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!
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...
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.