You're an idiot.
That's what I mean when I say "The hiding of scrollbars". It's not an issue for now because you can turn that off. It's just not a good direction IMHO.
Beg to differ all you like, having lived in one of those countries most of my life and another of them for a number of years, I'm not impressed.
Certainly it affects all those things. The drivers get a decent wage, the schedules and routes mean they run all day, and often all night, when purely commercial operations would not operate outside busy hours and routes, and unlike the unlicensed systems you mention, they tend to have stops with electronic countdowns to when the busses are due.
In Britain they partially "deregulated" the busses in the 1980s, and the services got worse and more expensive.
As I said, your opinion is prejudice, not reality.
Convenient, yes. Cheaper, depends. But don't dismiss the importance of having the price quoted before the journey - that's a BIG attraction.
I'm afraid you've committed a classic systems analysis mistake - letting your preconceived idea of a solution affect your requirements (or use cases).
Again, it's got fuck all to do with the cost of licenses. Uber uses drivers with badges where the law already allows for their technology to be used.
That's your prejudice, not reality. Neither government, subsidy, not monopoly affects the speed of a bus. Congestion does. And dedicated lanes speed them up again.
Oh, I certainly don't want to click on them. They're just useful for context. The very thin ones are fine.
Duh! I'm not talking about a phone call. I'm talking about an app on the passenger side, and an app on the drivers side that calculates a fare. The legal barrier is the means of calculating the fare. (phone app vs sealed, approved, serviced meter of a specific type.)
It's not about the USA but a country where proper public transport is much needed, and these mini-bus taxis are filling in for the lack of it.
Invest in bubbles, and you ask for the consequences. I certainly hope that the utility of a city's transport system isn't dictated by such considerations.
What's not cheap about busses?
"It's not a matter of saving the taxi-license cost."
Yes it is. That's the whole point.
I'm afraid you have got the wrong end of the stick.
No country outlaw the use of mobile phone application to call a cab. Some Uber services (Uber black) even use licensed drivers.
Yes they do. For example London. However London also has the quite separate "private hire car" category, who are not entitled to pick up hailing customers from the street or use taxi ranks. That's the group Uber operate in there. Paying the appropriate fees.
That's the issue. Uber operate quite legally, within the system, where their system is permitted. ANd they use civil disobedience where it isn't.
It's not about refusing to pay for badges.
"New mobile phone app services" are allowed everywhere in the world. They just have to get their taxi license like everyone else.
That's not true. Taxi legislation often specifies how the taxi service is operated, such that specific taximeters and manufacturers/service companies are mandatory.
Solution? Either make this startup pay for tokens and get insurance for them and do everything YOU have to do, or have the token system abolished and make it so you don't have to have insurance to work AND make the startup compensate you by refunding your token for you as a requirement to enter the market and compete with you.
No, that's a false dichotomy. You can change the law so that mobile phone driven taxis are legal within the system, whilst still leaving the system restricted to badge owners. That's exactly how Uber operate where I am. Perfectly legally, because there is a category of licensed hire cars that doesn't exclude their technology.
Yes, they are a country, and it would be utterly wrong to take away their rights to legislate via TTIP.
On the other hand, civil disobedience is a valid way of protesting bad law.