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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!