|
Gail Wynand posted:Those organizations have a vested interest in interpreting the laws in a way that maximizes their power. Then why hasn't uber sued? They've been told to stop and their position is they will keep operating. Why didn't uber apply for a permit and sue when it was rejected then? This whole "they have to ignore the regulations so they can challenge them" is just a smoke screen so Uber can avoid regulation longer.
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:50 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Then why hasn't uber sued? They've been told to stop and their position is they will keep operating. Why didn't uber apply for a permit and sue when it was rejected then?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:*Here's a hint: being able to hide the sheer complexity of the operation and its supporting subsystems behind a simple-looking user interface, and doing it well enough to give casual observers the impression that the operation itself can't be that complicated, is what makes them successful.  "Of course it's far from impossible to duplicate the general idea, just as there were (and are) plenty of other online retailers besides Amazon. And yet Amazon has proven remarkably difficult to unseat as the #1 online retailer, because it turns out executing really well on an idea is hard. Nintendo Kid posted:Uber is a piece of poo poo that doesn't really work in the long term, that's why people dislike it. Wow it all makes sense now!
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
Uber issues drivers phones with the uber app on it. They're required for Uber drivers to work, and now uber is charging the drivers $40 a month for these phones. Basically, if you are an uber driver but you don't work enough each month, you might end up paying for the privilege of working for uber.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 09:54
|
|
|
Oh, and UberX now has their drivers covered primarily by Uber's insurance, not the driver's personal insurance. Some drivers are concerned about the insurance certificates they've been given though: http://www.scribd.com/doc/234793785/Certificate-of-Liability-Insurance-7-22-14 Mainly that said certificate doesn't have the driver's name, or any identifying info about the driver at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 10:00
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:People dislike Uber because from the outside it looks like just another cab company who happens to be powered by what looks to be a simple app. The stunning level of ignorance required to make such observations aside*, what gets people worked up about Uber is that it seems to be successful because it flouts laws, as opposed to because it's a clean, refreshing, and professional new player in an industry that's hopelessly plagued by ridiculous amounts of corruption, regulatory capture, racism and blatantly poor service. You didn't answer my question: How does the class identity of SA users and their hatred of wealthy people (as you described it) lead to them disliking Uber?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Oh, and UberX now has their drivers covered primarily by Uber's insurance, not the driver's personal insurance. Some drivers are concerned about the insurance certificates they've been given though: That's pretty normal; when I had a company car, my insurance certificate just had the company name on it. redreader posted:Since I moved to the USA, I've ridden in cabs maybe 40ish times, and maybe had 4 white taxi drivers. What race are these taxi drivers who don't pick up African-Americans? Are all DC cab drivers white? Nope, in fact, I've never seen a white cabbie in DC proper. Almost every DC cab driver is black, though, in my experience they tend to be recent African immigrants rather than natives. KaiserBen fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
You morons don't even have half the facts correct about Uber. You've got a driver in here correcting you repeatedly, but luckily that hasn't stopped you from repeating the same old nonsense. We could be having a discussion about the economic impact of everyone moving to freelance, contracted employment, but instead we're all talking about how a driver could hypothetically discriminate against a black person (of course, no black people have actually offered their OWN opinions here and instead we're relying on the enlightened white interpreters of DnD).
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
Are people still invoking ~my black friend~ to defend 21st century e-jitneys? Also Uber cars don't smell like incense and the driver doesn't try to give you What Is Islam? pamphlets so it's clearly superior. They even Fist Bump like Real Bros Best part of Uber is that quasi-legal hack clubs have been around for decades, if you can speak Spanish. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Uber just came to my city of Charleston, SC this week or last. The local government said they need to follow existing taxi law. Uber's response was just to ignore the laws and say it'll just pay any fines it gets. http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140718/PC05/140719299
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
lamentable dustman posted:Uber just came to my city of Charleston, SC this week or last. The local government said they need to follow existing taxi law. Uber's response was just to ignore the laws and say it'll just pay any fines it gets. When BP just paid OSHA fines instead of repairing their Texas City refinery as the law required, BP was protesting an unjust law. It's a wonderful example of civil disobedience.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Imagine there was a service where you had bulk meat dropped off at your house, and you packaged and sliced that meat, and a huge corporation used a smartphone app to sell the meat at bargain basement prices directly to consumers. No USDA, no inspections, no regulations. Actually, don't imagine that, because it's my idea and I thought of it first. It's disruptive you see. It's innovative. Traditional structures of meat distribution will hate my meat-sharing service. Trabisnikof posted:I just don't think a drilling company with a new innovation that decided to skip the "unfair" state environmental permits would get such support from this thread. Citizen Tayne posted:When BP just paid OSHA fines instead of repairing their Texas City refinery as the law required, BP was protesting an unjust law. It's a wonderful example of civil disobedience. disheveled posted:Is there any room for nuance? I suppose the answer was "no." I'm not willing to defend all/most of Uber's practices (check my previous post) but I'm honestly curious how a corporation is supposed to challenge local regulations that flat-out say "you can not operate here, period," and which are designed to protect businesses that are already in the city, without first setting up shop. Seriously; what's the legal procedure you see getting them to that point? Uber is calling their bluff on the legality of their "permits" and inviting the cities to start legal action because they know the only possible outcome is a good deal. They create a problem and force the legislature to deal with it. I am not blind to the fact that this is good marketing. In the best case scenario, Uber will be in violation of existing law because it is fundamentally incompatible with it. I just quickly plowed through regulations for Arlington, since VA keeps coming up: artificial limits on number of cars; paper manifests; locked rate schedules with supplied taximeters; ban on cell phones; required fleet color schemes, insignia, and lettering; previously used vehicles can not be older than two model years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
disheveled posted:I suppose the answer was "no." Can you show us an example of a locality telling Uber, "You cannot operate here, period?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
disheveled posted:I suppose the answer was "no." Right, Uber's stance is that it is following the law in these places, and that the local regulators are exceeding their authority by subjecting them to rules that shouldn't apply. From a business standpoint, it also gets people locally to notice how great of a service it is compared to traditional taxis and get a base of support. I'm actually surprised at the hostility towards Uber in this thread, I always thought that opposing regulatory capture was something that cut across traditional political lines. From an anecdotal standpoint, I've also called taxis through the Uber app (apparently you can only do this in some areas?) and gotten much better service from them than I have from hailing cabs on the street. Citizen Tayne posted:Can you show us an example of a locality telling Uber, "You cannot operate here, period?" "Uber must cease and desist operating in Virginia until it obtains proper authority"
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
I'm interested in what the difference between "avoiding regulatory capture" and "avoiding regulations" is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm interested in what the difference between "avoiding regulatory capture" and "avoiding regulations" is. Were you responding to me? I was talking about us, as citizens, opposing regulatory capture.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
esquilax posted:"Uber must cease and desist operating in Virginia until it obtains proper authority" That does not mean "You cannot operate here, period." That means "you cannot operate here until you follow the rules, like everyone else." People here keep misrepresenting that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
disheveled posted:I suppose the answer was "no." Change the law like a business in any other industry would do. For example, distilling was illegal in the state of Texas until the 90s. The businesses lobbied to change that. Or micro-brewers likewise often run into regulation that makes micro-brewing near impossible in some states and they lobby to remove them. Or on the flip side look at Fracing. Another technological innovation, one that's transforming America, but localities have chosen to ban the practice. Now if the Oil & Gas companies had a problem with one of those bans, I would expect them to lobby. Or also look at Tesla. They face legal hurtles for sales in many states. What did they do? They worked within the law to provide as best a customer experience as they can while remaining legal. That's what so frustrating about this: Uber has a rather commonplace option, change the laws. Businesses do it all the time, Uber has billions, and its not like "big taxi" is actually spending that much money on politics. But as I posted earlier, Uber has been bad at campaigning thus far. They've done stupid poo poo like mass robo-dialing, rather than create a uber-centric community events and generally coozying up to local politicos. Uber could easily have city councils and legislatures behind them if they spent the time and money to engage the political process rather than defying it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Oh, and UberX now has their drivers covered primarily by Uber's insurance, not the driver's personal insurance. Some drivers are concerned about the insurance certificates they've been given though: That's a valid certificate. However, the certificate shows that Uber's insurance only covers liability. If an unfortunate Uber driver causes an accident and sustains damage to his own vehicle, 1) his own personal insurance won't cover it because he's using his vehicle in a commercial venture, and 2) Uber's insurance only covers liability, which is damage to the other party. It seems that these drivers aren't correctly insured after all. They would need their own commercial auto insurance (with comprehensive and collision coverage) in order to cover damage to their own vehicle in the case of an at-fault accident.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Were you responding to me? I was talking about us, as citizens, opposing regulatory capture. And in the context you're using it sounds like people should be supporting Uber for "opposing regulatory capture" , without specifying how that differs from just opposing regulations in general.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
You know it's possible to regulate uber without making them follow exactly the same regulations as a cab company, that's what Minneapolis just did and everyone seems pretty pleased with the end result. Even the cab companies don't seem too angry about it because this whole ordeal has caused the city council to take a look and change some outdated and unnecessary taxi regulations. http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/26054707/minneapolis-legalizes-uber-lyft-with-taxi-style-regulations quote:- Transportation network companies will be the license holder for all activity associated with their license application. Everyone seems to be focused on regulations as the only reason why people prefer Uber to a normal taxi but I don't think that's true. Here's my experience with Minneapolis taxis, pretty much everyone I've talked to who uses them has had some of these same experiences. - Incredibly inconsistent arrival times, I've been told 20 minutes to have them take over an hour or just not show up, I've also been told 45 minutes to have them take 5. If you call and ask where the taxi is they never have any idea. - When you call to get a taxi the line is often busy, they have a text to order system but they seem to flat out ignore the texts. - They never know where anything is, not even very popular locations, and don't have a GPS. I don't like spending every taxi ride giving step-by-step instructions to the driver. - Rude drivers - They're supposed to all take cards but they often don't, and won't tell you until the ride is already over These aren't issues with regulations they're just issues with the taxi companies providing a poor service. I'd be perfectly fine with riding an ordinary taxi that didn't provide a poor service but they don't so I'm going to use uber. I've seen many similar sentiments from people in other cities as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
computer parts posted:And in the context you're using it sounds like people should be supporting Uber for "opposing regulatory capture" , without specifying how that differs from just opposing regulations in general. Not supporting Uber necessarily, but there are a lot of people using "the law is the law" without acknowledging that sometimes when entrenched interests are confronted by a disruptive competitor the regulations don't necessarily reflect the law, and that neither the regulations or the law are in the public interest. "Regulation" is neutral and may be in the public interest, "regulatory capture" is by definition not in the public interest. The fact that people are relying on "ILLEGAL" as a primary argument is really strange to me given what I've seen from threads on, say, drugs, sentencing or immigration. edit: reread your post and want to clarify. We shouldn't be supporting Uber because they are opposing regulatory capture, we should be opposing regulatory capture and by doing this we will incidentally be helping Uber. esquilax fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Citizen Tayne posted:That does not mean "You cannot operate here, period." That means "you cannot operate here until you follow the rules, like everyone else." People here keep misrepresenting that. ...really? Over two posts, I explained several rules which Uber will not be able to meet and should not need to meet. That is, in fact, "you can not operate here, period." Requiring Ubers to install local taximeters with fixed pricing to take on-demand fares is entirely antithetical to the model. Trabisnikof posted:That's what so frustrating about this: Uber has a rather commonplace option, change the laws. Businesses do it all the time, Uber has billions, and its not like "big taxi" is actually spending that much money on politics. But as I posted earlier, Uber has been bad at campaigning thus far. They've done stupid poo poo like mass robo-dialing, rather than create a uber-centric community events and generally coozying up to local politicos. Uber could easily have city councils and legislatures behind them if they spent the time and money to engage the political process rather than defying it. Thank you for the state-level example of distilling. Can you provide some examples of a business the size of Uber successfully lobbying to change city-by-city regulations in cities they are not operating in? And if so, are there any examples where that regulatory change occurred despite opposition from local businesses? My belief is that Uber is actually not powerful enough to get change without public support, which is why they take the strategy they do. They need to get people using Uber so that there is popular pressure on the local government. BRAKE FOR MOOSE fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Not supporting Uber necessarily, but there are a lot of people using "the law is the law" without acknowledging that sometimes when entrenched interests are confronted by a disruptive competitor the regulations don't necessarily reflect the law, and that neither the regulations or the law are in the public interest. "Regulation" is neutral and may be in the public interest, "regulatory capture" is by definition not in the public interest. Because in this case it's akin to people wanting the right to not pay $21/year in health insurance even if it makes everything else lovely for people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
Lolcano Eruption posted:That's a valid certificate. However, the certificate shows that Uber's insurance only covers liability. If an unfortunate Uber driver causes an accident and sustains damage to his own vehicle, 1) his own personal insurance won't cover it because he's using his vehicle in a commercial venture, and 2) Uber's insurance only covers liability, which is damage to the other party. It seems that these drivers aren't correctly insured after all. They would need their own commercial auto insurance (with comprehensive and collision coverage) in order to cover damage to their own vehicle in the case of an at-fault accident. That's their own fault. Liability insurance is what's important in case they injure someone. If they don't bother to get proper insurance and damage their car, that's on the drivers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
esquilax posted:drugs, sentencing or immigration. See here's the difference: those topics are ways that laws are applied to flesh and blood human beings while this thread is discussing a social construct that has limited legal liability and billions of dollars.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
computer parts posted:And in the context you're using it sounds like people should be supporting Uber for "opposing regulatory capture" , without specifying how that differs from just opposing regulations in general. No, in the context he's using it it sounds like he doesn't like some taxi regulations, not all regulations everywhere. This is exactly the critisism I laid out earlier - it's stupid to treat this as a proxy in some perceived ongoing ideological battle. It's just about taxis and cars.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
computer parts posted:And in the context you're using it sounds like people should be supporting Uber for "opposing regulatory capture" , without specifying how that differs from just opposing regulations in general. Regulatory capture means corporations or other entities using regulation to protect themselves from competition. For example, occupational licensing restrictions tend to protect incumbents, while hurting consumers and potential entrants, but are hard to overturn because the incumbents are the ones with the most political influence on the issue and who often end up writing the laws/regulations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
Xandu posted:That's their own fault. Liability insurance is what's important in case they injure someone. If they don't bother to get proper insurance and damage their car, that's on the drivers. Proper coverage for a commercial vehicle, one presumes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
disheveled posted:...really? Over two posts, I explained several rules which Uber will not be able to meet and should not need to meet. That is, in fact, "you can not operate here, period." Requiring Ubers to install local taximeters with fixed pricing to take on-demand fares is entirely antithetical to the model. I wasn't aware that we had an expert on the taxi and livery car industry here in the thread. Can you give us your credentials, and tell us why a company that moves people from Point A to Point B with hired cars doesn't need to meet the same requirements as other companies that move people from Point A to Point B with hired cars? I'm particularly interested in why taximeters aren't necessary. Pittsburgh Fentanyl Cloud fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
disheveled posted:Thank you for the state-level example of distilling. Can you provide some examples of a business the size of Uber successfully lobbying to change city-by-city regulations in cities they are not operating in? And if so, are there any examples where that regulatory change occurred despite opposition from local businesses? Uber has a valuation of $17 Billion dollars. As this excellent post that someone linked lays out (http://quora.com/Uber-1/How-big-of-a-deal-is-Uber/answer/Justin-Singer) the "big taxi" companies all control small segments of the market. Uber has the resources. Sure, maybe they'll be some cities where the mob runs the taxis and the city council or some poo poo. Or California where the regulators make rules, and everyone hates them but that's California and that's the law. But in the vast majority of the country Uber has everything they need to shift regulations in their favor. Everyone hates taxis.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
dilbertschalter posted:Regulatory capture means corporations or other entities using regulation to protect themselves from competition. For example, occupational licensing restrictions tend to protect incumbents, while hurting consumers and potential entrants, but are hard to overturn because the incumbents are the ones with the most political influence on the issue and who often end up writing the laws/regulations. And apparently things like "proper background checks" fall under "using regulation to protect from competition". Note that I don't give a gently caress about whatever straw man regulation you have about "$50 fines for not being a registered mode of communication" or whatever, I'm looking at just pure health and safety. Uber is apparently challenging those laws just as much as they're challenging any others. And yeah Uber is worth $17 billion, they're not exactly a "small" company.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
computer parts posted:And apparently things like "proper background checks" fall under "using regulation to protect from competition". There's a safe rides fee now, so everything is cool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Xandu posted:That's their own fault. Liability insurance is what's important in case they injure someone. If they don't bother to get proper insurance and damage their car, that's on the drivers. I guess this depends who is technically "employing" the driver, Uber/Lyft or the rider. It seems that Uber/Lyft's position is that they are just a facilitator, correct? Is the rider liable then? I'm not a lawyer so I'm honestly curious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:See here's the difference: those topics are ways that laws are applied to flesh and blood human beings while this thread is discussing a social construct that has limited legal liability and billions of dollars. Everything is about people you idiot. When we're talking about taxi regulations we're talking about regulations that impact safety, fares and who gets picked up when by what driver. You're literally just parroting vague anti-corporate turns of phrase that you heard other people use but don't understand. Can I repeat that we're talking about taxi service. It's not that hard to stick to the topic at hand and avoid pathetic ideological propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
computer parts posted:And apparently things like "proper background checks" fall under "using regulation to protect from competition". This is just bullshit, honestly. You can find people who evade Top Secret background checks, it doesn't mean that checks aren't performed or that they don't catch the majority of people that shouldn't get clearance. If you have an issue with their background checks, perhaps you should take it up with Talx, Experian, or one of the other massive firms that does background checks for just about every job in America?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Radbot posted:This is just bullshit, honestly. You can find people who evade Top Secret background checks, it doesn't mean that checks aren't performed or that they don't catch the majority of people that shouldn't get clearance. How big is this majority?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Can I repeat that we're talking about taxi service. It's not that hard to stick to the topic at hand and avoid pathetic ideological propaganda. The person I was quoting the one who brought up drugs and immigration so 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
computer parts posted:How big is this majority? I don't know, maybe you could Google the amount of people with Top Secret clearances, and then find out how many people with them have ever committed a breach of national security? Just a suggestion, don't let me bog down your research.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:50 |
|
|
Radbot posted:I don't know, maybe you could Google the amount of people with Top Secret clearances, and then find out how many people with them have ever committed a breach of national security? Just a suggestion, don't let me bog down your research. You're the one that made the assertion, generally you do the research.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 17:32
|
|