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.'
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.
In related news, Airbnb thinks they are exempt from food safety regulations.
http://goo.gl/LC73vZ
Newflash- if you offer goods or services to the public for money, you are not part of some new and different "sharing economy" just because it involves an iPhone app. You are part of the old fashioned economy and you need to play by the existing rules.
People are voting with their dollars and their feet EVERYDAY.
And people would buy toys with lead paint in them too if the price was low and they weren't aware of the risks of lead paint. Does that mean the regulations preventing them are wrong?
Similarly people will get into a car operated by a driver without sufficient insurance or any gaurantee that the vehicle is operating correctly and safe, and if its cheaper they won't care either... at least... until there is an accident.
Which is how the regulations came into effect in the first place -- the public was tired of getting into cabs that weren't insured or maintained properly.
The public seems to have a very short memory.
Every few decades there is a movement or two that discovers that things are cheaper if you skip the rules, and they look around and can not see horrible things happening so they assume that things simply don't go wrong (as opposed to there being a regulatory structure that is helping)... but after a while things go wrong, people get sick, people get hurt, long term consequences start becoming visible, and those injured by the workarounds start demanding regulation so it does not happen to others... then wait a decade for people to forget again.
EVERY Uber ride I've ever had has been in a nicer and better-maintained car than any cab I've ever been in in my life.
a) Then UBER should have no trouble meeting the requirements establishing that the cars are in fact safe
b) No idea where you live / travel, but I've never been anything but clean and excellently maintained cabs.
AFAIK, Uber guarantees insurance on all of their drivers as well.
Sure they do. To a faction of the limit than the state requires.
Meanwhile most Uber drivers I've met are effectively operating their vehicles as cabs, but are insuring them as pleasure and commuter cars.
Oh, I didn't realize that the taxis of yore carried continuously updated ratings and reviews from each and every passenger.
So now the number likes you have on facebook means I can trust you? The reputation system of Uber is a good idea, but 'other passengers' are hardly qualified to assess the mechanical condition of the vehicle, or the insurance held by the driver. Its good if I want to know if he speaks Chinese, is friendly, talks too much, or if I want to hear long winded complaints about how the previous passenger must have worn too much perfume that triggered an allergy attack but the driver got him to the hospital efficiently so A+++.
Also, why can't insurance companies start offering "Passenger Plans" for the wary consumer?
Really? So if you get sick at a restaurant, the restaurant shouldn't have any liability or insurance; you were suppose to have your own 'diners insurance'?
Fool; your mind is a fossil. Please, get out of my way.
That's the best you've got? The existing taxi system has lots of room for improvement and competition, and there is some regulatory capture (corruption even) but pretending uber is all rainbows and unicorns from the knights of good is a bit myopic too.