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.
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.
Lyft and Uber call themselves Ridesharing, but they are actually a taxi for hire service
Last week I took Uber to SFO. I shared the car with another guy who was also going to SFO. The UberDude picked that guy up, then picked me up.
That's a share-taxi. A ride share would be if the UberDude dropped you off at the terminal, then parked the car and got on a plane.
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 carry a $1 million umbrella policy which covers personal and professional activities. It runs me $13 per month - pretty affordable for what it is. I consult quite a bit, and it's nice to have the coverage for any potential liability claims that could come in the future. If $13/month is too rich for your blood, then the $100+ per month for the car insurance itself is probably out of the ballpark.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Maintaining a list of drivers, criminal background checks, sufficient insurance for commercial purposes, visible external marker on the car, yearly safety inspections, minimum age of 21, and a license fee for the privilege of this oversight, of course.
I think Uber actually already satisfies most of this. They need external markers on the cars (slap some magnetic signs on), and would probably need to do more safety inspections if MA doesn't already require annual inspections of all registered vehicles, and pay a license fee. They already have $1M insurance coverage and obviously have a list of drivers. I think they do background checks, too, though I'm not completely sure.
Frankly, this seems more like a minimal set of regulations to shut up people who are complaining about the unregulated taxi service. Now they technically won't be unregulated, even though the actual changes to their business will be negligible, assuming the license fee is reasonable.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
So they are a taxi with a better service? Still a taxi.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.