Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Online Carpooling Service Fined In Canada

Posted by kdawson on from the regulatory-capture dept.

TechDirt is reporting on a disappointing development out of Canada. An Ontario transportation board has fined PickupPal, a Web-based service for arranging carpools, because a local bus company complained of the competition. (TechCrunch apparently first broke the story.) "[The transportation board has] established a bunch of draconian rules that any user in Ontario must follow if it uses the service — including no crossing of municipal boundaries — meaning the service is only good within any particular city's limits. It's better than being shut down completely, and the service can still operate elsewhere around the world, but this is yet another case where we see regulations, that are supposedly put in place to improve things for consumers, do the exact opposite."

22 of 541 comments (clear)

  1. No sense... by FredFredrickson · · Score: 5, Insightful
    According to the Ontario Highway Transportation Board, there are many restrictions regarding carpooling...

    * You must travel from home to work only â" (Not Home to School, or Home to the Hospital or the Airport) * You cannot cross municipal boundaries â" (Live outside the city and drive in â" sorry you cannot share the ride with your neighbour) * You must ride with the same driver each day â" (Want to mix it up go with one person one day and another person another day â" no sorry cannot do that â" must be same person each day) * You must pay the driver no more frequently than weekly â" (Neighbour drives you to work better not pay her right away just in case she drives you later on in the week)

    Personally, I'm confused as to how they came to these regulations. It's built on a faulty foundation that they could define carpooling as a very strict set of conditions- and then disallow any activity that didn't meet those conditions.

    It just plainly doesn't make sense. If I want to share a ride with a complete stranger and split the gas, how is that any different from sharing a ride with a family member? According to these restrictions, I can't drive myself and my mom to the airport and split the gas cost?

    It's my car and I'd much prefer to do with it what I'd please- I see absolutely no reason the government has any say in this!!

    Other Canadian news:
    -In a surprising decision by the Ontario Sandwich Authority, You may no longer split the cost of a foot long sub with somebody else and then each eat half, as it doesn't boost profits to our local sub shops...

    --
    Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    1. Re:No sense... by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The really good part of democratic govenments is that you can actually change the rules to improve them. The really bad part is that it's mostly just a theory, and rules only get added, not fixed.

    2. Re:No sense... by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Democracy works--in theory.

    3. Re:No sense... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As usual the situation is a little less ridiculous than the blogs make it out to be.

      The bus company has a valid point that if I wanted to start a bus service but I didn't want to bother with things like safety regulations or hiring drivers with the appropriate license, I could easy just use the carpool site. The carpool site themselves were (they're not anymore) charging a commission.

      The bus company says it's unfair competition because anyone with a car can set themselves up as a mini bus company without the expense of adhering to safety regulations. The transportation board's worry is that there will be a bunch of amateur, unregulated bus/cab drivers running around.

    4. Re:No sense... by Strep · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This ain't democracy. Was there really a 51% majority that voted for this? Representative democracy works... in theory... if you don't elect idiots as the representatives.

    5. Re:No sense... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are plenty of cases where government gets it right, plenty of cases where businesses get it wrong.

      The difference is that I have a choice of which private enterprises I do business with. Short of armed revolt or emigration I don't have that same choice when it comes to Government.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:No sense... by CannedTurkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have to agree. As much as I wanted to buy into the sensationalist headline, there really are some valid concerns. For me though, the real issue wasn't that the system could be used to set up such a 'business' but instead, was it? Picking up random people and driving them to work isn't carpooling, it's a taxi service, and as such it needs to be regulated for the same reasons. Safety, insurance, etc.

      --
      Ingredients: Turkey, Mechanically Separated Turkey, Water, Salt, Flavour.
    7. Re:No sense... by nschubach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It would have worked if the feds didn't bail out the idiots. They'd be out of business by now.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    8. Re:No sense... by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Talking about more or less regulation (as the word "deregulation" does), is useless. A regulated market needs two things: Policy that makes sense, and exactly that minimum set of regulations necessary to reasonably implement that policy.

      People who are for "deregulation" generally assume that we started with neither of those things, and so removing some regulation will make things less screwed up. Those against "deregulation" assume we started with a situation reasonably close to those things and removing some regulations will break everything. And you know what they say about assumptions...

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    9. Re:No sense... by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the US, you can change government officials and policy.

      Tell that to all the people who voted for John McCain. Remember that Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.... not a bad deal if you are one of the wolves but kind of a tough break if you happen to be the sheep.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:No sense... by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously? Off the top of my head things that the Canadian gov't "gets right" (and I won't quibble over what the hell that means):

      1) post office
      2) fire department
      3) law enforcement
      4) military
      5) liquor distribution

      That's just a handful, and for the sake of discussion I'm leaving off a few high profile, controversial services that we'll just end up arguing about.

      Here in Alberta, Canada, a couple that private corporations are busy screwing up:

      1) electricity. This was de-regulated here a few years back, and prices sky rocketed nearly overnight.

      2) liquor distribution. We handed it over to private enterprise and prices dropped. For a year. I just visited our neighbour, BC, where it is still government run, and they have as good availability (I was shocked to walk into a corner store at midnight and find that they had a fully stocked gov't liquor store open), and most items are a good 10% cheaper.

      I don't actually have a problem with liquor distribution being privately run. It's not an essential service; but if the benchmark is "serving the consumer better", it failed.

      I don't think having the government run everything would work out so well, but this canard that it's inherently inefficient and private enterprise always does it better has got to be put to bed.

      --

      This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

    11. Re:No sense... by powerlord · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a slashdot signature I've seen recently said:

      "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding who to eat for dinner. Liberty is the sheep having a gun."

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    12. Re:No sense... by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Informative though it may have been modded, this take on democracy is wrong, at least as far as the U.S. goes (it's not clear whether by "we" you mean the U.S., Canada, or the western world). The U.S. was not the world's first democracy. But it was the first large-scale attempt at it that tried to draw on the lessons of the past. Did you know that every surviving account of democracy (Athens, Italian city-states, etc) was harshly *critical* of it? Greek observers of the day, for example, wrote what were even by modern standards very sophisticated, insightful critiques of democracy and the way it eventually boiled down to simple mob rule. What was revolutionary about what the Americans did was the way they attempted (drawing on the previous work of French, English and Scottish enlightenment theorists) to develop and implement a *hybrid* system, one that blended aspects of authoritarianism and democracy in a way that emphasized the best aspects of each and ameliorated their weaknesses. So, for example, some people think that the reason they didn't implement direct democracy is because they didn't have the practical means to disseminate information, vote, etc. This is not true. The American founders didn't WANT direct democracy, because historically that had inevitably lead to a tyranny of the majority. They wanted educated, worldly men to make the decisions ... but they wanted the people to choose WHICH educated, worldly men made those decisions. - Alaska Jack

    13. Re:No sense... by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "2) liquor distribution. We handed it over to private enterprise and prices dropped. For a year. I just visited our neighbour, BC, where it is still government run, and they have as good availability (I was shocked to walk into a corner store at midnight and find that they had a fully stocked gov't liquor store open), and most items are a good 10% cheaper."

      This is breathtakingly naive. *You are paying* for the availability and the relative "cheapness" of the government-subsidized liquor store ... and so is everyone else, *even those who don't drink*. The funds you pay are called "taxes." Furthermore, you are almost *certainly* paying *more* than you would if it were not a government operation ... as has been shown thousands of times, governments simply do not have the same incentives to achieve the same high levels of efficiency that businesses competing against each other do.

          - Alaska Jack

    14. Re:No sense... by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Well, he you are going to go 'there' then why should those of us that are childless have to pay taxes to pay for schools?

      Now actually I don't mind paying that tax , that is infrastructure, but I DO have a problem with targeted tax breaks to people with kids! If they get a tax break for fucking and having a kid and I don't, then I am effectively subsidizing their choice to have kids. That is not fair! If anything parents should be charged more since they use more resources.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    15. Re:No sense... by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding who to eat for dinner. Liberty is the sheep having a gun."

      So liberty means that the majority either starves or gets shot for the benefit of the minority. Not a bad analogy, actually...

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    16. Re:No sense... by canajin56 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1. Please show me where I said the ALCB wasn't making a profit.

      OK, here we go:

      *You are paying* for the availability and the relative "cheapness" of the government-subsidized liquor store ... and so is everyone else, *even those who don't drink*. The funds you pay are called "taxes."

      This isn't like an American company where it's turning a profit but only because of government bailouts and subsidies. They aren't a private entity at all. It's a branch of the government. There is no subsidy. If it turns a profit, that money isn't kept by the CEO. It goes into government coffers. If they turn a profit, it is a revenue source for the government. Therefore, the government can spend more and tax exactly the same. Thus, ALCB lowered taxes, or rather, allowed more government spending without raising taxes. There are cases of government run corporations that don't turn a profit. Back to BC again, BC ferries eats a loss. People want it privatized since it is using up tax dollars. The counter argument is that if it is privatized, the new corporate owners will terminate unprofitable runs. Therefore, the smaller BC islands will suddenly have no ferry service. This argument is not so cut and dry, as it's a pretty essential service to be able to get food in your grocery store! Remote towns need more roads to reach them, but the taxes they pay for those roads are the same as mine, even though my city needed less roads built to it to keep it connected.

      Anyway, the previous poster is wrong. LCBO in Ontario, and BC Liquor in BC are actually slightly more expensive than the private providers in Ontario and BC. And they sure aren't open later! BC Liquor in particular is a very governmental type business. I think it's what, 10AM-4PM most days. Open till 8PM on Friday nights only. In BC if you wanted wine with dinner and it wasn't Friday, you had to go to a private store, at least if you worked a 9-5. The LCBO in Ontario is a bit better, they all seem to be open later, but have a lot less selection than say, The Beer Store.

      In summary, you did pretend to have special knowledge by assuming that the province run stores were eating a loss and thus requiring government bailouts.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  2. Re:This was on NPR a while back by Fallingcow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As soon as the bus company is merely directing people to buses and not operating said buses, they have a valid complaint.

    In the mean time, there is no equivalence.

  3. Re:Article Biased... by superdave80 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Specifically, it allows drivers and passengers to arrange compensation for trips.

    Does this remind you of anything else? Oh, yes, a taxi company (or bus company, take your pick)...

    The difference being that the taxicab/bus company itself makes money on each ride. PickupPal does not receive any money from the passenger or driver. Are they going to fine the phone company when I call my friend up and we arrange a road trip where he agrees to pay for half the gas? What about the message boards at colleges where drivers and passengers arrange for long trips back home? Sue the college?

    Specifically, it allows drivers and passengers to arrange compensation for trips.

    Between the driver and passenger, which is a private transaction that has nothing to do with PickupPal. It is not a transaction between the driver, passenger, and 'arranging' entity (taxicab company). Now, if you want to go after a driver because he is accepting money for a ride without having a taxi license, then go ahead. But going after PickupPal is just absurd.

  4. Not surprising by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "[The transportation board has] established a bunch of draconian rules that any user in Ontario must follow if it uses the service â" including no crossing of municipal boundaries â" meaning the service is only good within any particular city's limits. It's better than being shut down completely, and the service can still operate elsewhere around the world, but this is yet another case where we see regulations, that are supposedly put in place to improve things for consumers, do the exact opposite."

    Regulations ultimately act to benefit the regulated; not the public. The raise barriers to entry and protect incumbents. A Nobel Prize laureate in Economics pointed that out years ago.

    In general, regulated industries can sustain higher prices and have less competition than unregulated ones. That's not o say regulation does not have a place; but to think it results in lower prices to consumers is wrong.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  5. Re:This was on NPR a while back by hansamurai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unlicensed van drives? As in they didn't have a drivers license? Or they didn't have some arbitrary piece of paper that said they couldn't drive around a bunch of strangers?

    --
    Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
  6. Re:This was on NPR a while back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unlicensed van drives? As in they didn't have a drivers license? Or they didn't have some arbitrary piece of paper that said they couldn't drive around a bunch of strangers?

    Every jurisdiction that I know of requires special licensing for the driver and has restrictions on the vehicle (usually in the form of increased insurance coverage) for people or companies that conduct passengers in cars for money. They are called taxis|limosenes|buses.

    Are you implying that taxies shouldn't be regulated?

    It makes sense to limit carpooling so that operators are not calling themselves carpoolers to avoid regulations. That presumes that the taxi|bus regulations are rational in the first place.

    However, the restrictions that the Ontario Transportation Board (or whatever it calls itself) has put in place are idiotic.