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."

17 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. Insurance by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Insurance by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I once drove some of my daughter's friends home from a birthday party. Should I have had to have a commercial driver's license?

      How much were you paid?

    2. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Insurance companies just need to start dropping anyone who drives for Uber and create a new category of insurance for them (which would most likely be the most expensive bracket there is, considering they're driving around customers professionally all day long with no special training whatsoever).

    3. Re:Insurance by Xenx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The difference is the Uber/Lyft drivers are actually employed to do the driving. Realistically, the drivers wouldn't be giving those passengers a ride if they weren't being paid for it. From a personal standpoint, I don't have a problem with the driver not having commercial insurance. However, in that case the company needs to insure the driver when "on duty".

    4. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wait, I thought it was about the extra risk of driving passengers around. You're saying money changing hands impacts how often the accidents happen?

    5. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I once drove some of my daughter's friends home from a birthday party. Should I have had to have a commercial driver's license?

      You did it once? Then you were doing a favor for your daughter? Then you're probably ok. Unless you had too many people in your car, then if you got into an accident, you might find that you weren't covered. I don't know your policies, but it could happen.

      Do it frequently? Then there are issues with your conduct.

      Do remember that, theoretically, Uber/Lyft types aren't doing this full time, but more a matter of "I'm heading out to Walmart, anyone want to come along?".

      And yes, I know that theory and practice aren't necessarily the same....

      In practice, it's...do you want to pay to come with me? And Uber/Lyft are themselves a fully commercial operation. They make lots of money on this. Do we want them to guarantee that they will be able to pay for the potential injuries resulting from their operations?

      I know I surely would. See that's the thing about responsibility, you should have it, to some extent at least.

    6. Re:Insurance by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wait, I thought it was about the extra risk of driving passengers around.

      No. Commercial licenses are not required for "driving passengers around". They are required for commercial (paid) driving.

      You're saying money changing hands impacts how often the accidents happen?

      No, but money changing hands (commerce) impacts whether it is "commercial", and requires a commercial license. If we aren't going to require commercial licenses for commercial driving, then why even have them at all? Why should taxi drivers need commercial licenses either? Uber/Lyft should be allowed to compete in a fair marketplace, and taxi monopolies should be abolished. But that should not be done by giving them special privileges that taxis don't have. We should not swap one rigged system for another.

    7. Re:Insurance by kamapuaa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But here we sit, arguing about whether people should be able to use their cars as they see fit.
      Except that's not what's being argued. People can still use their cars as they see fit, they just have to pay more for licensing and insurance, to cover the increased road use and insurance liabilities. That sounds a lot more reasonable and realistic then a complete overhaul of the "goddamned" health care service.

      And, Uber isn't a ride-share program where you find people to tag along on your road trip. It's an unlicensed taxi service. I doubt a proliferation of slightly cheaper taxis keeps a non-trivial number of people from purchasing a car of their own.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    8. Re:Insurance by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      everyone should be held to the same standard while driving, regardless of reason.

      This is nonsense. The whole point of commercial licenses is that professional drivers should, and are, held to a higher standard. If you are only marginally competent, you may be able to keep a class "C" license that allows you to commute to work, but you should not be carrying passengers for hire, or driving big commercial trucks. There is nothing "unfair" about that.

    9. Re:Insurance by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't forget about barbers, hairdressers, and interior decorators. Just imagine what would happen to our civilization if people could cut hair, or pick out curtains, without a license from the government.

      Or police! We could have unlicensed/untrained police shooting or choking unarmed men, women and children ... oh wait... I guess, they'd technically be called militia, vigilantes or terrorists, so that would probably be okay then.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    10. Re:Insurance by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wait, I thought it was about the extra risk of driving passengers around. You're saying money changing hands impacts how often the accidents happen?

      Increasing the amount of miles you drive on a daily basis will alter the odds you will be in an accident. Being a for hire service makes the odds of a lawsuit higher. So, more time in traffic, more passengers of unknown temperament expecting commercial quality service and protection, no mandated maintenance or inspections. I would expect commercial insurance and drivers license to be a minimum in every state.
      My insurance went up when I reported increasing my miles per year, and I don't have a passenger that will sue on board... I'd also bet there will now be language in your insurance policy that voids all but minimum coverage if you use the vehicle for commercial gain without having previously reported that fact to your insurer. If they write a policy, the type use of the vehicle is stated in the policy, mine has been for years. Non-commercial, no other drivers, under 12,500 miles annually... all in black and white...
      I wonder if Uber drivers insurance policies are already actually void due to fine print.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    11. Re:Insurance by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My argument is that if someone isn't safe enough to drive people around for money, then they're not really safe enough to drive at all. If we need more stringent driving tests and vehicle inspections before we permit anyone to drive for any purpose, then okay, let's have those.

      I appreciate your argument, but I think you're wrong. I think there is more risk to reward trade-off analysis to be applied. There's a major difference between the risks of a person driving two blocks to the grocery store and someone driving a 25-mile school bus route. I want more scrutiny on the bus driver than the mom going for a carton of milk.

      When it comes to Uber-Lyft, I admit that I'm on the fence. There certainly should be a regulatory even playing field: either apply existing taxi laws to the Uber-Lyft drivers or remove those restrictions and regulations from the taxis.

      Claiming "free market" when one side is regulated and the other isn't is disingenuous.

  2. read your contract by swell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...
  3. House of Cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  4. Wrong by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  5. Making a profit off publicly-funded infrastructure by Guillermito · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  6. Why is the DMV kowtowing to a commercial business? by Stan92057 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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