Slashdot Mirror
Virginia DMV Cracks Down On Uber, Lyft
An anonymous reader writes 'Talk about regulatory capture! As radio station WTOP reports, "The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles says that ride services Lyft and Uber are violating state law and must stop operating immediately. The DMV sent cease and desist orders to both companies Thursday." Who benefits most? It's not the people who are voting with their dollars and feet — seems more like the current stable of taxi drivers and others blessed by the state of Virginia. Good thing there's no call for or benefit from greater per-car occupancy, or experimentation more generally with disruptive disintermediation. Given enough bribe money down the road, I'm sure a deal can be struck, though.'
Or you know maybe it it's about companies coming in and skirting all regulation and laws that other companies have played by for years? Also some of those (read almost all of those) regulations have a purpose that serves to protect the consumer and the employee.
But of course Libertarians will circle jerk about how poor little Lyft and Uber are being downtrodden upon by democratically elected governments that established the laws in the first place.
Uber and Lyft are essentially third-world Jitney services, with a high-tech veneer.
The difference is the driver has been vetted by the company to some degree and there is a social reputation system in place.
Drivers are typically under-insured and under-licensed vs. regulatory requirements.
In California, for example, drivers-for-hire have to be specifically licensed, and carry $1M liability insurance. Uber provides a $100K "umbrella" for the benefit of passengers, "just in case" the driver isn't insured as required by the company. (But the required insurance level is far less than that required by the state.) The car, as well, needs to be registered with the state (TCP). (Unless a taxi, which is regulated locally).
Certainly, taxi and limo companies have a stake in keeping the status quo. That does not change the facts about under-insurance and under-licensing. So, they do have a legitimate beef about unfairness and protection of the public. This also works in their self-interested to limit competition, though.
If we don't have enough taxis, or limitation of taxis is artificially boosting rates, change the local regulations to allow more taxis. Let's have a more fundamental public debate and solution. Sure, taxi and limo companies are greedy. So are Uber and Lyft. Let's work-out what is really best for the public.
Uber/Lyft is "solving the problem" by ignoring it, and avoided a public/political debate by slipping in through a (non-existent, IMO) loophole.
I am not sure trying to pass Uber as an environmentally friendly solution will pass muster. Uber drivers operate essentially as unlicensed taxi cab drivers, rather than true "rideshare" or carpool services. They pick up new clients wherever requested and drive them to wherever client wants to go. These are trips that would not have happened otherwise. Since these services are, generally, cheaper than licensed taxi cabs (though, curiously, not by much in the area I just checked) - they may prompt people to call for and use an individual car, whereas otherwise the same riders might have chosen less convenient but cheaper public transportation.
I know you're joking, but interestingly enough, the reverse is so much more likely. Given the nature of the payment system, a bunch of missing Uber passengers would quickly be tied to the killer. The general anonymity and cash payment system of taxis would be entirely more preferable for a predator.
Now, if you think the regulations are unreasonable, ok, fair enough. But the correct answer then is to push to change the regulations. It isn't ok to say "Oh no those regulations are necessary for the NORMAL economy but our special SHARING economy should be exempt". That is just being greedy and trying to have unfair competition. Either it is good for all or it needs to be changed.
Also, if you think it should be changed, you might first want to look and see why said regulations exist in the first place. Sometimes they are bullshit, but often there is a good reason why a regulation comes in to force. There was a problem, and regulations were created to solve it. OHSA regulations are a good example. For anyone who's had to deal with them they can seem a little onerous, but then you study history and find out why we have them and it seems like a pretty damn good idea.
A business that can only be competitive and offer a lower price by skirting regulations isn't something to be proud of.
It is sad really. One of the best things about America was that it was easy to just set up a company. Being able to quickly set up a business is the real answer to wage slavery. You don't like working a shit job making minimum wage and being a slave to the corporation you work for? Start up your own shop. It empowers the people, and allows them to break free of the control of mega corps. But the urbanization of just about everywhere people live makes it damn near impossible to buy a chunk of property if you want a place these days, and even if you do find a place to set up shop or have a business idea where you don't actually need land (like Uber), you get fucked by regulations. They have even come for software, which is arguable the easiest possible thing to set up a private business around. Pretty much any piece of software you write today is likely covered by some patent, and if you get big enough, they WILL come after you. Everything is perfectly set up to consolidate power in the established players, and cripples the average person.
I've seen my state put up on their billboards, "SAVE GAS, CARPOOL". So now... they don't want me to carpool? How confusing.
Not so worried about the cars, Uber and Lyft inspect them to make sure they are in good condition, and even if they didn't the first bad ride would flag it.
Actually, the examples the poster you replied to gave might not be that obvious. The average consumer of these services rates the service based on things like how clean the back seats were, not on the brakes not working or the car having some other intermittent mechanical fault.
Personally, I don't see any difference between Uber and any other cab company other than the fact they use technology. You still notify the company when you want to go somewhere, they send someone who is self-employed then take a cut of the fare.
I also think that these companies need to recognise that often, local laws exist because the people who live in the are want them to. Here in London we have lawa that may or may not (our courts are still deciding the details) restrict their ability to operate. It is not up to us to change our laws to make things easier for some international company head quartered in the US and sending all its profits there. We should change our laws if the we want to and enough people write to their politicians demanding the change.
You might think us a bunch of backward retards or whatever for having such laws, then fine sod off and don't do business here.
I dont read