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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
>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
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.