[tomp]

> There is no value to me, or others, from having the the driver "licensed to carry passengers."

> I think it's entirely reasonable to require Insurance, Background Checks, Car Safety Checkups (from a third party), Drivers Valid License - Basically anything that is in place to protect consumer safety

You contradict yourself.

> I would absolutely not require "The Knowledge" prior to anyone becoming a Lyft/Uber driver.

The Knowledge is not for delivery; it's for picking people up on the street (which is many times preferable to ordering Uber on your phone). I don't want my taxi driver to spend 2 minutes blocking the road while he enters the destination into the navigation app, nor doing it while s/he's driving.

[ghshephard]

Lots of places have a "License to Carry Passengers", and the purpose of that license is to prevent new drivers. It's not to protect passengers. I'm fine with requirements that protect passengers. I'm not fine with requirements whose sole purpose is to prevent new drivers.

Regarding the knowledge (yes, I know it's for black cab hails) - if you think that's useful, and are willing to pay the increased rates that result from the higher level of service (and as one who has taken London Cabs, I can attest it's a wonderful service, just not one I would be willing to pay for), then you should be free to pay for that service, in the same way that others should be free to provide and advertise it.

But don't make it a requirement to run a service like Uber/Lyft.

[tomp]

It's not useful/a service; it's a way of ensuring order on the road. You can't (legally and safely) use mobile phones while driving; and when taxis stop on the side of the road, they should resume driving ASAP, not wait until they finish typing the destination.

Regarding "app" services, I agree, it's not necessary as they can map the path in advance, but they can't replace the existing "taxi" service (i.e. hailing taxi) that way (and I feel it's reasonable for cities to protect that service to a certain extent).