Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California Becomes First State In Nation To Regulate Ride-Sharing

Posted by samzenpus on from the take-a-ride dept.

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."

8 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. Why is it called ride sharing? by immaterial · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Why is it called ride sharing? by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Why is it called ride sharing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

  2. Re:The Third World was first by MrEricSir · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  3. Re:Taxi Medalion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "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.

  4. Re:Taxi Medalion by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.)

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  5. You do realize that was a fantasy article... by moosehooey · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  6. A Few Rules by jimbrooking · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?