DLP, I (as most Uber/Lyft/etc supporters) am not at all anti-regulation, I'm saying that the laws governing passenger vehicles for hire need to be completely reworked to reflect the reality of an industry that's been radically altered by the internet revolution. It's going to be tough for that to happen with policymakers who have no clue how these services actually function and who have been accepting campaign contributions from the taxi lobby for years in order to protect their stranglehold on the local market.
But the misnomer of the "even playing field" argument is the expectation that these new services who operate on a wholly different operational model, somewhere between traditional taxis and passenger vehicles for hire, should be forced to fit into the outdated protectionist mold that has been shaped by years of corruption, creates significant barriers to entry for new players, and offers no tangible public safety or customer service benefit. Digital dispatch services shouldn't be forced backward to fit the outdated regulatory model of taxis, if anything taxis should be forced to be brought into the future to fit the mold of digital dispatch services.
The editorial agenda of this publication is so confusing. What is the local relevance/significance of this piece?
Literally every one of those venues except one in the top 20 is owned or operated by Live Nation. Ridiculous...
I wonder how many complaints the local cab companies have had filed on them in the past year that the ridesharing companies have been operating here? But it's ok, don't bother doing any research, just rewrite the article for us.
"I have LOTS of Muslim friends!"
->
*cue xenophobic diatribe*
Saved you a read.
What "hidden costs" is Uber known for exactly?