Leave a comment

bart_calendar April 6 2016, 11:11:37 UTC
To put some New York perspective on that hire driver story - this law is aimed at Uber drivers not taxi drivers ( ... )

Reply

ext_2864067 April 6 2016, 12:40:26 UTC
I'm not following the reasoning there. Surely they wouldn't need to name Uber in any such law.

If that's what they want, surely they could just go for a law that essentially says, 'Any taxi hires in the city of New York without this particular license are illegal.'

Maybe they just want Uber drivers to clean up their act if they're going to operate in that area?

Reply

bart_calendar April 6 2016, 12:47:28 UTC
They tried that and it's hung up in the courts and will be for a long time.

By far the easiest way to shut a company down in New York is to hit them with a ton of violations.

Technically Uber shouldn't be legal at all in New York, but they are arguing they are a limo but not a taxi service. And it's clear they'll appeal that up to the Surprme Court which means a decade of them operating while the legal fight goes on.

This law could get rid of them in a year or two.

Reply

ticktockman April 8 2016, 01:44:21 UTC
I had the impression that generally the drivers aren't the medallion owners. In a separation of capital from labor, a fleet owner would buy the medallions and lease the cabs out shift by shift. That way a single cab could stay active nearly 24 hours/day.

Reply

bart_calendar April 8 2016, 02:18:09 UTC
Yes, but if the driver fucks up the medalion owner loses the medallion.

How much do you think they monitor these guys when they can lose 500k if they fuck up?

Reply


Leave a comment

Up