By: fluffydude

fluffydude — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 19:43:27 +0000

This article is a terribly one-sided opinion piece written as if it was actual news, peppered with Uber-backed lobbyist group comments. There is nothing wrong with, and everything right about, requiring a new set of players in the transportation industry to at least abide by the same basic sets of safeguards as the rest of the industry. Don’t tell me that is going to drive them out of California, that is ridiculous. Is there business plan that weak and fragile that they can’t handle the same minimal safety standards as everyone else? Uber hasn’t let other markets that have required basic standards such as NYC. BTW, let me turn the comment around concerning LA taxi citations: Do you really think there would be LESS problems with LA taxis if THEY didn’t have to go through the same checks that they are proposing for the TNC’s with AB24? The raw truth is that taxi drivers AND TNC drivers need to be filtered, checked and continuously monitored, and any argument to the contrary is simply a short term attempt to save money at the expense of public safety. Look at all the problems that have been uncovered in Houston lately when many of the supposedly fully vetted and legit UBER drivers started failing the new city fingerprinting background checks for a vast variety of crimes. That tells you right there everything you need to know concerning your “less checking is better” theory.

By: Fred Mangels

Fred Mangels — Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:30:29 +0000

The first thing we’ll hear from progressives in defense of this is exactly what Nazarian has already said: “We need to protect the consumer”, in so many words. Yet the consumer already has the choice to protect themselves if they don’t feel comfortable with the newer services. They can still rent an old fashioned taxi.

Comments on: After industry compromise, lawmaker pursues more ride-sharing regulations

By: fluffydude

By: Fred Mangels