
PPA Impounds UberX Vehicles in Undercover Sting Operation - themartorana
http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/10/26/uber-philadelphia-uberx-ppa-sting-impounds/
======
AlexMuir
Just so I'm clear is the current narrative that Uber, a multi-billion dollar
private enterprise seeking to maximize its returns to a handful of
shareholders, is single-handedly battling on our behalf against every
democratically elected local authority, all of whom (despite regulating taxis
through the advent of the engine, the radio, the telephone, the mobile phone
and the internet) are running a corrupt, outdated licensing regime at the
behest of the taxi industry and/or to preserve their own jobs. Is that the
story here?

Or is the story that Uber wants to lock up the taxi market and build a two
tier business: 0.1% of their operation earning multi-million dollar payouts,
and the remaining 99.9% earning $COMMODITIZED_RATE [0] per hour driving
passengers around with zero opportunity to manage drivers, open their own taxi
firm, or form a collective.

The honest truth is I don't actually know. The times I've used Uber I've loved
it, but I'm not sure, overall, how I feel about well-funded startups using VC
money to basically buy their way around local regulation.

[0] We're seeing artificially low fares and high wages at the moment in this
landgrab. Just look at eBay with fees that come to a good 10% of sales prices
to see what a few more rounds of investment and a flotation will do.

~~~
forrestthewoods
I can safely say that the situation is complicated enough that neither you
described is true.

Taxi regulation _is_ corrupt and broken. I can't find a link but Seattle
basically hasn't issued any new taxi medallions in 20 years. Suffice to say
the area has grown significantly in that time.

Uber's business strategy is also derived from those medallions. I think they
could offer a better service that is more efficient and higher margins if the
drivers were Uber employees. Right now each drivers needs to be profitable by
themselves. There's no room for loss leaders or any other kind of driver
distribution strategy.

That's just two points. There are dozens more that could be made I'm sure.

~~~
chimeracoder
> I can't find a link but Seattle basically hasn't issued any new taxi
> medallions in 20 years. Suffice to say the area has grown significantly in
> that time.

Medallions are largely a red herring. Municipalities vary, and I can't speak
to Seattle, but for example, New York also is in a similar situation (the
number of medallions has not increased commensurately with the increase in
population since 1970).

However, you do not need to own a medallion in order to drive a car, just as
you do not need to own storefront real estate in order to operate a retail
business. You can rent medallions, and many (most?) drivers do this[1].

In addition, you don't need to either rent or own a medallion in order to
drive a cab - you just can't take street hails. (These cabs are regulated as
well, but differently from yellow[0] medallion cabs)

The medallions are a very common talking point, and it always irritates me
because it's such a misleading statement. Medallions are not the barrier to
entry for individuals who want to start driving professionally.

[0] Or green medallion cabs, which were introduced last year.

[1] They also often aren't driving their own cars, which is something that
Uber/Lyft/etc. ignore - if you don't already have a car to drive (or in Uber's
case, the _right_ kind of car), you're out of luck.

~~~
aaronbrethorst

        Medallions are largely a red herring.
    

Agreed. Here in Seattle, the biggest issues have been:

1\. It's almost impossible to find a taxi outside of a couple specific areas
of town (downtown, and the commercial cores of Capitol Hill and Fremont on
weekend nights), which means you're going to have to call a dispatcher.

2\. The unbelievable ineptitude and rudeness of the Yellow Cab dispatchers in
Seattle.

3\. The historical unwillingness of Seattle taxi drivers to accept credit
cards, which bears some additional unpacking. Seattle is a very credit card-
friendly city. I can go weeks without visiting an ATM and not change a thing
about my daily routine. However, taxi drivers used to be very hostile to
accepting credit cards. I've had a couple who refused to take plastic, and
actually drove me to an ATM (on my dime) to make me get cash to pay them. To
their credit, on the few occasions I've had to use a taxi since UberX
launched, I've found them more than happy to accept credit cards through
Square.

My use of Uber is almost entirely driven by my loathing for Seattle's Yellow
Cab.

~~~
bilalq
Those last two points really resonate with me and several other people I've
spoken to about the topic.

I live next door to a hotel in downtown, so getting a taxi is even quicker and
more convenient for me than calling Uber or Lyft. However, the incredible
rudeness of cabbies and repeatedly being driven to an ATM because their credit
card reader is mysteriously "broken" have pretty much dissuaded me from ever
taking a regular cab again.

~~~
chimeracoder
> and repeatedly being driven to an ATM because their credit card reader is
> mysteriously "broken" have pretty much dissuaded me from ever taking a
> regular cab again.

In most cities, (incl. SF and NYC), if their machine is broken and they do not
tell you before your ride starts, your ride is free.

I've never had this issue in NYC, but in SF I found that reminding the drivers
of this is the best way to magically "fix" the machine. And if that doesn't
work, well, hey, free cab ride!

------
habosa
I just moved from Philadelphia (lived there for 4 years and nearby for my
entire life). I always wanted UberX in the city from a convenience
perspective, but I do feel bad for the Philly cab drivers here.

In my 4 years there I talked to probably 100+ cab drivers, most of the time
talking about their job. I found ~95% of them to be hard-working and nice,
definitely not 'corrupt' people or part of some larger scheme that needed to
be disrupted. They also have it tough in a lot of ways. First of all, the
medallions are very expensive and many go into debt getting them. Second of
all, I've been told (can't confirm) by the cab drivers that they are forced to
accept credit cards but then get hit with ~10% fees on those transactions by
the processor. My only complaint with Philly cabs is that the dispatchers were
generally rude and unhelpful if you were in a strange location.

So for the consumer it is great to have UberX, but I do feel bad for those cab
drivers who invested in a legal system and are just trying to make a living. I
guess this is just how markets work, but it seems like Uber is setting a
dangerous precedent by using VC money to subvert local legislation at every
turn. Sure they may be vindicated in the end, but it doesn't strike me as fair
play.

~~~
jostmey
It sounds to me like the Philly cab drivers would be better of as Uber
drivers. You said they go into debt to pay for the medallions. Where does that
money go? Do these fees collected by the city provide a service for the
community or does it disappear into a corrupt government?

If you want to help the drivers don't support a system that forces them into
debt. Support an alternative.

~~~
habosa
I totally agree, however in the meantime they invested in the medallion and
Uber is trying to make it worth nothing.

It would be nice if we could find a way to somehow compensate the drivers for
that investment instead of saying "you're dumb and should not have bought into
that system, now your medallion is worthless".

------
colinbartlett
It seems like Uber does this just for the headlines. They know they need to
have laws changed in order to break past government-sanctioned taxi
monopolies. And they know they're going to get in trouble for breaking the
current laws.

The headlines always end up as The Government sticking it to The Working Man,
and Uber eats that stuff up.

~~~
themartorana
Well, here, the PPA is deplored almost absolutely, for constant abuse of
power. Over the weekend, an insurance company went bankrupt leaving about 1/3
of Philadelphia's taxi fleet without insurance. The PPA decide to _allow_
taxis to continue to roll despite their insurance company being bankrupt[0]
and then the next day did this to an UberX driver over insurance woes.

This is why it's a big deal here in Philly. The corruption of the PPA knows no
bounds.

[0]
[http://mobile.philly.com/business/?wss=/philly/business/tran...](http://mobile.philly.com/business/?wss=/philly/business/transportation/&id=280346362)

~~~
arthurcolle
What insurance company went bankrupt?

~~~
pmh
First Keystone Risk Retention Group Inc. It's in grandparent's reference link
(emphasis mine):

"The taxi owners contend their existing insurance continues to provide
coverage for 30 days, _despite the insolvency of First Keystone Risk Retention
Group Inc._ ... The insurance company was ordered liquidated Tuesday by a
South Carolina judge at the request of the state insurance director"

------
imroot
From a licensing point of view, Philadelphia is interesting. The PPA manages
the licensing of Taxi and Limo services in Philadelphia, but, outside of the
county, it's all the PA Department of Transportation. Pennsylvania constables
can work in any area of Pennsylvania once certified, but not in Philadelphia.

Am I surprised by this? Not in the least. It's possible that Uber got an ok by
PennDOT and thought that it would be good throughout the state...or, this
might be the PPA throwing their weight behind their revenue protection.
Regardless by which one it is, I would hope that Uber will protect the drivers
who took their advice (then again, independent contractors and the like) and
drove.

*edit: grammar/spelling.

~~~
malandrew
I'm really starting to think that we generally need some sort of organization
at city, county, state and county level whose sole purpose of existing is to
identify governmental organizations/agencies to which Kevin Kelly's "Shirky
Principle" apply

    
    
        “Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which 
        they are the solution.” — Clay Shirky
    

[http://kk.org/thetechnium/2010/04/the-shirky-
prin/](http://kk.org/thetechnium/2010/04/the-shirky-prin/)

This isn't about agencies regulating transportation and ridesharing, but about
many governmental agencies set up during the 19th and 20th century. There are
a lot of useful organizations/agencies, but just as many if not more which
have become zombies feeding off society to keep receiving paychecks while
burdening us with unnecessary bureaucracy.

Such an agency would be the governmental equivalent of the consultants that
come in and identify the dead weight in a company, which need to be let go for
the company to stay relevant.

PS I suspect someone will point out the irony in creating
organizations/agencies, whose sole purpose is identifying unnecessary agencies
and proposing how to wind them down and eliminate them altogether, but I can't
see how such an agency could ever reach the point where it would prefer the
problem to which it is the solution. Furthermore, if that were the only agency
left preserving itself, I could live with that.

~~~
tedunangst
I don't think all the blame belongs with the agencies. Certainly some, or
most. But the legislative branch also tends to force agencies to regulate
things they'd rather ignore. See also: the military declining orders for new
tanks, but being forced to accept them because they're made in an important
senator's state.

~~~
malandrew
Totally agree. I guess what I had in mind was an agency that constantly re-
evaluates other agencies and writes the legislation to wind down and then shut
down needlessly bureaucratic agencies that preserve the problems to which they
are the solution. At the end of the day, an act of law needs to be passed to
shut down agencies which came into existence via acts of law.

The more I see how government is run, the more I see that lawmakers are commit
generators that never take the time to re-factor all the code they've
committed to production. Think of this agency as the ones that sit down and
get their hands dirty refactoring the code and handing it off to the lawmakers
for code review before being committed to the code base.

I appreciate that many laws are passed to solve genuine problems. I don't
appreciate the fact that they are never checked to make sure they were
effective or continue to be effective.

Regarding the specific military tank example, I'm certain that there must be a
way to set things up so that stupid stuff like that can't pass. I honestly
don't see how purchase orders for military equipment could ever be a law
issue. The fact that the military can't make purchases according to their own
needs and budgets is insane. The money spent on those tanks would be better
off being spend on all the veteran's affairs programs that are often
underfunded.

------
tedunangst
Will Uber be reimbursing the drivers for expenses since they apparently told
the drivers it was legal?

~~~
trevyn
[http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/10/26/uber-calls-ppa-
uber...](http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/10/26/uber-calls-ppa-uberx-sting-
deplorable-charade/)

"We fully stand behind our partners and will cover all costs associated with
this deplorable charade."

~~~
swartkrans
If you pay someone to commit a crime, doesn't that make you criminally liable
as well? How are they going to reimburse someone for being caught breaking the
law? That seems less than sane.

~~~
baddox
If you legislate and enforce a law that is harmful to society, does that make
you criminally liable?

~~~
swartkrans
Crime is a function of law, an action is only a crime if it breaks the law. So
no legislating the law by lawfully elected individuals is not a crime. This is
true even if you disagree with the laws that were written. I will be candid
and share with you that I think what you asked is a stupid question on
multiple levels. I assume you're riled up whenever the government does its job
of governing, which yes, involves enforcing the law and taking things from
people, like their freedom and or property.

There's a democratic process in place in our country that allows you to help
decide who is in power, if you're unhappy with who is in power become more
involved in elections.

~~~
baddox
It's not so simple. I'm not aware of all the laws that would apply in this
particular case, which is why I asked the question, but I know that in many
jurisdictions there are laws against abuse of power and corruption. If a
political official were to explicitly say "I am supporting Proposition X
because it will return some benefit to my benefactors," would that not be a
criminal offense? Granted, it's well-accepted that such is the norm in
politics, but I don't think that means that it's not criminal. Many
politicians have been charged with crimes like abuse of official capacity,
bribery, and fraud, for similar actions.

I disagree with and resent both your claim that my question is stupid and your
claim that the recourse for a broken political system is becoming more
involved in elections.

~~~
swartkrans
Corruption is illegal, but that isn't what you asked. I take back what I said
about it being stupid though, I've given it more thought since then, and I was
stupid for saying it was stupid. It's actually an interesting question.

------
ripb
What is involved in becoming a cab driver in Philly? Is it medallion costs,
vehicle costs (buying or renting), tests, etc.?

Another example of backlash to Uber/Hailo etc. has been the London black
taxis. Their operators study for years for very difficult tests in order to be
licensed operators, and pay significant costs in doing so, and as such I can
understand why they would be irritated by competition coming in without these
conditions, but if these conditions don't exist then it's market protectionism
at a cost to the consumer.

~~~
logn
I can see why London operators would be upset. They're the most consistently
professional and knowledgeable service force I've ever encountered. And London
traffic I think is greatly improved by the road being taken up almost
exclusively with taxis and buses, as they're all driving in optimal and
intelligent ways.

~~~
ripb
Indeed, internationally London taxi drivers far outrank their competitors.

The only issue, I suppose, is that their base of knowledge - the studying they
do, the tests they pass to be licensed, etc. - is already irrelevant in a time
of modern GPS and Sat Nav, and will become increasingly so as we begin to move
to an era of self-driving vehicles.

------
azinman2
Good for the PPA. Regardless of the laws being stuck in time or not, uber has
repeatedly defied laws especially in California where they specifically are
told your ride share is illegal shut it down, and they don't. Sad for the
drivers but they themselves should also be more aware of the laws that apply.
Bad on uber for not even explaining the possibility which of course they know
about.

~~~
GigabyteCoin
If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to
do so. -Thomas Jefferson

This has never been more true when it comes to ride sharing companies.

Monopolies benefit next to nobody, while Uber benefits a lot of people.

~~~
waterlesscloud
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to
do so. -Thomas Jefferson This has never been more true when it comes to ride
sharing companies."

Seriously? _Never_ been more true?

Prohibiting unlicensed rides-for-hire (it's not 'ride sharing') is more unjust
than say...Jim Crow laws?

~~~
morganvachon
I think you mentally inserted the word "than" between his words "true" and
"when". If he had written it that way, then your indignation would be
justified. As it is written, it means that when it comes to ride sharing
companies, that quote rings true in a profound way.

The way you misread it, it would indeed seem to say that the situation with
ride sharing companies violating the law is exactly what old Thomas Jefferson
was talking about. But you misread it, obviously.

~~~
waterlesscloud
I probably did mentally insert "than", but that doesn't make it any less
absurd to use a Jefferson quote in an attempt to elevate this to some sort of
righteous crusade.

I'm totally missing any "profundity" here, sorry.

~~~
morganvachon
I'll respectfully disagree; the point was that civil disobedience is valid and
necessary when a law is absurd or doesn't serve the good of the people. The
fact that one of our founding fathers said it makes it no less relevant or
profound today.

And I don't even like Uber; I think in general they treat their drivers like
crap, and I realize that they are only flouting this law because it stands in
the way of their business model. But just as with Tesla (a company I do
respect), they are breaking new ground and showing the rest of the country
that these archaic laws exist only to protect the establishment. The laws
should be reexamined, and if the people find that the laws are incompatible
with their needs, the laws should be changed.

------
shin_lao
On one hand the taxi monopoly is certainly something which has to be
reconsidered, on the other hand I'm not sure UberX screening and insurance is
sufficient.

~~~
smsm42
Are you sure taxi screening and insurance is sufficient? When was the last
time you checked how taxi drivers are screened?

~~~
wpietri
One of the things I like about taxi drivers is that they are accountable. If I
see one behaving badly, I call up the city taxi commission and let 'em know.
If the commission decides they shouldn't be driving a taxi, they will no
longer be driving a taxi at all in this town. Good luck doing that with some
rando driving for Uber, though.

For similar reasons, I'm also pretty sure the insurance situation is solid. In
direct contrast to Uber, where they actively disclaim any responsibility for
their cars and drivers.

There are a lot of problems with the taxi industry. It's in deep need of
reform. But in my view, Uber's cure is worse than the disease.

~~~
smsm42
If you see Uber driver behaving badly, you can call Uber.

>>> Good luck doing that with some rando driving for Uber, though.

Why? Every driver is identified and known, and Uber has a lot of incentive to
weed out bad drivers, especially when they are just starting the service and
couple of bad reviews can kill adoption for a whole market. What incentive
Uber has to support bad service? I can tell one incentive for city politicians
to do it - taxi lobbyists pay into their campaign funds, and you do not (at
least not as much, unless you are Zuckerberg, in which case you probably have
your own limo anyway), so who has more influence on them?

>>> For similar reasons, I'm also pretty sure the insurance situation is
solid.

Because Uber just dreams about uninsured million-dollar lawsuit. Nothing
inspires investors to invest into a young business as much as an uninsured
risk of a million-dollar lawsuits, right? And Uber doesn't care about
investors or risks - unlike city politicians whose very future is linked to
the fact whether city would be sued or not, since lawsuit cost comes out of
their pockets... Oh wait, I got it in reverse - city politician could not care
less if the city is sued since taxpayers would pay it anyway, while Uber guys
risk their own money and their investors money. Yet somehow you trust more the
guy who uses your money to insure your risks and has zero incentive to
preserve it and large incentive to follow lobby interests over guy who uses
their own money and has large incentive to preserve it. I wonder how it works
out for you.

>>> But in my view, Uber's cure is worse than the disease.

Worse in what? Of course, if you refuse to trust anything that does not say
"State Commission" and is not rules by an unaccountable bureaucrat, then every
cure would be worse than the disease for you. However, do not be very
surprised if you find no cures at all, because you seem to be insisting on
having the disease as a precondition to finding the cure.

~~~
wpietri
> Why? Every driver is identified and known

Because every taxi is marked with a number that I can see. Uber cars are just
random cars. And Uber is just one of many services employing any warm body
they can find.

The rest seems like generic Argument From Libertarian Fantasy, with the
apparently requisite bad grammar and bad-faith assumptions about my views. And
of course it's from someone who won't publicly stand behind their arguments.

~~~
smsm42
Every car is marked with a number you can see. And these numbers, just as
driver names, are known to each Uber user and of course to Uber company. Did
you ever use Uber? There's no anonymity there - you know who your driver is,
and Uber knows too. Everything is recorded. It's not a fantasy, it's a fact
that is obvious to anybody who used the service even once. And Uber asks every
user at the end of the service for the rating. Uber may be employing a lot of
people, but they are in no way anonymous or untrackable.

>>> with the apparently requisite bad grammar

Yes, English is not my native language. You caught me. This invalidates all my
arguments, of course. You won, take a cookie.

~~~
wpietri
> Every car is marked with a number you can see.

Not in my city. And many Uber cars display no logo at all.

> Yes, English is not my native language. You caught me. This invalidates all
> my arguments, of course. You won, take a cookie.

It is regrettably _also_ how loons write. When combined with their typical
arguments, it is going to get you written off as a loon. One way to fix this
is to stand behind your words and just say something about yourself in your
profile.

~~~
smsm42
>>> Not in my city.

Wait, in your city cars don't have license plates? Which city is that?

~~~
wpietri
Cars are (mostly) marked with license plates on the back. Taxis are also
marked with big logos (telling me which company they're from) and taxi numbers
on all sides of the vehicle (which are issued by the city).

I usually have no way to know which cars are Uber cars. Thus my point about
lack of accountability.

If you're really having trouble understanding how this is a difference in
accountability, I think I'm going back to my "anonymous loon" theory.

~~~
smsm42
When you order Uber car, you immediately are told: drivers name, his picture,
his car model and license plate. This is enough to identify both the car and
the driver. Meaning, Uber knows all this and you know all this, the moment you
have made your order. I do not know which more accountability you require - if
any problem happens, the driver is uniquely identified by not one but two
ways.

As for big logos, they are useless if you are not using the service - since
then you have no reason to complain about it - and when you're using it you
know how the specific car you're using looks like, so why you need the logo?

>>> I usually have no way to know which cars are Uber cars.

If you are using one, you do. If not, why would you need to know that?

>>> I think I'm going back to my "anonymous loon" theory.

If my arguments cause you mental anguish and you can not resolve it by finding
counter arguments, it is always soothing to mark the opponent as "anonymous
loon". I'm totally fine with it, if it makes you feel better. My arguments do
not become worse because somebody on the internet failed to address them and
resorted to name calling and focusing on my grammar, which is the lowest level
of discussion above name calling.

~~~
wpietri
> if you are not using the service - since then you have no reason to complain
> about it

It's almost like you didn't read my original comment here, the one where I
said "If I see [a taxi driver] behaving badly, I call up the city taxi
commission and let 'em know."

Which is an actual thing I actually do. Because it turns out private cars use
public roads, ones other humans also have to get around on.

> My arguments do not become worse because somebody on the internet failed to
> address them

Statistically, they probably do. Sometimes people stop dialog because the
thoughtful, reasoned, evidence-backed propositions make them realized they are
wrong. Most of the time, though, it's people saying, "Well, I guess I have
better things to do than argue with some anonymous goof with an axe to grind
and no interest in understanding what I might have to say."

Your bad grammar doesn't make you wrong. But that plus the fundamentalist
libertarian idiocy makes you look like a sort of wrong person common on Hacker
News. If you don't want to be mistaken for one of those people, you'll have to
try harder.

~~~
smsm42
>>> If I see [a taxi driver] behaving badly, I call up the city taxi
commission and let 'em know.

I thought you meant behaving badly while providing service. You mean just
generally behaving badly, like spitting on puppies and cussing at nuns? Why
you need to call taxi commission about it? If he's doing something illegal or
disturbing the peace, call the police. If not, why you need to call anybody at
all?

>>> Because it turns out private cars use public roads, ones other humans also
have to get around on.

In other words, you like to control people around you, and not having
everybody wear a number and a phone that you can use to tell on them disturbs
you. I find that sentiment hard to sympathize with, sorry. People sometimes do
behave badly, but they have no obligation to provide you with a phone number
to tell on them.

>>> But that plus the fundamentalist libertarian idiocy

And here we are back to name calling. Take another cookie!

~~~
wpietri
> If not, why you need to call anybody at all?

I like that in your world there is only "illegal" and "perfectly fine", with
nothing in between. You should write about your homeland. Dystopian fantasy
novels are so popular lately.

> People sometimes do behave badly, but they have no obligation to provide you
> with a phone number to tell on them.

People in general don't. People providing certain regulated services in fact
do, at least around here. We like it that way.

> And here we are back to name calling. Take another cookie!

No, when I say "idiocy" I'm mocking your ridiculous ideas. If I'd meant to
call you names, I would have said you were an idiot.

------
dpweb
Uber providing the insurance would give them clear stats you could compare
accidents, robberies, etc.. Uber vs taxis. Suspect Uber is going to compare
favorably if we get to see the data. Then what is the _need_ for current state
regulation?

Govts are going to have to deal - there is huge demand for ride-sharing. Bash
Uber if you want - they are right this time. Just declaring it illegal is the
wrong approach - Govt and ride services need to be in negotiations to safely
give people what they want for taxi services.

~~~
akerl_
The government didn't just wake up this morning and declare Uber illegal.
Their ridesharing service was illegal and they set up shop anyways. There are
massive downsides to the current monopolistic state of taxis in areas like
Philly, and I believe the laws need to be changed to accommodate the new state
of transportation. But Uber ought to be working to change the law, not
breaking it in the hopes that the government eventually just gives up.

What they're doing puts drivers in the position mentioned in the article: Uber
has told them they're operating legally when they are not. Whether or not the
law is valid doesn't change the fact that Uber knowingly put the drivers in
this position.

~~~
baddox
> But Uber ought to be working to change the law, not breaking it in the hopes
> that the government eventually just gives up.

You're missing the very real possibility that deliberately disobeying the laws
_is_ the most effective way to get the laws changed.

~~~
akerl_
I am not missing that: I do not believe that to be the case. My apologies for
not addressing that directly in my original comment.

Uber isn't fighting against discrimination, they aren't fighting against
poverty or famine or some global crisis.

They are a business engaged in political maneuvering as part of their goal of
changing the regulations in their favor. Whether we think their end goal is
good or not, we shouldn't pretend that they're doing this out of altruism.

Civil disobedience and similar acts are effective tools in protesting against
injustices in the government. But in using such acts as tools against any
inefficient or obsolete laws, we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

~~~
baddox
Please don't misunderstand. I don't mean to compare the nobility or importance
of changing taxi regulations with the American civil rights movement, the
Indian independence movement, or other notable historical instances of civil
disobedience.

But I do not believe the civil disobedience is only effective for causes of
that scale.

~~~
akerl_
Sorry if I implied you were making that comparison. The comparison is my own:
I do feel that civil disobedience should only be utilized for things of that
scale.

For things where the dispute is over efficiency or cleaning out obsolete laws
or correcting over/under-regulation, actual political involvement applies.
Campaign vigorously, support and send candidates who feel passionately about
your cause, withhold support from those who do not. Hold rallies, organize
protests. Be involved.

But disobeying laws that were enacted via legal means and do not violate human
rights crosses a line.

Imagine you're upset because your ISP charges massive prices and their quality
of service is terrible (like this would ever happen). Contacting their
support, reaching out to their corporate office, blogging about their poor
service, and taking them to court over broken SLAs are all valid things to do.
Refusing to pay your bill because the service is subpar is not.

It's not a perfect analogy, but hopefully it does a better job describing why
I draw the line where I do.

~~~
baddox
> But disobeying laws that were enacted via legal means and do not violate
> human rights crosses a line.

But I _do_ think these taxi laws blatantly violate human rights.

------
PhasmaFelis
Some people want to paint Uber as the heroes. Others want to put the the
regulators and the taxi monopolies in that seat. I'm really getting the
impression that both of them are assholes.

Uber may (sometimes) provide better service, but they certainly haven't shown
any inclination towards responsibility. E.g., as we see here, when a
municipality promises to impound Uber vehicles, Uber happily lies to their
drivers that everything is sorted out, because manufacturing involuntary
martyrs does a much better job of making Uber look victimized than proceeding
through normal channels would.

------
retrogradeorbit
It will be interesting seeing Uber like services go up against the Australian
Taxi cartel. I would expect similar antics...

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7WdSFS3SFI](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7WdSFS3SFI)

------
revelation
Killing someone with your car is cheaper than a $1000 fine and you get to keep
your car, too.

But god beware you transport people to their destination and take money for
it.

------
zavi
According to Uber website their service is available in Philadelphia.

[https://www.uber.com/en-US/cities/philadelphia](https://www.uber.com/en-
US/cities/philadelphia)

