But the laws aren't there to protect the public, they're there to protect the ta...

ryanobjc · on Dec 10, 2014

That's so patently false it's ridiculous.

The taxi regulations are lengthy and serve multiple purposes. To classify it with a single sentence is just silly.

After all, requiring proper operating equipment and frequent inspections obviously doesn't benefit users... Is that what you're really forwarding? I hope not!

tshaddox · on Dec 10, 2014

> After all, requiring proper operating equipment and frequent inspections obviously doesn't benefit users... Is that what you're really forwarding?

The specific equipment requirements can certainly be chosen in a way to benefit entrenched businesses by increasing the barrier to entry.

davidw · on Dec 10, 2014

"It's complicated", I think, and not clear cut one way or the other. Certainly one-sentence quips favoring one or the other side don't do the issue justice or hint at a reasonable resolution to the problems.

ryanobjc · on Dec 11, 2014

Yes, exactly, it's complicated.

I was going to say I expect more out of HN commenters, but then I'd be lying. The people here are perhaps "smarter" than many, but their heads are made out of the same fallible gloopy cholesterol that the rest of us are. Cognitive biases are for everyone, and in some ways worse among those who refuse to admit the essential hormonal/emotional nature of our brains.

smackfu · on Dec 10, 2014

Like the laws requiring every car to be a recent model, pass safety checks and have credit card readers? That is a huge penalty to legit taxis.

higherpurpose · on Dec 10, 2014

That's true, especially in US, with that insane and completely irrational "golden medallion" law.

However, I have no sympathy left for Uber. They're on their own as far as I'm concerned.