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.'
When we refactor code we find there is sometimes unexpected wisdom hidden in with the cruft.
Is there perhaps some wisdom in these laws that help public safety?
I really don't know.. I like the concept of Uber and lyft, but while we're getting rid of the cruft, are we getting rid of the wisdom too?
I can picture a serial-killer scienerio with these utilities, but I have no idea if the protections are built in.. I've not used them..
Just asking the question cause I have no idea.
Any answers?
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.
driving to a strip mall, like hundreds and hundreds of other people around the area, then hitching a ride with random strangers looking for that 2nd or 3rd person to get into HOV lanes on their way into arlington, alexandria, and DC.
Don't rental car companies basically do the same thing...let a group or community use a vehicle?
That their monopolies are threatened and leverage government to protect them.
Way it is and way it will be.
Could someone explain what the difference is between taking a cab and carpooling when the driver expects to receive compensation for the ride?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Good thing there's no call for or benefit from greater per-car occupancy, or experimentation more generally with disruptive disintermediation.
I'm thinking Anon was having too much fun writing the summary to give the title a second glance. Editors are notorious for making slight changes to titles as well (it's about the only thing they'll "correct").
You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
No, "Virginia State" is an US state (with a little-known own name of "Commonwealth of Virginia"), "Virginia State University" is the school. Using bare "Virginia" is not enough to tell what you mean, especially in an international forum.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
The regulation approach.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/06/06/4162062/uber-lyft-become-regulated-in.html
This is a good example of how we have a "Free Market" in America... the big business is free to screw you over.
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.
The summary was amateurish and bias even by slashdot standards. Where has this new style of 'reads like some random blog post' story come from?
Whatever the pros and cons of ride-share apps, there is something seriously wrong when a corporation pledges to operate in open defiance of the law. That's far worse than regulatory capture. Corporate death penalty, anyone?
You're right; I've fixed the headline to read DMV instead.
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
In a state where slugging is a daily occurrence - if not downright necessity - I find it insane that they would rule against what is the next natural evolution of it! Are they going to kill slugging now??
They tax your car every year 4 percent of its value. The number one reason I am leaving the state.
Just the ones in the open... The Republicans just have a wide stance....
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
Largely shut down now (maybe completely), but there was for a time a thriving, aboveboard business for air couriers to ship some things (important documents, that sort of thing) by air. This was when checked bags were routinely included in air travel prices, the internet was less prevalent and capable, online signatures were a pie-in-the-sky theory, etc. You'd sign up, and in exhange for payment (mostly or fully in the form of free travel), you'd get to visit New York from Los Angeles (for instance) in exchange for the use of your checked-luggage space. Plane ticket prices have plummeted thanks to deregulation, and so have the prices of alternatives (online, but also the reach and cost of other quick mailing options, for things that absolutely, positively have to be there overnight), and checked baggage is no longer a built-in cost.
So when you say "dodge mail costs," I just take issue with the connotation :) It's like the old and true saw about taxes: "Avoid," perfectly fine; "Evade," and you might go to jail. Doing favors for friends, cooperating to accomplish tasks is more on the "cooperate" side of the scale than the (criminally) "conspire" side.
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Work to get the laws and regulations changed if you truly believe that. I agree somewhat with you too.
Bad? Because good and bad are on sliding scales and subject to interpretation. What isn't subject to interpretation is laws and regulations. What's that, fish are being over harvested and the wild populations are down to dangerous levels, well the rules are bad so I won't follow them- after all, this is how I make a living. What's that, people cannot dump petrochemicals into the river, well, in the 20 years I have been doing it, nothing bad has happened unlike all those other people who actually caught the river on fire. What's that, the sign says slow children at play speed limit 20mph, well, I'm a good driver, that's a bad law because I can go faster..... oh shit, the rug rat ran right in front of me.
Or are you saying that a law is only bad if you agree it is bad? Well, if that is the case, how are we supposed to know which laws are for real and which ones can be discarded at will because you deemed them bad? I will tell you how, you get them changed.
I would say their levels of insurance is a key way. Cabs need to have a commercial insurance with a rider that meets a certain minimum that residential auto insurance doesn't. This limit is generally 100 to 300 thousand as that seems to be the minimum for most of the google results I found. But in almost every state, if the person is acting unlawfully in the course of creating the claim, the insurance company can get out of paying a claim. So failing to get a taxi license and operating as a taxi service can possibly create an opening for the insurance company to refuse payment for your hospital bills. This happens all the time when people deliver pizza without the commercial insurance, they get in an accident, the insurance company finds out they were driving for work and refuses to pay because it was considered a commercial trip and you didn't have commercial insurance.
Somehow monopoly taxi service protects consumers but monopoly internet service is unpopular. Aren't you glad the same municipally that insures safe (if expensive) cabs insures you have quality broadband?
Plane ticket prices have plummeted thanks to deregulation, and so have the prices of alternatives (online, but also the reach and cost of other quick mailing options, for things that absolutely, positively have to be there overnight), and checked baggage is no longer a built-in cost.
So when you say "dodge mail costs," I just take issue with the connotation :) It's like the old and true saw about taxes: "Avoid," perfectly fine; "Evade," and you might go to jail. Doing favors for friends, cooperating to accomplish tasks is more on the "cooperate" side of the scale than the (criminally) "conspire" side.
The major airline I work for has a shipping option designed specifically for things such as important documents and small packages that guarantees immediate shipping (on the flight booked or earlier) or 100% refund. So there is really no need for air couriers these days anyway unless the item is too valuable to ship unescorted.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Disclaimer: I am an uberX driver in Dallas.
In Dallas the city is rewriting the rules to allow ridesharing services like Uber and Lyft, and both companies have had a seat at the table while the new rules have been drafted. The old regs, bought and paid for by Yellow, limit the number of cars such that if I wanted to start a cab company with the present regs, I literally could not because Yellow is known to be squatting (i.e., bought but not using) about 300 car licences. The rewrite is of rules Yellow itself bought and paid for (Al Lipscomb, a Dallas city councilcritter, was acquitted by an appeals court, but only because they railroaded a guilty man).
A lot of people whine about the so-called "insurance gap." That problem has been resolved:
http://blog.uber.com/uberXridesharinginsurance
Uber has published the text of the policy; I leave it as an exercise to the reader to find it.
There ARE kinks to be worked out, but Uber is in compliance with insurance regs that require as much as $1 million in first-dollar coverage. Drivers' personal vehicles are covered for comp and collision damage while on the road as well. (I might like a smaller deductible, but it's better than what I thought Uber provided, which was nothing.)
Really, all this whining is about protecting entrenched interests. If you had good experiences in cabs, you've obviously never been to a place like Dallas. I hear stories all the times of cabbies assaulting passengers, kicking them out in the dark without knowing where they are, demanding cash at the end of a ride, after agreeing to take plastic at the start, refusing to take plastic when they clearly have the Visa/MC/Disc/Amex/Diners logos on their windows, refusing to use the meter and instead demanding an inflated price, adding excess charges for no apparent reason, refusing to run AC on 110 degree summer days, and having cars that are disgusting and have broken safety equipment (like cut up seat belts).
In Dallas, clients choose Uber because the taxi companies offer a shitty product, and they like Uber's product better. If Uber brings some attention to the problems of the taxi industry's shitty product, all the better.
But if you're going to complain, complain about the right thing. The insurance problem has been resolved. It's time to move on and complain about what's really bugging you: Uber is screwing with your business and you don't like it because you thought you'd bought and paid for your little monopoly years ago.
I took one of these van-shares (not that some aren't by car, but the ones I saw were mostly vans; maybe just because cars are harder to spot, and don't gather quite the same way) from San Juan to Vieques. (Well, to the ferry terminal to *reach* Vieques, that is ...) While I never rode in these publicos between SJ and other cities, the service definitely exists, and I wish I'd gotten around the island more with them. As it is, I took only two trips (so, 4 legs) in them. Yes, there were a lot of stops, but not as many as I'd feared, and it was an interesting experience. Besides general sight-seeing (as well as one can from the road), it also went to distinctly *non*-tourist areas for some of the pickups. It was also nicely cheap -- cheaper to make town-to-town trips than it was the few times I got regular taxi service within SJ.
The publicos tend to wait for enough of a critical mass of passengers in town squares and similar places in smaller towns; in SJ, as I recall, it was more like "Be on this corner, at this time," for the trip to Vieques. On the Vieques side, the vans waited in a parking garage near a bus depot, which makes a lot of sense: taxis, buses, ferries, publicos are all going where there's a cluster of people who want to travel someplace besides where they are ;)
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
The "great car occupancy" is just wrong. These drivers are not a part of a car pool, where several people going the same way use the same vehicle. This isn't even about friends driving other friends around. Instead these drivers are acting as independent taxi drivers, pure and simple. There may be two people in the car but to infer that it's a reduction in vehicles on the road is disingenuous.
Your average driver already complies with laws requiring that both they and their vehicles are licensed and that they are insured. The states justify THESE requirements on average people by claiming they make these drivers and their vehicles safe (AND their non-paying passengers). If these rules are NOT perfoming that function then they are not justified. The very same governments then come along and claim that anybody who hauls passengers FOR PROFIT needs a nother set of licenses, fees, certifications, etc..... but the sensible person should immediately ask "Why?".
Special regulations that apply to the commercial form of a thing, and not the non-commercial form, are self-evidently not truly neccessary or justified. Think about it. You're not supposed to notice that out of one side of their mouth they proclaim an activity to be acceptably safe, and then out of the other side of their mouth they insist it is unsafe IF DONE FOR PROFIT without extra regulatory burdens - this is completely irrational unless you see the real magic - that it has NOTHING to do with safety and EVERYTHING to do with political corruption.
What you're never supposed to ask is the question that most-frightens establishment politicians in BOTH parties:
"What gives you the right AND the authority to even be INVOLVED in this at all?"
and the follow-up equally-important question:
"Where's the proof that your regulations and taxes are providing a benefit that justifies the burden, or ANY benefit at all?"
The real point of all such un-equal government intervention is to enable crony capitalism. An industry climbs into bed with the politicians and agrees to pay them extra fees and submit to extra regulations (giving the politicians the money and power THEY seek) and in exchange the politicians agree to supress any competition in that market (giving the established businesses the competition-suppression and artificially inflated prices THEY seek). The losers are the public (who do not get lower rates and the innovation new upstart competitors would provide) and the poorly-funded would-be entrepreneurs who might have a great idea and enough money to launch it but lack the extra money, expertise and manpower to negotiate all the complex regulations and added fees.
THAT explains why there are no accidents in California involving taxis.
Oh, wait there's this one in San Diego, and this one also in San Diego, and... oh, never mind.
Either California issues driver's licenses to COMPETENT drivers, or they do not ... they pretend that there's a point to issuing licenses to drivers and pretend those licenses are "good enough" (even for people carrying a car-load of children) but then mysteriously pretend that a taxi driver needs a special license to carry even one consenting adult. Either California's insurance requirements and vehicle inspection requirements are good, or they are not and the state should stop hassling average citizens with them; it's a JOKE to say the insurance and vehicle inspection for driver "Joe" are adequate (even hauling passengers) but that another set of rules are needed for for the very same guy in the very same car and hauling the very same passengers ... IF HE DOES IT FOR MONEY.
It's a scam.
In most places with taxi regulations, the rules setup a limited number of authorized cronies (to artificially-inflate and protect prices) using some scheme like "medallions" as a totally-artificial market manipulation.
This plague tends to occur in big cities where [a] lots of money is on the line and [b] "big government" Democrats have a death-grip on the political machine (think: Chuck Heston with his NRA rifle), and will therefore never get voted-out over it (because their base voters will support them no matter what they do as long as they support gay marriage, or food stamps, or whatever other social "causes" are the "wedge issue" of the day)
1) I guarantee if you say "Virginia State shooting" to any of the many millions of people around here, every single one will immediately assume you mean "a shooting at Virginia State University" and not "a shooting in the Commonwealth of Virginia" or "a shooting in the State of Virginia". And it would hold true for countless millions of people NOT around here, too.
2) I never suggested using "bare Virginia". I said to use "Virginia DMV" which is quite precise, domestic or international.
3) And "Commonwealth of Virginia" is certainly not "little known", it is on all kinds of documents and signs and materials. But I suppose everything is relative. Even so, my statements were and still are correct. http://www.virginia.gov/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
With the evil govu'ment cracking down on Uber, I now won't even have to try my newest idea:
If you have a screw driver and a wire cutter in your car you can register online and if you are near someone who needs an electrician you can fix it for them.
I was gonna call it Park'n'Spark but I'm sure the gavu'ment would find some weasel regulatory claim to kill it.
The cowardly, terrified cry that no one, clearly, can possibly understand what they're doing. Oh, no.
Doesn't matter if I know that lead paint is dangerous to children licking the toys.
a) I dont' want to have to read the materials manifest for every toy marketed to kids I buy. I don't want to have to dismantle it and make sure the electrical is well engineered to prevent shocks.
b) Even if you KNOW the risks of lead paint, that doesn't do you any good if you don't know lead paint was used. Do I now have to send every toy I buy to a chemist to analyze?
This isn't wah-wah I need the nanny state to protect me from my own stupidity, this is I want to live in a country where if a toy is marketed as suitable for a 3 year old, that it actually contains no small sharp parts or is made of hazerdous toxic materials or is likely to explode, without me having to personally vet them all.
Are taxi services sustainable financially at all?
I'm not sure about US, but in most of the world the taxi services are not financially sustainable and thus are subsidized by additional taxes.
In other words, the cheaper services, which disrupt already weak taxi's profit margins, are a burden on the taxpayers themselves.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Dead, Inc. offers this incredible new service, dispose the your ex, for a dynamic fee.
And these pesky authorities around the globe insist that it's murder and illegal. Obviously the authorities want to protect the interests of divorce lawyers.
Basically Uber decided to ignore local laws in most jurisdictions, so I think they should be happy that they are just ordered to cease operating, instead of getting a confiscation order for their illegal gains.
There's nothing wrong with having standards for safety, insurance, accuracy in billing, and so on. But as soon as you see a limit on the number of cab licenses, bingo! That tells you that cabdrivers already in business are fiddling with the law to limit new entrants to the field. We of the dark side call this regulatory capture.
This isn't wah-wah I need the nanny state to protect me from my own stupidity, this is I want to live in a country where if a toy is marketed as suitable for a 3 year old, that it actually contains no small sharp parts or is made of hazerdous toxic materials or is likely to explode, without me having to personally vet them all.
And why do you suppose that every taxpayer and business should have to pay and be subject to prosecution by the government because you don't want to take responsibility for your children and the things you give them to play with?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Similarly people will get into a car operated by a driver without sufficient insurance or any guarantee 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.
If people tire of getting into uber/lyft cars that aren't insured or maintained properly, they can then...wait for it...take a taxi.
In many cities around the world, taxis are heavily regulated. Among these regulations are a fixed number of license plates, and the costs of these plates (or equivalent medallions, etc). This means that in many instances there aren't enough taxis to go around because these numbers were fixed a long time ago and may not be have been updated to meet demand. This benefits most the taxi operators and to some extent the drivers themselves because a high demand drives the price of the fare up. Also a business with low competition is always more comfortable to run. Customers hate it but are used to this situation.
Now Uber and others have sought to change the game, first by ignoring regulation and getting self-employed people to drive their own car to ferry people around. This is very good to some extent because taxi business in a lot of places is over-regulated and does not meet demand. Also the Uber et al have a nice online presence and at this stage at least do provide a useful service, so why not.
However, Uber fares are not cheap, this is not "sharing", this is a business. The self-employed individuals driving the cars may be putting themselves at risk: with their rides, the regulatory authorities, in case of accident, with other regulated taxi drivers, etc. We are still in a "honeymoon" period but this is sure to end. Uber has become much to big to be ignored, and so will soon have to fight for its own existence, in a lot of places all at once. I'm not sure their (huge) valuation will be enough.
This isn't wah-wah I need the nanny state to protect me from my own stupidity, this is I want to live in a country where if a toy is marketed as suitable for a 3 year old, that it actually contains no small sharp parts or is made of hazerdous toxic materials or is likely to explode, without me having to personally vet them all.
And why do you suppose that every taxpayer and business should have to pay and be subject to prosecution by the government because you don't want to take responsibility for your children and the things you give them to play with?
He(?) isn't failing to take responsibility; You're expecting the impossible. You want him to be a safety expert across multiple fields and spend large amounts of time testing his children's toys. Of course you don't only want him to do this but all parents, and childrens homes and anyone else responsible for children. Just so some companies can cut corners and make unsafe toys. It'd actually cost the taxpayer more not less.
When I was a kid and wanted a toy, my parents gave me a stick. And we LIKED it.
Now GET OFF MY LAWN!
Nanny statist.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
What isn't subject to interpretation is laws and regulations.
Yes it is, if some of he regulation only exists to prevent competition. You think the limited number of taxi licenses sold is to keep people safe? Or to keep taxi medallions expensive... in what way is that regulation one that is morally right to follow?
I would say their levels of insurance is a key way
I don't have time to respond to everything, but UberX DOES insure drivers. And the normal Uber service uses town car drivers that are already insured to drive other people too..
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
No, only a part of USians will assume that. For the rest of us, the message is clear, unless we happen to know details of that particular incident, which is unlikely unless one happens to read US news.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
If it isn't right, then get the law changed. However, you simply cannot say the law doesn't matter as obviously it does or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
and yes, they limit the number of taxis to limit competition. They do this in order to ensure the taxis are profitable enough to maintain their vehicles and stay in business. Whether you think this is morally wrong or not is a matter of opinion. Obviously, your overlords do not believe the same as you as they made it law. So get the law changed if you don't like it. Ignoring it will only put you in violation to it and subject you to the penalties of it.
If it isn't right, then get the law changed.
False.
However, you simply cannot say the law doesn't matter as obviously it does or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
And you cannot say it DOES matter or we would not be having this conversation.
Obviously if a company worth many billions exists by flouting these laws, they do not matter.
and yes, they limit the number of taxis to limit competition. They do this in order to ensure the taxis are profitable enough to maintain their vehicles and stay in business.
Which we can plainly see is not necessary, therefore it only exists to drive up the cost of taxi licenses and protect unions jobs.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Then suffer the penalties of the law or obey it. There is no false, you either change the law, follow it, or accept it's punishment.
It does and you know it. The law is not subject to interpretation that are not interpreted the same for everyone.
Ahh, the naivety in this. So if a company worth billions exists by dumping toxic wastes into rivers, laws against that do not matter? If a company exists by putting poisons in foods, laws against that sort of thing do not matter? Your foolishness is getting the better of you. Just because you don't like the law does not mean it is ok to ignore it altogether. Plenty of other people do not like plenty of other laws that you might find a good idea. If the law is bad, then get it changed. It really is that simple. You can change it by petitioning your government or by challenging the law in court and having it struck down. Ignoring it only subjects you to the penalties for violations of the law.
If it is that obvious and plainly seen, then you will have absolutely no problem getting the law changed. But coming here and crying that the law is forbidding something you think is a good idea and complaining about the punishment while demanding nothing be done to change the law is a tad but stupid of you ask me. I'm sure others would think the same too. If the law is as screwed as you think it is, it shouldn't be hard at all to get it changed. Who know, you might learn something in the process. You may even help someone else learn something.
Then suffer the penalties of the law or obey it. There is no false, you either change the law, follow it, or accept it's punishment.
Or you continue to break it and seek to avoid punishment as much as possible.
The law is not subject to interpretation
That shows a total lack of understanding of the court system, or an inkling why there is a court of appeals.
So if a company worth billions exists by dumping toxic wastes into rivers, laws against that do not matter?
In that case it is morally wrong to do so, so it matters. If it's morally right to break a law, then the law does not matter.
If it is that obvious and plainly seen, then you will have absolutely no problem getting the law changed.
And THAT shows an utter lack of understanding of political momentum or how laws get made/unmade.
You called me naive but you are the one who doesn't seem to understand anything about the mechanics of laws or regulations.
I'll let you have the last response as you obviously cannot reach enlightenment on this matter.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley