If Ridesharing Is Banned, What About Ride-Trading?

Bennett Haselton writes "The city of Seattle just imposed new limits on commercial app-based ride-sharing companies like Uber and Lyft, effectively protecting taxi companies from low-cost competition in the form of smartphone apps. If other cities follow suit, could a company help ridesharers circumvent the restrictions by creating a ride-trading app, allowing drivers to earn 'miles' by driving passengers, and redeem those miles later to get rides for themselves?" Continue reading below to see what Bennett has to say.

The cab companies got Seattle to crack down on ridesharing companies by arguing that by letting drivers charge money for rides, they were essentially operating illegal unlicensed taxi services. So it's not hard to imagine other cities taking similar action on the same ambiguous legal grounds, as Los Angeles did in sending cease-and-desist notices to Uber, Lyft and Sidecar, ordering them to stop operating entirely.

I tried some of these services and actually never saw what the big deal was. Much of the time, they were almost as expensive as taxis, much too pricey to use on a regular basis, and I would never use them unless my own poor planning left me somewhere without my own car and desperate somewhere faster than public transit could take me. Perhaps cab companies were afraid of where the services were eventually headed -- especially towards a model where drivers could set their own prices. As far as I know, currently all ridesharing services set a minimum price per mile and don't let drivers set their rate any lower. But many drivers would probably be willing to drive at a price lower than what the app allows, and a set-your-own-price model probably really would put the cab companies out of business.

Perhaps some cities will take a more benign view of ridesharing in the long run, but as long as money is changing hands, (1) the city will certainly view it as within their rights to regulate the ridesharing industry, and (2) taxi companies will be able to argue, not unreasonably, that the companies are effectively running unlicensed taxi services. Of course the real solution would be for cities to stop limiting the supply of taxi medallions and artificially enriching cab companies at everyone else's expense (if the city's concern is with rider "safety", they could increase the number of taxi medallions while still requiring all drivers to take safety training). But that doesn't seem likely to happen any time soon. So instead, what if a company created an app that attempted to circumvent the legal restrictions, by allowing users to trade rides -- not for cash, but for returning the favor?

Here's how it could work: When you sign up as a new user, you have a "miles" balance of zero. (The very first users of the system would have to start out with a nonzero balance, so that there are some units in the system to trade, but everyone who joins after that starts at zero.) You have to earn miles by giving someone else a ride before you can redeem your miles by getting a ride yourself. So you log in as a driver, and some other user "hails" you through their smartphone app, much as riders hail drivers through Uber or Lyft. You pick up a passenger and give them a ride to their destination, and at the end of the journey, they transfer a number of "miles" to you indicating how far you drove them. You now have a positive miles balance, and you can "spend" it by hailing a ride yourself later on. Drivers and riders could leave ratings for each other just as they do on Uber and Lyft. What Couchsurfing is to Airbnb, this service would be to Uber.

Since no money is changing hands, the arrangements would presumably not be covered by existing taxi statutes. You could even make an argument that a city couldn't pass a law regulating these ride-trades even if they wanted to, because as voluntary arrangements between consenting parties, they're protected under our First Amendment right of freedom of association! Of course, libertarians believe all commercial transactions between consenting parties ought to be exempt from regulation as well, but most state and local governments take a dim view of that premise. However, take money out of the equation, and you're on much stronger ground that your ride-trading arrangements aren't covered by existing laws.

(It is of course silly and inconsistent that the law often forbids selling something for money, but allows trading it for something of "value", or permits it if the nature of the trade is not made explicitly clear. If a girl sleeps with you and you occasionally "lend" her money, she's a high-maintenance girlfriend, but if she ever does you the courtesy of spelling out the arrangement explicitly, she's a prostitute and can go to jail. But as long as the government makes those silly and arbitrary distinctions, we might as well use them when they count in our favor.)

Would ride-trading with strangers be safe? Well, when a rider pages a driver, the system could tell the rider the license plate of the car associated with that driver's profile, so unless the driver was in a stolen car, the system would always have a record of the license plate (and, hence, the owner) of any car that picked up a passenger. More generally, if I were a user in a system like this and someone told me it sounded unsafe, I would just say the same thing I always say about Couchsurfing (where I've hosted over 50 people with no bad experiences). Namely: "Look, have you or any of your friends ever gone home with someone you met at a bar? And that's fine, I'm not judging you, I'm just saying that was a hell of a lot more risky than meeting up with someone in a system where you can read other people's references." Besides, in many cities there's already thriving subculture of slugging -- picking up total strangers so you can use the carpool lane and they get a free ride.

I feel like I would be happy to have this ride-trading service available if I ever wanted a quick ride across town and didn't have my car. The only "cost" to me would be the cost of giving someone an equal-length ride at some other point in time when I wasn't in a hurry. (Or even giving someone a lift to a place that I was already going.) It's an efficient transaction because it lets me spend miles when my time is valuable, and then rack up the miles later on when I have some time to kill that's not as valuable. You can realize even more efficiencies by letting people pay "premium rates" for periods when demand is high (Friday and Saturday nights) or supply is low (early mornings when people need rides to the airport), so that the balance of miles that you pay for a ride may be greater than the actual number of miles traveled.

On the other hand, there's an inefficiency in that the system cannot serve the needs of people who want a ride, but whose time is too valuable to spend it driving in order to "earn" the miles to redeem for the ride. This is a limitation in any system that bans money as a means of trade and only lets you trade a service for a repayment-in-kind of the same service.

To environmentalists who would object that this promotes greater car usage: First of all, it might result in more impromptu car pooling over routes that were being inadequately served by buses, in which case the passengers were going to have to take cars anyway, so they might as well be piled into fewer of them. But in any case, I would actually take the bus more if a service like this existed. I live in Bellevue, about a 20-minute bus ride outside of Seattle, and I'd gladly take the bus in to Seattle if I was going to a specific destination close to the bus line, and knew I was coming right back afterwards. The problem is that once I'm in Seattle, if I want to get to some other arbitrary destination in Seattle, taking public transit is slow and annoying (and, you may have heard, often involves some waiting around in the rain). I drive my car in to Seattle not because I want to drive to the city, but in order to have a car while I'm there. If I could summon a ride in under two minutes to take me anywhere else in the city (with the only price being to return the favor to someone else later), I wouldn't need my car and could take the bus downtown.

So, even assuming a service like this would be useful, why would a company create it? We know how Airbnb and Uber make money, by skimming a cut off of each transaction. But how would a company make money just by connecting riders and drivers for complimentary rides through a free app? Well, Couchsurfing connects users for free stays in each other's houses, and they got venture capitalists to invest $22 million. The thinking seems to be that if even a free a service has enough users, it must be worth something.

The major obstacle to deploying the system, is that the system would require a critical mass of users in any given city, before it could become effective. If there aren't enough drivers active in the city, then hailing a ride would take so long that after factoring in the delay, you might as well have taken the bus. You'd need enough drivers active to be reasonably sure that in any given neighborhood, you can catch a ride quickly -- and for the drivers have to be out in force, they have to know that there's a critical mass of riders who are ready to offer some miles in their balance for rides. Services that require a critical mass of users in order to be successful, are notoriously hard to get off the ground. If the project had the feeling of a social movement behind it -- in the spirit of resource sharing, as well as environmental friendliness insofar as people like me would be more likely to start using the bus -- perhaps the founders could sign up a base of users over time, prior to actually launching the service. And then once the number of enrolled users was large enough, could launch the live service with a critical mass of users already in place. (Of course, if they tried that out here, this being Seattle, most of those enrolled users who said they would show up, would probably flake out.)

Comments

It Won't Work

[Talderas]

It won't work because it will be, successfully, argued that you're getting paid in miles rather than cash.

Re:It Won't Work

[K. S. Kyosuke]

That's a slippery slope right there. You could almost argue with it that you shouldn't be picking strangers as hitch-hikers because as soon as they pick *you* at some later time, an illegal business transaction is thereby concluded.

Re:It Won't Work

[khasim]

It won't work because it will be, successfully, argued that you're getting paid in miles rather than cash.

And there will need to be a central authority where you can redeem miles and register to participate. And at that point the government can set a value on each mile.

Just because YOU don't set a value on something does NOT mean the government CANNOT.

And no, sex-work is NOT the same as a girlfriend who borrows money from you.

Re:It Won't Work

[Lumpy]

It's only illegal because of the legitimized extortion racket that most cities have in place.

RE: It Won't Work

[Anonymous Coward]

It won't work because the city will just write a new law that makes it so that the transactions being described are regulated like a taxi.

The mistake here is that Seattle judges didn't come in and rule that Uber and other ridesharers were effectively taxis. No, the city government listened to the complaints of the taxi company and wrote some new laws that would regulate them. As long as the Taxi companies see the ridesharers as competition, who cares about dollars or miles, they will push the city to regulate.

It's not about interpretation of the laws or the business model. It's about whether you can keep the city from fighting your business model on behalf of your competition.

Re:It Won't Work

[SuperTechnoNerd]

I ran a computer consulting company for years. I used to sell 5 - 10 new custom built computers a month. Now it seems the small device market (phones and tablets) have destroyed that. Perhaps I can get the government to make phones and tablets illegal, so I can go back to building computers and making profit...

Re:It Won't Work

[delcielo]

Yes. We see this in aviation.

The law likely references "compensation" rather than money. Compensation may take many forms.

The laws regarding commercial flight operations plumb the depths of this type of situation. There was even a case where a pilot gave a potential business partner a ride from one of the Hawaiian islands to another without charging him (so he could catch an airline flight out). But, because it was assumed that the potential partner might factor that into his process and remunerate with a contract, it was considered to be for compensation.

That's an extreme example, but others abound of inadvertent compensation.

Re:It Won't Work

[bhcompy]

Benefits from working are taxable. If you are picking people up as a way to work, you're working and those miles are taxable at their dollar value. Carpooling to work and picking up hitchhikers isn't the same as doing what these apps are doing

Re:It Won't Work

[ackthpt]

I ran a computer consulting company for years. I used to sell 5 - 10 new custom built computers a month. Now it seems the small device market (phones and tablets) have destroyed that. Perhaps I can get the government to make phones and tablets illegal, so I can go back to building computers and making profit...

I read an article regarding the demise of the Trolley in Saginaw, Michigan, back in the early 20th century. Seems strangely relevant to this, though it was market forces, not the hand of government that tipped the scales.

Trolleys require fixed rails to travel on, which limits their routes. Independent bus companies sprung up, employing the tactic of pulling up by the trolley stop, before the trolley arrived and charging less than the trolley operators. The trolley operators, which had more operational costs and required considerable capital investment to lay and expand tracks, complained bitterly how this competition would drive them out of business - the courts sided with the bus operators, as they were operating within the law - nothing guaranteed the trolley company exclusivity. The trolley company close up, unable to compete.

Ironically, as the buses had effectively set up their routes to follow the trolley lines, they had their own inflexibility, which was exploited by Jitney operators - cabs which were smaller than buses and would take people to their door, rather than leaving them at a stop to walk the remainder of their trip home. The bus operators complained about this competition, but again, the jitney operators (forerunners of today's taxi cabs) were operating within the law. The bus companies couldn't compete and followed the trolley into oblivion.

So now we have the government staying the hand of public enterprise in favor of the taxi. That's pretty rich. I think it could be contested.

Re:It Won't Work

[rhazz]

Not to mention the whole idea is based on the silly assumption that a driver who give rides will use the service themselves to distribute their credit to other drivers. What is the use case where a person who give rides would need to use the service to get rides? I'm sure there are scenarios that fit but surely not enough to support this business model.

Re:It Won't Work

[davester666]

FTS: "If a girl sleeps with you and you occasionally "lend" her money, she's a high-maintenance girlfriend, but if she ever does you the courtesy of spelling out the arrangement explicitly, she's a prostitute and can go to jail."

Actually, at least here in Canada, they are working on changing the law so that the guy goes to jail for taking advantage of the poor helpless woman, while she gets counseling about how to transition to a new line of work.

Re:It Won't Work

[davester666]

Sssshhh. Microsoft might read this and actually make it happen.

Re:It Won't Work

[mysidia]

Now it seems the small device market (phones and tablets) have destroyed that.

OK... so instead sell 1 custom built computer a month at 5 to 10 times the price.

Re:It Won't Work

[Aighearach]

No. You're allowed to give your girlfriend money, and you don't have to pretend it is a loan.
Spelling out the arrangement does not make it illegal, even if she only "loves" you for your money and the lifestyle that being your girlfriend provides.
Prostitution is where a specific sex act is traded for money or other valuables. Being your girlfriend for money is legal, regardless of the sex involved.
The reality is that it actually gets really complicated to have that relationship in a legal way if it is really just about the sex and the money. How do you know how much money to give, how much sex to demand? Even at a crass, transactional level it requires a certain amount of trust, communication, patience, and time to work all that out; at which point it is perhaps a more normal relationship than you realize.

Re:It Won't Work

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, if a law is stopping a technological innovation from improving a common product or service, then you should seriously considering changing or revoking that law.

Re:It Won't Work

[ray-auch]

Yup. Fact that no money changes does not help you.

Your local tax collector just luuuuuves it when you barter or trade favours - because you almost certainly won't declare it properly as income (which they will decide it is, at some value they decide). That means that whenever they want you, they have something to hang you with.

Also, you are unlikely to avoid other regulations. My wife used to swap childcare with a friend - turns out that's illegal here in UK unless you are both registered childminders (plenty of hoops to jump through, and costs). It hit national news when they threatened to prosecute two policewomen who were swapping childcare.

Re:It Won't Work

[BitterOak]

That's a slippery slope right there. You could almost argue with it that you shouldn't be picking strangers as hitch-hikers because as soon as they pick *you* at some later time, an illegal business transaction is thereby concluded.

Actually, it is already illegal in many jurisdictions to hitchhike or pick up hitchhikers and has been for quite some time.

Re:It Won't Work

[ackthpt]

This was back when trolleys, buses, etc., were private. Now, the buses are usually publicly owned, and the bus owners own the bus stops as property, and can restrict who stops at them. (seattle Metro vs Community Transit, for example). Also, some cities have restricted some taxi businesses (STITA, at Sea-Tac airport, replaced all the private taxi cos. ), because of too much dickery by the taxis operating from there.

So cities are constraining certain businesses for a variety of semi-reasonable reasons. poor John Galts...

Further, once the public entity has a vested interest in driving out competition for fees, taxes or actual direct income, you can see this interference coming - unreasonable level of paper work just to form a vanpool or such.

Re:It Won't Work

[DerekLyons]

And either way, cash or "barter", the exchange is taxable.

Re:It Won't Work

[K. S. Kyosuke]

'Murica, land of the free! :D (I take it you're talking about the US?)

Re:It Won't Work

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Except that the apps don't do anything, people do.

Re:It Won't Work

[idji]

The difference is that a taxi driver paid 30,000€ or more for his taxi license, and you paid nothing for yours. That's why they have this protectionist racket, because they are protecting their "investments".

Re:It Won't Work

[Dcnjoe60]

I read an article regarding the demise of the Trolley in Saginaw, Michigan, back in the early 20th century. Seems strangely relevant to this, though it was market forces, not the hand of government that tipped the scales.

It wasn't market forces that did this, it was monopolistic forces. It is well documented that beginning the 1940s, GM started purchasing all of the trolley lines across America and shutting them down. They did this to push the purchase of buses and automobiles that they manufactured and the trolleys that were well established were seen as a major obstacle. It wasn't market force that did the trolley in, at least not market force driven by consumers.

Re:It Won't Work

[omnichad]

5 to 10 times the markup, not price. Unless you want to just stop making money at all.

Re:It Won't Work

[Entropius]

Does this nanny state have a nanny license, I wonder?

Re:It Won't Work

[mythosaz]

For this ride, I will pay you the lordly sum of $50';DROP TABLE payments

Re:It Won't Work

[Lumpy]

And to this day Michigan is a 3rd world country of public transportation because of the greedy asshole car companies. Ask anyone who lives in a Michigan city about how shitty the public transportation is. Thank Ford and GM for this.

Re:It Won't Work

[Lumpy]

The taxi driver did not pay squat. the taxi company did. The taxi driver barely makes minimum wage.

Re:It Won't Work

[westlake]

It wasn't market forces that did this, it was monopolistic forces.

It was the Model T Ford.

"You can afford a Ford."

Portal to portal service for a family of four plus dog and cargo. Cost about a penny a mile to operate including fuel, oil, maintenance and incidental expenses. Affordable, adaptable, customized endlessly.

You don't need a conspiracy drive the trolley line out of business, The electric starter and low pressure, puncture resistant, tires will do the job for you,

Most trolley companies were on the rocks before World War One.

There were 22 million cars on the roads as early as 1922.

Re:It Won't Work

[bhcompy]

The apps are a method of selling a service, just like eBay is a method of selling a good

Re:It Won't Work

[Dcnjoe60]

It wasn't market forces that did this, it was monopolistic forces.

It was the Model T Ford.

"You can afford a Ford."

Portal to portal service for a family of four plus dog and cargo. Cost about a penny a mile to operate including fuel, oil, maintenance and incidental expenses. Affordable, adaptable, customized endlessly.

You don't need a conspiracy drive the trolley line out of business, The electric starter and low pressure, puncture resistant, tires will do the job for you,

Most trolley companies were on the rocks before World War One.

There were 22 million cars on the roads as early as 1922.

If that were true, then why did GM waste $150B in today's money to purchase up all of those trolley lines?

Re:It Won't Work

[Slashdot Parent]

Actually, at least here in Canada, they are working on changing the law so that the guy goes to jail for taking advantage of the poor helpless woman, while she gets counseling about how to transition to a new line of work.

I thought prostitution was basically legal in Canada. A buddy of mine had some pretty crazy stories to tell, anyway.

Re:It Won't Work

[davester666]

The laws are still technically on the books, but nobody is bothering to enforce them because the Supreme Court in Canada ruled them unconstitutional a month or two ago, but gave the gov't a year to enact some new laws to replace them. The early hints are that the gov't is considering switching to arresting only the john's instead.

Free market

[DaMattster]

So much for free market economics and competition. I hate it when government goes to lengths like these as competition is good all around.

Re:Free market

[CanHasDIY]

So much for free market economics and competition.

Meh.

I've always believed the black market to be the only true "free" market, anyway.

Criminalizing booze and drugs never slowed down usage, all it did was eliminate the need to follow regulation, and kept/keeps the government from getting a cut of the action.

Re:Free market

[hawguy]

So much for free market economics and competition. I hate it when government goes to lengths like these as competition is good all around.

As long as the new services operate under the same constraints as taxi companies, I see no reason why they should't be allowed to operate since, as you say, that's a free market at work. But they shouldn't get to skip over all of the costs of business that taxi companies absorb -- things like driver background checks, driver training (in some cities), insurance requirements, car maintenance requirements, etc.

Re:Free market

[NatasRevol]

When was there free market economics & competition?

Re:Free market

[jythie]

The government is just another variable in competition. If companies can not survive political realities then they are not competitive in that market.

Re:Free market

[Grishnakh]

I disagree about some of this stuff.

Driver training should not be a requirement. If it isn't a requirement for normal drivers, who use the same roads as the cabs, then why are cab drivers required to get some kind of special training?

Car maintenance should not be a requirement. Normal drivers aren't required to follow any special maintenance schedule or get any inspections, so why should cabs? They operate on the same roads. (note: some states do require all cars to have regular inspections; in those states, cabs should be subject to the exact same requirement.)

Re:Free market

[beelsebob]

That's the key though – taxi services are required to be licensed (and with good reason), so these are not operating under the same constraints.

Re:Free market

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

All it will take is one incident, one incident of a ride-sharing assaulting or mugging one of their passengers or vice versa, and the whole operation will collapse overnight.

And rightly so. At least there is some quality control/accountability among licenced Taxi-Drivers.

Re:Free market

[Anonymous Coward]

But what if you have noisy neighbors that affect your property value? Then it's OK if the government/city/police intervenes? Because after all, it's a free market to buy a house elsewhere?

My point is that taxis often need a license that costs as much as a house, the guy isn't just making money driving people around, he's also hoping that he can sell his license at some point.

Re:Free market

[50000BTU_barbecue]

For little people, you better believe it's a competitive free market. Not so much for the big fish.

Re:Free market

[Lumpy]

"Driver training should not be a requirement. If it isn't a requirement for normal drivers,"

It should be, Most drivers are horribly under educated and under skilled. I would whole heartedly support anything making it a LOT more difficult for people to get and maintain a drivers license.

Re:Free market

[Anonymous Coward]

The scariest taxi ride I ever had was in the Seattle area, heading back to the Airport after the C++ conference. The taxicab was a Prius which was broken and dirty inside - you could see the airbag. The car's signal lights did not work. The driver was weaving in and out of traffic and just about killed a couple on a motorbike, causing a big road rage incident. The taxi driver was angry that we didn't tip him. If we had tipped him a normal amount, then the total cost of the trip would have been the same as the Uber ride that we took from the Airport to the same hotel.

As a consumer I want the choice to choose a safe, reliable, and trustable source. For me that is Uber.

--jeffk++

Re:Free market

[alen]

uber wasn't free market either
they were shown to have told drivers to stay home on high demand days so they could jack the prices and keep the profits for themselves

Re:Free market

[jythie]

Ahm, I am not sure how that relates to what I said. I was pointing out that this is a 'free market', with the government being another variable that companies must take into account, just like fuel prices and consumer demand.

The actual utility of various regulations is another topic entirely.

Re:Free market

[geekoid]

There is a reason taxi's are regulates heavily. The industry was rife with abuse. Random charging, taking long way around, dropping people off in the wrong place, extortion, and people had no avenue of recourse.

That is why there is regulation around taxi companies.
And taxi companies feel, rightful IMHO, that the regulation should apply to anyone ding the same job.

Re:Free market

[Anonymous Coward]

"Libertarians don't believe in the value of civilization."

Not true, what you speak of is Anarchy, and those who advocate it we call "anarchists".

That said there are all manner of kinds of "liberterians", some believe in more government than others.

Sorry to have to intrude on your fantasy life with facts.

Re:Free market

[interkin3tic]

It's even worse than that. Cities are so vicious about this because they make so much money off of selling the rights to drive people around.

They won't call it a tax, despite the fact that the city gets money and it comes from the citizens in the form of higher costs. Worse, it specifically targets people too poor to buy their own car or chauffeur.

Re:Free market

[geekoid]

"Criminalizing booze and drugs never slowed down usage"
wrong. Booze consumption drop to very lo rates, AND it did exactly what it set out to do, substantially reduce domestic violence.

Yeah, people love to portray the women who wanted prohibition as some sort of childless emotionaless hah when in reality is was women who were abused.

Re:Free market

[geekoid]

" Normal drivers aren't required to follow any special maintenance schedule or get any inspections,"
yes they are, it's not just held to the same rigor.

Re:Free market

[CastrTroy]

The problem is that you can't just fill out some forms, meet a bunch of requirements, pay a fee and become a licensed taxi service. In many places, the currently operating taxi companies are the only companies allowed to operate taxis. There's a government controlled monopoly. I'm all fine for everybody operating under the same rules, but government shouldn't make it impossible for a potential competitor to enter into the market.

Re:Free market

[CanHasDIY]

"Criminalizing booze and drugs never slowed down usage"
wrong. Booze consumption drop to very lo rates, AND it did exactly what it set out to do, substantially reduce domestic violence.

And I presume you have empirical data to back that claim, yes?

Data that takes into account the fact that when something is made illegal, many people who use it stop admitting to that fact, correct?

Or are we to take your word for it? Because I'm not very good at doing that.

Re:Free market

[Sarten-X]

Yes.

We find that alcohol consumption fell sharply at the beginning of Prohibition, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. During the next several years, however, alcohol consumption increased sharply, to about 60-70 percent of its pre-prohibition level. The level of consumption was virtually the same immediately after Prohibition as during the latter part of Prohibition, although consumption increased to approximately its pre-Prohibition level during the subsequent decade.

That record stands even when people aren't asked at all about their alcohol use. Rather, cirrhosis rates can be measured, and show a similar trend.

Re:Free market

[Pascoea]

I'm curious why the licenses are so expensive? Kind of a rhetorical question, the gov't is involved, that's why.

Re:Free market

[ShanghaiBill]

"Driver training should not be a requirement. If it isn't a requirement for normal drivers,"

It should be

No it shouldn't. Driver training used to be common. Many high schools had "Driver's Ed" courses. Then empirical evidence showed that this training had no effect at all on accident rates. We shouldn't continue to do something that clearly doesn't work, despite the fact that it "should" work.

Re:Free market

[50000BTU_barbecue]

Because the government ensures a limited supply! At least that's how it works in Montreal.

Re:Free market

[khallow]

As long as the new services operate under the same constraints as taxi companies,

If you're going to do that, then you need to study those constraints as well. I wouldn't mind regulations that mandate the sorts of things you mentioned. But past that, those constraints provide barriers to entry and hence, are anti-competitive.

Re:Free market

[statusbar]

(reposted as my account since i accidentally was AC)

The scariest taxi ride I ever had was in the Seattle area, heading back to the Airport after the C++ conference. The taxicab was a Prius which was broken and dirty inside - you could see the airbag. The car's signal lights did not work. The driver was weaving in and out of traffic and just about killed a couple on a motorbike, causing a big road rage incident. The taxi driver was angry that we didn't tip him. If we had tipped him a normal amount, then the total cost of the trip would have been the same as the Uber ride that we took from the Airport to the same hotel.

As a consumer I want the choice to choose a safe, reliable, and trustable source. For me that is Uber.

--jeffk++

Re:Free market

[JesseMcDonald]

I was pointing out that this is a 'free market', with the government being another variable that companies must take into account...

This should go without saying, but if you have to take third-party interference with the peaceful exercise of your property rights into account, then it isn't a free market. (The absence of such interference is exactly what the "free" part refers to.)

Re:Free market

[gorzek]

Yeah, looks like it basically only worked until a functioning black market was in place. When you have a black market capable of meeting 60-70% of the demand that was present when it was legal, I think your ban is a total failure.

Re:Free market

[OverlordQ]

Aahahahahhaha. Come to Dallas and tell me regulation has fixed any of that. Yellow Cab is the monopoly here and they're utter shit and they have the city on their payroll to keep companies like Uber out.

Re:Free market

[spire3661]

All government issued property like that should not be able to be sold to private parties. It should be illegal for him to sell his hack license, liquor license or whatever.

Re:Free market

[Grishnakh]

No, they aren't. It entirely depends on each state. Many states have no inspections whatsoever, and I've never heard of any state where they make sure you maintain your car. The most stringent is probably California, and some other states, where they check emissions (in CA, I think they even check them at checkpoints as people drive by); that doesn't check maintenance at all, but a poorly-maintained car engine will eventually fail emissions tests. Of course, this doesn't mean the suspension or brakes have been maintained correctly; someone could change their oil regularly and pass smog tests with flying colors, but still have unsafe brakes or something wrong with their suspension.

My whole point is that if these things are worthy things to hold cabs to, then regular drivers should be held to the same standard. There shouldn't be a double-standard, because cabs and private cars share the same roads. If poorly-maintained cars are such a problem that we need to regulate this in cabs, then we should be regulating it in everyone else's car too, because there's far more private cars on the road than there are cabs.

Same goes for driving tests, only it's worse, because most places in the US don't have any serious driving test at all. My driving test consisted of three right turns.

Re:Free market

[jklovanc]

The license for the taxi is different than the license for the driver and exist for different reasons. The taxi license is there to regulate the number and quality of the vehicles. The driver's license is there to regulate the qualifications of the driver. Notice that one driver can drive many different cabs depending on shift and vehicle availability. I was a fill in driver and sometimes had a different car each day.

What's next: allowing PhD to sell their diplomas once they retire?

It is more similar to the owner of a bar being able to sell his liquor license when he retires. The taxi license is attached to the car not the driver.

Re:Free market

[Grishnakh]

Yeah, I think cab drivers should have tougher licensing requirements, and lose their licenses more easily.

I disagree. Why should private drivers be able to run red lights and make dangerous turns with impunity? Driving is the same, whether you're driving yourself, a guest, your whole family, or a paying customer. The standards should not be different for anyone. If running red lights is dangerous, then all drivers should be punished for it, not just cab drivers.

My whole point is that, as a nation, we do an absolutely terrible job of making sure our drivers are trained properly and actually follow the rules. Driver training is usually either non-existent or a total joke, as is driver testing. There are enforcement efforts, but they're almost solely geared towards revenue generation, usually with speeding tickets, and in some places automated red light tickets, but with the yellow-light duration shortened dangerously to increase the number of tickets (and also accidents). So why have increased standards for cab drivers? Why not have increased standards for everyone? This isn't like tractor-trailer driving, or 777 piloting versus Cesna piloting, where the commercial pilot/driver is operating a far larger and far more complex vehicle; cab drivers drive the same cars the rest of us do. They don't even have manual transmissions like some car drivers (and all tractor-trailer drivers) do, which require a lot more skill to operate.

Re:Free market

[CanHasDIY]

Yes.

We find that alcohol consumption fell sharply at the beginning of Prohibition, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. During the next several years, however, alcohol consumption increased sharply, to about 60-70 percent of its pre-prohibition level. The level of consumption was virtually the same immediately after Prohibition as during the latter part of Prohibition, although consumption increased to approximately its pre-Prohibition level during the subsequent decade.

That record stands even when people aren't asked at all about their alcohol use. Rather, cirrhosis rates can be measured, and show a similar trend.

All that tells me is that the initial smash-up of bars and liquor distributors was temporarily successful at eliminating the immediate supply, but completely ineffective at lowering the actual consumption rate after supply chains were re-established.

Also, it tells me nothing about geekoid's claim that Prohibition "substantially reduce[d] domestic violence."

Re:Free market

[hawguy]

No, they aren't. It entirely depends on each state. Many states have no inspections whatsoever, and I've never heard of any state where they make sure you maintain your car. The most stringent is probably California, and some other states, where they check emissions (in CA, I think they even check them at checkpoints as people drive by); that doesn't check maintenance at all, but a poorly-maintained car engine will eventually fail emissions tests. Of course, this doesn't mean the suspension or brakes have been maintained correctly; someone could change their oil regularly and pass smog tests with flying colors, but still have unsafe brakes or something wrong with their suspension.

Just because the state doesn't inspect your vehicle to ensure that it's safe doesn't mean that the owner is not responsible for doing so:

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vc...

V C Section 24002 Vehicle Not Equipped or Unsafe

Vehicle Not Equipped or Unsafe

24002. (a) It is unlawful to operate any vehicle or combination of vehicles which is in an unsafe condition, or which is not safely loaded, and which presents an immediate safety hazard.

Re:Free market

[Grishnakh]

A law which is never, ever enforced might as well not exist.

In addition, selective enforcement is morally wrong. Cab companies shouldn't have this law enforced for them without it also being enforced for all other cars.

Re:Free market

[sociocapitalist]

So much for free market economics and competition. I hate it when government goes to lengths like these as competition is good all around.

As long as the new services operate under the same constraints as taxi companies, I see no reason why they should't be allowed to operate since, as you say, that's a free market at work. But they shouldn't get to skip over all of the costs of business that taxi companies absorb -- things like driver background checks, driver training (in some cities), insurance requirements, car maintenance requirements, etc.

Why not?

At the end it's for the customer to decide if they want to take a risk on a rideshare (based on previous feedback perhaps).

No doubt the people making the rules are getting a kickback in some form or another from the existing businesses. Fuck 'em. Vote 'em out.

Re:Free market

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The reasons you list are meme cover stories -- some valid, some not.

None of it has anything to do with limiting the number of taxi drivers instead of letting them compete.

In a free country, no, you don't, in fact, get to use government to carve up my access to product and limit it to whoever has the ear of a politician.

Re:Free market

[lonOtter]

But what if you have noisy neighbors that affect your property value? Then it's OK if the government/city/police intervenes?

No.

Re:Free market

[PPH]

The problem is that 'competition' in the taxi business used to involve more than a few bodies floating in New York's East River. Government stepped in to replace organized crime and violence with an (imperfect) system of regulation. But try to step outside that sphere of regulation and you'll be right back in that free market. Sure, you aren't taking money for rides. But that was a ride which might have paid the standard cab fare. And if the licensed cab businesses lose enough of that, its back to concrete overshoes.

Sorry. Puget Sound is polluted enough already.

Re:Free market

[PPH]

I was under the impression that the quantity of cab medallions in NTC was pretty much fixed. And once the city sold them, the only people making money* off them were the people who held and traded them.

The medallion business was a replacement for the free market solution to limiting the number of cab companies in the city. Which involved Thompson machine guns.

*Aside from recurring fees.

Re:Free market

[bennetthaselton]

I understand the argument for applying these regulations to regular taxis, but, a couple of things:
1) As, um, "Impy the Impiuos Imp" pointed out, you can maintain training and safety standards while still *increasing* the number of taxis to drive prices down.
2) In Uber-style systems, the "payment" at the end is technically voluntary. But the rider and the driver leave reviews for each other, so if the rider stiffs drivers too many times, they'll keep getting bad reviews until eventually nobody will pick them up. (And if a driver takes people the long way around too many times, they'll get so many bad reviews that nobody will ride with them.) Since all passengers will have GPS-enabled smartphones anyway, it will be much easier to detect if your driver is trying to take you the long way around or drop you off in the wrong place.
3) In my ride-trading system specifically, there will be greatly reduced incentive to rip people off anyway, since all you would get would be extra miles, not actual cash.

Re:Free market

[Camel Pilot]

Already happened.

http://www.businessinsider.com...

However it happens with Taxi drivers also.

http://www.wcax.com/story/2457...

Sorry no complete security in any system. However with Uber the driver that shows up has a reputation one can review... with a taxi company you have no control over that. I would prefer Uber. IMHO.

Re:Free market

[Camel Pilot]

There is a reason taxi's are regulates heavily. The industry was rife with abuse. Random charging, taking long way around

These problems are eliminated in the Uber model. There is no exchange of cash, no opportunity to randomly charge and the fare is fixed so no incentive to "take the long way around".

dropping people off in the wrong place, extortion, and people had no avenue of recourse.

A uber driver does this once and no more customers.

Re:Free market

[Obfuscant]

At the end it's for the customer to decide if they want to take a risk on a rideshare (based on previous feedback perhaps).

Someone you've never met pulls up in a car you've never seen before and you're supposed to be able to make an informed decision on whether the risk is acceptable based solely upon unverified online "feedback"?

With the existing laws on taxis (and other forms of commercial transport) there is at least some reason to believe that the driver actually is licensed and the car is maintained to some standard. It's not perfect, but is has been decided that these regulations are an acceptable replacement for personal knowledge sufficient to allow informed consent.

Re:Free market

[omnichad]

Is your Google broken?

Re:Free market

[Entropius]

Why limit the supply? What goes wrong if there are too many taxis?

Re:Free market

[ShanghaiBill]

As usual You're Doing It Wrong(TM). Drivers who cannot pass the training are not allowed to drive.

Nope. The probability of being in an accident was UNRELATED to the written score in the class. For the "practical skills" part of the score, the probability of being in an accident was NEGATIVELY correlated (males tend to be more skillful drivers, but are MORE likely to have accidents).

You are making two unwarranted assumptions:
1. Less "knowledgeable" drivers are more likely to be in accidents.
2. Less "skilled" drivers are more likely to be in accidents.
There is no evidence to support either of these assumptions.

Re:Free market

[Draknor]

While I agree with your general sentiment, you are missing two key points:
1. While "me driving to work" and "me driving someone else to work for compensation" are the same physical actions, they have very different intents and motives, so they are NOT the same. As another posted wrote (and I have friends who confirm) - as a private pilot you CANNOT take passengers on flights for compensation, even if you are flying the same aircraft you normally fly alone (or with non-paying passengers).

2. The risks to a passenger vs another driver are very different. If I'm a passenger in an ill-maintained vehicle, I have no control over my situation. If the axle breaks then I have to suffer whatever consequences happen. But if I'm a different driver on the road - I have options in terms of what I can do with my vehicle, when the other vehicle's axle breaks - I can slam on the brakes, swerve around, etc. As a driver, I might be able to avoid the dangerous situation, or I might make the dangerous situations worse -- but being in control of a vehicle I have options that the passenger does not.

So yes, I think it is legitimate for cab / taxi services to be held to a higher standard than regular drivers.

That said, I agree we have too many terrible drivers on American roads (I'm assuming you are American), and I would not be opposed to elevating the standards for everyone! But that is orthogonal to if cabs / taxis should be held to a higher standard than regular drivers - I would support both.

Re:Free market

[thesupraman]

You do realise the 'driver training' is something promoted by the Taxi companies and used to exclude new entrants, right?

IMHO the main thing that needs to be changes is these should not be allowed to be presented as ride sharing, they are just minicab services.
Go look at London for the model, it isnt exactly new.

Re:Free market

[Grishnakh]

While "me driving to work" and "me driving someone else to work for compensation" are the same physical actions, they have very different intents and motives, so they are NOT the same.

But they happen on the very same roads, in the very same cars.

As another posted wrote (and I have friends who confirm) - as a private pilot you CANNOT take passengers on flights for compensation, even if you are flying the same aircraft you normally fly alone (or with non-paying passengers).

While technically true perhaps, in reality it isn't unless you're talking about John Travolta. Private pilots fly very small (and comparatively inexpensive) aircraft, like 50-year-old Cessnas, which can't hold more than 4 people (and if you think commercial airline seats are small and uncomfortable, they're positively luxurious compared to the back seats on a Cessna 172). Commercial airlines fly very large and complex modern airplanes such as the Boeing 7[3-8]7 series, with hundreds of passengers. It simply isn't possible, in practice, for a private pilot to have the lives of hundreds of people in his hands.

However, even here there's a big difference. Even the lowly private pilots still have to endure fairly rigorous training and testing, which is quite expensive. The bare minimum for a private pilot is 40 hours of flight time, which costs quite a lot between aircraft rental and instructor pay. Not just any moron can become a private pilot: you have to be able to afford training, and you have to be capable of passing independent FAA examination. And that's just so you can fly some crappy little plane with 4 (very tiny) seats around, because not only can you kill yourself and up to 3 people, you could kill someone on the ground too. Not so with cars. Any complete idiot is allowed to get behind the wheel of any car (without any training at all for that particular model) and drive it anywhere they want to go, with zero real training and zero real testing to show they know how the car works, how to operate it, or how to deal with other drivers on the roads, or if they can even understand the road signs (you don't have to be able to read English to drive, even though the signs are all in English).

As for your point #2, I don't see how it's any different if I hop in my friend's or neighbor's or relative's car as a passenger. I don't actually know that they've been maintaining their car properly. Also, it's pretty unusual for cabs to have more than 2 passengers, and frequently just 1. This isn't like planes at all. There aren't any cabs with 100+ passengers in them. There are buses, but bus drivers have their own special license (just like truck drivers do), and they do have to get special training and testing in order to be a bus driver, which makes sense because they're very large vehicles (just like 777s), holding lots of people (usually several dozen), so that driver has many more lives in his hands, plus his vehicle can do far more damage than a 3000lb car.

So my whole point here is: if we're not going to bother having ANY standards on the roads at all, for our drivers or our cars, then why should cabs?

Re:Free market

[rahvin112]

The short term decline can actually be tied to the start up time and costs of organized crime. It took years for the mobsters to build connections with Irish and Canadian brewers and distillers (B&D). Before they could even start building connections they had to buy through normal retail channels and build the distribution and smuggling networks to acquire the cash flow necessary to recruit the B&D into direct sales.

So for the first part of prohibition while the networks were being built there was a drop of in availability in rural or middle America (equidistant from the Mexican and Canadian border). This drop resulted in reduced consumption up until the black market and organized crime backing it became strong enough to put the supply in consumers hands whereby consumption bounced back to pre-prohibition levels.

Black markets don't spring into existence overnight. The Mexican cartels through much of the 80's were just smugglers for Colombian cartels and third rate pot growers. Within about a decade they had built themselves up to rival their Colombian suppliers and begin to control the US market directly and moved to more lucrative products like Meth that they could produce themselves along with heavily expanded cannabis cultivation. Now is in the 10's they are a direct threat to the Mexican government because of the power they've accumulated building their network.

Prohibition doesn't work.

Re:Free market

[gnupun]

Yes. The internet (automation) will help replace the taxi cab phone operators who assign taxis to customers. Instead of humans, the taxi driver will receive his instructions from a smartphone app.

So cab companies and their phone operators will probably become obsolete as they cannot compete price-wise with a computer server that will do their job for 1/1000th of their cost. The taxi drivers are not obsolete (yet). But they might get a new boss soon. This is very likely to happen just as large grocery stores like Wal-mart, Safeway etc. replaced the mom-n-pop stores.

Re:Free market

[Lumpy]

As seen by the fact that there are the same number of accidents in Germany as in Countries like Korea? Please share your empirical evidence , because cursory evidence found by a simple search online shows otherwise. Countries with a hard to get drivers license has far fewer accidents than anyone can drive countries like most of asia.

Re:Free market

[mjwx]

"Driver training should not be a requirement. If it isn't a requirement for normal drivers,"

It should be

No it shouldn't. Driver training used to be common. Many high schools had "Driver's Ed" courses. Then empirical evidence showed that this training had no effect at all on accident rates. We shouldn't continue to do something that clearly doesn't work, despite the fact that it "should" work.

You need to drive in Europe where they take driver training seriously.

Drivers in the US are horrible because driver training in the US is pitiful. A "Drivers Ed" course in high school is not sufficient, your tests need to be improved and a proper training regiment put in place. Beyond this you need enforcement that actually works.

I'm serious, I thought Australian drivers were bad but then I drove in the US and discovered just what bad drivers are like. I saw 3 people indicate the entire time I was there. No one checked their mirrors, let alone blind spots when changing lanes. If you cant master simple things like looking and signalling, you completely fail at driving. Things like looking and signalling need to be drilled into learner drivers so they are instinctual long before even sitting the test. I hardly ever forget to indicate because I don't need to remember to indicate, it's subconscious and has been since a month after I started learning. I was taught defensive driving from the word go, all drivers need to be trained and tested in defensive driving and it does have an effect on accident and more importantly, fatality rates.

Feel free to look up the accident rates in the UK and Germany (where they drive faster on the highways) compared to the US. Then look at what is involved in getting your license in the UK and Germany... and what's involved in keeping it. Doing 30 over in Germany is an instant 1 month suspension... If that's not enough, look up Finland.

Re:Free market

[gmhowell]

Also, it tells me nothing about geekoid's claim that Prohibition "substantially reduce[d] domestic violence."

Hell, he probably believes '1 in 4 women in college are raped' as well.

Re:Free market

[magarity]

As long as the new services operate under the same constraints as taxi companies, I see no reason why they should't be allowed to operate since, as you say, that's a free market at work. But they shouldn't get to skip over all of the costs of business that taxi companies absorb -- things like driver background checks, driver training (in some cities), insurance requirements, car maintenance requirements, etc.

Because there's a special fee on top of all that just for a taxi license that's usually in the tens of thousands of $$ and all it does it keep out competition. If insurance, maintenance, background check and some small fee anyone with a car in the first place could pay to become a taxi under one of these apps then that would be great; instead the purpose of the taxi license is to prevent competition.

Re:Free market

[Brianwa]

The constraints on taxis in Seattle are garbage. New taxis must be hybrids. Older ones are an impressively ancient fleet of ex-police crown vics converted to run on propane. They're a fucking minority on the street, they could all be 60's muscle cars tuned so rich they can barely turn over and there wouldn't be a measurable difference in air quality in the city. The number of taxi licenses is barely enough to sorta kinda cover an average Saturday night. If there's a big event of any kind (and there's plenty of those), you'll be left waiting in the cold without a ride. If there's a hint of snow on the ground, you'll be left waiting in the cold without a ride. Most of the taxi services operate outside of the rules anyway -- for example, the big "for hire" service that pretends like you have to call in for a ride ahead of time so they're not technically a taxi service but will always pick you up on the street anyway. On the rare occasion they post a picture of the licensed driver, it only sometimes matches the driver you get. They all refuse to take the cheapest route unless you direct them at every turn (and the "for hire" service will quote you a price double their own farebook unless you negotiate in advance).

I regularly have a better taxi experience even as a white guy in 3rd world countries. If the city tried even a tiny bit to use regulation on taxis to help the city, I would stand behind them 100%. As it is, I don't consider the taxi laws in Seattle reasonable or valid until they're put to a legitimate vote by the people.

Re:Free market

[jklovanc]

Taxis are limited almost everywhere so that drivers can make a living wage and continue to provide the service. Ride share is the worst case. You get part time drivers working only the good time for extra money. They take the gravy times and don't work during the low times. I used to drive cab 5 days a week and I made over 60% of my week's pay on Friday and Saturday night. If there are too many cars on those nights my weekly take would have been cut in half. I would have probably made under $8/hr. I could not afford to drive. This would eventually drive most full time drivers out of business and it would be very hard to get a cab during low times.

To go further into the extra money thing, part time drivers usually have other jobs that pay the bills and any money they make driving is mad money. They don't care if they make $20 in a couple of hours because they don't need the money. That $20 could mean the difference between meeting rent or not for a full time driver.

Re:Free market

[bingoUV]

While I agree this requirement should be common between cab cars and personal use cars, it is not a case of selective enforcement. In a way, it is a change of burden of proof, though not exactly that either.

E.g. theft is illegal, but everyone is not asked to get their homes inspected for stolen goods. When there is a suspicion, police gets a warrant and searches or investigate in other ways.

Car maintenance is probably less serious than theft, but similar distinction exists there too. Cab companies have to prove proactively, others can only be prosecuted if ill-maintenance is suspected , complained about, or investigation of an accident reveals prior ill-maintenance of the vehicle.

Re:Free market

[Lumpy]

It is because we give out licenses like candy and never ever re-test people. Plus it is very hard to lose your drivers license, you can KILL people with your car and keep your license.

Re:Free market

[Slashdot Parent]

I don't think Uber was overcharging, extorting, taking the long way around, etc. My guess is that they were more than complying with the spirit of the regulations.

No, this is protectionism, plain and simple. It's no different than when states are telling Tesla that they can't sell cars unless they go through a dealer network.

Re:Free market

[Obfuscant]

While technically true perhaps, in reality it isn't unless you're talking about John Travolta.

It isn't just technically true, and it applies to more people than just John Travolta. (Why you use him as an example is a mystery.) It is true to the extent that if you are flying someone in a rental aircraft you cannot let them pay for the whole rental. That is considered to be "compensation" because you get to log the PIC time and can credit time towards currency requirements. THAT's how serious the "no compensation" part of the FAA regs are.

Private pilots fly very small (and comparatively inexpensive) aircraft, like 50-year-old Cessnas, which can't hold more than 4 people

Private pilots also fly multi-engine aircraft that were built in the last five years. If I wanted to, and had the money, I could drop a few million (at least 5.25 according to this, and 9-11 pax) on a King Air and fly it as a private pilot. The private pilot's license does not limit the pilot to "50-year-old Cessnas", and making that kind of statement shows you are ignorant of the reality of general aviation. The fact that you seem to think that "commercial" flight is limited to "commercial airlines" is also a clear sign of ignorance. Those 50-year-old Cessnas find service hauling passengers around for pay, too, even if there is a limited number of seats. One of my very first flights was on a Cessna (I think it was a 172) as a passenger going from Kansas City to Manhattan Kansas. The local FBO will fly people anywhere they want to go in the 172 they operate.

It simply isn't possible, in practice, for a private pilot to have the lives of hundreds of people in his hands.

"Number of passengers" has nothing to do with the difference between "private pilot" and "commercial pilot", and it is just as rare for a commercial pilot to have hundreds of passengers, too. By the time you get hired to fly the big iron you need to be an ATP -- one step above commercial. As a private pilot I can fly 14 of my dearest friends around in a Cessna Caravan (the beautiful aircraft that FedEx uses for cargo), but I couldn't charge any of them, nor can I charge any of the one passengers I could ferry around in a Skycatcher. No, the differentiation between needing a "private" versus "commercial" is not the number of passengers allowed, it is the paid vs. non-paid status.

As for your point #2, I don't see how it's any different if I hop in my friend's or neighbor's or relative's car as a passenger. I don't actually know that they've been maintaining their car properly.

You know them, and that will give you some indication of whether they are casual or rigorous about their standards of maintenance. You also know where they live, so if something bad happens they will be relatively easy to track down and they won't likely flee the area.

Also, it's pretty unusual for cabs to have more than 2 passengers,

So? Killing just 2 in a poorly maintained car is ok, three is not?

This isn't like planes at all.

The point of an analogy is not to show a congruence between two things, it is to highlight the similarities. Commercial aviation is similar to commercial ground transport because of the lack of ability to know the risks. The fact that the ground transport rarely gets above 0 AGL and aviation almost always does is irrelevant, as is the alleged number of passengers (which as I've already said, has nothing to do with the differentiation between "private" and "commercial" pilots.) I know of no limitation on number of passengers in Part 91 of the FAR, and I expect there is only an indirect limitation on a private pilot flying a 747 in that it would be hard to get the type rating for, or find someone who would rent one out for

Re:Free market

[Obfuscant]

I have yet to see someones personal car in as bad a condition as the yellow cabs I took in texas

Proving the point. Imagine how bad those cabs would be were there no regulations covering them.

And I've seen personal cars in much worse condition than any cab I've ridden in. I drove two such for several years. In one, the driver's door would not open from the inside (in addition to all the other "deferred maintenance" issues.) The other one reached the point where it wouldn't immediately go into reverse (rev the engine a bit and it would finally clunk into gear), and you could see the ground from inside the trunk. Oh, I had a third one where the front CV boots were gone and the joints were thunking as I drove, and it shook enough at 55 that I didn't have to look at the speedometer to know how fast I was going. That was the one with the muffler/exhaust system held on by aluminum wire, until one day I backed out of a parking spot and I heard the most horrendous scraping noise.

Re:Free market

[Grishnakh]

It isn't just technically true, and it applies to more people than just John Travolta.

Travolta owns a 707 passenger jet. There aren't many private pilots with aircraft this large.

Private pilots also fly multi-engine aircraft that were built in the last five years. If I wanted to, and had the money, I could drop a few million (at least 5.25 according to this [wikipedia.org], and 9-11 pax) on a King Air and fly it as a private pilot.

How many pilots do you know with that kind of cash? And even here, the King Air can probably only hold about a dozen people, not hundreds.

More to the point, how many private pilots own aircraft the size of the 737? Zero?

The private pilot's license does not limit the pilot to "50-year-old Cessnas", and making that kind of statement shows you are ignorant of the reality of general aviation.

If you think the majority of private pilots are flying King Airs, or anything made in the past 5 or 10 years, then you're a complete moron.

The fact that you seem to think that "commercial" flight is limited to "commercial airlines" is also a clear sign of ignorance.

I never said any such thing.

You know them, and that will give you some indication of whether they are casual or rigorous about their standards of maintenance.

I'm sorry, I don't spy on my neighbors and relatives enough to know how they maintain their cars. If you do, then you have some serious issues.

The number of passengers, contrary to what you write, is a huge point. There's a reason bus drivers have totally different licenses and testing/training than cab drivers.

Were there no standards at all, then your point would have some merit.

There ARE no standards at all in most states. If you disagree, then you are woefully ignorant.

Re:Free market

[Obfuscant]

Travolta owns a 707 passenger jet. There aren't many private pilots with aircraft this large.

So you do actually know that private pilots can and do fly "large iron", and your presumed limitation to "50-year-old Cessnas" and 4 seats was fictional.

I'm sorry, I don't spy on my neighbors and relatives enough to know how they maintain their cars.

And I said no such thing. I said you have "some indication". You are probably going to know if Uncle Bob has gotten his fourth DUI and his license is suspended, and even if you don't you'll probably know that Uncle Bob is a lush who is lax in following the law. You have NO such clue about that taxi or "ride-share" driver who just pulled up. If Uncle Bob gets into a wreck with you in the car, you're probably going to know where to find him when you sue for damages, and even if he moves, someone in the family will probably know. That cabbie -- you don't know where he lives, and you may not even know his name. (The one time I was in a cab wreck -- he ran a yellow and got t-boned -- I have no idea who the cabbie was or what company.)

In any case, Uncle Bob isn't giving you a ride to make money so he's got no incentive to give you a ride despite mechanical troubles with the car, where that taxi driver has a boss who likely will tell him to keep driving and his hack will be fixed next week, maybe, if there is a problem.

If you think the majority of private pilots are flying King Airs, or anything made in the past 5 or 10 years, then you're a complete moron.

And I said no such thing yet again. It doesn't matter what the majority of private pilots fly, it has to do with what ALL of them are AUTHORIZED to fly. Yes, I need to have a multi-engine license to fly a multi-engine aircraft, but just a logbook signoff for complex and high-performance. And I'm still just a private pilot after getting all of that. I still can't charge anyone for my pilot services, even just one.

The number of passengers, contrary to what you write, is a huge point.

You are simply wrong. There is nothing in the FAR for private pilots that limits the number of passengers. Nothing. John Travolta doesn't have to say "I can only fly four of you" because there is some "four passenger limit" on his license. The differentiation between "private" and "commercial" is pretty clear from the name -- "commercial" is done "for compensation", and it has nothing to do with how many people are involved. A pilot who charges just one person for a ride needs to be operating under a commercial license.

There ARE no standards at all in most states. If you disagree, then you are woefully ignorant.

I know of no state that issues driver's licenses without any kind of test, nor do I know of any state that does not have some standards as to mechanical function of licenseable vehicles. My state does not have mandatory inspections (although the Portland/Metro area does), but it does require testing to get a license in the first place. While it doesn't require much for a renewal, that is a FAR cry from "no standards".

Re:Free market

[Grishnakh]

I know of no state that issues driver's licenses without any kind of test,

My driving test consisted of three right turns. Lots of other states are just as lax. That's not a test. That's a joke. That does equate to "no standards".

And, there could be a notice:

[John.Banister]

All Donations Are
For Time And
Companionship Only
Anything Else That
May Occur Is
Between Two
Consenting Adults

I may have an idea for a new "ride sharing" app.

Re:And, there could be a notice:

[Anonymous Coward]

All Donations Are

For Time And

Companionship Only

Anything Else That

May Occur Is

Between Two

Consenting Adults

I may have an idea for a new "ride sharing" app.

Your idea was stolen by a 1970s bumper sticker that read, amusingly "
Gas
Grass
or Ass
No One Rides
For Free"

Re:And, there could be a notice:

[NatasRevol]

And still applies.

Re:And, there could be a notice:

[ArcadeMan]

Today's version would probably look like:
BitCoin
LiteCoin
DogeCoin
or Pot(Coin)
Everybody rides for a fee

Re:And, there could be a notice:

[Lumpy]

4:20coin will be the next version.
Honestly, why dont people just call this crap what it really is, A way to pay for drugs online.

Re:And, there could be a notice:

[ArcadeMan]

I don't get the "4:20" part.

Re:And, there could be a notice:

[Kurast]

All Donations Are

For Time And

Companionship Only

Anything Else That

May Occur Is

Between Two

Consenting Adults

Burma-Shave

Re:And, there could be a notice:

[BitZtream]

If only there were some place you could find out what its meaning it was ...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=4%3A20

Re:And, there could be a notice:

[Nethead]

But Washington State has laws on who can sell weed and what the tax is.

Re:And, there could be a notice:

[seffala]

Irony incarnate.

"People are idiots and have no knowledge of things outside their little spheres of interest and no desire to learn. - AC"

Re:And, there could be a notice:

[ArcadeMan]

"4:20" sounded like a bible reference or something, and I didn't feel like reading whole paragraphs of make-believe stories that are supposed to reference something or other.

And my quote applies to everybody, including me.

It's a barter transaction

[hawguy]

Why does the author think that the government doesn't (or even can't) recognize that a barter transaction is still a transaction?

The IRS says that barter transactions are taxable:

http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/t...

Bartering occurs when you exchange goods or services without exchanging money. An example of bartering is a plumber exchanging plumbing services for the dental services of a dentist. You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering.

I don't see why Seattle couldn't also recognize that the a ride-share barter service is still a taxi service.

Re:It's a barter transaction

[LehiNephi]

Good point. There's also the issue of "how do I get credits in the first place?" or, "I don't own a car but still want to participate!" The obvious way would be for people to buy "miles", but that makes it even easier for the city governments to argue that it's still the same service.

Re:It's a barter transaction

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does the author think that the government doesn't (or even can't) recognize that a barter transaction is still a transaction?

Because the "author" is Bennie Hasslehoff, /.'s village idiot.

Re:It's a barter transaction

[jythie]

Eh, a lot of people take a very literal pedantic view of the law and regulation and believe they find loopholes through some narrow usage of various words. Kinda like how the sovereign citizens claim to not be subject to US law via some very selective and literal interpretations of various documents while completely ignoring the legal reality.

Re:It's a barter transaction

[qwijibo]

Anything the brings it down to buying something makes all of it look like commercial transactions. Instead of trying to fit into a loophole, it would be better if it fell under a different classification entirely.

Instead of miles, what if it were karma points and managed by a registered 501C3 religious institution? One person could contribute to society by driving for others, another can donate time to charity, etc. Each person gets and gives intangible religious benefit from the arrangement.

Would you have a problem giving a ride to someone and getting nothing in return, knowing that they are helping others too, such as:
Charity workers (e.g., soup kitchen)
Boy/Girl scout leaders/helpers
Volunteer for kids weekend sports

I carpool to work frequently. A coworker gave me rides to work for a couple months when I broke my hand. I've been driving the carpool for a couple of years since then. I get to use the carpool lane, collectively we create less pollution by leaving his truck behind, and I'm coming to work anyway. It's been a win-win arrangement for us.

Re:It's a barter transaction

[gurps_npc]

This is not plumber for dentist. It is dentist for dentist.

That is not an insignificant difference.

If I give you a pineapple and you return me a pineapple, that is called lending, not a sale. Among other things it means that ZERO profit is made and government treats non-profit things very differently.

The difference is that

Re:It's a barter transaction

[hawguy]

This is not plumber for dentist. It is dentist for dentist.

That is not an insignificant difference.

I don't see the difference. A dentist can't fill a cavity in his own teeth, so he either pays another dentist to do it (which is taxable income to that dentist), or he tells his dentist friend "Hey, if you fill my cavity, I'll do yours later", which is a taxable barter transaction. I don't see why the fact that they are in the same field makes any difference.

If I give you a pineapple and you return me a pineapple, that is called lending, not a sale.

And if I give you 20 tons of pineapples today, and you give me 20 tons of pineapples next week, that's called warehousing and entire businesses are dedicated to warehousing commodities and shipping them out again, sometimes to the same company that warehoused it in the first place.

Among other things it means that ZERO profit is made and government treats non-profit things very differently.

Whether the transaction earns profit or not, it's still a transaction.

Re:It's a barter transaction

[bennetthaselton]

Well the article says your very first use of the system has to be driving someone else; that's how you earn your initial miles credits, which you can then spend later on.

But that's a good point that people might end up buying miles from each other under the table. Not sure if the system could ever prevent that. One way would be that since both the driver and the passenger are using the app on their GPS-enabled smartphone, only allow the miles to be transferred from one user to another if the app detects that they actually made that trip over the appropriate distance. Even then, you could fool the system by paying someone else to log in to the system as "you" and drive people around to bank miles in your account.

Re:It's a barter transaction

[bennetthaselton]

Maybe it depends on what the taxi regulations say. If there's something in the taxi law that says it only applies to rides in exchange for monetary payment, then that would not apply to the ride-trading system. The fact that the IRS might count ride-trading as "payment" for other purposes (calculating your gross income), would be irrelevant, if the taxi regulations say that they only apply to rides for money.

Re:It's a barter transaction

[BitZtream]

Read the previous paid posts from bennett. He's a moron who doesn't understand why its not okay to tell people heres a bunch of open proxies you can use to get around restrictions in place on the LAN AT YOUR WORKPLACE. He thinks its absolutely ridiculous that a company not control its networks and that anyone and everyone should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want.

He's one of those idiots who thinks anarchy is the greatest thing ever ... yet has never in his life actually dealt with anarchy and when he gets close ... his typical response is to come to slashdot and cry about how the rest of us are beating his retarded idea into the ground.

He's an asshole who thinks the rules should only apply to others, and only when he wants them to.

I repeat: He's just an asshole.

I hate this guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Why cant he add his 2 cents as comments like the rest of us? The formula is LINK -> Comment. LINK+Comment.

No Car, No Service?

[L4m3rthanyou]

Wouldn't a trading system exclude people who don't own a car, and would that group not comprise a significant portion of riders served by the existing ridesharing services?

Re:No Car, No Service?

[RobinH]

Depends what you get in trade. Maybe it's another kind of ride.

Re:No Car, No Service?

[hink]

It also gives no incentive to be a driver if you don't need to be a passenger. You know, since you already have a car?
I am sure there are a fraction of the existing ride-share drivers who do it to stick it to the man. They are probably the same people who fly to another city and use that ride-sharing setup as a passenger. But then there are the probably a majority of the drivers using it as an income source. So if they have a way to exchange their accumulated and unwanted miles to cash, you are squarely in the service for a fee zone.
Sorry, but outside of hipsters, this would only work if you had some sort of "karma bank" for multiple services and goods. Then the drivers could exchange the karma miles for massages and escorts.

Who's Bennett Haselton

[Anonymous Coward]

and why should I value what he has to say?
(Yes, I know he pays /. to post his stuff)

Re:Who's Bennett Haselton

[BitZtream]

He's a loud mouthed moron that thinks people who block his shitty 'send me an open proxy' email list are censoring him.

He's the worst kind of moron, in pretty much every respect.

Re:Who's Bennett Haselton

[bennetthaselton]

They gave me a discount this time since I bought so much space on the front page so far this year.

Makes sense....

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

If Seattle is anything like New York they make a ton of money on taxi medallions. Less taxis, less revenue. :-(

Re:Makes sense....

[geekoid]

You need to ask where that money is going. I don't know about NY taxi, but I do know of other situation that require licensing and that money just pays for the program itself.

Re:Makes sense....

[painandgreed]

If Seattle is anything like New York they make a ton of money on taxi medallions. Less taxis, less revenue. :-(

Pretty sure that Seattle is not like NYC. The issue is not that medallions to become a taxi cost money, it's that there are no medallions for sale. For the current medallion owners, less taxis mean more revenue. They use that revenue to protect their profits. If Uber or Lyft could just pay money and keep operating, they probably would. In Seattle such operations charge more money than cabs, and the people here are willing to pay it because the cabs are pretty much unreliable, inconvenient, dirty, and lack customer service. The last time I stood in the rain for over an hour because the cab company kept telling me that the first two cabs went by where I was and called my cell but I wasn't there and didn't answer, I stopped relying on taxis for transportation.

My imaginary friend

[Orphis]

I gave my imaginary friend a 1000 miles ride the other day.
Now, I want real people to take me wherever with those miles.

Re:My imaginary friend

[bennetthaselton]

Lest anyone be tempted to take this seriously, note that the system says every new user starts with a balance of zero miles. So the only way to get miles is to give a ride to an existing user who has a nonzero balance in their account.

Re:My imaginary friend

[BitZtream]

So if everyone starts at zero ... who is the person with a non-zero balance, who's getting snowballed?

Re:My imaginary friend

[bennetthaselton]

The system has to be seeded at the beginning with some users who start with a non-zero balance. After the initial bootstrapping, every new user who joins the system starts with a balance of zero.

"rideshare" is not the proper term here

[Anonymous Coward]

"ridesharing" in the Seattle area has a different definition: http://www.rideshareonline.com... Let's be honest about what we're talking about here with these services: They're unlicensed, and under-insured taxi services.

Re:"rideshare" is not the proper term here

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. The problem is that these are not "we're both going in the same direction, I can pick you up".
That's what they were started as but people are starting to do this as a business and operate unofficial
taxis. Same with room-share type services. They are quickly becoming unlicensed motels.
If there was a way to restrict it to just people helping each each other out then the government wouldn't
be trying to get involved. Maybe restricting it so you can only pick up 3 people a day or 15 people a month
or something like that might be a way to allow it to coexist with properly regulated taxis services.

Not for me

[hodet]

I just don't see myself hopping in with strangers either way. I prefer my own vehicle or public transit.

How To Fix This

[rmeadows1551]

Vote the current elected officials out of office and get some new ones elected who understand the Share Economy. I would submit that Seattle is ripe for such action and will lead the way in the nation. One city does this and institutes favorable Share Economy rules, others will follow when they see the benefits. Bureaucracies are inherently resistant to change, especially when a new technology comes along to undermine the assumptions on which the bureaucracies were built. Those bureaucracies’ express mission is to hinder progress. It is our express duty to educate them so they know that the Share Economy is here and is here to stay. People know and the politicians they elect will soon learn that bureaucratic walls to the Share Economy will be torn down as surely as the Berlin Wall was. Using technology to utilize inactive resources is too easy and so welcomed it won't fail.

Re:How To Fix This

[geekoid]

No thanks. I prefer a min. bar of standards for operating business.
Maybe w=you shoud read upon the history of taxi's and why there is regulation around them?

" Bureaucracies are inherently resistant to change, especially when a new technology comes along to undermine the assumptions on which the bureaucracies were built."
arguable, but irrelevant sine this in no way undermine why there are taxi regulations.

"Those bureaucracies’ express mission is to hinder progress."
false.

"...Share Economy..."
How about you define what that means?

"People know and the politicians they elect will soon learn that bureaucratic walls to the Share Economy will be torn down as surely as the Berlin Wall was."
accidentally? a little joke for people who understood what lead to it.

" Using technology to utilize inactive resources is too easy and so welcomed it won't fail."
I agree, but that is irrelevant to the discussion.

don't prop up a dying market

[slashmydots]

Cabs are a stupid, no money industry that's dying. Let it die. When governments prop up ancient technology and services, nobody benefits. "Protecting" a bad business from cheaper competition is irresponsible. This is a free market. Cab companies can operate cheaper and more efficiently and make their own apps or lose and go out of business.

Re:don't prop up a dying market

[jklovanc]

Say that at 2AM when most of the ride share drivers are drunk or in bed and there are no taxi drivers left.

Re:don't prop up a dying market

[BitZtream]

...

How about you stop thinking its a brilliant idea to hop in the car with someone you've never met, no one has vetted, no one has inspected the car ...

Do you hitchhike? Thats what this is? Do you know why your momma told you not to hitch hike? I'm fairly certain you ignored her.

I personally am Ok with it cause the sooner people like you get killed off by some raving maniac or some poorly maintained car, the better. Unfortunately, you're the kind of asshole that'll take out some innocent family who doesn't deserve it in the process.

Re:don't prop up a dying market

[NewWorldDan]

Actually, in most of these services, the driver has been vetted by all of his previous passengers and complaints are public (same goes with riders). Get a bad reputation for inappropriate behavior, you're not getting any more business. Furthermore, there becomes a record of all pickups and drop-offs.

As opposed to a conventional taxi, where both the driver and passenger are complete unknowns.

Both approaches have their problems. Requiring drivers to have an upgraded license and appropriate insurance is certainly reasonable. The medallion system that a lot of large cities use is absurd.

Limited utility

[seven of five]

If you don't have a car, you can't participate. Eventually your miles goes to zero, what do you do then?

Re:This is what cab companies need to do to remain

[Grishnakh]

If regular cars aren't subjected to safety inspections, then there's no reason cabs should be subject to them.

Re:Time to start disobeying these assholes

[NatasRevol]

It'd be awesome to know where you live.

You know, once the drugs wear off.

Re:This is what cab companies need to do to remain

[jythie]

*nods* it is generally easier to offer a cheaper price when your services do not have to pay the same costs as your competition.

Not playing nice.

[duke_cheetah2003]

Sounds like, after doing a quick 15 minutes of research that Uber, Lyft and their kin don't really care to play by the established regulations for for-hire drivers.

Looks like these new kids on the block are being rebuffed trying to bully their way past regulations that're established to keep the for-hire drivers gainfully employed and playing fairly.

Also seems to be a huge money grab by Corporate outside of these cities, charging drivers rather steep 'dispatch fees.' Read between the lines folks, this is not an innocent 'innovative' tech company trying to fix something that's broken. Smells more like swooping down on an establishment that's individualized to each city and nationalize it.

No sympathy here. Play by the established rules and regulations or GTFO, ok?

Re:Not playing nice.

[OverlordQ]

> Sounds like, after doing a quick 15 minutes of research that Uber, Lyft and their kin don't really care to play by the established regulations for for-hire drivers.

False.

Re:Not playing nice.

[painandgreed]

No sympathy here. Play by the established rules and regulations or GTFO, ok?

Depends where you are talking about and which company. Most are operating under loopholes or bizarre interpretations of the laws, but aren't quite running a speakeasy of cab services. Of course, at least in Seattle, playing by the established rules and regulations means they can't enter the market as all the taxi licenses are already owned and they will not issue more. One of the companies in Seattle therefore ran under the rules that towncars and limos ran under as a charter service. It's just that with cell phone apps, the charter could be made from anywhere in seconds. Still, there are reasons that these service can even function at higher rates than taxis, and that's because that taxis, in Seattle anyway, and unreliable, inconvenient, and dirty.

Yep.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't try to hack legal problems with technical solutions. Those who enforce and interpret the law don't give a hoot about your clever technical loopholes, and they will nail you for the attempt.

Solve legal problems legally, by gathering enough public support to get these protectionist policies voted down. If you can't do that, move to a city that can.

Re:Yep.

[Nexus7]

There is another legal problem that this technical solution doesn't address. User A racks up 100 miles owed. Then says FU, and deletes their account. They create another account and continue to rack up miles. Who will take action against A? The exchange will send them a stern email?

Or, rapists/criminals determine that this is a good way to get their targets to lower their guard, and cities are faced with another crime vector. Who pays to enforce?

Re:Yep.

[omnichad]

Who would you give the first ride to if everyone had 0 miles?

There is no "Sharing" going on

[businessnerd]

Can we stop referring to these companies as "Ride Sharing" apps? It's just a way to make it sound like they are not car for hire services, but they really are. And I'm not complaining about the services themselves. I use Uber constantly. I love it. But I am under no illusion that UberX drivers "just happen to be going my way." They picked me up because they want my cash. And that is the real problem with the author's idea. The drivers don't want to barter. They don't need credit for future rides. This is their profession. Most of the drivers I have spoken to drive at least part time, if not full time. Last ride I got, I asked the guy when he usually called it quits for the day (it was the end of a long workday for me). His response: "I'll be driving all night. This is all I do." Does this sound like "ride sharing" to you? Regular taxis should have every right to be worried, though. And price is the least of it. I use a lot of taxis and Ubers, so I feel I can make a fair comparison. In general, Ubers are friendlier. Their cars are cleaner. And the biggest reason I use Uber, is because of the ease of payment. I travel for work, so I put everything on my corporate credit card, including taxis (Using cash means I 1) need to be carrying it, 2) I need to carefully track receipts and 3) I don't get the money back for another few weeks). With Uber, I just step out of the car, and my card is immediately charged and I receive and e-mail with the receipt. With regular taxis, he tells me how much, I say I want to pay with a credit card. At this point, I get one of two responses. If I am lucky, he says, "No problem" and takes my card. More often then not I get "can you pay cash instead?" or "the machine's down, cash please". I then insist on credit, at which point the machine magically works again. (No joke, last week a guy gave me the "machine's down" line and then after I suggest he do a carbon copy, he whips out his iPhone with a Square reader attached!). Ok, back to the machine. If the machine is the kind in the back seat, process is fairly smooth, but does take a little time. Or it's the old school one in the front that takes a little more time to process the payment and print out the receipts. I get that taxi drivers get less money and it takes longer to get paid (so I usually tip more), but it's a huge hassle, and creates a shitty experience when I have to argue with every taxi driver. Uber's experience is far superior. And there is no reason that taxis couldn't adopt the same payment system.

Re:There is no "Sharing" going on

[OverlordQ]

Uber doesn't bill itself as ridesharing, and Uber drivers are licensed car for hires.

Re:There is no "Sharing" going on

[bennetthaselton]

Yes one limitation with this system is that it wouldn't serve the needs of people who want to drive for a living (as opposed to driving in exchange for a bartered ride later). This would drive some users away from the system.

But, it would also be much "cheaper" than a taxi service in terms of the real cost to the user of taking a ride. (A 30-minute ride to the airport would cost 30 minutes of your time later on, which you can take out of whatever time of day you least value your time. The same 30-minute ride in a taxi or existing commercial rideshare system would cost about $50.) This would draw more users to the system.

I don't know which factor would win out, but I assume there are a lot fewer people who want to be full-time drivers, than there are who want occasional nearly-free rides from one part of the city to another.

Re:This is what cab companies need to do to remain

[mikael]

By that logic, asking a friend or relative if they could give you or someone else a ride would constitute an illegal transaction.

Not so long ago, many Californian toll booths would only cars to travel across for free if there were two or more passengers, and they were actively encouraging ride-sharing to reduce traffic loads.

Let off some steam, Bennett.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you at least be forward thinking enough to start a WordPress blog or something instead of spamming us endlessly with your inane concepts on how the world should work?

Back in the bottle, now!

[XMark3]

I see this kind of story everywhere these days... existing businesses fear an inevitable change in the market brought on by technology, so they try as hard as they can to shove the genie back in the bottle instead of trying to keep up with the times.

Higher standards are normal and appropriate

[sjbe]

Driver training should not be a requirement. If it isn't a requirement for normal drivers, who use the same roads as the cabs, then why are cab drivers required to get some kind of special training?

Because when you drive other people they are literally entrusting their lives to your driving competence. While you cannot control what other drivers do, we can ensure that the people who do transport others are of a sufficient competency standard to minimize unnecessary risk to passengers. Not all drivers who can pass the basic driving test are sufficiently competent to drive other people in exchange for money. It's the exact same reason we demand that commercial airline pilots have a LOT more training than civil aviation pilots. It's about minimizing risk.

Furthermore, cab drivers/companies are granted a quasi-monopoly on their service. It's perfectly reasonable to insist that the standards be a bit higher in exchange for that privilege.

Car maintenance should not be a requirement. Normal drivers aren't required to follow any special maintenance schedule or get any inspections, so why should cabs?

Because if you want to drive you own heap of junk and endanger your own safety when the axle falls off then that is your choice. When you are transporting other people however, they should have a reasonable expectation that the axle is not going to fall off or that they will not find themselves stranded due reasonably preventable mechanical difficulties.

Re:Higher standards are normal and appropriate

[kencurry]

Driver training should not be a requirement. If it isn't a requirement for normal drivers, who use the same roads as the cabs, then why are cab drivers required to get some kind of special training?

Because when you drive other people they are literally entrusting their lives to your driving competence. While you cannot control what other drivers do, we can ensure that the people who do transport others are of a sufficient competency standard to minimize unnecessary risk to passengers. Not all drivers who can pass the basic driving test are sufficiently competent to drive other people in exchange for money. It's the exact same reason we demand that commercial airline pilots have a LOT more training than civil aviation pilots. It's about minimizing risk.

Furthermore, cab drivers/companies are granted a quasi-monopoly on their service. It's perfectly reasonable to insist that the standards be a bit higher in exchange for that privilege.

Car maintenance should not be a requirement. Normal drivers aren't required to follow any special maintenance schedule or get any inspections, so why should cabs?

Because if you want to drive you own heap of junk and endanger your own safety when the axle falls off then that is your choice. When you are transporting other people however, they should have a reasonable expectation that the axle is not going to fall off or that they will not find themselves stranded due reasonably preventable mechanical difficulties.

Bad drivers and dangerously maintained cars affect the other drivers on the road already, and they could have a passenger of their own choosing as well. So, this is nothing new with organized ride-sharing.

Also, as far as the whole "how can you trust a stranger in this system", use rating system with user feedback like ebay does.

Re:Higher standards are normal and appropriate

[Obfuscant]

Bad drivers and dangerously maintained cars affect the other drivers on the road already,

Secondary effects.

and they could have a passenger of their own choosing as well.

People who ride in my car know me and have chosen to accept a ride with that knowledge. I'm not trying to make a living by carrying as many people as many places as possible. People who ride in cabs rarely know the cabby, and the cabby is doing it for a profit. Skipping maintenance on things that don't actually disable the vehicle means more profit. It may not even be the cabby's decision to skip that maintenance, that decision may be made by someone who isn't ever going to ride in that vehicle.

Similarly, as a private pilot I can take people up for rides. Since they cannot pay me I have no incentive to take people up that I don't know. A commercial pilot who is selling transportation services deals with people who don't know him, and again, if delaying an oil change saves $200 then that's $200 bucks more profit he (or more likely, the aircraft operator) can make.

And another area of law that has nothing to do with transportation but demonstrates the difference between informed and uninformed risk -- radio exposure limits. There are two classes of exposure in the law: controlled and uncontrolled. Controlled exposure limits are based on a knowledge of and ability to control the exposure. That's similar to getting a ride from a friend or private pilot. Uncontrolled exposure limits are for persons who are unaware of the potential danger and/or cannot control it. Like hopping in a cab or paying someone to fly you around.

Also, as far as the whole "how can you trust a stranger in this system",

It's more than just "can you trust", it is whether there exists a motive for cutting costs and increasing risks. Your "ebay rating" system can deal with "was the cabby/ride provider nice and friendly", but it won't catch "the CV joints were shot and thus the car was a death trap".

Re:party of the rich

[Anonymous Coward]

Both are parties of the rich, but the Republicans are better at exploiting the ignorant, which is why underdeveloped areas tend to vote Republican. More educated regions correctly identify the Democrats as slightly more likely to build a decent society.

liability lisses look at the death of Sofia Liu

[Joe_Dragon]

To see what you get victims who are not covered due to insurance gaps and other stuff that the backers of the apps use to make so they don't have to cover drivers all the time / have a number of ways to get out of having to pay out putting on the back of the workers who should be covered by there job for job based work.

Re:This is what cab companies need to do to remain

[geekoid]

Because their is a min. bar of safety expectation from consumers.
I suppose you don't think there should be health inspections at restaurants since they aren't required in personal homes?

Re:The Issue is the For-Profit Nature

[mikael]

In London, there are enough taxis in the area, that all you really need to do is raise your arm and hail a cab, when ones passes with a "For Hire" sign.
You couldn't make an app that simpler. Some hotels and conference center receptions have a hotline telephone straight to the taxi cab office.

If the taxi cab dispatch offices brought out there own "app", they could cover every other part of the city.

Re:Time to start disobeying these assholes

[NatasRevol]

Good comeback.

So, you don't live in a regulated society?

Right to regulate

[spasm]

"but as long as money is changing hands, (1) the city will certainly view it as within their rights to regulate the ridesharing industry"

I hate to point this out to you, but the fact "money is changing hands" is not even remotely a required precondition for a city or other government to regulate an activity. No money changes hands for you to take your kid to the playground in the local park, but cities can and do regulate safety standards for playground equipment in public parks. No money changes hands when my neighbors decide noisy leafblowers are the best way to remove fallen leaves from their lawns, but cities can and do write regulations limiting or banning their use.

There's absolutely nothing stopping a city regulating any form of ridesharing, including the informal deal myself and my neighbor have to take turns driving so we can use the HOV lane (itself another example of regulation where no money changes hands if they really wanted to.

Or rather, the one and only thing that either prevents or requires a city government to regulate something is the fact that city governments are representative democracies, and if the people a city councilmember represents effectively communicate that they want something regulated (eg leafblowers) or do not want something regulaed (eg ridesharing), and are convincing in arguing that they are communicating a widely held desire, city councilmembers will fall over themselves to act accordingly, or will expect to be challenged in the next election. So if you really want ridesharing to be unregulated but taxis to be regulated,communicate this to your local representatives and stop whining.

Re:Right to regulate

[kbolino]

In other words, if 40% of the population is benefiting from something, it's perfectly acceptable for the other 60% to put a boot on their necks and make them stop.

Re:Right to regulate

[Captain Centropyge]

So you're telling me that my paying the city taxes every year doesn't constitute "money changing hands"? Sure, most of that money goes toward schools, roads, etc. But it also goes toward public areas, like parks with playgrounds.

Re:Right to regulate

[stenvar]

That depends on whether those benefits derive from positive/negative rights or positive/negative liberties and what your political persuasion happens to be.

Re:Right to regulate

[spasm]

I didn't say it was acceptable, but yeah, that's how democracy usually works. I say 'usually' because most democracies also have courts and executive branches in an attempt to moderate the excesses of mob rule - to try and enact the priciple that democracy *should* implement the will of the majority without infringing the rights of the minority.

Re:Right to regulate

[bennetthaselton]

Right, I should have said the city would view it as more within their rights to regulate it if money changes hands.

But I think that in the examples you used, in each case there are various rationales for regulation, which would not apply to the ride-trading system. Leaf-blowers are regulated because they impact other people (in economics jargon, negative externalities). Carpool lanes are regulated because carpool users are taking a resource away from other people (another kind of negative externality). Playground safety equipment is regulated because even though there are no "externalities" -- it's a "transaction" between the playground builder and the person coming to the park -- it's reasonable to assume that the park patron has no practical way of determining the safety of the equipment in every park they go to, so they outsource that job to the regulatory bodies.

I don't think any of those rationales would apply to ride-trading, since the transaction affects nobody else, and the government is not in any better position than the users to know what the risks are.

Also, generally speaking, I would disagree with the premise that complaining to representative government is a good way to ensure the best outcome. This system just ensures that a vocal minority with entrenched interests will spend more money to influence representatives to do something that harms the vast majority of everyone else. If a particular industry comprises less than 1% of the population, but they benefit from import tariffs that keep out foreign competitors, they can and do lobby successfully for those import tariffs even if those tariffs harm the other 99% of the population, because the other 99% doesn't know or care enough to mobilize the counter-lobbying effort.

Re:Right to regulate

[spasm]

I think the wholepoint of regulating ride sharing is it *does* impact someone else - taxi drivers and taxi owners. And it impacts them because you're imposing different regulatory burdens (and hence cost, since regulatory burdens always have at least some complance cost) on two groups of people engaged in the same activity - providing transport in exchange for something of value. The argument the taxi folks are making is the regulatory burden should be equal for people engaged in what's essentially the same activity, and so far that's looking convincing to regulators in Seattle (among other places). Your idea for 'payment' in what's essentially a microcurrency which can only be used to purchase one thing does shift things a bit, and that might help convince city government that it should be regulated differently, but my guess is the number of people willing to drive strangers around town in exchange for a microcurrency which can only be used for purchasing rides from other strangers will be far far fewer than the number of people willing to drive strangers around town in exchange for a currency which can be used for any purpose, and the whole thing will collapse because every time you log in to the app to get a ride, no-one will be close by ready to offer you one, so people will stop using the app. But that's just my cynical opinion.

With respect to politics, I completely agree that the interests of the general public are diffuse compared to the interests of a given industry, and this often has a perverting effect on lobbying. But as someone who has done lobbying at city, state, and county level, I have to tell you that representatives are usually extremely jaded about paid industry lobbyists, and while they'll happily go along with them if there appears to be no non-industry opposition to something, the second you get 10 or 20 obviously fired up regular citizens in front of them, you have their complete attention, because they *know* that those 10 or 20 people who are fired up enough to take the day off work and go to try and meet with their elected representatives are representative of much much larger numbers of people who will be voting at the next election. So if you think there's a case to be made that rideshare systems should be regulated differently than taxis, get together two or three people from each council district together, call every counciller's office and make an appointment, and go and talk to them (or more likely one of their staffers, but it'll still get back to them). Believe me, this works like nothing else does.

Re:Right to regulate

[spasm]

"It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution." Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 776 n. 14 (2nd ed. 1998).

Re:Time to start disobeying these assholes

[BitZtream]

Which will work out great ... until you end up chopped up in some tortilla bin because you got in the car with a random stranger who likes to eat people covered in hot sauce ... and of course you'll get all bitchy that the government didn't protect you from ridiculous treatment or danger because you hopped in a car that some guy hasn't bothered to put new tires on since the belting started showing through the tread last year.

You do have a god given right to be a moron and its clear you're taking full advantage of that right.

As a hint, bragging about it just makes you look stupid.

Re:party of the rich

[paazin]

Wasn't this already shown to be an error? Most respondents confused astronomy with astrology (anecdotally, I've been asking others in their 20s and many don't even really know what astrology even is)

Fair market value

[scorp1us]

Your miles credit would be subject to bartering and fair market valuation provisions, if they can be considered property.
However you might be able to argue that it's a negotiable instrument and has no fair market value. This would then require you to haggle ("sure, I'll take you 8 miles for 15 miles of credit" as enforcing it at 1:1 would support the idea of it being property. This means now, you have to auction the miles, this complicating the whole process, making it more unattractive.

The subject line is a terrible place to put your

[Sarten-X]

comment.

How much does Bennett Haselton pay for front page?

[BitZtream]

I'm probably willing to pay more than he is, so whats the charge for front page placement on slashdot?

I'm sorry if I'm being ignorant, but is there a price sheet online that I'm just not aware of, or do I have to call in or something to get it?

Taxi Ecosystem is fat and needs to be trimmed

[aurizon]

At the heart of it is a guy who owns a car, then he needs a radio/web system to fields calls from clients and find the best cab. A simple web app, supplemented by a call center would work fine.
What we have is guys who own plates who rent them for a few thousand a month, and guys who own radio despatch systems who who also want a lot. These are the guys who whine that their little cash cow would get killed. It is no secret that taxi rates are sky high, these middle men are the problem

Re:party of the rich

[geminidomino]

Considering that he's defending the party of the Magic Invisible Sky Wizard (TM), do you honestly expect him to let that go just because it's utterly false?

Re:party of the rich

[Wookact]

Is that the same study that screwed up by using astrolgy in a misleading way? I am pretty sure there was a story or two on slashdot.

The regulation of taxis exist for a reason

[GodfatherofSoul]

It's not just to F you over to make your life difficult. Seattle in particular has an problem with unregulated cabbies screwing people over (I heard plenty about it last year on a trip there). Now, that's not to say that the sanctioned cabbies don't overcharge an run up miles on you, but you probably don't have to worry about them driving you into an alley and putting a gun in your face.

So, these organic solutions reopen that can of worms. It's interesting to see how these services are trying to overcome the security and accountability problems which might make them viable. I'm just saying understand why the old system evolved.

Re:The regulation of taxis exist for a reason

[bennetthaselton]

Two things:
1) If you wanted to rob somebody, wouldn't it be easier to do it as a passenger, hailing a cab and pulling a gun on the driver? The driver is the one who has been collecting cash all day, after all. (Another factor that would not be present in the ride-trading system, by the way.)
2) As other users pointed out, you could maintain the standards for training and regulating cab drivers while still expanding the number of cab drivers allowed to operate. When cities don't do this, that's what drives the demand for alternatives.

Amen - Aint no sharing going on here

[rsborg]

Uber/Lyft are purely a play to disrupt the taxi industry by getting around the medallion tax.

Don't get me wrong - the taxi medallion's cost is prohibitive due to very low supply and the only justification I can see is that the city wants to limit the number of taxis to improve air quality. However, with hybrid/electric cars around now that vastly reduce or eliminate any tailpipe emissions, I think cities need to reconsider possibly having "green" medallions that are not as limited in number, and require the car driving it to have AT-PZEV (Prius 2004) emissions profile or better (not difficult; many of these kinds of cars around that still get 50 mpg+).

Re:kids

[rogoshen1]

what.

Pittsburgh Mayor was asked to crack down

[Anonymous Coward]

Pittsburgh's new mayor Bill Peduto was asked by local taxi companies (who are notorious for booking rides and not showing up), and by the state Public Utility Commision to crack down on rideshare services. The mayor gave zero fucks.

He took several rides share services out on the town, wrote a letter to the PUC telling them to update their arcane rules, and told the police that enforcement against these services was essentially zero priority.

http://www.post-gazette.com/business/2014/02/18/Peduto-asks-for-rule-change-on-ride-sharing-operations/stories/201402180175

Re:Pittsburgh Mayor was asked to crack down

[Tsiangkun]

I, for one, will look forward to the city being sued for an enormous amount of money when the inevitable deaths happen, and the PUC showns they had expressed concerns and the mayor gave zero fucks for public safety.

Free Market

[MikeDataLink]

How about we stop interfering with the free market and innovation???

Re:kids

[Anonymous Coward]

While custody awarded to the father has seen an increase since 1994 (when various "tender years" laws were abolished), custody is still given by far to the mother. This number has gone up ever so slightly in the past decade but it in any divorce it is far more likely that the mother will win custody (the numbers break down to around 85% sole custody to the mother, 10% joint custody and 5% sole custody for the father).

Re:Simpler

[Tsiangkun]

It won't work, but not because miles are payment.
Trading miles doesn't work when your clients prefer to not have a car

Re:This is what cab companies need to do to remain

[rogoshen1]

So you're saying, since i can have people over for a backyard cookout without any kind of inspections or licensing -- the neighborhood bar and grill should get a pass as well?

Re:This is what cab companies need to do to remain

[Tsiangkun]

That is carpooling, not "RideSharing" as the term applies here. Uber is a for profit company. They abuse the phrase "ride sharing" to hide that they have full time drivers acting as if they were licensed to provide transportation to the public.

Re:How much does Bennett Haselton pay for front pa

[kumanopuusan]

Judging from the quality of Bennett's submissions, there's probably an IQ cap, so if you didn't ride to school on a short bus you won't qualify no matter how much you are willing to pay.

Prohibition results

[Firethorn]

My take on this:
1. The initial drop in usage seems to be mostly from needing to set up alternative channels - IE the black market took time to become established.
2. The long term drop might be due to increased costs, much like how increasing taxes on cigarettes results in lower usage.
3. Cirrhosis rates, because they depend upon the abuse of alcohol, might not be indicative, since increased prices will affect heavy drinkers more than light drinkers.
4. While prohibition resulted in a long term 40% drop, we've managed over a 50% drop with tobacco. without prohibition, soley by taxes and education.
5. As Portugal has shown, legalization can have many positive benefits.

Uber drivers told to stay home?

[Firethorn]

Do you happen to have a citation on this? Google isn't pulling anything up.

Government intrusiveness

[argStyopa]

In my view it's patently obscene that the government can step in and ban what is essentially a private transaction that breaks no laws.

Can they ban me buying vegetables from a neighbor, to protect the local supermarket?

Can they ban me paying a kid to mow my lawn, to protect the local lawncare service?

What the government CAN legitimately offer is licensure; ie, with a CERTIFIED "taxi" you have someone who has paid the fees, gotten the registration and the 'license' to do this for a living. This would nominally ensure that the carrier has insurance, is regularly inspected for safety, etc. I should expect to pay more for such a service, no doubt.

Seriously: FUCK YOU GOVERNMENT. If I want to risk my ass being robbed, murdered, or raped by some random stranger-driver to save a few bucks, that's MY business. I don't mean that sarcastically: as an adult that should be MY choice.

Re:This is what cab companies need to do to remain

[Grishnakh]

Personal homes don't cook food to be served to large numbers of people in the public. If you infect the food in your apartment with e. coli, you and your family and maybe some guests will be the only ones to get sick. Restaurants serve very large numbers of people on a constant basis.

Personal cars drive on public roads, and can cause deadly accidents and pile-ups just like cabs. If there's a standard for cabs, then private cars and drivers should be held to the same standard.

Try it

[WillAffleckUW]

Jail is pretty fun after the first 90 days.

Ride safety

[Firethorn]

Actually, I find geekoid's mentioning of commercial kitchens particularly apt.

However, I was listing about Uber and such a couple weeks ago, and I found out that at least in some cities Uber drivers are operating under the limo/contract car laws, IE they are inspected and regulated, just not quite as tightly as taxis. However, as such they're not allowed to respond to flag hails just on the street; rides have to be pre-arranged. Which Uber technically does...

I include that here because I try to avoid responding to AC's.

No free lunch.

[westlake]

You could even make an argument that a city couldn't pass a law regulating these ride-trades even if they wanted to, because as voluntary arrangements between consenting parties, they're protected under our First Amendment right of freedom of association!

What you have described is a contract.

The ride-trade ticket is worthless unless all parties to the arrangement live up to their commitments.

You seem to have forgotten the possibility of non-governmental intervention. Using your car as a unlicensed taxi service means that your auto insurance premiums may skyrocket or your insurance company may walk away from any claim you make when your "customers" are aboard.

Re:Liability insurance

[Grishnakh]

Should every job that involves interaction with other people require a background check like that? Should I have to get a background check as an office worker because there's some women in my office?

Re:This is what cab companies need to do to remain

[Grishnakh]

Apples and oranges. Are you cooking all day, every day, for anyone who wants to stop by, along with a big sign advertising "free food here!!"?

Regular cars operate on the exact same roads that cabs do. Why shouldn't regular cars be subject to the same standards? If a cab has a mechanical failure causing a fatal crash, how is that different than someone's Chevy having a mechanical failure due to poor maintenance causing a crash? So why do private car owners get a pass but the cabs get inspections?

no you can't

[stenvar]

You don't even have to debate whether "trading" is legally different from "sharing". If "trading" takes off, cities like Seattle will simply add it to the list of things you can't do.

What you should do against such corruption and stupidity is vote with your dollars, vote in elections, and if that doesn't help, vote with your feet.

Re:This is what cab companies need to do to remain

[rogoshen1]

While I see your point, I think it's kind of a slippery slope based on a) paying for services, there should be some assumption that the service is safe.. and b) frequency and wear/tear on the car. A cab that operates exclusively in an urban area, is going to be driven pretty abusively for 24 hours a day. That's a level of wear and tear the guy driving his chevy to work everyday just won't reach. (even if he occasionally ride shares with it.)

Also the cab company has a vested interest to skimp on costs (IE maintenance), whereas the private owner who also uses their car as a daily driver, is probably more concerned with their personal safety, than the ride-sharing revenue?

Already solved and operating in the senior market

[awtbfb]

ITNAmerica has already sorted this out. It is possible to load your parent's ride account with credits from cash or your own driving contributions. For example, you can drive people around your area and the credits are used by your parents who live halfway across the country. If you fall short one month, just fill up the credits with cash.

I agree with the crackdown.

[Kaz Kylheku]

because these app providers are skimming money from the drivers. To hell with them; they deserve to be curtailed because of their greed and their stupid system that is vulnerable to such a crackdown.

There should be a true peer-to-peer system that doesn't skim any money, based on some light-weight "tracker" servers whereby clients can make initial contact.

Everything open source, too.

Then there is no place where to send a cease-and-desist letter. Shut down one tracker, four more open up elsewhere. Perhaps even operated in the cloud somewhere, in another country or whatever.

Make it so that anyone can add 100 lines of PHP to their server to add contact node to their server.

Come on, in an age where you can get any movie, music, warez or pr0n with complete impunity on a global scale, Seattle, of all authorities, is gonna stand between you and getting a ride with someone? It simply does not compute.

Re:Racketering

[bussdriver]

It is not racketeering when the government does it. By definition! Now if the racketeers corrupt the government to do their bidding it is still not racketeering, it's bribery corruption etc. by racketeers.

Re:This is what cab companies need to do to remain

[Grishnakh]

Cab companies don't generally keep cars around for 20-30 years or more. Yet I see private cars like that all the time. People usually call them "beaters". There's no laws preventing people from driving falling-apart old jalopies. If bad maintenance can can cause an accident, then why aren't jalopies banned or regulated?

As for skimping on maintenance, if a cab company skimps on maintenance, they run the risk of their car not working. A dead car means no fare revenue for every single minute that car is out of service; in effect, it costs them a lot of money to have a car out of service. With private car owners, they can just drive their second car, or take the bus if they really have to. I don't see how the cab company is more likely to skimp on maintenance than regular people.

Re:uh huh

[Entropius]

Does anybody do anything at their own risk any more?

Re:There is no VC funding for barter

[bennetthaselton]

As I mentioned in the article, couchsurfing.org got $22 million in VC capital even though it's based not even on barter, but on entirely *donated* services (letting people crash on your couch). These may not be "high-value" users if they're too broke to afford a hotel, but apparently they're worth something.

Re:kids

[mythosaz]

You coulda taken the kids, sweetheart. In the overwhelming majority of splits, if the dad wants the kids, he gets them.

Oh Wait. You're Serious? Let Me Laugh Even Harder!

Re:party of the rich

[L. J. Beauregard]

Democrat infested cesspool such as this.

Any time someone mentions global warming, the chorus of the usual PRATTs comes up. I've been modded down many times for daring to disagree with some teabagger.

But anything not part of the right wing echo chamber is a "Democrat infested cesspool".

This is Not Rideshare - Stop Calling it That

[eepok]

Intro: I am a transportation professional. "Rideshare" is my industry.

"Rideshare" and "Ridesharing" is a federal-, state-, and industry-specific term that describes the use of carpooling, vanpooling, transit (bus, rail), and even biking and walking as a form of transportation. Other industry terms used depending on era and region include alternative transportation, commuter choice, and sustainable transportation. "Rideshare" is a subsection of the Transportation Demand Management. Yes, it's weird to call biking "Rideshare", but that's what happens when old terms are continually used for additional purposes.

These distributed taxi systems are *not* "Rideshare" unless the driver was already going to a destination and picked up someone with a similar or en route origin and destination (which is almost never the case). Their use of the term "Rideshare" is deceitful. They are not a form of "sustainable transportation". They're just as bad driving one's own vehicle except that one needn't own a vehicle or worry about parking.

Lyft calls itself a ridesharing app and the co-founder, John Zimmer, should know better. He actually co-founded an actual rideshare-matching website/utility called Zimride which is used by TDM professionals all over the country. As someone in the industry, he knew the value of painting Lyft as "rideshare" (dodging taxi fees, getting funding, etc.) but he also knew the conflicts.

So please -- Pretty please. Stop calling these taxi systems ridesharing. Or else we'll have to start calling Best Buy and Apple store employees "programmers" and "network administrators".

He is the 21st century edition of Jon Katz

[kbahey]

He is the 21st century edition of Jon Katz.

America is Weak Against Monetiziation

[BrendaEM]

What if we all were made to use horses instead of trains, and trains instead of cars?

Monetizing should not be so protected.

Planet Money #525 is directly relevant to this

[Fencepost]

The assorted troubles of the Capitol Hill Babysitting Co-Op as discussed in Planet Money episode 525 (March 19, 2014) are directly relevant to this.

Basically, it's easy for people to hoard, and there's likely going to be a need for quite a bit of back-end management.

Re:kids

[gmhowell]

What alternate dimension do you hail from?

ze metro guyz

[dimitrygv]

I run into their metroguys. They are just like their metro app, forward looking all the way (8

Re:are you kidding?

[Brianwa]

We're talking about the city that can afford to close off streets for bus parking for a college football game but will happily maintain their regular weekend schedule "one bus every two hours" on New Year's Eve.

Re:This is what cab companies need to do to remain

[Slashdot Parent]

In my state, regular cars are subjected to periodic safety inspections. Every year, you have to bring your car in. I forget what-all they check. I think that your brakes aren't totally worn, tires aren't bald, turn signals, wipers, and horn work, etc. Basically, all the stuff that you should be checking before you put your car on the road, but nobody checks.

Re:kids

[crypticedge]

I've seen Judges give kids to drug addicted mothers over responsible fathers more times than I can count.

Tell me, how is it living in imagination land?

Re:kids

[Tuidjy]

What the fuck are you smoking?

I worked with a guy whose wife left him with their three month old son, and disappeared for six years. Then she married, took the kid, and he had to pay child support. Then she got kicked out by her new husband and sent the eight year old kid on a bus from Texas to California, without calling Dan until the bus was about to arrive, so I had to cover for him.

So far so good. The kicker is that she successfully got custody AGAIN a few years later. And my friend tried to fight it in court in fucking Louisiana, and lost.

So you are completely full of shit to say that a father has any chance to get custody unless there is something truly wrong with the mother, and even then, it's a slim chance.

Why are they listening to the US

[RockDoctor]

Why do companies like this set themselves up in the US. Set up in a country which doesn't have such stupid laws, then when the "cease and desist" letters arrive, wipe them in shit and send them back.