Slashdot Mirror
How Airports Became Ground Zero In the Battle For Peer-to-Peer Car Rentals
curtwoodward writes: "Even in libertarian-infused Silicon Valley, playing nice with the government can be a smart move. That's the attitude at RelayRides, a peer-to-peer car rental service that plans to expand at airports by getting permission first. On the other side is FlightCar, a competitor that would rather fight the power in court. The next couple of years should tell us which approach is smarter. Similar battles are becoming almost routine as startups born of the digital economy confront the real world’s established power systems, particularly in the emerging 'sharing economy,' where online tools help networks of consumers rent things to each other. And as these young companies try to manage rapid growth and fend off threats to their survival, the decision about whether to fight regulators or accommodate them can become another way to gain a competitive edge."
...of how the constant whining about the "free market" is total bullshit.
The free market created innovation, so the established players want to shut it down. They go whining to legislators, who will put in a reglation because their donors tell them to.
Concerns about "saftey" and the like are irrelevant... this is the usual crap we see in the "pro free market" USA.
It shouldn't be much of a surprise, but just because Silicon Valley is libertarian-leaning, that doesn't mean that the government-run airports in San Jose, San Francisco, or Oakland are libertarian. Of course, even if they were libertarian-run, they might still view taxi service to/from the airport as a profit center, but San Francisco airport in particular is much more likely to restrict access by services that compete with city-medallion taxis.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
In the last few days he's posted two highly biased, agenda-driven things on Slashdot's main page. Both take the perspective that it's eeeevil guvmint trying to crack down on plucky, innovative, honest corporations who just wanna do right by you. In the way he presents these highly questionable narratives, there's no no room for the facts that city governments have had long-standing regulations for cab and ride services that require adequate levels of insurance and other means of covering liability when Bad Things Happen.
One such case of Things happened New Years's Eve here in San Francisco, when a ride-service (yeah, it's not "sharing" if you exchange a service for a fee) driver ran over and killed a child. The company in question, because it had been throwing tantrums and refusing to comply with existing regulations (not to mention publicly ranting that the city was trying to "kill innovation"), didn't have coverage and refused all liability, putting it all on the driver.
If these companies cannot afford to comply with existing safety regulations, the way cab companies have and do, maybe they aren't a viable business model and need to innovate all over again.
Great. Now we have a bunch of under-insured, illegal jitney drivers, just like any third-world nation...
Read the tales of woe of Uber-X drivers who have lost their personal insurance. Yes, riders and the other driver in an accident are covered by Uber-X, up to an inadequate $100,000.
California Livery law requires $1,000,000 insurance, though, and specific licensing to drive passengers for hire.
These drivers typically have neither of these, though. And personal policies generally specifically exclude driving for hire. So, driver gets in an accident, Uber pays, and driver is now out of a job (or side job) and is uninsurable.
Never mind spying governments, Microsoft and/or Apple, or the RIAA - anywhere where the Internet will try to compete with the mafia, the Internet will fail. Because just like the mafia, the Internet is an unregulated bunch, but unlike the mafia, the Internet does not use fists and/or real-life weaponry when it doesn't get what it wants.
Taxi-business, garbage-collection - Internet people shouldn't even try it. They'll come after you.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
can help to cut some of the insurance cost and any ways what about auto drive cars? they can be driving thought an legal mind field
The fundamental difference between so-called 'ride sharing' service and taxis or cars-for-hire is that the former have an automated dispatch system and part-time drivers, while the latter have human dispatchers and different employment models. All of these are ride-for-hire. One might argue that the current costs of taxi licenses, insurance regulations etc. are excessive. However, if you want to argue that, the argument would apply to the established ride for hire industry just as much as it does to new ones. The argument seems be getting made that the new auto-dispatch car services are materially different. I would suggest that they are only different in (1) they have a new dispatch system and (2) they appear not to meet the letter of the law that would bring them under existing regulation. A new dispatch system will not inherently effect the issues existing regulations are intended to address: safety, liability, market crowding. Since all are in the same business, differing only in dispatch technology, there is no apparent reason that the same regulations should not apply to the new businesses-- neither more not less stringent than for the established businesses. A free-market is most free if all players in an industry that are *materially* the same carry the same regulatory burdens. If the regulations are excessive, then they should be reduced for existing ride-for-hire entities. If the regulations are reasonable then the new businesses using automated dispatch systems should be subject with the same regulations. Whichever the dispensation of the existing regulations, everyone should be playing by the same rules (and regulations). Once everyone is playing by the same rules, the competition will be on the merits of the service and efficiency of operation, as well as fashion, personal preference, and marketing -- the most fair market discriminators we can realistically achieve.
In Spain 100% of the cab rides (50+) I've taken have had courteous, social drivers (at least as far as Spanish people are courteous), fast, fairly metered, in modern cars with air conditioning, etc. I think a few times they may have taken a slight detour, but nothing I would get upset about. And cabs are pretty much always available, pretty much all times of day. And the prices are fine, cheap even. So, I don't know if this is an American problem but I definitely would not welcome so called peer-to-peer car services destroying what is a functioning, well-regulated, economy here. I think what it would put in its place would be a city with a similar service, for a similar price (although probably fluxuating much more wildly, with price-gouging effectively condoned) but with the car drivers not being able to actually count on what they do as a full time job. I can already book a cab in real time with a mobile app, and get them to pick me up at a certain time by phone. So how does this really benefit me, or anyone, in the long term? It seems like it's just making one more sector a horrible one to work in. At least in terms of stability.
Grace was a renowned innovator. And her favorite saying was "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/G...
For aficionados of Grace, Dave Letterman's interview is a must-see.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
It all boils down to companies paying tax to someone one, be it the government or airports in this case.
As long as everyone pays the taxes, no issues. Try to bypass the taxes and lawyers shall descend upon thee.
SFO is cheap compared to other airports for taxes, in Vegas it works out to be about 50% tax on top of the rental bill.