Slashdot Mirror
Calif. DMV Back-Pedals On Commercial-Plate Mandate For Ride-Share Drivers
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that
In an abrupt U-turn, the California Department of Motor Vehicles late Friday retracted its finding that drivers for ride-hailing services like Uber, Lyft and Sidecar must obtain commercial license plates.
That determination — based on a 1935 state law — ignited a firestorm of criticism from the San Francisco startups and their supporters as stifling innovation. Commercial licenses are cumbersome to obtain, meaning they could impede the companies’ growth, which relies on getting new drivers, many of whom work just part time, into service quickly. And commercial registration probably would have necessitated that drivers get commercial insurance, which is significantly more expensive than personal auto insurance.
Republican Assembly members threatened legislation over the “nonsensical” interpretation if the DMV didn’t reconsider its stance before Feb. 17.
Now the department says it will do just that.
That doesn't mean drivers for companies like Uber and Lyft can expect to be left alone by the DMV, though, which according to the article "will meet with regulators and the industry to work through the issue."
Why, exactly, should Uber drivers get to drive passengers using regular non-commercial drivers' insurance? Commercial insurance costs more because people who drive people around for a living are much more likely to cost the insurance companies more money. If you're letting them drive on non-commercial licenses than that means that regular drivers are subsidizing Uber-drivers.
Crowd: What do we want? Fry: Fry's dog! Crowd: When do we want it? Fry: Fry's dog!
Buggy Whip.
Uber and Lyft may be a hobby for some people, but they are a job for others. The commercial auto license, like the commercial driver's license, is a binary distinction. I'm going to make some popcorn and enjoy this fight.
The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
Your insurance papers will probably make it clear that you are NOT covered for commercial use of your vehicle. Even if you don't read the policy, you know in your heart that commercial drivers pay more than ordinary drivers. Lots of people think they can deceive their insurance carrier and save money. The company gets the last laugh when it's time to pay for a claim. Any deception on the part of the insured is likely to negate the contract and no claim will be awarded. Yes, possibly years of payments to that company and all for nothing because you lied.
Like the people who watch your credit worthiness and the people who observe you for terrorist tendencies, the insurance industry has vast resources focused on you. If you try to cheat any insurance company, the word is spread and none of them want to deal with you. If you can get insurance it will be very expensive. Honesty is the best policy.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Do I understand the need for insurance and regulation? Sure. But the people have very clearly spoken on this one. They *love* ride share services. They love everything about them -- the convenience, the cost (surge pricing notwithstanding), the experience, you name it. Ride shares are superior to and more efficient than traditional taxis in every way. Gov't needs to quit playing the fear mongering "Uber drivers will rape you" card and figure out how to facilitate what the people want rather than cow-towing to medallion-sanctioned monopolies. Scream all you want but the genie is out of the bottle and he ain't going back in.
Why, exactly, should Uber drivers get to drive passengers using regular non-commercial drivers' insurance? Commercial insurance costs more because people who drive people around for a living are much more likely to cost the insurance companies more money. If you're letting them drive on non-commercial licenses than that means that regular drivers are subsidizing Uber-drivers.
Uber provided their own insurance which pays out if the drivers insurance fails them, this is only active during a ride.
Commercial licenses are cumbersome to obtain...
Maybe the DMV should streamline the process instead of lowering the requirements? In fact, living in CA I can say that the DMV has pretty reasonable objective requirements/policies even when they have godawful process/implementation.
They should make it trivially easy for anyone that meets a set of clearly-defined objective requirements -- training, insurance, inspection, whatever else -- to get a commercial license. I don't even particularly care what the content of those requirements is -- so long as they are non-arbitrary and enforced even-handedly.
[ In fact, they ought to do the same for cabs -- write up the requirements, then implement them. Most of the reason for Uber is that cities had these absurd fixed-number-of-medallions systems anyway. By doing that they ultimately authored their own destruction. ]
Hmmm.. I'm curious as to how many of the people are declaring the income from the ride sharing to the IRS (or CRA for Canada, or whomever is the taxation authority in the region where they're operating). Followed by how many are deducting vehicle expenses from the income, etc.
>. which is actually way down somewhere below 5,500 lb.
As you can see on the DMV page, it's 10,000 pounds - twice the weight of 2014 F-250.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/...
An F-750 heavy hauler with Caterpillar engine does qualify as a commercial vehicle.
You other assertions of fact are approximately as accurate.
So why SHOULDN'T these drivers, who are driving for a profit, obtain business licenses, commercial insurance, and commercial drivers licenses and tags?
(Before you leap to the inevitable argument that "but you drive to work for a profit," no, you don't. You are not being paid to drive to work. You are being paid for the work you do there. Your driving is a personal activity only indirectly related to your job.)
If drivers need to get commercial plates, they'll need to update their insurance carrier at which point they will likely be informed they need commercial insurance. The cost of commercial insurance will eat into the thin margins for Uber drivers, causing some to drop off of the platform. Given Uber's already high turn over for drivers, this will reduce the number of new drivers willing to flow into their system.
Really, Uber is a house of cards. Eventually, divers' cars are going to age and the replacement cost is going to be a massive hit. Drivers are going to start forgoing maintenance (not great for safety), driving while tired, etc... to try and beef up their margins. There's probably a 3 year timeline before this hammer comes down, faster if new drivers stop flowing into the system due to new insurance requirements. My guess is the goal is to IPO and cash out before the whole thing comes down.
There is no way around the maintenance or replacement costs drivers are going to incur. Taxis don't drive older, easy to fix cars because they're hording massive profits. It's because they need to do it to try and maintain a decent profit margin. Give it a few years and you'll be riding in an Uber with a low cost Macco paint job, bald tires and a check engine light covered with a piece of electrical tape. Without regulation, no one will be checking and drivers will be looking for every way to squeeze more profit out of each ride. And before someone replies with "People will just rate down the driver".... ask yourself how you'll know the tires are bald and the check engine light is glowing under a piece of tape. Maybe the CV joint boots are ripped and dirt is happy grinding itself into the bearings, waiting to fail spectacularly. If you feel comfortable taking the chance with your life or your family's life, that's your decision, but I don't want one of these cars slamming into me on the highway.
Why, exactly, should Uber drivers get to drive passengers using regular non-commercial drivers' insurance?
They don't really, this is why Uber and Lyft both provide supplemental insurance for drivers.
Commercial insurance costs more because people who drive people around for a living are much more likely to cost the insurance companies more money
That's bullshit because the cost of personal insurance is partly factored in by miles driver per year, so that risk is ALREADY INCLUDED.
If you're letting them drive on non-commercial licenses than that means that regular drivers are subsidizing Uber-drivers.
No more than people who drive a lot for drives or commute already are.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
All medallions do is create taxi cartels, barriers to entry for others wishing to participate in the market, a complete lack of competition, and insane profits for the medallion owners (not the drivers). It is a system that just begs for abuse and it's disgusting that this type of situation is not only condoned, but advocated by our municipal governments. It is only because of the ride share apps that these dinosaurs are finally being wiped out by their own well-deserved asteroid. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Maybe the DMV should streamline the process instead of lowering the requirements?
Part of the Commercial Drivers License Test includes questions like "The phrase gross combination weight is figured by adding together what?". Is it reasonable to require you know the answer when you are just driving a person around in a passenger car?
The reason why the commercial drivers license test is way too onerous is that it's really meant for people driving trucks or other specialized vehicles. What aspect of the existing drivers license test does not cover what a person just driving a few other people around in their own car would not cover? After all, that's exactly the same as if they were simply driving friends and family around... if the test can't help you be a decent driver doing that, then improve the basic test instead of requiring you to know a truck swinging wide is called Offtracking...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You are not being paid to drive to work. You are being paid for the work you do there.
I am a contractor. I drive to clients, all of my driving to clients is directly related to the job.
I also write iOS applications, sometimes I drive around testing the GPS aspects of the apps. In those cases I am billing while driving.
Why do I need a commercial license tags for that again? How is that in any was reasonable except you simply want more money from me and that seems like a fine angle to use to extract it? It wouldn't make me any safer to have a license where I answer questions about driving tractor trailers. Insurance wise I had damn well better be covered for anyone else getting injured in my car anyway, and insurance is already calculated based in part on miles you drive per year (not to mention Lyft/Uber provide extra insurance on top of what you have).
Why would I need commercial license/tags to drive a few people around few days a week? I already do that with family and friends. Why is is so different when it's someone I don't know at the start?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Amusing that most of the posts here are about commercial drivers license or commercial driving insurance but the article is about commercial registration (license plates).
I thought the general principle was that if you are making a profit off publicly-funded infrastructure (in this case, roads) you should be taxed more than the general public, hence the special license for commercial vehicles. I can't see why uber and the like should be exempted.
Why is the DMV kowtowing to a commercial business? If this was in my state i would be raising hell. Sorry, i am not in uber corner here. Name some or any business that doesn't require a License when dealing with the public. I cant think of any, be it a plumber to an insurance salesperson. Uber is no different, we don't need MORE corporations getting out of paying there fair-share in taxes,fees. umber doesn't need loopholes in car repairs and proof of commercial passenger service insurance. Im betting the Auto insurance industry would have some hefty insurance premiums to those they find out are using there personal non commercial cars for commercial passenger service vehicles.
Jack of all trades,master of none
Typical. Somehow those cabbies from Islamic or socialist countries are _here_. Maybe they're even US citizens. Huddled masses yearning to breathe free and all that. How are those not "American Jobs"?
OTOH Uber in Cape Town, or Stuttgart, or London... No American jobs there.
And for the record, I'm an American too. I just don't have my head up my ass. (Or maybe I do, sometimes it's hard to tell.)
Even as a contractor you may not deduct mileage driving to and from clients as that is considered non-commercial commuting by the IRS
Good thing I listen to my accountant and not idiot AC posters on Slashdot:
One way to avoid the harsh commuting rule is to have a home office that qualifies as your principal place of business. In this event, you can deduct the cost of any trips you make from your home office to another business location.
From one of a billion links that tell you how the world actually works
I mean, what consultant these days is not going to have a home office? Sheesh.
Most states, for example, have a taxi drivers endorsement for their regular drivers license.
Yes they do. The point is that is as stupid as it is unnecessary; it's just a revenue collection scheme and has zero to do with keeping people safe (the supposed intent).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You could potentially walk, bike, take public transport or a cab to get to your clients.
No, I really can't - mostly I'm driving about 30 minutes at 50-60MPH average to reach them. Considering the fact that as a consultant I get paid by the hour it would cost me vast sums of money to bike to them, and probably an hour longer each way taking any public transport (I've looked into that). A cab is not a bad idea if you live in a city but I'm working between multiple areas and also take very long road trips all the time (partly for business) so it would be stupid to also spend money on a cab when the marginal extra cost of using my car is vastly less.
it's not an absolute requirement for your business
My clients disagree which is why I drive to them. If I don't have a job because I do not drive, it's a requirement.
Your argument is way, way weak. There is no "key difference". The fact is that driving for Uber and driving friends around has zero actual difference in terms of external risk or ability. That's the core argument where you simply cannot distinguish, thus either everyone needs a commercial license or no-one does.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
No, but money changing hands (commerce) impacts whether it is "commercial", and requires a commercial license.
"Impacts", perhaps. But it's not definitive. Especially in California.
For instance: I bought a pickup truck, to use as a tow vehicle for my camper and my wife's boat. Then I discovered that CA requires pickup trucks to be tagged with a (VERY pricey) commercial license, regardless of whether they're used for business. (You CAN petition to tag a particular pickup truck as a personal vehicle - but are then subject to being issued a very pricey ticket if you are ever caught carrying anything in the truck bed - even if it's personal belongings or groceries, and regardless of whether you're being paid to do it. (Since part of the POINT of having a pickup truck is to carry stuff home from the store this would substantially reduce its utility.)
The one upside is that I get to park for short times in loading zones.
If we aren't going to require commercial licenses for commercial driving, then why even have them at all?
And if we ARE going to require them for clearly personal, non-commercial vehicles that happen to be "trucks", why NOT impose this requirement on putatively commercial vehicles that happen to be cars as well?
The real answer to your question is "because the state wants the tax money, and the legislators and bureaucrats will seek it in any way that doesn't threaten their reelection, reappointment, or election to higher office" - in the most jerrymandered state in the Union. The Uber case is one where an appraent public outcry arose, bringing the bureaucrats' actions, and public outcry about them, to the attention of elected officials.
The full form of the so-called "Chinese curse" is: "May you live in interesting times and come to the attention of people in high places."
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
âoeOf all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. Lewis
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Wow! Really?!
That's just one more argument against living in California then.
IMO, the *real* reason for commercial licenses was the concept that commercial drivers are driving much larger vehicles that require special training/skills to operate safely on the roadways. (Your average licensed driver can't just hop into an 18-wheeler and operate it. They'd likely not even be able to figure out the transmission with as many gear as it has!) And the ability to properly back one up into a loading dock isn't something that comes without training either.
A vehicle anyone buys at a regular car dealership and uses as a "daily driver" for things like commuting or trips to the grocery store should NOT require a commercial license.
The states ALL want tax revenue, but there are ways to go about it that make relative degrees of common sense to citizens. When they start making unreasonable, illogical demands, it's time to get that changed or consider moving to a more reasonable place.
I think you're looking at this from the wrong angle, myself.
Someone deciding to make some extra money on the side driving for Uber doesn't need a "commercial license" from the DMV! What they probably DO need is a special car insurance policy or rider that covers the situation.
Just like if I upgrade my car with a fancy, multi-thousand dollar stereo system -- I can't expect my auto insurance to cover its replacement cost if it's stolen. They're going to say, "Sorry buddy. We insured you based on the standard equipment we know comes with the particular make and model of vehicle you insured with us." They WILL however, let me pay extra to itemize what's in it and get that covered as additional coverage.
The auto insurance company who starts marketing a reasonably priced insurance rider specifically for folks doing "ride sharing" will find it very profitable and popular.
It's not like they are running a business out of their car... Oh wait.
We have restrictions on running businesses out of the house, there should be similar restrictions for running a business in your auto.
The real issue will be when a "personal use" driver damages his car (and potentially a paying passenger) when involved in a traffic accident AND the driver's private insurance refuses to cover the damage and any ensuing lawsuits.
Ken
Because it "stifles innovation" - you certainly can't expect start-ups to play by the same rules as the companies they are competing with, can you?
Reminds me of one version of the "pro net neutrality" argument - if you allow existing companies (with their massive resources) to pay for improved bandwidth to customers, then how will the under-funded start-up ever compete? You must tie the hands of the entrenched companies to give their competitors a chance...
Ken
IMO, the *real* reason for commercial licenses was the concept that commercial drivers are driving much larger vehicles that require special training/skills to operate safely on the roadways. (Your average licensed driver can't just hop into an 18-wheeler and operate it.
Exactly. That's the same reason people should be required to have commercial licenses to drive pickup trucks. They're much larger vehicles than regular cars, and need more training to drive properly. From what I've seen of most pickup truck drivers, they obviously lack the necessary training and skills for driving 6000-pound vehicles, especially ones with dual rear wheels.
A vehicle anyone buys at a regular car dealership and uses as a "daily driver" for things like commuting or trips to the grocery store should NOT require a commercial license.
Yes, it should, if it's a large vehicle. If someone buys a Kenworth and uses it for grocery runs, should they not be required to get a commercial license? It's no different for a Hummer. If you want a vehicle for getting groceries and commuting, get a 4-door sedan like everyone else.
How does Uber improve "the amount of car pooling we do" in a significantly useful way (i.e., one that furthers the goals for which car pooling is usually advocated)?
Consider if an individual leaves their home, drives 8 miles to their destination, and later returns home driving another 8 miles. Total miles of pollution and "road space" is 16 miles worth.
Suppose that same individual uses Uber using the same type of car. Obviously the same 16 miles would be traversed - but even then, the car weighs slightly more so would consume slightly more fuel and produce slightly more greenhouse gasses. But, in addition, an Uber driver will almost always have to drive from wherever they are TO the customer's location to pick them up and have no one else in the car during that time - and this scenario repeats on both the outbound and the inbound trip. Suppose that, on the average in that area, the Uber driver "deadheads" three miles on each trip. Now we an additional six miles of driving and associated environmental impact (including road congestion).
Sure, in the 'self driver' case, there's 0 miles of dual occupancy (a.k.a. carpooling) while in the Uber case there's 16 miles of dual occupancy (with slightly higher pollution due to the additional 150 or so pounds resulting from dual occupancy) -- but the cost is an additional six miles of single occupancy.
About the only "carpooling" type benefit is that less space needs to be devoted to parking at the destination if enough people take taxis, Uber, public transport, cycle etc...
If the goal is to increase average vehicle occupancy, why don't we just pay people to pile into cars and then drive the cars in circles?
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Maybe it's not fair that a startup paid as much as an stablished company. But maybe it's not fair that they used the publicly-funded infrastructure for free either.
If Uber driver is taking a client and crashes into someone (or someone crashes into his car), does the Uber driver expect his "regular non-commercial" insurance company to pay for this passenger's injuries or will he pay out of pocket or will Uber pay for the passengers injuries? Alternatively, do people think that as long as the Uber driver is driving within the number of KM that he specified he would drive within / year to the insurance company (his regular non-commercial insurance), then the nature of the passenger (personal OR non-profit ride-share OR for-profit ride-share) does not matter and the insurance company "should" pay? Serious non-rhetorical question - would like to hear peoples' thoughts.
Well, actually, uhh, yeah, there's a whole body of law allowing citizens arrests. In fact, before the police state, there was a sherrif and a very few deputies, and citizens policed themselves. Now we're unarmed, overpoliced and everything is better.
I'd like to see you haul a 4'x8' of plywood home in that 4-door sedan. Yeah, I know everybody doesn't haul plywood in their truck, but I do haul a LOT of stuff you simply can't put in a car.
IMO, the *real* reason for commercial licenses was the concept that commercial drivers are driving much larger vehicles that require special training/skills to operate safely on the roadways.
I'm pretty sure the real reason is to make more money from licensing people who are in turn making a profit from that license. The gov't could just issue a straight vehicle license and leave it up to the owner of a vehicle to get whatever training is required to operate it safely, but they don't because there's more money to be had from fees on commercial enterprises.
If Uber or Lyft drivers are getting paid to drive passengers around then they should have to follow the same rules as other commercial drivers. Maybe those rules should be changed. Maybe regulations on cab companies are unduly restrictive to limit competition and that should be fixed. But, I don't think a "cab" company that just happens to allow its passengers to find rides using the internet should get a pass on the rules that cab companies with proper dispatchers and fleets have to follow.
If the rules are useless or harmful, change the rules. Don't grant exemptions just because the internet is involved.
You can purchase an 18 wheeler for private personal use and drive it as a camper. The problem is the federal law designates anything with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds as a commercial vehicle or if the vehicle is designed to seat more than 16 people including the driver. There are exceptions for private non-commercial uses. Some 3/4 ton pickup trucks and almost all 1 ton or better pickup trucks fall within this category. The state however does the licensing and can be a little loose with these definitions pertaining to cuts in highway trust money from the feds. But they don't have much wiggle room and it's easier to just include everything. This is the reasons for the pickup truck license issue and it is likely the same in most states.
What I find interesting is that many of these people, and probably most of the people upset over the laws and rules trying to be enforced, are the same people who think businesses need strict regulation and so on. Most of these people got what they wanted and are now realizing how much what they wanted sucks. People like me who hold that this excessive regulation makes it harder to competition to start and compete, that think this excessive regulation benefits not hurts the established businesses, who think less regulations but more proper and enforced or effective regulation would be the best solution, are called racist conservative libertarian kooks who know nothing. And even when those who do the calling get ensnared in their own traps, they will not admit they were wrong or even the opposing views were the slightest bit right. It's just the man putting their boots on their necks with little to no lessons learned.
If somehow the cost of driving went steeply up, you (and your competitors) can switch to an alternative means of transportation and still keep doing whatever you do for a living.
If the cost of driving went substantially up, then taxis and public transport would also increase in cost. At some level of increase, no I could not do what I do.
That's not the case of uber
Why not? New service, UberRickshaw. Many Uber rides are short enough that would work.
It'a no more ridiculous a thought than you trying to create an arbitrary separation between me driving a friend across town and someone I don't know.
since their for-profit use of publicly-funded infrastructure
Which I and my rider pay for regardless of us knowing each other or not.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When he says "pickup trucks require commercial license" he is not talking your average Toyota pickups or F150's - he is talking F350+ commercial size ones.
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
That is bizarre. Here in BC if a vehicle has a GVW over 5000kg it is classified as commercial but can still be insured for pleasure use only and probably insured for commuting to work. Any actual commercial use requires a number from the federal government and I'm not sure of the procedure for that. Lots of people would crank up the GVW on their small trucks to avoid the smog tests.
Under 5000kgs you can get artisan insurance for hauling your trade tools around if you're are a contractor or such and avoid the commercial bullshit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I'd imagine that you'd still need an air ticket to drive an 18 wheeler camper, at least if it has air brakes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Your whole story boils down to "Pickup trucks are usually used for business and the State of California knows it so that is the default. You can license a pickup in a non-business way if you want to, though, by checking a checkbox."
Yeah. So what's the problem?
This is ridiculous: "subject to being issued a very pricey ticket if you are ever caught carrying anything in the truck bed - even if it's personal belongings or groceries". I looked it up and I couldn't even find cranks complaining about that much less reasonable people.
Here's the DMV page: http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/Vehicle/NonCommercial.htm. Big spoiler here: there's nothing about ticketing you for getting groceries.
as the proud owner of a California pickup with non-commercial plates (and the friend of several others), I call bullshit
Actually, a lot of the state's got rid of the air brake endorsements. I was completely shocked when I was purchasing a class 7 medium duty single axle box truck that came stock with air brakes as it's a non-CDL truck and I was under the old assumption that the air brakes made it a CDL truck because of the endorsement. My state got rid of the requirements and I can no longer find them on the FMCSA website and a search shows a lot of other state's do not bother any more.
I think it has to do with technology that is mandatory now like ABS and self adjusters. But I have no idea why it went away or when it did.
Interesting, as far as I know the air ticket is still required in all Canadian provinces but haven't researched it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
>For instance: I bought a pickup truck, to use as a tow vehicle for my camper and my wife's boat. Then I discovered that CA requires pickup trucks to be tagged with a (VERY pricey) commercial license, regardless of whether they're used for business.
What the hell kind of pickup truck are you driving? My father's got an enormous GMC R3500 from the late 80s and it works just fine for hauling and towing a variety of things, and he's got it on a normal license.
I suspect you're pissed off because you didn't do your research and bought a commercial truck with a GVWR too high for your license, and are trying to shift the blame onto California.
http://pinopsida.com
No, everyone else just sees through your bullshite.
No, even an F-150 requires a commercial registration in the state of California. The only exception is if there is a permanently attached camper shell. Permanent meaning welded on or the equivalent.
Nothing to see.
Must be a new thing then. Been a few years(like 10-15), but I owned a number of pick up trucks in california, including buying from dealers who took care of all paperwork to make sure it is proper and never needed any commercial plates or registration. My understanding is that it needed to hit 10k GVW before any of that comes into play. (F150 is like 6 or 7)
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
Why did you cite a New Jersey webpage for a question about California's laws?
No, everyone else just sees through your bullshite.
Troll does not mean "comment with which I disagree", but a lot of the moderators around here seem to think that's precisely what it means. Including pathetic cowards too afraid to even face someone in a comment over the internets with a psuedonym. Gotta be the most pathetic people not on 4chan
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
In Liberal Maryland, my Tundra required a more expensive registration, but not commercial. It is possible that uber progressive California wanted to push people to not buy trucks anymore.
http://www.mva.maryland.gov/ve...
It looks like my truck fits in the class M (over 3700 lbs), so costs $187/2 year, which isn't much different than the fee for hire of $334/2 years.
My truck could also be class E (3/4 ton or 7000 lbs) at $161.50
Do they intentionally make this stuff complicated to confuse people? It took me 10 minutes just to find that particular link and it doesn't even explain the difference between E and M.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Thus does the repblic fall, and the center of empire move on to the outskirts, where the roads of trade remain open, and the old empire does little other than impede trade. Hail China.
Doesn't matter how well-reasoned (or well-memed) the impedance is. Just that it be a burden. The latest in a death of a (hundred) thousand cuts.
Now downmod me, as censorship driven by outrage, caused by that meme in your head, is part of the meme's meechanical method of operation, of which you are literally a driven cog.
Kind of scary to see it that way, isn't it? The meme has fingers reaching into your outrage center, by way of which it induces you to behave in ways that protect it, and its spread.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Oh shit! Because I was led astray by poor googling.
I stand by my statement. I'll bet that guy a hundred dollars that Californians don't get tickets for putting groceries in their pickup trucks. That is total nonsense.
IMO, the *real* reason for commercial licenses was the concept that commercial drivers are driving much larger vehicles that require special training/skills to operate safely on the roadways.
I'm pretty sure the real reason is to make more money from licensing people who are in turn making a profit from that license. The gov't could just issue a straight vehicle license and leave it up to the owner of a vehicle to get whatever training is required to operate it safely, but they don't because there's more money to be had from fees on commercial enterprises.
Sounds you have no idea what you're on about.
I can guarantee you that if the Govt. left it up to drivers to get the proper training and instruction on how to operate vehicles safely, people wouldn't do it.
The only reason people get proper licenses for commercial vehicles is because its enforced. Without enforcement people will cut corners left, right and centre.
Also, I highly doubt there's any profit in licenses. For what they cost, I doubt they're even breaking even. However the cost of not having them is a much higher road toll and all the externalities that go along with that (cost to clean up after accidents, repairs to roads, signs and barriers, lost productivity from jams caused by accidents and so forth).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
What was the gross weight of your pickup truck ? I am pretty sure you don't need a commercial license to drive a pickup truck in CA, I have an Avalanche. Large and heavy vehicles should require commercial license because of the danger they can pose on the roads if driven with the talent and attention of your everyday driver.
Frankly, after seeing so many Uhaul trailers jacknifed by inexperienced drivers, it seems like a good idea to require a different license for anything that is going to carry (and especially tow) heavy loads on the highway.
Seems like there's quite a few people commenting that taxis require special regulation because they are spending more time on the road than a normal person driving for personal reasons. Insurance companies take mileage into account when quoting a rate. How does this differ from delivering food and other products in a personal vehicle?
I'm going on what the dealer told me. If I was led astray the cost of the vehicle has been a couple grand higher than it otherwise would have been.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Ford F150 Lariat.
For the 5 1/2 ton towing capacity (which also translates to "won't blow the engine head gasket towing a loaded trailer up CA 88 like the van did" - turns out they designed that vehicle's engine with the cylinders too close together so this one pair had a very thin piece of gasket between them,..).
(No time to get the GVR before I have to get to work...)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I can guarantee you that if the Govt. left it up to drivers to get the proper training and instruction on how to operate vehicles safely, people wouldn't do it.
Interesting claim - since it doen't work that way for guns.
Where the government requires training, most gun purchasers take the minimum required, then stop. Where it doesn't, most people start with the course recommended by the gun stores (which is far more comprehensive - and more focussed, with less time spent on political indoctrination B-) ) and also do substantially more range time, until they feel adequately competent. (Then there are those that get interested in shooting as a hobby...)
A similar effect is the reason police normally don't shoot at private ranges simultaneously with civilians. Most police are embarrassingly HORRIBLE shots and pistol-handlers - because they do only the minimum training and practice required by the department (which has lots of other stuff for them to do while they're being paid for their time), and almost never have to actually fire their gun during their work.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way