# Cabbie Dragged 20ft by Uber Driver Trying to get his "point across"...



## UberDueber (Dec 5, 2015)

Saw this last night, Apparently Taxi drivers in Toronto have gone violent. Its amazing to see the internet putting the power in the hands of the people. And the different effects its having on the old world mind set. This is just an amazing example. I mean shutting down traffic is not peaceful protesting. Emergency vehicles and vital supply are cut, economically local businesses suffer. I do not even want to get started on the fact it is not cool to brutally pound on someones personal property then surf on his car like some rescue scene from Baywatch. I have to ask? does that even make the passengers really want to ride with someone that violent. I do not feel sorry for them. Get a smart phone and quick complaining! Great FREE advertising for Uber though! THANKS GUYS!


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

Saw the video, don't even know where to start and have no idea what I would have done in that situation. The cab driver really deserved to have the shit kicked out of him after he smacked the car. I would have had no trouble running his ass over while fearing for my safety.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Couple of threads about this already. To the OP's post as long as tires aren't being burned in roads and rocks being thrown then its annoying but hardly violent protest. However attacking random cars in the street and attempting to assault people is bat-sh*t crazy. Yeah, he didn't help the cab drivers message here. I understand why their pissed and their arguments have some validity however ALL of it gets lost and flushed down the toilet when you pull crap like this.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

Stealing people's livelihood by breaking the law is economic violence. Violence is what finally made the French authorities act. Violent protests have historically often been the only way to effect change. Wall St is extreme (destructive) violence, people like Kalinick are the definition of violent, they just do it from a well decorated office. Sure, let's avoid violence if possible. But enough with the 'it's never the answer' bullshit.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> Stealing people's livelihood by breaking the law is economic violence. Violence is what finally made the French authorities act. Violent protests have historically often been the only way to effect change. Wall St is extreme (destructive) violence, people like Kalinick are the definition of violent, they just do it from a well decorated office. Sure, let's avoid violence if possible. But enough with the 'it's never the answer' bullshit.


Are you excusing this drivers behavior? Beyond silly. Violence is a LAST recourse when democratic means fail to rectify repression at a level that stamps out a populaces ability to live freely. Taxi drivers being under cut by Uber does NOT come close to reaching that. All that crap does is speed their demise and allow people to say, "Good riddance."


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

D Town said:


> Are you excusing this drivers behavior? Beyond silly. Violence is a LAST recourse when democratic means fail to rectify repression at a level that stamps out a populaces ability to live freely. Taxi drivers being under cut by Uber does NOT come close to reaching that. All that crap does is speed their demise and allow people to say, "Good riddance."


It doesn't need to be excused. Uber doesn't care about the lives it's destroying. That's real violence. Tell the guy who worked 35 years to pay off his Medallion who's now in the hospital and can't sell or lease it (can't retire, but can no longer work) to be 'nice.'


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Not a positive advertisement for cabs OR Uber.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> It doesn't need to be excused. Uber doesn't care about the lives it's destroying. That's real violence. Tell the guy who worked 35 years to pay off his Medallion who's now in the hospital and can't sell or lease it (can't retire, but can no longer work) to be 'nice.'


And that excuses a random attack on someone he just assumes is an Uber driver who might be trying to earn money to pay for his own mounting debts? You think Uber that's somehow striking fear into Travis's heart? No that's mindless bullshit.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

D Town said:


> And that excuses a random attack on someone he just assumes is an Uber driver who might be trying to earn money to pay for his own mounting debts? You think Uber that's somehow striking fear into Travis's heart? No that's mindless bullshit.


It isn't a 'random attack.' Stealing money from legitimate cab drivers for any reason is ****ed up. No, I don't think it strikes fear into Kalinick's heart, he doesn't appear to have one.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> It isn't a 'random attack.' Stealing money from legitimate cab drivers for any reason is ****ed up. No, I don't think it strikes fear into Kalinick's heart, he doesn't appear to have one.


Yeah, no that shit was random. He believed it was an Uber car based on...what? I saw no trade dress. I saw no pax. Other than those two things Uber cars and regular cars have no differences. That's foaming at the mouth insanity and anyone that deranged has no business driving around the general public. I hope they put him and anyone else so unstable that they see "enemies" everywhere into mental health wards where they belong.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

D Town said:


> Yeah, no that shit was random. He believed it was an Uber car based on...what? I saw no trade dress. I saw no pax. Other than those two things Uber cars and regular cars have no differences. That's foaming at the mouth insanity and anyone that deranged has no business driving around the general public. I hope they put him and anyone else so unstable that they see "enemies" everywhere into mental health wards where they belong.


Nope, wasn't random. He took an educated guess. Place the rabies and insanity labels on the inhuman lawless corporate greed that is Uber. I personally am done playing games with this garbage. Kalanick even wants to get rid of Human drivers. Think.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Pretty good guess for a random attack.


----------



## HiFareLoRate (Sep 14, 2015)

I would have said something in line of "Allah Akbar" and drove into the interstate.

He wouldn't have second thoughts of holding on.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> Nope, wasn't random. He took an educated guess. Place the rabies and insanity labels on the inhuman lawless corporate greed that is Uber. I personally am done playing games with this garbage. Kalanick even wants to get rid of Human drivers. Think.


I AM thinking. I am also done. Anyone who attacks me or my car for whatever reason floats into their head had better hope its too dangerous for me to stop.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

D Town said:


> I AM thinking. I am also done. Anyone who attacks me or my car for whatever reason floats into their head had better hope its too dangerous for me to stop.


I see. You just don't want to be attacked. The part about breaking/ignoring laws and stealing from cab drivers is not a causal link. Have fun.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Found this on accident. One would think taxi drivers would WANT an end or at least a radical change to the medallion system that screws most drivers.

http://blog.priceonomics.com/post/47636506327/the-tyranny-of-the-taxi-medallions

_"The life of a taxi driver is hard. *When cabbies start a shift, they owe about $100 to their company as payment just for the opportunity drive a taxi.* They might not break even until halfway through their shift, or maybe not at all that day. In most American cities, they have to work very long hours to make a living..._

_
...Why is it that taxi drivers have to pay their companies for the privilege of doing a difficult and dangerous job? After all, when you show up to your office, you don't pay a fee to your boss every morning.

*The reason taxi drivers have to pay for the right to work is that they need access to a taxi medallion to do their job.* A medallion is a permit issued by the government that is required to drive a cab in most cities in America. If you don't use the medallion yourself, you can rent it out to other drivers on your own or, more commonly, through a taxi company. Taxi companies that rent out access to the medallions have immense economic power over the drivers. *If you're not willing to basically become an indentured servant to get medallion access, well, you're out of luck.*"_


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

D Town said:


> Found this on accident. One would think taxi drivers would WANT an end or at least a radical change to the medallion system that screws most drivers.
> 
> http://blog.priceonomics.com/post/47636506327/the-tyranny-of-the-taxi-medallions
> 
> ...


The medallion system protected exclusivity of drivers for almost a century.

Why is it most Uber drivers could make a living two years ago but struggle now?
Saturation.
The medallion system limits the numberof cabs on the road in a particular city.
The Uber system doesnt care if the drivers make money.
Medallion =protection.
Uber=Saturation.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> The medallion system protected exclusivity of drivers for almost a century.
> 
> Why is it most Uber drivers could make a living two years ago but struggle now?
> Saturation.
> ...


In New York, there were a little over 11k medallions in the 30's and that didn't change until 2004 when it went up to over 13k. You're telling me that sounds reasonable to you? There is plenty of middle ground here. An extreme either way is idiocy and breeds corruption. Just cap driver numbers and allow it to fluctuate with yearly demand.


----------



## mrlasvegas (Aug 9, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> It doesn't need to be excused. Uber doesn't care about the lives it's destroying. That's real violence. Tell the guy who worked 35 years to pay off his Medallion who's now in the hospital and can't sell or lease it (can't retire, but can no longer work) to be 'nice.'


Such is life. All investments are a risk. Cabs could never expect to go untouched by technology or competition. Best for these drivers to just return to the country that spit them out for their retirement.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

mrlasvegas said:


> Such is life. All investments are a risk. Cabs could never expect to go untouched by technology or competition. Best for these drivers to just return to the country that spit them out for their retirement.


Return to the country that spit them out?


----------



## mrlasvegas (Aug 9, 2015)

D Town said:


> Return to the country that spit them out?


I have spent a fair amount of time in Toronto. A beautiful city with great people. The folks in the photos do not appear to be native Torontonians.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

mrlasvegas said:


> I have spent a fair amount of time in Toronto. A beautiful city with great people. The folks in the photos do not appear to be native Torontonians.


So?


----------



## Uberwagoner (Oct 11, 2015)

Disgusted Driver said:


> Saw the video, don't even know where to start and have no idea what I would have done in that situation. The cab driver really deserved to have the shit kicked out of him after he smacked the car. I would have had no trouble running his ass over while fearing for my safety.


After dealing with taxi drivers in my local area, I have little sympathy for this cab driver. If taxi driving is an honorable profession, then show by example. If it is about showing who has the biggest testicles to be violent or passive aggressive, then point taken. I will never take a cab.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Uberwagoner said:


> After dealing with taxi drivers in my local area, I have little sympathy for this cab driver. If taxi driving is an honorable profession, then show by example. If it is about showing who has the biggest testicles to be violent or passive aggressive, then point taken. I will never take a cab.


And this is what the majority of people will take away from the jackassery that was put on display by that cab driver. No matter how valid your gripes may be or sound your arguments if you try to make them by screeching them at the top of your lungs, randomly attacking people, and just generally looking like a rampaging jacka$$ you aren't going to win friends and bring people around to your cause. You're going to turn them on you.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

D Town said:


> In New York, there were a little over 11k medallions in the 30's and that didn't change until 2004 when it went up to over 13k. You're telling me that sounds reasonable to you? There is plenty of middle ground here. An extreme either way is idiocy and breeds corruption. Just cap driver numbers and allow it to fluctuate with yearly demand.


I cant wait til Hackenstein feeds you your lunch with real numbers. 
Medallions are only one piece of the puzzle in NYC for legal for hire vehicles.
There are at least 20,000 non medallion for hire vehicles.
TLC has caps to protect from saturation, Uber only has caps based on what TLC allows.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Uberwagoner said:


> After dealing with taxi drivers in my local area, I have little sympathy for this cab driver. If taxi driving is an honorable profession, then show by example. If it is about showing who has the biggest testicles to be violent or passive aggressive, then point taken. I will never take a cab.


Yeah we dont want you in our cabs.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> I cant wait til Hackenstein feeds you your lunch with real numbers.
> Medallions are only one piece of the puzzle in NYC for legal for hire vehicles.
> There are at least 20,000 non medallion for hire vehicles.
> TLC has caps to protect from saturation, Uber only has caps based on what TLC allows.


You don't have these "real" numbers? And are you saying that there are 20k non medallion for hire vehicles not including all the rideshare vehicles? If so what are these guys doing? And since I've never been to New York to try and get a cab the only experience I can go off of is the one I have here in good ol DFW. The wait to get a taxi here is frankly insane - 1 to 2 hours - and has been for years. I can't imagine "over saturation" being the issue.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

D Town said:


> You don't have these "real" numbers? And are you saying that there are 20k non medallion for hire vehicles not including all the rideshare vehicles? If so what are these guys doing? And since I've never been to New York to try and get a cab the only experience I can go off of is the one I have here in good ol DFW. The wait to get a taxi here is frankly insane - 1 to 2 hours - and has been for years. I can't imagine "over saturation" being the issue.


Really?
You must be one of the last great Ubers making a ton of money post saturation.
In 20 minutea i will have grossed $114 in 2.5 hours, because my city and cab company dont allow saturation.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Really?
> You must be one of the last great Ubers making a ton of money post saturation.
> In 20 minutea i will have grossed $114 in 2.5 hours, because my city and cab company dont allow saturation.


Uumm...What in any of what I've said makes you think I think that? I have to wonder why you even quoted me since you addressed none of the questions I asked...


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

mrlasvegas said:


> Such is life. All investments are a risk. Cabs could never expect to go untouched by technology or competition. Best for these drivers to just return to the country that spit them out for their retirement.


Gotta love the inhuman apathy of Uber sympathizers. Acceptable 'risk' does not involve NYC merely breaking the law and allowing Uber to do virtual street hails.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

D Town said:


> In New York, there were a little over 11k medallions in the 30's and that didn't change until 2004 when it went up to over 13k. You're telling me that sounds reasonable to you? There is plenty of middle ground here. An extreme either way is idiocy and breeds corruption. Just cap driver numbers and allow it to fluctuate with yearly demand.


Yes, it's entirely reasonable. NYC's population hasn't really budged since the 50's. Variations in tourism are covered by the 400,000+ rides yellows do every day.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> Yes, it's entirely reasonable. NYC's population hasn't really budged since the 50's. Variations in tourism are covered by the 400,000+ rides yellows do every day.


Whoa, where are you getting your numbers? Lets make a deal. If you quote a number do back it up with something. I always will and my numbers are WAY different from yours here.

From 1950 on the population of New York has grown from 7,891,957 to 10,406,785. Just over 2.5 MILLION more people and tourism numbers are far more insane. I had trouble finding historical numbers from the 1950's on tourist but I was able to go back to 1991. 29.1 million visitors in 1991 and that went up to 56.5 million by 2014. I can only imagine that the numbers were way, way lower in 1950. And yet this unwieldy mass of humanity is going to be well served by pretty much the same numbers of cab drivers?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_New_York_City

http://www.nycgo.com/articles/nyc-statistics-page

Now, as I read I find some fairly interesting things about the industry. Though there are only 13,605 there are about 51,398 cab drivers...How the heck does that work? My understanding was that a driver leased a cab for a day or a week from a company and then drove however if there are that many more drivers than available cabs are they just rotating through or competing for those cabs? Perhaps doing some non-medallion driving the days or weeks their not in a cab?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_New_York_City


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

D Town said:


> Whoa, where are you getting your numbers? Lets make a deal. If you quote a number do back it up with something. I always will and my numbers are WAY different from yours here.
> 
> From 1950 on the population of New York has grown from 7,891,957 to 10,406,785. Just over 2.5 MILLION more people and tourism numbers are far more insane. I had trouble finding historical numbers from the 1950's on tourist but I was able to go back to 1991. 29.1 million visitors in 1991 and that went up to 56.5 million by 2014. I can only imagine that the numbers were way, way lower in 1950. And yet this unwieldy mass of humanity is going to be well served by pretty much the same numbers of cab drivers?
> 
> ...


From nyc.gov. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/census/1790-2000_nyc_total_foreign_birth.pdf

1950: 7.89 M
2000: 8.0 M (only goes to 2000)

The tourists are covered just fine, drive a cab and you'll know that typically if you pass someone up on the street, there's another cab not far behind to get them. Sometimes two cabs vie for the same fare at the same time.

There have always been more registered drivers than cars. It works because not everyone drives full time, some drive only between other jobs as something to fall back on, etc. and some never actually use the license. It has always worked. If you want a car, you can get one.

You're really grasping at straws with this stuff. The yelloe cab business was fine before the TLC sold its soul and let app companies break the law.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> From nyc.gov. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/census/1790-2000_nyc_total_foreign_birth.pdf
> 
> 1950: 7.89 M
> 2000: 8.0 M (only goes to 2000)
> ...


Not sure what you mean by grasping at straws. The link you posted seems to match up with mine but stops at New York's population over a decade ago. Mine is the more current number. And I'm no mathematician and I've never driven a cab but...HOW can the added demands of literally MILLIONS more people be met in a system if the capacity is never increased? The number of trains goes up, the number of buses goes up, but the idea that more cabs should be on the road is crazy? You're going to have to explain what I'm missing here.

http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/...tion-projects-in-the-nyc-region-move-forward/


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

D Town said:


> Not sure what you mean by grasping at straws. The link you posted seems to match up with mine but stops at New York's population over a decade ago. Mine is the more current number. And I'm no mathematician and I've never driven a cab but...HOW can the added demands of literally MILLIONS more people be met in a system if the capacity is never increased? The number of trains goes up, the number of buses goes up, but the idea that more cabs should be on the road is crazy? You're going to have to explain what I'm missing here.
> 
> http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/...tion-projects-in-the-nyc-region-move-forward/


Your numbers didn't match up at all, re-read them. NYC's population hasn't really changed since 2000, either.

At 400,000+ ride per day, everything is covered.

The piece you of course leave out is the labor side, where the saturation you think would be super awesome to cover the times of peak demand would not result in a significant decrease in driver income. It's already done that with the unneccessary addition of more Medallions under Bloomberg as a pure money grab, and now the massive psycho oversaturation of a billion app enabled gypsy cabs.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> Your numbers didn't match up at all, re-read them. NYC's population hasn't really changed since 2000, either.
> 
> At 400,000+ ride per day, everything is covered.
> 
> The piece you of course leave out is the labor side, where the saturation you think would be super awesome to cover the times of peak demand would not result in a significant decrease in driver income. It's already done that with the unneccessary addition of more Medallions under Bloomberg as a pure money grab, and now the massive psycho oversaturation of a billion app enabled gypsy cabs.


Actually, you missed the data I was pointing to however looking at other sources - not yours since yours only go up to 2000 - I find the 10 million number suspect. Looking at census estimates its actually 8,336,697. 20oo was 8,008,278, 2010 was 8,175,133, 2014 was 8,336,697 in the last 14 years that's about 330,000. Not the millions. THAT being said it does nothing to change the tourist numbers which HAVE climbed by millions and you've glossed over. The only people "hurt" be increasing the medallion numbers are those who already own medallions and don't want more competition. I've seen no reason and you've given no reason why they couldn't drop, say, 500 more provisional medallions every two years onto the market. Provisional meaning they are WAY cheaper because they expire at the end of the two years. That way you have time to measure the impact of the extra cabs on the road and if it doesn't hurt wages or saturate the market you can give the owners of those medallions the option to make them permanent for the remainder of the price for a regular medallion OR they can just renew the lease. And if the market does tank because of over saturation then you just don't offer the medallion holders the opportunity to renew. Problem solved.

And yes of course the rideshare apps over saturate the area with drivers. Its the exact other extreme of this equation. Where the never increasing medallion numbers allow a few cab companies to hoard them and hold a few drivers to a type of indentured servitude paying outrageous fees and making little money Uber just floods markets and makes a profit by sheer numbers. Both have the same outcomes of low pay, off loading as much cost as possible on drivers, and providing a low quality service. Unless you own the medallion AND drive the cab then all the profit goes to you.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

D Town said:


> Actually, you missed the data I was pointing to however looking at other sources - not yours since yours only go up to 2000 - I find the 10 million number suspect. Looking at census estimates its actually 8,336,697. 20oo was 8,008,278, 2010 was 8,175,133, 2014 was 8,336,697 in the last 14 years that's about 330,000. Not the millions. THAT being said it does nothing to change the tourist numbers which HAVE climbed by millions and you've glossed over. The only people "hurt" be increasing the medallion numbers are those who already own medallions and don't want more competition. I've seen no reason and you've given no reason why they couldn't drop, say, 500 more provisional medallions every two years onto the market. Provisional meaning they are WAY cheaper because they expire at the end of the two years. That way you have time to measure the impact of the extra cabs on the road and if it doesn't hurt wages or saturate the market you can give the owners of those medallions the option to make them permanent for the remainder of the price for a regular medallion OR they can just renew the lease. And if the market does tank because of over saturation then you just don't offer the medallion holders the opportunity to renew. Problem solved.
> 
> And yes of course the rideshare apps over saturate the area with drivers. Its the exact other extreme of this equation. Where the never increasing medallion numbers allow a few cab companies to hoard them and hold a few drivers to a type of indentured servitude paying outrageous fees and making little money Uber just floods markets and makes a profit by sheer numbers. Both have the same outcomes of low pay, off loading as much cost as possible on drivers, and providing a low quality service. Unless you own the medallion AND drive the cab then all the profit goes to you.


8.3 M in 2015. 2%. Barely budged.http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/new-york-city-population/

More than that % of new Medallions were added under Bloomberg.

You have zero understanding of this topic and should stop wasting everyones time.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> 8.3 M in 2015. 2%. Barely budged.http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/new-york-city-population/
> 
> More than that % of new Medallions were added under Bloomberg.
> 
> You have zero understanding of this topic and should stop wasting everyones time.


Soooo you're just going to ignore ALL of my points and ideas without offering anything in return, huh? That tells me I have a pretty damn good understanding of it and you seem to have nothing, don't want to admit it, and are just trying to cover it up with dismissal. You must be a politician.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

D Town said:


> Soooo you're just going to ignore ALL of my points and ideas without offering anything in return, huh? That tells me I have a pretty damn good understanding of it and you seem to have nothing, don't want to admit it, and are just trying to cover it up with dismissal. You must be a politician.


You didn't make any valid points. This isn't a game, real people are being seriously harmed. I'm not making what I used to even last year. I work 12 hour shifts. The reality of this law breaking app garbage is harsh. Judge Weiss has now ruled that Uber is 'legal' because it does pre-arranged rides, and on appeal ruled it's 'legal' because it provides 'immediate livery service for people who have NOT pre-arranged rides.' That is the level of corruption we're dealing with here. It's now going to the Federal level. Spare me the bs, ok?


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> You didn't make any valid points. This isn't a game, real people are being seriously harmed. I'm not making what I used to even last year. I work 12 hour shifts. The reality of this law breaking app garbage is harsh. Judge Weiss has now ruled that Uber is 'legal' because it does pre-arranged rides, and on appeal ruled it's 'legal' because it provides 'immediate livery service for people who have NOT pre-arranged rides.' That is the level of corruption we're dealing with here. It's now going to the Federal level. Spare me the bs, ok?


And you make my point. Someone who knows Uber is corrupt and wants nothing to do with them has asked someone who is actually working in this field questions and tried to offer ideas. However, instead of trying to educate and hear them out you shit on them. That doesn't endear me to your side or make me want to lift a finger to help you. You're slitting your own throat. Have fun with that.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

D Town said:


> And you make my point. Someone who knows Uber is corrupt and wants nothing to do with them has asked someone who is actually working in this field questions and tried to offer ideas. However, instead of trying to educate and hear them out you shit on them. That doesn't endear me to your side or make me want to lift a finger to help you. You're slitting your own throat. Have fun with that.


Your idea is to add more cabs (provisonally). We added more cabs under Bloomberg, we make less now, even with a fare increase. Which wouldn't have been necessary without the unneccessary additional Medallions. Passengers lose, drivers got nothing. Especially since Yassky let the garages raise the lease. Add the shitpile of corruption and lawlessness that is 'Uber,' and it's a giant party.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> Your idea is to add more cabs (provisonally). We added more cabs under Bloomberg, we make less now, even with a fare increase. Which wouldn't have been necessary without the unneccessary additional Medallions. Passengers lose, drivers got nothing. Especially since Yassky let the garages raise the lease. Add the shitpile of corruption and lawlessness that is 'Uber,' and it's a giant party.


I'm having a difficult time finding any economic impact studies on the taxi cab industry in New York after the increase in medallions right now so unless and until I find one I'll just roll with your assertion that it lowered the driver take home pay.

As for it making things worse for the pax I can't see how having more cabs available is bad for them. Nor can I see how its bad for fleet owners who still get their lease fees from the drivers no matter what the driver makes. The taxi drivers were getting screwed LONG before Uber - though, yes, Uber is the biggest threat yet.

_"Leasing produced two major changes for fleet owners and drivers:
_

_Drivers worked longer shifts. Lease drivers have a strong incentive to drive for as long a shift as possible since they take home every marginal dollar above the lease fee and gasoline cost. As leasing took hold, fleets gave drivers the opportunity to work more by lengthening the allowable shifts from 9 to 12 hours. In actuality, drivers worked about 15% more, measured by mileage and fare revenues.19_
_Fleet owners dropped key fringe benefits -- social security coverage, unemployment insurance, disability insurance -- and also stopped paying into a union welfare fund._
_These developments combined to benefit fleet owners substantially. In 1981, when most fleet drivers were still paid on commission, fleets retained for expenses and profits an average of $33 per shift after paying driver commissions, fringe benefits, and gasoline costs. By 1986, with leasing predominating, fleets' comparable income was $57, a 72% increase over 1981."_


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

D Town said:


> I'm having a difficult time finding any economic impact studies on the taxi cab industry in New York after the increase in medallions right now so unless and until I find one I'll just roll with your assertion that it lowered the driver take home pay.
> 
> As for it making things worse for the pax I can't see how having more cabs available is bad for them. Nor can I see how its bad for fleet owners who still get their lease fees from the drivers no matter what the driver makes. The taxi drivers were getting screwed LONG before Uber - though, yes, Uber is the biggest threat yet.
> 
> ...


I don't need a study, I do the job. I know exactly why I'm making less money. I am not an amateur, do not need a different 'strategy,' and am from NYC. Keep flaming if you want you're saying nothing.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> I see. You just don't want to be attacked. The part about breaking/ignoring laws and stealing from cab drivers is not a causal link. Have fun.


"Ahem". (Pulls out soap box...)

Hack, last I checked, this is a free market economy. Competition is the key to our enjoying a more affordable standard of living. The comment above about medallions protecting cabbies is a perfect illustration. Nothing changed for a very long time. Rattle trap cabs and nasty drivers used to out number the nicer cars and polite drivers here in Chicago. I used to take cabs nearly every day for work, taking things to various courts, or law firms or client offices, and have seen the best and the worst. And there were far fewer "best" than worst. Does it make sense that a medallion is so stupidly expensive? No. Is that Uber's doing? No. Did I like paying too much for car insurance? No, but I didn't know better until it became so much easier to compare rates. Does that make my new insurance carrier evil? No. 
Did I like having hacks try to extort me for fare-and-one-half rates when my destination was clearly on the list of straight fare suburbs posted on the seat in front of me? No. But I had no choice other than the CTA. Did I like having to correct hacks trying to take me in circles? No. But again, it was that or wait for several buses. 
Uber is NOT my favorite corporate entity, but it is NOT STEALING. Stealing would be going through the cabbies pockets or going to the cab company's vault and taking money. Uber built a better dispatch model and priced it just perfectly (for the riders) and now you have a bunch of angry cabbies who can't compete. So what should mom and pop grocers do when Walmart comes to town? Set fire to the walmart? Assault Walmart customers or employees? This isn't civil disobedience. This is more like TERRORISM. The ends do not justify the means in this situation.
Face it. Uber built the better model and the customers made their choices. You should hear the stories they tell me of how horrible an experience a cab ride can be. They're happy as pigs in crap that they have a choice that didn't exist before the ride-shares. You ought to blame the cab companies for not reacting and following Uber's example. Go protest there. Or go protest City Hall for allowing the cab companies to screw you first.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> I don't need a study, I do the job. I know exactly why I'm making less money. I am not an amateur, do not need a different 'strategy,' and am from NYC. Keep flaming if you want you're saying nothing.





UberBeemer said:


> "Ahem". (Pulls out soap box...)
> 
> Hack, last I checked, this is a free market economy. Competition is the key to our enjoying a more affordable standard of living. The comment above about medallions protecting cabbies is a perfect illustration. Nothing changed for a very long time. Rattle trap cabs and nasty drivers used to out number the nicer cars and polite drivers here in Chicago. I used to take cabs nearly every day for work, taking things to various courts, or law firms or client offices, and have seen the best and the worst. And there were far fewer "best" than worst. Does it make sense that a medallion is so stupidly expensive? No. Is that Uber's doing? No. Did I like paying too much for car insurance? No, but I didn't know better until it became so much easier to compare rates. Does that make my new insurance carrier evil? No.
> Did I like having hacks try to extort me for fare-and-one-half rates when my destination was clearly on the list of straight fare suburbs posted on the seat in front of me? No. But I had no choice other than the CTA. Did I like having to correct hacks trying to take me in circles? No. But again, it was that or wait for several buses.
> ...


Know what, UberBeemer? You're 100% correct. I see why Uber is winning. What their fighting against is just as corrupt. We're trading one crap service for another only the price is lower as has been illustrated. Why am I wasting my time trying to think about it? I think we can close this thread now.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

UberBeemer said:


> "Ahem". (Pulls out soap box...)
> 
> Hack, last I checked, this is a free market economy. Competition is the key to our enjoying a more affordable standard of living. The comment above about medallions protecting cabbies is a perfect illustration. Nothing changed for a very long time. Rattle trap cabs and nasty drivers used to out number the nicer cars and polite drivers here in Chicago. I used to take cabs nearly every day for work, taking things to various courts, or law firms or client offices, and have seen the best and the worst. And there were far fewer "best" than worst. Does it make sense that a medallion is so stupidly expensive? No. Is that Uber's doing? No. Did I like paying too much for car insurance? No, but I didn't know better until it became so much easier to compare rates. Does that make my new insurance carrier evil? No.
> Did I like having hacks try to extort me for fare-and-one-half rates when my destination was clearly on the list of straight fare suburbs posted on the seat in front of me? No. But I had no choice other than the CTA. Did I like having to correct hacks trying to take me in circles? No. But again, it was that or wait for several buses.
> ...


[email protected] the same tired bullshit about 'competition.' Uber breaks the law, there is nothing resembling legitimate 'competition' here.


----------



## NachonCheeze (Sep 8, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Pretty good guess for a random attack.


Mostly Cabs


----------



## NachonCheeze (Sep 8, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> The medallion system protected exclusivity of drivers for almost a century.
> 
> Why is it most Uber drivers could make a living two years ago but struggle now?
> Saturation.
> ...


Its called the free market .....supply and demand....the medallion is just protectionism to rip off the consumer


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

NachonCheeze said:


> Its called the free market .....supply and demand....the medallion is just protectionism to rip off the consumer


In NYC with no Medallions, cab drivers made virtually nothing. We had that once. See if you can figure out why that is.

Perhaps it doesn't concern you though, as long as 'the consumer' likes it.

Also try to figure out why NYC yelow cab rates are quite reasonable compared to other major cities.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Hack, please either cite the law broken or get over yourself. I personally think you're just bitter. They compete. Customers choose. Uber is no more stealing from you than McDonalds is stealing from Burger King or Coke from Pepsi.


----------



## OldsmarUber (Nov 6, 2015)

Hacks just a hack. Best thing you can do bro is let that medallion foreclose. Writing is on the wall ... Its as worthless as the cab its attached to. Uber on.


----------



## NachonCheeze (Sep 8, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> In NYC with no Medallions, cab drivers made virtually nothing. We had that once. See if you can figure out why that is.
> 
> Perhaps it doesn't concern you though, as long as 'the consumer' likes it.
> 
> Also try to figure out why NYC yelow cab rates are quite reasonable compared to other major cities.


Uhhhh..thats exactly the point. In a free market to many drivers will drive the price down. Not enough drivers and price goes up....The job will pay what its worth if you let free market manage itself.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

NachonCheeze said:


> Uhhhh..thats exactly the point. In a free market to many drivers will drive the price down. Not enough drivers and price goes up....The job will pay what its worth if you let free market manage itself.


It will drive the price down to where it is a barely subsistence wage job with drivers who can't afford car repairs. Flooding a city with cars is not a normal 'free market' scenario. Local government also has an obligation regarding public safety. Desperate drivers in busted cars doesn't work for anyone. You need a rational limit on numbers. And with that limit, you do actually have a free market. The yellow business is extremely competitive. If you've ever driven, you'd get that. Comprende?


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Hackenstein said:


> Stealing people's livelihood by breaking the law is economic violence. Violence is what finally made the French authorities act. Violent protests have historically often been the only way to effect change. Wall St is extreme (destructive) violence, people like Kalinick are the definition of violent, they just do it from a well decorated office. Sure, let's avoid violence if possible. But enough with the 'it's never the answer' bullshit.


Looks like you need some help with this. Here might be a good starting point for you:

http://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/figuratively-literally/


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

elelegido said:


> Looks like you need some help with this. Here might be a good starting point for you:
> 
> http://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/figuratively-literally/


I'm sure you had a point in mind with that embarrassing bit of snark. Sorry, but there is none.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Hackenstein said:


> I'm sure you had a point in mind with that embarrassing bit of snark. Sorry, but there is none.


Apology accepted.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

elelegido said:


> Apology accepted.


Stringing random words together would serve you better.


----------



## humandriver (Sep 16, 2014)

Regulation and protectionism is a healthy part of free market capitalism. Without it, business becomes a no-limit poker game where big bank takes little bank. Dismantling all forms of protectionism in the name of lower prices for consumers is a race to the bottom. A rising tide lifts all boats, that means drivers who can earn a living wage will spend that money in their communities which will create more jobs and beget more prosperity. The alternative, one or a small group of large multinationals (like Uber) siphon that money out of local communities into tax exempt offshore accounts, which benefits no one except the greedy executives of those companies.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

humandriver said:


> Regulation and protectionism is a healthy part of free market capitalism. Without it, business becomes a no-limit poker game where big bank takes little bank. Dismantling all forms of protectionism in the name of lower prices for consumers is a race to the bottom. A rising tide lifts all boats, that means drivers who can earn a living wage will spend that money in their communities which will create more jobs and beget more prosperity. The alternative, one or a small group of large multinationals (like Uber) siphon that money out of local communities into tax exempt offshore accounts, which benefits no one except the greedy executives of those companies.


Unfortunately, the current cab system really only protects the moneyed interest that can afford to buy medallions and hire indentured servants to work for them at the wage they set. Its marginally better than Uber.


----------



## uber X lady (Dec 12, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> It isn't a 'random attack.' Stealing money from legitimate cab drivers for any reason is ****ed up. No, I don't think it strikes fear into Kalinick's heart, he doesn't appear to have one.[/QUOTE
> ]Garrett Camp and Travis Kalanick are Azz hole. Greedy enough to steal our money we earned and enjoyed doing. Did they tell you'll that there selling Uber cab Company to Google and they never owned a cab drivers license. And that the waybill is bogus...We mad them rich. On the other hand were the ones had to deal with these nasty pie hole racist minded customers. I quit that bullshit.. here in the atl!!!


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

D Town said:


> Unfortunately, the current cab system really only protects the moneyed interest that can afford to buy medallions and hire indentured servants to work for them at the wage they set. Its marginally better than Uber.


Go to a garage, get a car. Could make $300 on a good day a couple years ago pre- 'legal' gypsy cabs with apps. Protectionism my ass. You peeps haven't the slightest clue about any of this. The yellow industry isnt perfect but the broad stroke simplistic talking points about 'monopolies' 'cartels' and 'protectionism' are really ridiculous.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

humandriver said:


> Regulation and protectionism is a healthy part of free market capitalism. Without it, business becomes a no-limit poker game where big bank takes little bank. Dismantling all forms of protectionism in the name of lower prices for consumers is a race to the bottom. A rising tide lifts all boats, that means drivers who can earn a living wage will spend that money in their communities which will create more jobs and beget more prosperity. The alternative, one or a small group of large multinationals (like Uber) siphon that money out of local communities into tax exempt offshore accounts, which benefits no one except the greedy executives of those companies.


Precisely.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> Go to a garage, get a car. Could make $300 on a good day a couple years ago pre- 'legal' gypsy cabs with apps. Protectionism my ass. You peeps haven't the slightest clue about any of this. The yellow industry isnt perfect but the broad stroke simplistic talking points about 'monopolies' 'cartels' and 'protectionism' are really ridiculous.


Your industry as you know it is doomed and should be. Get used to it. Have a wonderful last few years.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

D Town said:


> Your industry as you know it is doomed and should be. Get used to it. Have a wonderful last few years.


Disgusting and pathetic. Have fun feeding corporate greed while they continue to over saturate and you make less and less.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> Disgusting and pathetic. Have fun feeding corporate greed while they continue to over saturate and you make less and less.


What's pathetic is the fact you think you can bully people to your side. You don't know what you're talking about and/or you know your side is about as corrupt and crappy. I recognized Uber's corruption pretty quick and decided to go elsewhere to make my money so the only reason for me to get involved or care at all would be in the interest of fairness however I find no angles to defend or care about with taxi companies. Both of you can eat each other for all I care.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

D Town said:


> What's pathetic is the fact you think you can bully people to your side. You don't know what you're talking about and/or you know your side is about as corrupt and crappy. I recognized Uber's corruption pretty quick and decided to go elsewhere to make my money so the only reason for me to get involved or care at all would be in the interest of fairness however I find no angles to defend or care about with taxi companies. Both of you can eat each other for all I care.


It's pretty simple. Uber makes no attempt to limit numbers in NYC. They continuously lure new drivers with guarantees and lock them into multi year car loans. The last batch realizes they're screwed by the massive increase of Uber drivers to compete with since they signed up, and bail as soon as they can. Next crop of suckers steps up to the plate. I've spoken to plenty of drivers, and read this forum. As far as corrupt, nothing on Earth is more corrupt than Uber. [email protected] the tired 'crappy' line of bullshit, I drive a 2014 transit connect, looks practically new. Most NYC cabs are in the same shape in 2015. Good luck serving Uber like a mindless fool.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> Good luck serving Uber like a mindless fool.


Good luck being bitter, angry, and in a completely different service field once you guys lose. I'm done here.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Introducing UberDRAG
The Ride of Your Life:


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

UberBeemer said:


> Hack, please either cite the law broken or get over yourself. I personally think you're just bitter. They compete. Customers choose. Uber is no more stealing from you than McDonalds is stealing from Burger King or Coke from Pepsi.


I've repeated it 20 times. Judge Weiss ruled Uber is 'legal' without a Medallion because it does pre-arranged rides, then ruled on appeal that it's legal because it provides 'immediate livery service for people who have NOT pre-arranged rides. They can not only break the law, they can operate on both sides of it and be declared 'legal.' Weiss was substituted miraculously for the judge who wanted to know why Uber should not be shut down immediately.

Please don't bother with the patronizing routine, it isn't interesting. And for God's sake stop with the 'competition' nonsense. This isn't competition.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

D Town said:


> Good luck being bitter, angry, and in a completely different service field once you guys lose. I'm done here.


Get rid of Uber tomorrow in NYC, wouldn't make much difference. One less app toy to play with.

Get rid of yellow cabs, city can't function.

See ya.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> I've repeated it 20 times. Judge Weiss ruled Uber is 'legal' without a Medallion because it does pre-arranged rides, then ruled on appeal that it's legal because it provides 'immediate livery service for people who have NOT pre-arranged rides. They can not only break the law, they can operate on both sides of it and be declared 'legal.' Weiss was substituted miraculously for the judge who wanted to know why Uber should not be shut down immediately.
> 
> Please don't bother with the patronizing routine, it isn't interesting. And for God's sake stop with the 'competition' nonsense. This isn't competition.


Somehow the same judge ruled in lower court then got to hear the appeal? That's impossible. You need to understand that a judges' ruling is a little like an umpire's call. If you ask a seasoned umpire what the difference is between a ball and a strike, he'll tell you, it's NOT a ball or a strike unless I SAY it's a ball or a strike. The law is enforced at the judicial level in the same manner. The lawyers argue their point, and the judges rule on their interpretation of the statutory law based on their consideration of facts, evidence, and precedence. So it's legal if they say it's legal. 
And yeah, you hate it and won't admit it, but it's competition. Just like Burger King selling 10 nuggets for the price McDonalds charges for 6. They're not stealing money from McDonalds, regardless of how angry it makes you. Uber built a dispatch system that kicks the butt of any cab company's. It's how they're able to build a base of loyal riders who are flocking away from the unpredictable and often unreliable traditional taxi dispatch. Nobody roped these customers and threw them into the back of the windowless Uber van.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

UberBeemer said:


> Somehow the same judge ruled in lower court then got to hear the appeal? That's impossible. You need to understand that a judges' ruling is a little like an umpire's call. If you ask a seasoned umpire what the difference is between a ball and a strike, he'll tell you, it's NOT a ball or a strike unless I SAY it's a ball or a strike. The law is enforced at the judicial level in the same manner. The lawyers argue their point, and the judges rule on their interpretation of the statutory law based on their consideration of facts, evidence, and precedence. So it's legal if they say it's legal.
> And yeah, you hate it and won't admit it, but it's competition. Just like Burger King selling 10 nuggets for the price McDonalds charges for 6. They're not stealing money from McDonalds, regardless of how angry it makes you. Uber built a dispatch system that kicks the butt of any cab company's. It's how they're able to build a base of loyal riders who are flocking away from the unpredictable and often unreliable traditional taxi dispatch. Nobody roped these customers and threw them into the back of the windowless Uber van.


Work on your reading comprehension. The first judge was somehow removed/replaced before the case was even heard. He felt it was inexplicable that the city has allowed Uber to continue to operate. Weiss then ruled Uber can just ignore the law. The appeal was heard because a Federal ruling was made in Illinois that the law is not being applied equally. The case now goes to the Federal level. You clearly know nothing and should stop commenting.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

UberBeemer said:


> Somehow the same judge ruled in lower court then got to hear the appeal? That's impossible. You need to understand that a judges' ruling is a little like an umpire's call. If you ask a seasoned umpire what the difference is between a ball and a strike, he'll tell you, it's NOT a ball or a strike unless I SAY it's a ball or a strike. The law is enforced at the judicial level in the same manner. The lawyers argue their point, and the judges rule on their interpretation of the statutory law based on their consideration of facts, evidence, and precedence. So it's legal if they say it's legal.
> And yeah, you hate it and won't admit it, but it's competition. Just like Burger King selling 10 nuggets for the price McDonalds charges for 6. They're not stealing money from McDonalds, regardless of how angry it makes you. Uber built a dispatch system that kicks the butt of any cab company's. It's how they're able to build a base of loyal riders who are flocking away from the unpredictable and often unreliable traditional taxi dispatch. Nobody roped these customers and threw them into the back of the windowless Uber van.


Don't bother. No matter what you say you won't get an intelligent response. If its not agreeing with this guy the answers are all just, "Nope, nope, you're wrong. You don't know what you're talking about. Stop talking." Seriously, go back and look at most of his responses in this thread. Its pretty much just some variation of that. Its comical actually.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

I actually have some background in the law, so I find it a challenge to get through this guy's skull. But maybe you're right. Still, one last try:
The mysterious "removal" is probably just the case being assigned to a trial judge. The courts in both the Law and the Chancery Division have judges assigned to keep the discovery process moving, and when all the potential evidence is exchanged, and depositions taken, it's moved to a trial judge. This is not a conspiracy and not unusual for a status judge to have a differing of opinion than the one who presides over the trial. Hackenstein, you're the one who needs to work on his knowledge of civics. The trial judge didn't order anyone to ignore a "law", but after digesting the evidence, testimony of witnesses, and arguments of the attorneys, rendered a ruling on how the law(s) applied to the case.


----------



## elelegido (Sep 24, 2014)

Hackenstein said:


> Stringing random words together would serve you better.


You are the intellectual equivalent of a one legged man in an arse kicking contest. To continue would not be fair on you.


----------



## XUberMike (Aug 2, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> It doesn't need to be excused. Uber doesn't care about the lives it's destroying. That's real violence. Tell the guy who worked 35 years to pay off his Medallion who's now in the hospital and can't sell or lease it (can't retire, but can no longer work) to be 'nice.'


As for a Medallion's I've purchased tons of things that are now worthless. My 55 inch HD LED SMART TV is soon going to be worthless with new 4K TVs. I spent $2,900 on a MAC SE 20...hell, I have more memory on my keychain for $4.95 now.
You make and investment, any investment you take and assume the risk of getting a return on it or not. The NYC Mayor screwed guys and their medallions over. If you buy a restaurant and it fails that's life and you lose your investment...there are no guarantees except taxes and death.

Let's take NYC, look to your Mayor De Blasio and citizens of NYC (not to the Uber driver) for the NYC Taxi lot in life. A majority of NYC residents voted this clown into office and he gave UBER and Travis the clown (as well) the freedom to run wild in the city. It's certainly not the Uber driver who is just trying to make a living just like the cabbie. To my knowledge a Uber Driver is not breaking any NYC laws and should not be accosted for doing what was approved by the Mayor of NYC.


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

The cabbie got a free ride and didn't even tip. 
Par for the course....


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Uber-Doober said:


> The cabbie got a free ride and didn't even tip.
> Par for the course....


You win the internet for today. Everyone else can stop posting. We have our champion.


----------



## MeekloBraca (Apr 17, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> It isn't a 'random attack.' Stealing money from legitimate cab drivers for any reason is ****ed up. No, I don't think it strikes fear into Kalinick's heart, he doesn't appear to have one.


I dont give a crap about the cabbies, their retirement, their medallion, their loans, or anything. Theyve made a career out of a corrupt monopoly and not its time to pay the piper. If this asshole had done this to my car, he would be going home from the hospital regretting it.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

MeekloBraca said:


> I dont give a crap about the cabbies, their retirement, their medallion, their loans, or anything. Theyve made a career out of a corrupt monopoly and not its time to pay the piper. If this asshole had done this to my car, he would be going home from the hospital regretting it.


Really? An individual owner operator in NYC who worked 35 years paying off his Medallion and making an honest living is part of a 'corrupt monopoly?'

Without a disgusting lie like that, you can't justify a wildly illegal exploitative con like Uber.

Save the bravado for Uber when they punt another 20,000 cars into your market and you realize how badly you've been used. You know what prevents that? Medallions.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

UberBeemer said:


> I actually have some background in the law, so I find it a challenge to get through this guy's skull. But maybe you're right. Still, one last try:
> The mysterious "removal" is probably just the case being assigned to a trial judge. The courts in both the Law and the Chancery Division have judges assigned to keep the discovery process moving, and when all the potential evidence is exchanged, and depositions taken, it's moved to a trial judge. This is not a conspiracy and not unusual for a status judge to have a differing of opinion than the one who presides over the trial. Hackenstein, you're the one who needs to work on his knowledge of civics. The trial judge didn't order anyone to ignore a "law", but after digesting the evidence, testimony of witnesses, and arguments of the attorneys, rendered a ruling on how the law(s) applied to the case.


More nonsense. The district judge in Chicago ruled the Transportation Trade Association can go forward with their lawsuit. Their claim is violation of equal treatment under the law. It's what the NYC group based their appeal on. Weiss then proceeded to claim that Uber can do what he termed "immediate livery service" for those who have NOT 'pre-arranged' rides. With a straight face. The first dismissal, before the appeal, was based on the idea that Uber does 'pre-arranged' rides. It was a major point of contention , to the point that there was a big fight with the city over the contention that someone on I believe it was the City Council, or perhaps the TLC, had said they were not pre-arranged.

To sum up: Uber was ruled legal, based on the claim they're 'pre-arranged,' not street-hails. It was then ruled 'legal' based on the claim that they are NOT pre-arranged, and are "immediate livery service." I've never heard that term before, have you? Sure sounds like a virtual street hail to me.


----------



## NachonCheeze (Sep 8, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> It will drive the price down to where it is a barely subsistence wage job with drivers who can't afford car repairs. Flooding a city with cars is not a normal 'free market' scenario. Local government also has an obligation regarding public safety. Desperate drivers in busted cars doesn't work for anyone. You need a rational limit on numbers. And with that limit, you do actually have a free market. The yellow business is extremely competitive. If you've ever driven, you'd get that. Comprende?


Yup, too many drivers will lower the wage. Nothing wrong with that. 2) Limiting the number of drivers available is not a free market, you make no sense 3)And yes, jobs that are easy entrance are going to be low paying jobs. Low skill=low pay, high skill=high pay, comprende. You seem to be under the impression that a job is supposed to pay you a living. That only occurs with socialism, wrong country for that.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

NachonCheeze said:


> Yup, too many drivers will lower the wage. Nothing wrong with that. 2) Limiting the number of drivers available is not a free market, you make no sense 3)And yes, jobs that are easy entrance are going to be low paying jobs. Low skill=low pay, high skill=high pay, comprende. You seem to be under the impression that a job is supposed to pay you a living. That only occurs with socialism, wrong country for that.


To be fair, the U.S. economy has never been a true free market economy. Its always been a mixed economy with some level of government control in various markets. That's why we have government regulatory bodies, anti monopoly laws, even FDIC insurance on our bank accounts. I wouldn't want to live in a pure free market system just like I wouldn't want to live in a pure socialist system. A balanced approach is needed. Socialism tends to restrict individual freedom with a tendency towards concentrating on the overall good to the society while capitalism tends to favor personal freedom while leaving those who can't compete to languish. A mix is necessary.

As for cabs, there is a smarter way to do things though the medallion system currently in place has proven itself garbage. That being said, I don't like the idea of flooding the market with the cheapest of the cheap drivers at the cost of safety and quality. As in all things there is a balance.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

NachonCheeze said:


> Yup, too many drivers will lower the wage. Nothing wrong with that. 2) Limiting the number of drivers available is not a free market, you make no sense 3)And yes, jobs that are easy entrance are going to be low paying jobs. Low skill=low pay, high skill=high pay, comprende. You seem to be under the impression that a job is supposed to pay you a living. That only occurs with socialism, wrong country for that.


The City decided otherwise when we had 50,000 desperate burned out drivers in broken cars drivers making nothing. Yellow cabs are a necessary extension of the mass transit system, you can't have that. It's awesome how little you care about the labor side, and the socialism spiel is truly precious.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> The City decided otherwise when we had 50,000 desperate burned out drivers in broken cars drivers making nothing. Yellow cabs are a necessary extension of the mass transit system, you can't have that. It's awesome how little you care about the labor side, and the socialism spiel is truly precious.


Don't pretend to "care about the labor" when you back a system almost as corrupt.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

D Town said:


> Don't pretend to "care about the labor" when you back a system almost as corrupt.


Nonsense. You could always get a car and go make decent money. Period.

This 'Uber' garbage is about tossing drivers into a Human meat grinder and replacing them every couple of years (or less) when they realize they're going nowhere and can get out of the car lease they're stuck in.


----------



## JDJ (Apr 15, 2015)

I can careless about Medallion's or Travis & Uber.
You live in NYC you have to know how to make money and adapt constantly.
There is always a new something coming to town competing with something else,
Cab's, Restaurant's Club's, Model's, Bar's etc.

The consumer is the one who decides what to use or where they want to go or what they want to wear.
Cabbies are mad at the world right now, 
They are mad at Uber at their Driver's, Rider's founder when who they should
really be mad at is TLC here in NYC. 
The demand on these apps are too high now, It's to late to expect any change.

From speaking to many people some of the reason people still hail cabs here in manhattan are
When UBER is Surging
Because is quicker to Hail one in most part's of the City
& Because the driver's typically have more knowledge of the City than a typical Driver.
Other than that there isn't anything about a yellow cab that i can think of
that would catch anyone's attention over Uber in NYC.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

JDJ said:


> I can careless about Medallion's or Travis & Uber.
> You live in NYC you have to know how to make money and adapt constantly.
> There is always a new something coming to town competing with something else,
> Cab's, Restaurant's Club's, Model's, Bar's etc.
> ...


I'm going to sell you a house. You will take out a mortgage. I'm then going to allow another family to live there. It's a new concept, called 'housesharing.' They will not be required to contribute to your mortgage, but I will charge them a monthly fee, which I will keep.

Sound good?

It's 'good for the consumer.'


----------



## mrlasvegas (Aug 9, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> I'm going to sell you a house. You will take out a mortgage. I'm then going to allow another family to live there. It's a new concept, called 'housesharing.' They will not be required to contribute to your mortgage, but I will charge them a monthly fee, which I will keep.
> 
> Sound good?
> May well be the craziest example ever posted on this forum
> ...


----------



## JDJ (Apr 15, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> I'm going to sell you a house. You will take out a mortgage. I'm then going to allow another family to live there. It's a new concept, called 'housesharing.' They will not be required to contribute to your mortgage, but I will charge them a monthly fee, which I will keep.
> 
> Sound good?
> 
> It's 'good for the consumer.'


There is a risk to any investment. You can easily buy a house and lose it all in months.
The same way you can buy one & have the value drop 
where you will be paying the house 2x or 3x+ what is worth.

The same goes with the medallion's buying one is a investment.
What everyone wants is to invest in something and see it grow have more value.
Unfortunately it doesn't always work like that.

Your example is insane that's like me buying a medallion so you could use it.
So you could make money while I pay for it. Call it Medallionsharing.


----------



## JDJ (Apr 15, 2015)

Like I said
The consumer decides what he or she wants to do with their money.
If they don't want to spend it on what you offer you can't force them to do so.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

JDJ said:


> Like I said
> The consumer decides what he or she wants to do with their money.
> If they don't want to spend it on what you offer you can't force them to do so.


The 'consumer' will use an illegal service like Uber if it's presented as legal. The money saved by skirting the major costs of doing business will always give a scam like Uber a massive advantage. You're saying nothing.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

JDJ said:


> There is a risk to any investment. You can easily buy a house and lose it all in months.
> The same way you can buy one & have the value drop
> where you will be paying the house 2x or 3x+ what is worth.
> 
> ...


Love the way you frame breaking the law as an inherent 'risk of investment.'

Unreal ignorance and apathy.


----------



## JDJ (Apr 15, 2015)

Look all im saying is you arent going to get anywhere by crying and whining 
and posting on these forums complaining about uber. You should be crying about TLC
but good luck with that.
Your chances of anything changing with Uber or app services in NYC are very slim.
It's not fair for medallion owner's but it is what it is. 
Weather the consumer decides to do something legal or illegal with their money that is their problem.
using Uber is not illegal to them.

Im not framing anything neither do I have any reason to
I just gave u an example about investment's using your im going to sell you a house lame example.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

JDJ said:


> Look all im saying is you arent going to get anywhere by crying and whining
> and posting on these forums complaining about uber. You should be crying about TLC
> but good luck with that.
> Your chances of anything changing with Uber or app services in NYC are very slim.
> ...


A claim of 'crying and whining' renders everything you say irrelevant.

A guy who works a decade+ paying off a Medallion isn't a day trader or stock market speculator.

Reducing it to that is pathetic. Uber is being allowed to break the law.


----------



## JDJ (Apr 15, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> A claim of 'crying and whining' renders everything you say irrelevant.
> 
> A guy who works a decade+ paying off a Medallion isn't a day trader or stock market speculator.
> 
> Reducing it to that is pathetic. Uber is being allowed to break the law.


The guy invested in a medallion, which probably at the time was the best investment.
Weather he drives or not it's not fair, but crying and whining ain't going to get him anywhere.
Uber is being allowed by the TLC to operate in NYC, TLC is the big problem here, It's to late now.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

JDJ said:


> The guy invested in a medallion, which probably at the time was the best investment.
> Weather he drives or not it's not fair, but crying and whining ain't going to get him anywhere.
> Uber is being allowed by the TLC to operate in NYC, TLC is the big problem here, It's to late now.


You're the only one 'crying and whining' here. The Medallion's price was based on it being sole right to street hails. That right has been handed to Uber for nothing.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> You're the only one 'crying and whining' here. The Medallion's price was based on it being sole right to street hails. That right has been handed to Uber for nothing.


You've done NOTHING but cry and whine and tell anyone who doesn't agree with you to shut up. This kinda drives away anyone who might have been even slightly sympathetic to your cause. If its just a matter of trading one greedy, irrational, industry for another but with a cheaper price then I don't care. If you're typical of the medallion owners in NYC then I have no sympathy.


----------



## humandriver (Sep 16, 2014)

Price has nothing to do with legitimacy, gypsy cabs have always been cheaper than a metered cab. The only difference now is that they can be summoned by a smartphone. As far as I know UberX is regulated the same in NYC as black car service. The issue is that smartphones blur the line of street hail and e-hail. I think a fair solution would be to cap the number of black cars to the number of yellow cabs, not allow black cars & rideshare to undercut meter rates and introduce a city-wide app for e-hailing a yellow cab. That would completely level the playing field.


----------



## JDJ (Apr 15, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> You're the only one 'crying and whining' here. The Medallion's price was based on it being sole right to street hails. That right has been handed to Uber for nothing.


& what exactly am I crying and whining about?
You are telling me im the 1 crying and whining then immediately whine about Uber after that.
Nice 1 tough guy.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

D Town said:


> You've done NOTHING but cry and whine and tell anyone who doesn't agree with you to shut up. This kinda drives away anyone who might have been even slightly sympathetic to your cause. If its just a matter of trading one greedy, irrational, industry for another but with a cheaper price then I don't care. If you're typical of the medallion owners in NYC then I have no sympathy.


I don't cry or whine. I shove facts in your face and sit back while you repeat the same garbage about how 'unfair' Medallions are, and why Uber should therefore be allowed to break the law.



JDJ said:


> & what exactly am I crying and whining about?
> You are telling me im the 1 crying and whining then immediately whine about Uber after that.
> Nice 1 tough guy.


Absurd clown


----------



## NachonCheeze (Sep 8, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> The 'consumer' will use an illegal service like Uber if it's presented as legal. The money saved by skirting the major costs of doing business will always give a scam like Uber a massive advantage. You're saying nothing.


What are these "major costs" you are referring too? You refer to fUber as a scam, please explain.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

NachonCheeze said:


> What are these "major costs" you are referring too? You refer to fUber as a scam, please explain.


Doing on demand virtual street hails in NYC without paying a cent for a Medallion is self explanatory.


----------



## NachonCheeze (Sep 8, 2015)

Hackenstein said:


> Doing on demand virtual street hails in NYC without paying a cent for a Medallion is self explanatory.


This is like having a discussion with a child and trying to explain something that is beyond there understanding. You're right, you win, you understand it all.... No need for further discussion.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

NachonCheeze said:


> This is like having a discussion with a child and trying to explain something that is beyond there understanding. You're right, you win, you understand it all.... No need for further discussion.


Actually, a child could understand how obviously illegal Uber is. Somehow, you cannot. Bye.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

NachonCheeze said:


> This is like having a discussion with a child and trying to explain something that is beyond there understanding. You're right, you win, you understand it all.... No need for further discussion.


I think at this point is a war of attrition. If he keeps regurgitating the same boiler plate crap over and over without acknowledging what you wrote then you...eventually just go...away...Hm. Perhaps he moonlights as a CSR.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

D Town said:


> I think at this point is a war of attrition. If he keeps regurgitating the same boiler plate crap over and over without acknowledging what you wrote then you...eventually just go...away...Hm. Perhaps he moonlights as a CSR.


[email protected] boiler plate. Please explain how an 'immediate livery service for people who have not pre-arranged rides' differs substantively from a street hail and why said livery wouldn't require a Medallion. I'd never heard that term before Judge Weiss pulled it out of his ass, had you? They're twisting themselves into pretzels trying to circumvent the law.


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

NachonCheeze said:


> What are these "major costs" you are referring too? You refer to fUber as a scam, please explain.


^^^
Uhhhh.... health care?


----------

