Slashdot Mirror
Massachusetts Governor Introduces Bill To Regulate Uber, Lyft
jfruh writes: The "wild west" days of ridesharing services may be coming to an end. The governor of Massachusetts has proposed a bill that would regulate Uber, Lyft, and their rivals in the state. Among the new rules: ridesharing services would have to run background checks on their drivers and keep a roster of active drivers; vehicles would need to have some external marker indicating that they're a ridesharing car; and drivers would need to hold at $1 million worth of insurance when transporting passengers.
As if they will give a damn any your regulations... If they did, they would be a proper taxi service.
Or they could classify them as taxis and leave legit ride shares alone. Its not ride sharing when you pick someone up and their location and deliver them anywhere they want. You aren't going near there, you are driving people for money, so you are a taxi driver... because internet doesn't change this.
The über price model reflects this with surge pricing to get more drivers on the road..... how can you do that with people who are just sharing rides?
We need COMMUNSIM because under COMMUNISM everyone will have a car whenever they want one, and nobody will need money or any kind of market with its concomitant alienation, fetishism and exploitation.
WORKERS TAKE THE POWER!
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
In other words, to regulate them seemingly as if they are normal taxi cabs, forcing the same large costs upon them and so totally destroying their current form, which is what makes them so valuable - in other words, banning by regulation.
This is Massachusetts doing what it does best - looking to rake in some tax money. Massachusetts is particularly diligent to make sure they get a cut when cash changes hands. I'm pretty sure that the legislators here get twitchy in summer when they see kids setting up unregulated lemonade stands.
I do see this being ignored completely, until someone gets pulled over and stupidly blurts out "Uber" in the conversation with the officer. At that point they will probably set up checkpoints on the HOV lanes where one must pull over and look deeply in a trooper's eyes and state that they are not an Uber/Lyft driver, honest!
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
A quick web search shows that similarly worded legislation is being considered in Arkansas, Kansas, Utah, South Carolia, and New York.
While I didn't do an item-by-item comparison, a quick glance suggests that most or all these were crafted by a common hand. Anyone want to guess who that might be?
A governor (Executive) cannot introduce legislation. He can propose it, but not introduce it. Yes, there is a difference. The mistake is predictable, as Millenials are used to unconstitutional Executive actions, but just because it happens doesn't mean it's legit.
NH is full, no vacancies. You should never come here. It's awful.
Or you can move to Texas like the best and brightest are currently doing.
Texas is a shithole dependant on Federal dollars. Sure, businesses love a place that lets them do whatever they want at the expense of the actual workers and populace. But it's a race to the bottom that even Texas can't win.
Get good weather
100 degrees in summer?
AND good government.
Wannabe theocrats?
Massachusets blows other states away in actual census data. Education, economy, median income, poverty rates, teen pregnancy.
And it isn't dependent on federal dollars, unlike other places. The reason for that is that Massachusetts isn't trying to race to the bottom with the South.
NH is full, no vacancies. You should never come here. It's awful.
I was born there, if the weather didn't indeed suck, I'd move back in a second.
Uber backs the legislation, saying the bill would promote innovation and keep Uber drivers and passengers safe, said Meghan Joyce, Uber East Coast general manager, in a statement. Massachusetts residents have shown they support ride-hailing and Lyft will work with the state to pass legislation that maintains this transportation option, according to the company.
The main innovation of Uber and Lyft is that it bypassed taxi legislation. It introduced a supply/demand based pricing system (which presumably bypasses legislation on pricing). It does not limit the amount of drivers that can be on the road (bypassing the legislation requiring taxis to have medallions designed to limit the supply of drivers). I don't think the government would have considered these to be innovations until it worked better than the existing corrupt taxi system.
I feel the government is infringing on my rights as a sovereign citizen! Why should I have to obey laws, ordinances, and other bullshit that doesn't benefit me? I mean, there's no fucking way I'd pass a background check. Those "person of interest" flags in multiple disappearances and serial murders that follow me like a shadow just don't erase themselves. And carrying a million in insurance? That's insane! Do you know how much good, strong duct tape and monthly storage rentals cost these days? It's outrageous.
I think your confusing Texas with California. Texas has the second largest state economy in the country and unlike the largest state economy, it isn't bankrupt.
Laws are screwd up, yet libertarian are idiots.
As a reminder, through most of the history of the mankind people were hiring ride service providers and there were little or no laws or restrictions, yet people were getting from point A to point B. Even in the abscence of legislation.
This exclude about 8.6% from yet-another job.
Apparently you stopped following things back in 2006. California is not bankrupt and is doing quite fine financially. They chose actual economics over the "tickle down" nonsense of the likes of Texas and Kansas. With the massive drop in oil prices, Texas is hurting (their financial "success" during the recession was always due to rises in Oil & Gas rather than any special policy). California has other issues, but they aren't financial.
I think you are confusing your Tea Party talking points for facts. California isn't bankrupt. In fact the state budget outlook is very good.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
That one million dollar insurance requirement is a trap. The taxi industry has used that gimmick to hold power for decades. The insurance is so expensive that individual operators can not afford it. Taxi companies usually can self insure by posting a bond and they will fight claims to the bitter end. For an independent driver to exist he will have to pay a high fee and be subservient to an established taxi company. One way out in some states is to register as a transportation service. That avoids taxi regulations but carries a handicap in that you can not pick up riders directly but only those that call your service. Being that it takes a year or two to get in the Yellow Pages most upstarts fail.
Seriously. What are we talking, like an average annual snowfall of 60 inches? I know Vermont is 80 inches annually.
Maybe 80 sunny days per year. I'd lose my mind. Chicago's bad enough.
You are welcome on my lawn.
These might make sense for taxis, which are/were government-enforced monopolies. But for the viciously competing companies the regulations aren't needed.
And, like all regulations, they inevitably increase costs. That the Statists of Massachusetts will seek to impose such things is not surprising. That Slashdot would applaud them — that's more of a disgrace...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Crafted by consumers which do not want to be caught in a rideshare uninsured in an accident, or want to get late at night in a rideshare with a known rapist ? The amount of the insurance is really up to discussion. The presence of all mentionned items (insurance+markers+background check) are on the other hand good for consumers.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Why doesn't Uber become the insurance provider? They have the smarts to do surge pricing, why can't they adjust pricing in these areas to reflect the higher required insurance costs? If you are on a drive for Uber, then you get covered by their policy.
Uber is already doing the car inspections and background checks - this should be a slam dunk for them.
Texas gets more money from the federal government than it gives. They are very much dependent on federal dollars.
My guess is that there's a public safety angle to the external markers. If the police or
the public get worried about Uber or Lyft operating in one's town, the police could
do occasional stops of their cars, or do some testing of the service, to get to know
the players. A potential down-side is the risk of unfairly hampering their operations,
by cabbie-friendly police. To protect the vulnerable, I lean toward that risk.
It always depends on who is behind it (follow the money) and what is the intent. I haven't taken Uber or Lyft myself but have spoken with a few people who have. Here's one story I took note of:
"It was the holiday. I called the taxi service. At the time they said call (1.5 hours) before your plane takes off. I waited 45 minutes. I called again and they said it would be half an hour more. Really? Called Uber and had someone there in 15 minutes. Just made my plane by 15 minutes after going through security."
Uber and Lyft provide a way of having a unique little business for many people. Some of them desperately need it in this economy. And if you are not seeing insurance companies and taxi companies in step with the government on this one to protect their pocketbooks and keep control, you should. In many cities, taxi companies pay huge sums of money to the government for the 'right' to operate in their jurisdiction. Uber, Lyft, and any others like them are threats. Insurance companies see an opportunity to insist on and make more money. And the regulations here by the government (that many are calling common sense) are really just the first wave. Once they "require" them to have higher insurance, a sign on their car, and 'register' as an Uber driver, they can then decide at their leisure whether to quash this new idea and please the taxis or determine what percentage of their profits they should skim off the top.
One main advantage of this whole thing is that it is NOT under the jurisdiction of Government or the taxi companies. Think about it. The number of Uber drivers tends to swell and shrink with the needs of supply and demand. On holidays, more Uber drivers will work because of the greater profits. Riders who like their driver will pick them again. I've heard regular drivers even give out phone numbers to people who appreciate the service. Go ahead, try and pick your driver with a taxi company. Those who are safe and friendly drivers will also get a greater clientele. Which gets us to insurance. As long as they are honest with their insurance companies about their work mileage and that it is used for work, why would insurance need to be handled in any special way or anything reported to the state? Sounds to me like they are simply trying to first find out who the drivers are. Then they can quash, control and/or bleed money from it. Or is Massachusetts such a proponent of the people's needs that they would not consider such a thing?
The intent behind this proposed law is not at all the "We want to protect you", that Massachusetts makes it out to be. Once again, it is a rude attempt at control of travel and commerce that is starting to get too far out of their grip. Once such laws are in place, they are hard to get rid of. I suggest those of you who care write or call in . . . . . . unless it is what you want.
How much coverage do cab drivers have to carry?
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
That always gets me. At 17, you're old enough to enlist in the military, be issued deadly weapons and get shipped over seas to enforce U.S. foreign policy, which may involve killing lots and lots of people.
"What's that you say? You want to be an Uber driver and have a beer when you get home? Sorry, son, you're just not mature enough for that."
... sufficient insurance for commercial purposes...
Actually, that may give a competitive advantage to cab companies in some cases. For example, in NYC historically the cab companies put each cab into its own tiny company in order to limit liability, and then buy the minimum insurance allowed by state law, which is a lot smaller than a million bucks.
That said, I'm not sure what the threshold is these days. It seems it would be pretty easy for a cab to do a couple of million in damage in NYC.
Living in California, it's easy to forget that cheap, fresh, year-round produce is harder to find in the rest of the country. Having a healthier diet is simply easier, and you don't even notice it until you move out of the state
In Massachusetts, the same is true of education. It happens to have the highest concentration of universities and students in the world, and that warps the states culture and priorities in the same way that the Central Valley warps the California diet. Don't be so quick to judge other states. They don't all share the same advantages.
Except that if you don't have commerical insurance, the personal liability you have through your insurance agent will be invalid for the duration of the trip in which the vehicle was used to transport persons/goods for money.
But it easily has the worst taxis in the nation.