Battle To Regulate Ridesharing Moves Through States 328
New submitter jeffengel writes: The push to regulate services like Uber and Lyft has spread through state legislatures nationwide. At least 15 states have passed ridesharing laws in 2015, joining Colorado, California, and Illinois from last year. More could follow, with bills pending in Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, and others. All this activity has led to new clashes with companies, city leaders, and consumers. Ridesharing bills have stalled or been killed off in Texas, Florida, New Mexico, and Mississippi. Meanwhile, Uber has exited Kansas and is threatening to leave New Jersey and Oregon, while Lyft has ceased operations in Houston, Columbus, and Tacoma. How this plays out could affect the companies' expansion plans, as well as the future of transportation systems worldwide.
Mixed reaction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, it seems to make a lot of sense to have a way to share rides and cost.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Uber is as much ridesharing as ordering pizza using a Pizza Hut app is foodsharing. I think. Not sure if Pizza Hut drivers are independent contractors. Well, anyway...
I would propose that if any "taxi" driver earns less than $200/month, that they should have looser regulations. I'd also propose that auto insurance should have to cover situations like that (regular auto insurance) provided that no more than $200/month is being earned. This $200/month figure calculated by averaging the previous three month's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, some of these regulations are clear attempts to just protect the taxi industry from new models. On the other hand, some of the regulations (like having some basic insurance to cover if things go wrong) are pretty reasonable. On the gripping hand, both Uber and Lyft are both just blatantly ignoring regulations in many jurisdictions, and whether or not one thinks the laws should be there, it is hard to think that having cheaper car services is such a compellingly necessary service that it can morally or ethically justify ignoring laws.
If you wish to speak of morals and ethics, perhaps you should review the existing structure and their pricing model first.
There's a reason we have a compelling argument for competition here, and it's not because they have cooler looking cars.
Re:Mixed reaction (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, some of these regulations are clear attempts to just protect the taxi industry from new models. On the other hand, some of the regulations (like having some basic insurance to cover if things go wrong) are pretty reasonable. On the gripping hand, both Uber and Lyft are both just blatantly ignoring regulations in many jurisdictions, and whether or not one thinks the laws should be there, it is hard to think that having cheaper car services is such a compellingly necessary service that it can morally or ethically justify ignoring laws.
If you wish to speak of morals and ethics, perhaps you should review the existing structure and their pricing model first.
There's a reason we have a compelling argument for competition here, and it's not because they have cooler looking cars.
There certainly is a compelling argument for competition, as there is for proper regulation. So when one looks at the existing structure the question becomes what parts of it need to be applicable to new entrants providing the same service, i.e a ride for hire? Uber et. al. are merely a modification of the existing call a taxi on a phone model and thus should be subject to similar regulatory oversight. You contact a dispatcher, they send an independent contractor to pick you up and take you to a location for a fee. They may not have a medallion on their car and may or may not own the car but the end result is the same - a ride to a location in exchange for money.
Of course the existing companies are fighting tooth and nail becasue there is a lot of money at stake. In locations where medallions are scarce people can have hundred of thousands of dollars tied up in medallions, the medallion may be the most valuable thing the company or individual owns. Uber threatens that by putting cars on the road, thus threatening to overcome the artificially constrained supply of cabs and make owning a medallion necessary and thus lowering the value of existing medallions. So one can expect the medallion owners, as well as those who lend money to people to buy them, to fight back. Interestingly enough a medallion is one expensive item that is tailored to people with poor or no credit, since as one lender put it "If they don't pay all I have to do is pry the medallion off of the hood. I can then resell it but they can no longer drive so they'll do anything needed to make their payments."
Re:Mixed reaction (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as the medallion and similar limiting systems continue to exist, all gloves are off as far as I'm concerned.
There's more to freedom than freedom of speech -- freedom to pursue your own business, and nobody has thr right to restrict entry for the purpose of limiting co.petition. "This here town ain't big enough to support two companies" should be left on the scrap heap of disreputable history.
Re: (Score:2)
the regulations are there to make sure there is is possible to get a taxi at all times, the taxi companies get a monopoly on the good times in exchange for also driving at the bad times
I agree this is one of the reasons taxi regs (ostensibly) exist. I know they're not solely there to protect taxi monopolies.
However, in practice, I have only ever been unable to get an Uber once, when the entire region shut down in a snowstorm. On the other hand, I stopped using taxis precisely because I could never reliably get one, especially during the off times.
Re: (Score:3)
You are talking about the city known as New York, located in the State of New York, where they have to build buildings into the sky to make room for all the sheep. That New York right?
Re:Mixed reaction (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you wish to speak of morals and ethics, perhaps you should review the existing structure and their pricing model first.
There's a reason we have a compelling argument for competition here, and it's not because they have cooler looking cars.
In my view the compelling reason for Uber and Lyft is that you can view the rating of your driver and have some confidence that the driver will be professional and courteous prior to ordering the service. You have no such luck at the airport taxi stand, sometimes you get the worst driver who adds miles while talking on the phone.
The current turmoils between government and 'ride sharing' shall pass, government will get their taxes and the taxi system will either adapt or fade away.
Re: (Score:2)
In my view the compelling reason for Uber and Lyft is that you can view the rating of your driver and have some confidence that the driver will be professional and courteous prior to ordering the service. You have no such luck at the airport taxi stand,
yeah, in my experience the ratings you see in the internet are always 100% accurate, people never lie or exaggerate on the internet.
Re:Mixed reaction (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should the government try to protect an old business model from a new one?
The real issue should be is evaluating regulations that the Taxi companies have to follow and the rules that Uber drivers do not. I am willing to guess there is a happy middle ground there... Where Taxi Companies with less restrictive regulations can compete better with Uber. However insuring the Uber Drivers meet with a particular safety and quality standard.
Re: (Score:2)
The real issue should be is evaluating regulations that the Taxi companies have to follow and the rules that Uber drivers do not.
Why? In most places, the rules that Uber isn't following are because they are operating in violation of the law. They themselves have created the uneven playing field by refusing to operate under the law. The only distinction between Uber and a traditional taxi dispatcher dispatching independent cabs is that one uses a piece of software and the other (historically) has used phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Proper insurance and background checks are definitely a good thing.
But the legacy taxi companies, the medallion system, and the laws they're bought to fix prices and prevent competition... especially bringing about that aforementioned medallion system, are a font of corruption and scumbaggery easily on the level of the RIAA/MPAA/Metallica copyright cartel types. They effect fewer people, as people out in the suburbs don't generally take cabs/Uber/transit. But as someone who's lived in an urban city since
Re: (Score:2)
I can call, text, or book a ride with an app using a regular taxi service the car picks me up and drops me off at my destination for a fee. Uber's big idea is the drivers supply their own vehicle and are responsible for their license, insurance, and car's upkeep. Uber supplies an app to book a ride and takes a cut they are still a taxi service they just avoid the overhead of a fleet of cars.
They ran into issues with regulations in Kansas and they are somewhat relaxed compared to other places. The problem is
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that if they make the driver get actual commercial insurance instead of driving around on a minimum liability private policy {even though it's still a piddly amount of coverage} the price goes up and makes it harder for them to find drivers.
this is not a "problem", this is how the market works.
Re: Mixed reaction (Score:5, Insightful)
You can drive any car you want, on your property, and you can charge people for rides too.
Your problem is you aren't rich enough to own your own roads and cities too. Your freedoms were traded for a social contract a very long time ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Your problem is you aren't rich enough to own your own roads and cities too.
Neither is the government. Where do you think the government gets the money to pay for this? they don't have any money. They first confiscate it from you and me, whether we want it or not. Either by straight out taxing it, borrowing it in your name, or printing money which just dilutes the value of your savings. It also makes it impossible for the private sector to enter the road market.
The fact is that the private sector not only could take over making roads, but it would do a much better job at it. It
Re: (Score:2)
If there ever was a contract, it was broken long ago.
Two wrongs make a right! Hooray!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you give someone you don't know money for a ride somewhere, you are entering into a business transaction. The person you give the money to now owes the state government sales tax, owes both state and federal income tax and is now open to potential litigation if they get in an accident and you sue them for injuries.
If they don't have insurance, you probably won't get much suing them and will have to pay your own medical bills (have fun with that one) and lawyer fees.
Re: (Score:2)
Passenger: Hello, my name is Steve.
Driver: Hello, Steve.
Passenger: Here's a 20 dollars gift.
Driver: Well thank you, Steve. By the way, would you like a ride somewhere? It's free.
Re: (Score:3)
the exchange of money makes it a financial transaction no matter what you want to call it
Re:Mixed reaction (Score:5, Insightful)
In the so called "land of the free", I should be able to get a ride from anyone I please as well as give a ride to anyone I please and charge for it if I want to. What is wrong here is not violating the laws, it is the laws themselves that restrict this voluntary mutually agreed upon exchange. If insurance is a big deal, then I as an uber user would only chose to ride with people that have insurance.
Government has a legitimate interest in monitoring and regulating businesses. And guess what? As soon as you receive money for a service you are operating a business. It is in the public interest that a business is operated and run in a manner that is safe for it's employees, customers, and the greater public and also to ensure that they are not defrauding customers or suppliers/vendors.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yet as a member of the public, I have no interest in this. Why does my opinion that the rights of others matter more than your claim of a so-called "public interest".
I say the public has a public interest in regulating the government and making it justify its interests whenever and wherever possible and restricting those interests as strictly as possible.
Re:Mixed reaction (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet as a member of the public, I have no interest in this. Why does my opinion that the rights of others matter more than your claim of a so-called "public interest".
If an Uber driver has been taking stimulants to stay up and drive for 48 hours straight crashes into your car, or hits you trying to cross the street, would you take an interest then? Everyone else certainly does when you are injured so severely you can't work and have to draw disability for the rest of your life and we are paying for it. Things like that happened regularly in industries such as taxis and trucking, with overworked drivers causing fatal accidents. That is why regulations were enacted. They still happen, but they are less frequent and the drivers are severely punished when they do so.
Re:Mixed reaction (Score:5, Insightful)
If an Uber driver has been taking stimulants to stay up and drive for 48 hours straight crashes into your car, or hits you trying to cross the street, would you take an interest then? Everyone else certainly does when you are injured so severely you can't work and have to draw disability for the rest of your life and we are paying for it. Things like that happened regularly in industries such as taxis and trucking, with overworked drivers causing fatal accidents. That is why regulations were enacted. They still happen, but they are less frequent and the drivers are severely punished when they do so.
I wish we could get away from the "we need regulations, because what if *this* happened!" model of legislation.
It's a simple appeal to emotion (fear, in this case), it's meant to turn off your rational thought processes and enlist you as a dumb follower.
A rational argument might analyze not only the possibility of this happening, but also its *likelyhood*.
Changes should be made not on the basis of probabilities, but from a comparison of risk and reward. Risk is probability times cost. The argument above points out a risk and a value for this risk: Uber and Lyft have been running in gypsy mode for long enough that we should be able to identify the probability of such an occurrence, and actuarial tables should provide us with the cost.
We can then make a direct comparison of the risk of riding with Uber/Lyft with the risk of riding in a cab, and the cost of an Uber/Lyft ride with the cost of a taxi ride.
If Uber and Lyft come out having a lower risk-to-benefit ratio than taxicabs, then it makes sense to dump the taxi regulation infrastructure entirely and just let people operate Lyft and Uber services.
The rationalization of this argument (which is not in any related to the rational argument) is to say that the abuses prior to regulation were due to lack of driver accountability. Regulation reduced the risk by making taxi drivers (and the businesses) accountable for their actions, and it worked well for its time.
The rationalization might further say that the internet and permanent feedback mechanisms fill this role less expensively than the medallion system. The technology makes a perfectly working system outdated. Buggy whips come to mind.
If you want to have a rational discussion, let's take municipal income out of the argument (it doesn't bear on the core issue), the private corporate interests out of the argument (they are not remotely impartial), and the employment out of the argument.
It's a simple case of "market liquidity": Uber and Lyft present a more liquid market with the same benefits as the more expensive system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When the driver of the Uber car you are in gets in a serious accident, then you will care very much about industry regulation.
How does 'industry regulation' prevent car accidents? When I worked in London, taxis were generally the most dangerous cars on the road; I was almost killed one day by a taxi driver who drove straight across a pedestrian crossing while filling out some paperwork and not looking at the road.
Re: (Score:2)
How does 'industry regulation' prevent car accidents?
that's not the question. accidents happen to everyone. the question is, who pays when there is an accident? if the driver is underinsured, does the victim have to suffer or should they get the settlement that they deserve? where does the money come from? do we let these people rot? no, we take care of them with our taxes. Thus, in your unregulated universe we all pay for the bad actions of others (is that socialist or what)
Re:Mixed reaction (Score:4, Insightful)
That looks good on paper but rarely works out in real life. In order for it to work everyone must be honest and a monopoly does not exist. We are a very far way from the idealized small shopkeeper model of Adam Smith. Here are some reasons for government regulation of taxis:
1) So customers do not get ripped off. Prices are set or at least clearly advertised.
2) So customers are not raped or murdered. If you hire a ride from Joe Random taxi driver without licensing and a background check you have no assurance about the driver. In fact the lack of assurance could kill the industry as people look for other options.
3) Insurance. If there is an accident are passengers, occupants of other vehicles, or pedestrian need to be covered if the taxi driver is at fault.
4) Mechanical safety of the vehicle. Has the Uber and Lyft cars been checked over for dangerous faults or wear and tear? Are the tires good? Etc.
5) ENSURING competition. If one company gets too big you restrict their licenses while issuing more for their competitors. Sometimes the best way to approach the ideal of a free market is through careful regulation. Free market != unregulated market.
Those are the ones on of the top of my head. The world is much more complex that Economics 101 or a fictional account of how one writer thinks the world should work. It is even more complex and dynamic that even people with Phds in economics can imagine, IMO. Instead of simplistic solutions we need to look for solutions that actually work.
Re: (Score:3)
So customers are not raped or murdered. If you hire a ride from Joe Random taxi driver without licensing and a background check you have no assurance about the driver.
Yet there was a scandal in the UK recently when the newspapers discovered some guy had been given a taxi license despite being a convicted rapist and the licensing body knowing he was. There was another a couple of years before that about a taxi driver who'd been picking up hookers and raping them. A few months ago, there was another scandal when newspapers found some women refusing to get in taxis driven by men of a certain persuasion, because they were afraid of being raped.
So, no, that argument doesn't w
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Regulation isn't a 100% guarantee of absolutely no problems, so I'll sit here and claim it does *nothing*!!!!"
FTFY
Re:Mixed reaction (Score:5, Insightful)
youre putting the cart before the horse.
they aren't regulating Uber to protect taxis.
they are regulating Uber because it IS a taxi.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber isn't a new kind of ride sharing service, they just thought how can we open a taxi business with a minimum of over head... make the driver supply the car, be responsible for the insurance, and upkeep all we will do is book the rides and take a cut. What they are trying to avoid now are regulations that were put in place to protect the public. Not using Uber service doesn't keep their unlicensed and uninsured driver from hitting my legally parked car nor does it help me recoup the damages.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing truly innovative is the pre-negotiation for the trip, but that's not really a whole lot different than sedan service. If anything, these companies a
Re: (Score:2)
Uber and Lyft both provide full insurance coverage while someone is driving a fare for them. There is apparently a strange insurance gap if the driver is logged into their app looking to get a fare but not actually driving someone and is in an accident. If I'm understanding things right that's considered a commercial activity and not covered under personal insurance, but since they don't have an active fare it's not covered by Uber/Lyft either. Insurance companies are now offering policies that cover that g
Re:Mixed reaction (Score:5, Informative)
No, Uber only covers you from the moment the paying rider gets into the car from the moment you leave.
The time from between you get a ride request to the time you pick up the rider, the vast majority of private auto insurance companies will refuse to cover you. I know my insurance has a clause that stipulated I will not be covered during this timeframe. You are literally driving uninsured during that timeframe. Its a big issue. One of which Uber doesn't want to pay for, your private insurance doesn't want to pay for (because they label you as a business then), and drivers won't want to pay for.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make sense. You're not "in business" then. If I get into a crash on my way to work (not Uber), my insurance covers it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there are any direct comparisons to make, but it's not far off. An Uber driver responding to a ride request but not carrying passengers is not all that different than an office worker responding to the start of the business day by driving to the office. Both have commerce in mind, but they're both "off the clock" heading to where the job is. Seems to me that insurance should cover that.
Re: (Score:3)
Seems to me that insurance should cover that.
sure it will, if you buy that kind of insurance. should we all be forced to buy the insurance that covers taxi drivers?
Re:Mixed reaction (Score:5, Insightful)
an uber driver who is on his way to pick up a passenger is most certainly on the job
he started working when he accepted the fare and headed to the pickup point
Re: (Score:2)
your employer has no obligation or stake in how you transport yourself to your job. this is well settled law. once you get to work and you have to travel, it's a different story.
Re: (Score:3)
the uber driver's job starts when he checks his app to see if he has a ride available
Re: (Score:2)
It appears that some insurance companies are working on getting you options for this, but it's not available in all states yet: https://www.policygenius.com/b... [policygenius.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Laws are the opinions of the people in power - in this case the taxi cartel - so yes, you can morally and ethically justify ignoring laws if the people making them are neither moral nor ethical.
The Evil Taxi Cartel had to buy a medallion, buy insurance, go through background checks and audits, allow inspectors and regulators to observe their operation, paid fines for any infractions and so forth. If the system is wrong and Uber should be able to operate without all of the regulations, then so should the taxi companies. So go ahead and reimburse them for all the money they have spent obeying the law these past 100 years and I'm sure everyone will be happy.
Re: (Score:2)
Why must an Uber driver have a different insurance plan from you and me? Any reasons you can come up with are none of the government's concern — they are between the driver and his insurance company.
so when you crash your uber car and the customer is badly injured and you don't have enough insurance, we taxpayers are supposed to pay out because it's none of our concern?
Re: (Score:2)
normal automobile insurance will not cover the "Uber" car because it is being driven for hire, read your policy
Re: (Score:3)
"hypothetical"
there are many many tens of thousands of automobile accidents every year in this country. automobile accidents are not a "hypothetical" they are a fact
Re: (Score:2)
so you have to wait for a bad thing to happen first before you will regulate it?
Can you look at all of the incidents where underinsured passengers have lost their jobs and their income due to accidents? There is plenty of precedent for this. These people end up unemployed and on the dole and we pay for them with our taxes! With adequate insurance they can get treatment and physical therapy and head back to their jobs.
can you really tell me that this will never happen to an uber passenger?
Ride hailing (Score:5, Informative)
There, corrected it for you.
These businesses have nothing to do with sharing: it's hiring a driver and a car.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop calling it that! (Score:3, Insightful)
It is NOT ridesharing! Ridesharing is when you share a ride with someone. These are people who are being paid to bring you somewhere, but they don't plan on going there too!
Ridesharing is perhaps carpooling to work. Or maybe a student hopping a ride with another student in college to go home for break.
Re: (Score:2)
It is NOT ridesharing! Ridesharing is when you share a ride with someone. These are people who are being paid to bring you somewhere, but they don't plan on going there too!
Ridesharing is perhaps carpooling to work. Or maybe a student hopping a ride with another student in college to go home for break.
The idea is they hope if they keep repeating it people will think it's true. Like the War on Christmas, or the Kardashians being famous.
Re: (Score:3)
Rideshare is a federally recognized term that refers to carpooling, vanpooling, transit, and even (counter-intuitively) biking and walking. It's generally used as an umbrella term to describe pretty much everything but driving alone in a car or taking a taxi.
The Associated Press' Style Book has requested that all media outlets begin using the term "Ride-hailing" instead of Ridesharing to prevent confusion.
Re: (Score:2)
It's generally used as an umbrella term
so this makes it a law?
Re: (Score:3)
Fark those clowns (Score:5, Interesting)
In most places, the individual drivers and/or the company itself are required to have mercantile licenses... where are theirs?
Re:Fark those clowns (Score:4, Insightful)
Licensed, legitimate, crab companies also use the high barrier of entry in many places to keep out competitors in order to artificially inflate prices. They lobby like crazy to make sure that things stay the way they have been.
I think it's interesting that people take this stance against Uber. I thought "we" usually like the upstart guys that are overthrowing established monopolies...
Don't cry for the cab companies...
Re: (Score:2)
Licensed, legitimate cab companies run a gauntlet of state & local regulations before they can collect fares. Uber and Lyft bypass them, start operating, and then act surprised when their illegal operation using unlicensed, unvetted drivers run into trouble.
Indeed. Can we just stop calling it "ridesharing," too? You want to offer a coworker a ride in your car to work? That's "ridesharing." You want to say, "Can you chip in a little for gas and wear-and-tear on the car and such"? That's still "ridesharing."
When you start offering these services to different strangers every day and trying to make a profit off of giving them rides, that's no longer "ridesharing" -- that's a taxi service.
And there are good reasons why many regulations exist to protect bot
"Ridesharing" (Score:5, Insightful)
If y'all are still telling yourselves that services like Uber and Lyft are "rideshares", you're not paying attention, and haven't been for a long time.
Ridesharing suggests that people are sharing a ride from point A to point B--that is, they're both going that way, and thus are going to slug together to save gas/cost.
Uber and Lyft are effectively taxi services that uses an app instead of a dispatcher. The driver seeks out a fare, starts the timer, drives the fare to their destination, and then seeks out another fare.
The driver is not "sharing" anything, nor is the passenger. This is a taxi service.
Re:"Ridesharing" (Score:5, Insightful)
Schizo (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Schizo (Score:4, Informative)
A regulation like this but for automobiles would take care of the problem legally. Then all you have to worry about is enforcement (and IMO that's where it really gets difficult).
Re: (Score:3)
which is basically self-employed taxi services.
you are not "self employed" if you are being told what to do by a third party.
If you want to carry passengers for a profit, you have to pursue further certification.
yeah, that's the ticket. normal car insurance does not cover vehicles for hire. having a driver's license does not qualify you to help handicapped passengers in and out of your vehicle. maybe you are going to tell me that they don't have to take handicapped people? so uber sends a special vehicle? let's go back to this "self employed" thing you said earlier?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Then Uber comes along and creates a way to share a ride and the driver benefits a little bit as well.
Uber drivers aren't sharing a damned thing. They're charging for a service. That's called doing business, and if you want to do business, you need to follow certain rules, just like anything else in life. You can't just jump up and say "nuh-uh, this is sharing!" when you're really requiring people to pay you before you "share" anything.
If I open a gas station and call it a "fuel sharing service", does that mean that I get to bypass all those pesky rules and regulations for making sure my tanks don't leak in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The difference : try to find an Uber driver who accepts to drive 200 miles for $10.
Uber is not at all like ridesharing. With ridesharing, several people who go to the same place share the same car. It is good as it decrease traffic congestion, pollution, etc... With Uber, it is the same as when you are driving by yourself regarding pollution and congestion, the difference is that you are not the driver, i.e. it is a taxi service.
Price is telling too. With ridesharing service, the driver usually get barely e
Re: (Score:3)
Ta ta, Ubes... (Score:2)
Uber ... is threatening to leave ... Oregon.
Since we've lived without "pump your own" gas for this long, I figure lack of Uber "services" and reliance on old school taxis and mass transit will be fine with our retro/hipster kultur here in PDX.
Actually, it's fine with me, too. I have a car. I know how to drive.
Not all bad (Score:4, Informative)
The summary makes it sound like all of the bills are AGAINST ride sharing... but that's not the case. For instance, in Massachusetts(which is highlighted in the summary) Uber is actively campaigning FOR the regulation bill.
Why?
Because the bill states once and for all that ride sharing is a legal activity. Yes, it puts some protections in place: but not much beyond what Uber already provides.
As someone that uses Uber quite a bit (2-3 times per month) I welcome the new legislation as long as it allows Uber to continue to operate. Regulation is not all bad, as long as it is fair and reasonable.
Re:Not all bad (Score:5, Informative)
The summary makes it sound like all of the bills are AGAINST ride sharing... but that's not the case. For instance, in Massachusetts(which is highlighted in the summary) Uber is actively campaigning FOR the regulation bill.
Why?
Because the bill states once and for all that ride sharing is a legal activity. Yes, it puts some protections in place: but not much beyond what Uber already provides.
As someone that uses Uber quite a bit (2-3 times per month) I welcome the new legislation as long as it allows Uber to continue to operate. Regulation is not all bad, as long as it is fair and reasonable.
If the driver of a vehicle is not going to the vicinity of your destination whether you are his passenger or not, then it is not ridesharing. It is a paid taxi service or a hired car. If Uber wants to call themselves a rideshare company, then require drivers to register a destination before they can see potential fares, allow them to only take fares going to the same vicinity as their registered destination, and do not allow them to pick up more fares for a new destination (they can drop off a fare along their route and pick up a new one along the same route however) until they have reached their original destination, checked in, and registered a new destination. There: now you are ridesharing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think we can all agree that the majority of business on Uber or Lyft is not ridesharing under your definition. Drivers are going to destinations to pick up fares. So maybe the semantics are off on "ridesharing."
But in terms of the demographics, I think a much higher proportion of Uber drivers are able to part time taxi in addition to going to school or another job. In that sense, th
Re: (Score:3)
That's a very strange sentiment, given your sig. You don't actually advocate that governments require that, do you? I think we can all agree that the majority of business on Uber or Lyft is not ridesharing under your definition. Drivers are going to destinations to pick up fares. So maybe the semantics are off on "ridesharing." But in terms of the demographics, I think a much higher proportion of Uber drivers are able to part time taxi in addition to going to school or another job. In that sense, they are sharing their car and time with the Uber/Lyft pool, as opposed to a full time taxi driver with a bright yellow taxi cab. The fact that you're in another person's non-taxi vehicle makes it different enough that it merits it's own word. And I can't think of a name that's catchier and more apt than ridesharing. I'm open to suggestions, though.
There is a term for that: a part-time job. If a rose by any other name smells just as sweet, then a cab by any other name smells just as....bad? In any case, once you are trying to derive an income from driving passengers around you are a taxi or a for-hire car, all of which have regulations in place. It's fine if you want to have a side job, a lot of people do. But the simple fact that it isn't your primary source of income or what you spend most of your time doing doesn't mean you get to ignore laws a
Re: (Score:3)
What about car pools (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but matters of intent can get really hard to differentiate when it comes to law....
if you have an uber account and you are accepting rides then your intent is pretty clear
Re: (Score:2)
It's about the market (Score:3, Interesting)
Before you get into an Uber car, will you check the brakes? Will you take a close look at the tires? Will you ask for proof of adequate insurance? Hell no. Therefore you will be riding in an unsafe car, and even worse, safer cars will be unaffordable and therefore nonexistent. Do you really want to be relying on an industry full of shitty cars, and shitty drivers? Do you want an industry where your driver is making pennies and stretched, forced to lie and cheat to keep his living going? Just wait until cars actually are automated. Then no one makes any money at all.
There is no doubt that capitalism is a race to the bottom, we can try to hold it up a little longer.
just think (Score:2)
There is a reason why NYC regulated taxis. Before they did, the streets were choked with them because the "free market" asked too many people to drive their taxis at the same time in the same place. Does NYC have the right to regulate its taxis? What about other places?
Prepare for an adequate compromise no one loves :) (Score:2)
So in the end what will happen is a bunch of regulations will be passed. Some of them will be sensible stuff to protect consumers and probably stuff to protect all these new contractors (the drivers), and other people on the road. Some will be blatant pandering to the established taxi companies, which will use whatever political power they have to keep their status quo. And some stuff will be some new taxes or personal axes that the legislators have to grind. So basically democracy at work :) Just be s
Re: (Score:2)
How can something like this become a priority with lawmakers when there are other more serious issues to address such as unemployment, low wages, and the deficit? I for one cannot wait until the younger generation moves into congress. The current bunch of bats in the house are useless!
Nice rant, but what does Congress have to do with laws enacted by state legislatures?
Re:This is ridiculous! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:This is ridiculous! (Score:5, Interesting)
Well Uber, is a good way for people to create/supplement their income with a relatively low starting cost.
The problem with today's economy, it is too tough for the average citizen to work to control their income, If they work part time, they get unpredictable hours so they cannot get a second job, If they work full time, they are either salaried or forced to work their hours.
Our IT infrastructure, has created many good Starter jobs (Mail Room) obsolete, So you will need to be skilled in order to get in.
I will need to applaud Uber, as its business model, allows for people to work for their money, the harder they work the more they get paid.
Re: (Score:2)
I will need to applaud Uber, as its business model, allows for people to work for their money, the harder they work the more they get paid.
and just think, with all of these uninsured drivers, we will have lots of ex-uber drivers who are bankrupt because they got into accidents and their insurance would not cover them because they were being paid
and then we will have all of the injured passengers who will get no payment for their injuries and thus will end up having the taxpayer pay for their injuries
yes indeed we look forward to this nirvana of bankrupt drivers and maimed passengers and higher taxes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm outraged by theses stupid politicians trying to regulate away our freedom to do business with whomever we wish.
They're not though. As far as I can tell you're still free to bargain for rides however you want on your own land. Now once you start doing such things on public roads where your decisions affect third parties, well, then it's reasonable the government gets involved.
Or do you think you should have the freedom to impose arbitrary risks on other people?
Re: Battle to Regulate Free Market (Score:4, Insightful)
Auctions. They are they ultimate free market. People bid on something up to the point they believe the product is worth. No government interference or price controls.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Auctions. They are they ultimate free market. People bid on something up to the point they believe the product is worth. No government interference or price controls.
What about price reserves?
Re: (Score:2)
WTF? Interesting? The seller disagrees with the bidders on the value of the product and declines to sell it. The seller may have a point, the seller may be an idiot.
THe person I replied to said auctions have no price controls. A reserve is a price control. If the reserve is higher than the highest bid, then obviously it is priced above market value but they will not sell below that set price.
Re: (Score:3)
who exactly do you call when the winner of the auction pays with counterfeit currency?
who do you call when armed bandits show up at the auction to steal the stuff?
who do you call when the renoir you just bought turns out to be fake?
tell us more about this lack of government interference in auctions