California Regulators Tell Ride-Shares No Airport Runs

An anonymous reader writes in with news about ride-share crackdowns in California. California regulators are threatening to revoke permits for on-demand ride companies UberX, Lyft, Sidecar, Summon and Wingz unless they stop giving rides to and from airports within two weeks. The move could lead to the state shutting down the companies' operations. Flouting the airport rules also flouts regulations that the CPUC set up for the new generation of ride companies to operate in California. In a clear rebuttal to an argument often made by the ride companies, Peevey wrote: "These safety requirements should not hinder your creativity nor should they impede your innovation."

Comments

"Safety Requirements"?

[Chris Mattern]

Why is it not safe for them to drive to the airports, but it's safe for them to drive elsewhere? Are they going to hit a plane or something?

Re:"Safety Requirements"?

[hermitdev]

Its because these non-cabbies tend to drive in a safe and predictable manner, rather the the cabbies that drive erratically, changing lanes without signalling, running lights & stop signs, generally being a nuisance. Obviously not safe to mix the two. (This based on Chicago experiences, I assume CA cabbies are likewise assholes).

Re:"Safety Requirements"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it not safe for them to drive to the airports, but it's safe for them to drive elsewhere? Are they going to hit a plane or something?

They might hit a cabbie or airport shuttle operator's profit margin.

Fine. I won't take UberX to the airport, I'm taking it to the airport parking garage, from which I'll walk the extra ten feet to the airport.

Re:"Safety Requirements"?

[v1]

Why is it not safe for them to drive to the airports,

It's not safe, ya sees, because Luigi here will have to come over and accidentally adjust your kneecaps if you interfere with this bizness opportunities in the Yellow Cab.

Re:"Safety Requirements"?

[Adriax]

I'm pretty sure the LA cab drivers are on some secret contract to thin the general populace.

Re:"Safety Requirements"?

[pla]

Why is it not safe for them to drive to the airports, but it's safe for them to drive elsewhere?

Because states get huge amounts of money tacked on to cab fares to and from airports, it would clearly count as much, much less safe to the state's coffers.

Can't have any of those dirty ridesharing hippies putting a sweet revenue stream at risk!

Re:"Safety Requirements"?

[Imrik]

Because if they drive to the airports they'll upset the cabbies' union, which is unsafe for them.

Re:"Safety Requirements"?

[pepty]

It's not clear that it's safe for UberX drivers in either situation. If the driver causes an accident UberX will cover their liability costs only. Their own costs they will have to pay out of pocket unless they get commercial insurance, since their personal insurance won't cover them.

Re: "Safety Requirements"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have a valid walking permit?

Re:"Safety Requirements"?

[knightghost]

It's about money as always. Airports typically charge $5 to the cab whenever it does a run to or from the airport.

Re:"Safety Requirements"?

[TheGratefulNet]

its a lie.

you and I can drive to the airport. and we can drop people off and pick them up!

so its a total bullshit lie.

can you say 'protectionism'? sure, I knew you could.

Re:"Safety Requirements"?

[shikaisi]

As Michael Flanders once said, "It's actually been calculated it is safer to fly than it is to cross the road. Mind you, I gave that up years ago where I live, in Kensington near the air terminal. They have these airline buses whizzing about, you know. I think the drivers have instructions to keep the statistics favourable!"

Re:"Safety Requirements"?

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, it was so bad in my hometown for a while, that they actually guaranteed the public bus wouldn't run to the airport. That way, you would have to take a cab.

Our company would hire a limousine (actually a chouffered luxury car) to the airport because it was much cheaper than taking a cab). Eventually the hotels were getting people hitching rides on the hotel shuttles who were not staying at the hotel, to such a degree that the hotel charged a nominal fee, about 1/4th the cab fare. That eventually broke the monopoly, and finally, ten years later you can take the public bus too.

It is crazy, but due to the changes, you can finally ride a cab to the airport for about half what it cost fifteen years ago. (and that's not adjusting for inflation)

Re: "Safety Requirements"?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you expect to walk, if you don't have any legs?

Mr Anderson.

Re:"Safety Requirements"?

[Karmashock]

Obviously its just protectionism for the taxi companies. Nothing more or less.

They do the same thing with mass transit. The subway they're building in Los Angeles will not go to the airport.

A lot of this comes down to the taxi medallions which the cities charge taxi companies to run their fleets.

Those medallions can be very expensive. And so the cities have a very strong financial interest to protect the taxi companies.

Really the taxi companies are quite justified in asking for protection. They've paid for it. The issue however is that the protection shouldn't have been for sale in the first place. Drop the cost of new medallions to something reasonable. A price similar to what the DMV charges for car registration. Then require uber etc to get the same license for all its drivers. The cost in this case would be nominal.

Then everyone is on an equal footing. The cities won't get the same revenue from medallion sales. But then neither will they have to subvert city policy to protect taxi companies. So it should balance out in the end.

Re:"Safety Requirements"?

[PapayaSF]

Because Republicans aren't logical. They hate the idea of people being able to work for themselves so they have destroyed the ride share business.

Earth to AC: The "California Regulators" mentioned in the first two words of the headline are not Republicans.

Re:"Safety Requirements"?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Taxi medallions are too expensive, give the drivers small lapel badges instead.

Re:"Safety Requirements"?

[jxander]

Do I have to be licensed for chauffeur work if I drop my friends off at the airport?

What about if they pay me for it? Maybe they're just covering gas money, but cash exchanged hands for rides? Have I run an illegal taxi service?

Re:"Safety Requirements"?

[MindStalker]

This has Little to do with the cabs themselves. This is about the Airports.
Airports are legally "private" property (even though they are run by the city). All airports in the US at least have a long standing history of charging cabs and limo services for picking up, dropping off customers. Its a simple fact that if you run a private car company you have to pay the airport, period, full stop. The airports in turn will and have charged people with "illegal trespassing" for not paying.
Many private car companies nowadays accept Uber Black and they do pay the airports their share. UberX drivers being "regular people" don't know to pay the airport, and don't have the appropriate tags/markings for the airport to know what they are. Uber has been trying to work out a solution, but it requires privately negociation between Uber and each and every airport in the country. A LONG and costly operation. California, one of the prime places where the airports have been treating UberX drivers as trespassers is making this as "safety regulation". Ultimately I guess it is a safety issue, as its creating a physical confrontation between drivers and the security officers attempting to ticket them.

Of course

[istartedi]

Everybody knows that only your closest cronies will do the airport pickup. It's the sign of a true crony.

A remember in the early 90 when I lived in the bay

[mark_reh]

area. There were three airports and four train systems (or was it four airports and three train systems?). None of the trains went to any of the airports. I always figured the taxi union lobbied hard when it was time to decided the train line terminations. I think it has improved a little since the early 90s, but probably not much.

Cabbies.

[grub]

"We have heard numerous complaints that (our) safety rules are being ignored,"

Yeah, the cabbies are complaining. I would guess non-cabbies love the service.

Re:Cabbies.

[grub]

I was suggesting that the bulk of the complaints are likely coming from cabbies.

Michael Peevey mentions "safey rules" but then goes on to 'lacking airport permits, as well as lacking proper "trade dress" on their vehicles and lacking proof of insurance.' Ok, lacking proof of insurance I can understand. So carry papers in the glovebox and all is well.
Airport permits? That's just money denied to the airports. I'd wager the complaints that are not from cabbies are from the airport authorities for this very reason.
Trade dress? Fine, slap on a cheap magnetic sign. That is not a safety issue.

They dress is up as "safety rules" but the real motives are financial.

Re: Cabbies.

[pepty]

Unions aren't the problem, it's the capitalists who invested upwards of $1M per taxi medallion. Specifically the lawsuits they will file against the cities/states if they change laws so as to devalue those medallions.

Re: Cabbies.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, sounds like the LA taxi drivers need a union. Get a load of this crap:

In a study of Los Angeles taxi drivers, UCLA professors Gary Blasi and Jacqueline Leavitt found that taxi drivers work on average 72 hours a week for a median take home wage of $8.39 per hour. Not only do they have to pay $2000 in “leasing fees” per month to taxi companies, but the city regulates things like what color socks they can wear (black) and how many days a week they can go to the airport (once). None of the drivers in the survey had health insurance provided by their companies and 61% of them were completely without health insurance.

-- Pricenomics -- The Tyranny of the Taxi Medallions

Re:Cabbies.

[stoborrobots]

The "trade dress" and "permit" rules are safety rules, but not road safety, which is why it's not immediately apparent. The safety being assured by those rules is the *passenger* safety, against being abducted, mugged, scammed, etc.

Airports are locations where a large number of people who are not familiar with the local customs arrive, and this makes them prime targets for scams. For a time, it was common for fake taxis/limousines to turn up, pick up unsuspecting travellers, then hold them hostage until they gave up items of value or overcharge them for short journeys (possibly by driving around town before proceeding to their destination).

In response, airports now require checks for anyone providing a pick-up service at the airport; this includes buses, taxis, and limousines. The airport permit fee covers the cost of performing these checks. The trade dress requirement is so that vehicles are clearly identifiable as providing a commercial pick-up service, which can then be monitored by police, airport officials, and other relevant authorities.

Not to say that their motivation in excluding ride-share organisations is not a financial one, but there are reasons these things were put in place...

All Uber in endangering...

[Sean]

is the revenue of competing services.

Translation :

[Darth Turbogeek]

These rules are here to defend taxi companies at their most lucrative source of income. There is not a single reason else.

And frankly, airports are exactly where I would WANT a ride sharing service over the entrenched taxi industry. After dealign with flying, the last thing I want is to deal with a taxi driver not interested for a second where or how far I want to go - and in fact is forced by law to pick up my patronage here because before that law... they would reject my destination for a "better" fare. Let alone the other issues taxis have like the queues and half the time there isnt one availible for too long.

No, fuck em. If I can have a service that is waiting to pick me up, go where I want to go, more often than not in a clean and comfortable car, with a driver who (and I apologise for the next comment but you know this happens too often) understand what you are saying and is interested more in customer service.... I'll take it.

We do have a premium taxi service here that works more like Uber and in general it's a mile better than the regular taxi services. Unfortuantly it's too small to be truly able to handle capacity. You know, if taxis worked more like the premium serives I'd be less sympathic to Uber and Co, but they arent so.... fuck em. Bring the ride sharign services on.

So wait... what?

[mark-t]

If I call my friend and ask him to give me a lift to the airport and I give him, say, $20 in exchange which is considerably more than what it would cost in gasoline (almost an order of magnitude more, in fact), is he breaking the law by accepting the transaction? Am I breaking the law by soliciting such assistance? If not, then why is it somehow different if the driver is not somebody personally known to me?

Fuck taxis

[ArcadeMan]

I want to be able to call an Amazon quadcopter to carry me to my destination.

Re:Fuck taxis

[evilviper]

I want to be able to call an Amazon quadcopter to carry me to my destination.

Just make absolutely sure you check-mark the option:

* Group my items into as few shipments as possible. (at additional cost)

Re:next it will be illegal

[mi]

Or even your wife .

Re:Protectionism

[mark-t]

Yeah.... they can be pretty strict on those zones in front of the terminal. In a nutshell, you really can't actually wait for anybody there. You have to arrange with whoever you are picking up where you will meet them, and then you can stop there In those zones in front of the terminal you basically have to be either loading or unloading, and clearly in the process of picking up or dropping off someone, or else you can be ticketed. In my experience, cabs don't so much have an exemption to this as much as they have a designated area in front of the terminal where cabs are allowed to be which is generally quite clearly marked, and regular passenger pickup isn't supposed to occur there anyways.

Innovation?

[rsilvergun]

At the risk of being modded troll, what innovation? All of the tech that powers these sites was built by other people. The only thing these guys did is get enough capital to fend off lawsuits.

I guess what really bugs me about these ride share guys is the real reason they're so big: massive unemployment and 40 years of declining wages. People don't participate in ride share sites for fun. I know taxi and limo drivers. They're some of the most abused people in the world. They're 'independent contractors' only in so long as it involves not getting the benefits of being employees (unemployment insurance, heath care, etc).

Fix the broke ass economy and all this 'innovation' would go away tomorrow. Christ, $16 billion in ipo value build on the corpse of the American Middle Class.

Just videotape it and you'll be fine. ;)

[Shakrai]

The first one is a prostitute

Family Guy reference:

1. Paying someone to have sex with you: Prostitution. Illegal.
2. Paying someone to have sex with you while you run a camera: Production of pornography. Legal.

Console yourself cabbie, you won't be the only one

[monkeyFuzz]

The ride-share drivers may as well make hay while the sun shines as I suspect their 15 mins of fame is close to done. Once autonomous vehicles are approved for use (yes I expect the same lobbies to fight it) neither ride share drivers not cabbies will be required to provide safe transportation and all this crying over this and that issue will be moot. All one needs is a fleet of self driving cars taking the human factor out of the equation for good!

Your dream world is broken

[TrollstonButterbeans]

>Once autonomous vehicles are approved for use

... the cab fare will be the same except there won't be a human receiving the wages.

Like how a Snickers bar costs $1.25 in a vending machine.

Not that there will be commonplace autonomous cars in the next 20 years, they will remain as common as the flying cars hypothesized in the 1960s ... and the reason is simple:

Q) Why won't there be autonomous cars?

A) Because even a car that can handle 99% of normal driving situations is incredibly dangerous in that other 1% scenario. And that 1% scenario --- power is out and stop lights don't work or ad-hoc road construction or a very destructive pothole or severe rain that blunts sensors --- those happen on a very regular basis.

The only autonomous cars will be the ones we already have --- they are called trains! Not that they are "smart", but because their driving conditions are extremely simplified --- yet they STILL have drivers!!!