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.

24 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As if they will give a damn any your regulations... If they did, they would be a proper taxi service.

    1. Re:Yeah.... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I saw no mention of rationed or limited licenses when skimming through the article and law. The provisions seemed rather common sense to me when reading through them: 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 don't think this is a bad thing at all. Every other business that deals with transporting the public is licensed and regulated in order to adhere to reasonable safety standards. Uber is apparently supporting this legislation as well. I think they feel that it's a good thing to be officially recognized by the state as a legitimate business. It's certainly better than existing in a grey area and getting fined or having lawsuits tossed at you.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:Yeah.... by tompaulco · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sounds pretty good. I wonder if it will extend to the ride share boards up in many of the state's colleges.

      I doubt it. Those are actually ride sharing situations. People are actually going to a destination and willing to share expenses. Lyft and Uber call themselves Ridesharing, but they are actually a taxi for hire service.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    3. Re:Yeah.... by mjwx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      gotta love the government. stifling innovation for generations.....

      What is innovative about an illegal taxi service?

      These have been running in third world countries that I've been visiting for decades. They haven't caught on in the west as we tend not to like the violence and terrible driving that comes along with it.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:Yeah.... by erice · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Yeah.... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Informative

      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!
    6. Re:Yeah.... by swillden · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.
    7. Re:Yeah.... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You really don't grok that "liabilty" thing, do you?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    8. Re:Yeah.... by dave420 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Translation: "I am confused. All these big words and weird concepts. I don't get them. I do, however, hate regulation so I will kick and scream and fuss and complain about this, showing everyone how much I don't know and how little I care about educating myself, and how much I value a good bout of rage".

    9. Re:Yeah.... by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's sharing a taxi.

      The pre-Uber general characterization of ride-sharing is person 1 is going from A to B, and offers/finds/solicits someone else (Person 2) from around A (or along the path from A to B) and drives with Person 2 further along the path to B or around B, drops off person 2, then Person 1 continues on to B.

      Person 2 may give person 1 money and/or sex in exchange for the ride.

      It's predicated on Person 1 already wanting to go from A to B.

      Uber and Lyft have completely perverted the phrase, using it to refer to taxi rides arranged over the internet, at random prices, while ignoring any taxi regulations.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. Taxis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  3. Regulation for Taxation by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!

    1. Re:Regulation for Taxation by sphealey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      = = = Massachusetts is particularly diligent to make sure they get a cut when cash changes hands.= = =

      There's a term for that. Wait a minute, ... got it. The term is "the law".

      sPH

    2. Re:Regulation for Taxation by CronoCloud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is Massachusetts doing what it does best - looking to rake in some tax money.

      It's one of the reasons that if you look at the census data, Massachusetts comes out looking good. unlike say Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, etc etc

      Massachusetts isn't a net burden on the US like those states are. Massachusetts pays it's own way and more than that it's a better place to live.

  4. Similar bill in many states by Bamfarooni · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Similar bill in many states by Bamfarooni · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Looks like I missed North Dakota, Hawaii, Arizona, New Mexico, Connecticut and one from Minnesota, that's just mentioned in their journal.

  5. Re:Banning by regulation by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, if it walks like a taxicab and talks like a taxicab, how is it not a taxicab? Because you signal it with a hep and cool app instead of making a phone call?

  6. Re:Why? by CronoCloud · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  7. Re:Learn civics by SydShamino · · Score: 3, Informative

    Err, under the Massachusetts constitution, any citizen (governor or not) may file a proposed piece of legislation. If you're going to rail on about the government, maybe try a different state?

    --
    It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  8. Re:Why? by CronoCloud · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Banning by regulation by tlambert · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, if it walks like a taxicab and talks like a taxicab, how is it not a taxicab? Because you signal it with a hep and cool app instead of making a phone call?

    No $300,000 buy-in for a medallion in San Francisco or Chicago?

    They actually show up when they're supposed to, rather than taking whoever flags them down instead on their way to you?

    They don't blow you off and lie to the dispatcher about it?

    Let's see... how else are Uber and Lyft different from taxis?

    Modern cars instead of a 20 year old Ford Crown Victoria or Dodge Diplomat?

    Lack of vomit smell/stale cigarette smoke smell?

  10. Re:Why? by alcmena · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  11. Re:Banning by regulation by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, if it walks like a taxicab and talks like a taxicab, how is it not a taxicab? Because you signal it with a hep and cool app instead of making a phone call?

    It's not a taxicab because it actually shows up when you call one.

  12. Re:Banning by regulation by houghi · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.