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.
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.
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
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 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?
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.
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?
I guess I don't get the mathematics of poverty. If I'm going somewhere with a friend, I was already going there anyway and wouldn't charge them gas money. I'd only charge if I was taking them somewhere I had no intention of going and I wanted to be a dick about it.
This is not what it’s about in general. It’s about providing a ride. Not picking up someone on the way you were happening to be traveling.
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.
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.