Not so fast!
Here in Ann Arbor, young people who want to use app-based rideshare services are in for a rude awakening. The status quo is threatened:
It didn’t take long for Ann Arbor city officials to call for an end to the newly launched rideshare services Uber and Lyft.
On May 14, just three weeks after the companies launched locally, Ann Arbor City Attorney Kristen Larcom sent cease and desist letters demanding that the companies immediately put an end to their Ann Arbor operations.
“It has been reported and has been observed that … (Lyft and Uber) are aiding and abetting the unlawful operation of (Lyft and Uber) vehicles for hire in the city of Ann Arbor,” the letter stated.
“The city demands that (Uber and Lyft) comply with the Michigan Limousine Transportation Act by ceasing and desisting from soliciting persons to sign up … to operate in the city without requiring them to and ensuring that they comply with the act. It is incumbent upon (Uber and Lyft) also to inform persons who seek to operate their vehicles as (Uber and Lyft) vehicles that they must comply with the act and any other federal, state or local laws. All persons and entities involved are advised to consult with their attorneys.”
In an April 22 meeting following the launch of the app-driven, on-demand transportation systems Uber and Lyft – which connect users with a driver through the use of a mobile device – the Ann Arbor Taxi board discussed the potential for requiring the companies’ drivers to register with the city as taxis.
Naturally. What government licenses, government controls. Not that I blame the taxicab companies for looking out for number one, any more than I blame restaurants for organizing to shut down taco trucks and hot dog vendors. These people pay big money to the government for the privilege to operate, so they demand that the little guys be kept out — the public be damned.
In fact, that app-based ridesharing may be what the younger, gadget-savvy Ann Arborites could be the whole problem.
I like this comment from A2YoungProfessional:
“Number one issue: making twentysomethings aware that they’re ruining Ann Arbor and everything they like is stupid, OK? We’d be better off without them and we need to make it clear that they’re not welcome, OK? Number one issue.”
Is that it? Do aging leftist boomers hate the young?
Politics aside, I’m reminded of that line from Clockwork Orange about “old age having a go at youth.”
I think the golden age boomers really ought to be nicer, because it’s the twentysomethings who in theory will be taking care of them, right? I mean, if the boomers sponged off the Greatest Generation till they were gone, and now it’s the Millenials’ turn, shouldn’t they be more grateful?
Or do parasites of the human variety resent their hosts? Sometimes I wonder.
Another thing that bugs me about the boomers is that they got away with so much shit when they were young, but they have ZERO TOLERANCE for young people today getting away with anything. Why is that? As an aging boomer myself, I feel the need ask these questions, because I don’t see them getting much attention.
Comments
9 responses to “But ride sharing is sustainable and good and progressive, right?”
We won’t need drivers in the future.
Government knows best.
http://ericpetersautos.com/2014/05/13/heebie-jeebies/
I am in transportation business the taxi cabs don’t like ride share :but they have little power it is the insurance companies that have the power to stop share ride. When you look into situation the insurance companies are the ones who stop share ride the taxi companies just say me too behind them.
Nice one, blame the insurance companies. As far as the insurance companies are concerned ride sharing itself isn’t an big issue, what they want is access to the lists of drivers. This means insurance companies sell the drivers commercial policies and either the drivers pay for insurance to cover ride sharing in which case the insurance companies are fine or the drivers don’t pay for commercial insurance in which case the insurance companies don’t cover the drivers and the insurance companies are fine. Oh sure, insurance companies might pay out some small claims for ride share drivers when there is no reason to bother to check the ride share drivers list but no big claim is going to be paid without checking to see if the driver was violating their insurance policy.
“Not that I blame the taxicab companies for looking out for number one, any more than I blame restaurants for organizing to shut down taco trucks and hot dog vendors.”
I disagree strongly–I blame the taxi companies.
Liberal capitalism is a fragile thing, and it’s not compatible with a dog-eat-dog mentality. Individuals and institutions have to take it upon themselves to compete fairly, freeing government to enforce the rules in the exceptional case of a bad actor.
If we fail to reprimand the bad actors, who bend government to their will in order to limit competition, then we may as well give up on the free market.
max here in arizona governor vetoed ride share bill at behest of insurance companies who threatened to raise rates on noncommercial polices if bill was not vetoed. Taxi companies were happy but have no influence as everybody hates taxi companies including me and I am in the transportation business! Thats right I own my own business I am a capitalist wage slave master!
“Another thing that bugs me about the boomers is that they got away with so much shit when they were young, but they have ZERO TOLERANCE for young people today getting away with anything.”
I always wondered about that myself. I feel bad for twenty-somethings who got busted for pot, or the 2 beer DUI. Their potential income drops significantly. Then I listen to stories of boomers and their good times, and I ask, “did you go to jail for that?” They never did.
Captain Arizona, the insurance companies were “opposed” to the Arizona bill because it exempted ride-share drivers from needing commercial insurance policies. The insurance companies were not so much opposed to the bill as they were stating the fact that if individual insurance policies have to cover ride share drivers then the companies will have to raise the rates on individual policies. It’s kinda like healthcare, if health insurance policies have to include birth control, hair transplants and breast augmentation then the rates for that insurance will be higher than they would be for policies which don’t cover them.
max they opposed ride share for their own reasons that is my point also they were complaining about deep pocket rulings which means who has got the most insurance $$$
I always wondered about that myself. I feel bad for twenty-somethings who got busted for pot, or the 2 beer DUI. Their potential income drops significantly. Then I listen to stories of boomers and their good times, and I ask, “did you go to jail for that?” They never did.
In stark contrast to the solidly democratic Greatest Generation, which took the iniative of shaping and structuring the country after returning from the war, the Boomers are the most right-wing, most Tea Party supportive demographic in the US. This is not much of a surprise. Consistency has never a virtue of the boomers who populate the classical values ranks. Perhaps the OP can expand on why this is.