[the_ancient]

Why do you believe there is a need for this? Vetting of drivers, saftey etc can all be done under private insurance and/or review systems

This idea that the government should protect everyone from everything is very dangerous.

Further I have never really felt safe in government approved taxi's so the idea that the government today is providing proper safety inspections and vetting of driver is laughably naive, Taxi regulations is a money scheme for government and has 0 to do with safety

[Sanddancer]

Because I've ridden in non-regulated gypsy cabs before. The driver was terrible, the cab was in worse shape, and there was absolutely no systemic set of metering, just a negotiation of what the both of us felt was fair after the fact. The whole reason the medallion system was created was because prior to the medallions, taxis were a real risk to the general public.

The government shouldn't protect everyone from everything. They should, however, protect people when market failures do happen, like what happened in the taxi industry in the 20s and 30s. Uber's stonewalling here, when they were the ones who helped craft the law, shows how unconcerned that they aren't concerned with working out how to make taxis safer, just that they want to make money on an industry that needs rethinking, consequences be damned.

[icebraining]

The whole reason the medallion system was created was because prior to the medallions, taxis were a real risk to the general public.

Nope, the reason it was created was because the taxi drivers where annoyed with the increase of competition during the Great Depression and started striking and destroying property until they got a monopoly over the business.

From the nyc.gov site: Widespread poverty prompted many New Yorkers to opt for less-expensive forms of transportation, decreasing the demand for taxis. This put many companies out of business and caused many cabdrivers to lose their jobs. The situation was made worse by the tactics of “wildcat” (unlicensed) taxis who used what some considered to be “underhanded tactics,” such as drastically lowering fares, to get more business. The situation in the taxi industry was dire; frustrated cabdrivers turned their anger into violent protest and the demands for industry regulation increased.

Another source: Striking taxi drivers was nothing new–the first strike took place in 1908, a year after the first taxi company was founded. But this strike had a hostile energy to it, as strikers went hunting for scabs to punish. As one driver put it, “the bastids that was scabbin’, we pulled the doors off their cabs.” Independent cab owners, who had nothing to gain by striking, had their windows smashed by blocks of ice and passengers thrown from their cabs. Police who tried restore order had their tires slashed and marbles thrown under their horses. By February 5, angry crowds of driving were brawling in the street with the police and torching independent cab cars.

http://untappedcities.com/2015/02/05/today-in-nyc-history-th...

[SilasX]

>Because I've ridden in non-regulated gypsy cabs before. The driver was terrible, the cab was in worse shape, and there was absolutely no systemic set of metering, just a negotiation of what the both of us felt was fair after the fact. The whole reason the medallion system was created was because prior to the medallions, taxis were a real risk to the general public

So do Uber rides have terrible drivers, cars in bad shape, no consistent metering, or ride negotiation?

If not, then it seems like the regulation intended to accomplish the above is either obsolete or irrelevant to this case.

[the_ancient]

I am assuming those gypsy cabs where not connected to a real time database where thousands of users are reviewing the drivers actions where 1 bad review can cost the drivers their ability to book new riders

You that is the difference, technology it replacing government, and that is a good thing.

You do not need the government to know the uber driver is good or not, other uber users will tell you that

[Sanddancer]

Because uber's assurances that a driver that's picking you up is the driver who was interviewed are laughable [1]. It would be trivial for uber to create, and mandate their drivers display, information that had their photo, driver id, etc. Technology would be replacing government if uber provided the same assurances I can get right now. They don't.

[1] http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-driver-heres-how-we-get-aro...

[sigsergv]

But Uber is solved “gypsy cabs” problem. And much effectively than medallions did.

[jlarocco]

If that's how you feel, vote.

Until enough people agree with you and get the law changed, it's the law. You don't get to blatantly disregard it just because you disagree with it.

At the very least don't act surprised when disregarding the law results in punishment. It's kind of like, "Duh, what did you expect?"

[the_ancient]

First past the post voting schemes are less than useless, wasting your time voting in American elections is not a way to effect change. If you believe your vote matters I have a shit ton of math I can throw at you to show you how it does not

[techdragon]

Your vote has the statistical significance it has been apportioned by your continued choice of living locale. Don't like that level of significance ... Move or convince others to agree with you.

[jlarocco]

IMO, it's a good thing that no individual's vote "matters" in this kind of stuff. If it did, voting would be pointless and everybody would just go around doing whatever they wanted.

As it stands, society has decided that we don't want people and companies doing whatever they want, and we want them to follow certain rules. We tried the laissez-faire system and in almost every case the end result was giant corporations screwing people over in some way.

[s73v3r]

"Why do you believe there is a need for this? Vetting of drivers, saftey etc can all be done under private insurance and/or review systems"

Not really, considering none of them have worked very well so far.

"This idea that the government should protect everyone from everything is very dangerous."

This idea that companies should be able to do whatever they want because profit is even more dangerous.

"Further I have never really felt safe in government approved taxi's so the idea that the government today is providing proper safety inspections and vetting of driver is laughably naive, Taxi regulations is a money scheme for government and has 0 to do with safety"

Because your anecdote trumps reality?