Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you're relating gun control to motor vehicle inspections?
Any company that makes money off of transporting the general public needs to keep their vehicles in good repair, and as has just been proven, they can't be relied upon to do that on their own.
You're trying to tell me that you are perfectly happy getting into a cab or on a bus that has had no maintenance done on it and is unsafe, and you would rather die in a fiery accident than have these vehicles inspected? If you'd rather die because these companies are too cheap to maintain their cars more power to you, I doubt others share your view.
You guys always with "The sky is falling..."
Funny how the article didn't mention anything about a single person dying.
Funny how the article didn't mention anything about a single person dying.
With that logic, we shouldn't have airline maintenance standards either.
I've seen enough rickety jalopies in third world countries overseas that I am glad there is some level of standards here. I could easily believe that Iraqi cars, taxis, and buses killed more people than US forces and Al Queada ever did....
Funny how the article didn't mention anything about a single person dying.
And I'm quite sure you'd be the one on here screaming for justice if they were allowed to continue driving people around in these pieces of crap and someone died as a result, you'd be wondering why no inspections were taking place to prevent such things. You're not fooling anyone
And I'm quite sure you'd be the one on here screaming for justice if they were allowed to continue driving people around in these pieces of crap and someone died as a result, you'd be wondering why no inspections were taking place to prevent such things. You're not fooling anyone
Sorry dude, I'm not a leftist. I don't need the .gov to protect me from myself.
The free market really does work without government intervention.
With that logic, we shouldn't have airline maintenance standards either.
I've seen enough rickety jalopies in third world countries overseas that I am glad there is some level of standards here. I could easily believe that Iraqi cars, taxis, and buses killed more people than US forces and Al Queada ever did....
I've been in 3rd world hell holes too. Manchester, NH isn't one of them but nice try.
I'm not saying a private business shouldn't be maintaining anything, I said there shouldn't be government intervention. Jesus you guys depend on the .gov so much it frightening.
You make the choice who drives or flies you around. If another person and I agree on a price for him to drive me to Manchester in his crappy car why should the government be involved in this private transaction at all?
...
I'm not saying a private business shouldn't be maintaining anything, I said there shouldn't be government intervention...
You make the choice who drives or flies you around. If another person and I agree on a price for him to drive me to Manchester in his crappy car why should the government be involved in this private transaction at all?
We need to distinguish between government interference in individual acts/choices that cannot affect others unrelated to such acts/choice; and government interference in individual acts/choices with the likelihood of affecting unrelated others. For example, not wearing a seat belt is highly unlikely to hurt someone else. So, perfectly fine to question government requiring seat belts for all. On the other hand, driving drunk puts others in harms way. Thus, it seems reasonable for the government to make and enforce laws on drunk driving.
Like another member has mentioned, if the cab operators did do a good job with maintenance, why/how would 17 of 18 cars be found deficient?
So until yesterday Manchester never required Taxi's to get inspected? This was a first run? Oh wait the government already requires they pass every year and yet SOMEHOW they didn't....
Hmm, maybe they should make another law and say they are SERIOUS this time.
It's quite laughable, laws don't keep you safe. It's illegal to drink and drive, yet thousands of people are murdered by drunk drivers every year. Hell Murder is illegal, and wait.... Thousands of people are murdered every year. Oh government please pass more laws to keep me safe, the ones you already have passes aren't working.
Unfortunately, the Union Leader has broken the link in the original post, but they have an update that the city has cleared four taxis.
Like others I too have been wondering why these safety concerns came about "suddenly" and found these excerpts in the news update to be relevant:
Quote:
Inspectors didn’t fail all the cabs on Tuesday. When owners realized what was happening, they surrendered the medallions for some cars voluntarily, rather than have the cars fail inspection
Quote:
a city police officer can order an inspection of a taxi at any point, but the city has not performed mass inspections for awhile, in part because of logistics associated with the move to the new police station.
Still not satisfied, I looked over the city ordinances pertaining to Vehicles for Hire (Title X1, Chapter 118) and found the following:
* Being automobiles, taxis are required to have an annual inspection at NH-certified inspection stations
* Being taxis, they are also required to pass a mid-year inspection (also at NH-certified inspection stations)
* Taxis may also be inspected at random. If deficiencies are found, owners must remove taxis from service and address the deficiencies within three days.
Reading these, I assume this episode is a result of an annual or mid-year ("end of winter") inspection of cabs. (Manchester has only two taxi companies and it is reasonable that a company gets all its taxis inspected together.)
Alternatively, this episode could have been a result of a random inspection carried out after passenger reports or by a police officer suspecting a safety concern. If this is the case, it is possible that some of the problems found are lingering and should have been reported in the last inspection. If they were not reported, or if the reports were ignored, people at inspection stations (or worse, at City Hall), have some explaining to do. Of course, that does not absolve the taxi companies.
For now, unless journalists or other investigators reveal more, I am going to assume this episode is due to findings in scheduled inspections and that the taxi companies really voluntarily surrendered the medallions for all their cabs.
When I am hiring a cab at the airport I generally do not have the time and equipment to throughly inspect it before I accept the ride. The same applies to busses, trains, and airplanes. By paying taxes I have hired the government to do this for me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
