California Becomes First State In Nation To Regulate Ride-Sharing

Virtucon writes "Ride Sharing Services such as Uber, Lyft and Sidecar received a big boost today when the California Public Utilities Commission approved rules that would allow them to continue to operate as long as they followed a few rules. This makes California the first state to adopt such rules and is expected to preempt local governments who are trying to clamp down on these services and regulate them like local taxi companies."

Comments

Why is it called ride sharing?

[immaterial]

I must be missing something about this concept. If you're getting paid (with a net profit) to drive people around, why is it called ride sharing? How is it not a taxi service?

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[alen]

most so called SUV's on the road today are nothing more than station wagons with larger tires and taller struts to make them higher off the ground

station wagon was always an uncool name until SUV's became popular

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[erice]

I must be missing something about this concept. If you're getting paid (with a net profit) to drive people around, why is it called ride sharing? How is it not a taxi service?

A taxi takes you where you want to go. A ride share takes you where you want to go providing it isn't too far out of the way from where the driver was going anyway. Think of it more like paid hitch hiking. That's the idea as Lyft presented to New Tech Meetup a few months ago.

It gets less clear when drivers use the service to make trips they would not otherwise have done, just to collect the fare. As I understand it, "professionals" doing just that for trips to and from SFO.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Nerdfest]

I tell people that unless they're covered with mud, they're just a poorly designed minivan.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[MrEricSir]

How is it not a taxi service?

Legally the difference is that taxi cabs can be hailed on the street. No other type of private transportation (limos, airport shuttles, ridesharing, etc.) can be hired this way -- they require a separate, prior arrangement.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[TheRealDevTrash]

Hipsters don't take taxis.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[tlambert]

It's like how an SUV is called a "light truck" to get around more stringent CAFE regulations.

Actually, no.

According to 49 USCS 32901 [Title 49. Transportation; Subtitle VI. Motor Vehicle and Driver Programs; Part C. Information, Standards, and Requirements; Chapter 329. Automobile Fuel Economy], the term "work truck" means "a vehicle that--
(A) is rated at between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; and
(B) is not a medium-duty passenger vehicle."

So it's by weight. The Cadillac Escalade was intentionally redesigned to add 200 pounds to it to make it legally a "truck". And yes, it was to get around CAFE regulations, but it also reduces property taxes in most jurisdictions, since trucks are considered work vehicles. In addition, as a work vehicle, you can get a license plate as a commercial vehicle, which permits stopping/parking in loading zones.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[immaterial]

I see. Makes sense, in its way. Are the other services you mentioned (limos and shuttles) already regulated in some way? I would expect so, so it seems like they should just expand the current definitions to apply to for-profit "ride sharing." I guess the ad-hoc nature of these arrangements requires something special.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I must be missing something about this concept. If you're getting paid (with a net profit) to drive people around, why is it called ride sharing? How is it not a taxi service?

...A ride share takes you where you want to go providing it isn't too far out of the way from where the driver was going anyway...

.

No. I've used Lyft on multiple occasions, and every single time it was exactly like a taxi--"Take me to location X". There was no waiting around for someone travelling a similar route or anything along those lines.

What I actually really like about it is the rating system. Lyft provides a "suggested donation" for the traveler. The traveler can pay as much as they want (with a minimum of $5, IIRC), but Lyft tracks the value as a % of the suggested donation (which is *always* less than the cost of a taxi). Lyft drivers, then, have the ability to look up passengers that average, say, minimum 80% of the suggested donation. So if you're continually paying very little, you're going to quickly find yourself out of a ride. And on the flip side, travelers get to rate the driver--how friendly were they, how clean was their car, etc. And living in Chicago, I can tell you that I have taken far more filthy taxi rides with complete asshole drivers (who refuse to take the route I tell them) than I care to count. So while I haven't used the other services, I have nothing but good things to say about Lyft.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[joocemann]

So what you're saying is that they are using a loophole by relying on their drivers to lie about what they were doing. A lawyer might even argue that, of course, the driver was going in that direction because money was waiting for them when they arrive! How keen!

Pffft. Why not just deregulate taxi driving and be honest about it. I know Lyft drivers. They are *not* picking people up randomly. They treat it as a job and appreciate the income.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like how an SUV is called a "light truck" to get around more stringent CAFE regulations.

Well duh.

Complex regulations are ALWAYS worked around by everyone.

Imagine that.

It's just another example of how people fight an overweening government's attempts to control behavoir

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[WWJohnBrowningDo]

My source says the Escalade is 7,100 pounds gross. Perhaps you have a better source that puts it above 8500 pounds?

Meanwhile this link backs up everything GP said.

The basic definition of a light truck--any truck or truck derivative with a gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds or less--allows plenty of room for family vehicles. Because light trucks is considered a separate category from passenger automobiles, vehicle manufacturers have been able to build and market SUVs and other large vehicles with a less stringent CAFE standard, currently 20.7 miles per gallon (mpg). Furthermore, most SUVs and pickups, and all vans, are currently permitted to emit 29% to 47% more carbon monoxide and 75% to 175% more nitrogen oxides than passenger cars.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[icebike]

A separate prior agreement that you can make via a phone call while chatting with the driver.

If Taxi's want to compete, let them build a rating system like Lyft or Uber.
Put a QR code on their doors people can find out about the surly bastard driving and the condition they keep the vehicle in.

There are apps for this in the taxi world, mytaxi is a common one. TaxiMagic is another.
mytaxi-Driver skips the cab company and goes direct to the cabbie, and its the equivalent of a street hail.
With some of these apps you can pay the fare through the app.
But they are still way more expensive than lyft or uber.
Oddly, many cities forbid these apps.

The only advantage taxi's have, is that, at least in some jurisdictions, the driver passed a background check, if not the sniff test.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[AK Marc]

http://hooniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Hemmings-Motor-News-Chevrolet-Caprice-Classic-for-sale-Mozilla-Firefox-3142011-93440-PM.bmp.jpg

That's cool? You said they have "always" been cool, but the faux wood look was never in. The real wood look wasn't in much either.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[sribe]

My source [epbbd.com] says the Escalade is 7,100 pounds gross. Perhaps you have a better source that puts it above 8500 pounds?

Yeah, 8,500 sure seems unlikely. Considering that my GMC 4000 doesn't weigh much more than 9,000 ;-)

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[AK Marc]

The PT Cruiser was the Neon with a hearse body kit on it. The made the rear seats fold flat (and actually reduced cargo capacity to make that happen) so that they could get it certified as a "light truck" for the better CAFE rules. "light truck" saves about $2000 in CAFE penalties, per car. Sell 10,000 of them, and the government paid Chrysler $20,000,000 to call them "light trucks".

The rules are stupid, but that's what they were at the time. I haven't kept up since that stupidity, but I did hear that Ford is canceling the Ranger because of the increased CAFE on light trucks, and others are adding weight to their trucks.

I knew more than one doctor that bought a full-sized Chevy Surburban for a commuter vehicle because it cost less than a Ford Taurus to operate (the rules on the vehicles by weight counted it as a "truck", not even a light one, so it was a "work vehicle" even if used in a non-work capacity).

But that's what you get when you listen to the Big-3 when writing laws. Though I'm sure a number of committee members are now board members of car companies - selling out our safety and environment for profit.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[mjwx]

I must be missing something about this concept. If you're getting paid (with a net profit) to drive people around, why is it called ride sharing? How is it not a taxi service?

Because they haven't paid the Californian govt for a license.

There may also be liability issues. Certainly in Oz if you paid for a "private" car insurance policy the policy may be declared null and void if you're using the car for commercial purposes.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[I'm New Around Here]

Every time I see a nice shiny SUV, I look for mud. Usually there is none, and I judge the driver/owner to be an idiot.

It might not be right, but I haven't been proven wrong yet.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn to read.

Re: Why is it called ride sharing?

[Therad]

Why on earth would you want to drive a car designed for city use through mud?

Re: Why is it called ride sharing?

[Therad]

Taxis already have something similar to qr code on the chassi. It is called a license plate. all that is needed is an app for the functionality you are talking about.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I see a Hummer I start shooting my AK-47 at it, throwing bombs, and yelling "Allahu Akhbar!"

Re: Why is it called ride sharing?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like the way I drive then stay off the foot path.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Darinbob]

It's called ride sharing to try and make people think it's about some green service instead of noticing that it's really just another type of taxi.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[I'm New Around Here]

You too? I thought I was the only one. Yeah, Go Akhbar, whoever you are!

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Mr. Freeman]

The difference is that a ride sharing program has a driver who is not licensed to drive taxis or limos, is not properly insured, and is not required to maintain their car. You're entirely correct that these ride sharing programs are nothing but an end-run around the regulations for taxis and limos. We need to regulate them for the exact same reasons we need to regulate taxis.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Charliemopps]

The real question is... why, if it is a taxi service, is it treated any differently? Taxis rip you off.. I've been ripped off by Taxi drivers that are highly regulated in NYC and then, less than 20 hours later treated excellently in a completely unregulated taxi in Africa.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I see a nice shiny SUV, I look for mud. Usually there is none, and I judge the driver/owner to be an idiot.

It might not be right, but I haven't been proven wrong yet.

So, simply because I like to take care of my Jeep and wash the mud off after hauling my boat in and out of the lake, driving through winter conditions, etc. you'll judge my need for one.... and who is the idiot?? Stop acting like a two year old and grow up...

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really, In Las Vegas hailing a taxi is illegal. You have to call the service number to request a ride. It's about fair business because if a taxi can be hailed then only the taxi companies with the largest fleets would get most the business.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[pspahn]

Maybe if you're just somewhere random on the street. If you go to a hotel you can just get one that is already waiting.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chevy Nomad -- The Preeminent Stoner Party Wagon

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[AK Marc]

Wagons are cool, have always been cool,

I can read. Can you? They have not *always* been cool. There have been some very un-cool ones.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[c5402dc53929211e1efb]

then only the taxi companies with the largest fleets would get most the business.

So.... they passed a law against anything being fair. Got it.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[c5402dc53929211e1efb]

You mean for no reason at all? It's none of your business what other people do with their property unless it affects you personally. Fuck off you piece of authoritarian garbage.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It's just another example of how people fight an overweening government's attempts to control behavoir

Not in the slightest. What it is is just another example of how people look to pay as little as they absolutely have to. It happens in pretty much all situations in which money exchanges hands.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxis also don't get to pick and choose their fares...if they stop to pick someone up, they have to take them wherever they're going. These sharing services allow drivers to screen based on destination, so people heading to bad neighborhoods could be SOL.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Anonymous Coward]

You weren't sharing at all!

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[fnj]

A taxi takes you where you want to go. A ride share takes you where you want to go providing it isn't too far out of the way from where the driver was going anyway. Think of it more like paid hitch hiking. That's the idea as Lyft presented to New Tech Meetup a few months ago.

So in other words:

(1) a taxi takes you where you want to go for money within limits (i.e., no taxi is likely to take you from Maine to Tierra del Fuego, and you can't always rely on them picking up and discharging in certain neighborhoods).

(2) a ride share takes you where you want to go for money within limits.

Yet you evidently somehow see a difference between the two fundamental enough to justify classifying (and regulating or not) them differently [shakes head in bafflement and wonder]. What I see is some people attempting to work around onerous over-regulation of taxis and financial burdens on same which they must pass on to customers. I can't imagine why anyone would object to the opportunity they are attempting to provide to both drivers and riders, but the method seems foredoomed because of existing taxi regulations. I do understand that it is difficult to attack those regulations because they arise locally in thousands of separate jurisdictions. It's like a lot of manifestations of runaway government. I don't see how to effectively control it without what ... overthrowing the entire system ... in favor of what?

Oh, and a vanishingly small percentage of drivers demand money to give a lift to a hitchhiker. That one is just a pure red herring.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[nospam007]

"I must be missing something about this concept. If you're getting paid (with a net profit) to drive people around, why is it called ride sharing? How is it not a taxi service?"

With a taxi, the driver drives you to a destination _you_ want to go to, for 8 or 10 hours a day.

This service drives you to a destination the driver wants to go to, once or twice a day.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[dkf]

I must be missing something about this concept. If you're getting paid (with a net profit) to drive people around, why is it called ride sharing? How is it not a taxi service?

They're probably trying to work around some regulations. In the UK it's pretty clear: if it's done for hire, it's one of two types of taxi. A "hackney carriage" is what most people think of as a taxi: it's one you can hail in the street. There's also a "private hire" taxi, where you have to have some sort of prior arrangement before being picked up; it covers a whole range of options (up to a maximum size of vehicle and excluding a few more highly regulated categories) such as limousines and dial-a-rides. If you charge to take someone somewhere, you're covered by the regs. Only genuine ride-sharing or hitching a lift, i.e. stuff which people don't consider hiring, would not be regulated.

Sounds like what you need are a similar sort of thing. There's nothing wrong with having "hire a taxi over the internet" services; they work well. They just shouldn't pretend to be anything other than what they are.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Anonymous Coward]

most so called SUV's on the road today are nothing more than station wagons with larger tires and taller struts to make them higher off the ground

Hey, it's very important that my vehicle look more impressive by being taller, even though it raises the center of gravity and greatly increases the risk of rolling over.

More importantly, most "SUVs" are legally classified as trucks, not cars. As trucks, they don't have to meet the standards of cars for safety, bumpers, fuel economy, collision, etc.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Anonymous Coward]

tlambert weighs 1400lbs you insensitive clod.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Chris Mattern]

It is a taxi service. They're calling it something else so it doesn't get strangled by the cartel-based rigid regulation of taxis.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Chris Mattern]

We need to regulate them for the exact same reasons we need to regulate taxis.

To maintain the taxi companies' profits.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Vintermann]

Because it's the exciting new sharing economy, don't you know. I recommend googling Tom Slee and read a couple of his articles on the topic.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Talderas]

It might be a trap for Akhbar.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Chris Mattern]

A better comparison than you realize. By not calling it a taxi service, they get out from under the onerous regulation of taxis that is present in almost every major city. SUVs are classified as light trucks by federal regulation, meaning that they are regulated more lightly than station wagons, particularly their gas mileage.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think uber and lyft are bringing benefits to drivers and their clients by helping them avoid the taxi companies.
From what I have seen, taxi companies are not very efficient:
- they charge 150$ a day for the car in NYC. You could get the same car from Avis for half the price...
- they usually don't do a great job of matching supply and demand or invoicing (drivers have told how they didn't get paid sometimes for stuff that was billed through the taxi company.
- they don't check the driver is who it's supposed to be (when you get a driver whose ID card on the window is hidden behind toilet paper and he gets lost in Manhatta, you know he can't be the proper driver...)

So I expect any driver who can even rent a car would make more money from those providers.
And with the rating system, I suppose the client has a decent chance of getting a driver who can actually drive safely to the right place.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like Lyft is offering a market / price system instead of a centrally bureaucratized cost structure (that is also co-opted by the local taxi cartels). Funny how people would prefer that.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Kielistic]

Hey, it's very important that my vehicle look more impressive by being taller, even though it raises the center of gravity and greatly increases the risk of rolling over.

You may never have driven a high vehicle but if you have you would immediately notice that being high gains you a better view (at least I do when I get in a high vehicle from my sedan). This is actually pretty nice when turning left at intersections, merging lanes etc. Being as most people drive these vehicles in urban environments and not in environments that would stress their centre of gravity I would posit that they've more concerned about the better view than "looking impressive" or worrying about their centre of gravity.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor people always get screwed. There are stories all the time of taxis not stopping for a black fare; it's usually because they are afraid of ending up in a bad neighborhood.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[canadian_right]

It isn't a taxi service because taxi service is an over regulated cartel in most cities, and it is almost impossible to enter the market.

This is an example of good free market forces at work. We have an over paid, over regulated monopoly supported by by government regulation finally get some competition. Hopefully these new guys will be able to stay lean and mean.

And I'm a commie socialist from Canada.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[intermodal]

And this, in a nutshell, is what separates the ride-sharing services from taxis.

What it really does, in my opinon, is provide a much-needed reset for regulations upon ride-for-hire services that were once monopolized by cabs. As with any longstanding sets of regulations, taxicab regulations have long been past due for the whole system to be stripped down and rewritten from the ground up.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Bartles]

Pffft. Why not just deregulate taxi driving and be honest about it. I know Lyft drivers. They are *not* picking people up randomly. They treat it as a job and appreciate the income.

Because, silly. According to the article, companies receive a "big boost" when government begins to regulate their industry. Deregulation of taxi driving would obviously negate the, "big boost" they get from regulation. Considering how heavily regulated taxi drivers are, the boost must be gigantic.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try getting up my driveway with more than a couple inches of fresh snow on the ground in your little two-wheel-drive city car. Because if it snows while I'm a work, I REALLY want to go home and park on the street, hoof it up the hill in my work clothes, get changed, clear the driveway, and THEN pull in. Jackass.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...but if you have you would immediately notice that being high gains you a better view..."

Everyone behind you knows you have a better view than they do.

And they have to trust that you arent tail-gating the guy in front of you, because its impossible to see ahead of you and judge traffic accordingly.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[painandgreed]

It is a taxi service. They're calling it something else so it doesn't get strangled by the cartel-based rigid regulation of taxis.

Nope. They are using a different set of rules to run their business because of the cartel-based rigid regulation of taxis. This is made possible by the use of these little wireless pocket computers people carry in their pockets that allow everybody to get online no matter where they are anymore. Other vehicles such as towncars, limos, airport shuttles, and rideshares have been around for quite some time and are not taxis and operate under a different set of rules. These new services are operating under those rules, not those for taxis. Those rules require a prior contract to be agreed upon. This used to take time and at least a telephone call. When the internet came about, these things could be arranged over the internet also, even in a very short amount of time. With the advent of always online smartphones, communications have allowed such contracts to be completed online between the customer, the owner of the vehicle, and a third party company in some cases in a matter of seconds.

A similar equivalent would be Amazon and brick and mortar stores. Amazon is just Sears catalog but using modern technology so that ordering something from an online catalog is now about as quick and easy if not more so than going to a brick and mortar store. Still, although they preform the same function, they are not a brick and mortar store. Likewise, Amazon is also running into lots of resistance because new communication technology have made them competitive with less consumer friendly business models even though what they are doing has been done for at least a hundred years already with its own set of rules and regulations. That taxis are just not providing the same service for the same rates is just adding to their own problems because they have no learned that if you don't cannibalize your own products and services, somebody else will.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you would like quantitative evidence, look at the price of Bitcoins earlier this year - a clear jump in value as soon as it was regulated by FinCEN like any other investment.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxis also don't get to pick and choose their fares...if they stop to pick someone up, they have to take them wherever they're going. These sharing services allow drivers to screen based on destination, so people heading to bad neighborhoods could be SOL.

Then they should donate more, so the driver will see it on the passenger's record. I'd certainly prefer this to the taxi driver guessing where I must live based on the color of my skin.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was recently in Chicago and met a driver who was interesting, to say the least. I've never been so glad to get out of a cab in my life.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[kwbauer]

And people wonder why we complain about overregulation and such. Really? Who would have ever thought that the taxi company with the most taxis would get the most business.

Next, you'll be complaining that the restaurant making the most food sells the most food.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[james_shoemaker]

I wish they still made station wagons, all they make are SUV's, minivans, and those stupid crossovers. My daughter has CP and can't climb into those elevated POSs, but I need room in the back for a wheelchair.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[SleazyRidr]

Maybe you actually are a mountain man who needs a 4x4. You are the only one.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[SleazyRidr]

So you're the jackass in front of me on the on ramp doing 20 so he won't roll over. Pull the fuck over and let the real cars pass, then you can use your "better view" to watch for a 3 mile gap in which you can to accelerate to a highway speed, or just pull into traffic doing 60 when you're doing 20, like you were going to do anyway.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[SleazyRidr]

If your daughter is carrying around enough child pr0n that she can't climb into an SUV you might have other problems. (I do share your views missing station wagons, though.)

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[N0Man74]

I've never driven in a high vehicle, but I once rode with a high driver...

But seriously, there are other reasons than status, height, etc. For one thing, SUVs are spacey and comfortable and spacious, and offer a lot of storage.

Also, while height offers advantages, it also has disadvantages. They also have fairly bad blind spots in certain directions, and make it even harder than normal to see some low objects (very small cars, bicyclists motorcyclists, etc).

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Bartles]

Sure, If I was bitcoin I'd want some regulation as well. There's nothing like a regulatory barrier to entry to the market to keep uppity competitors at bay.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Kielistic]

(at least I do when I get in a high vehicle from my sedan)

But yeah- you keep being an obnoxious asshole.

It's a nice strawman you've constructed there but SUVs can go around on ramps at well above the posted limits. They also usually have big beefy engines (which is why they are usually as being inefficient) and can accelerate to merging speed in safe and reasonable time frames.

Are you the moronic 16 year old that thinks it is a good idea to accelerate from 60k to 140k as fast as possible in traffic in the right lane (or while veering across several lanes of traffic)?

^ That is why strawmen are useless and add nothing to the conversation. Utterly pointless.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[roedb]

Well actually not really! The market has already adjusted for the Mall rated 4x4 crowd. How many real SUV's are left on the Market? not many - most SUV's are now crossover vehicles with decent gas mileage and car like ride. The only real SUV's left are some land rovers, the 4 runner and a jeep.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[roedb]

Then you sir lack reason and good judgement. Every other weekend my truck is covered head to toe in mud, snow or whatever challenging conditions I was seeking. Guess what I do when I get home.. I wash the mud off the truck... Brilliant huh? who saw that coming.. But I'm still an idiot because obviously seeing an SUV drive past you on the street makes you an expert on how that vehicle and owner spends their time..

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I see a nice shiny SUV, I look for mud. Usually there is none, and I judge the driver/owner to be an idiot.

It might not be right, but I haven't been proven wrong yet.

That's a very shallow, superficial, and short-sighted perspective. You'll fit in perfectly around here!

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Outside of NYC, only a fraction of the taxi business depends on street hails. Mostly, taxis are called via phone, or nowadays, using smartphone apps. The "rideshare" apps are just using the same technology to dispatch unlicensed taxis.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[I'm New Around Here]

Then you sir use your truck as a giant cat's toy, for simple amusement. Do you want to know what our truck (and all trucks) looked like where I grew up?

Our truck was covered in mud, or dust, or cowshit, or snow, or whatever, because we used the truck to do actual work. We didn't go seeking "challenging conditions", we lived in them. Whether hauling stuff to and from the field, or stacking it with firewood to heat our house all winter, or carrying animals to where they had to go, or carrying nurses into town to staff the hospital because their cars couldn't make it through the snow and the county didn't plow where we lived until days after the blizzards.

That is why our vehicles, cars and trucks alike, were not clean. We had too much to do with them, and they got to beaten up in the process anyhow, to want to wash them every week and put bows in their hair.

You call me out just because you have an expensive toy? You call me out because you keep your toy pretty? Get over yourself.

Re:Why is it called ride sharing?

[SleazyRidr]

It's not a strawman. It's an impediment to my ability to get to work in a reasonable timeframe. I'm sure you are the one guy who knows how to get around bends without flipping your ridiculously oversized vehicle, but the road is littered with soccer moms who want to make sure they're the ones doing the killing in car accidents.

(And for the record, I have a coupe, not a sedan.)

Riders of the Storm Return

[Anonymous Coward]

And so will ... the Hitcher.

Re:Riders of the Storm Return

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Has there been any cases of a loner trying to duplicate the appearance of a cab to illegally get some of the business? Has there been any psychos doing this?

The Third World was first

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

So the US has become a Third World nation. Ridesharing is a well established mode of transport for the middleclass in Africa and Southeast Asia who can't afford to ride single passenger taxis but want something more comfortable than the local equivalent of a bus.

Re:The Third World was first

[MrEricSir]

So if the US does something that a third world nation does, that makes us a third world nation? By that logic, Americans who breathe have turned the US into a third world nation.

Re:The Third World was first

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooooooooooooh fucking no! God forbid you have to come into close contact with filthy humans on your way to work.

Re:The Third World was first

[EzInKy]

"Hey Ez, where you headed?"
"Going to the store to get some beer."
"Mind if I go? I need a few things too."
"Sure, no problem."

I'm sure I'm not the only one in shares rides either.

Re:The Third World was first

[Luke has no name]

So the US has become a Third World nation.

and

Ridesharing is a well established mode of transport for the middleclass in Africa and Southeast Asia who can't afford to ride single passenger taxis but want something more comfortable than the local equivalent of a bus.

don't correlate.

Re:The Third World was first

[Anonymous Coward]

So the US has become a Third World nation. Ridesharing is a well established mode of transport for the middleclass in Africa and Southeast Asia who can't afford to ride single passenger taxis but want something more comfortable than the local equivalent of a bus.

Ooooooooooooh fucking no! God forbid you have to come into close contact with filthy humans on your way to work.

You're trying to fight stupid with stupid. That never works.

Re:The Third World was first

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know who else also breathed? Hitler. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Re:The Third World was first

[tompaulco]

So the US has become a Third World nation. Ridesharing is a well established mode of transport for the middleclass in Africa and Southeast Asia who can't afford to ride single passenger taxis but want something more comfortable than the local equivalent of a bus.

I think you are confusing sharing rides with ridesharing.
Ridesharing is where you call the company in advance, and they come and pick you up, possibly picking up other people along the way and then drop you off and charge both of you the full fare amount, which is usually about the same as a cab ride. So essentially, if you and the person you are sharing with had gotten together and called a cab, it would be half as much to pay the cabbie as you would have paid the ridesharing service.

Re:The Third World was first

[rmdashrf]

Not directly, but at least my expectation of a first world country would include excellent public transport. In the US public transport has been killed by privatisation and corporate lobbying.

Poor public services are an indication of a third world country however, the way things seems to be going in the US is that the only thing that's going to be 'first world' quality is the military.

Not only happening in the US though in Europe the neo-liberalist governments are killing affordable public transport, housing, healthcare and education as well. That does seem to happen due to influences from the US government; EU politicians trying to be more like the US.

Re:The Third World was first

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

You're assuming that people in the Third World don't have cellphones they can use to send SMS message to the driver/owner of the vehicle for a pickup. While most (Third World) riders would happily and sometimes quite literally hop aboard the nearest passing vehicle for hire, some have made arrangements for scheduled pickups. Probably not the same hi-tech GPS/computer-based dispatch system described by Wikipedia, but if this were another patent story, consider this as prior art.

Re:The Third World was first

[EzInKy]

I think you are confusing sharing rides with ridesharing. Ridesharing is where you call the company in advance, and they come and pick you up, possibly picking up other people along the way and then drop you off and charge both of you the full fare amount, which is usually about the same as a cab ride.

So in actuality, it is faresharing. People have been sharing rides from at least the first time the decided to jump on the backs of horses.

Re:The Third World was first

[joocemann]

Welcome to reality. We've been getting screwed as 99%ers for a couple decades now.

Scan around the odd pics on the internet. You want a sign of the times? There are dozens of pictures of people that are driving on the street WITH NO TIRES AT ALL. They are driving on the metal rim. Deduce it. It's simple. The frequency of that kind of absurdity has gone up not because there are more ridiculous/insane people driving -- it has increased because the ability of people to afford their lives is being so heavily squeezed now that they simply cannot, and yet they still have to get to the store and to work. So they drive on metal rims.

I don't know anyone under 40 that isn't struggling. And that's because I don't have banker friends.

Re:The Third World was first

[dan the person]

No it's when the US does something the third (and second) world pioneered. Third world didn't pioneer breathing. (though you could argue they pioneered human breathing if you believe we first evolved there. Of course back then it would have been the most highly developed and thus a first world continent).

This ride-sharing is very common in the former soviet bloc too, though it's of the rather more basic wave-your-arm up and down at all the passing cars type technology rather than using phones.

Re:The Third World was first

[rsilvergun]

No, but just because we can lampoon his analogy with hyperbole doesn't make him any less right. These services got popular not because hipsters care about the environment but because there's lots of people that need to get places and can't afford cars and regular taxis anymore. It points to a general decline in income and standard of living.

Re:The Third World was first

[DNS-and-BIND]

Sieg Heil, Comrade! To the barricades! The Americans (our culture's fear and hate objects) are making bad things happen to us again! Because if there's one thing we know, it's that EU bureaucrats love to slavishly follow AmeriKKKa!

Re:The Third World was first

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

Point taken. So let me retcon my post a bit. I was thinking of comparing ridesharing to fund transfer via cellphones. Cellphone-based payment was first widely deployed in the Third World, probably because most people there don't have access to the real Internet.

Incidentally I don't think being Third World is necessarily bad. With a Third World mindset, you easily learn concepts like recycling and repurposing, how one nation's junk can be turned into another nation's transportation, information and even weapons systems. That is the maker spirit at its most basic, making not to satisfy an itch but to survive.

Re:The Third World was first

[FishOuttaWater]

Yes, but he stopped, so it's ok now.

Re:The Third World was first

[93 Escort Wagon]

Do you know who else also breathed? Hitler. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

I only breathe in Gandhi fashion - if Hitler style is the only one available, I don't breathe.

Re:The Third World was first

[Anonymous Coward]

That does seem to happen due to influences from the US government; EU politicians trying to be more like the US.

Right... because the US invented greed and abuse of power. Before the US came to be, Europe was a wonderful land of peace and rainbows and unicorns! Before the influence of the big, mean, scary US ruined their utopia.

Re:The Third World was first

[Anonymous Coward]

Ridesharing is a well established mode of transport for the middleclass in Africa and Southeast Asia

Having lived & worked as an expat for the past 18 years between Africa and Southeast Asia

Utter B[raise fist to mouth][cough]ULLSHIT

Re:The Third World was first

[Anubis IV]

So, the adoption of a good idea makes a nation that is by definition a part of the first world into a third world one? Okay. Let's go with that.

Considering that ride sharing is still in the process of taking off, I'd have thought that the widespread adoption of ethnic foods in America would have been a much larger threat to our status as a first world nation, at least if we're relying on your logic, but hey, you know your logic better than I do.

Re:The Third World was first

[Anonymous Coward]

In the USA, by constitution, the Federal government shouldn't have much to do with "affordable public transport, housing, healthcare and education"... but military is mentioned.

Individual states can do what they want... or could, if the the Federal government only did what was enumerated for it to do in the constitution...

Re:The Third World was first

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite, the Third World lacks seats.

Re:The Third World was first

[Anonymous Coward]

Worst thing that will come of this is they will start claiming they have the right to stop any vehicle with more then one person in it and check IDs, ask where each works, etc etc and probably try to claim to be able to search as well. Enjoy your car pooling, family trips etc, keep your lawyer on speed dial if you have one.

Re:The Third World was first

[Anonymous Coward]

Thirld world nations were initially described as such because they were not U.S. allies and they were not U.S.S.R. allies. Technically, the U.S. could never become a third world nation since part of the definition of third world is being not with the U.S.

Re:The Third World was first

[SvnLyrBrto]

I don't know about Lyft; but Uber is actually more expensive than a taxi.

I use Uber instead of taxis because the service is vastly better. Uber cars actually show up when they're summoned and on they show up on the schedule promised in the app. They will actually come and pick you up when and where you want them, even if you're not at a hotel and going to SFO. They will take you out to the avenues without protest. The drivers are in general all-around more pleasant. And they don't stink of smoke, pee, or vomit (the cars OR the drivers).

Granted, all of the above is supposed to be true of medallioned taxis. But it's not... not by a long shot. That left a niche for Uber to come in as a premium service, for which they charge a premium. And it's a premium I'm happy to pay. The service really is just that much better.

Re: The Third World was first

[Corbets]

But they can afford 800 dollar smartphones and expensive cell plans to use these apps?

Re: The Third World was first

[statusbar]

Two weeks ago I did an experiment - uber from the airport to my hotel cost $60 including the automatic tip. Taxi from the hotel to the airport was $50!not including tip. The über ride was great, the driver was nice, the car was clean, the trip was safe. On the taxi ride the Prius was falling apart, you could see the airbag peeking out from the hole in the dash, the signal lights did not work, the driver was shifty and allots killed a couple on a Harley by cutting them off on the freeway since the taxi driver was not looking and couldn't signal. The taxi ride was scary. The consensus amongst my group was that uber wins and I don't want to take a creepy taxi unless uber really is not available. This happened in Seattle, three weeks ago.

Re:The Third World was first

[AK Marc]

Scan around the odd pics on the internet. You want a sign of the times? There are dozens of pictures of people that are driving on the street WITH NO TIRES AT ALL. They are driving on the metal rim. Deduce it. It's simple.

Yes it it simple. The number of people with cameras has increased exponentially. Now stupid stuff is more likely to be captured on film.

Re:The Third World was first

[Reziac]

If the cabbie doesn't realise you're not the same party, yeah. But in some areas, he's allowed to charge each of you full fare, rather than letting you split the fare.

Taxi Medalion

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxis in most major cities have a medalion fee. $400K in Chicago, $1M in NYC, and so on.

This is a pure case of someone in California found a way to make a profit and the state can't allow that.

Re:Taxi Medalion

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is a pure case of individuals rather than corporations in California finding a way to make a profit and the state can't allow that."

FTFY.

Re:Taxi Medalion

[FooAtWFU]

"This is a pure case of upstarts rather than entrenched interests with political connections in California finding a way to make a profit and the state can't allow that."

Adjusted that FTFY of yours for you. (Because there are a few notable non-corporate examples from time to time.)

Re:Taxi Medalion

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a case of greedy VPs funding a way to profit by avoiding obeying laws which were intended to protect working-class taxi-drivers.

Re:Taxi Medalion

[Vintermann]

Yes, it's the evil global taxi cartel, backed up by small businesses from Edinburgh to Portland! They fight to keep the regulation in place, against poor megacorporations and venture capital firms who only want what's best for you!

There's probably a reason taxi services and bed & breakfasts are so tightly regulated, despite being mostly very small businesses - and it isn't lobbying. The "sharing economy" companies want to replace this with their own rating systems and mandatory arbitration contracts.

Re:Taxi Medalion

[Vintermann]

This might come as a surprise to you, but taxi drivers (competing against Lyft, Uber) and bed & breakfast owners (competing against Airbnb) are not very powerful groups. It's mostly very small businesses. They are tightly regulated because they are so many, so small.

As to powerful entrenched interests, do you know who's funding these startups? Silicon Valley venture capital, for a large part. To say they have political connections in California would be an understatement.

the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[hguorbray]

considering that a medallion in San Francisco can cost upwards of $200k

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/flag-might-drop-on-more-taxi-medallions/Content?oid=2193759

-I'm just sayin'

Re:the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[ThatsMyNick]

The taxi services were enjoying the monopoly and have a share of the blame too. It is not as if they were trying to fight the medallion system. I personally cant wait for the medallion system to collapse, or prices to plummet.

Re:the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[tlambert]

considering that a medallion in San Francisco can cost upwards of $200k

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/flag-might-drop-on-more-taxi-medallions/Content?oid=2193759

-I'm just sayin'

Only if they damn well show up when I call them, rather than taking nearby, more lucrative fares when they get flagged down on their way to me. If their dispatcher agrees on their behalf that they will show up, they need to damn well show up.

If they don't show I, I really don't give a flying what they paid for their medallion (and most Taxi drivers in SF are contract workers, with the medallion being owned by the taxi company; the driver is just an employee with no benefits who has to follow radio orders).

Re:the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[Anonymous Coward]

Preach it.

I don't have enough digits to count how many times I've been sitting for hours in an out-of-the-way part of the city waiting for a cabbie that dispatch promised would come "five minutes from now".

If you can't provide an adequate level of service, I don't give a shit how much you paid for the privilege, you need to go out of business.

Re:the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[joocemann]

Personal XP here. SF cabs will skip you for the fare they just noticed on the street. Uber (a rideshare company) will be there waiting for you at least 2 minutes before you asked for them. No, I don't own stock in Uber -- but I wish I did. They just bought 2500 driverless cars from google (approved by DOT) for their fleet.

Re:the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[Osgeld]

google returns 5 pages of taxi services in San Francisco, that is one shitty monopoly, or maybe you do not understand that word too well

Re:the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[flimflammer]

Indeed. The worst situation was when I called in a pickup, and the Taxi driver outright lies to dispatch saying I wasn't there so they can avoid actually picking me up. I was at a large stadium in the middle of the night, standing at the entrance to the parking lot. There was one way into the parking lot. I was the only person there. He then told dispatch that I wasn't there. Cabbies deserve to be fired over this crap.

Re: the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[Anonymous Coward]

You're just sayin' what? I wasn't paying attention.

Re:the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[Anonymous Coward]

And how many of them are duplicate websites, subsidiaries, different brand names and/or partner agencies?

If you look at the local level, theres a LOT of monopolies in the U.S. Most of them are simply due to the nature of the industry they're in (ie. utilities) or extremely small market size (a small town of a couple hundred people is not going to have more than a dozen stores). But others are simply due to regulations being written in a way that effectively make it impossible for competitors to move in. (ie. cable TV/internet/cell phone/taxi service)

Re:the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[Anonymous Coward]

The SFMTA reports that there are only twenty-nine taxi companies that legally operate in San Francisco. Those 29 taxi companies operate a total of 1,707 cabs. (One medallion allows one cab to be operated.)
I can tell you from hard, long experience that this is far too few cabs for the city.

Data source, straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.sfmta.com/services/taxi-industry/medallions/medallion-holders

There are currently 1,430 people waiting to acquire a taxi medallion. http://www.sfmta.com/services/taxi-industry/medallions/waiting-list

It is said that one is often on the waiting list for ten years. In order to acquire a medallion, you have to meet a boatload of somewhat reasonable requirements, then be able to pony up $300k. From that $300k, the city takes $100k, and the remainder is given to the previous medallion holder.

As of this moment, the city does *not* create new taxi medallions. This is the very definition of "lucrative, performance insensitive monopoly".

Re:the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[Thomasje]

Don't hold your breath waiting for prices to plummet when taxis are deregulated. This has already been tried in the Netherlands, and the result was that prices went up, not down, and service got worse, not better, capitalist dogma notwithstanding.
The problem is that taxi drivers need to make a certain amount of money to pay their cost of living, and if the number of cabs goes up while the number of passengers doesn't, they end up spending more time waiting for fares, and less time actually driving. And they can't just hop off to a second job while they are waiting. So, they have to *increase* their rates in order to make up for their reduced number of trips, so taking a cab becomes more expensive, and they will tend to refuse short trips, trying to hold out for the more profitable longer ones, so taxi availability gets worse.

Re:the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[ShanghaiBill]

google returns 5 pages of taxi services in San Francisco, that is one shitty monopoly, or maybe you do not understand that word too well

The monopoly is the single organization authorized to sell taxi medallions: The City of San Francisco.

Re: the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter. Ability for the taxi services to operate and make a profit does not trump citizens rights to free will. This is a direct attack against the free travel of the citizenry. Gloss it up however they want, but it's wrong and nothing more than industry propping.

Re:the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[Anonymous Coward]

they will tend to refuse short trips, trying to hold out for the more profitable longer ones, so taxi availability gets worse.

They already do that. Routinely. Regularly. You simply CAN NOT get a taxi in many parts of San Francisco. They will refuse to come.

So if the monopoly solution is a failure, and you're saying the free market solution is also a failure, guess we need a third solution.

Re:the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[Truth_Quark]

On the other hand, it worked quite well in Wellington, New Zealand.

Re:the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[Zenin]

In San Francisco "taxi services" do not own medallions generally, individual drivers do. This is a distinction that matters a lot.

It means that a customer can call a taxi service and request a cab...and the service will put the call out on the air...and no cabs will care to pick it up (bad neighborhood, too out of the way, whatever). The service can't hold the drivers accountable (the drivers own the medallions) and the customer just gets to stand on the corner forever at times...completely unable to get a cab from any of the "5 pages" of taxi services (since they're all asking largely the same pool of medallion-carrying drivers). -The "services" get kick backs from the drivers for routing them calls, that's how they make money: The drivers are their customers, not the passengers.

And...Most drivers however, aren't even medallion holders. I know, I just said they were, but they're not. Drivers with medallions rent their medallions out to other drivers (thus ensuring the expensive medallion is making money 24/7 for the owner). Those sub-sub-contracted drivers are most of the actual drivers in the city.

The actual owner is required to "drive" some number of hours each week to maintain the medallion. But they're lazy...they own a medallion (read: free money), so why should they actually work? So they do their hours by sitting in the taxi waiting line at the airports, watching YouTube on their phones.

DOZENS of them...all in a line for ages at the airports...transporting no one...for hours at a time. Meanwhile the actual CITY of San Francisco suffers a severe lack of taxi service.

-----

And no one is accountable. Not the "taxi services" (they can't fire or refuse to "hire" a given cab). Not the medallion holders (who largely see their medallion as a free-ride and so long as the sub-contracted driver pays their rent who cares). And definitely not the consumers (who have no ability to select or rate drivers...and it wouldn't matter if they could because again, most drivers aren't medallion owners and the owners don't give a damn).

And it's been this completely fucked up for at least half a century, probably longer.

The medallion system is completely indefensible.

Re:the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[AK Marc]

In Anchorage, the only way to create new medallions is to have the current holders vote to create them. The city started issuing some, and they were sued for illegal seizure by diminishing the value of the existing ones without compensation. The courts ordered that the city must buy-back existing medallions at market prrices (About $100,000) before they could issue new ones. So no new taxis. Most are owned by out-of-state investors, and the original idea of owner-operator is the rare exception (and the few of those also rent out the medallion when they aren't driving, often making more renting it than driving it).

Re:the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[gottabeme]

Why do the medallion holders sit at the airport to watch YouTube? Couldn't they do that anywhere in the city, like next to a coffee shop or overlooking the bay?

Re:the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[Zenin]

If they were anywhere else they'd get hailed (almost instantly) and have to drive. And they can't just turn the service light off and not take riders, they wouldn't be "working".

Re:the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[Zenin]

If they don't show I, I really don't give a flying what they paid for their medallion (and most Taxi drivers in SF are contract workers, with the medallion being owned by the taxi company; the driver is just an employee with no benefits who has to follow radio orders).

That's just it, in SF the medallions are not owned by the taxi company. They're privately owned. Sure, most of the drivers are contracted...but they are contracted to the medallion owners (individually), not the taxi companies. Or more correctly, the drivers rent the medallions and so aside from paying that rent not even the medallion owners care what the driver does.

The taxi companies have no leverage over the drivers, they can't fire them or otherwise demand they actually do what they're told.

The sad fact is they don't have to follow radio orders, ever, from anyone.

Re:the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[coolmadsi]

they will tend to refuse short trips, trying to hold out for the more profitable longer ones, so taxi availability gets worse.

They already do that. Routinely. Regularly. You simply CAN NOT get a taxi in many parts of San Francisco. They will refuse to come.

So if the monopoly solution is a failure, and you're saying the free market solution is also a failure, guess we need a third solution.

I would like to think that a self driving car would be a good third solution.

Re:the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly "liberal SF" is a fucking pipe dream if you pay attention.

Re:the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a recent development. For a long time in SF, taxi drivers earned medallions on the basis of years devoted to the business. This had the advantage of rewarding drivers for staying in the business. The truth is, anyone can drive a cab, but to do it well requires years of experience.

Now? it will be all about newcomers and part-time drivers, relying on GPS to overcome their lack of experience and knowledge about the city. Good luck with that.

Re:the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite wrong, the MTA put out something like 300 new cabs in the last year, and there will be several hundred more in the next few years, unless they can't find buyers for the medallions, now that the "TNCs" are here to stay.

Already, some of the licensed cab companies have talked about switching over to the unlicensed model, since it is cheaper to operate and they don't have to abide by as much regulation (vehicle quality and emissions being a big one; having to provide heavier insurance, and worker's comp for drivers, is another).

Re:the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[arctother]

It isn't just the medallion system at fault, it is primarily the fact that the drivers are treated as independent contractors for legal reasons, to avoid responsibility for the employers. And guess what? All the new companies (Uber, Sidecar, Lyft, and swarms of competitors who will hit the streets soon) do the exact same thing. The "fucked up" system is about to get a whole lot more so, thanks to the PUC and the "rideshares".

Re:the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[Anonymous Coward]

If any cab company switches to an unlicensed model, either the state PUC or the SF MTA will fine the shit out of them, if the company gets caught.

FTFA: "Under the proposal, the [California] PUC would have jurisdiction over ride-sharing under a new category of businesses called transportation network companies. The agency would also issue *licenses* to the services... Regulators would require drivers to undergo criminal background checks, receive driver training, follow a zero-tolerance policy on drugs and alcohol and carry insurance policies with a minimum of $1 million in liability coverage."

Source: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-state-regulators-ok-ridesharing-20130919,0,2583487.story

WRT your emissions comment: California *still* has the most stringent automobile emissions standards in the nation. You can't legally get around those standards and operate a non-antique automobile in the state.

I know that the SF MTA issued a few more medallions a year or two ago. Could you direct me to its plans to add more medallions in the next few years? I'm not aware of any such plans.

Re:the taxi services have a right to be pissed

[gottabeme]

So you mean that they sit at the airport because the chances of any one taxi being hailed for a ride from the airport is low?

state law pre-empition

[turkeydance]

your town don't matter. state takes all. well, if the feds don't mind.

Are you sure about that?

[Anonymous Coward]

According to:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/09/19/4325586/digital-dispatch-services-expand.html#.UjsS_WRgbrQ

North Carolina passed similar laws back in August.

Re:Which Nation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably the nation to which California belongs, dipshit.

Makes sense in LA

[Anonymous Coward]

Public transportation is garbage, traffic is garbage, roads are garbage, and taxis are stupid expensive. LA pretty much encourages drunk driving. If someone wants to go somewhere and drink, there is a >50% chance they will drive away plastered. LA imports dumbass people by the boatload...

Re:Which Nation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing there is only one california:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_%28disambiguation%29

And is "California Becomes First US State To Regulate Ride-Sharing" that hard for someone trying to deny the rest of the world even exists?

Is any regulation necessary?

[mendax]

A very conservative friend seems to think I'm rather liberal when I think regulation is a good idea sometimes. Regulation *is* quite often a good idea when history has amply demonstrated that a business model cannot operate in a legitimate or non-abusive manner without it. Classic examples of this are banks and the the Wall Street financial market as well as the taxi business in places like San Francisco and New York, automobile manufacturing, trucking companies, and the labor markets. Great evils of various kinds have occurred when these things were not regulated. But sometimes overregulation creates problems. A great example is the airline industry. At one time, the airlines were highly regulated. Regardless of who you flew with, the fare would be the same for the same route and they were high. Airline travel in those days was quite expensive. Since airlines couldn't attract customers using fares, they differentiated themselves by offering great service (even in "cattle" class), better planes, etc. For example, when was the last time that any of you flew a Boeing 747 on a domestic flight that wasn't a leg of an international flight? In the 1970's, wide-bodied planes were common on the higher trafficked domestic flights. These days, airline service is awful but relatively inexpensive.

So I ask the question: Does ride-sharing really need to be regulated beyond a requirement that the vehicles and drivers have proper insurance? Is it anything like the wild west of unregulated taxi services in places like New York and San Francisco that created chaos?

Re:Is any regulation necessary?

[Anonymous Coward]

So I ask the question: Does ride-sharing really need to be regulated beyond a requirement that the vehicles and drivers have proper insurance?

Here is a clue for you, since you are so obviously clueless :

Regulation of ride sharing is about collecting tax revenue.

Re:Is any regulation necessary?

[dkf]

Does ride-sharing really need to be regulated beyond a requirement that the vehicles and drivers have proper insurance?

Is it a taxi service — the taking of a person to a place they nominate in return for a fee — or not? If it is, there is a need for some regulation. An example of the kind of reasonable regulation is to require that nobody with a conviction for a sex crime should be able to be a taxi driver. Having to have a particular level of insurance (or better) is another reasonable regulation. It's all about ensuring that the services that are there are not actively hazardous for people to use.

The problem with services such as the one in the article is that they're trying to offer a taxi service while saying "I promise I'm not a taxi service" and keeping their fingers crossed behind their back. That's basically dishonest. Of course, it's a response to the over-regulation in some locales where the real taxis have actually effectively been organised as a cartel. Which is also wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right; they just layer wrong on wrong.

What's really needed is to pare back the regulation to what is actually needed and to end the medallion system as it has ended up, or at least end the limits on how many are issued and who can have them. That will then also let you ban subcontracting of these things to people who may not have passed background checks, etc. Fix your regulation, you fools!

Ride sharing in California

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes me think of Ride, Ride, Ride, I'm I'm hitchin' a ride, a breezy top 40 song from 1970.

You do realize that was a fantasy article...

[moosehooey]

...about the future. Google isn't selling any driverless cars.

Re:You do realize that was a fantasy article...

[gottabeme]

Wow. Let me draw your attention to a few things from the article:

July 25, 2023 — As part of its second-quarter earnings announcement today, local transportation and delivery giant Uber announced its biggest bet on autonomous vehicles yet, saying it would purchase 2,500 driverless cars from Google....

Uber has committed to invest up to $375 million for a fleet of Google’s GX3200 vehicles, which are the company’s third generation of autonomous driving cars, but the first to be approved for commercial use in the U.S. The deal marks the largest single capital investment that Uber has made to date, and is also the first enterprise deal that Google has struck for its new line of driverless vehicles.

It’s been just five years since Google announced it would begin manufacturing its own driverless cars, and just two-and-a-half years since those vehicles have hit the streets.

It's explicitly a "dispatch from the future."

Re:You do realize that was a fantasy article...

[arctother]

A dispatch from a sinister, dystopian future, you mean: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Google-Is-Building-A-Zombi-by-Anthony-Kalamar-Automobiles_Capitalism_Commodities_Consumerism-130902-903.html

Re:You do realize that was a fantasy article...

[gottabeme]

I'm not sure what you mean.

Re:Which Nation?

[flimflammer]

No distinction is necessary. Out of all of those "ambiguities", none of them are also states named California. Baja California is Baja Califonria. Not California. You can stop being a pedant now.

Really?

[Seumas]

Yay! We're being regulated!

That's a "boost"?

Re:Really?

[erice]

Yay! We're being regulated!

That's a "boost"?

Certainly. The state regulates them a limited fashion and prohibits municipalities from regulating them out business.

Re:Which Nation?

[Rockoon]

In case you haven't been paying attention the last 13 years..... the entire world is under the authority of the united states.

No, they don't

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because some government people got into bed with some business people and they came up with a mutually-beneficial system of corruption, that's no excuse for anybody else being forced to suffer; it's called crony capitalism and it's evil. The pols get money from their taxi company friends and in exchange they use the force of law and the powers of taxation to suppress any innovation and any competition... The rest of the human race was not in on the deal and ought not to be under any obligation to "play along".

The people of San Francisco should vote all the turkeys out... but they won't because the old sex and drugs and rock-and-roll game is more important to them than anything else; as long as the pols are "gay friendly", "pot-friendly", and hand out plenty of gimmes (like food stamps, housing assistance, free phones etc) the voters there will let them do anything they want no matter how foul.

Re:Which Nation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused. Are you referring to one of the municipalities on that page? Or to either "Baja California", the 29th Mexican state, or "Baja California Sur", the 31st Mexican state? Because the only STATE named "California" is the one in the USA. There's also Baja California, and Baja California Sur, but I imagine, if the article was referring to one of those, it wouldn't have truncated them to just "California", y'know, because it would cause confusion towards the one state called California. Unless there's another state called California that the Wikipedia article you mentioned doesn't know about.

A Few Rules

[jimbrooking]

The rules in the article are as follows:

"Regulators would require drivers to undergo criminal background checks, receive driver training, follow a zero-tolerance policy on drugs and alcohol and carry insurance policies with a minimum of $1 million in liability coverage."

That seems like some pretty heavy lifting that will probably dissuade lots of otherwise good-natured and willing drivers, no?

Re:A Few Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems like some pretty heavy lifting that will probably dissuade lots of otherwise good-natured and willing drivers, no?

Take the profit motive out of it, and it's no longer a business, and it all gets much simpler. When money starts changing hands, it's a business. Whether or not the business should be regulated is a different discussion.

If our drivers are still good-natured and willing to give people rides when there isn't any compensation, more power to them.

Re:A Few Rules

[fafalone]

Seems like every job these days conducts a criminal background check. But what that actually means varies widely. Some jobs will of course bar anyone with any felony whatsoever, but the proposed regulations are somewhat more reasonable:
"Any felony criminal conviction within seven years prior to the date of the background check for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, fraud, use of a motor vehicle to commit a felony, a violent crime or act of terror, a sexual offense, a crime involving property damage, and/or theft will make the applicant ineligible to be a TNC driver."

The "zero tolerance" policy on the other hand is much more onerous. Apparently they want to require the apps to have a feature to report suspected intoxication, and a single such report will trigger an automatic suspension until it's investigated further (implicitly until they complete a drug/alcohol test). While it may sound reasonable on the face of it, consider the potential for false reports based both on good intentions and worse, bad intentions ("that guy disagreed on [random political issue]! click, suspended!"). The training program isn't detailed, but that could certainly dissuade non-professionals if it requires actual online/offline classes.

Source: Full CPUC Proposed Rulemaking (via TechCrunch) (PDF) http://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/169457749?extension=pdf&from=embed&source=embed

Re:Which Nation?

[fast turtle]

Because California is its own Nation. Keep in mind we do have the worlds 5th largest GDP thanks to Intel and Silicon Valley

Oh?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Legally the difference is that taxi cabs can be hailed on the street."

What about hitchhiking?

Re:Oh?

[interkin3tic]

Seems to be illegal in most states. So it's the only way you can do it legally.

Re:Which Nation?

[PPH]

Thank goodness we've got this little tiff out of the way. And I thank my good fortune that I live, unambiguously, in Washington.

A useful low carbon society maneuver

[beachdog]

Ride sharing is an important social innovation for moving to a low carbon emission society.
The global warming benefit of ride sharing is when you raise the number of people riding in a conventional commuter automobile less CO2 is emitted per passenger mile. The financial aspect of ride sharing is substantial amounts of personal cash are released when cars are not driven.

I live in California and I have seen that free ride sharing services like 511.org mostly do not work. There are many reasons why these ride sharing services do not work. The Lyft business model addresses some of the social needs that must be met for ride sharing to work. The California State law echoes the Lyft safety requirements. The State law apparently formalizes some of the social and safety issues that ride sharing needs if it will be a major activity.

I have been studying and writing about the California public bus system for many years and I am absolutely delighted to see Ride Sharing beginning to get started.
http://lessco2essay.blogspot.com/

No Body Walks In LA

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes that is the title tag line of the '80s hit by Missing Persons.

So the by-line is IF Cal Gov is going to mine money then there must be a WAY.

Ah Ha!

CHPs!

Remember CHPs from the '70 TV!

Now, Cal Gov Jerry 'Moon Beam' Brown has invigorated CHPs to investigate the number of riders per car.

If the number is greater than 3, IT MUST BE A RIDE SHARE! and subject to taxation by the newly enacted law.

So CHPs will, if the number of 'riders' is greater than 2, will pull over the INFRINGING ASSAILANT and issue a ticket for a COURT APPEARANCE.

Cal Gov is banking that anyone who gets a Ride Share Ticket will ignore the court appearance, and then forfeit $1000 and the driver's license earns 3 demerits which with another demerit will require forfeiture.

Don't you Cal Residents Love Precious Gov Moon Beam.

BULLSHIT.

[jcr]

Imposing new regulations on these services isn't a "boost", it's the government trying to protect the cab companies (who pay shitloads of bribes to politicians) from new competition.

The customers of Uber, Lyft, and the rest were doing fine without this.

-jcr

This is not "Rideshare". It's wrong to say it is.

[eepok]

Rideshare is a federally recognized term that encompasses carpool, vanpool, train, bus, and even bike/walk transportation. The creator of Lyft (John Zimmer) knows this very well as he created a fairly-well-adopted ride-matching website called "Zimride".

Zimride doesn't make too much money, though, so he sold it to Enterprise (the car rental company who also is in the carshare and vanpool markets) and created Lyft. Along with other similar decentralized taxi services, he is trying to brand their business models as "rideshare" to equate them with more sustainable practices and receive subsequent leniency in various markets and even public funding.

If you want to see what genuine real-time rideshare is, check out Carma (formerly "Avego"). This is a carpool-facilitating program that makes sure that the driver doesn't make a profit off the shared ride (per State Department mileage reimbursement rates).

Re:Which Nation?

[Talderas]

I think he's refering to the asteroid.

Actually, in most of L.A. hailing a cab illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

For many years, it was actually illegal to hail a cab on the street within the city of Los Angeles. But starting around 2008 it is now legal to "hail" a cab in parts of downtown Los Angeles and in parts of the Hollywood area.

- Tom in Redondo Beach

"California Becomes First State To Regulate..."

[KIFulgore]

But of course they are.

Quality of Taxi service

[Anonymous Coward]

I do think there needs to be some regulation and accountability to be allowed to transport paying customers. But what clinches it for me is that the current level of service among taxis here in Los Angeles is so appalling, and the same is true for most other US cities I've visited. Taxis here are almost universally in poor condition and of questionable cleanliness. The drivers are often equally non-clean, with limited social skills and an even more limited knowledge of how to get where I want them to go (they'll find LAX, but that's about it). I'll admit that I haven't used the UberX service, which supposedly offers "casual" drivers in their personal vehicles so I guess quality could vary. But the other night I was going with some friends (5 total) to a birthday party at a local restaurant and we decided to use Uber for convenience and let us all have some wine with dinner. Both going there and back, within 8 minutes of hitting the app, an impeccably clean SUV with an equally clean driver in a jacket and tie showed up and took us where we needed at a price that admittedly was higher than the equivalent taxi ride but not really all that much. When divided among the 5 of us the ride was a total bargain. If the UberX (and equivalent from other providers) is anywhere near as good and reliable at a price that is even in the ballpark of bouncing around in the back of a filthy Crown Vic, I'm all for it. Taxi service in the US has become terrible under the protection of the medallion system, and they are sorely in the need of a shake-up, compared to taxis in countries like Sweden and Germany (where I spend considerable time) the US is like a third world country.

at least I'm not driving a 3-cylinder

[Anonymous Coward]

Chevy Nomad -- The Preeminent Stoner Party Wagon

Surely the Olds Vista Cruiser is preferable.


And, right tool for the job, and all that, yo.

Re:at least I'm not driving a 3-cylinder

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, I forgot about that one. You might be right.

Olds Vista Cruiser

Chevy Nomad

Utilities Commission

[Anonymous Coward]

"Utilities Commission"??

What do they have to do with ride sharing services?

my $0.02 is the lawyers will kill ride sharing

[OutOnARock]

Just wait until one of these ride share drivers is in an accident:

1. What, a for profit operation, why you have no insurance for that.

2. Passenger's neck hurts, lawyer sues driver, since insurance is not valid as it was for profit, which is forbidden in most personal insurance contacts.

3. Ride share driver loses everything he owns, wages are garnished for 10 years.

That is how this game will end......