Slashdot Mirror


Online Carpooling Service Fined In Canada

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."

15 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 MindlessAutomata · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh, there we go again, conservatives crying about the need for deregulation. Poppycock, I say! I say the problem is a lack of regulation! Heap more regulations on top of the pile until it's all fixed, I say! It's a good thing PickupPal got stopped doing their illegal and immoral business practices. Someone has to stand up for the consumers, primarily those of the local bus company.

      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!!

      Haven't you heard? Government = Democracy = We The People = We Can Tell You What To Do. Really, why do you conservative blowhards need to kick and scream every time Leviathan tells you, "No, You Can't, For The Greater Good?" You live in a complex society with complex interpersonal interactions, by living in our System you surrender your rights and dignity for the collective so you can live happily and freely. So what if the masses don't understand the implications and issues they vote upon the great deal of the time? At least we live in a marketplace of ideas, which I can tell you is a much better marketplace than the oppressive one with money and goods and slave wages.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Re:No sense... by geekoid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There is a saying:

      A company does a hundred things wrong, and 1 right you only here about the 1 decision. The government does 1000 things right and 1 wrong, you only hear about the wrong one.

      This is true.
      A company just needs to to tralk about it's failures, and very few people know. The government has a lot of people whose sole purpose is to tell everyone when smething goes wrong.

      I worked in the private sector for about 38 years, and now I work for a city government. I see aso many thing being done correctly, for the benefit of the citizen. I see projects that are completed on time and within budget all the time.
      I see a lot less waste. (you can confuirm that by going to the labrary and looking at the numbers)

      But a son as 1 thing goes wrong, it's headlines. Sometimes it
      s becasue of a stupid elected official, sometimes it's due to unforseen factors. Like the price of rock suddenly going through the roof, sometimes it looks like a mistake because of a lack of facts.

      Bear in mind even a moderately size City has 1000's of projects going on every day.
      I ahve been pleasantly surprised working for the government. I have also learned a lot about why things seem so expensive.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:No sense... by cthulu_mt · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wrong.

      The landlord pays property tax and that cost is passed along to tenants as part of the rent.

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
    8. Re:No sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have mod points, but strangely, see no "-1 Possibly Drunk" option...

    9. 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

  2. Outdated laws are being changed by IPCanuck · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is a bill already before the Ontario Legislative Assembly to update the regulations to explicitly allow this practice. It is disappointing that the OTB didn't wait until the bill had passed before passing judgement, but at least we can hope the situation won't last long. The same bill would outlaw some common driver distractions, such as television screens and handheld cell phones.

    http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=2099

  3. Article Biased... by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article is heavily biased, although this isn't terribly surprising.

    Pickup Pal is a service that allows individuals to arrange not only carpools. 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) which is Trentway-Wagar's complaint.

    The bus company, which TW is, as an organization that arranges for buses to transport passengers for money, is bound by a series of provincial vehicle travel laws which require its drivers to be insured, to possess the correct licenses for their vehicles, and so on.

    There are, in fact, specific exceptions in the specified Acts for car-pooling, but it appears that Pickup Pal does not satisfy them for various reasons (which should actually be quite obvious, prima facie).

    The difficulty is that Pickup Pal is obviously not merely offering a carpool service. They are also obviously not offering a public taxi service or a bus service, either, but the carpool service has a defined exception in the law.

    The law, the board argues, exists to protect riders. Drivers are to be insured, carry the proper licenses for their vehicles, and so on. (Insurance issues, which is a major public interest in cases such as these, form a major part of the Board's concern. Insuring a public vehicle is very different from insuring a private car and the caps on insurance are often much higher.)

    As a result, Pickup Pal was ordered to immediately cease taking any actions that would put them in violation of the Public Vehicles Act.

    Pickup Pal argues that they have nothing to do with the service, that they merely arrange this. The Board does not agree, for good reason- a taxicab company could make an identical argument. Such an argument is unpersuasive. There is a compelling public policy argument to regulating public vehicles and carriers and so on. For abiding by these regulations, Trentway-Wagar incurs costs, and they found it unfair that another provider would be able to avoid the regulations and thereby avoid the costs- hence the charge of unfair competition.

    The summary writes that the regulations are making things worse for the consumer. I beg to disagree. Unsafe public transportation is worse than expensive public transportation, and there is a compelling public policy reason for regulating public transportation for safety's sake- regulations that Pickup Pal did not abide by.

    --
    "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    1. 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. Re:Okay I was wrong.. by keithpreston · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is the most media fueled common misconceptions, please stop using it. Apple did not charge because Sarbanes Oxley, they charged because of additional patent/royalty costs. 802.11n has more patents then 802.11g so it costs more to license. It the same with MPEG, H264 cost more the H263 which cost more the base mpeg4 to license. When they originally sold you a router they only licensed it for 802.11G, who would pay more if they don't have to? You essentially were paying Apple's additional IP costs.

  5. Re:This was on NPR a while back by C_L_Lk · · Score: 5, Informative

    For the record, I live in the same town ad the bus company that brought this all to a head (trentway-wager).

    They had a point in their initial concern, however the way the transportation board handled this was all wrong. There were van operators who were unlicenced and unregulated, who basically bought large 10-15 person vans, and were advertising on PickupPal for "intercity transportation" (e.g. rides to Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, etc.). They were abusing PickupPal to basically operate a Van and Taxi service. Unfortunately, instead of the transportation board finding out who those unlicenced operators were and cracking down and fining them, they decided to take their wrath out on the website and screw it up for everyone else who were following the "spirit" of the website.