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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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?