Texas Regulators Crack Down on App-Driven Hauling Service

According to the Austin American-Statesman, it's not just ride-sharing companies like Uber drawing attention from regulators, at least in Texas, but also a similar service that's hauling goods rather than people. In a letter demanding that Austin-based Burro cease its phone-coordinated delivery service, Texas Department of Motor Vehicles director of enforcement William P. Harbeson says that "[a]nyone moving household goods in a pick-up truck or other type or size of vehicle for hire is required to register" with the Department, "and show proof of insurance in the amounts required by law." According to the letter, this includes not just professional or even regular haulers, but also people moving a piece of furniture bought at a garage sale for pay; considering the number of people offering that kind of service on Austin's Craigslist, or in the parking lot of home supply stores like Home Depot, it seems like a regulation that will put a dent in the wallet of quite a few people. Burro, for its part, says its providers "are backed by $1M in insurance" — more than can be said for one of the obvious substitutes, which is relying on friends or acquaintances with a roof-rack and some bungie cords.

Comments

Hauling goods is serious business

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially when it is hazardous cargo, the slant of the submission is "anything goes". Where is the limit, submitter? Regulations of trucking have been hard fought and won because of egregious mistakes.

Re:Hauling goods is serious business

[Anonymous Coward]

Devil's advocate:

One reason they demand proof of commercial insurance is an obvious one. What happens if they decide to help move, and some glitch on their part strapping down a motorcycle causes it to fall over, then smack the sides of the truck, destroying the other stuff inside?

With most trucking places, you file a claim, call it done. Without insurance, you have to go to court, and may not even get a chance at scoring damages.

There are also commercial licenses in Texas for truck driving. Using a service that doesn't use CDLs may be cheaper... but it is against the law.

Re: Hauling goods is serious business

[l2718]

Yes, this is less convenient, but the loss of convenience is incurred by the customer, who made the voluntary choice to go with the unregistered unlicensed option. They always had the choice of hiring a licensed mover instead.

Re:Hauling goods is serious business

[Anonymous Coward]

that's not devil's advocate, that's just stupid.

with Uber or Lyft, accidents injure people, and you are worried about stuff.

Re: Hauling goods is serious business

[ShanghaiBill]

but the loss of convenience is incurred by the customer, who made the voluntary choice to go with the unregistered unlicensed option.

No, the loss of convenience is also incurred by the following car that is damaged by the junk falling out of the pickup.

This is a very different situation from Uber, since there are no "medallions" or other market limiting restrictions. Just a reasonable demand for proof of insurance. Since Burro claims they already have the insurance, this is not an onerous demand in the least.

Re:Hauling goods is serious business

[Anonymous Coward]

Accidents that destroy items can hurt people as well if they cannot afford to replace it. Destroy my fridge and I'd be fucked because I don't have the cash to buy a new one right away.

Re:Hauling goods is serious business

[hawguy]

Devil's advocate:

One reason they demand proof of commercial insurance is an obvious one. What happens if they decide to help move, and some glitch on their part strapping down a motorcycle causes it to fall over, then smack the sides of the truck, destroying the other stuff inside?

With most trucking places, you file a claim, call it done. Without insurance, you have to go to court, and may not even get a chance at scoring damages.

There are also commercial licenses in Texas for truck driving. Using a service that doesn't use CDLs may be cheaper... but it is against the law.

The last time I moved, the insurance included with my move was 60 cents per pound - for any coverage beyond that, I had to purchase supplemental coverage. So if they drop your 50 pound $1000 TV, they'll pay you $30.

Re:Hauling goods is serious business

[shutdown -p now]

Note that the law only prohibits this kind of thing when it's done for money. Which makes no sense if your rationale is valid, because hauling hazardous cargo is just as dangerous regardless of whether it's done by some guy that I've hired for $20, or my friend Joey who happens to have a pickup.

Re:Hauling goods is serious business

[Anonymous Coward]

that's not devil's advocate, that's just stupid.

with Uber or Lyft, accidents injure people, and you are worried about stuff.

The higher amount of required insurance for a cargo hauling operation doesn't apply to the cargo being hauled. It's higher because there's an increased risk to the other motorists both from a property and health perspective. People hauling hazardous materials have to carry even higher amounts. In many cases there are additional safety checks and requirements in place, also to protect not just "stuff" but also people.
If you want to insure the load itself, that's often optional, or a separate type of coverage.

Re: Hauling goods is serious business

[HangingChad]

Just a reasonable demand for proof of insurance.

Too bad they didn't demand proof of adequate insurance from the chemical company storing mountains of explosive chemicals near residential housing.

Texas advertises itself as a government intrusion free zone, then Texas government intrudes when companies actually take advantage of that environment. Seems kind of hypocritical.

According to the letter, this includes not just professional or even regular haulers, but also people moving a piece of furniture bought at a garage sale for pay;

Let the chemical company store mountains of fertilizer and the oil company pollute Galveston Bay but you better have commercial insurance for moving furniture from a garage sale! Maybe the no government intrusion rule only applies to companies big enough to bribe legislators.

Re:Hauling goods is serious business

[jbengt]

When it comes to hauling hazardous cargo, chances are (state law may vary) it is illegal for your friend Joey who happens to have a pickup truck to haul it at all.

Re: Hauling goods is serious business

[Anonymous Coward]

Texas advertises itself as a government intrusion free zone, then Texas government intrudes when companies actually take advantage of that environment. Seems kind of hypocritical.

This is because "government intrusion free zones" do not exist in the real world because they are a childish fantasy and would not work.

Government does overreach sometimes (maybe there should be an exemption for non-business hauling) and good law is without a doubt hard to write. But most law was written because bad things happened, and government is attempting to fix it. That is the role of govt in a modern, functioning society.

The Randian minarchist fantasy does not exist anywhere because it flies in the face of 2000+ years of hard-learned lessons, would create a plethora of problems. It would not work.

Re: Hauling goods is serious business

[mi]

Just a reasonable demand for proof of insurance.

The customer — and the companies like Mr. Burro's, who act as middle-men — can (and do) impose just such a requirement themselves, carefully balancing the risks against insurance costs. There is simply no need for the government to insert its unwieldy self in these transactions. Nor in most others, I might add. As with Uber, the phenomenon of "Internet-in-every-pocket" makes information immediately available to everyone with a pocket — and government regulators are quickly becoming obsolete. They know it, and they fight it with various demagoguery — like what you are presenting.

Since Burro claims they already have the insurance, this is not an onerous demand in the least.

Do you like visiting DMV — such as to have your license renewed? Every single interaction with government is onerous and the vast majority should not be necessary.

This is a very different situation from Uber, since there are no "medallions" or other market limiting restrictions

The underlying very principle — that engaging in a trade requires a government permission (license) — ought to be beaten out of the Statists. With a lead pipe, if need be... We've been humouring them — such as by accepting "non-onerous" requirements — for too long, and it is way out of hand already.

Re: Hauling goods is serious business

[jythie]

So because powerful companies manage corruption, we should just give up on regulating everything?

Re:Hauling goods is serious business

[shutdown -p now]

Exactly. So then, why is there a separate law criminalizing something the moment it becomes a commercial activity, if the actual dangers involved in that activity are already regulated by universally applicable laws?

Re: Hauling goods is serious business

[Anonymous Coward]

The underlying very principle â" that engaging in a trade requires a government permission (license) â" ought to be beaten out of the Statists. With a lead pipe, if need be... We've been humouring them â" such as by accepting "non-onerous" requirements â" for too long, and it is way out of hand already.

What do you mean "we?" You don't own a business.

Re:Hauling goods is serious business

[gl4ss]

..waittaminute..

what's up with paying extra for INSURING the goods when using postal or courier services in most of the world..

with most places, you wait for the shit to arrive, maybe it doesn't, and you're fucked, and when sending you can put a price on the contents and pay extra to get it insured.

porst

[Anonymous Coward]

fist?

Re: porst

[Anonymous Coward]

Clot even nose.

your friends obviously suck

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if I need their help to move something they help. For free. So they don't need the commercial insurance.

Of course you knew that and your final paragraph was a stupid attempt to say a commercial transaction is the same as a non commercial one.

Re:your friends obviously suck

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if I need their help to move something they help. For free. So they don't need the commercial insurance.

Of course you knew that and your final paragraph was a stupid attempt to say a commercial transaction is the same as a non commercial one.

Yeah, and if there's a lot of stuff I'd rent a U-Haul for the day so I'm not risking scratching/damaging their vehicles... and just have them help me get stuff into/out-out of the U-Haul.

Of course most people are idiots when it comes to packing a truck - every time I've been called to 'help move' I've showed up to a 16' U-Haul loaded with bicycles, exercise machines, etc, the thing is full of random crap... and then I go inside and there's still the dresser, bed, other furniture, boxes of books/dishes, etc - all the nice 'boxy' stuff that *should* have gone in first so the bikes and the like could go on top or around it all. Then I'm 'taking charge' and telling them to get everything *out* of the truck, and packing stuff into it so that it'll all actually fit.

Re:your friends obviously suck

[tompaulco]

Of course most people are idiots when it comes to packing a truck - every time I've been called to 'help move' I've showed up to a 16' U-Haul loaded with bicycles, exercise machines, etc, the thing is full of random crap... and then I go inside and there's still the dresser, bed, other furniture, boxes of books/dishes, etc - all the nice 'boxy' stuff that *should* have gone in first so the bikes and the like could go on top or around it all. Then I'm 'taking charge' and telling them to get everything *out* of the truck, and packing stuff into it so that it'll all actually fit.

You go to help your friends move and there is stuff in boxes? Luxury!

Re:your friends obviously suck

[BarbaraHudson]

You go to help your friends move and there is stuff in boxes? Luxury!

I really hate it when someone asks me to help them move and they not only don't have the stuff boxed, they don't have enough garbage bags, and they haven't even started "packing."

Re:your friends obviously suck

[PPH]

A friend is someone who will help you move. A real friend is someone who will help you move a body.

Re:your friends obviously suck

[Anonymous Coward]

NO, this is not "score 4 funny", it's "score 5 true".
Bury a body, bail you out of jail, tail your cheating spouse, take you to the field and blow your head off when you're dying of cancer.... whatever it takes.

Re:your friends obviously suck

[PPalmgren]

Apparently you've never asked friends to move a week ahead of time. Here's a rephrasing of the quote:

A friend is someone who will help you move a body. A real friend is someone who will help you move.

burro means donkey

[Anonymous Coward]

just, yeah.

Re:burro means donkey

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, burro just means burro. It's a perfectly cromulent English word.

Re:burro means donkey

[Opportunist]

So, essentially, they are talking out of their ass.

Re:burro means donkey

[jbengt]

While Americans will understand "burro" just fine, it is a Spanish, not English, word.

Re:burro means donkey

[Culture20]

And garage, beef, mutton, RSVP, et al are French words (et al is Latin), except when they're so commonly used in English that they become English. Burro is one of those words, although a case can be made for calling it Spanglish, since it's only commonly used in the southwest.

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary." - James Nicoll

alot of the apps ones have insurance gaps that

[Joe_Dragon]

alot of the apps ones have insurance gaps that lead to the drivers being not covered at all at times / they must use there own insurance as primary that likely will not cover them at all for that kind of work.

Re:alot of the apps ones have insurance gaps that

[tompaulco]

alot of the apps ones have insurance gaps that lead to the drivers being not covered at all at times / they must use there own insurance as primary that likely will not cover them at all for that kind of work.

Or even if they have insurance, if the driver does not have a CDL, then the insurance won't pay.

Re:alot of the apps ones have insurance gaps that

[Anonymous Coward]

"a lot" is two words, you illiterate cretin. "Their"... sigh...

Re:alot of the apps ones have insurance gaps that

[sumdumass]

I don't know if a CDL is a qualifier or not but almost all non commercial insurance policies have a disclaimer stating they will not cover any commercial use of the vehicle. Pizza delivery drivers run into this all the time. They either need a special rider policy for their car or pretend the 20 pizzas in the back are there because he forgot to put them in the fridge.

Texas isn't the only state that has laws like this one either. The roots of it is in federal law. Generally anything with a gross vehicle weight rating above 10k lbs is considered a commercial vehicle under federal rules and any hauling any household goods for hire seems to be covered too. But federal jurisdiction is limited to interstate commerce. Intrastate commerce is left to the states.

Re:alot of the apps ones have insurance gaps that

[RockDoctor]

I don't know if a CDL is a qualifier or not but almost all non commercial insurance policies have a disclaimer stating they will not cover any commercial use of the vehicle. Pizza delivery drivers run into this all the time. They either need a special rider policy for their car or pretend the 20 pizzas in the back are there because he forgot to put them in the fridge.

Essentially the same laws in the UK too. Your regular insurance covers you for "Social, domestic and pleasure" use of your vehicle, and that's it. Commuting to work - yes, that's covered. If your work is primarily something else, but you do a lot of travelling to locations ... that can be a bit iffy (a friend runs about 20 bakeries, and visits each one about once a week. Sometimes he uses his car, other times he uses the one of the work's delivery vans to double the administrative work with delivery of [whatever], and he always fills out the vehicles usage log so he can defend that the car isn't primarily being used for work ; he's had this fight with insurance companies in the past.)

Many people get caught by this every year. They sign a contract for their insurance and then go out and break the contract ... and are surprised to find out that it means what it says in the contract.

Well

[Etherwalk]

For moves of significance, should be requiring $1M insurance and webcams in the trucks. Stealing shipments from moving companies (sometimes with inside men) is big business.

For moves of one piece of furniture with value $1K, should be requiring a photo of the vehicle and guy be texted to law enforcement before loading. Done.

Re:Well

[spire3661]

" guy be texted to law enforcement before loading" This is NOT the role of the police....

Re:Well

[Etherwalk]

" guy be texted to law enforcement before loading"

This is NOT the role of the police....

There is no role here at all unless the guy breaks a law. If he breaks a law, it's the role of the police.

Re:Well

[TheRealLifeboy]

If he breathes, he has broken a law and if he doesn't, then he broke it before he died. The legal quagmire in the US and elsewhere has become to ridiculous, everyone's a criminal. When I become president I'll scrap 80 of all laws and go back to common sense. Blooming politicians.

I smell money grab

[Snotnose]

I have a couch, you have a pickup. Does it matter if I've known you for 20 years or if I give you $20?

Re:I smell money grab

[tompaulco]

I have a couch, you have a pickup. Does it matter if I've known you for 20 years or if I give you $20?

Sure it does. If you give him $20, he is now a commercial carrier. Though it is very unlikely anybody would ever bust someone for helping you move once. The real issue here is the guys on craigslist who are offering commercial to the public moving services, or the Burro corporation which is doing the same thing via an app.

Re:I smell money grab

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try, I'm pretty darn certain this isn't what they're going after, paying a buddy gas money to haul your couch. What they're going after is, people who are "your buddy" for hire and make a living off of hauling shit around without the proper licensing and quite likely half of it is under the table...

This is one place where regulators are actually doing their jobs. They don't give a shit about people helping you move. Seriously. Just because it involves a computer, doesn't mean that the existing laws regarding trucks and commerce don't apply to you.

Re:I smell money grab

[stephanruby]

Sure it does. If you give him $20, he is now a commercial carrier. Though it is very unlikely anybody would ever bust someone for helping you move once. The real issue here is the guys on craigslist who are offering commercial to the public moving services, or the Burro corporation which is doing the same thing via an app.

What about if you show them the fuel gauge and tell them to replenish only the amount of the fuel they used for the move. Are you still a commercial carrier? Technically, you'd be losing out on the move anyway, since fuel cost doesn't take into account the wear and tear on the vehicle, the insurance, or any other miscellaneous costs.

And also, assuming that you wouldn't make a habit of helping your friends move, and that this is only a one time thing, and only a one-time reimbursement of the fuel used, would you still be considered a commercial carrier then?

Re:I smell money grab

[ganjadude]

lets be real. its all about the govt wanting more $$$, nothing else

Re:I smell money grab

[Anonymous Coward]

If by more money, you mean people paying the taxes they're legally obligated to pay, then yes.

People act like the government isn't supposed to collect taxes or enforce the tax code or other commercial transactions.

Re:I smell money grab

[Teun]

That's a minor part of it.

The big part is someone needs to absorb the risk involved in this commercial transaction.
I don't know all the details but am pretty sure the driver or the truck's insurance does not cover commercial use based on a private use insurance premium.

Re:I smell money grab

[ganjadude]

so why cant we allow individuals to take the risk themselves? Why cant the driver put up a disclaimer "ship at your own risk"

then let people decide if they want to use the regulated market, or the cheaper option.

Depending on what I am shipping, I may not care if an accident happens and go with the cheaper route. on the other hand, if its valuable, ill gladly fork over the extra.

I guess im simply trying to say the government doesnt, and shouldnt be our babysitters and gate keepers

Re:I smell money grab

[Anonymous Coward]

I say why over-engineer a delivery service. If you need $1m coverage or more, pay extra for it. If your buddy's truck is good enough, use that.

Re:I smell money grab

[ColdWetDog]

Because there are more risks than simply damage to the customer's furniture. If you are hauling stuff on a commercial basis without declaring it to the company insuring your vehicle you will likely find yourself totally naked in the event you have an accident (remember that clause in your policy that says no commercial activities?). So the nice little old lady that you ran over won't be able to get her medical bills covered by you unless she takes the time and effort to bring you to court. Unles you just happen to have that extra $100K to give to her.

So the state has a general interest in ensuring that you are safe, competent and insured. It's not just about you.

Re:I smell money grab

[ganjadude]

my stuff on your truck shouldnt matter if you hit a little old lady or not. thats on you. if you dont have the insurance to cover that, thats on you. there is no reason that because you have my dresser in your pickup bed that it should somehow change anything.

Re:I smell money grab

[jopsen]

Nice try, I'm pretty darn certain this isn't what they're going after, paying a buddy gas money to haul your couch. What they're going after is, people who are "your buddy" for hire and make a living off of hauling shit around without the proper licensing and quite likely half of it is under the table...

Thanks for the common sense here... I totally agree.

It's the same thing with Uber and ride sharing services, no authority cares if you ride-share with a friend, co-worker or neighbor, the problem is when apps tries to organize these kinds of "friend"-services, which makes them a commercial enterprise that doesn't honor regulation.

Re:I smell money grab

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, I don't think "sharing" is the right word to use when it comes to Uber and this type of stuff.

My guess is that these "laborers" are really independent contractors who pay a fee to Burro. But that doesn't exempt them from the rules and regulations of what they do. However, I do think a compromise is in order. With this, and even Uber, if someone is doing less than, let's say, $200 worth of work per month (demonstrated over three months), then maybe they should allow it. There's still risks involved, but the risks can be made more apparent by requiring the app to mention if someone has the necessary permits/insurance/licenses/whatever or not.

But one-time things such as helping out a friend and receiving beer money, I doubt they really care. This is more about advertising one's services or availability to provide a service.

Re:I smell money grab

[tompaulco]

Sure it does. If you give him $20, he is now a commercial carrier. Though it is very unlikely anybody would ever bust someone for helping you move once. The real issue here is the guys on craigslist who are offering commercial to the public moving services, or the Burro corporation which is doing the same thing via an app.

What about if you show them the fuel gauge and tell them to replenish only the amount of the fuel they used for the move. Are you still a commercial carrier? Technically, you'd be losing out on the move anyway, since fuel cost doesn't take into account the wear and tear on the vehicle, the insurance, or any other miscellaneous costs.

And also, assuming that you wouldn't make a habit of helping your friends move, and that this is only a one time thing, and only a one-time reimbursement of the fuel used, would you still be considered a commercial carrier then?

I am not familiar with the USDOT rules and regulations, but if this were an airplane, and you accepted money to reimburse fuel, it would definitely be considered commercial. I would guess that USDOT rules are in line with the FAA rules.

Re:I smell money grab

[w_dragon]

This is false. A pilot with a private (non-commercial) license may fly a passenger who reimburses them for the expenses of the flight, including plane rental and fuel. It doesn't become commercial until they make a profit.

Re:I smell money grab

[tlhIngan]

This is false. A pilot with a private (non-commercial) license may fly a passenger who reimburses them for the expenses of the flight, including plane rental and fuel. It doesn't become commercial until they make a profit.K/blockquote>

FALSE.

They may only reimburse you THEIR SHARE of the costs.

The FAA is very clear on this. There are several conditions that must be true for it to be OK to carry a passenger and get paid without a commercial license.

FIRST, the passenger's trip must be incidental to the flight. I.e., you the pilot would be going there anyways. So if you were flying off to see a ball game, and a friend asked if he could join you as he was going to a wedding, just fine. However, it is NOT fine if your friend asks if you would fly him for a wedding, and in the meantime, you discover you can go see the game. Your decision to make the trip must be yours and you would've completed the trip without the passenger.

SECOND, the passenger may only pay for their share of the expenses of the flight. So if you were flying as per above, your passenger may not pay the entire cost of the fuel. And of course, he cannot pay you for your time. If you rented the plane, he can pay for his share of the plane rental, but you have to be out of pocket as well. So if you're sharing your own plane, you're entitled to get back from him half the fuel, and half of the general running costs of the plane.

The FAA has made these clarifications even clearer because of aviation inspired Uber-type companies. Of course, this makes it truly a ride-sharing enterprise since they're paying their way, and you're paying yours.

Profit is not the only thing that makes a flight commercial. And yes, you need to keep good records because the FAA has busted pilots on this.

Of course, getting your commercial license isn't that much harder over a private's (especially if you stick with single engine land - you don't need multiengine to get a commercial, though if you do upgrade, you will need to take the commercial multi-engine), so if you really want to skate the line, perhaps it's best to just go for it. Then it's all free, legal and in the clear and you won't worry about the FAA. Especially about the first point where the trip is incidental and it boils down to subtlety. Did you really want to go there or did you make a special trip?

It's a lot like the ham radio "non-commercial" rule.

Re:I smell money grab

[thetoadwarrior]

Once you make it a business transaction yes it should. If it's just a friend that you give some cash that's not a business. But if it's a friend you pay through an Internet service to pick your stuff up then it's a business transaction regardless if they're a friend or not. Likewise if you had a friend that can do it you probably wouldn't download an app and hire them through that.

Re:I smell money grab

[thetoadwarrior]

You say that until one of these guys runs into your vehicle and you get nothing because he's not running a proper business. A lot of rules seem stupid when everything runs smoothly but they aren't there for when things run smoothly.

Re:I smell money grab

[SuricouRaven]

The purpose of insurance companies is to make a profit. If they can find a way to avoid paying out - some excuse, however flimsy - it is their duty to the shareholders to exploit it.

Re:I smell money grab

[Xolotl]

Yes, it's "on you" (the driver/truck owner) but that doesn't help the little old lady when his non-commercial insurance refuses to pay because at the time of the accident he was engaged in commercial activity against the terms of his insurance policy. And that clause is there because a commercial driver does many more miles (also in a more loaded vehicle, with longer braking etc.) and thus has a much higher risk of accident in a given time period than a non-commercial one, thus the premium should be and is higher.

People doing regular commercial hauling without proper licensing and insurance are getting the benefits of commercial work while skirting the responsibilities (insurance, probably commercial vehicle maintenance and loading standards, likely taxes as well, much of it is probably off-the books), off-loading the costs on everyone else. These regulations didn't appear magically, they evolved for a reason.

Re:I smell money grab

[Anonymous Coward]

An unlicensed, uninsured driver hauling furniture down the interstate is not a proper business. If the cargo falls onto my vehicle, they keep driving. If caught by police, "no hablo ingles" will be their only response. No jail, no fines, free to go, and I still have a damaged vehicle to deal with. The current rules are not working, either.

Re:I smell money grab

[sumdumass]

And that is why the state seems to be going after the people with the trucks and not you who hired them.

And yes, it does magically change things. You share a liability vicariously when you hire someone to do work and do not properly supervise them. It's more or less the same as hiring a handyman to fix a leaky roof. If he falls and knocks a ladder down that crashes through a neighbor's fence and window, you can be held accountable for not only the damage to the neighbor's property but injury to the handyman. That is unless a law isolates you from liability which is why most places require licensing and bonding. Of course bonding is another term for insurance.

Re: I smell money grab

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess free will, verbal contracts, which ARE binding TX, mean very little to you, and frankly, Texas politicians.

As a Texan, this is fucking disgusting. It would be one thing if this was to stop crimes that are occurring, insurance fraud and theft, or that legitimate businesses were greatly economically impacted, but that isn't what this is about.

Sorry, but what this is really about is stopping labor for hire. And if you didn't know who mostly does that 'labor for hire', it's Mexicans both legal and illegal. Why? Because there is a lack of jobs they can get hired for, only and so many Mexican restaurants that a local economy will support, for those few families that can open them.

Really? Cracking down on transporting of goods for hire? Impacting legitimate businesses, or it being a great insurance risk to society and the road? Are you fucking kidding me???

Re:I smell money grab

[Half-pint HAL]

my stuff on your truck shouldnt matter if you hit a little old lady or not. thats on you. if you dont have the insurance to cover that, thats on you. there is no reason that because you have my dresser in your pickup bed that it should somehow change anything.

As another poster says, it's about sharing the risk.

Commercial drivers (typically) do more miles than domestic drivers, so they are likely to have a higher incidence of events resulting in claims. This is why commercial insurance is more expensive than domestic insurance. You could lobby the government to make it illegal for insurers to differentiate between commercial and non-commercial use, but what happens then? The risk gets spread across everybody -- that's what. Insurance premiums go up for non-commercial drivers and down for commercial drivers. Commercial entities benefit at the cost of Joe Public. Is that what you want?

Re:I smell money grab

[Half-pint HAL]

The purpose of insurance companies is to make a profit. If they can find a way to avoid paying out - some excuse, however flimsy - it is their duty to the shareholders to exploit it.

Indeed. And the purpose of charging more for commercial insurance is to make a profit on commercial insurance. Fix commercial and non-commercial rates to be the same and commercial insurance becomes loss-making, and the lost profits are taken from non-commercial insurees instead.

Re:I smell money grab

[Half-pint HAL]

An unlicensed, uninsured driver hauling furniture down the interstate is not a proper business. If the cargo falls onto my vehicle, they keep driving. If caught by police, "no hablo ingles" will be their only response. No jail, no fines, free to go, and I still have a damaged vehicle to deal with. The current rules are not working, either.

Nonsense. Debris on the highway is major issue taken seriously by the police (particularly if the police in question are the Highway Patrol). And if someone responds to the police with "no hablo inglés" after fleeing an accident, guess what happens next? No, they're not waved on. They're hauled into a police station while immigration and/or homeland security check they're not illegals.

Re:I smell money grab

[tompaulco]

This is false. A pilot with a private (non-commercial) license may fly a passenger who reimburses them for the expenses of the flight, including plane rental and fuel. It doesn't become commercial until they make a profit.

No, this is false.
The costs can be shared equally, but if you exceed an equal share, it becomes commercial. There have even been some cases around people publicly advertising that they were going to place X and willing to share costs. The FAA considered that offering services publicly and declared it commercial.
Being profitable is not the condition for commercial use. Plenty of for-profit businesses don't make a profit. That doesn't mean they don't have to be licensed.

Re: I smell money grab

[tompaulco]

I admit to being less than sympathetic to people who can't be bothered to be here legally, but if they are here legally, then what is to stop them from offering labor hire with the proper insurance and licensing? If we want to argue that Mexicans shouldn't have to have proper insurance and licensing, then that should apply to the existing businesses as well. I'm sure they would appreciate it, as it would save them a lot of money and allow them to be more competitive. On the other hand, we will have to bear the cost of any accidents they incur during transport.

Re:I smell money grab

[Anonymous Coward]

so what if it's a business? that doesn't mean the leaches at the state have any right to control or steal. all you statists are going to get a rude awakening soon.

More Bullshit

[sixsixtysix]

Another case of something being perfectly legal if done for free (your friends helping you move or giving someone a ride) or by yourself (ripping your own[ed] media, or recording television services you subscribe to), but the moment money changes hands, everyone wants a cut. Utterly sickening. I guess they better crack down on paying anyone with beer/food as well.

Re:More Bullshit

[sixsixtysix]

And yes, I am saying that if I can record my own television that I subscribe to (or even free ota stuff), surely I should be able to download said content by outsourcing the capturing/editing-out-of-commercials to the internet at large.

Re:More Bullshit

[Bob9113]

I guess they better crack down on paying anyone with beer/food as well.

If it really is pay - or in legal terms, "consideration" - then it is covered by this law exactly the same as money. What you do with your friends is neither pay nor consideration. You give them beer and sandwiches when they help you out for free.

If you claim you don't get the distinction, I believe you are being intentionally obtuse. A judge or magistrate would not be so.

Re:More Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens if the guy you hired damages your stuff?
What happens if the guy you hired drives off with your stuff?
How do you know your stuff is properly tied down?
What happens if your stuff flies out of the back of the truck and damages someone else's car?
What happens if your stuff flies out of the back of the truck and kills someone?

This is the reason that professionals have training and insurance. Sure, it's 1 in a million that anything will happen, but if collectively we transport 1,000,000 items a year, it's gonna happen.

Re:More Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

It's perfectly fine for me to offer you a free glass of lemonade but if I want to sell lemonade I am now in business and subject to laws regulating my business.

Why is that utterly sickening to you?

Re:More Bullshit

[roman_mir]

It is utterly sickening, because it means you are not actually the owner of the property that you are trying to operate. The government now polices over your business, which means over you and it means you now lost a whole bunch of rights that you have as a person. No government should be anywhere near the voluntary exchange that happens between any two non-government parties. There shouldn't be such a concept even as 'business regulations' any more than there should be 'person regulations' and that also shouldn't exist. As for any crime that could be committed, even that doesn't require any government intervention, people can have perfectly fine private systems to deal with criminals, with murder, theft, breaches of contract and any type of harm.

Re:More Bullshit

[JimSadler]

So pay your friend for the companionship while he happens to haul your new sofa. You know how it is. If you buy her a fancy meal for $100. you may be her lover but if you hand her $100. you are a John and she is a hooker. Sometimes law is composed by idiots.

Re:More Bullshit

[FranTaylor]

No government should be anywhere near the voluntary exchange that happens between any two non-government parties.

wow, you'd have to shred just about the entire constitution to achieve that goal, in fact you'd have to shred all of civilization's founding documents all the way back to about 1000 AD

Re: More Bullshit

[kqs]

people can have perfectly fine private systems to deal with criminals, with murder, theft, breaches of contract and any type of harm.

So, the best justice money can buy.

Our system is not perfect, but a system where only the rich can get justice does not seem an improvement.

Re:More Bullshit

[AthanasiusKircher]

Another case of something being perfectly legal if done for free (your friends helping you move or giving someone a ride) . . . . but the moment money changes hands, everyone wants a cut.

It doesn't just have to do with "money changing hands" -- it has to do with the difference between "your friends" (i.e., people you know and probably have some sort of trust/relationship with) vs. asking some random 3rd party dude whom you've never met before to take your stuff and trust it with him in his truck.

Obviously you must have never had to deal with a dispute or error involving professional movers, or you've never had a package lost or damaged by a 3rd-party courier or whatever.

These sorts of things can be a mess to sort out, and without proper legal documentation and regulation, this random dude can just say, "Uh, what package?" or "Yeah, I know it's half destroyed, but it looked like that when I picked it up." Or whatever.

When "your friends" are doing it, and they break your stuff or lose something, you hopefully can trust that you'll sort it out. This random dude, though -- how can you even find him, let alone hold him responsible?

That's why we have standard contracts for people who transport valuable items commercially. It may not matter if you just need a guy to move a $50 piece of junk across town, but if it's something worth hundreds or thousands of dollars or has sentimental value, it may matter.

All of that said, TFA implies that the company in question DOES handle some of this:

The company already offers a bill of lading and $1 million insurance, in addition to whatever insurance their laborers already have.

These are the most important things -- a formal bill of lading will ensure that there is legal documentation of items transported, responsibilities of all parties, fees, etc. I've only hired professional movers a couple of times, and I've definitely been happy to have those things spelled out somewhere when things went wrong. And the insurance hopefully will cover various problems.

But apparently what the state is complaining about is the various drivers and their credentials. Again from TFA:

Requiring [the drivers] to register and get a commercial license would be too complicated and could hurt their business model, Ervin said.

I don't know exactly why Texas has these regulations -- it could be a power/money grab as you suggest, or there could be valid legal reasons to protect consumers. I don't know. What I do know is that the Texas legislature apparently enacted such regulations for some reason, and whatever the rules are -- all people who are transporting goods professionally should play by the same ones. Legally, the threshold is often set by whether people are making a profit off of it, but even if some random dude offered to move my stuff FOR FREE, I'd still want most of these legal protections.

Perhaps some of the regulations should be repealed -- I don't know. But just because some of them might be unnecessary doesn't justify your rant: there are often damn good reasons for some regulations to help protect all parties involved.

Re:More Bullshit

[ArhcAngel]

Actually there are laws against GIVING food to people now as well.

Re:More Bullshit

[spire3661]

You can actually, its the UPLOAD that gets you. Sony v Universal (and subsequent rulings) is quite clear, Backups are backups, it doesnt matter where they came from as long as you dont share them. If you direct download them you are in the clear 100%, if you use a sharing service like a torrent, the water gets a lot muddier.

Re:More Bullshit

[thetoadwarrior]

It still depends. There are almost certainly moves being done for free which shouldn't be done in the way they're being done but it's hard to catch them but if you funnel it all through an Internet business it's easy to find violations.

Re:More Bullshit

[AmiMoJo]

Legally doing something as a business is quite different to doing something as a friend, and people understand that. They understand that a commercial haulage company has commercial insurance and vehicles that meet the necessary commercial codes, which are there to prevent the company leeching of the public infrastructure or putting people at unnecessary risk for profit.

One guy burning some plant waste in his back yard isn't much of a problem. One company burning 1000 guy's plant waste is a problem and needs to be controlled.

Re:More Bullshit

[Dog-Cow]

I hope your car is totalled by a refrigerator falling off the back of one of these trucks while you're driving at highway speeds, and that you end up in the hospital with several broken bones and a perforated artery.

Then you can come back to slashdot and tell us all about the sickening law that would have paid your bills for you, instead leaving you destitute.

Re:More Bullshit

[Dog-Cow]

...people can have perfectly fine private systems to deal with criminals, with murder, theft, breaches of contract and any type of harm.

Right. It's called vigilante justice. It doesn't require proof, because who do you have to prove it to? That means that when we come and rape your mother and your dog and then rip your balls off with a pair of pliers, you can't do anything about it because it was justice for some crime. No need to involve authorities, right?

Re: More Bullshit

[Dog-Cow]

His system isn't even that good. In his world, the better armed or more vicious people get justice. Everyone else is just a victim.

Re:More Bullshit

[Dog-Cow]

And sometimes slashdot posts are composed by idiots. Yours is a case in point.

Re:More Bullshit

[Half-pint HAL]

It is utterly sickening, because it means you are not actually the owner of the property that you are trying to operate.

Talking of sickening, let's go back to the GP's example of lemonade. If I take a glass of home-made lemonade from a friend, I know that I'm taking something that has been made in a kitchen that's not commercial grade. There is a risk involved, and because he/she's a friend, I can assess that risk. When I buy a bottle of lemonade from a stranger on the internet, how do I assess that risk? From a few reviews on a website? All I know is that he/she hasn't poisoned anyone yet. I do not know whether the kitchen has sterile, stainless steel surfaces, or whether it has separate food-preparation and utensil-cleaning sinks (as mandated in most regulations for commercial kitchens. I don't know whether the bottles have been properly sterilised.

The regulations on food preparation areas don't just serve to protect me individually from taking a risk -- they stop a race to the bottom where everyone opts for the cheapest stuff, and companies that choose to manage risk find themselves priced out of the market.

Re:More Bullshit

[Half-pint HAL]

Exactly. Too many people say that they're "trying to take our freedoms away". Many things which are common practice are against the law, and there's often a tacit acceptance of this in the form of "if you're too small and innoccuous to get caught, it's OK". Organise that illegal practice, though, and you're definitely big enough to get hit with enforcement.

Now to all those people who say that the tacit acceptance of these practices on the small scale implies that it's OK on the big scale, I want you to think about this: do you want aggressive enforcement against the little guys? Because if you want absolutely equal treatment of individuals and the big businesses, that's what you'll get. Not acceptance of everyone, but enforcement against everyone.

Re:More Bullshit

[fche]

"Not acceptance of everyone, but enforcement against everyone." ... or perhaps it would result in enough outrage that laws that forbid harmless practices would be undone, resulting in enforcement against no-one.

Re:More Bullshit

[Half-pint HAL]

"Not acceptance of everyone, but enforcement against everyone." ... or perhaps it would result in enough outrage that laws that forbid harmless practices would be undone, resulting in enforcement against no-one.

The "harm" or lack thereof isn't in the daily practices, but in the exceptional cases. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were harmless until things went wrong. The market does not provide adequate mechanisms to preempt risky behaviour. In fact, as we saw with the financial crisis, risky behaviour is encouraged by the need to gain an advantage over your competitors. Without public bailouts, most of the major banks in the western world would have folded because the risks they took on unsafe credit proved unwise, to say the least.

Re:More Bullshit

[fche]

This is getting really off topic, but ...

"Without public bailouts, most of the major banks in the western world would have folded because the risks they took"

You do realize that there is a possible causal link between the general existence and tradition of public bailouts and a potential-recipient taking on excess risk, right?

History of Regulator Jobs

[retroworks]

As a former (1992-99 Boston MA USA) regulator, I smile. Regulator jobs were created because the average person didn't have access to information and it was worth it to pay taxes to hire people to regulate the service providers. The other two parts of the job were raising income for the state and protecting the commercial services / upstream market, but from Upton Sinclair times the protection of the consumer was the regulatory driver.

Protecting the consumer ordering the service is disrupted. The reputation (likes/dislikes/negative feedback) model does the equivalent of what Ebay did to print journalism. Print news made 1/3 from subscriptions, 1/3 from ads, and 1/3 from classified (my great grandparents-parents worked in newspaper market).

The newspapers were slow to embrace online classifieds because it wasn't in the marketplace they had cornered.... and they lost it. Regulators are now like new editors, they know the feedback system protects consumers, and they also know that's 1/3 of their jobs. I suspect most regulators are less adept than news editors.

Re:History of Regulator Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Feh, the meat packing regulations supposedly inspired by Sinclair were created at the behest of the meat packing industry to reassure the overseas market. Actually protecting anyone wasn't the goal.

Re:History of Regulator Jobs

[Trax3001BBS]

Feh, the meat packing regulations supposedly inspired by Sinclair were created at the behest of the meat packing industry to reassure the overseas market. Actually protecting anyone wasn't the goal.

Are you familiar with Sugar? It cost twice as much to import it to the USA than any other place and this has been since the 1700's
It's one reason were killing ourself with corn syrup. - came across that when it was mentioned now we can get Sugar from Cuba.

We can't afford it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... and I'm one of those that seek out Mexican Coca-Cola in ethnic groceries because they prefer the taste compared to Coca-Cola in the U.S. which is made with HFCS.

Re:History of Regulator Jobs

[Half-pint HAL]

Protecting the consumer ordering the service is disrupted. The reputation (likes/dislikes/negative feedback) model does the equivalent of what Ebay did to print journalism. Print news made 1/3 from subscriptions, 1/3 from ads, and 1/3 from classified (my great grandparents-parents worked in newspaper market).

This is only part of the job, though. Reputation only mitigates against negative outcomes that are common occurences (eg a trader selling defective goods, out-of-date foodstuffs etc) but does nothing to deal with low-occurence, high-cost accidents. A guy who does ten thousand driving jobs without incident will not have a single review commenting on his lack of insurance, so there's no protection to ensure that the guy whose driver actually has an accident is properly insured. Furthermore, as online reputation gets more and more important, it's going to bring us back to a situation where new players are looked at with distrust. (Kickstarter's various failures are already starting to have this effect.

Yeah, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the wetbacks hanging on the corner looking for under-the-table work. Get some priorities, or some brain cells.

Re:Yeah, but...

[TheReaperD]

Wow. Could that statement have been any more racist? People like you act like the person looking to exchange an honest days work to feed themselves and their families are Al Qaeda terrorists looking to kill you and your family. Get some perspective! Yes, the immigration system is broken but, they're not bad people (most of the time).

The people, not all Mexican, standing outside Home Depot, etc are just looking to make a living. If you hire them, you know what you are getting: uninsured, likely unskilled labor at cut rates. If it isn't done right... well, you knew what you were getting into. If it needs to be done right, get a licensed contractor in good standing.

Uber is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber is NOT ridesharing! It's only ridesharing if the driver is going in the same direction as the passenger!

Please, I beg you, correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:Uber is...

[FranTaylor]

It's only ridesharing if the driver is going in the same direction as the passenger!

yes greyhound is only ridesharing too, because the driver just happens to be going to the same place as all the passengers.

roof rack and bungie cords:

[circletimessquare]

great, until you hit a pothole and kill the guy in the car behind you on the highway

i don't know about regulating hauling, but i wouldn't mind seeing the police pull over and arrest some of the flimsy crap i've seen barely secured to trucks and SUVs going 70 in the highway

Re:roof rack and bungie cords:

[Anonymous Coward]

The worst are the cars with mattresses about to fly off doing 70mph....That is just scary. That's a function of people being cheap though, I don't think this service would even solve that, seeing that most mattress stores will deliver...

Re:roof rack and bungie cords:

[circletimessquare]

i agree, i don't care about regulating hauling, i just want to see law enforcement crack down on shoddy roof rack and bungie cord arrangements. it's not industrious, it's cheap and dangerous to the rest of us. i don't care if the person is hauling it themselves, they are haulers from craigslist, or whatever: pull them over, fine them, then make them pay to get a professional to pick up their crap on the side of the highway an deliver it, right there and then

Re:roof rack and bungie cords:

[h33t l4x0r]

Unless the driver has his arm out the window holding the mattress. Because then he's got it.

Re:roof rack and bungie cords:

[Okian Warrior]

great, until you hit a pothole and kill the guy in the car behind you on the highway

i don't know about regulating hauling, but i wouldn't mind seeing the police pull over and arrest some of the flimsy crap i've seen barely secured to trucks and SUVs going 70 in the highway

I'm all for sensible precautions, but is this really a problem?

We can imagine all sorts of things happening and require enormous levels of bureaucratic process and safety procedure for just about everything, but without evidence of likelihood that'll just be wasted effort.

In the manner of Bruce Schneier's movie plot security, this is "movie plot safety". We *imagine* what *might* happen, then burden it up with preventive measures.

What we should be doing is looking at what *actually happens*, and then analyzing *why* it happens and making sensible requirements from that.

Cue the idiots who have personally seen one ("I've actually seen two, so it's definitely a problem") tied-down item come loose, thus proving that excess bureaucracy is required.

Re:roof rack and bungie cords:

[circletimessquare]

What we should be doing is looking at what *actually happens*

people die due to the carelessness and irresponsibility of others all the time

Re:roof rack and bungie cords:

[FranTaylor]

people die due to the carelessness and irresponsibility of others all the time

They call it "involuntary manslaughter" and the perpetrators can be imprisoned for life in some circumstances.

Re:roof rack and bungie cords:

[Anonymous Coward]

What we should be doing is looking at what *actually happens*

people die due to the carelessness and irresponsibility of others all the time

True. However, sometimes those people need to die so civilization doesn't grind to a halt.

Re:roof rack and bungie cords:

[Anonymous Coward]

hey asshole, the existing laws already cover "flimsy crap". so get on your damn cell phone and call the cops.
don't need no extra regulation (tax) to "protect" your butt from that 6x6 that's gonna come through your windshield and smash your head anyways.
how about *you* just insure *yourself* against crap that might befall you.
that's voluntaryism, and guaranteed to cover your ass when the other guy isn't.

Re:roof rack and bungie cords:

[jbengt]

A lot of good that "voluntary" insurance will do when he has a 6x6 smashed into his head.

Re:roof rack and bungie cords:

[Half-pint HAL]

Never underestimate the power of cords and ropes to keep things in place. I was always a little dubious of bungee cords due to the stretch factor, but tighten them enough to start with, and they are extremely effective.

Re:roof rack and bungie cords:

[Half-pint HAL]

They call it "involuntary manslaughter" and the perpetrators can be imprisoned for life in some circumstances.

"Involuntary manslaughter" is a pretty useless law. It has virtually no deterrent effect (either you're aware that what you're doing is dangerous and don't care, or you think it's perfectly safe) and it only serves to further punish people suffering extreme trauma and guilt complexes after seeing themselves cause someone else's death. Prevention is far, far better than cure.

Re:roof rack and bungie cords:

[fche]

A good scary deterrent is part of prevention.

Re:roof rack and bungie cords:

[Half-pint HAL]

Yes, but no-one is scared of involuntary manslaughter laws. People either give a shit about road safety or they don't.

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

As for Russian, it is genuinely hard to comprehend the american way of thinking. Why would force peope to insure stuff if is simply better not to give it to a guy who will trash it in the first place? When the stuff is gone, it is gone. You can't blame anybody but yourself

Re: Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

And you voted for Putin.

Re:Hmm

[Teun]

That's exactly the reason you only give your stuff to a licensed or registered company or person.
Would he make a mistake or get into an accident you know you will get your money back.
But it is a trade off, if the unregistered transporter is way cheaper you might consider absorbing the risk yourself.

Re:Hmm

[nolife]

What world do you live in? People are suing companies for service/quality/loss ALL the time. There is nothing about dealing with a company that automatically gives you recourse. You have to take them to court just like no different than suing a person.

Re:Hmm

[FranTaylor]

You have to take them to court just like no different than suing a person.

This is not really true, in some circumstances such as car lemon laws, the vendor will lose their business license if they defraud the customer. This gives the customer a lot of leverage in this situation. A person has no business license and so the state can't threaten to take it away.

Re: Hmm

[temcat]

I didn't. In addition, while being Russian myself, I do not see anything specifically Russian or American about the different ways of thinking exposed here. And yet what he says is valid. You should have a choice to say "it's my problem if my stuff is damaged or the driver disappears with it." And the danger of goods falling out etc., while real in some cases, is just an excuse for a government money grab here, because it's applied generally and does not exclude e.g. small items moved inside passenger cars. Taxes are also a different problem altogether.

Re:Hmm

[nolife]

Different situation.
Lemon laws are about a breach of the manufacturer's warranty. Individual people are not selling brand new cars but even a used car bought from a private individual still under the factory warranty has lemon law protection. Your case is against the car maker providing you the warranty, not the seller or the dealer. Aside from that, to get to the point to prove it was a lemon, you have to go through an arbitration process.

Re:Hmm

[Teun]

The question you ask implies you don't live in a nice or fair world.
I am pretty happy where I live, most of the time our legal system works for the innocent.
If there are too many failures of the legal system we vote in a different legislature.

No we don't believe a first past the post and/or two party system is democratic, our present parliament represents some 11 parties plus 5 independents and they range from the left and right wingnuts to very serious people.

Texas Officials are INSANE

[GeekHillbilly]

Leave it to a GOP/Teanderthal run state government to try to screw everybody they can.Texas voters got what they voted for.When will they ever learn?

turning tide

[fche]

It's refreshing to see people starting to challenge the notion that naturally a government can regulate whatever it wants. Calling it out when nonsensical - putting the burden of proof of necessity/wisdom on those in power - that's simply awesome.

Re:turning tide

[FranTaylor]

It's refreshing to see people starting to challenge the notion that naturally a government can regulate whatever it wants. Calling it out when nonsensical - putting the burden of proof of necessity/wisdom on those in power - that's simply awesome.

your poor straw man just can't get a break, you've really got him on the ropes

Re:turning tide

[Half-pint HAL]

Grrr... damn government, trying to regulate our markets and reduce the burden of due dilligence on the individual customer. What do they think they're doing, saving us time? With all this unemployment, they should be making us spend more time checking up on potential suppliers, so that we have less time to dedicate to work and the jobs can be shared out more equally.

Re:turning tide

[fche]

"reduce the burden of due dilligence on the individual customer"

That's an interesting angle ... "regulation is good because the emptor doesn't have to caveat".

It infantilizes people, especially in this day & age of easily available information, and the presence of free-market alternatives like UL, ISO, etc. Its trustworthiness is a lie, since it provides no proof that it hits any minimum of the cost/benefit curves of its mandates, and bears zero liability for its mistakes.

Re:turning tide

[Half-pint HAL]

You might as well suggest that roadside garbage collection "infantilizes" people, and that we should all have to throw our garbage onto the back of the cart ourselves, like granny did.

Re:turning tide

[fche]

"You might as well suggest ..."

No, that is such a bad analogy.

Re:turning tide

[Half-pint HAL]

"You might as well suggest ..."

No, that is such a bad analogy.

Actually, you're right. Your position is that everybody should do all the checks individually, which means redundant multiplication of labour. Having the roadside collection doesn't eliminate any redundancy in labour, so it's not as much of an efficiency saving as marketplace regulation.

Re:turning tide

[fche]

"Your position is that everybody should do all the checks individually"

Straw man. You do say checking should be done (& considered sufficient) by unaccountable government departments. The contrapositive is not everyone doing it from first principles. For example, one can delegate - voluntarily.

Re:turning tide

[Half-pint HAL]

But individual delegation is inefficient. Have you ever tried to get a choose-your-own-channels TV package? It's expensive -- bundling isn't as much about infringing on personal choice as about cost efficiencies.

Re:turning tide

[fche]

I have been led to believe that it is theoretically possible for individuals to voluntarily pool their interests, buy mass-made products - even information products.

"Have you ever tried to get a choose-your-own-channels TV package? It's expensive ..."

Boo hoo, first world problem. In this context, the only alternative you can conceive of are government-mandated bundles? I think the problem lies with your lack of imagination (and/or awareness of actual alternatives already available), and your quaint faith in the unfailing wisdom of our betters in government.

Re:turning tide

[Half-pint HAL]

OFFS.

"Boo hoo, first world problems"

I don't actually care, as I don't have a TV. What I was trying to do was demonstrate the extreme differences in cost between pooled and unpooled resources.

I have been led to believe that it is theoretically possible for individuals to voluntarily pool their interests, buy mass-made products - even information products.

Of course it is. But the bigger the pool, the greater the efficiency savings. This is why healthcare in the US can bankrupt you, whereas healthcare in most of Europe is essentially a marginal cost.

I am not saying regulation is the only option, I'm saying it's the best option.

Re:turning tide

[fche]

"I am not saying regulation is the only option, I'm saying it's the best option."

Well, nice to see evolution in action, but your new position requires if anything even more elaborate argumentation/evidence than that.

"... healthcare ... pool ..."

You really don't want to go there. (Hint: apprx. all "insurance" programs provided by governments aren't insurance.)

Re:turning tide

[Half-pint HAL]

(Hint: apprx. all "insurance" programs provided by governments aren't insurance.)

Really? Well that's fine -- I'm more interested in free healthcare than insurance. Like for example for my niece, born last night and already transferred to another hospital for potentially life-saving surgery. All bought and paid for out of general taxation, no premiums, no waivers, no limits.

Re:turning tide

[fche]

"Like for example for my niece, born last night"

Congratulations!

"paid for out of general taxation"

IOW, "someone else pays".

"no premiums" ... except for the taxes, so mostly paid by the wealthy. You're welcome!

"no waivers, no limits" ... except the various government rationing organs who determine what disorders and treatments are covered, how far to go to save someone's life - i.e., when to give up and give that scarce hospital bed resource to someone else.

You didn't think it really violates the natural laws of scarce resources?

Re:turning tide

[Half-pint HAL]

"paid for out of general taxation"

IOW, "someone else pays".

When a child becomes sick, someone else always pays. In this case, it's not the parents. Why should a child's health be determined by the parents' wealth?

"no premiums" ... except for the taxes, so mostly paid by the wealthy. You're welcome!

Wealth is generated by society.

"no waivers, no limits" ... except the various government rationing organs who determine what disorders and treatments are covered, how far to go to save someone's life - i.e., when to give up and give that scarce hospital bed resource to someone else.

You didn't think it really violates the natural laws of scarce resources?

Money violates all natural laws. In a fully market-based healthcare system, a childless millionaire bachelor nearing the end of his natural lifespan can outbid a healthy 18-year-old accident victim for a scarce resource such as a liver. If it came down to a fight for control of the resource, I'd bet on the kids, his friends and his family over the lonely old man any day.

Re:turning tide

[fche]

"Wealth is generated by society. ... Money violates all natural laws."

Haha ok, well at least you're out of the marxist type of closet.

That's not very Texan...

[Anonymous Coward]

of Texas. Whom does they think they is?

It doesn't matter who they're going after

[dlenmn]

I'm pretty darn certain this isn't what they're going after

It doesn't matter who they're going after. If this law is regularly violated by reasonable people just going about their business, then it's a bad law. Full stop.

Now, if they rewrite this law in such a way that there is a clear distinction between you paying for your buddy's gas and you paying for a for-hire service, then fine: enforce away. Until then, they should enforce this law for everyone or no one.

Aside: I think you should be able to challenge laws that are selectively enforced or not enforced at all. If the law isn't enforced, it might as well not be there. If the law is enforced selectively, then it can be used for discrimination or coercion (e.g. racial bias in Ferguson, MO traffic stops). Uniform enforcement of reasonable laws is a hallmark of a free society.

Re:It doesn't matter who they're going after

[FranTaylor]

If this law is regularly violated by reasonable people just going about their business, then it's a bad law. Full stop.

so we should get rid of lead paint laws because they are violated all the time by normal people going about their business?

have you ever seen the statistics on lead paint in apartments? do you know how many are breaking the law? by your logic we should just leave all that lead alone and let the children suffer

Re:It doesn't matter who they're going after

[Anonymous Coward]

no harm no foul. try again...

Re:It doesn't matter who they're going after

[dlenmn]

You're right: I didn't phrase my first statement well. Change it to "reasonable people _harmlessly_ going about their business". Lead paint is quite dangerous. Putting a table in the back of a pickup truck is not.

That said, I don't think that lead paint is a good way to make your case. Lead paint has been banned in the US since 1978 (with a few legally-defined exceptions), and my understanding is that the law has been uniformly enforced. Are you implying that people still buy lead paint and are thereby violating the law? If so, could you provide details?

Re:It doesn't matter who they're going after

[Xolotl]

Putting an improperly secured table in the back of a pickup truck which may or may not be properly maintained with adequate brakes, may not have the load properly distributed, may be overloaded, and may not have a driver trained to deal with that, is dangerous. To the driver and, more importantly, to other road users. Now on ordinary person moving a friend's table will do that once a year, if that. Little aggregate risk. But someone doing it off-the-books commercially from the lot at Home Depot might make three or four such runs a day, every day. Much bigger aggregate risk, which is why there is different insurance for it and why there are safety, weight, size, loading and driver training regulations which are enforced by law enforcement (there is even a special unit that does it, alongside Highway Patrol).

Well

[WolfTheWerewolf]

So much for smaller government.

Their budget sucks

[Trax3001BBS]

This being the best they could come up with, but then I don't know of all the off the wall requirements there.

Know any Uber drivers with a pickup?

[thegarbz]

Anyone know any Uber drivers with a pickup?

May as well resolve multiple Slashdot discussion in one thread.

Statists Rejoice!

[mi]

anyone moving household goods in a pick-up truck or other type or size of vehicle for hire is required to register with the Department

"I like paying taxes," — they say. "With them they buy civilization".

Offering a service without registering with the government first. Phew... How uncivilized!

Re:Statists Rejoice!

[FranTaylor]

forgetting to secure your load and killing innocent people, how civilized

Re:Statists Rejoice!

[x0ra]

Do you have actual fact ? If not, your argument is as poor as anti-gun folks talking about blood running down the street when CCW appears...

Re:Statists Rejoice!

[mi]

forgetting to secure your load and killing innocent people, how civilized

Is such forgetfulness among the evils of not registering with authorities?

Do you have any sort of statistics confirming, that registration reduces such fatalities, or do you simply believe God punishes those, who don't register with the loving and caring State deriving its just power from Divine Right of the President and his Holy Governors?

Re:Statists Rejoice!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any sort of statistics confirming, that registration reduces such fatalities

You throw out all kinds of dumbass opinions without any supporting evidence. You lost the right to demand evidence from others.

Someone got the regulation they paid for

[Anonymous Coward]

and the person hired to transport that item from the point of sale to the purchaser’s residence must be registered as a household goods mover by the state of Texas.

If this was a case of the State wanting the driver to have insurance and a CDL, it would sound like a reasonable interest in safety. "Registered as household goods mover" sounds like the people with that registration don't want competition. I expect that the next thing that Burro will learn is that the State isn't accepting any more registrations for "household goods mover" this year. The annual quota is filled already - the finest Texas socialism since they banned Tesla sales.

Re:Someone got the regulation they paid for

[Half-pint HAL]

I suspect the real thinking behind this is subtler than you give them credit for. Burro (like Uber before them, and like YouTube before them) is going for the "dumb pipe" defense: "we're not a company, we just facilitate trade between individuals and other individuals/small businesses". Getting all the individual "casual hauliers" (for want of a better term) to register isn't good for the state or good for the hauliers, and by extension it isn't good for the public. I think what Texas are trying to do is maneouver Burro into the position where Burro has to register as a mover/haulier and take contractual responsibility for all jobs agreed through its service. As this would remove a lot of administrative overhead (centralising tax reporting, for example), it would be more efficient, and therefore theoretically cheaper to the end user. If it is not cheaper, then it demonstrates that there is something missing in the current system. The most likely culprits for that missing expenditure would be skimping on insurance and vehicle inspection and maintenance, and that's something that can't just be waved off as "good because... cheap!"

not quite right

[FranTaylor]

Actually there are laws against GIVING food to people now as well.

The laws are not against giving food to poor people. The laws are against distributing food by unlicensed vendors, or against distributing food that is not packaged, etc. The effect is the same but the difference is that the people writing these laws are deluding themselves into thinking that they are not doing exactly what they are doing.

the dangers are hidden

[FranTaylor]

amateur truck loaders are going to put small loads in big trailers without proper securing, the loads will slide all around the floor of the trailer and impact the sides of the trailer with great force, enough to overturn the trailer on a sharp curve or even puncture the side of the trailer or pop the back doors open with the subsequent ejection of the load into the direct path of motorists. Modern plastic pallets are a big improvement in many ways but they slide like teflon in the back of a trailer.

This is little known but many trailer overturns are not caused by driver error. They are caused by poor loading of the trailer. These overturn accidents can be deadly to the driver and to innocent motorists. The only answer is to enforce the law with random inspections, heavy fines and enforced training and supervision by the supervisors of the loaders.

How would you feel if your sofa fell out of the back of some idiot mover's truck and killed someone?

Re:the dangers are hidden

[spire3661]

By random inspections, you mean searches without probable cause. Thats illegal.

Re:the dangers are hidden

[Half-pint HAL]

By random inspections, you mean searches without probable cause. Thats illegal.

In that case, we need regulation to minimise the risk and obviate the need.

Oh please

[rsilvergun]

didn't even bother to read the summary let alone TFA did you? This is about insurance, keeping track of who has it and making sure they're in a position to pay. $1 mil is small potatoes if you get hit by an uninsured driver and injured. A bad accident can result in decades of medical bills and with America's screwed up health care system can run way past that.

Huh?

[rsilvergun]

Screw protecting the consumer and their maybe $1000 worth of crap in the back of a pickup. What I want to know is that _I'm_ protected from half assed and overworked driver with no insurance moving shit on their days off instead of resting thanks to America's race to the bottom economy.

Mod parent up

[rsilvergun]

and I'd like to see it made illegal to tow with a chain (or worse one of those canvas rope thingy's I've seen). For pete's sakes people get a flatbed or at least a proper tow dolly.

Re:Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

It is illegal.

Re:Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see everything made illegal. Except the things that I like or benefit me.

All government corrupts

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you have an ostensibly republican state using crony capitalism to ensure that their the rich and entitled have an unfair access to the market, that would not exist if we had real competition. This form of republican corruption is totally unlike the democratic form of corruption whereby those in power funnel programs to that are ostensibly designed to 'help disenfranchised poor minorities' to their buddies / uncles. who are in the business of 'helping poor people'. (e.g. Obama phones, section 8 housing, etc) On second thought they are pretty much the same.

Time for a change in the law?

[davidwr]

Perhaps its time to exclude "occasionally paid" haulers, such as those with a gross annual revenue of under $1,000 and who do less than 12 hauling jobs for pay in any 12-month period, and provide simple registration and lower liability requirements for "weekenders" who do up to $10,000/year in gross revenue and up to 104 jobs in any 12-month period. I would also exempt "charity-benefit" jobs from the calculations - if someone makes it clear up front that all the money the customer pays is going straight to a bona fide charity, the law should treat it the same as if he was doing the job for free.*

For those excluded from the law, I would require that all ads include a disclaimer which included a link to a state-run web site explaining that if something goes wrong, the customer will be left holding the bag.

I would also clarify the law to either explicitly protect people who hire un-registered or registered-but-lightly-insured couriers from 3rd-party lawsuits due to damages to 3rd parties caused by the mover and protect them from civil liability if they don't run a background check on their mover, OR, of the people of that state don't want to do that, to EXPLICITLY put the customers "on notice" that they may be hauled into court if their mover causes damage to a 3rd party. Of course, doing the latter would practically kill this cottage industry altogether, which is why I favor the first option of making the customer immune from 3rd-party damages.

--
* When friends or family ask me to do more than a few hours of my time and it's not a situation of "family obligations" or the like, I give them an estimate and ask them to make out a check in that amount to some charity. In my case I do it so 1) they will at least consider hiring a poor starving college student instead, 2) so they will understand the value of what they are asking for, and 3) because I don't need the money and I want to be very clear that when I can, I am willing to share my time with them without being paid or having them feel like they "owe me one."