simply disrespect people who have opposing views, not considering them a part of your society.
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        But roads! There aren't ever going to be several roads in parallel, going the same places, with different standards, that form a free market. That's ludicrous. Its an ideal place for government to step in, ensure a well-regulated network and enforce standards. You don't like that, ok. But you've got nothing to suggest as an alternative, that any modern society could afford.
  - EpicEng 12y ago
    What about my need to be reimbursed when you ram into me? Am I just our of luck because you didn't want to pay insurance? And btw, society has decided that some do in fact have the right to tell you how to spend your money. Ever paid taxes? Do you think those should be abolished as well? I'm almost always on the side of less governmental power, but to believe that all regulations like these are unnecessary is just boneheaded.
  - jasonlotito 12y ago
    > Yes, I think people should have a choice. But you do. And when you choose to use a public service, you should obey the rules set forth by the governing body of that public service. What you are suggesting is that you have the right to decide what to spend your money on, but when others do it, it's wrong. You are the one complaining about using public infrastructure and having to follow the rules when using it.
- purringmeow 12y ago
  They already have an insurance that covers the passengers.
purringmeow 12y ago
Absolutely, I agree with you! It's time to deregulate the taxi industry, because needing a license to drive people around is absurd. Yes, you should need insurance, but in most EU countries, the already required insurance covers all passengers. Each car must also pass an yearly technical review. What more do you need? Someone posted that drivers aren't vetted - there is no better vetting system than the instantaneous feedback from the app. Feedback, given by tens or hundreds of clients.
PinguTS 12y ago
> Software runs the world these days, you can't just let people with no licences write shitty code. Politicians and bureaucrats should join their forces and decide whether each individual programmer is of a certain level. If not, he is banned from writing code and should be fined or imprisoned if he ever tries to do that. For any public related service actually, that is regulated. Any software written for a car, truck, train, bus, airplane is regulated in terms of certification by so-called notified bodies.
- snitko 12y ago
  Which doesn't mean it's the right way to go. Bitcoin would've never been possible if a software engineer required a licence to write financial software. And it is a very critical piece of software.
  - spdustin 12y ago
    Not to banks it isn't.
    - snitko 12y ago
      Banks, although regulated up to their necks, still manage to lose millions of dollars of customer's money in hacking attacks.
      - PinguTS 12y ago
        Which is not the customer's money but the bank's money. Get the difference on who will pay for at the end?
  - PinguTS 12y ago
    Banks are not responsible to public safety. They do not fall under those regulations. It is their own personal interest not to loose money.
pgeorgi 12y ago
One factor (that may not be obvious given Uber's constant talk about breaking monopolies and cartels) may be that Uber is the bully in this story: International company valued in the billions ignoring regulations that local (per-county) companies with typically less than 5 cars can't afford to ignore (because they immediately lose their license). If this is about regulations, Uber could have tried to go the legal route (apply for licenses until they're refused, then go to court over it, unlike our solo drivers they can afford the lawyers). They have the money. Instead they want to decide which laws apply to them.
- snitko 12y ago
  In this seemingly sad story when a big international company comes over and bullies local businesses out of the market people very often forget the other part of the equation. Yes, local businesses may suffer. But at the same time, the big bully actually makes it cheaper and more affordable for the consumers of that country to have that service. "Everyone's" got kids and families to feed, so to speak - including taxi passengers. Why is it that I should be more sympathetic to the local taxi drivers and not to the local passengers, who'd be saving money?
  - pgeorgi 12y ago
    Big international companies are free to work within the law of the land. They can work on changing it. They can look for loop holes. Uber does none of that, and the only reason why they can afford that is because they're incorporated elsewhere and have deep pockets. If they cared for the markets they enter, they would have realized that in Germany the 'monopoly' story is factually false. They might even have realized that the regulations provide a loop hole that they could use to start operating in some counties/cities to prove that their service is useful. They did none of that. Just grandstanding, posturing, and then crying like babies about how everybody is unfair to them when they're held to the same standards as everyone else. This isn't even about prices (the ones our elected officials set for taxis are quite reasonable, and they don't feature 'surge pricing'). It's about Uber's conduct.
    - 12y ago
jdietrich 12y ago
I'm so sick of government interfering in business. Why the hell are there so many pointless regulations governing electrical appliances? If I want to build a toaster with undersized wiring, no safety earth, no thermal cut-offs and no flame retardant plastics, why should the government be able to stop me? Why should I be burdened with the cost of product liability insurance? I can just base my company in the Cayman Islands and dodge the inevitable lawsuit when my product kills someone. Taxis are regulated for a reason. I want to know that when I get into a taxi, the vehicle is roadworthy. I want to know that the driver is competent and medically fit to drive. I want to know that he isn't a convicted rapist. I want to know that his insurance is still valid when carrying paying passengers. Uber provides none of those guarantees, but intelligent regulation does all of that without creating a significant barrier to entry.
- bhayden 12y ago
  It sounds to like the solution to your problem is to use a service that does verify those things. If you don't like the risks of Uber, don't use it. The reality is the risk is pretty low, most people recognize that, and are fine with it.
- snitko 12y ago
  Notice how you constantly say "I want". What if I, on the other hand, don't want to know those things and am simply concerned with the price, prepared to take a risk here? What right on earth do you have to tell other people what ratio of risk/reward is acceptable for them? Yet, this is exactly what regulation does: it says "this is in the public interest", yet "public" is very different in its preferences towards prices, comfort, risk and other factors. If you want a safe taxi, by all means, use the government approved service. I for one couldn't care less, so I'm gonna go with a cheaper service. Everyone should have that choice.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    Why should the people maimed by those cut-price cabs suffer from the poor risk assessment of the people using those cut price cabs?

by snitko 12y ago

anon1385 12y ago

So you think people should be able to drive around on the roads without valid insurance?

snitko 12y ago
Yes, I think people should have a choice. If the market wants insured taxis only, you will see that people only use those taxi-services that prove they have it. If not, then some will be using uninsured services at their own risk. No one has the right to tell me what choice am I supposed to make with my own money.
- spdustin 12y ago
  I think if you were (as a third party) struck by an uninsured taxi/ride share driver (or underinsured driver whose insurer won't cover the incident because he was transporting a passenger), you'd change that tune with a quickness.
  - snitko 12y ago
    This is not an argument against allowing the freedom of choice of how to spend my money and time. If I want more risk, I should absolutely have it. What you're saying is like saying "if you surf and get bitten by a shark, you would start reconsidering your attitude towards surfing, thinking maybe you shouldn't have gotten into the water in the first place". Should we ban surfing on the grounds that some people may actually regret it? The point is to allow people to make their own choices. What you're advocating is depriving people of the choice of how to spend their money and manage their risk/reward options.
    - Tomte 12y ago
      In your surfing example the surfer is at risk. That's not what we're discussing here. You want other people to suffer a higher risk, just so you can save money. And no matter how often you try to frame it as a matter of "I choose for myself", you're actually choosing for others. That's highly illiberal and unfree, by the way.
      - brokenmusic 12y ago
        So, let's leave out the insurance question and separate it from the taxi-licence issue. Provided that all cars are insured, how am I putting other people at risk by riding a cheaper unlicensed taxi?
- Tomte 12y ago
  Society has every right to tell you not to severely other people's lives. I'm amazed that there are actually people who think it should be okay to drive around uninsured, so when you hit a pedestrian and he ends up a quadriplegic and in need of constant care, you just say "oh, I'm sorry, take all the ten thousand Euros I have and good life to you!". I'm certain you'd see the stupidity of your point of view if you were the quadriplegic without any compensation. Fortunately, in Europe we don't let those people learn their lesson the very hard way. We do the sensible thing and just demand insurance from everyone. Including self-proclaimed libertarian rebels against the system.
  - snitko 12y ago
    Am I not a part of the society? If I am, why is it that some part of the society, however big, is telling me how to spend my own money if it doesn't actually affect them at all? It is my choice whether to insure myself or not. It is the choice of the driver whether to insure himself or not. It is the responsibility of the road owner to demand all cars have insurance. Unfortunately, we mostly have only one road owner these days: government. If you had plenty, then some would allow uninsured cars and some wouldn't. Then it would be up to both drivers and pedestrians to use those roads (this is one possible solution). You're trying once again to draw an image of a libertarian as a ruthless individual who doesn't care about the misfortunes of other people. I do care very much about that and I would be happy to help out. What I am against is FORCE with which government demands people operate in the market very often against their will. Some people are riskier. Some people are careful. As long as it doesn't affect another person, everyone should be free to do whatever the hell they want. Finally, your elitist standpoint "we in Europe" is simply disgusting to me. I apologize for this emotional outbreak, but I have zero respect for collectivism. "You in Europe" are all different and by saying it they way you did, you simply disrespect people who have opposing views, not considering them a part of your society.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      But roads! There aren't ever going to be several roads in parallel, going the same places, with different standards, that form a free market. That's ludicrous. Its an ideal place for government to step in, ensure a well-regulated network and enforce standards. You don't like that, ok. But you've got nothing to suggest as an alternative, that any modern society could afford.
- EpicEng 12y ago
  What about my need to be reimbursed when you ram into me? Am I just our of luck because you didn't want to pay insurance? And btw, society has decided that some do in fact have the right to tell you how to spend your money. Ever paid taxes? Do you think those should be abolished as well? I'm almost always on the side of less governmental power, but to believe that all regulations like these are unnecessary is just boneheaded.
- jasonlotito 12y ago
  > Yes, I think people should have a choice. But you do. And when you choose to use a public service, you should obey the rules set forth by the governing body of that public service. What you are suggesting is that you have the right to decide what to spend your money on, but when others do it, it's wrong. You are the one complaining about using public infrastructure and having to follow the rules when using it.
purringmeow 12y ago
They already have an insurance that covers the passengers.

purringmeow 12y ago

Absolutely, I agree with you! It's time to deregulate the taxi industry, because needing a license to drive people around is absurd. Yes, you should need insurance, but in most EU countries, the already required insurance covers all passengers. Each car must also pass an yearly technical review. What more do you need? Someone posted that drivers aren't vetted - there is no better vetting system than the instantaneous feedback from the app. Feedback, given by tens or hundreds of clients.

PinguTS 12y ago

> Software runs the world these days, you can't just let people with no licences write shitty code. Politicians and bureaucrats should join their forces and decide whether each individual programmer is of a certain level. If not, he is banned from writing code and should be fined or imprisoned if he ever tries to do that. For any public related service actually, that is regulated. Any software written for a car, truck, train, bus, airplane is regulated in terms of certification by so-called notified bodies.

snitko 12y ago
Which doesn't mean it's the right way to go. Bitcoin would've never been possible if a software engineer required a licence to write financial software. And it is a very critical piece of software.
- spdustin 12y ago
  Not to banks it isn't.
  - snitko 12y ago
    Banks, although regulated up to their necks, still manage to lose millions of dollars of customer's money in hacking attacks.
    - PinguTS 12y ago
      Which is not the customer's money but the bank's money. Get the difference on who will pay for at the end?
- PinguTS 12y ago
  Banks are not responsible to public safety. They do not fall under those regulations. It is their own personal interest not to loose money.

pgeorgi 12y ago

One factor (that may not be obvious given Uber's constant talk about breaking monopolies and cartels) may be that Uber is the bully in this story: International company valued in the billions ignoring regulations that local (per-county) companies with typically less than 5 cars can't afford to ignore (because they immediately lose their license). If this is about regulations, Uber could have tried to go the legal route (apply for licenses until they're refused, then go to court over it, unlike our solo drivers they can afford the lawyers). They have the money. Instead they want to decide which laws apply to them.

snitko 12y ago
In this seemingly sad story when a big international company comes over and bullies local businesses out of the market people very often forget the other part of the equation. Yes, local businesses may suffer. But at the same time, the big bully actually makes it cheaper and more affordable for the consumers of that country to have that service. "Everyone's" got kids and families to feed, so to speak - including taxi passengers. Why is it that I should be more sympathetic to the local taxi drivers and not to the local passengers, who'd be saving money?
- pgeorgi 12y ago
  Big international companies are free to work within the law of the land. They can work on changing it. They can look for loop holes. Uber does none of that, and the only reason why they can afford that is because they're incorporated elsewhere and have deep pockets. If they cared for the markets they enter, they would have realized that in Germany the 'monopoly' story is factually false. They might even have realized that the regulations provide a loop hole that they could use to start operating in some counties/cities to prove that their service is useful. They did none of that. Just grandstanding, posturing, and then crying like babies about how everybody is unfair to them when they're held to the same standards as everyone else. This isn't even about prices (the ones our elected officials set for taxis are quite reasonable, and they don't feature 'surge pricing'). It's about Uber's conduct.
  - 12y ago

jdietrich 12y ago

I'm so sick of government interfering in business. Why the hell are there so many pointless regulations governing electrical appliances? If I want to build a toaster with undersized wiring, no safety earth, no thermal cut-offs and no flame retardant plastics, why should the government be able to stop me? Why should I be burdened with the cost of product liability insurance? I can just base my company in the Cayman Islands and dodge the inevitable lawsuit when my product kills someone. Taxis are regulated for a reason. I want to know that when I get into a taxi, the vehicle is roadworthy. I want to know that the driver is competent and medically fit to drive. I want to know that he isn't a convicted rapist. I want to know that his insurance is still valid when carrying paying passengers. Uber provides none of those guarantees, but intelligent regulation does all of that without creating a significant barrier to entry.

bhayden 12y ago
It sounds to like the solution to your problem is to use a service that does verify those things. If you don't like the risks of Uber, don't use it. The reality is the risk is pretty low, most people recognize that, and are fine with it.
snitko 12y ago
Notice how you constantly say "I want". What if I, on the other hand, don't want to know those things and am simply concerned with the price, prepared to take a risk here? What right on earth do you have to tell other people what ratio of risk/reward is acceptable for them? Yet, this is exactly what regulation does: it says "this is in the public interest", yet "public" is very different in its preferences towards prices, comfort, risk and other factors. If you want a safe taxi, by all means, use the government approved service. I for one couldn't care less, so I'm gonna go with a cheaper service. Everyone should have that choice.
- DanBC 12y ago
  Why should the people maimed by those cut-price cabs suffer from the poor risk assessment of the people using those cut price cabs?