Battle To Regulate Ridesharing Moves Through States
New submitter jeffengel writes: The push to regulate services like Uber and Lyft has spread through state legislatures nationwide. At least 15 states have passed ridesharing laws in 2015, joining Colorado, California, and Illinois from last year. More could follow, with bills pending in Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, and others. All this activity has led to new clashes with companies, city leaders, and consumers. Ridesharing bills have stalled or been killed off in Texas, Florida, New Mexico, and Mississippi. Meanwhile, Uber has exited Kansas and is threatening to leave New Jersey and Oregon, while Lyft has ceased operations in Houston, Columbus, and Tacoma. How this plays out could affect the companies' expansion plans, as well as the future of transportation systems worldwide.
There, corrected it for you.
These businesses have nothing to do with sharing: it's hiring a driver and a car.
First the state sets up car pool lanes and asks people to share rides in the name of patriotism, monetary benefit and conservation. Then Uber comes along and creates a way to share a ride and the driver benefits a little bit as well. Then the state turns around and say oh no! This is rather like the politics of sex. Sex is sort of ok as long as one hides it away but God help anyone who charges money for sex. Going back to cars these laws have failed to take into account social media. Many people scour social media looking for people who commute to work and make deals to get a ride. I have a friend who goes to college about 100 miles from me. She takes classes three days a week. She slips the drivers $10 per day and she gets dropped off and picked up when they get off work. That is $30. a week for her and that $30. can help the driver pay for gas and enable the car pool lane use as well. And she has three different drivers just in case one is sick or on vacation or has a broken car. I see no moral difference between that and Uber and oddly where I live there is no way to travel county to county that is not massively inconvenient or expensive.
No, Uber only covers you from the moment the paying rider gets into the car from the moment you leave.
The time from between you get a ride request to the time you pick up the rider, the vast majority of private auto insurance companies will refuse to cover you. I know my insurance has a clause that stipulated I will not be covered during this timeframe. You are literally driving uninsured during that timeframe. Its a big issue. One of which Uber doesn't want to pay for, your private insurance doesn't want to pay for (because they label you as a business then), and drivers won't want to pay for.
The summary makes it sound like all of the bills are AGAINST ride sharing... but that's not the case. For instance, in Massachusetts(which is highlighted in the summary) Uber is actively campaigning FOR the regulation bill.
Why?
Because the bill states once and for all that ride sharing is a legal activity. Yes, it puts some protections in place: but not much beyond what Uber already provides.
As someone that uses Uber quite a bit (2-3 times per month) I welcome the new legislation as long as it allows Uber to continue to operate. Regulation is not all bad, as long as it is fair and reasonable.
"Regulation isn't a 100% guarantee of absolutely no problems, so I'll sit here and claim it does *nothing*!!!!"
FTFY
As an aside, I have found that showing a taxi driver your destination on Google Maps on your phone is a very reliable way to insure that they take you via the quickest route. And Uber Black is well worth the small premium for the ride experience if you're not depending on it for day-to-day transportation.