5 ms·

Those laws should not be on the books anyway, the fact they disregard them is one of the main reasons I support uber.

Sanddancer 11y ago
There is definitely a need for a lot of them, like mandatory safety inspections, vetting of drivers, etc. However, certain aspects of how they're implemented, like the medallion system, are obsolete and need to go away.
- the_ancient 11y ago
  Why do you believe there is a need for this? Vetting of drivers, saftey etc can all be done under private insurance and/or review systems This idea that the government should protect everyone from everything is very dangerous. Further I have never really felt safe in government approved taxi's so the idea that the government today is providing proper safety inspections and vetting of driver is laughably naive, Taxi regulations is a money scheme for government and has 0 to do with safety
  - Sanddancer 11y ago
    Because I've ridden in non-regulated gypsy cabs before. The driver was terrible, the cab was in worse shape, and there was absolutely no systemic set of metering, just a negotiation of what the both of us felt was fair after the fact. The whole reason the medallion system was created was because prior to the medallions, taxis were a real risk to the general public. The government shouldn't protect everyone from everything. They should, however, protect people when market failures do happen, like what happened in the taxi industry in the 20s and 30s. Uber's stonewalling here, when they were the ones who helped craft the law, shows how unconcerned that they aren't concerned with working out how to make taxis safer, just that they want to make money on an industry that needs rethinking, consequences be damned.
    - the_ancient 11y ago
      I am assuming those gypsy cabs where not connected to a real time database where thousands of users are reviewing the drivers actions where 1 bad review can cost the drivers their ability to book new riders You that is the difference, technology it replacing government, and that is a good thing. You do not need the government to know the uber driver is good or not, other uber users will tell you that
      - Sanddancer 11y ago
        Because uber's assurances that a driver that's picking you up is the driver who was interviewed are laughable [1]. It would be trivial for uber to create, and mandate their drivers display, information that had their photo, driver id, etc. Technology would be replacing government if uber provided the same assurances I can get right now. They don't. [1] http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-driver-heres-how-we-get-around-background-checks-1596982249 http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-driver-heres-how-we-get-aro...
    - icebraining 11y ago
      The whole reason the medallion system was created was because prior to the medallions, taxis were a real risk to the general public. Nope, the reason it was created was because the taxi drivers where annoyed with the increase of competition during the Great Depression and started striking and destroying property until they got a monopoly over the business. From the nyc.gov site: Widespread poverty prompted many New Yorkers to opt for less-expensive forms of transportation, decreasing the demand for taxis. This put many companies out of business and caused many cabdrivers to lose their jobs. The situation was made worse by the tactics of “wildcat” (unlicensed) taxis who used what some considered to be “underhanded tactics,” such as drastically lowering fares, to get more business. The situation in the taxi industry was dire; frustrated cabdrivers turned their anger into violent protest and the demands for industry regulation increased. Another source: Striking taxi drivers was nothing new–the first strike took place in 1908, a year after the first taxi company was founded. But this strike had a hostile energy to it, as strikers went hunting for scabs to punish. As one driver put it, “the bastids that was scabbin’, we pulled the doors off their cabs.” Independent cab owners, who had nothing to gain by striking, had their windows smashed by blocks of ice and passengers thrown from their cabs. Police who tried restore order had their tires slashed and marbles thrown under their horses. By February 5, angry crowds of driving were brawling in the street with the police and torching independent cab cars. http://untappedcities.com/2015/02/05/today-in-nyc-history-the-taxi-riots-of-1934-start-february-5-1934/ http://untappedcities.com/2015/02/05/today-in-nyc-history-th...
  - jlarocco 11y ago
    If that's how you feel, vote. Until enough people agree with you and get the law changed, it's the law. You don't get to blatantly disregard it just because you disagree with it. At the very least don't act surprised when disregarding the law results in punishment. It's kind of like, "Duh, what did you expect?"
    - the_ancient 11y ago
      First past the post voting schemes are less than useless, wasting your time voting in American elections is not a way to effect change. If you believe your vote matters I have a shit ton of math I can throw at you to show you how it does not
      - jlarocco 11y ago
        IMO, it's a good thing that no individual's vote "matters" in this kind of stuff. If it did, voting would be pointless and everybody would just go around doing whatever they wanted. As it stands, society has decided that we don't want people and companies doing whatever they want, and we want them to follow certain rules. We tried the laissez-faire system and in almost every case the end result was giant corporations screwing people over in some way.
      - techdragon 11y ago
        Your vote has the statistical significance it has been apportioned by your continued choice of living locale. Don't like that level of significance ... Move or convince others to agree with you.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    "Why do you believe there is a need for this? Vetting of drivers, saftey etc can all be done under private insurance and/or review systems" Not really, considering none of them have worked very well so far. "This idea that the government should protect everyone from everything is very dangerous." This idea that companies should be able to do whatever they want because profit is even more dangerous. "Further I have never really felt safe in government approved taxi's so the idea that the government today is providing proper safety inspections and vetting of driver is laughably naive, Taxi regulations is a money scheme for government and has 0 to do with safety" Because your anecdote trumps reality?
- HappyTypist 11y ago
  Or is there? These regulations pre-dated the internet. They existed in a time before information was easily shared and available. If I wanted to know how "Yellow Taxi Co" vetted its drivers in 1980, I would have needed to write letters and wait weeks for a response. That's not practical when I desperately need to get somewhere stat. But now, I can open up my phone and find out how exactly Uber vets drivers in a minute. If I don't like that, I can use Lyft. Or SideCar. Or, call a cab. I see these regulations like forcing drills to come with a OCR "Don't it yourself" failsafe. I'm an adult. I can choose my own 'risk vs cost' profile. Let me decide, and cut the red tape.
  - scott_karana 11y ago
    Do you know how the highway construction is vetted, how your cell phone batteries are vetted, how the gasoline additives are vetted, how the driver's licensing scheme in California is vetted, how vehicle import regulations are vetted, how traffic signals are vetted, etc? Any of these could cause non-negligible personal risk, none of it your fault. For extra fun, imagine changing jurisdictions frequently and doing all that research over again. Uber's economic model is maybe not my business, but my safety using them sure as hell is. I don't want to second-guess whether drinking water is safe, food, etc. Nor do I want to have to Google whether it's safe merely to hail a cab-like service. It's absurd to expect everyone to take 100% responsibility for all external factors beyond their control. At least some common, important factors need to be regulated simply to spare redundant burden on the populace.
    - the_ancient 11y ago
      your absolute faith in government to protect you is astounding
      - scott_karana 11y ago
        I don't have the resources to do everything myself. Nor do you. A little altruism is required for societies to function. (Nor did I say complete altruism is required)
      - 11y ago
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Those laws should not be on the books anyway, the fact they disregard them is one of the main reasons I support uber. You realize the law at issue is a law Uber supported which legalized ridesharing services in California?
dikaiosune 11y ago
Somehow it doesn't seem quite like "civil disobedience" when it's a multinational company breaking the law. As an example, if a more established company just started breaking laws that were inconvenient to their margins (especially safety sensitive ones) I really doubt it would be so easy to support.
- rblatz 11y ago
  Most companies do exactly that, everyday. If the penalty is less than the cost to follow the law most companies will not follow it.
  - techdragon 11y ago
    Which is why I'm in favour of penalties being set by a judge and being significantly burdensome enough most of the time, that they will think twice before trying. Company A has 10 million in the bank, fine is 5 million, company B has 100 billion in the bank, the fine is 75 billion.
mkohlmyr 11y ago
Companies don't get to pick and choose which laws they deem worthy of following. If you want the laws changed support an advocacy group. To let them off for blatantly ignoring legislation in a democratic society is setting a dangerous precedent.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  Of course they do - these business are just called “too big to fail” and tend to be involved in shuffling money around.
- mahyarm 11y ago
  You could apply the same logic to gay legalization, feminism & female emancipation, weed legalization, India's independence lead by ghandi, the civil rights movement and other forms of civil disobedience leading to legal changes, cultural shifts and even national holidays. In these examples you have illegal organizations, for profit organizations, non profit organizations and individuals demanding the changes.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    No, you absolutely cannot.
    - rblatz 11y ago
      It's very easy, civil disobedience is one of the fastest ways to change laws. Especially if you have a large base of support, which uber has. Uber uses civil disobedience very well to achieve its goals and move into new territories. Just because we aren't talking about freedom or human rights doesn't mean that this isn't the same exact behavior.
      - mc32 11y ago
        I think of civil disobedience as a way toward justice where an obvious and protracted injustice has existed. While I think there are good things about Uber, like breaking the Taxi co monopolies and lowering the barrier to entry for anyone to become a taxi driver, it would be a stretch, a big stretch to comparing how civil disobedience can help to bring change where civil injustice exists and allowing a company to co-opt this mechanism to enable it to enter markets more easily.
themagician 11y ago
If a regular person routinely disregards the law because they don't agree with it they go to prison. But when a $40 billion tech startup does it, it's cool. Got it.
- icebraining 11y ago
  On what basis are you assuming that the_ancient wouldn't also support a regular person who was also breaking a law that the_ancient believes shouldn't exist?
- Retra 11y ago
  Yes, organizations have more power and importance than individuals. This has been true everywhere throughout most of human history.
  - techdragon 11y ago
    Which is why allowing them to undertake acts of civil disobedience is just letting in the Visigoths. If money and power is allowed to buy a company greater ability to ignore the law than an individual human citizen... We all may as well call it a day, write the entire system off and start thinking about how the next one should work. Unless I see a counter example of say Google or Apple ignoring a stupid encryption must have back doors type law then we have zero examples of corporations ignoring the law for good... Vs hundreds of examples of them ignoring the law for evil, and a handful of examples where the good vs evil question is uncertain but should still be considered bad because they are breaking the law.
- ars 11y ago
  > If a regular person routinely disregards the law because they don't agree with it they go to prison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience
jlarocco 11y ago
You're ignoring the history that caused those laws to be on the books in the first place. We had more or less unregulated capitalism up through the industrial revolution, and companies screwed it up. They were disregarding safety, making children work 14 hour days, spreading food borne diseases, adding cocaine to their products, etc. Relatively few laws are on the books just to f* people over. The vast majority of them were enacted because they addressed real issues.
- icebraining 11y ago
  The history was cab drivers striking and destroying other people's property over the increased competition during the Great Depression. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9894899 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9894899
threeseed 11y ago
Disgraceful attitude. Uber and its supporters should wake up and realise that they alone do not get to usurp the laws made by democratically elected representatives. This kind of imperialist behaviour is antiquated, disrespectful and selfish. And is even more unacceptable from a company with a long history of childish, petulant behaviour hell bent on disrupting as much as they can. Whilst I agree that here in Australia our taxi laws need to be improved I am not happy for Uber to just ignore important safety conditions that people have fought for e.g. security cameras.
- the_ancient 11y ago
  ahh democracy.... mob rule.... Democracy is a terrible way to organize society.
  - threeseed 11y ago
    Well get back to me when you have figured this utopian vision out. In the meantime I will trust my local members and health/safety experts in the public sector over one US company trying to make billions as quickly as possible.
    - the_ancient 11y ago
      Nice False dilemma... How about you trust neither.... I do not trust uber, and I damn sure do not trust the government. As far as a utopia, that is the dream of a statist. Statists believe if they elect just the right people, and pass just the right laws everyone will be safe, happy and life will finally be bliss for all.... Nonarchic (Anti-Statism) libertarians like myself do not believe in a utopia, we believe in a rational foundation of ethics we accept that bad things will happen to good people. We believe that over the long term allowing individuals to be free provides the best method for most people to be able to live happy and fulfilled lives as they desire.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Fine, trust them. Just don't force everyone else to do the same.
s73v3r 11y ago
Except Uber wants those laws on the books, because they consider disregarding the law a competitive advantage. Otherwise they'd be lobbying for the laws to be changed. Instead, they're just flaunting the law everywhere, and crying when they get called out on it.

There is definitely a need for a lot of them, like mandatory safety inspections, vetting of drivers, etc. However, certain aspects of how they're implemented, like the medallion system, are obsolete and need to go away.

the_ancient 11y ago
Why do you believe there is a need for this? Vetting of drivers, saftey etc can all be done under private insurance and/or review systems This idea that the government should protect everyone from everything is very dangerous. Further I have never really felt safe in government approved taxi's so the idea that the government today is providing proper safety inspections and vetting of driver is laughably naive, Taxi regulations is a money scheme for government and has 0 to do with safety
- Sanddancer 11y ago
  Because I've ridden in non-regulated gypsy cabs before. The driver was terrible, the cab was in worse shape, and there was absolutely no systemic set of metering, just a negotiation of what the both of us felt was fair after the fact. The whole reason the medallion system was created was because prior to the medallions, taxis were a real risk to the general public. The government shouldn't protect everyone from everything. They should, however, protect people when market failures do happen, like what happened in the taxi industry in the 20s and 30s. Uber's stonewalling here, when they were the ones who helped craft the law, shows how unconcerned that they aren't concerned with working out how to make taxis safer, just that they want to make money on an industry that needs rethinking, consequences be damned.
  - the_ancient 11y ago
    I am assuming those gypsy cabs where not connected to a real time database where thousands of users are reviewing the drivers actions where 1 bad review can cost the drivers their ability to book new riders You that is the difference, technology it replacing government, and that is a good thing. You do not need the government to know the uber driver is good or not, other uber users will tell you that
    - Sanddancer 11y ago
      Because uber's assurances that a driver that's picking you up is the driver who was interviewed are laughable [1]. It would be trivial for uber to create, and mandate their drivers display, information that had their photo, driver id, etc. Technology would be replacing government if uber provided the same assurances I can get right now. They don't. [1] http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-driver-heres-how-we-get-around-background-checks-1596982249 http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-driver-heres-how-we-get-aro...
  - icebraining 11y ago
    The whole reason the medallion system was created was because prior to the medallions, taxis were a real risk to the general public. Nope, the reason it was created was because the taxi drivers where annoyed with the increase of competition during the Great Depression and started striking and destroying property until they got a monopoly over the business. From the nyc.gov site: Widespread poverty prompted many New Yorkers to opt for less-expensive forms of transportation, decreasing the demand for taxis. This put many companies out of business and caused many cabdrivers to lose their jobs. The situation was made worse by the tactics of “wildcat” (unlicensed) taxis who used what some considered to be “underhanded tactics,” such as drastically lowering fares, to get more business. The situation in the taxi industry was dire; frustrated cabdrivers turned their anger into violent protest and the demands for industry regulation increased. Another source: Striking taxi drivers was nothing new–the first strike took place in 1908, a year after the first taxi company was founded. But this strike had a hostile energy to it, as strikers went hunting for scabs to punish. As one driver put it, “the bastids that was scabbin’, we pulled the doors off their cabs.” Independent cab owners, who had nothing to gain by striking, had their windows smashed by blocks of ice and passengers thrown from their cabs. Police who tried restore order had their tires slashed and marbles thrown under their horses. By February 5, angry crowds of driving were brawling in the street with the police and torching independent cab cars. http://untappedcities.com/2015/02/05/today-in-nyc-history-the-taxi-riots-of-1934-start-february-5-1934/ http://untappedcities.com/2015/02/05/today-in-nyc-history-th...
- jlarocco 11y ago
  If that's how you feel, vote. Until enough people agree with you and get the law changed, it's the law. You don't get to blatantly disregard it just because you disagree with it. At the very least don't act surprised when disregarding the law results in punishment. It's kind of like, "Duh, what did you expect?"
  - the_ancient 11y ago
    First past the post voting schemes are less than useless, wasting your time voting in American elections is not a way to effect change. If you believe your vote matters I have a shit ton of math I can throw at you to show you how it does not
    - jlarocco 11y ago
      IMO, it's a good thing that no individual's vote "matters" in this kind of stuff. If it did, voting would be pointless and everybody would just go around doing whatever they wanted. As it stands, society has decided that we don't want people and companies doing whatever they want, and we want them to follow certain rules. We tried the laissez-faire system and in almost every case the end result was giant corporations screwing people over in some way.
    - techdragon 11y ago
      Your vote has the statistical significance it has been apportioned by your continued choice of living locale. Don't like that level of significance ... Move or convince others to agree with you.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  "Why do you believe there is a need for this? Vetting of drivers, saftey etc can all be done under private insurance and/or review systems" Not really, considering none of them have worked very well so far. "This idea that the government should protect everyone from everything is very dangerous." This idea that companies should be able to do whatever they want because profit is even more dangerous. "Further I have never really felt safe in government approved taxi's so the idea that the government today is providing proper safety inspections and vetting of driver is laughably naive, Taxi regulations is a money scheme for government and has 0 to do with safety" Because your anecdote trumps reality?
HappyTypist 11y ago
Or is there? These regulations pre-dated the internet. They existed in a time before information was easily shared and available. If I wanted to know how "Yellow Taxi Co" vetted its drivers in 1980, I would have needed to write letters and wait weeks for a response. That's not practical when I desperately need to get somewhere stat. But now, I can open up my phone and find out how exactly Uber vets drivers in a minute. If I don't like that, I can use Lyft. Or SideCar. Or, call a cab. I see these regulations like forcing drills to come with a OCR "Don't it yourself" failsafe. I'm an adult. I can choose my own 'risk vs cost' profile. Let me decide, and cut the red tape.
- scott_karana 11y ago
  Do you know how the highway construction is vetted, how your cell phone batteries are vetted, how the gasoline additives are vetted, how the driver's licensing scheme in California is vetted, how vehicle import regulations are vetted, how traffic signals are vetted, etc? Any of these could cause non-negligible personal risk, none of it your fault. For extra fun, imagine changing jurisdictions frequently and doing all that research over again. Uber's economic model is maybe not my business, but my safety using them sure as hell is. I don't want to second-guess whether drinking water is safe, food, etc. Nor do I want to have to Google whether it's safe merely to hail a cab-like service. It's absurd to expect everyone to take 100% responsibility for all external factors beyond their control. At least some common, important factors need to be regulated simply to spare redundant burden on the populace.
  - the_ancient 11y ago
    your absolute faith in government to protect you is astounding
    - scott_karana 11y ago
      I don't have the resources to do everything myself. Nor do you. A little altruism is required for societies to function. (Nor did I say complete altruism is required)
    - 11y ago

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Those laws should not be on the books anyway, the fact they disregard them is one of the main reasons I support uber. You realize the law at issue is a law Uber supported which legalized ridesharing services in California?

dikaiosune 11y ago

Somehow it doesn't seem quite like "civil disobedience" when it's a multinational company breaking the law. As an example, if a more established company just started breaking laws that were inconvenient to their margins (especially safety sensitive ones) I really doubt it would be so easy to support.

rblatz 11y ago
Most companies do exactly that, everyday. If the penalty is less than the cost to follow the law most companies will not follow it.
- techdragon 11y ago
  Which is why I'm in favour of penalties being set by a judge and being significantly burdensome enough most of the time, that they will think twice before trying. Company A has 10 million in the bank, fine is 5 million, company B has 100 billion in the bank, the fine is 75 billion.

mkohlmyr 11y ago

Companies don't get to pick and choose which laws they deem worthy of following. If you want the laws changed support an advocacy group. To let them off for blatantly ignoring legislation in a democratic society is setting a dangerous precedent.

danieltillett 11y ago
Of course they do - these business are just called “too big to fail” and tend to be involved in shuffling money around.
mahyarm 11y ago
You could apply the same logic to gay legalization, feminism & female emancipation, weed legalization, India's independence lead by ghandi, the civil rights movement and other forms of civil disobedience leading to legal changes, cultural shifts and even national holidays. In these examples you have illegal organizations, for profit organizations, non profit organizations and individuals demanding the changes.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  No, you absolutely cannot.
  - rblatz 11y ago
    It's very easy, civil disobedience is one of the fastest ways to change laws. Especially if you have a large base of support, which uber has. Uber uses civil disobedience very well to achieve its goals and move into new territories. Just because we aren't talking about freedom or human rights doesn't mean that this isn't the same exact behavior.
    - mc32 11y ago
      I think of civil disobedience as a way toward justice where an obvious and protracted injustice has existed. While I think there are good things about Uber, like breaking the Taxi co monopolies and lowering the barrier to entry for anyone to become a taxi driver, it would be a stretch, a big stretch to comparing how civil disobedience can help to bring change where civil injustice exists and allowing a company to co-opt this mechanism to enable it to enter markets more easily.

themagician 11y ago

If a regular person routinely disregards the law because they don't agree with it they go to prison. But when a $40 billion tech startup does it, it's cool. Got it.

icebraining 11y ago
On what basis are you assuming that the_ancient wouldn't also support a regular person who was also breaking a law that the_ancient believes shouldn't exist?
Retra 11y ago
Yes, organizations have more power and importance than individuals. This has been true everywhere throughout most of human history.
- techdragon 11y ago
  Which is why allowing them to undertake acts of civil disobedience is just letting in the Visigoths. If money and power is allowed to buy a company greater ability to ignore the law than an individual human citizen... We all may as well call it a day, write the entire system off and start thinking about how the next one should work. Unless I see a counter example of say Google or Apple ignoring a stupid encryption must have back doors type law then we have zero examples of corporations ignoring the law for good... Vs hundreds of examples of them ignoring the law for evil, and a handful of examples where the good vs evil question is uncertain but should still be considered bad because they are breaking the law.
ars 11y ago
> If a regular person routinely disregards the law because they don't agree with it they go to prison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

jlarocco 11y ago

You're ignoring the history that caused those laws to be on the books in the first place. We had more or less unregulated capitalism up through the industrial revolution, and companies screwed it up. They were disregarding safety, making children work 14 hour days, spreading food borne diseases, adding cocaine to their products, etc. Relatively few laws are on the books just to f* people over. The vast majority of them were enacted because they addressed real issues.

icebraining 11y ago
The history was cab drivers striking and destroying other people's property over the increased competition during the Great Depression. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9894899 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9894899

threeseed 11y ago

Disgraceful attitude. Uber and its supporters should wake up and realise that they alone do not get to usurp the laws made by democratically elected representatives. This kind of imperialist behaviour is antiquated, disrespectful and selfish. And is even more unacceptable from a company with a long history of childish, petulant behaviour hell bent on disrupting as much as they can. Whilst I agree that here in Australia our taxi laws need to be improved I am not happy for Uber to just ignore important safety conditions that people have fought for e.g. security cameras.

the_ancient 11y ago
ahh democracy.... mob rule.... Democracy is a terrible way to organize society.
- threeseed 11y ago
  Well get back to me when you have figured this utopian vision out. In the meantime I will trust my local members and health/safety experts in the public sector over one US company trying to make billions as quickly as possible.
  - the_ancient 11y ago
    Nice False dilemma... How about you trust neither.... I do not trust uber, and I damn sure do not trust the government. As far as a utopia, that is the dream of a statist. Statists believe if they elect just the right people, and pass just the right laws everyone will be safe, happy and life will finally be bliss for all.... Nonarchic (Anti-Statism) libertarians like myself do not believe in a utopia, we believe in a rational foundation of ethics we accept that bad things will happen to good people. We believe that over the long term allowing individuals to be free provides the best method for most people to be able to live happy and fulfilled lives as they desire.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Fine, trust them. Just don't force everyone else to do the same.

s73v3r 11y ago

Except Uber wants those laws on the books, because they consider disregarding the law a competitive advantage. Otherwise they'd be lobbying for the laws to be changed. Instead, they're just flaunting the law everywhere, and crying when they get called out on it.