View Single Post
Old 02-08-2017, 01:02 AM   #13
BandB
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale. Florida, USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 21,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by MYTraveler View Post
The comparison doesn't fall apart. In both cases, government regulation, in the guise of consumer protection, limits competition and increases costs. In the case of Taxis, the rates themselves are typically fixed by the government. That's why a medallion can be worth $1/4 million. Ridiculous. We can agree that there shouldn't be two sets of rules. My solution is get government out of it as much as possible for the benefit of the consumer. Uber is an absolutely great thing, especially for safety -- drunk driving deaths and serious injury are demonstrably down.



Perhaps you are unaware that their refusal is necessitated by government regulation that could give them liability. Once again, the best solution, in my opinion, is to have less governmental interference. That way, if the market wants (and is willing to pay for) background checks (and, like you, I would prefer knowing that the drivers are not criminals, especially when they are driving my daughters), Lyft will provide that if Uber doesn't. On the other hand, if market doesn't want (or won't pay extra for) background checks, who are we to insist?

Given a chance, the free market works REALLY well. Ironically, it is toughest on business owners, hugely benefits consumers, and is good for "labor" that is willing to work hard and produce. At least that is my strong belief.
Well, I'm not a fan of unregulated drivers. They only gain liability if they agree to run the criminal background checks and fail to run them or ignore them. By not running them now, they're assuming significant liability and enough incidents publicized widely enough will damage them further.

I don't like the idea of unregulated drivers carrying passengers for hire.

There's another point too and that is taxicabs must pick you up and take you anywhere in their territory. Uber and Lyft don't have to do that. If they were to run taxicabs out of business, you soon would have no one running to some neighborhoods where people really depend on taxis.

It's a complex issue and I'm all for eliminating the medallion and franchise situation. I'd be for letting any driver who got licensed including a criminal background clearance drive for any company providing service and meeting certain standards of insurance and safety. In that situation though, I don't have an answer to insure all areas continue to get serviced.

Now, the reason we haven't used uber more is that the places we've needed transportation, they haven't been. That shows their selective market approach. I think they need to find ways to let drivers participate wherever. If two drivers in Turkey Foot want to drive, set them up somehow.

Back to the boat charter situation, there are boat owners running charters with no licenses for six or fewer but then also doing it for larger groups too. It's not a huge group doing so, but it's a dangerous group that shows a willful violation of basic boating regulations. It's not all that difficult to set it up right for six or fewer passengers and most of the boats shouldn't have more than six. I don't believe it's a widespread problem any more than rapes and killings by Uber drivers are, but it's an issue that can and will grow if completely ignored.

I agree with the sentiment psneeld and blissboat expressed.

While we're at it let's please clamp down on unsafe charter buses.
BandB is offline   Reply With Quote