> The observation is typically used by scumbags in Scottsdale to trick women waiting for a 'ride' into getting into random cars, which is why the taxi company I drove for lobbied to force ride-vehicles to have some sort of branding.
I'm sure that the cost and bother to the competition had nothing to do with that lobbying effort.
The taxi company's lobbying efforts had two main points:
1. public safety.
2. fairness
Rideshare companies had no infrastructure for basic safety inspections, so they didn't think it was important.
Rideshare drivers had no insurance contract for the time they were on the clock. 'Duper said "we've got you covered", but their drivers didn't have any paperwork supporting this claim. The taxi company lobbied to force the ridesharing companies to provide certificates of insurance to their contractors, so that if their driver was involved in an accident they could provide the ridesharing company's insurance information, instead of their personal policy.
> The taxi company's lobbying efforts had two main points:
> 1. public safety. 2. fairness
Denying that taxicab companies lobby their own self-interest is completely unbelievable. All that is missing is to get "for the children" in there somehow and it'd be a perfect political BS speech.
No, I mean I get the point where taxicabs, being regulated up the wazoo, think that if they have to del with all that, why competition hasn't. But trying to sell the idea they are just saints looking for public's good and it has nothing to do with their own interest... right. Not buying that bridge.
I'm sure that the cost and bother to the competition had nothing to do with that lobbying effort.