Uber forced to drive defensively, again, after mass shooting

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Edumakated
They will most certainly try to use this to against Uber when it has nothing to do with this guy being nutso.

Agreed. Mayor McNanny II (Bill DeBlasio) wanted to regulate Uber but got a tremendous backlash from the people that would have been most affected; minorities. Turns out medallion cabs do not like the 'darker' neighborhoods as much as Midtown and Downtown Manhattan so Uber filled an economic niche the livery companies did not want to fill.

Uber basically legalized the "gypsy cabs" in the outer Burroughs. The mayor just sees lost revenue from essentially having the industry deregulated. Fortunately, here in Chicago, our mayor saw the writing on the wall and is allowing Uber pickups at the airport.

All the occupational regulations are really designed to squash competition. I've always felt if someone had a clean driving record, proper insurance, and decent car, why can't they pick up and drop off whoever the like? Why does the state need to regulate such a simple transaction?

a reply to: gladtobehere

They want to require you to get a business license, a taxi license, have a medallion, pay fees, taxes, buy additional insurances, go thru inspections, yearly requirements, etc. etc., which means that State regulated cab drivers have to charge more for their services, rendering them unable to compete.

A start-up like uber makes it easy to do business and miraculously, its all running relatively smoothly.

Personally, I'm all for the little guy. When we still had a mom-and-pop hardware store in my town, I'd spend more there than I would at Home Depot because I saw value in the smaller stores.

That being said, and what I don't fully understand about Uber in general.... is that how is it that they can be a taxi service while not having to be governed under same laws as taxis? (Admittedly, I've never used Uber and I don't know too much about it). To put it another way, I'm all for the little guy, so long as the little guy has to follow the same rules as everyone else.

In regards to the the shooter being an Uber driver... doesn't mean that much to me. A nut is a nut is a nut no matter if they are a driver, a waiter or anything else. Every once in a while I hear about an Uber driver perpetrating a crime against a passenger. In those instances its a different story entirely. In those instances, I would suggest that since a taxi medallion costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, the owners of said medallions have a much larger interest in finding out who is really operating with it.

originally posted by: Edumakated
I've always felt if someone had a clean driving record, proper insurance, and decent car, why can't they pick up and drop off whoever the like? Why does the state need to regulate such a simple transaction?

I know you are being rhetorical and we both already know the answer. Revenue.

The government cannot abide to watch revenue go elsewhere and all the big government advocates want to squash these new industries because it upsets their status quo.

originally posted by: eluryh22
That being said, and what I don't fully understand about Uber in general.... is that how is it that they can be a taxi service while not having to be governed under same laws as taxis? (Admittedly, I've never used Uber and I don't know too much about it). To put it another way, I'm all for the little guy, so long as the little guy has to follow the same rules as everyone else.

If I did not have a car and I called you up and said, 'Hey, Eluryh, can you give me a ride to the supermarket and I will throw you $10?', and you reply, 'Maybe for $20, not $10' which I agree with. You then give me a ride, I give you the $20 and we are both happy. Should they government regulate that too? Because all the Uber app does is permit people that wanted to have that transaction a medium to do so.

As long as the driver claims the income I do not think there should be much, if any, other regulation on that transaction.

a reply to: Edumakated

Taxi industry and local governments are just mad a smart phone app completely dismantled the taxi cartel.

Taxi companies are using the same apps.

There is absolutely no reason a taxi company or anyone who wants to drive a cab should have to pay exorbitant fees for taxi medallions.

In my city the fee for a taxi license is 20 bucks. So much for exorbitant fees.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

As long as the driver claims the income I do not think there should be much, if any, other regulation on that transaction.

The same regulations that apply to taxi companies should also apply to Ubers because they are just taxi service with another name.

originally posted by: buster2010
In my city the fee for a taxi license is 20 bucks. So much for exorbitant fees.

In New York City they can run between $700,000 to $1,000,000 depending on the market.

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Edumakated

Taxi industry and local governments are just mad a smart phone app completely dismantled the taxi cartel.

Taxi companies are using the same apps.

There is absolutely no reason a taxi company or anyone who wants to drive a cab should have to pay exorbitant fees for taxi medallions.

In my city the fee for a taxi license is 20 bucks. So much for exorbitant fees.

there is a difference between a license for the driver and a taxi cab medallion. It may cost $20 bucks for the driver to get a license, but taxi medallions can run several hundred thousand dollars. A taxi medallion is what gives the taxi company the ability to operate taxis. The taxi driver is typically an independent contractor that leases the cab from the taxi company. Individual drivers cannot afford to pay the taxi medallion fees.

What Uber basically did was make it so individual taxi drivers can operate without the taxi medallion. So now instead of having to work for a larger company and lease a crappy cab, an entrepreneurial driver can use their own car and avoid having to work for the larger company.

Taxi cab regulation is almost as bad as the stuff Tesla is going up against with states regulatiing how they run their dealerships.

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

As long as the driver claims the income I do not think there should be much, if any, other regulation on that transaction.

The same regulations that apply to taxi companies should also apply to Ubers because they are just taxi service with another name.

Uber requires insurance, car checks, background checks, etc. Beyond that there is no reason the state is regulating taxis other than for revenue. Occupational licensing has exploded over the past couple of decades and it is primarily to generate revenue for the state and create barriers to entry by the existing companies. Consumers rarely benefit.

originally posted by: buster2010
The same regulations that apply to taxi companies should also apply to Ubers...

Well then, you should be happy to know that they are. The municipalities are just pissed because Uber upsets their legal shakedown schemes.

It is funny to see progressives calling for more thorough background checks while at the same time advocating getting rid of all criminal bacground questions on job applications.

It is funny how uber is a perfect example of the free market doing something better and cheaper but young progressive socialists are the biggest uber users and supprters.

Bernie Sanders hates uber and thinks it needs more government regulation and control but his campaign still uses it almost exlusively.

Some random person in a random vehicle driving. If your happy with that and the possibilities then go for it.

As we just saw, you never know.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Any employer who is providing a service that involves the use of a deadly weapon, i.e. and automobile, or provides medical services (which can also be deadly) should be required to obtain medical records of applicants. You really don't want Jeffrey Dahmer as your surgeon during an appendectomy.

a reply to: reddragon2015

Wouldn't this be the same as blaming all gun owners for one mass shooter's actions? How is Uber responsible here? Not all Uber drivers are mass shooters.

ETA: In fact, the way this reporting looks is that people jumped on and attacked Uber for this so that we don't have to have another discussion about gun control. But regardless of what you want to talk about, at the end of the day, it was a firearm that killed these people not Uber.

originally posted by: TonyS
Any employer who is providing a service that involves the use of a deadly weapon, i.e. and automobile, or provides medical services (which can also be deadly) should be required to obtain medical records of applicants. You really don't want Jeffrey Dahmer as your surgeon during an appendectomy.

A friggin screwdriver could be a deadly weapon. You cannot compel people to turnover their medical records to employers. What else do you want the government to force private citizens to give to potential employers?

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Any employer who is providing a service that involves the use of a deadly weapon, i.e. and automobile, or provides medical services (which can also be deadly) should be required to obtain medical records of applicants. You really don't want Jeffrey Dahmer as your surgeon during an appendectomy.

I'm having a hard time thinking of any career that doesn't handle anything that can't be a potentially deadly weapon, because a car is not a deadly weapon - it can be used as one, but so can anything. This is not a slope of rationale you want to climb down, because it's a #ing cliff.

I was a Taxi driver in what seems a lifetime ago in my home town.

The process I went through:
1. Apply for the license.
a. I believe it was about $20
b. I had to put down ANY CITATION(MOVING or NON MOVING) and ANY criminal court contact regardless of how small or long ago. This includes anywhere I ever lived. If I missed anything, they would consider it dishonesty and is grounds for denial. The city then gets a report from the City police/County sheriff and compares the application to it.
2. Wait until the next monthly city council meeting.
3. Attend the next city council meeting. They will call you up in front of the council. The council reviews the application and police records. They ask you questions about your application.
a. The council votes on whether to issue a license or not.

What does Uber do?
Accept credentials remotely. Does anybody physically meet you to confirm you are who you claim to be?
Do a background check with those credentials through-? who knows?, probably whoever gives them the cheapest rate that month.

Do people not see the difference here?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Plus, you know, the vast majority of those who suffer from mental illness never commit a crime. Just like the vast majority of gun owners.

a reply to: Dreamwatcher

The differences are meaningless, the real thing that matters is the key similarity; neither screening would prevent him from driving around and shooting people, which is what he did. He wasn't granted a car or a gun with his Uber membership, and going to the Taxi screening wouldn't have stopped him.

Stop falling for the blatant agenda, his rampage and his Uner job are not connected for any other reason than to sow fear and push for regulation.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: eluryh22
That being said, and what I don't fully understand about Uber in general.... is that how is it that they can be a taxi service while not having to be governed under same laws as taxis? (Admittedly, I've never used Uber and I don't know too much about it). To put it another way, I'm all for the little guy, so long as the little guy has to follow the same rules as everyone else.

If I did not have a car and I called you up and said, 'Hey, Eluryh, can you give me a ride to the supermarket and I will throw you $10?', and you reply, 'Maybe for $20, not $10' which I agree with. You then give me a ride, I give you the $20 and we are both happy. Should they government regulate that too? Because all the Uber app does is permit people that wanted to have that transaction a medium to do so.

As long as the driver claims the income I do not think there should be much, if any, other regulation on that transaction.

To continue with your analogy....

If I have a friend that calls me up and mentions he is hungry, and I tell him I'll cook him some ribs and wings on the BBQ if he gives me $10.... I think we both agree there is no problem there.

However, if I'm part of a website that "connects hungry people with food" and people text me there order while they are on their way to my house, then pay me and eat their meals while sitting at one of the dozen tables I have set up in my back yard.... do I own a restaurant or not?

In the example I used... if someone thinks there should be no regulation (provided I claim my income and pay taxes) then I have no issue with that. However, that same person should then be in favor of getting rid of the regulations that other restaurants have to deal with (and pay for).