[jmcdiesel]

All of this Uber/Lyft stuff has me wondering...

Instead of making it harder to be an Uber/Lyft to match Taxis, why not make it easier to be a taxi? Driving someone around shouldn't be so complicated.

Regulation, when necessary, is good... but most of what I see around taxi regulation is just money gouging on the part of the state.

[rodgerd]

You cannot make it "easier enough" to satisfy Uber. New Zealand requires only that you have a P endorsement to your license to be a commercial driver. That requires a police background check and a medical certificate. Uber refuses to comply with that minimum requirement.

The NZTA are prosecuting because it turns out that, surprise surprise, Uber are hiring drivers with serious criminal records or who are medically unsafe to drive.

[chx]

> Driving someone around shouldn't be so complicated.

Personal safety gets involved, big time, when driving someone around.

[jmcdiesel]

Does the safety somehow diminish when you pay for the ride?

If I give you a ride to work, for free --- then give you a ride to work, but you pay me, what is the functional difference requiring more regulation on the second part?

Is your safety affected any different? Aside from the basic protections built in to any business when it comes to collecting money, etc, what extra rules need to be in place.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, what is different about the experience that requires all the extra crap?

For example, in many cities where they were losing the legal fight, Uber offered free rides... and were legally allowed to do so, because they weren't charging the customer. Explain to me what was different in that scenario that made it any safer for the passengers?

[Broken_Hippo]

If I give you a ride to work, for free --- then give you a ride to work, but you pay me, what is the functional difference requiring more regulation on the second part? Is your safety affected any different? Aside from the basic protections built in to any business when it comes to collecting money, etc, what extra rules need to be in place.

In the first instance, both parties can refuse, and can drive in any way they want. One-off rides (or paying for part of the gas in a carpool) aren't much of a worry. This is basically as safe as driving yourself somewhere. Of course, they could be a really bad driver with minimal insurance, so hopefully nothing bad happens. In addition, in these situations, you are usually on a friendly basis with the person - minimally a coworker.

Your safety is different when you start to ride with someone that does it for a living. You don't know the person, so you are trusting they know what they are doing and can drive in a way that is safe for you. The more folks drive, the more likely they are to be in an accident (this is why insurance increases with your commute). Minimally, they need to know how to combat this. I'd prefer them to have a more comprehensive driving test, including things like passenger safety and minimal regulations on driving record/background check. Unlike your friend, I'm pretty sure a taxi service has to have adequate insurance in case of an accident. Many places also have policies about pricing because of shady pricing policies in the past.

[jmcdiesel]

While the more you drive would statistically make you more likely to get in an accident, that still doesn't affect passenger safety. You can argue that the more you drive, the safer you drive, as well. The more experience you have driving, the more inbuilt habit/reaction you have as body memory.

The more you ride would be what affected passenger safety.

[Broken_Hippo]

"You can argue that the more you drive, the safer you drive, as well. THe more experience you have driving, the more inbuilt habit/reaction you have as body memory"

I used to think something similar, but the truth is that the problem with professional driving isn't one of experience, but things like driver fatigue [1]. All things being equal in driving skill, the "normal" driver generally drives safer than the professional.

[1]https://www.transportation.gov/fastlane/why-we-care-about-tr...

[jmcdiesel]

In that document, it states over and over that the vast majority does not have a problem and is responsible.

Laws will not weed out irresponsible people.

The key points here arent that there is a potential for danger. The point is that the extra laws (which just so happen to come with a price and generate revenue for the state) don't prevent those problems.

They could pass a law requiring that drivers drive less than 40 hours a week. Does that really fix anything? Is there any way to determine that the driver who drove 10 hours this week didnt do so after staying awake for 3 days straight?

[johnrob]

Yes. In the ride business, speed = money. Bad incentive.

[jmcdiesel]

Ok, so what laws that are in place do anything to control the speed of the driver (Aside from laws that would apply regardless of driving for fee or not)

[run4yourlives2]

>Driving someone around shouldn't be so complicated.

Until someone gets driven 60 miles out of town on the way to the airport and left there unless they have a "special" fee...

It's almost as if these regulations were put in place for a reason.

[jmcdiesel]

Ok, how do these regulations help that?

Taking someone somewhere against their will is already illegal, which of these extra laws (and taxes) prevent that?

The result would be the same in either case - the driver would be held accountable for, basically, kidnapping and extortion, and you'll be left either short more money or stranded 60 miles out of town. A regulation in place isnt going to prevent someone from doing that. Regulations would have no impact on that case.

[Steko]

Molesting children is already illegal but it turns out not letting convicted child molesters run day care is also a good idea.

[run4yourlives2]

>Taking someone somewhere against their will is already illegal, which of these extra laws (and taxes) prevent that?

For the same reason that regulations help in all sorts of areas; you pre-vet the people authorized to do the service to reduce the likelihood of this occurring. It's exactly the same as regulating doctors, lawyers, financial planners, truck drivers, teachers, daycare workers etc, etc, etc.