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.
Most taxi services have an "anti-serial killer" clause in their contracts. If you are a serial killer, they won't hire you. This is accomplished by swearing on the job application form that you are, in fact, NOT a serial killer. If they find out later on that you ARE a serial killer, they will terminate the contract and you will no longer be able to drive the cab, thus keeping the taxi industry 100% serial killer free. As far as I know, niether Lyft nor Uber have taken any steps whatsoever to prevent serial killers from working for them, which means that as a rider you have no idea if your driver is going to murder you, after having already murdered someone else. (It takes more than one murder to be a serial killer).
So yeah, this is a good thing.
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.
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.
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.
Uber is a "carpool" service now? i thought it was a service similar taxi's, but unlicensed.
Taxis take your credit card after the ride is over. A serial killer has plenty of time to do bad stuff to you before your card is used. Uber knows who you are from the moment you hail the cab.
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.
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