Slashdot Mirror
California Sues Uber Over Practices
mpicpp writes with news that California is the latest government to file a lawsuit against Uber. "California prosecutors on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against Uber over the ridesharing company's background checks and other allegations, adding to the popular startup's worldwide legal woes. San Francisco County District Attorney George Gascon, meanwhile, said Uber competitor Lyft agreed to pay $500,000 and change some of its business practices to settle its own lawsuit. Los Angeles District Attorney Jackie Lacey partnered with Gascon in a probe of the nascent ridesharing industry. A third company — Sidecar — is still under investigation and could face a lawsuit of its own if it can't reach an agreement with prosecutors. Uber faces similar legal issues elsewhere as it tries to expand in cities, states and countries around the world. The companies have popular smartphone apps that allow passengers to order rides in privately driven cars instead of taxis."
"Hey Ez, where are you going"?
"Up to the store".
"Mind if I go with you, I need a few things".
"Not at all".
"Thanks, here's a couple of bucks for gas".
That is ride sharing. Uber, Lyft, and the others are arranging drivers for hire. Just pointing out the obvious here.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
California isn't the problem. It's the south that has barely entered the 21st century that's the problem. These warmongering gun-toting redneck racist bible thumpers are what's giving the USA its bad reputation.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/12/10/india-rape-uber-driver-idINKBN0JO0CC20141210
Can we just say that this is not "ridesharing". Ride sharing happens when I want to go from A to B, and I pick you up on the way because you want to go to a similar route.
The Uber drives have no intention to go from A to B themselves. They are sitting at home waiting from phone calls. It's a private hire car, where you rent out a car together with a driver, to transport other people for payment to places that you don't want to go yourself.
California isn't the problem. It's the south that has barely entered the 21st century that's the problem. These warmongering gun-toting redneck racist bible thumpers are what's giving the USA its bad reputation.
It was sarcasm. California is one of the best states to live in, althougjh I personally prefer the east coast. :)
As for all those regulations, it's the price to pay for not living in a polluted cesspool. Go California.
Uber can compete all they want. As far as they are subject to the same rules and regulations as everyone else is that has a taxi service is subject to.
If it walks like a dog, barks like a dog and eats dogfood it is not a cat. Uber is a taxi service in all but name.
I totally want to stay with the old taxi ways, where you have to call a cab company repeatedly over the course of six hours or more before they finally come pick you up or just flat out leave you stranded in the cold and never come... and have policies that if you give up on them after a few hours and call another company in the city, they'll just both refuse you service entirely or blacklist you. And then when or if they ever bother to show up, they charge you out the ass.
What planet are you on? Or are you too young to remember how consumers got screwed before consumer protection laws. Yeah feel free to stop using the service after you get killed because your Uber driver was drunk. And it just isn't the passenger there are also other drivers who may be killed or maimed by an unqualified Uber driver. It's not just all about you. And try suing if you get hosed. You will find punishing Uber nigh impossible.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Consumers are terrible at protecting themselves. "Quality Products / Services" takes third place in terms of things that get a business to the top, after "Excellent PR Control / Advertising" and "Ruthless Business Practices". If you want to see what happens when you reduce consumer protections and monitoring, look to the third world where companies put melamine in their food to artificially inflate the protein count and fake baby formula with little to no nutritional value gets passed off as legit.
"We consider that six courts and an asylum claim are a rather odd way of returning to Sweden within a month."
Open up the Taxi licensing and charge reasonable prices....
Not just India. Do a Google search for "uber driver criminal"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12...
Uber’s System for Screening Drivers Draws Scrutiny
By MIKE ISAAC
DEC. 9, 2014
Uber uses Hirease, a private company that says it has an average turnaround time of “less than 36 hours.”
Both services do drug and alcohol testing, but neither does fingerprint testing. And they rely primarily on publicly available information.
Although state background checks for taxi drivers vary by jurisdiction, lawmakers say they are generally more rigorous than either of these services. They usually include searches of private databases like F.B.I. records, gaining consent from prospective drivers for those searches,
In California, those drivers must undergo checks by the state’s Justice Department, including fingerprint scanning, drug and alcohol testing, and searches of private databases. A check can take as little as three days, but as long as eight weeks.
(Uber defeated bills to require the same checks, including fingerprints, required for taxi and limousine drivers, in California, Colorado, and Illinois.)
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/n...
Risky Ride: Who's Behind the Wheel of Uber Cars?
How safe is Uber? The NBC4 ITeam investigates.
By Joel Grover and Keith Esparros
Friday, May 2, 2014
UberX, where anyone with a car and the inclination can apply to be a driver.
Maps: Uber Regulations in the U.S. | Uber Timeline
That's exactly what Beverly Locke did. Working with the NBC4 I-Team, Locke filled out all the necessary documentation needed to become an Uber driver. She proved she was a licensed driver with a safe car, and agreed to submit to a background check.
Four weeks later, she received an e-mail indicating her background check had cleared.
On her first day "on the job," she received a request from Paolo, a frequent UberX user, who was looking for a ride from his Hollywood apartment. He is an Uber fan.
"I use cabs a lot," said Paolo. "And, it's almost half the fare in Uber than for a taxi driver."
Who's Watching Uber?
His phone lit up with a picture of Locke, and a message that said Beverly will pick him up in three minutes.
What he didn't know is that Beverly was an ex-con with a violent past. Her 20-year rap sheet includes burglary, cocaine possession, and making criminal threats with the intent to cause death or bodily injury.
"I pulled a girl out of a car and almost beat her to death," said Locke, who described herself as a reformed criminal with a good job and a desire to make up for her past. "I do not do criminal things anymore."
NBC4 asked Locke to cancel the ride, so the former convict never actually carried a passenger. But the NBC4 I-Team found several examples in which drivers with a criminal past have picked up Uber passengers.
Tadeusz Szczechowicz drove the streets of Chicago for a year, despite five prior arrests and two convictions for burglary and disorderly conduct.
Syed Muzzafar had a prior conviction for reckless driving, but he cleared the Uber background check and was behind the wheel New Year's Eve when he was arrested for hitting and killing a 6-year-old girl in San Francisco.
And, Jigneshkumar Patel was arrested for battery of an UberX passenger, a charge he said is "rubbish." Still, the UberX driver had a 2012 conviction for DUI.
Uber declined to talk to NBC4 directly, but did send emails describing corporate policy on background checks. A message said Uber "leads the industry" with its "best-in-class background checks for drivers."
Uber also said it has a "zero tolerance" policy for drug and alcohol offenses, and said it carefully screens applicants and immedia
California... uber alles... Ca-li-fornia ub-er alles!
It's one thing to have protections in place to help intelligent consumers make the right decisions (ex. false advertising laws) or protect them against sheer misfortune (ex. warranty laws). It's another thing entirely to protect dumb as shit consumers against things anyone with a few functional brain cells would have avoided, because this increases the costs of doing business by forcing businesses to implement just because some moron might have hurt himself doing something ridiculous.
Adam Smith's invisible hand didn't build those streets and highways that these cars drive on. They were built by the government with taxes.
If you're driving on a private road, you can ignore the regulations.
If you want to drive on the public roads, you have to follow the government regulations. License and registration fees for private cars are based on typical use. License and registration fees for taxis and limousines are based on heavy, 24 hours a day use, and cost a lot more. They set up regulations because with generations of experience they've seen all the problems that come up and don't want those problems any more. Passengers don't want to get robbed and raped by their drivers. They don't want drivers who are drunk. They don't want to be injured by uninsured drivers. The Uber free market isn't very good at eliminating those risks.
My city is large enough to have taxi service, but not quite large enough that taxis are out just trolling the streets for a fare. With the exception of some taxis that wait at the airport, if you want taxi service, you call them and request a that a taxi be sent to pick you up. From the perspective of a customer, whether I use a smartphone app or an old fashioned phone call to summon a taxi is irrelevant. Uber provides taxi service. Ergo they should be forced to adhere to the laws governing taxi service.
And why is every single news item about Uber posted here? It's not news, it doesn't matter, and it sure as hell ain't nerdy. Someone at Dice or Slashdot has an negative interest in Uber and it hijacking Slashdot for that agenda.
It is a taxi. You pay a company to pick you up from point A and take you to point B and tip the driver. It is public transport in that the public uses it. It isn't a private club. Are you actually that stupid or are you just a bad troll?
Passengers don't want to get robbed and raped by their drivers. They don't want drivers who are drunk. They don't want to be injured by uninsured drivers. The Uber free market isn't very good at eliminating those risks.
Neither is your oh-so-precious government regulations. There are plenty of stories of people getting assaulted or raped by a 'legit' taxi driver.
Actually very often the harm is not done to the ones that are paying the company doing the harm.
Also most consumers have no idea about the harm, even if it's done to them.
So trusting the free market will fix everything is pretty dumb and has failed many times.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
[AC because already modded here]
I'm stupefied how the general perception towards Uber has changed close to 180 within a few months in here!
Then, when arguing along these lines that we can read here, as opinion of the majority of the non-ACs, non-Trolls, I was attacked from all sides, modded down. Almost everyone saw Uber as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Overall I am very happy that Uber is losing ground, and AFAIAC, can go bankrupt. Capitalism isn't a stately regulated taxi service. Capitalism is a non-regulated the-stronger-the-better and no-questions-asked profit maximization. Uver, sorry, Over.
Oh, horse shit.
You're delusional. The free market doesn't exist. It doesn't solve problems. It doesn't achieve optimal outcomes.
It's a fucking abstraction describing long-term outcomes under a perfect hypothetical model based on crap assumptions, not some divine entity.
In practice, the only thing Smith's "invisible hand" is doing is picking your pocket and giving you the finger.
It isn't some magical entity. It doesn't make good choices. It doesn't care what happens to you. It doesn't actually care if you have perfect information. It doesn't really exist.
The invisible hand is the collective actions of the market over an extended period of time -- and collectively the market is rigged, and people are gaming the system. The invisible hand won't fix that.
The premise that the free market achieves perfect outcomes over the long haul assumes the system isn't corrupt, and that the players aren't actively undermining it.
But humans are corrupt, and always will be. Which means in practice the "free market" devolves into cartels and other things which try to stop the market from being free.
It doesn't exist. Has never existed. Cannot exist. And if by accident it briefly existed, it would be undermined immediately by the humans.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Nope. Uber is a bunch of pirates. If you think Uber or Lyft have your best interest and safety in mind think again. Uber and Lyft are answerable to one. If things get really bad people can scream at the PUC and vote elected officials out of office. You cannot fire the owners of Lyft and Uber. They don't care. They are making a profit by externalizing risk which is wrong wrong wrong. Greed is not good.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Although state background checks for taxi drivers vary by jurisdiction, lawmakers say they are generally more rigorous than either of these services. They usually include searches of private databases like F.B.I. records
In what manner is a database maintained by a taxpayer funded government agency a private database?
If the Uber driver was drunk, why wouldn't I expect existing laws to punish the driver? ... he drove drunk. That's on him. Full Stop.
If someone is going to get sued, it's him.
And try suing if you get hosed. You will find punishing Uber nigh impossible.
It seems you're aware of the problem, but would rather solve it by adding more laws.
In some cities no distinction is made between cabs that are 'hailed' and cabs that are phoned for.
In other cities (such as NY) they do make a distinction. 'Yellow cabs' are hailed, and can not be phoned for. 'Black cars' are phoned for, and can not be hailed. Both are regulated.
not more laws, how about just insisting they follow existing ones.
There are many cities where random pickups by taxi's (hailing) are illegal, you have to call and schedule a pickup, but they are still taxis, and still regulated.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
It's really wonderful that Uber, Lyft, etc. have caused taxi medallion prices to collapse. If the investors in taxi medallion manage to buy legislation that prevents Uber, Lyft, etc. from operating, then we'll need apps that provide the same service without the legal obstacles, maybe the company operates from abroad, maybe the apps doesn't deal with money, but instead just helps people find rides, etc.
You might for example design a ride sharing app that's optimized for actual ride shares, and takes no money, but *could* be used by drivers looking for fares, except that they'll compete with people driving that same route anyways. You place the company owning the app somewhere outside the legal reach these petty bureaucrats, maybe operate the database through either a peer2peer system or a Tor hidden service. You might even protect drivers and riders from local authorities by finding the connections through their facebook friends or something.
Ya know, even Uber and Lyft would feel the price pressure from such a service with drivers really "going that way anyways".
You're not supposed to tip the driver. The whole idea about Uber is that you pay via the app, and that you could travel without your wallet in a Uber car to get from point A to point B. That's the supposed great thing about it - one could order a ride, take the trip, and deal with Uber rather than the driver when it comes to payments (same for the driver - he deals w/ Uber, not the passenger). The passenger gets the feel that he's in a private car, as opposed to a cab
The free market doesn't exist. It doesn't solve problems. It doesn't achieve optimal outcomes.
It's a fucking abstraction describing long-term outcomes under a perfect hypothetical model based on crap assumptions, not some divine entity.
Blasphemy! Apostacy!
One wonders at the free marketeer's assumptions that government is always corrupt, and that private industry is always honest, and above reproach.
I liken the situation to vaccines, where some people wonder why a vaccine is needed, because it seems no one gets that disease any more.
It really wasn't teh eevlul cguvmint'z desire to hamstring the people's rights that got these regs started, it was things like plaster of paris in bread, bogus scale systems that give you 11 ounces of meat when you were paying for a pound, the Cuyahoga river catching on fire, and much more.
This is not to say that the selfsame impeccably honest free marketeers won't try to take advantage of those evul regulaytoons when it suits their purposes, wihness the conservative lynchpin states like Texas trying to keep Tesla sales out of their domains. Regulations are bad except when they aren't?
But that's a side issue, more to my point of the guvmint not being the sole home of corruption.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Exactly. Taxis are so heavily regulated for two reasons. First of course is taxes. Second, and more important in my opinion, is because they have a long long history of screwing their customers. They deserve every bit of regulation that's thrown their way, from licensing, vehicle standards, pay guidelines, etc. They're a very common and important service and they NEED to be heavily regulated or every tourist that visits your city gets screwed. It's not how cities want to present themselves to the world. Now, how this affects Uber is that they're a taxi service that thinks the rules don't apply to them. I expect every city in the country will eventually sue them for not following the taxi regulations.
Hirease does a shoddy job with background checks. I returned to the US a few months ago to another state after 10 years, and got a new DL. I applied to Uber, and Hirease, after doing a background check on my license, recommended that I be denied since I had less than a year's experience in driving in the US. I then pointed them to my previous DL, where I had driven for 30 years, and this time, they accepted. If they were any good, they should have been able to from my SS# obtain my entire driving record in one go, and determine whether I was worth recommending or not. At any rate, I dropped the idea of using my car as a cab.
Adam Smith's invisible hand didn't build those streets and highways that these cars drive on. They were built by the government with taxes.
Only because it was better for society to have a single entity build roads with standardized methods and rules, so the government was the logical choice. Roads are like firemen; private industry can do it, but competing firemen are not in society's best interest so government takes over. Notably, if private industry was running the road system, I think they'd be better maintained; try driving in any municipality in California these days.
If you want to drive on the public roads, you have to follow the government regulations.
Also untrue. While they're somewhat looser in regulations, say toll roads etc., private roads still have speed limits, drunk driving restrictions, etc. And I'm pretty sure an Uber driver who assaults his passenger is still regulated by criminal law. It's not like it's international waters on a private road.
What planet are you on? Or are you too young to remember how consumers got screwed before consumer protection laws. Yeah feel free to stop using the service after you get killed because your Uber driver was drunk. And it just isn't the passenger there are also other drivers who may be killed or maimed by an unqualified Uber driver. It's not just all about you. And try suing if you get hosed. You will find punishing Uber nigh impossible.
People, and free-market Libertarians in particular, have this idea that if there is a problem between two parties, one can just sue the other and it'll get worked out. They don't seem to realize that a lawsuit is a huge pain in the ass for everyone involved (except the lawyers), and is also very expensive. Lawsuits are out of reach for most people simply because of the cost. It's just not realistic.
For more insight, I would point you to Fletcher Reede in "Liar Liar", when his car is damaged by a tow company:
"You know what I'm going to do about this? Nothing! Because if I take it to small claims court, it will just drain 8 hours out of my life and you probably won't show up and even if I got the judgment you'd just stiff me anyway; so what I am going to do is piss and moan like an impotent jerk, and then bend over and take it up the tailpipe!"
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Consumers are terrible at protecting themselves. "Quality Products / Services" takes third place in terms of things that get a business to the top, after "Excellent PR Control / Advertising" and "Ruthless Business Practices". If you want to see what happens when you reduce consumer protections and monitoring, look to the third world where companies put melamine in their food to artificially inflate the protein count and fake baby formula with little to no nutritional value gets passed off as legit.
Yeah, but what about Comcast? They're the most hated company in the country. They screw their customers and no one wants to do business with them. So everyone exercised their power as consumers and sued Comcast or simply took their business elsewhere. Eventually Comcast went out of business because they provided such terrible service.
Isn't that how it happened?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
How come geeks get up in arms when a company receives a patent for doing something ordinary "with a computer" on the grounds that doing something with a computer doesn't make it novel, but then they turn around and act like Uber is new and novel? It's a taxi company trying to sidestep taxi regulation by claiming it's different on account of performing traditional taxi functions "with a computer."
"Governments built roads and constructed regulations to stop people from getting killed. Businesses would probably have eventually built roads due to economic incentives. (Better roads would mean more cars sold or more toll income.)"
Ahahahahaah. No. Private entities building infrastructure to provide "universal" service. That hasn't happened. Ever. Not without state subsidizing. Would not be profitable to provide service to low-density areas at all.
And the one that has not read Smith is probably you, or at least not comprehended well enough, Smith approved (and required) state intervention. Hell, wikiquote:
"Additionally, Smith outlined the proper expenses of the government in The Wealth of Nations, Book V, Ch. I. Included in his requirements of a government is to enforce contracts and provide justice system, grant patents and copy rights, provide public goods such as infrastructure, provide national defence and regulate banking. It was the role of the government to provide goods "of such a nature that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual" such as roads, bridges, canals, and harbours."
>Neither is your oh-so-precious government regulations.
Saying stupid things like that makes you look like a childish libertarian type.
Well were they wearing slutty clothes? If so, they deserved it.
License and registration fees for taxis and limousines are based on heavy, 24 hours a day use, and cost a lot more.
No they aren't. They're based on regulatory capture to limit the amount of competition with a not to "public safety". The cost of an NYC medallion is due to artificial scarcity, not the amount of use cabs put on city streets.
What Uber is doing in these markets is illegal but the demand from consumers using their services shows the current system does not support competitive pricing.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Crassus's private fire brigade. Private fire departments have existed. And they have always been goddamn abusive organizations.
The perspective of the user is irrelevant here. The point is Taxis "CAN" pick up people off the street, even if they choose not to do so for whatever personal reason.
While uber cannot.
Even if a user wants to think of uber as taxi, the reality is that it is not.
No, a public transport is one that anyone general public can use.
In the case of uber, there is a registration of sort (I have personally not used it, just read about what it is and is not)
Hence, it is not a public transport. It is not a taxi either.
Uber's long term strategy is to simply break the taxi medallion industry then once the medallions are cheap, simply say "Opps, my bad, I'll buy medallions now", and pick them up at 1/1000th the cost?
If car A makes 1 trip to work and 1 trip back every day, and car B makes 100 trips every day ride sharing, do you think a city or state could reasonably charge car B more to pay for those roads than car A?
Ok with that, but there is still no contract between the two parties. Anyone can call upon a yellow or black cab and any driver may be driving you.
In the case of uber, you register yourself as a client and have access to a list of the drivers. You even know who is going to pick you up, and if I understood correctly, you have a say on if you accept a driver or not (not really sure about that, if I am wrong about how uber oerates please point it out).
Finally I am not saying it should not be regulated. (Every business needs some kind of regulation)
What I am saying is that the (exact) same rules cannot apply to both as they do not operate the same way.
The cost of NYC medallions is not all that high. They are just not available, so people who already have one can sell it for a lot of money if they want.
Now, ask yourself why a city would want to limit the number of cabs, and if you can't come up with any reasons other than 'corruption' and 'bought by the taxi companies' then you can't think very well.
Even if they did... I'm sure the female body has a way of shutting that whole thing down...
Well it's quite obvious that the special interest parties have astroturfed this topic. Seriously paradigm shifts need to happen, and apparently they've needed to happen to an embedded (corrupt?) industry such as this for a VERY long time.
"if I take it to small claims court ... you probably won't show up"
In which case you automatically win.
"and even if I got the judgment you'd just stiff me anyway"
In which case the court will help you garnish their wages, order their bank to pay you from any funds they have in the bank, suspend their professional license and/or drivers license until they pay you, and a range of other things that will make their life a complete misery (http://www.courts.ca.gov/1179.htm).
But yeah, it does take time. But laying all this out to them in a demand-for-payment letter so they see that you know how the system works and are willing to grind through those steps is usually sufficient to get people to stop bluffing and pay you if you're clearly in the right.
Yes, but it happens less often when 'government regulations' prevent people with known histories of raping and assaulting people from driving taxis.
Whereas you seem to be arguing that the inconvenience of running a background check on someone before letting them drive a taxi is so onerous that it's worth letting known rapists drive taxis just to avoid the burden on the taxi industry of 'all that government red tape'.
And saying things like this make you look like a childish "progressive" type. What's your point?
The cost of NYC medallions is not all that high. They are just not available, so people who already have one can sell it for a lot of money if they want.
Now, ask yourself why a city would want to limit the number of cabs, and if you can't come up with any reasons other than 'corruption' and 'bought by the taxi companies' then you can't think very well.
Asking why the number of taxis is limited for a certain geographic area is a stupid question. Too many taxis and the business is not viable. Too few and it's not as efficient as it could be.
The same thing applies to groceries stores, bookstores, any brick and mortar store. Ever wondered why we don't have 30 supermarkets in one city block ?
The problem is not the number of taxis, it's just that the medallions sell for huge amounts of money in the second hand market. We could change that if legislation made it impossibile for one company to hoard hundreds of medallions. Or maybe even require medallion to be "leased" to taxi drivers and have them pay an annual fee to the city.
Ah yes, like having unbarred doors increases the costs of doing business. Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire
As opposed to your divine entity of government. Both (government and corporations) are just as equally fucked. Why do people not realize that the words "free market/business" and "government" can be fully interchanged in tirades like this and still be true. See below:
Oh, horse shit.
You're delusional. The (useful/open/representative) government doesn't exist. It doesn't solve problems. It doesn't achieve optimal outcomes.
It's a fucking abstraction describing long-term outcomes under a perfect hypothetical model based on crap assumptions, not some divine entity.
In practice, the only thing government is doing is picking your pocket and giving you the finger.
It isn't some magical entity. It doesn't make good choices. It doesn't care what happens to you. It doesn't actually care if you have perfect information. It doesn't really exist.
The government is the collective actions of the power elite over an extended period of time -- and collectively the government is rigged, and people are gaming the system. The government won't fix that.
The premise that the government achieves perfect outcomes over the long haul assumes the system isn't corrupt, and that the players aren't actively undermining it.
But humans are corrupt, and always will be. Which means in practice the "government" devolves into cartels and other things by which to stop the citizens from being free.
It doesn't exist. Has never existed. Cannot exist. And if by accident it (useful/open/representative government) briefly existed, it would be undermined immediately by the humans.
You hit the nail on the head. Human nature is the problem, and I, for one, don't want that extinguished (unlike many "progressives" who would love nothing more than exactly that to happen) just so we can declare taxicabs 100% safe, or whatever other delusion the free market Republican morons/government worshipping Democratic idiots think their system can be responsible for.
Stop worrying about this my team vs. your team minutia and live your life.
Are you seriously comparing the infrastructure investment for new tubes to the cost of operating a taxi? These are completely different problems.
Not to mention liability insurance: if you get injured in a legal taxi, I bet the taxi driver or taxi company has insurance to cover you. If you get hurt on a Uber ride, good luck getting the civilian driver's non-commercial auto insurance to cover you, especially if the insurer finds out you were paying the driver (the insured) for the ride.
This would avoid having to take on the issues around engaging drivers, provide the tools to do the job better than trying to do the job better.
- My question is: Can Slashdot be Slashdotted? -
There is strong correlation between which states are going after online ridesharing and their level of corruption. As a lifelone CA resident, it surprised me that it took this long for the state to take action.
Well, you are now being put on notice that you're a moron. :-P
I don't worship government. I don't trust it any more than I trust corporations. And I sure as hell con't trust corporations either. I think government needs someone to keep them in check. But I also think corporations need someone to keep them in check.
I'm not a communist, nor am I a capitalist. Because I think both taken to idiotic extremes are dangerous and toxic, and simply don't work as people claim they do.
We couldn't function without government, but sometimes we can barely function with it. Corporations exist, but I don't consider them and their profits to be some moral ideal, or that profit at any costs is a good idea. In fact, I think it needs to be balanced against society's needs and safety.
Too much regulation is crippling. Not enough is dangerous and harmful.
I don't want it extinguished, I want it acknowledged, and not simply waved away as an unsupportable premise in some damned ism.
Any of these isms which makes assumptions about human nature being inherently good, or how people will behave better once we force them to follow our ism, or assumes humans will play nice and fair and not cheat ... those isms become idiotic and trite, because they are an overly simplified model which is detached from reality.
And the free market is one of those. It is founded on untenable premises which ignore human reality, and it isn't borne out by fact and human behavior. Yet it gets trotted out as the solution to everything.
LOL, on this we agree.
As far as I know, I'm not technically on any team. I think several teams have some good ideas, and over time good ideas become Bad Reality. But I think they're all equally full of some garbage which don't hold water.
I think reality exists, humans can and will do stupid and corrupt things, and that anybody who claims to have all the answers is full of shit.
All categorical statements are wrong or incomplete. And slavishly following any ism to "all this or all that" is for simpletons.
So, yes, reality is complicated, nuanced, fucked up, and imperfect. But it's all we have.
What I don't have patience for is people who claim to be able to sum all that reality up into their favorite pet theory which neatly answers all questions. Those people I consider to be full of shit, and dangerous.
Me, I'm mostly full of shit and harmless, because I can tell you for a fact I don't have any answers. ;-)
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
why is Uber astro-turfing slashdot? The site shouldn't be big enough to warrant such tactics.
You mean like BP being taken to court over mistakes that were likely caused by contractors? Sorry but people are only in his car based on trust in the Uber brand and the driver still works for Uber. They have some responsibility for hiring bad drivers. They've not done their job to protect their customers properly.
So let's leave our tort system broken and instead add more regulations? You have to compare the waste of the court system against the waste from a monopoly, and one of them has a deadweight loss built in permanently.
This is a mixed bag, on the one hand you need some form of regulation for safety and responsibility. On the other hand taxi cabs don't effectively serve many areas with no real incentive to change (For example mine ... if I want a traditional cab company to pick me up I need to call the day before, and pray that they show up on time ... if they show up 15 min late oh well .. If I am 5 min late I get charged per min)
Some of the laws are protectionist to keep others from offering the same service but better. Others are to protect consumers. When there are bad laws on the books that are profiting the people representing us they are almost impossible to remove without a serious shakeup of the industry and massive consumer awareness that it doesn't have to be this way.
Seriously ask yourself, before Uber did you even know how much the price of medallion was? Did you even know what the relevant laws were? Since there was no other option we just accepted it. Yes people complained and small fixes were done like flat rate to airports from major cities and the like, but no serious major look at the system. Now people are aware, and uber (and others) is getting the voters geared up to change. Traditional taxi cab companies are not happy and will use all of their power to fight the change in major cities since it means a significant cut into their profits. In smaller areas the smart thing to do is for the taxi companies to work with Uber (or another) and find a way to team up (As uber grows that will be a more likely outcome) so that everyone benefits in a new system.
"Hey Ez, where are you going"? "Up to the store". "Mind if I go with you, I need a few things". "Not at all". "Thanks, here's a couple of bucks for gas".
That is ride sharing. Uber, Lyft, and the others are arranging drivers for hire. Just pointing out the obvious here.
The government figured out ride sharing vs commercial activity long ago in the area of a private pilot's license vs a commercial pilot's license. A private pilot can take a passenger who chips in for fuel. I think the chipping in has to be accurate with respect to fuel, no gross overpaying for the passenger's fair share. Also I don't think splitting rental or maintenance costs were allowed, just fuel. And the passenger can absolutely have no influence on where or when the plane departs and where it goes. The passenger literally has to be leaving, arriving and go to a destination that the pilot was going to anyway. If the passenger has such influence on the flight a commercial license is necessary.
That said, maybe a new commercial class of driver's license is needed for "drivers for hire"? Something that involves a little extra driver training, a vehicle inspection, insurance requirements, etc?
> Passengers don't want to get robbed and raped by their drivers. They don't want drivers who are drunk.
And somehow "regulation" magically prevents this? What planet are you from? The one where buses driven by drunks off a cliff land on marshmallows?
They can get their medallions pulled.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
I've known people who took someone to small claims. First off the defendant is often given several chances to show. Meaning that the plaintiff, who was harmed, has to take time off of work to pursue the case. First problem.
Problem 2, small claims courts often have limited jurisdiction. You have to go to where the event happened. So if you were traveling in another city, on vacation perhaps, you will have to return to that city. Or hire a lawyer which is expensive, in my area about $400/hr.
Problem 3 if the defendant skips the amount is usually so low the police probably do not care.
Problem 4. If you get a judgement it is up to YOU to collect. The amounts are usually so low that collection agencies are usually not interested in pursuing it. YOU have to find the defendant,s accounts and then get the banks to let you take your money out. Or find their employer. Assuming they are employed. In the case of Lyft and Uber they are contractors so good luck garnishing wages.
Enjoy your libertarian paradise!
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
After Uber advertises it as a cheap, easy, and safe service. Uber shares responsibility.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
If CA is so business hostile, why is CA the 7th largest economy in the world? Unless regulation helps a smoothly functioning economy. See also MA and contrast with TX, AL, and MS.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Plus there are safety inspections the cabs have to pass and background checks the drivers have to pass.
Or whatever the state equivalent of that is. Simply take everything unto the state, tax everything and 100%. Problem solved. By the way there's no way to hire a 'real' cab by me where the driver doesn't speak ONLY French or ONLY Spanish. So.....good going. That's fucking awesome.
And remember to down mod me, please.
, look to the third world where companies put melamine in their food to artificially inflate the protein count and fake baby formula with little to no nutritional value gets passed off as legit.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. In 2008 the NZ dairy corporate Fonterra had a Chinese subsidary (Sanlu) in which they had a minority interest (less than 49%) that produced baby formula. The subsidary had supply from local farmers who would get increased payouts with milk with more protein in it. These local suppliers found that melamine was a good way of 'supplementing' the protein count; this was not detected as no Dairy company (at the time) tested for melamine as it is usually used in making benchtops etc (amongst other things I think) and normally does not come anywhere near the dairy supply chain. So, no, the 'evil corporate' did not intentially poison its consumers, the dodgy suppliers did. I am no shill for Fonterra, in NZ we have serious issues with freshwater deregradation due to intesifying dairying which Fonterra is accused of reacting slowly to.
New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
No, millions of those out of work because the left implemented a command economy (actually letting the industry magnates collude and set their own prices, yay!) and Soviet Style apparatus of endless layers of watcher-enforcers watching a level of watching-enforcers below, intimidated the Supreme Court into submission to mince reality and claim intra-State, family-only, growth of wheat to feed your starving family is a lawless criminal act because INTER STATE COMMERCE, and literally starving to death (while blaming the prior administration for actually letting the market correct and begin to recover in terms of real production before taking-over to plunge the United States into more darkness) as told to me now by a few tens of 90 year-old women (some lifelong strong-government types!!!) up through about the time I was twelve all pitched-in and built them roads to save the nation from rebellion from the bored starvation FDR had kept them in!
Some of us are waiting for you clueless ignorant old men to eat it with more than mere youthful prejudices and rebellion against "cause old!" Keep on propagating the pre-packaged mythical narratives, though. I'm sure we will all benefit mightily from more consumer protection against ultra-strong magnates with WARNING, NOT FOR CHILDREN UNDER 12! MAY HARM OR KILL OF EATEN! ADULT OR ADULT-SUPERVISION ONLY!!! splayed across the front, or the world's most popular toy-in-an-egg sold globally that we just can't let parents supervise (or be held accountable for failures to do).
I mean, it's almost like I need to be told that pouring fucking coffee in my lap is HOT! It may burn! O, and the slabs of meat on white bread accompanied with deep-fried potatoes, artifical preservatives, and a gallon or two of flavored corn syrup could make me fat or cause diabetes!
O SAVE US, ALMIGHTY NANNY STATE AND THOSE WHO FEED IT BY VOTING TO ENSURE HOLDING OTHERS LIABLE FOR THEIR OWN FAILURES TO BE RESPONSIBLE REMAINS POSSIBLE THROUGH SUBVERSION OF THE LAW!!!! WHATEVER SHALL THE FUCKING ONSLAUGHT OF LAWYERS AND PARASITES DO OTHERWISE!!!!!!? YOU MEAN I SHOULDN'T HAVE SMOKED POT AND FUCKED LITTLE GIRLS ALL DAY IN DAD'S GARAGE WHILE PLAYING VIDEO GAMES IF I WANTED TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO LIVE? NO WAAAAAAY!!!!!! LIFE'S UNFAIR...PATRIARCHY!!!
Signed,
No respect.
Actually I've found the opposite is true, as regards regular taxi drivers. I stopped using official yellow cabs in Southern California after my cab driver either fell-asleep or fell into a drug induced stupor while driving on the 405 south towards Irvine. I had to repeatedly hit him on the shoulder to wake him up before we smashed into the side, we were about half a second away from both being dead, I'm deadly serious. I was shaken up all evening.
I heard about Uber after that and started using them, I've only had the best experience with them. Cleaner cars, well spoken, more normal seeming drivers, a much better experience in every way, and cheaper too! In fact, for some reason, now I think about it, "real" cab drivers always seem way sketchier and suspect than all the Uber drivers I've encountered, as though Uber attracts more middle-class people and "real" taxi drivers are more likely to be lower-income and/or under-educated. I've had plenty of "real" taxi drivers seem dodgy, smelly, rude, non-English speaking. None of that with Uber.
After decades of the war on drugs, cocaine has become thousands of times cheaper, purer, more efficiently distributed, and widely available than it ever was while popular, widely consumed and used, and respectably kept on one's person in a "snuff box." But consumers really need protection from choosing for themselves. ;) How about "we're not going to bail you out for the consequences--or anyone else who does?" Maybe then people will think "I should save to buy something better made, known through use, and praised by people who know shit, so I know I can rely on them, rather than buying the on impulse--last time I did that the folding chair with steel supports cut the tip of my finger off! At least it taught me to respect and think about, rather than give no notice to, things with moving metal parts."
Because I don't know, the many treatments rejected at FDA that go onto market in Europe, "because too many people suffered side-effects despite that for some it could otherwise be life-saving" are evidence we have enlightened people running things. You'd be better if you're one of those who would benefit to get that damn drug by any means necessary (not happening, by the way, without being rich to go to Europe: since you must sign paperwork saying you're in good health and won't possibly be in need of public support at any time of travel, and prove you have insurance coverage...which you can't get if already sick!"
Of course, without the costs of "protecting EVERYONE!!! Cause EVERYONE IS SPECIAL!!!" they might be able to tolerate a little sick, non-rich American or two with no backing besides savings to get a treatment that can at the very least prolong their lifespan, so long as they can afford it. Perhaps even, with taxes not so exhorbitant more people would be willing to donate privately--and in turn since this is done from goodness of heart rather than bureaucratic determination it could, dare I say, actually be more efficient! I mean, imagine all the capital saved if the State neither paid for your doctor's bill in having a kid or your birth-control: BILLIONS more could go into development of real medicine and research to advance it, and more affordable devices. Almost like...giving shit away is a really taxing fucking practice on actual productivity! I know I know, "but it covers disruptions to those who actually are poor", but I'm talking about the middle-class bribe-programs going on throughout the "liberal" world. The poor don't have the connections or background to fill-out the forms or answer (without perjuring themselves) with those documents written where words mean different than they normally do, or money for lawyers to justify their "need" or defend them if someone decides to make an accusation.
The actually-poor could more than enough be covered otherwise by the middle classes...which likewise would more than likely be good enough to deny aid to those who are just opportunistic and greedy (and not clever enough to fake otherwise), and therefore have more means to care for themselves. I mean, it's not like I haven't experienced this first-hand and watched how government aid, food kitchens, and every other program require "a legal address", and the confidential forms mysteriously find their ways to public ordinance enforcers in four separate cities/towns whose officials are all buddies with the socialites who run the institutions for subsidizing the middle class (which can't seem to divest itself of the thought "I need $100/mo or more of TV, internet as extra, a $1000 smartphone, $80 month unlimited data, trampolines, new cars on 20% financing, a house to stuff with shit I never use...unless perhaps like the big banks we stop saying "too big to fail"), who knock on your door screaming, "WHY ARE YOU LETTING A NON-NUCLEAR RELATIVE LIVE IN YOUR HOUSE? OPEN THE FUCK UP, THIS IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY!!!!!!!"
But hey, people like you have concepts rather than facts to think in, and pretend to yourselves that you know how to ensure people get taken care of.
Do you or I have access to that database? No. It isn't open to the public, which makes it private.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Here in Montreal, there was 29 sexual assault reported to the police from taxi drivers in 2013. Since taxi drivers mostly assault drunk women, the number of aggression is probably much more than 29.
Lawsuits are out of reach for most people simply because of the cost.
In Libertarian World, that's your fault for being poor.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
In both cases, The Government acts purely to thwart the Free Market out of some sort of deadly socialist envy.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
May I get off your lawn?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
So, no, the 'evil corporate' did not intentially poison its consumers, the dodgy suppliers did.
The dodgy suppliers are part of the corporate system too.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Passengers don't want to get robbed and raped by their drivers. They don't want drivers who are drunk. They don't want to be injured by uninsured drivers. The Uber free market isn't very good at eliminating those risks.
Neither is your oh-so-precious government regulations. There are plenty of stories of people getting assaulted or raped by a 'legit' taxi driver.
So, because the system is not perfect, it is worthless and should be replaced by a free for all?
The laws against murder don't prevent a certain number of murders, therefore we should abolish the laws against murder?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Spotted on slashdot, the lesser-spotted "Uber shill".
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Yeah... except I've been posting on Slashdot for almost 10 years, I work in the video-game industry and have no connections to Uber. It just annoyed me a little that people assume that because "real" taxis are regulated, that somehow the drivers and cars must be nicer, when, in my experience, the opposite has been true.
Note, if you want proof of my employment I will happily provide it. I'm not a shill.
The same thing applies to groceries stores, bookstores, any brick and mortar store. Ever wondered why we don't have 30 supermarkets in one city block ?
with the obvious exception of Starbucks......
Oh, I'm not a libertarian :) In a 'libertarian paradise' pesky 'regulations' which establish things like renter's rights (probably the single largest use of small claims court is by renters trying to recover their deposit when leaving a rental and the landlord claims the money is now theirs because [insert minor wear and tear here]) don't exist. Because 'the market' will somehow stop all that from happening..
I think the precise details of how easy small claims is to use varies from state to state. I've only had experience with it in California (and only once at that), and in CA the court doesn't give multiple opportunities to appear unless the defendant files paperwork each time giving a documented (and reasonable) reason they can't appear. And neither party is allowed to bring a lawyer with them. But yes, working out how to collect is up to you, and how easy that is varies wildly depending on the situation. Landlords tend to be easy to collect from because, by definition, they have fixed assets. Uber drivers, maybe not so much.
And politicians are great at protecting the rent seeking industries that pay them.
The difference is that Comcast pays the politicians to protect them from their consumers.