Slashdot Mirror
California Declares Carpooling Via Ride-Share Services Illegal
An anonymous reader writes: Ride-share companies like Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar got letters from the California Public Utilities Commission this week telling them that carpool features for their services are illegal. "Basically, the CPUC says that under California law it's illegal for these ride-sharing services to charge passengers an individual fare when carrying multiple people in one vehicle. If the companies would like to add a carpool feature, they first have to request an adjustment to their existing permits with the CPUC or petition the state legislature to modify the law. Uber, Lyft and Sidecar all unveiled carpool features last month. The three companies say the feature lets strangers in multiple locations, but heading the same direction, share rides and split fares — saving passengers up to 50 percent per ride."
This news arrives just as Uber gave in to the demands of striking drivers who claim the company is undermining their ability to earn a livable wage.
Minicab companies.
They are not 'ride sharing' or 'car pooling' or anything even similar.
The business model is old and well established,at least in london.
It means a cab service that does not use fully licensed drivers and vehicles, and cannot be just hailed on the street (must be booked).
The fact that they take most of their bookings from phone apps/online makes no difference at all.
It is just a private hire of transport service - they dont use cab ranks, they cannot pick up people who hail them.
Perhaps if they had admitted this to begin with, they would not have faced the legal hurdles they have.
So is this a case of a person doesn't own their own car? Or because it isn't getting taxed to death?
First DEUTCHLAND, now KALIFORNIA.
LOL!!!
That should be the headline. Seems to be the trend of the trendiest.
Isn’t that how they got around the cab medallion/licensing requirement, by claiming to be “ride sharing” services, not cabs?
And how does the California Public Utilities Commission have jurisdiction over this? It seems quite absurd...
I just need some gas money.
Let's label this what it really is. California, home of CARB, is now officially and legally on the record as supporting pollution. Discourage ride-sharing and carpooling, keep more gas guzzlers on the road, way to go.
Laws should be against the law.
Don't hurt anyone, don't lie or steal from anyone and don't crap where we all live. There might be a few more, but probably not too many. All the rest is nonsense.
In Kalifornia.
I know everyone is all over Uber and and the other one because the cars are "nicer" and the service "better" than cabs. But I have a basic problem with Uber and Lift, and that is in the fakery of their liability claims. The facts are ( as presented in MANY news stories) if you get injured in an Uber or Lift car, those CORPORATE entities will deny virtually all liability. So you go after the driver, right? But guess what? He's not insured for paying passengers. SHELL GAME.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
They're scam artists, and from the beginning have used 'letter-of-the-law' sophistry to justify their behavior - and count on the police having insufficient resource available to force them to comply with existing laws (or to work to change the relevant laws). They're just a brokerage service that takes a cut of the fares - the drivers aren't employees of Uber, thus Uber has no responsibility for them - either in terms of liability for passenger injuries, legal problems, employment taxes/benefits, etc.
It is truly a sad commentary on the state of the economy in the US that 'driving for Uber' is seen as desirable by some. But they are very, very good at public relations, dressing up their offering to appeal to different tastes - "we're disruptive", "we're for freedom of the drivers", "we're anti-government", etc.
Their underlying mindset is somewhat childish ... they're taking the attitude that "it's better to ask forgiveness than to ask for permission" ... then refusing to ask for forgiveness unless backed into a corner ...
Technology, once again, screwing people out of a way to earn a livable wage. It seems to happen more and more these days. I say boycott anything 'cloud', 'crowd', or that starts with an 'i', and any company who uses cheap foreign labor to sell cheap shitty devices.
Uber's already way ahead on this. They have vehemently insisted that they are not a cab company and have yet to lose a legal battle. Local government lawyers are not the brightest bulbs on the tree and it will take years before Uber and such are kicked to the curb. It will take actual legislation and these companies are really popular (at least int the U.S.). So good luck getting electected while opposing these companies.
Surely they don't think they can keep this business model running forever.
IPO? Sale to some other company (who, a rental car agency?)
" and cannot be just hailed on the street"
Thats a good idea, make hail illegal. Can they do the same with straightline winds and tornados too?
If you're charging for access to X (for any given X), you're not sharing, you're selling (or leasing). And you don't get to be exempt from consumer protection regulations just because you're doing your selling on the web.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
You do realize that they are already regulated and have gotten permits to operate in California right? They won the battle by complying with the law. I don't think this supports your supposition much though.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
When you do something for profit, your in business. Your legal liability changed. Your insurance needs changed.
Governments today restrict trade just like the church used to restrict speech. We think we are free because we can say what we want but we are not free. We cannot trade with anyone, anywhere, anytime. Freedom to trade is as much a threat to the authority of the modern Hobbesian state as speech was to the church when Galileo was alive. That's why you need permission to operate a carpool. In the future, when the world is more enlightened, freedom to trade will be as much a basic right as speech is today. No higher authority should be able to make it illegal for consenting adults to interact with one another.
What does "... for profit" mean? If you consume $6 in gas and you friend gives you $5, paying $2 more than their share, is that "for profit"?
If you have someone over for dinner and they pay more than their share or the groceries that go into the meal, are you running a restaurant for profit?
Really? Don't act like this is black and white.
Who makes these rules and why?
Then declare that multiple physical people in a car are actually a corporation, ie, a single legal person.
Mostly random stuff.
I no math talkin' guy but I'm pretty sure yours doesn't add up. :)
If you're paid $5 to do something that costs you $6, you didn't come out $2 ahead.
I'm unsure if the law is the same in the US as commonwealth countries, however, this is the relevant legal construct. That to accept passengers you have to be a common carrier, and I wondered how ride share programs got around this.
On the whole though, I think ride share is a good idea - though the odd crazy may be a bit spooky.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Next they are gonna regulate threesomes and butt fucking, and you'll have to apply for a permit, and pay the license fee for some good old ass fucking, per incident.
What part of "their share" do you not understand?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The friend paid $5 for a $3 share of the cost. That's where the "profit" comes from. And I wouldn't be surprised if the original poster agrees with your assertion that this isn't a profit.
Who cares if Uber _is_ a cab company? What moral authority does the state have to stop consenting adults from forming their own contracts and doing business with each other?
Why do you need to be "fully licensed" to have someone pay you to drive somewhere
Why do you need to be fully licensed to cook food for someone?
don't need anything special to, you know, actually carpool with someone or drive a friend of a friend you don't even know to the airport?
You also don't need anything special to cook a meal and give some of it to a friend of a friend you don't even know. That would be sharing. When you add the exchange of money in excess of costs and cooking to order it becomes a restaurant and subject to health and safety laws.
Part of the licensing of cabs is the safety of the cabs. For example drivers are required to inspect their vehicles daily and have them inspected by an independent company every six months. Part of the driver's license is the ability to do the pre-trip inspection. There are also limits on the number of hours a commercial driver can drive. If drivers cet caught too many time their commercial license is pulled. You can do that with a non-commercial license.
Now if they were going that way anyway and it costs them $6 in gas whether they're taking a rider with them or not, then they're actually ahead $5, since the trip, which would have cost them $6 of gas, now only costs them $1.
Carpooling 101.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Capitalism at work - an example of a government that's been bought and paid for. Yet another example of why too much of a good thing sucks immensely and capitalism moderated by the public having an equal say is better than the richest person getting to set the rules for everyone else.
Where's the tea party and the libertarians when you need them? don't we already have enough government intervention in our lives? If people want to get a ride in a car and are willing to pay for the fare individually, what is it the governments bidnets? Stay out of people's lives as much as you can. I know what it is, these politicians have some buddies, some contributors among the cab driver unions, that act like cockblocks to everyone else trying to enter the field and compete and lower the free market prices, and the government plays along with them. The best money to be made is always through erecting barriers of entry into your field, and killing off all the competition. Maybe taxi cab drivers should consult Microsoft for advice how to proceed and get rid of their competition?
Taxi unions pressure legislatures to enact the laws. The purpose is to limit competition, to make more money.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The fact that people aren't in the position to audit their books and look to see that they're in compliance with reasonable safety standards.
The point here is that the government is in a much better position to do things like that than idiots like you seem to think. Contracts only work when both parties have the option of full due diligence and people aren't going to be in the position to do so when it comes to ride share apps. Especially in cases where the drivers are independents who may or may not be properly overseen by the party brokering the transactions.
Part of the licensing of cabs is the safety of the cabs. For example drivers are required to inspect their vehicles daily and have them inspected by an independent company every six months.
It takes a special license in order to inspect your vehicle?
As for the daily inspection(which I'd do just for cleanliness), it seems to me that the regulation seems old - cars today are more reliable, but the mechanicals should be 'inspected' every 3-5k or so miles when it gets an oil change.
I don't read AC A human right
Thats a good idea, make hail illegal. Can they do the same with straightline winds and tornados too?
Restricting who can accept a street hail and requiring licensing is how the taxis protect their business. "Private transport companies", where you call for a ride in advance, are in a different category of business.
If push comes to shove, this can't at all be enforced by California. The server that coordinates where drivers and people they are picking up can be easily located offshore, and the sheer amount of police work needed to find, target, and convict people who are suspected of riding as a passenger would be tremendous.
Uber and Lyft are just like Napster and Audiogalaxy. They are the first wave on the front. The next wave will be decentralized systems that are offshore, well out of reach of any California laws. California politicians can snatch guns, but they are not going to snatch riders once a service that is similar to eMule comes along.
Holy shit. Please AT LEAST READ that comment before you reply to it.
Somehow you misinterpreted this part of the GP's comment:
If you consume $6 in gas and you friend gives you $5, paying $2 more than their share, is that "for profit"?
See the bold part? See it? Do you?
Since you obviously couldn't comprehend this basic scenario, let me explain it to you. So you and a friend are going to the same place. Say it's work, or a concert, or a sporting event, or maybe in your case it's to compete in the Special Olympics. Your friend drives you there. There are two of you, and collectively you consumed $6 worth of gas. If you split that cost, it means that your friend consumed $3 worth of gas, and you consumed $3 worth of gas. Now, you pay your friend $5, although you only owe him $3. His personal cost for the trip was $3, but you gave him $5. So his income of $5 minus his expenses of $3 leaves him with a profit of $2. To put it another way, although he consumed $3 worth of gas, he only had to pay for $1 worth after getting $5 from you. Your $5 covered the $3 worth of gas you consumed, and $2 worth of the $3 of gas that he consumed. So he made a $2 profit thanks to your $5 payment.
Apropos of nothing, when did we allow unelected regulators complete authority over the law?
It seems that every regulator now has the authority to declare something illegal, judge that an infraction has occurred, assess fines, and force collection.
If someone is in violation of a regulation, shouldn't the regulator present their evidence before a judge? Don't we want an unbiased 3rd party to chime in on whether the law is clear, whether the evidence merits a violation, and whether there are extenuating circumstances?
The policy of default judgement by fiat, with a "go to court to reverse it if you think you've been wronged" is a recipe for injustice and corruption.
When did we lose judicial oversight of our regulations? Did it happen slowly, or was it a sudden change?
You "fuck off from the internet until you at least learn what a law" should be.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I'd say it's just good old conflict of interest where the State is getting money from selling the right to operate taxis (or City in this case but the dirty work is passed up the chain via party affiliations) and people are undermining the business model of those making the money from the taxis. So what's the State to choose - the people it's supposed to represent or those giving it money? That's the conflict before it even considers whether the people undermining the business model have a case or not. Donations that directly benefit representatives of the State are also adding to the conflict of interest.
Up against something like that it takes overt enough corruption to disgust a lot of people or a very compelling reason to change before anything changes the situation.
It's yet another reason why the age of quick revenue fix of selling various rights can suck when others want those rights. I wrote a long rant earlier about government sanctioned telecommunications monopolies, but deleted it off the end of this post since the message that I'm pissed off with paid for regulation is probably clear.
If you use $6 in gas and they pay you $12 then there is $6 profit. What you deliberately miss is that Uber drivers would not be making those trips if not paid for them.
If you have someone over for dinner and they pay more than their share or the groceries that go into the meal, are you running a restaurant for profit?
No. But if many different people come over, you cook to order and charge more than the cost of ingredients and energy then you are a restaurant.
Allowing someone to piggyback on something you are already doing and contributing to the cost is sharing. Doing something specifically at the request of someone else and charging more than the costs is not sharing. That is called running a business.
Not enough opportunity for corruption.
Two out of three correct "your" usages... a new record!
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Typo "age old quick revenue fix" - the system of Royalty selling off the right of a person to operate a type of business and nobody else allowed to do so sucks. Variations of that suck less but the higher the barrier of entry the closer it resembles that royalist bullshit - a very frequent money raising tool of King John before Magna Carta and a bunch of well armed Barons established that he was not above the law.
When you do something for profit, your in business. Your legal liability changed. Your insurance needs changed.
And that's the wrong-headed doctrine that needs to be gotten rid of. If you have the right to do X, then you have the right to do X regardless of why you want to do X. When the law says otherwise, "then the law is an ass."
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
I know everyone is all over Uber and and the other one because the cars are "nicer" and the service "better" than cabs. But [...]
Um... isn't that enough?
Firstly, you're wrong about the liability.
Secondly, you are confusing the possibility of injury with its probability.
If the probability of injury is small and the cost of injury is also appreciably small, the expected cost of using Lyft or Uber may be much less than the expected cost of using a cab.
For an example, if a ride-share is $6 less than a cab fare, and if there is an average of 1 injury every 100,000 rides, then if the average injury costs less than $600,000 then it's a better deal for everyone to use the ride share.
Using this reference, cabs crash about once every 300,000 miles.
Also note, the number of crashes in regular driving has decreased dramatically over the last few years, probably due to increased safety measures in vehicles and modern roadway improvements (Denver Barriers around bridge supports, for example).
And in any event, most people have health insurance. At the very least, a significant portion of riders would have health insurance - enough to reduce the risk by a further factor of four or more.
SHELL GAME is where you can't win. CASINO GAME is where the odds are against you. Uber and Lyft seem to be decidedly in the passenger's favor.
Cue the irrational fearmongering reply: "unless you are the one injured, then how would you feel!".
Oh holy fuck it's a damn ride across town. We already have "reasonable safety standards" for insurance, roads, cars, etc. etc. etc.
It takes a special license in order to inspect your vehicle?
No but you need to be able to prove you can do one to get the commercial license. Commercial drivers also have to take a physical before getting a licence.
As for the daily inspection(which I'd do just for cleanliness)
That just goes to show how ill qualified you are to do a real pre-trip inspection. Do you check your tire wear, belts, fluid levels, lights and signals, fluid leaks, etc. A pre-trip inspection is much more than cleanliness.
mechanicals should be 'inspected' every 3-5k or so miles when it gets an oil change.
A non-commercial driver can skip oil changes and therefore inspections and can ignore mechanics' advice. Commercial vehicles do not have those options. By the way a full time Uber driver can easily log 1K miles in a week.
The problem is that the legislatures will put forth a series of soft guidelines trying to achieve a goal, with little to no guidance on how to actually achieve them. This is put into the hands of the executives, which are elected at the top but beneath them comes in the unelected regulators that you mention. This is how bureaucracy continue to function and every day erode the original intention of the legislation and the will of the people who forced the legislation to take place.
Almost, but not quite right about the purpose of limiting competition .... the real issue is that the barriers to entry in the taxi industry are so low that if an unlimited number of cabs are operating, then *nobody* can make enough money to survive ...
Often commercial vehicles cut too many corners, kill people and regulations come about. Also as the sibling mentions, those who don't want to compete on the cost cutting and want to operate safe vehicles usually lobby for a level playing field.
I'd hate to be in a business where the only way to make any money is to be totally unsafe. Tires, brakes etc cost money and eat into the bottom line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Money changed hands. Tax man needs his cut or something bad might happen to you.
Are there really taxi unions? Around here taxi drivers are lucky to make minimum wage. There are truckers unions and last year both unionized and non-unionized container truck drivers went on strike as the race to the bottom had gotten to the point where they couldn't maintain their vehicles, buy fuel and eat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Money changed hands. Tax man needs his cut or something bad might happen to you.
Much as I detest taxation, that's a separate issue -- "you can do X but not in exchange for money" vs. "you can do X, but if you get money for it, we'll be taking some of that money." Though in the case of the IRS, they'll be looking to tax you even if money didn't change hands. If you drive your co-worker to work and he buys you coffee in thanks, the price of that coffee is income as far as the tax man is concerned.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
Your cost in this situation is either $0 (the marginal cost of taking the friend, as you are doing the journey anyway), or $3, your friend's share of the cost.
In London, they are registered with Transport for London as a minicab company. Taxi drivers are unhappy with them their because only taxi companies are allowed to have meters. Minicabs (a cheaper licence) are supposed to quote the price of the journey in advance and charge that amount regardless of how long it takes them.
Addison Lee, the largest minicab company in London, has an app that is a bit like Uber's. However the difference is that when you enter the details of where you are, and where you want to go, it shows you the price of the journey on the screen, and if you press the "accept" button, that is what you will get charged. They generally seem to be cheaper than Uber and get you to your destination quicker.
The friend paid $5 for a $3 share of the cost. That's where the "profit" comes from. And I wouldn't be surprised if the original poster agrees with your assertion that this isn't a profit.
I am dumbfounded you cannot see the error here.
the real issue is that the barriers to entry in the taxi industry are so low that if an unlimited number of cabs are operating, then *nobody* can make enough money to survive ...
You say that as though it's a bad thing.
In reality, as soon as there is an "excess" of cabs, the worst of them will tend to be driven out of the market. This will result in "better" (using whatever criteria the market finds desirable) service.
I'm astounded you can't find the whoosh there.
When said contracts involve public roadways the state has a moral and pragmatic responsibility to ensure safe transportation for the public.
How is it hard for the police to call up an uber cab? Will only take a few before people get the message.
Almost all of law is based on the 'why'. If you kill someone, it starts to really matter 'why'. On purpose? By accident? For profit? All very different scenarios, and treated differently under the law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Right - guilty mind. "Why" matters.
Giving your friend a lift is different from organising a car pooling system at work, which is different again from creating a business around sharing rides. All the same 'X', but different 'why's'.
Let's say you have kids, and they misbehave - or fight - or get out of bed wailing in the middle of the night. The 'Why' really matters, doesn't it?
No - in reality if regulation of cabs is removed, the worst of them will dominate in the short term ($5 cheaper you say! I'm in!) - until their unmaintained and dangerous vehicles cause a serious accident. And then the regulation will be re-introduced amidst a public outcry, and we'll be back where we started from.
Would you deregulate the airline industry too?
You have to always consider affected third parties that aren't part of the contract. The state's obligation is to protect their interests. You just have a bunch of "consenting adults" exposing the rest of us to their runoff and other dangers.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
That just goes to show how ill qualified you are to do a real pre-trip inspection. Do you check your tire wear, belts, fluid levels, lights and signals, fluid leaks, etc. A pre-trip inspection is much more than cleanliness.
You have no clue as to my inspection abilities. Not objecting to doing a pre-trip inspection. Disputing that nowadays you need to do this daily.
Worst case you do what the military does - hand the driver a checklist to go over.
By the way a full time Uber driver can easily log 1K miles in a week.
Which means that rather than having some mostly superficial stuff inspected 'daily' it's inspected once a month(ish). I figure that's a suitable inspection period.
I don't read AC A human right
"Yet to lose a legal battle"...
That is an argument that fans of Aereo were using less than six months ago.
Yes, your liability changes. Your insurance changes as well. That's true for most businesses. What does that have to do with CPUC? Why does this require "legal hurdles"?
Part of the licensing of cabs is the safety of the cabs
Have you ever ridden in a cab? I'm guessing you haven't.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Well, for starters, it's expected to enforce these contracts. Every legally binding contract has the state as a third party.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Those are all wonderful reasons for voluntary government certification: anybody who wants to can go to the government and get some government seal of approval; I as a rider can then make a voluntary choice whether that certification is useful information or whether I want to throw caution to the wind and ride with uncertified drivers.
Your reasons simply don't justify compulsory government licensing.
One would hope that a decentralized system would also allow the drivers to set the prices of their fares and not funnel a rather large percentage of the fares off to the creators of the apps. Uber's business model is now just good old fashioned Libertarian exploitation of labor. They started off paying good to earn the trust of their drivers, and now they pay less than minimum wage after expenses. The prime candidate for someone who wants to become an Uber driver is now someone who isn't good a math or accounting and doesn't know what the true cost of a depreciating asset is.
>option of full due diligence
if you want to save money and take a risk with a cab that doesn't have inspections, why should the government butt in?
again, consenting adults not small children that need a nanny to watch over them.
inb4, b-b-but socialized medicine means we would all pay for their injuries, therefore _________ should be illegal/regulated to death.
If that's what you believe, you have a simple solution: don't ride them.
That's no reason to impose your preferences on others.
So the times get finally a bit harder for this services ("They steal our jobs"). In Germany Uber now got forbidden completely, as one needs generally a special permission to transport people for money. A driver already got threatened to pay 250000 + 20000 Euros if keeping on driving people via UberPop.
I lag
Freedom and capitalism always pay off better.
Communism and prohibition always lead to destruction.
Safety is a nice way to skew the discussion.
This is not about safety... it's about cabs who paid million dollar fees to get a license pissed off that someone else may not have paid that million dollar cab fee.
Nothing at all to do with safety. That's the red herring
It is Cali, did you expect any less from that place?
Uber are, quite literally, a Minicab service, cab for hire, a LIMO, whatever you want to call it, all the same services aimed at different groups.
They take you from A to Z if need be, for a price.
The fact that Uber want to distance themselves from that is pretty stupid and only hurts, but they are still legally that anyway.
just charge two rides at a time and cause its 2 fares your golden
No, what will happen is that the worse will be the ones that remain in business, the ones with the fake driving license, no insurance, and vehicles pulled off a scrap heap and welded together, because those will be the only ones capable of preserving a margin. If the app showed you the validity of the drivers license, the result of the last vehicle inspection, then you could choose the drivers that are best before you hail, and the market could operate as you describe. But hey would it not just be easier if in order to operate they had to meet licensing requirements enforced by the state. And we have now come around full circle.....
Three men share a taxi. The fare is $30 even, so they pay $10 each and head into a skyscraper. As he's about to drive off, the taxi driver notices that there should have been a $5 rideshare discount. The taxi driver's 8-year-old son is sitting next to him in the front seat, and he offers to refund the money to the men, but he doesn't know how to split $5 three ways, so he pockets $2 as he chases after the men yelling "Hey wait, misters. You overpaid." The boy catches up to the men at the line for the elevator and gives each of the three men a $1 refund, so they've paid $9 each. $9 * 3 = $27, plus the boy's $2 is $29. But wait. The fare was $30. Where did the extra dollar go?
Answer: Magic.
Seriously though, I blame <the other political party>.
is a call center providing services for 10 minicab companies the minicab company?
but yeah, they're minicab companies, but... is it illegal for the minicabs say in london to pick up two passangers from different locations and drive them at the same time to another city and drop them off at different locations and charge them different fares as if they were individual customers? the reason cab companies didn't fight these call-by-phone-only companies(not just uk, same in finland) was that it's not so easy as using an app to see if there's a ride nearby.
also, is this california law for protection of busses and metro area public transport monopolies or what?
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
You have no clue as to my inspection abilities.
Considering the only thing you seemed interested in was cleanliness I have a good idea.
Worst case you do what the military does - hand the driver a checklist to go over.
Without special licensing there is no long term consequence for not doing it. Fail to do pre-trip inspections and your commercial license gets pulled.
I figure that's a suitable inspection period.
I guess you know better than every transport commission in existence that requires daily inspections(almost all do). What are your qualifications in this matter? None I bet. Monthly inspections might be OK for a private vehicle but not for a vehicle that drives a couple hundred miles a day carrying passengers. Go ahead and risk your life but don't risk the lives of paying passengers.
I drove cabs. Do you think fewer regulations would make them safer?
The fact that people aren't in the position to audit their books and look to see that they're in compliance with reasonable safety standards.
Are there no safety standards which would apply to any vehicle on Californian public roads?
But that is so uncool and so 20th century that no venture capitalist would give them a dime.
THIS. Same with food laws, drugs and medicine, anything that the government gets involved in. Volunteer certification NOT cumpulsory licensing.
If the tool for riders to find eachother is ok, I don't see how the law can stop an ad hoc group from deciding their cost share amongst themselves. And supposing riders are having problems splitting the cost in practice, I'm sure some third party could step up with a kind of escrow system that ensures the individuals a fair responsibility for the collective bill.
They have authority backed by lots of men with guns and you will do exactly as ordered to, or they will shoot you in the head, run over your corpse with an armored car and say you "looked threatening". Then they will seize all your family's assets through civil forfeiture laws, throw them in the streets and if you had any kids they will be entrusted to violent pedophiles. You don't challenge City Hall because they're Der Fuehrer. Capisch?
What does "... for profit" mean? If you consume $6 in gas and you friend gives you $5, paying $2 more than their share, is that "for profit"?
If you have someone over for dinner and they pay more than their share or the groceries that go into the meal, are you running a restaurant for profit?
No.
Next question ?
What moral authority does the state have to stop consenting adults from forming their own contracts and doing business with each other?
Should people be able to sell themselves into slavery ?
The flaw in the above question is that the men DIDN'T pay $9 ea for their fare. They paid (30-5)/3=8.33 dollars each. They handed over 10 each and got back 1, meaning 9 was spent. The 67 cents they were short-changed by, times 3, make up the $2.
$9*3 = $27, _minus_ the stolen $2, gives the correct fare of $25.
Are there really taxi unions? Around here taxi drivers are lucky to make minimum wage.
Taxi *owner* "unions". Though I doubt they're "unions" in the traditional sense. More likely "associations" like doctors or lawyers.
if you want to save money and take a risk with a cab that doesn't have inspections, why should the government butt in? again, consenting adults not small children that need a nanny to watch over them.
On the other hand there dosn't appear to be much interst in regulating "school runs".
It takes a special license in order to inspect your vehicle?
No.
You are required to have your vehicle inspected to hold the special license.
Safety standards that apply to taxi drivers are more stringent than safety standards that apply to drivers who are not. If your job is to drive the general public about, then it's crucially important that your car is always roadworthy and that you've got full insurance to cover your customers in any event that you experience.
Should people be able to sell themselves into slavery ?
We are talking about contracts, and people do "slavery" contracts all the time. For example, employment contracts.
Contracts, unlike the "slavery" that you want to imply, can be broken. Broken contracts go to civil court, where a judge decides how the harmed person is to be made whole again (typically with a money judgment.)
I'm sorry that you dont understand anything at all about the world of contracts but insist on acting like you do anyways.
"His name was James Damore."
What moral authority does the state have
It's called being a democracy. You appear to be unfamiliar with the concept.
Asshole. We could have gotten a +5 funny if you hadn't spoiled it.
Do you think fewer regulations would make them safer?
Wont make them any more OR less safe, which means that the regulations arent about safety at all. Do you think regulations that arent about safety but are sold to you as if they were about safety is a good thing for you?
"His name was James Damore."
Oh! So it shouldn't be a reduced version of the biblical 10 + 1 new age eco one?
Well shit... are you now telling us that not only are you an idiot who does not know what a law IS (and that's not a philosophical issue - there's no room for "what it SHOULD be" in it) - you are also full of shit and won't abide to your own idea of "3 laws only"?
Oh... wait... You're actually retarded... oh...
You probably think law is some letters on paper made up to annoy you personally and steal your freedomz.
That's sad.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Firstly, the issue raised is a moral one: if I and another person decide that we do not want government interference in our private agreement, what gives the government the right to force said interference? Can you answer that?
Secondly, on a more practical level, is there any scientific evidence that government control over car rides is actually making us significantly safer? Even if the government has the right, shouldn't they have to provide evidence instead of going by hunch or "common sense"?
Thirdly, how do we know that the government is not vulnerable to private interest, for example protecting well established businesses that can fund politician campaigns? Is it reasonable to expect that giving such immense power to a small group of people will lead to fair decisions?
In my experience, knee-jerk reactions like saying "idiots like you" tend to denote religious adherence to an ideology as opposed to philosophical and rational thought.
The Uber drivers refusing to pickup passengers is a big example of market forces in action. It doesn't take an act of government to necessarily effect change. Uber needs its drivers so that it can turn a profit. Uber's drivers ultimately determine the financial success of Uber. Uber can threaten and cajole all it wants but when the day is said and done, no pickups mean angry customers and no revenue.
But I, as Joe Driver, can't choose whether I want to share the road with a taxi driver who pulls 16-hour workdays out of greed or desperation. Unless, of course, some entity with sufficient power forces the taxi to take breaks.
And of course you're also ignoring the well-known fact that human beings are extremely bad at estimating risks. So no, you as a rider can't make an informed choice about whether getting a certified taxi is worth the hassle, especially since unlicensed taxi companies have every incentive to bombard you with misinformation, while bean-counters utilizing cold math can. So it's a choice between letting a preventable tragedy play out forever, or stopping it but possibly hurting someone's cherished delusions of grandieur.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Bullshit. Those groups defend the laws, but they don't exist until the laws are passed. Licensed taxi drivers are a creation of regulation, not the creators of it.
The laws get created because enough people get ripped off, killed, and otherwise hurt by a completely unregulated marketplace that politicians feel the need to take action. The environment and circumstances in which the regulations were passed are so long ago that knee-jerk libertarians can claim, with a straight face, that they really believe that someone with a medallion lobbied for a law calling for the creation of the medallion system, knowing nobody will actually be able to recall the real reasons.
In the majority of cases, the laws make sense and are obvious to anyone looking in that they have little to do with protecting monopolies.
- To reduce the risks of accidents, most taxi regulations generally impose requirements on the skills and abilities of drivers, though frequently these aren't more than those required to get a driving license to begin with.
- To prevent a taxi driver's mistake causing untold harm to a client who ends up an accident victim, taxi drivers are generally required to carry more insurance than normal.
- To ensure the taxi provides a predictable level of service, and hence avoid clients being ripped off, taxi drivers generally are required to implement a standardized fare schedule, and usually have to pass certain tests about knowledge of local routes.
In rare cases, there may also be a quota system to prevent an overload of taxis. At a surface level, this might seem like an attempt to enforce a monopoly, but in fact it's usually the result of city commissioners trying to regulate traffic in general. The poster child for the this kind of regulation is New York City. You can pretend, if you want, that the problem with NYC is that there are too few taxis as a result of the medallion system, but, well, I've been there. Those photos you see of a typical Manhattan street clogged in all lanes by nothing but yellow cabs? Those aren't staged.
So no, licensed taxi drivers did not create the licensing system. Insured taxi drivers did not demand to be insured. Trained taxi drivers did not demand training requirements. And the Linux kernel never created Linus Torvalds.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Are there no safety standards which would apply to any vehicle on Californian public roads?
No. There are not. We don't have safety inspections here. Just smog inspections. That's because they don't care about our safety, just looking like they're doing something about air quality.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
> what gives the government the right to force said interference?
The fact that a majority of people for moral reasons do not want certain types of agreements to exist, for example selling yourself into slavery.
> is there any scientific evidence that government control over car rides is actually making us significantly safer?
Why are you limiting yourself to car rides? If goverment control over _any_ other common business field, say, pharmacy, building safety, water, roads, rail and air travel, is making it safer for customers, why would this oversight suddenly be useless for public transportation by cars? Or are you implying that goverment control over _any_ other service provided to the public is a scam too?
> how do we know that the government is not vulnerable to private interest
We dont. And it is even naive to assume they arent.
> Is it reasonable to expect that giving such immense power to a small group of people will lead to fair decisions?
Allowing a single company to disrupt a whole existing diverse industry is even more unreasonable, since all the power would shift to a even smaller group people you cant even elect. Allowing Uber to drive eveybody else out of the public transportation market is like letting Microsoft drive everybody else out of the personal computing market.
Minicab companies.
They are not 'ride sharing' or 'car pooling' or anything even similar.
The business model is old and well established,at least in london.
You know, all this confusion over what these companies are is rather silly. If you've established anything that even remotely resembles a corporation (like filing for a business license, paying employees, taxes, etc.), then it's a business.
If Bob and Tom decide to share fuel costs by carpooling to the same building every day, that's a personal agreement and a "tax" system that doesn't need to go beyond each others wallets. If Bob picks up 2 other co-workers on the way, it doesn't change the dynamics much. And let's make this clear. THIS type of organic ride sharing has been going on far longer than anyone who decided to make a business out of it.
As far as what all of this is and means, let's not confuse that either. All of these companies like Lyft and Uber and encroaching on other companies business, and this is nothing more than the large (and corrupt) establishment trying to push them out.
And yes, I gladly label this as corrupt. One should not have to resort to making another companies practices illegal in order to ensure "competition".
"What moral authority," you ask? The moral authority granted by decades of Californians begging for more government at every opportunity. Now they've got it and they're realizing they don't like it.
But it's okay; instead of admit the mistake and start working to reign in the overlords they've manufactured, they'll just move to other nice states with smaller governments, functional economies, good jobs, and affordable standards of living, where they'll promptly begin to recreate the same mistakes they made in California.
It's already happening in Oregon, Washington, and especially Colorado. Austin is getting a good dose of it too, and Utah is in for a rude awakening in the next couple of years.
We already did. Seemed to work out okay.
Not saying we should do it to the extent you describe, but surely there's some room in there to make the whole thing suck less. People don't use services that are bad, and lots of people are using Uber, Lyft et al. There must be a middle ground between cab cartel protectionism and the the fly-by-night-itude of these services.
You should turn signatures off.
...same old political problems humans have always had.
Yes, taxis can't survive if uber charges 1/2 or 1/3rd, via ride-sharing, for the same route traveled by a regular taxi. Although with ride-sharing, some passengers waste time waiting for other passengers to get on or off.
> The fact that a majority of people for moral reasons do not want certain types of agreements to exist, for example selling yourself into slavery.
This is a convoluted example. It doesn't even make a lot of sense. What would be the point of selling yourself into slavery? After the agreement is done you are a slave and not own the money you just received. On the other hand, consensual relations of slavery (for example in the BDSM world) do exist and are not a problem. The problem of slavery is precisely coercion, usually enforced by the state.
> Why are you limiting yourself to car rides? If goverment control over _any_ other common business field, say, pharmacy, building safety, water, roads, rail and air travel, is making it safer for customers, why would this oversight suddenly be useless for public transportation by cars? Or are you implying that goverment control over _any_ other service provided to the public is a scam too?
I am not limiting myself to car rides, what made you think I was implying such a limitation? I believe that all regulation should be subject to scientific studies to access if it actually has a positive impact in society. Do you think that is unreasonable?
> We dont. And it is even naive to assume they arent.
Ok, so next question: how vulnerable do you figure they are to private interests?
> Allowing a single company to disrupt a whole existing diverse industry is even more unreasonable, since all the power would shift to a even smaller group people you cant even elect. Allowing Uber to drive eveybody else out of the public transportation market is like letting Microsoft drive everybody else out of the personal computing market.
Why? If there is free competition, existing and new companies can disrupt the disrupter. In fact, Microsoft dominance finally succumbed to innovation from other companies like Google and Apple, not to government regulation. Governments were always some of Microsoft's biggest clients.
I have seen the effect that location has on cab fares. In some places cab fares are reasonable while in other areas a cab ride is ultra expensive. In my area some cabs want a twenty dollar minimum and do not accept charge cards at all. The situation has reached the point at which we need new business models that force cabs to behave sanely in their rates. Some of the problems are due to individual drivers and not the companies that own them but the drivers have such a miserable situation that simply getting their permits pulled is more a blessing than a punishment.
you don't need to take a physical to get your license. what you need a physical to drive
Yeah! Because state's don't already have requirements for safety and emission inspections!
Almost all of law is based on the 'why'. If you kill someone, it starts to really matter 'why'. On purpose? By accident? For profit? All very different scenarios, and treated differently under the law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Right - guilty mind. "Why" matters.
I did not say that "why" does not matter at all. I said that if you have the right to do X, you can do so for whatever reason you want. Killing someone is something you normally do not have the right to do, but the law makes exceptions under certain extraordinary circumstances. That is, motive can make something permissible that otherwise would be forbidden, but it cannot (per natural rights, not necessarily per the legal system) make something forbidden which is permissible. I have the right to drive people around in my car, or let them sleep in my house, or eat my food, etc. I can exercise those rights, or refrain from exercising them, for any reason I want, or for no reason at all. I do not have the right to shoot someone, or break into their house, or physically restrain them, but the law may decide that I am justified in doing so in rare situations.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
When I travel to Kiev, Ukraine, that's what I use. The cab industry is pretty much de facto deregulated there. And you know what? It's great! It's dirt cheap - vast majority of fares are well below $10. There are apps, that allow me to order taxi from many different companies at the best available rate, and yes - the rates are specified instantly. No need to guess how expensive your trip is going to be. I traveled many dozens of times - not a single problem. The need of regulation in this industry is overrated.
And "whoosh" award of the year goes to *drum roll* mysidia!
- Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
Out of curiosity, how much astroturfing does the /. crowd think goes on in all these articles about Uber & Lyft? Some of the stories coming out about these companies behavior would put old time NY cabbie shenanigans to shame. Certainly they are helping direct the conversation here, no?
umm because it 's not a profit. You would pay LESS of the overall cost yes but that is different from making a profit.
Making a profit means bringing in MORE than was spent.
That is called running a business.
And we cant have that now can we. Unless you can pay off the legislature to protect your business.
This country was created on little ventures like this, squelching them due to others paying to keep them out of the market seals our fate as a nation.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Regulation to keep services up to spec and in shape is one thing.
Regulation to limit competitiveness is another.
Did somebody just call the government a small group of people? Lol
As an adult and a cyclist, I would prefer that any vehicle that hits me have the insurance to cover my injuries. Since Uber only has 50k/individual/accident if the driver is between trips, and since Uber has denied liability in similar circumstances, I consider them a risk.
And how is that different from sharing the road with any other tired driver? How do I know you don't drive tired because you are overextended on your mortgage and are rushing from one job to another? Or running a delivery business on the side?
If that's your justification, then let's introduce a system in which everybody is required to state the purpose of their trip and the amount of hours before they take their care out, perhaps combined with sleep tracking. Only safe trips for a list of approved purposes would be allowed! How about it?
Again, how does that justify limiting the number of cabs? That's what licensing does.
Furthermore, Uber is actually better that public licensing in that the company (unlike the licensing commission) faces potential liability, every ride is tracked, and drivers and passengers give each other feedback. No public licensing scheme has anything like that level of tracking and accountability.
Another problem with that argument is that taxi commissions (and licensing commissions in general) are no more qualified at estimating risks and have no demonstrated track record at reducing risk. The only thing they achieve is lining their pockets.
Furthermore, if the principle is for the government to keep me from stupidly doing things that are risky, why start with taxi cab? Riding an unlicensed cab is a very safe activity compared to having sex, riding a bicycle, skiing, or climbing a ladder. If anything, Are you suggesting that we outlaw all those other activities unless people get a government license? I don't want to live in that kind of society.
Sorry, but you are full of it. Taxi licensing does not improve safety at all, and the principles by which you and others attempt to justify taxi licensing are incompatible with living in a free society.
So let me get this straight ?
People get smart, and share a "cab" and now that's illegal ? LOL ! =D
"We already did. Seemed to work out okay. [wikipedia.org] "
Touche... but the problem with your analogy is that when the airlines were "deregulated" they kept a huge amount of the regulations.
Airlines are still -highly- regulated when it comes to maintenance and airworthiness of their aircraft, training of their pilots & crew, fuel safety checks etc etc etc.
Pretty much the only part of the airlines that was deregulated was financial. The nuts & bolts of operating an airline are still VERY highly regulated.
Taxi industry is bunch RINOs who want California and Government to do something about this nuisance and to help them via cronyism!
The State of California could very well be violating Commerce Clause Article I, Section 8, Clause 3!
That's really California's fault though. When I took my car in for a bi-annual smog check in Massachusetts, they also tested a whole slew of things including my wipers and headlight aim. When I take my car in for a bi-annual smog check in California, all they do is check the emissions.
You cannot cite compliance with safety standards as a reason to ban a certain type of activity, while you are simultaneously ignoring enforcing those same standards in the general case. Well, actually you can, but that would be hypocritical. Which I guess is pretty normal when it comes to California law. There are numerous other nonsensical inconsistencies I've noticed over the years.
Okay, hold on. You're right, but only to a point. The basic regulations *were* born out of necessity but have evolved and have been perverted by taxi *company* owners and lobbyists. Saying this has anything to do with the *drivers* is a red herring (though I'm sure some of the drivers would like to snuff out competition too, but that's besides the point - they're pretty much powerless).
I can't speak about California or NYC but here in Dallas, where I live, there has been a lot of contention and cronyism surrounding the introduction of Uber and Lyft.
The established taxi company in Dallas is Yellow Cab; the owner is quite wealthy and has thrown his money around to past and current city officials and politicans to not only stifle Uber/Lyft but also to establish regulations that benefit his company at the expense of smaller cab companies, especially minority-operated ones. Apart from trying to ban Uber & Lyft, Yellow Cab "bought" regulations that benefited them such as front-of-line privileges at Love Field for certain types of vehicles that the smaller cab companies couldn't afford and selective enforcement from the city on certain policies such as liability insurance. Yellow Cab, for example, knowingly operated for many, many years without the legally required level of liability insurance. Once this was uncovered, there were zero penalties for Yellow Cab.
Another recent issue was Yellow Cab's attempt to get the City Council to pass some arbitrary regulations that would effectively render Uber and Lyft useless; they tried to pass a new regulation that would ban "for hire" limo companies (which Uber/Lyft falls under) from picking up passengers without at least a 30 minute delay. This attempt at new regulation was essentially hidden in the Council agenda under what is called "Consent Agenda" where the items would be passed without discussion or debate; if it weren't for a local reporter with a keen eye who read the entire agenda, this would have passed without any prior debate and public input. The city was basically shamed into removing the item from the agenda.
Uber and Lyft have some issues they need to work though, including on the liability insurance front. However, their problems aren't due to cronyism. Uber and Lyft will likely make concessions and the various state and city authorities will also likely make some reasonable compromises. In the end, consumers will benefit from increased competition and the entrenched cab companies will be forced to bring their business model into the 21st century as well.
Builds carpool lanes...
Declares carpooling illegal.
Actually I have never been to CA, so I have no idea if they have carpool lanes. I assume that at least one of those massive 10+ lane wide highways they have in LA contains at least one carpool lane.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
When dealing with vehicles on public roads many, perhaps most, life threatening mechanical failures also put those in other vehicles at risk. If I get hit by a car that loses control at 65MPH on the freeway because its front tire blew out, my heirs really don't care if the car that hit me was a "commercial" or "private" car -- they are just happy they were named in my trust.
If daily inspections are required for commercial vehicles, it seems they should be required for similar private vehicles.
In reality, only a few checks make sense every day. Glancing at tires daily to see if any appear to be flat is a sensible precaution as an embedded nail can cause a tire to leak down slowly and, overnight, make the car much less safe to drive than it was twelve hours earlier (although with the adoption of TPMS, this check is no longer as useful). However daily checks make little sense for most items (including tire wear) as "time degradation" is swamped by "mileage degradation"- drive belts would be an example of this (they should be checked a minimum of every M miles or W weeks but even most private cars will exceed M miles before W weeks between checks with modern drive belts).
Very few accidents involving modern cars are caused primarily by mechanical failure rather than driver error. It's not clear to me that an Uber driver is any less safe when driving paying passengers than when driving to meet a friend. In fact, driving to meet a friend may involve consumption of alcohol at the destination and a return trip in a slightly demeaned, but legal, state while the Uber driver is likely to be seeking another fare rather than hanging out at a bar after completing a paying mission.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
All of which have some form of government regulation imposed upon them.
Beware of the Leopard.
Anyone who wants the security of a government certification for drivers "for hire", is free to choose a service offering that. Uber isn't trying to ban conventional taxi services.
Obviously if an Uber driver is claiming they are a licensed taxi service, they should be prosecuted for fraud -- but I've never heard of such claims being made.
Seriously, how many people audit a friend's insurance and financial records before accepting a ride from them?
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
And how is that different from sharing the road with any other tired driver? How do I know you don't drive tired because you are overextended on your mortgage and are rushing from one job to another? Or running a delivery business on the side?
Uber relies on a pool of casual workers who get paid piss poor wages. These piss poor workers will work lots of hours in order to make enough money. So that's a system that is _designed_ to create unsafe driving.
There are of course other situations where unsafe driving will happen. But first we should get rid of situations where it happens by design, and a lot.
of things that are still legal in the USA? I'm not really sure what I'm allowed to do yet.
When the Uber driver has to make the decision to get the brakes fixed or pay rent, without mandatory inspections, which one do you think they will choose? If you don't think it is about safety you have not worked in the cab industry.
The difference is that a cab can drive on average 300 miles a day while an average car may drive 30. On a per mile bases that makes a cab ten times more likely to have an accident per day.
And we cant have that now can we. Unless you can pay off the legislature to protect your business.
What I disagree with is one business getting a lower level of regulation that another business doing the same thing when the only difference is that one business is falsely calling themselves "sharing". Uber does not want a level playing field because they want to keep all their advantages (the ability to pick high use times, ability to discriminate, lower safety standards, little consequence for breaking rules, etc).
What does "... for profit" mean? If you consume $6 in gas and you friend gives you $5, paying $2 more than their share, is that "for profit"?
If you have someone over for dinner and they pay more than their share or the groceries that go into the meal, are you running a restaurant for profit?
Really? Don't act like this is black and white.
Actually it is pretty black and white if we look at precedent. In particular general aviation.
To greatly simplify FAA rules, taking money beyond the other person's share of the fuel cost OR allowing the other person influence over when and where the plane goes, makes the flight commercial rather private and requires the pilot to have a commercial license rather than a private license.
So according to precedent, receiving $2 beyond the other person's share of fuel would make the drive commercial not private.
Think about it, if it is truly just sharing a ride then the driver's fuel cost is $3, but the driver received $5. The driver did come out $2 ahead, that would be the private sharing perspective. Arguing that the driver is $1 short of actual fuel costs is an absolutely commercial perspective, as if the driver wasn't going to make that drive anyway.
You can't argue about the sovereign rights of individuals and ignore the sovereign rights of the state. Regulating and taxing commercial behavior is among those rights of the state, and if you are accepting money rather than generously offering hospitality then you are acting in a commercial manner.
Bullshit, those groups have a stranglehold on the hired ride market. They are an illegal cartel.
None of them require government licensing to engage in; that's what we are talking about here.
Make them all register with the state. For $500 a year. And charge them all a 10% tax on all fares. Solve the problem the way you solve all problems.
"Designed" implies that the intended purpose is lack of safety, which is ludicrous. Uber's business model is "designed" to make Uber money by lowering costs, increasing competition, increasing efficiency, and lowering prices.
More importantly, your premise is wrong. Uber drivers seem to be making about as much as cab drivers according to the ones I talked to (many of whom used to be cab drivers). Regular cab drivers pay a ton of money to the owners of the medallions, fat cats who can just reap the benefits of the government monopoly they have been granted. Unlike cab drivers, who must do an entire shift at once or lose a lot of money, Uber drivers are far more flexible when and how they work. Unlike a regular taxi driver, a Uber driver can just stay home for an extra hour or two if he's tired.
You're proposing policy based on pure fabrications, many of which actually are wrong. And you're defending the interests of wealthy medallion owners over the interests of the public.
Considering the only thing you seemed interested in was cleanliness I have a good idea.
Important part here is 'seemed'. I used to have a GOV license, vehicle checks were part of that.
I guess you know better than every transport commission in existence that requires daily inspections(almost all do).
And most of the lists were less stringent than what I do when I take my motorcycle out.
As uncqual said - if the daily checks were so important for the safety of the vehicle they would logically be required for private citizen vehicles as well. Because there are plenty of failures that can cause a vehicle to be hazards for others, and many of the safety checks aren't actually beneficial for the passengers.
I don't read AC A human right
As uncqual said - most accidents today are caused by driver error, not mechanical malfunction. A pre-trip inspection, unless you're checking the driver, is looking for mechanical issues.
My point is that back when mechanical taxi-cabs started taking over from the horse-drawn ones, a daily detailed inspection of the mechanical parts made perfect sense. The equipment wasn't all that reliable back then.
Get into the '60s and you still had a lot of problems, but you were to the point that doing many inspections was no longer daily for consumer type vehicles, but 'once and oil change'. Today the oil changes have extended to 5k miles.
To make it more clear, I have basically 3 inspection lists. Daily drive in my own vehicle is 'lights work, tires aren't flat'. Each fill up I check the fluids. Every oil change the belts and brakes(among other things) get looked at.
I don't read AC A human right
They would - and should - face the same legal hurdles. If you want to run a cab company, run a cab company, adhering to all laws and regulations that come with running a cab company.
All the sickos just becoming aware of these services because of the media attention are now going to have to go to another state.
I went from the south up to Disney once and I never noticed a car pool lane; I also could see why people would want to use their phones too... so much time is spent going nowhere during rush hour.
The objection is this is NOT car pooling because money is changing hands. This is really no different than the FAA rules about pilots, you can't take money for people rides in your plane and you can't even give people free rides in your plane if your only purpose is to transport them. You can take people along for the ride and that is it. As soon as you go out of the legal bounds you end up into the regulated commercial sector which doesn't want you hobby pilots messing with their jobs.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
And most of the lists were less stringent than what I do when I take my motorcycle out.
Not all people act like you do. Regulations are made for the less conciencous.
As uncqual said - if the daily checks were so important for the safety of the vehicle they would logically be required for private citizen vehicles as well.
Since a commercial vehicle drive many times the miles of a private vehicle it is much more likely to get into an accident based on miles traveled.
To make it more clear, I have basically 3 inspection lists.
Which you do but which Uber drivers may not do unless there are regulations forcing them to do it and licensing which is the means of enforcing the regulations.
So that taxi drivers can earn a living wage. How wonderful.
You are totally correct, I, and everyone else, has no clue as to your inspection abilities. Taxi driver licensee has a standard to meet, you, not so much.
Keep thinking about it. The original poster already had this angle covered.
have used 'letter-of-the-law' sophistry to justify their behavior
That's basically how everything in this country works. It's inevitable given the government's desire to regulate and tax every facet of human existence. If you want a run a business in a way no one else has, you need to take some risks and flout some laws.
Why don't you have your own insurance? You're the one that wants to be protected.
My state doesn't even require auto insurance.
However, if people using the cabs had instead had a friend or partner drive them to the airport (for example), the driver is often deadheading back to where they came from while a cab is more likely to pick up another fare without traveling the full distance of the original fare so there's less deadheading per trip. Thus, getting the same number of people to the airport by cab generally results in less total miles being driven than having someone else drive you so the cab is safer to society and creates less congestion.
One cab, ten 30 mile trips, 300 miles per day vs. Ten private cars, ten 30(+) mile trips, 300 miles per day - all pretty much the same (ignoring deadheading differences).
An inspection 3K miles would be once every ten days for the cab, once every 100 days for the private cars - again, mileage based on cars getting this sort of usage (if a car is only driven 2K miles per year, of course the time based inspections kick in for detecting time dependent decline in rubber components etc).
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Then why are you not advocating the removal if inspection requirements form commercial vehicles?
no, you're not
I believe that will become clear the first time you get dragged into court without the legal protections needed to keep your business possessions separated from your car, home, banking account, etc.
They wouldn't be doing it if they weren't making money....
What part of 'the uber driver has zero interest in paying their share' is hard to understand.
An uber driver is not going your way and giving you a lift.
The uber goes out of their way to pick you up, then to a destination only of interest to you.
So the solution is to make Unions illegal. Come to think of it, that will solve a lot of problems.
So if you are driving to random locations in the city and just so happen to pick up random strangers, is that still sharing?
What they can't do is arbitrarily assert X is unsafe "just because" X's competitors grease some palms.
>Simple math. $5 of gas, split 2 ways, is $3 each. /facepalm
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
when we used to cross the city limits to Gladstone on the way to my Aunt's house, my Dad used to read (i.e. paraphrase) the sign "Welcome to Gladstone, violators will be prosecuted"
The police had a reputation
Again, how does that justify limiting the number of cabs? That's what licensing does.
No, it doesn't.
As implemented, thanks to crony capitalism and lobbying, the number of taxis is limited. However, this artificial limitation is in no way an inherent feature of an accreditation system.
Crony capitalism and lobbying are an inherent feature of licensing schemes (as is a failure to be effective at what they were originally justified by). All licensing scheme have them, and economists understand pretty well why they have them. Proposing licensing schemes on the premise that you can make them free of crony capitalism and lobbying is like trying to legislate pi to be 3.
(Even if crony capitalism and lobbying were not inherent features of licensing schemes, denying some people licenses and increasing the cost of operating a business are also inherent features of even an ideal licensing scheme, both of which limit the number of providers.)
Since a commercial vehicle drive many times the miles of a private vehicle it is much more likely to get into an accident based on miles traveled.
How about that there's so many more private vehicles on the road they're still more likely to cause issues? It also depends on the commercial/private vehicle in question. Ever heard about the crazies with a 100+ mile daily commute of several hours?
Also, I did an awful lot of daily inspections on vehicles that averaged about two dozen miles a week. Small densely built bases where we just walked unless we needed the GOV to haul a bunch of stuff, equipment, supplies, whatever.
We're back to my point: I believe that given today's technology and development levels that a mechanical inspection every oil change is 'good enough'. If a cabbie is driving 300 miles a day, that's an inspection around every two weeks. For a private vehicle it'd be about once every four months*. Other than that it's noting down stuff that's not working right and fixing it. Notice that the alignment is off? Note it down and have it fixed during the next maintenance period.
*Keeping in mind that quite a few vehicles today are on 5k oil changes, not 3k.
I don't read AC A human right
Umm... Moral Authority? What a dumbass question!
What is a government put in place for (whether YOU like it or not)? some of the reasons - for the safety of the citizens, the regulate the civil and legal behavior of society, to define laws that do this within its boundaries, and to uphold those laws. You may not LIKE those laws - and clearly you don't like this one. Then work to get it eliminated. But please, don't just go off and be stupid, and make arguments like that.
I think you should just leave, and you and Paul + son can go off to that well known bastion of Civil Liberterianism... ummm... ummm... oh, yeah, there isn't one. Why do you think that is????
The North Korean State also forbids truck loads of privatized ride sharing. (see the PBS Frontline report on North Korea). California now officially SUCKS just a little bit more :(. God forbid anyone making a living off helping their fellow man traverse their city..... CHRIST !
I read you are here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and seeing you keep a TomHudson sockpuppet account http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson... and this other of your many sockpuppets on slashdot too http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2... also makes me believe you may be. Are you?
With the Uber model you share the ride with strangers, not necessarily friends. If these strangers get the ride for free, great, if they have to contribute to the ride one way or the other it's a taxi ride.
Ah yes, voluntary. The wonderful limp libertarian weasel word. The innocent word that is the foundation of tyranny and injustice.
Imagine this:
I voluntarily refuse to pick up black passengers. Or passengers in non-rich neighborhoods. Or in areas where people are more likely to be a certain political affiliation. (Or a charge extra for said passengers) My un-regulated taxi company has displaced the regulated ones because they can cherrypick the most profitable rides.
Between the lines ... it's the profit part that people are objecting to.
It is the risking of other people's lives due to the profit motive that people are objecting to. When you put profit into the mix the motivation to cut safety corners rised greatly and that is where regulation comes in.
At a nearby and very busy international airport, the city regulates airport taxis seperatly from city taxis. Only airport taxis can pick up hails from the airport. Only city taxis can pick up hails everywhere else in town.
Contract enforcement is only part of the issue.
The main issue is that cab-like services are usually regulated in such a way to act like an extension of a city's other transportation services like buses, trains, etc..all of which is basically considered infrastructure. Just like power lines, roads, and anything else that is best maintained by enforcing artificial monopolies at some level, with that level usually dictated by natural limitations. Like... only room for one road here, it makes sense to only allow one entity to control road creation.
Same goes with Taxi-like companies. There is basically a limited amount of $ to be made, with the most profitable areas being downtown, runs to the airport, etc.. certain areas only. Most cities say to taxi companies, "in exchange for having a license to operate in our city, you must promise to not discriminate based on race/religion, etc.., and you must service the less profitable areas equally as well as the more profitable areas".
If some service comes in and competes with Taxi's, but only has to compete in the profitable areas, the taxi service will go bankrupt. Now the city has no transportation service to offer anyone in the less profitable 'outlier' regions around the city. Unless they want to extend rail lines and buses, which may not be economically feasible if the traffic density is low.
I see your error...