To this end, we should br taxing self driving cars to create a pension fund for taxi drivers. Taxing one cab company to pay another doesn't seem to address your listed concerns at all.
Go back >200 years. In England, Spinning Jennies replaced weavers, and there were luddites who tried to resist, but the solution was not to start subsidizing weavers; and not even a specific tax to weaving machines to provide for the weavers specifically; the solution was to slowly build a social security system, and not just for master weavers (who had been relatively well off) but everyone.
Agreed, taxing one company to pay another does not make sense, but neither does subsidizing people of a certain profession just because they are no longer productive, by putting a burden on something productive just because it is better.
What aspect of Uber is better than a regular taxi? I can hail taxis from my phone just as well. They take me to the destination. I think Uber found a way to subsidize their fleet with drivers own cars and not pay some taxes to the state which the regular taxi drivers have to pay. Maybe I am missing something...
taxi |ˈtaksi| noun ( pl. taxis ) a motor vehicle licensed to transport passengers in return for payment of a fare and typically fitted with a taximeter.
Uber is a taxi service. Uber _is_ licensed in the sense that they are allowed to operate.
Saying Uber isn't a taxi service is a load of dingos kidneys, in my arrogant opinion.
And that's not an arbitrary distinction: much of the danger and public interest in cans arises from grabbing randos off the street. As car/limo services track that info remotely, they merit correspondingly less regulation.
In many senses, being able to provide meaningful jobs to people with a criminal record is actually a service to the society. At least in my opinion, the idea of punishment is also rehabilitation, not that once you've been convicted of a crime, you could never be trusted with a job where you are in contact with other people or money or anything.
So if Uber can hire them, and even their customer feedback is positive, that is a good thing.
Their association is also corrupt as hell, so they can't even claim that over Uber.
The big difference between Uber and cabs, however, is that I left the driver a negative review on Uber, and their customer support got back to me. If he keeps pulling that crap he's not going to be able to drive for Uber anymore. There's essentially no recourse for cab drivers. Sure, they may have contact info posted for their company by law, but if you try to contact them you won't reach anyone who cares.
Diverging off-topic, and your account is light on specifics needed for this divergence...
So, sometimes it could be that the Uber (or taxi) driver knows more about the rules of the road that the passenger, and when the passenger complains based on wrong understanding of traffic law, it's not an easy customer-serving situation.
I'm pretty sure it's illegal to use a bike lane to cut off another car that's already stopped at an intersection. Keep in mind this is a road that has a single travel lane in each direction -- there isn't a separate right-turning lane.
For one thing, with Uber, those of us who don't live in a major metro area don't have to wait 30-60 minutes for a cab that might or might not even show up. There's always an available Uber driver nearby.
Think about it. How would Uber have gotten any traction in the marketplace if it weren't better than the incumbent taxi operators in some substantial ways?
I would argue that the reputation system for drivers (and passengers) is an improvement over the current taxi system. The online booking system (app) is massively better than any taxi booking system I've used. These are strong incentives.
Obviously taxi systems involve paying the state for a licence to operate, but the ~500k price (depending on location) is solely due to an articficial scarcity. There needs to be some external regulation, so Uber/etc should pay some per trip/km charge.
One of the biggest problems with Uber and Taxis is insurance. Basically this cost/risk is being directly transferred to the driver, who may have no assets. It isn't acceptable for a service like this to have un-covered liabilities.
The other big gap is that Uber and Taxi companies have terrible employment practices. Failure to pay payroll tax is only the tip of the iceberg.
> What aspect of Uber is better than a regular taxi?
Higher-quality, rated drivers. Single app that works consistently everywhere. Better reporting mechanism for problems, that also works consistently everywhere. Live mapping of the vehicle picking you up. Payment handled automatically and consistently everywhere. No payment step inside the vehicle.
> I can hail taxis from my phone just as well.
Using one app per city (if the city even has one), or a phone number (vastly worse, and you need to look it up), with the experience varying vastly in different locations. Uber and Lyft work identically everywhere.
It's wildly cheaper (1/4-1/2 the price, depending on UberPool vs UberX), the app is more convenient (faster/easier to activate for a ride, better feedback while waiting), and if there's a problem with the ride of some sort, I'd rather deal with Uber than some random city's department of livery licensing. Not driving in a clapped-out Crown Vic with loose wheel bearings and 3-5 warning lights on the dash is a bonus.
For most people, more convenient and absurdly cheaper is enough to answer your question.
It is not fair to history to keep repeating that. The historical luddites were not against technological change.
The Luddites were active around 1811 and welfare in the UK seems to have come in around 1906. The solutions at the time were closer to "suck it up". The government used "show trials intended to deter other Luddites from continuing their activities. By meting out harsh consequences, including, in many cases, execution and penal transportation, the trials quickly ended the movement."
That was the era of Charles Dickens and workhouses for the poor.