h a l f b a k e r yIf you need to ask, you can't afford it.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Taxis at some airports (Spokane International
Airport included) are heavily regulated. Can't pickup
OR drop off without meeting extensive standards,
including invasive vehicle inspections and FBI
background checks as well as driver dress codes. We
ask why Uber, Lyft, etc aren't held to these
standards
and basically, what we hear is "it's really hard to
identify them because they aren't brightly colored
and covered in decals like you guys, so because we
can't enforce it, why bother going through the
motions and making laws that restrict them?"
Diamagnetic paint. Electrochromatic paint. Idk what
it's called but I've heard both terms used to describe
what I'm talking about: paint that changes color at
the flip of a switch.
I want a taxi that is painted in this stuff, including the
"decals" (ie, instead of decals, the mandatory signage
would be painted on). I pickup a fare downtown, in
my brightly colored taxi, and on my way into the
airport, simply flip a switch and the "decals"
disappear, the rooftop "Taxi" sign folds down, and I
look for all the world to see like a normal,
unregulated passenger vehicle as I drop off my fare
without paying the airport their bullshit fees.
What's good for the goose...
Domino's Pizza rooftop thingies
https://www.google....MA&biw=1032&bih=465
[2 fries shy of a happy meal, Jul 18 2017]
[link]
|
| |
[+]. Our local airport has just introduced a charge of £1 for _anybody_ stopping to drop people off or pick them up - this includes friends and family, as well as taxis. |
|
| |
Get your own aircraft. Simples. |
|
| |
I think they charge you even more than £1 for landing an aircraft at Stansted. Especially in the drop-off zone. |
|
| |
Yes, but it's worth it for the looks on their faces ... |
|
| |
Welcome return of 21. Munch on this croissant morsel. + |
|
| |
He's back! Holy shit.
{fist bump}
We probably still shouldn't cross streams though. |
|
| |
(+) But a whole paint job is a bit extreme, can't they make them just have to stick one of those Domino Pizza type thingies on their roofs or be subject to fines? |
|
| |
// one of those Domino Pizza type thingies on their roofs // |
|
| |
What, like a 12" double pepperoni ... ? Won't that be rather messy ? |
|
| |
// stopping to drop people off or pick them up // |
|
| |
Just don't stop. It should be the responsibility of
your fare to successfully navigate your slowly-
moving vehicle. |
|
| |
Nice to see you [21] and nice idea. + |
|
| |
//Laws worldwide should just be amended to exclude sharing rides more than 2 times a day.// |
|
| |
I agree, things like Uber will probably kill off a lot of licenced taxis, and the end result will be a worse service run by people who don't have the expertise or geographical knowledge. |
|
| |
But legislation is not the answer. In a democracy, if I want to transport someone for money, and if they want to pay me, and if I pay my taxes, what right does a government have to stop me? |
|
| |
It all begins with the definition of a government - a group of people with more guns than you. |
|
| |
//But legislation is not the answer..... if I pay my taxes,
what right does a government have to stop me?//
Governments legislate to make (inter alia) a country run
better. Correct? Legislation already controls taxis. It just
needs to be reframed and the type of rubbish like Uber will
never be able to meet the stricter licensing requirements,
which could require, for example, all taxis operators in the
London metropolitan area to pass The Knowledge before
they can pick up fares. |
|
| |
Yes, I sort of agree, partly. But, if Uber was really rubbish then people wouldn't use it. |
|
| |
It all depends on whether you're legislating for the greater public good (which I'm not sure is achieved by regulating Uber out of existence), or regulating to preserve taxi drivers' jobs. |
|
| |
We also have to face the fact that The Knowledge is less of an advantage than it used to be, now that satnavs exist. It's still some advantage (proper London cabbies will know when to avoid certain routes; and can identify destinations based on the most vague descriptions), but not as much as it used to be. |
|
| |
People would still use Uber and every other sort of rubbish
if you allow money to control everything. ie it's cheap so
people use it. It's the inevitable race to the bottom when
'the market' is allowed to dictate all decisions. This means
that polluters and scum companies like Monsanto can cut
corners and squeeze out better quality, more caring rivals,
simply by being cheaper etc. This is why Union Carbide got
away with poisoning hundreds in India (for example). |
|
| |
Like I said, I sort of agree. I'm just not convinced that it's the government's responsibility to legislate in situations like this - other than the obvious safety/insurance/tax things. |
|
| |
It's more rewarding when you disagree. |
|
| |
Well obviously, [xen], I disagree with _you_, but not necessarily with what you said. |
|
| |
// Union Carbide got away with poisoning hundreds in India (for example) // |
|
| |
When the Bhopal plant was built, there was a clear area around it. Then an entirely illegal shanty town started to develop. The company (not actually UC, but a local subsidiary) repeatedly told the local council that the illegal settlement needed to be cleared for safety reasons. For political reasons, the council did nothing. Although UC objected, they bought votes by providing some very basic utility supplies. |
|
| |
The plant was badly run and badly maintained, undoubtedly. The staff were poorly trained. But there were no casualties among the staff. Not one of them required hospital treatment. |
|
| |
It was a failure of local government, not technology. No-one should have died if the original safety perimeter had been maintained. |
|
| |
There were large placards around the perimeter fence telling people what to do when the alarm sounded. They were stolen as fast as they could be replaced, and used for construction of the shanties. The local police did nothing. |
|
| |
Of course the lesson's very simple. Don't invest in third-world countries; make your products, safely, in the developed world, keep the jobs close to home. Then if the locals set up their own plants without the know-how and kill lots of people, it's their own problem. |
|
| |
Ah yes, but then the 'free market' makes everything
cheaper and cheaper and no one will buy your more
expensive but pollution free etc products.... why do think
Union Carbide went to India in the first place? Cheap
labour/slack regulations/who cares if a few hundred
coolies get poisoned. After all it was clearly their own
fault. |
|
| |
Of course it was, that's what we said. And then they go and make a big fuss about it, as if they didn't know. Wonderful thing, a free market. |
|
| |
// why do think Union Carbide went to India in the first place? // |
|
| |
It was a UN-sponsored technology transfer initiative to help developing countries build up the capability to produce basic chemicals including pesticide precursors that they needed but couldn't afford to buy in quantity on the open market.
Since India didn't buy much UC product anyway, UC were happy to take the government-backed grants and loans (The Indian government and local investors owned 49% of the operation) on the condition that product wasn't exported, thus competing with them. So they got royalties, and were seen as "good citizens", and everyone seemed to win, particularly the grafting local politicos who liked the jobs and the tax revenues but weren't interested in hearing about a problem - however serious - that might not happen on their watch ... |
|
| |
Of course, the local investors had NEDs, but they were probably more interested in their dividends and eating big dinners than checking up that the sites were well-run ... |
|
| |
Non executive directors. A board position which while having all the same fiduciary duties as run of the mill directors but with an at least implied remit to take a hands off role to challenge decisions of the rest of the board / the exec. |
|
| |
As to Uber etc, according to the monomaniac cabbie who drove me from Luton (the glamour!) to Milton Keynes (the horror!) the other week, Uber are in parts of the UK at least indeed subject to local authority regulation and the difference between uber and any other minicab is the software alone. |
|
| |
As to the idea, nice one! |
|
| |
Maxwell, part of the point of all the legislation is to make
sure cab drivers ARE paying their taxes. They want us to be
highly visible to make sure we aren't doing exactly what I
propose in this idea. The government even inspects,
calibrates and seals our meters to make sure the rate we
say we're charging per mile is the rate we're actually
charging. The business licenses (state AND city) that each
driver must obtain will have the department of revenue
calling you if you don't file your quarterly income
statement. |
|
| |
The thing is, Uber can only BE so cheap because they're
unregulated. They can crowdsource drivers at the drop of a
hat so they always have enough on hand to flood the
market. But if their drivers had to get a for-hire permit like a
licensed taxi driver does, that wouldn't be the case. Drug
tests, fingerprint background checks, and driver physicals
alone would disqualify a YUGE amount of them, and the
costs involved in getting a for hire permit and having to
present proof to city hall that you have not just insurance
but the RIGHT insurance for the job would make the
casually part time nature of the job unprofitable so the few
drivers who qualify to drive for-hire wouldn't want to with
that business model. |
|
| |