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"?

[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"?

[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"?

[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"?

[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:next it will be illegal

[mi]

Or even your wife .

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.

[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...