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.

Comments

Mixed reaction

[JoshuaZ]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, some of these regulations are clear attempts to just protect the taxi industry from new models. On the other hand, some of the regulations (like having some basic insurance to cover if things go wrong) are pretty reasonable. On the gripping hand, both Uber and Lyft are both just blatantly ignoring regulations in many jurisdictions, and whether or not one thinks the laws should be there, it is hard to think that having cheaper car services is such a compellingly necessary service that it can morally or ethically justify ignoring laws.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Mr D from 63]

That is a good summary of how I look at it as well. If they want to share rides for free it may be different, but charging money means you are a business and must operate within the regulated business environment. That also means drivers paying taxes on income, and possibly registering their car as a business asset.

OTOH, it seems to make a lot of sense to have a way to share rides and cost.

Re:Mixed reaction

[geekmux]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, some of these regulations are clear attempts to just protect the taxi industry from new models. On the other hand, some of the regulations (like having some basic insurance to cover if things go wrong) are pretty reasonable. On the gripping hand, both Uber and Lyft are both just blatantly ignoring regulations in many jurisdictions, and whether or not one thinks the laws should be there, it is hard to think that having cheaper car services is such a compellingly necessary service that it can morally or ethically justify ignoring laws.

If you wish to speak of morals and ethics, perhaps you should review the existing structure and their pricing model first.

There's a reason we have a compelling argument for competition here, and it's not because they have cooler looking cars.

Re:Mixed reaction

[paulpach]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, some of these regulations are clear attempts to just protect the taxi industry from new models. On the other hand, some of the regulations (like having some basic insurance to cover if things go wrong) are pretty reasonable. On the gripping hand, both Uber and Lyft are both just blatantly ignoring regulations in many jurisdictions, and whether or not one thinks the laws should be there, it is hard to think that having cheaper car services is such a compellingly necessary service that it can morally or ethically justify ignoring laws.

In the so called "land of the free", I should be able to get a ride from anyone I please as well as give a ride to anyone I please and charge for it if I want to. What is wrong here is not violating the laws, it is the laws themselves that restrict this voluntary mutually agreed upon exchange.
If insurance is a big deal, then I as an uber user would only chose to ride with people that have insurance.

Protecting taxis is awful. By that logic we should have made refrigerators illegal since they threatened ice factory workers.

If you don't like the Uber and Lyft services, then you simply don't use them. But we have no right to forbid other people from using it or place restrictions upon them.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Registered Coward v2]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, some of these regulations are clear attempts to just protect the taxi industry from new models. On the other hand, some of the regulations (like having some basic insurance to cover if things go wrong) are pretty reasonable. On the gripping hand, both Uber and Lyft are both just blatantly ignoring regulations in many jurisdictions, and whether or not one thinks the laws should be there, it is hard to think that having cheaper car services is such a compellingly necessary service that it can morally or ethically justify ignoring laws.

If you wish to speak of morals and ethics, perhaps you should review the existing structure and their pricing model first.

There's a reason we have a compelling argument for competition here, and it's not because they have cooler looking cars.

There certainly is a compelling argument for competition, as there is for proper regulation. So when one looks at the existing structure the question becomes what parts of it need to be applicable to new entrants providing the same service, i.e a ride for hire? Uber et. al. are merely a modification of the existing call a taxi on a phone model and thus should be subject to similar regulatory oversight. You contact a dispatcher, they send an independent contractor to pick you up and take you to a location for a fee. They may not have a medallion on their car and may or may not own the car but the end result is the same - a ride to a location in exchange for money.

Of course the existing companies are fighting tooth and nail becasue there is a lot of money at stake. In locations where medallions are scarce people can have hundred of thousands of dollars tied up in medallions, the medallion may be the most valuable thing the company or individual owns. Uber threatens that by putting cars on the road, thus threatening to overcome the artificially constrained supply of cabs and make owning a medallion necessary and thus lowering the value of existing medallions. So one can expect the medallion owners, as well as those who lend money to people to buy them, to fight back. Interestingly enough a medallion is one expensive item that is tailored to people with poor or no credit, since as one lender put it "If they don't pay all I have to do is pry the medallion off of the hood. I can then resell it but they can no longer drive so they'll do anything needed to make their payments."

Re: Mixed reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

You can drive any car you want, on your property, and you can charge people for rides too.

Your problem is you aren't rich enough to own your own roads and cities too. Your freedoms were traded for a social contract a very long time ago.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

I have mixed feelings as well.

Last time I tried to use a taxi company's app, I waited half an hour at a hotel, nobody showed up, then I got charged $35 for me being a "no-show", so having competition to the good ol' boys is a good thing.

However, I'm not a fan of Uber/Lyft because they do ignore regulations, and if something does happen, the driver likely doesn't even know what commercial insurance is, much less would have it. This means if there is a wreck, I'm SOL.

Same issues with AirBnB and other places. A person down the street has his place on a service like that, and the driveway, as well as the street around winds up always jammed with a ton of cars, not to mention 24/7 parties, and beer bottles winding up tossed at next-door neighbor's windows.

Then there is the taxation and regulation element. The person with the AirBnB is almost certainly not paying the bed tax in the city, nor has their place up to code as a hotel. Same with Uber/Lyft. They tend to sidestep taxes that the people who play by the rules have to play.

So, it cuts both way. If Uber/Lyft paid their taxes and had proper insurance, great. However, they shouldn't be given a free pass to destroy established industries.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

If you give someone you don't know money for a ride somewhere, you are entering into a business transaction. The person you give the money to now owes the state government sales tax, owes both state and federal income tax and is now open to potential litigation if they get in an accident and you sue them for injuries.

If they don't have insurance, you probably won't get much suing them and will have to pay your own medical bills (have fun with that one) and lawyer fees.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Nidi62]

In the so called "land of the free", I should be able to get a ride from anyone I please as well as give a ride to anyone I please and charge for it if I want to. What is wrong here is not violating the laws, it is the laws themselves that restrict this voluntary mutually agreed upon exchange. If insurance is a big deal, then I as an uber user would only chose to ride with people that have insurance.

Government has a legitimate interest in monitoring and regulating businesses. And guess what? As soon as you receive money for a service you are operating a business. It is in the public interest that a business is operated and run in a manner that is safe for it's employees, customers, and the greater public and also to ensure that they are not defrauding customers or suppliers/vendors.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber is as much ridesharing as ordering pizza using a Pizza Hut app is foodsharing. I think. Not sure if Pizza Hut drivers are independent contractors. Well, anyway...

I would propose that if any "taxi" driver earns less than $200/month, that they should have looser regulations. I'd also propose that auto insurance should have to cover situations like that (regular auto insurance) provided that no more than $200/month is being earned. This $200/month figure calculated by averaging the previous three month's income derived from being a "taxi".

Re:Mixed reaction

[jellomizer]

Why should the government try to protect an old business model from a new one?
The real issue should be is evaluating regulations that the Taxi companies have to follow and the rules that Uber drivers do not. I am willing to guess there is a happy middle ground there... Where Taxi Companies with less restrictive regulations can compete better with Uber. However insuring the Uber Drivers meet with a particular safety and quality standard.

Re:Mixed reaction

[TWX]

I see competition to traditional taxi services as a good thing. I don't see Uber and Lyft as much more than traditional taxi services though, albeit with some quirks. They're not "ride sharing" services. They're taxis. The driver doesn't happen to be going your way; he's picking up fares and dropping them off to then pick up the next fare.

The only thing truly innovative is the pre-negotiation for the trip, but that's not really a whole lot different than sedan service. If anything, these companies are offering discount sedan service priced similarly to traditional taxis. No bright yellow paint, no advertising on the cars, just nondescript random vehicles.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

As long as the medallion and similar limiting systems continue to exist, all gloves are off as far as I'm concerned.

There's more to freedom than freedom of speech -- freedom to pursue your own business, and nobody has thr right to restrict entry for the purpose of limiting co.petition. "This here town ain't big enough to support two companies" should be left on the scrap heap of disreputable history.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Mixed reaction

[ArcadeMan]

If you give someone you don't know money for a ride somewhere, you are entering into a business transaction.

Passenger: Hello, my name is Steve.
Driver: Hello, Steve.

Passenger: Here's a 20 dollars gift.
Driver: Well thank you, Steve. By the way, would you like a ride somewhere? It's free.

Re:Mixed reaction

[TsuruchiBrian]

I think the benefit of a cheap taxi service outweighs the risk that is mitigated by having better insurance. The drivers should already have basic auto insurance, and the passengers should already have health insurance. Isn't that enough?

Re:Mixed reaction

[TheCarp]

Yet as a member of the public, I have no interest in this. Why does my opinion that the rights of others matter more than your claim of a so-called "public interest".

I say the public has a public interest in regulating the government and making it justify its interests whenever and wherever possible and restricting those interests as strictly as possible.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as the medallion and similar limiting systems continue to exist, all gloves are off as far as I'm concerned.

All the gloves? All two of them?

Re:Mixed reaction

[Nidi62]

Yet as a member of the public, I have no interest in this. Why does my opinion that the rights of others matter more than your claim of a so-called "public interest".

If an Uber driver has been taking stimulants to stay up and drive for 48 hours straight crashes into your car, or hits you trying to cross the street, would you take an interest then? Everyone else certainly does when you are injured so severely you can't work and have to draw disability for the rest of your life and we are paying for it. Things like that happened regularly in industries such as taxis and trucking, with overworked drivers causing fatal accidents. That is why regulations were enacted. They still happen, but they are less frequent and the drivers are severely punished when they do so.

Re:Mixed reaction

[flopsquad]

the regulations are there to make sure there is is possible to get a taxi at all times, the taxi companies get a monopoly on the good times in exchange for also driving at the bad times

I agree this is one of the reasons taxi regs (ostensibly) exist. I know they're not solely there to protect taxi monopolies.

However, in practice, I have only ever been unable to get an Uber once, when the entire region shut down in a snowstorm. On the other hand, I stopped using taxis precisely because I could never reliably get one, especially during the off times.

Re:Mixed reaction

[SvnLyrBrto]

Proper insurance and background checks are definitely a good thing.

But the legacy taxi companies, the medallion system, and the laws they're bought to fix prices and prevent competition... especially bringing about that aforementioned medallion system, are a font of corruption and scumbaggery easily on the level of the RIAA/MPAA/Metallica copyright cartel types. They effect fewer people, as people out in the suburbs don't generally take cabs/Uber/transit. But as someone who's lived in an urban city since before Uber, Lift, and Sidecar were around; I'll celebrate and support pretty much anything that kneecaps the taxi companies.

Re:Mixed reaction

[OhPlz]

That doesn't make sense. You're not "in business" then. If I get into a crash on my way to work (not Uber), my insurance covers it.

Re:Mixed reaction

[plopez]

That looks good on paper but rarely works out in real life. In order for it to work everyone must be honest and a monopoly does not exist. We are a very far way from the idealized small shopkeeper model of Adam Smith. Here are some reasons for government regulation of taxis:

1) So customers do not get ripped off. Prices are set or at least clearly advertised.

2) So customers are not raped or murdered. If you hire a ride from Joe Random taxi driver without licensing and a background check you have no assurance about the driver. In fact the lack of assurance could kill the industry as people look for other options.

3) Insurance. If there is an accident are passengers, occupants of other vehicles, or pedestrian need to be covered if the taxi driver is at fault.

4) Mechanical safety of the vehicle. Has the Uber and Lyft cars been checked over for dangerous faults or wear and tear? Are the tires good? Etc.

5) ENSURING competition. If one company gets too big you restrict their licenses while issuing more for their competitors. Sometimes the best way to approach the ideal of a free market is through careful regulation. Free market != unregulated market.

Those are the ones on of the top of my head. The world is much more complex that Economics 101 or a fictional account of how one writer thinks the world should work. It is even more complex and dynamic that even people with Phds in economics can imagine, IMO. Instead of simplistic solutions we need to look for solutions that actually work.

Re:Mixed reaction

[fluffernutter]

When the driver of the Uber car you are in gets in a serious accident, then you will care very much about industry regulation.

Re: Mixed reaction

[grimmjeeper]

Never underestimate the power of willful ignorance.

Re:Mixed reaction

[dave420]

That's not exactly an accurate, direct comparison, but I suspect you know that :)

Re:Mixed reaction

[0123456]

When the driver of the Uber car you are in gets in a serious accident, then you will care very much about industry regulation.

How does 'industry regulation' prevent car accidents? When I worked in London, taxis were generally the most dangerous cars on the road; I was almost killed one day by a taxi driver who drove straight across a pedestrian crossing while filling out some paperwork and not looking at the road.

Re:Mixed reaction

[0123456]

So customers are not raped or murdered. If you hire a ride from Joe Random taxi driver without licensing and a background check you have no assurance about the driver.

Yet there was a scandal in the UK recently when the newspapers discovered some guy had been given a taxi license despite being a convicted rapist and the licensing body knowing he was. There was another a couple of years before that about a taxi driver who'd been picking up hookers and raping them. A few months ago, there was another scandal when newspapers found some women refusing to get in taxis driven by men of a certain persuasion, because they were afraid of being raped.

So, no, that argument doesn't work, either.

Re:Mixed reaction

[FranTaylor]

the exchange of money makes it a financial transaction no matter what you want to call it

Re:Mixed reaction

[OhPlz]

I don't think there are any direct comparisons to make, but it's not far off. An Uber driver responding to a ride request but not carrying passengers is not all that different than an office worker responding to the start of the business day by driving to the office. Both have commerce in mind, but they're both "off the clock" heading to where the job is. Seems to me that insurance should cover that.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

"Regulation isn't a 100% guarantee of absolutely no problems, so I'll sit here and claim it does *nothing*!!!!"

FTFY

Re:Mixed reaction

[FranTaylor]

How does 'industry regulation' prevent car accidents?

that's not the question. accidents happen to everyone. the question is, who pays when there is an accident? if the driver is underinsured, does the victim have to suffer or should they get the settlement that they deserve? where does the money come from? do we let these people rot? no, we take care of them with our taxes. Thus, in your unregulated universe we all pay for the bad actions of others (is that socialist or what)

Re:Mixed reaction

[FranTaylor]

your employer has no obligation or stake in how you transport yourself to your job. this is well settled law. once you get to work and you have to travel, it's a different story.

Re:Mixed reaction

[dywolf]

youre putting the cart before the horse.

they aren't regulating Uber to protect taxis.

they are regulating Uber because it IS a taxi.

Re:Mixed reaction

[mi]

The "test" is a very simple one. Had the current technology existed, when the existing taxi-regulations were being created, would they have gotten created at all? To me the answer is an obvious "no" — with the information about rides and drivers available to consumers instantly 24x7, there is no need for the governments to "certify" drivers nor to weight in on the "fair" rates.

Consider this hypothetical example — suppose a wonder-pill was created, that eliminated all disease. Would we be seriously considering attempts to ban it out of concerns for unemployed doctors, unused hospitals, or that it can, sometimes, be taken in unsanitary conditions?

having some basic insurance to cover if things go wrong are pretty reasonable

Why must an Uber driver have a different insurance plan from you and me? Any reasons you can come up with are none of the government's concern — they are between the driver and his insurance company.

hard to think that having cheaper car services is such a compellingly necessary service that it can morally or ethically justify ignoring laws

Think of it as "civil disobedience". And note, that the broken laws are purely of the malum prohibitum kind for there is nothing unethical in the drivers' actions per se. If burning police cars and robbing private businesses can be "legitimate political strategy", any concern over Uber and Lyft for providing useful services at low costs is misplaced at least.

Re:Mixed reaction

[FranTaylor]

Why must an Uber driver have a different insurance plan from you and me? Any reasons you can come up with are none of the government's concern — they are between the driver and his insurance company.

so when you crash your uber car and the customer is badly injured and you don't have enough insurance, we taxpayers are supposed to pay out because it's none of our concern?

Re:Mixed reaction

[FranTaylor]

Seems to me that insurance should cover that.

sure it will, if you buy that kind of insurance. should we all be forced to buy the insurance that covers taxi drivers?

Re:Mixed reaction

[RKThoadan]

Uber and Lyft both provide full insurance coverage while someone is driving a fare for them. There is apparently a strange insurance gap if the driver is logged into their app looking to get a fare but not actually driving someone and is in an accident. If I'm understanding things right that's considered a commercial activity and not covered under personal insurance, but since they don't have an active fare it's not covered by Uber/Lyft either. Insurance companies are now offering policies that cover that gap. It's only a concern for the drivers though, as a passenger you're always covered by Uber/Lyft.

Re:Mixed reaction

[mi]

so when you crash your uber car and the customer is badly injured and you don't have enough insurance

How is this hypothetical horror made different by it being "uber car" rather than "Fran Taylor's car"?

Re:Mixed reaction

[Hussman32]

If you wish to speak of morals and ethics, perhaps you should review the existing structure and their pricing model first.

There's a reason we have a compelling argument for competition here, and it's not because they have cooler looking cars.

In my view the compelling reason for Uber and Lyft is that you can view the rating of your driver and have some confidence that the driver will be professional and courteous prior to ordering the service. You have no such luck at the airport taxi stand, sometimes you get the worst driver who adds miles while talking on the phone.

The current turmoils between government and 'ride sharing' shall pass, government will get their taxes and the taxi system will either adapt or fade away.

Re:Mixed reaction

[dj245]

The real issue should be is evaluating regulations that the Taxi companies have to follow and the rules that Uber drivers do not.

Why? In most places, the rules that Uber isn't following are because they are operating in violation of the law. They themselves have created the uneven playing field by refusing to operate under the law. The only distinction between Uber and a traditional taxi dispatcher dispatching independent cabs is that one uses a piece of software and the other (historically) has used phones.

Re:Mixed reaction

[pr0fessor]

I can call, text, or book a ride with an app using a regular taxi service the car picks me up and drops me off at my destination for a fee. Uber's big idea is the drivers supply their own vehicle and are responsible for their license, insurance, and car's upkeep. Uber supplies an app to book a ride and takes a cut they are still a taxi service they just avoid the overhead of a fleet of cars.

They ran into issues with regulations in Kansas and they are somewhat relaxed compared to other places. The problem is that if they make the driver get actual commercial insurance instead of driving around on a minimum liability private policy {even though it's still a piddly amount of coverage} the price goes up and makes it harder for them to find drivers.

Re:Mixed reaction

[FranTaylor]

normal automobile insurance will not cover the "Uber" car because it is being driven for hire, read your policy

Re:Mixed reaction

[RKThoadan]

It appears that some insurance companies are working on getting you options for this, but it's not available in all states yet: https://www.policygenius.com/b...

Re:Mixed reaction

[FranTaylor]

"hypothetical"

there are many many tens of thousands of automobile accidents every year in this country. automobile accidents are not a "hypothetical" they are a fact

Re:Mixed reaction

[FranTaylor]

The problem is that if they make the driver get actual commercial insurance instead of driving around on a minimum liability private policy {even though it's still a piddly amount of coverage} the price goes up and makes it harder for them to find drivers.

this is not a "problem", this is how the market works.

Re:Mixed reaction

[FranTaylor]

In my view the compelling reason for Uber and Lyft is that you can view the rating of your driver and have some confidence that the driver will be professional and courteous prior to ordering the service. You have no such luck at the airport taxi stand,

yeah, in my experience the ratings you see in the internet are always 100% accurate, people never lie or exaggerate on the internet.

Re: Mixed reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

Your freedoms were traded for a social contract a very long time ago.

The "social contract" is an outrageous fantasy, that someone else can trade your freedoms on your behalf before you were even born. Now we've got a government that strangles us and breaks our backs, grants monopolies to huge corporations, and spies on and tortures us. If there ever was a contract, it was broken long ago.

You can drop the moral angle if you want and just say "bad things will happen to you if you disobey", but don't be surprised if the people you control someday decide that another contract would be more fair.

Re:Mixed reaction

[mi]

Ok, please, cite a case of an Uber passenger being hurt in an accident and taxpayer's help being necessary for their medical treatment.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Go to Panama City. The taxis are omnipresent and cheap, but they're one bump away from being a junkpile and they won't take you more than a few blocks because of congestion. That is what the limiting systems prevent. We can't give unlimited financial incentive to have cars on the road. It's not good for anyone.

Non issue. That will drive the price down; less people will see it for the boon it will have ceased to become.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Okian Warrior]

If an Uber driver has been taking stimulants to stay up and drive for 48 hours straight crashes into your car, or hits you trying to cross the street, would you take an interest then? Everyone else certainly does when you are injured so severely you can't work and have to draw disability for the rest of your life and we are paying for it. Things like that happened regularly in industries such as taxis and trucking, with overworked drivers causing fatal accidents. That is why regulations were enacted. They still happen, but they are less frequent and the drivers are severely punished when they do so.

I wish we could get away from the "we need regulations, because what if *this* happened!" model of legislation.

It's a simple appeal to emotion (fear, in this case), it's meant to turn off your rational thought processes and enlist you as a dumb follower.

A rational argument might analyze not only the possibility of this happening, but also its *likelyhood*.

Changes should be made not on the basis of probabilities, but from a comparison of risk and reward. Risk is probability times cost. The argument above points out a risk and a value for this risk: Uber and Lyft have been running in gypsy mode for long enough that we should be able to identify the probability of such an occurrence, and actuarial tables should provide us with the cost.

We can then make a direct comparison of the risk of riding with Uber/Lyft with the risk of riding in a cab, and the cost of an Uber/Lyft ride with the cost of a taxi ride.

If Uber and Lyft come out having a lower risk-to-benefit ratio than taxicabs, then it makes sense to dump the taxi regulation infrastructure entirely and just let people operate Lyft and Uber services.

The rationalization of this argument (which is not in any related to the rational argument) is to say that the abuses prior to regulation were due to lack of driver accountability. Regulation reduced the risk by making taxi drivers (and the businesses) accountable for their actions, and it worked well for its time.

The rationalization might further say that the internet and permanent feedback mechanisms fill this role less expensively than the medallion system. The technology makes a perfectly working system outdated. Buggy whips come to mind.

If you want to have a rational discussion, let's take municipal income out of the argument (it doesn't bear on the core issue), the private corporate interests out of the argument (they are not remotely impartial), and the employment out of the argument.

It's a simple case of "market liquidity": Uber and Lyft present a more liquid market with the same benefits as the more expensive system.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Maxo-Texas]

I agree except there's no need for a human dispatcher.

Re: Mixed reaction

[paulpach]

Your problem is you aren't rich enough to own your own roads and cities too.

Neither is the government. Where do you think the government gets the money to pay for this? they don't have any money. They first confiscate it from you and me, whether we want it or not. Either by straight out taxing it, borrowing it in your name, or printing money which just dilutes the value of your savings. It also makes it impossible for the private sector to enter the road market.

The fact is that the private sector not only could take over making roads, but it would do a much better job at it. It would avoid building bridges to nowhere, and invest more heavily in areas with higher traffic. In fact, the first roads were entirely private. Murray Rothbard wrote a very nice book explaining how this could work (chapter 11).

In other words, you are saying they can tell me how to give a ride because they are already forcing me to pay them to build the roads. "Land of the free" indeed.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Geistmaus]

If you wish to speak of morals and ethics, perhaps you should review the existing structure and their pricing model first.

There's a reason we have a compelling argument for competition here, and it's not because they have cooler looking cars.

The pricing model for cab companies is usually mandated by regulation; though this is not typically the case with limousines. The difference between the two is largely whether or not the driver is permitted to pick up some random that flags them down on the sidewalk. Cabs are not only 'yes' but required to do so.

Re:Mixed reaction

[pr0fessor]

Uber isn't a new kind of ride sharing service, they just thought how can we open a taxi business with a minimum of over head... make the driver supply the car, be responsible for the insurance, and upkeep all we will do is book the rides and take a cut. What they are trying to avoid now are regulations that were put in place to protect the public. Not using Uber service doesn't keep their unlicensed and uninsured driver from hitting my legally parked car nor does it help me recoup the damages.

Re:Mixed reaction

[FranTaylor]

so you have to wait for a bad thing to happen first before you will regulate it?

Can you look at all of the incidents where underinsured passengers have lost their jobs and their income due to accidents? There is plenty of precedent for this. These people end up unemployed and on the dole and we pay for them with our taxes! With adequate insurance they can get treatment and physical therapy and head back to their jobs.

can you really tell me that this will never happen to an uber passenger?

Re: Mixed reaction

[FranTaylor]

If there ever was a contract, it was broken long ago.

Two wrongs make a right! Hooray!

Re:Mixed reaction

[Humbubba]

The war against ride sharing companies like Uber and Lyft expose more than the flaws of governance. We let a properly licensed driver have passengers, statically certain accidents will happen. No insurance, license, training or law will overcome this. Human ability and reason do not live up to the standards which the law imposes, whether Uber is involved or not. In a world filled with self-driving vehicles designed for “greater good”, there would be much fewer accidents, traffic jams or delays. Even now, autonomous driving vehicles can drive better than most of us most the time. As the technology improves, it will become obvious that we are the problem. This problem is anticipated in law and commerce. Insurance, license, penalties, restraint and detention web together to form a superstructure of constraint, regulating most and benefiting an elite. The law is brandished against Uber and Lyft not because a legal hack is safer than the gypsy, but because they disrupt the pecking order and the money flow.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Maxo-Texas]

Of course, it's really a bit of both.

When medallions are going for over a million dollars, clearly taxi service is artificially constrained.

So it's partially to protect a monopoly market-- and it's partially about public safety.

And of course the current monopoly holders are using safety as the wedge point for their efforts.

Re:Mixed reaction

[OhPlz]

Exactly right. So the parent stating that Uber's insurance starts when the passenger enters the vehicle makes sense. Parent then states that some private insurance won't cover the driver heading to the pickup location. Seems to me they should. It's the individual transporting themselves to the job, same as when I drive to the office in the morning. Right?

Re:Mixed reaction

[OhPlz]

No, it'd be "I'm on the way to work" insurance. The driver should be covered under their personal insurance.

Re:Mixed reaction

[TheCarp]

So basically a new situation arose specifically around insurance and insurance companies, seeing this new gap are already moving to fill it? So what you are saying is, this problem is self correcting? Nice. Good to hear.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Geistmaus]

If an Uber driver has been taking stimulants to stay up and drive for 48 hours straight crashes into your car, or hits you trying to cross the street, would you take an interest then? Everyone else certainly does when you are injured so severely you can't work and have to draw disability for the rest of your life and we are paying for it. Things like that happened regularly in industries such as taxis and trucking, with overworked drivers causing fatal accidents. That is why regulations were enacted. They still happen, but they are less frequent and the drivers are severely punished when they do so.

We already have regulations for that. They're called a Driver's License and Mandatory Insurance. They already apply to anyone that operates a motor vehicle on the roads for, in part, just the scenario you mentioned. The most particularly interesting part about driving for hire is that a Commerical Driver's License with a Passenger Endorsement is required for transporting civilians in various vehicles. Where 'various vehicles' depends on the nature of the business. Making the regulation equal here would be to simply open up passenger endorsements for bog-standard Class C licenses; rather than the current guild-like nature of things.

Re:Mixed reaction

[FranTaylor]

the uber driver's job starts when he checks his app to see if he has a ride available

Re:Mixed reaction

[Geistmaus]

they are regulating Uber because it IS a taxi.

Notionally, Uber runs limousines. The distinction between the two is that a taxi can, and does, and is required to, pick up randoms that flag them down. As long as an Uber car is unmarked we can state that this doesn't happen in practice.

Re:Mixed reaction

[FranTaylor]

an uber driver who is on his way to pick up a passenger is most certainly on the job

he started working when he accepted the fare and headed to the pickup point

Re:Mixed reaction

[tompaulco]

Laws are the opinions of the people in power - in this case the taxi cartel - so yes, you can morally and ethically justify ignoring laws if the people making them are neither moral nor ethical.

The Evil Taxi Cartel had to buy a medallion, buy insurance, go through background checks and audits, allow inspectors and regulators to observe their operation, paid fines for any infractions and so forth. If the system is wrong and Uber should be able to operate without all of the regulations, then so should the taxi companies. So go ahead and reimburse them for all the money they have spent obeying the law these past 100 years and I'm sure everyone will be happy.

Re:Mixed reaction

[mi]

so you have to wait for a bad thing to happen first before you will regulate it?

Is this your backwards way of admitting, the things you must fight to prevent has not happened yet — despite hundreds of thousands of Uber/Lyft drivers on the road for years?

Can you look at all of the incidents where underinsured

Not having enough insurance is a potential problem for everyone and everywhere — whether you ride in a car (be it hired, your own, or a friend's), or walking on the street, or cooking a steak. Why must Uber's drivers and passengers be singled-out for concern — and regulations to alleviate it?

(Please, try to respond in one posting.)

Re:Mixed reaction

[FranTaylor]

the laws they're bought to fix prices and prevent competition...

laws that limit the number of players in a market will always have this effect regardless of intent.

"preventing competition" is a good thing when the competition is unlicensed and uninsured

NYC was choked with taxis before they regulated. it was dangerous to the population, fire trucks and other emergency vehicles could not get through.

you can choose: you can have unregulated taxis and uncontrolled fires, or you can have regulated taxis and firetrucks that can get to their destination. NYC chooses to be able to put their fires out.

Re:Mixed reaction

[edtice1559]

Not all miles are created equal. If I drive the same hundred miles every weekend to see granny, I'm familiar with the roads and, although the trip is long, the actual driving part is easy. If I'm going through an unfamiliar neighborhood on a rainy night looking to pick up my fare from an unfamiliar address, that's very difficult driving. Easy to not notice something. In any event, it's not reasonable to second-guess the actuaries who come up with this stuff without backing it up with data. Commercial insurance is *expensive*. Nobody would drive for uber if they had to buy it. Uber seems to cover the *passengers* (their web site isn't exactly high on details in terms of exactly what they insure) but it's not clear on what happens to injured third parties especially during the times that they are trying to find their fare.

Re:Mixed reaction

[FranTaylor]

the passengers should already have health insurance.

your health insurance will not cover injuries that are supposed to be covered by automobile insurance. if they did, there would be no need for auto insurance.

Re:Mixed reaction

[FranTaylor]

so if uber is insuring their drivers then they should have no problem with a law that stipulates that they must do so

Re:Mixed reaction

[edtice1559]

Their web site assures passengers are covered while in the vehicle. They don't talk about third-parties. That is to say, Uber driver has a crash, causes $1M of injuries to the passenger in the Uber vehicle (covered supposedly) and $1M of injuries to each of the two pedestrians. Who covers those pedestrians? The chances of having a serious injury while *riding* in a car are relatively low thanks to things like seatbelts and air bags and if your driver is unsafe you can just get out of the vehicle. But what about unprotected third-parties? I imagine that's where the bulk of insurance costs are. Hit a pedestrian and chances are that the bill is pretty high between medical care, lost wages, et cetera.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Registered Coward v2]

I agree except there's no need for a human dispatcher.

True but the dispatch function is still down. the process is the same just how it is done changes with technology.

Re:Mixed reaction

[RKThoadan]

You can make a case that when and where also matters, perhaps the speed I'm driving, any drugs I've taken lately, and even whether my girlfriend recently broke up with me, but I'd rather not share all that with my insurance company. I think the commercial / non-commercial split was just a simple way to split people between those who drive a lot and those who don't without giving lots of personal information to insurance companies.

Re:Mixed reaction

[FranTaylor]

It's only a concern for the drivers though, as a passenger you're always covered by Uber/Lyft.

so innocent property owners do not need to be concerned about uninsured uber vehicles destroying their property?

Re:Mixed reaction

[squiggleslash]

This here town ain't big enough to support two companies

What about New York City? Have you seen any pictures of Manhattan made in the last 60 years? Are you familiar with streets clogged with taxis?

The medallion system exists for a reason. If it were just a way to keep fares high, New Yorkers - not known for their willingness to take shit lying down - would have had the concept thrown out by now.

Re:Mixed reaction

[FranTaylor]

Uber and Lyft have been running in gypsy mode for long enough that we should be able to identify the probability of such an occurrence, and actuarial tables should provide us with the cost.

yeah let's ask companies to provide their own unverified and unverifiable data to determine much money we should charge them, let's see how well that works out

Re:Mixed reaction

[TsuruchiBrian]

That's not true. The health insurance will pay once the auto insurance payments are exhausted (or non-existent). The need for the car to be insured is to protect the driver from being sued for damages, which the health insurance company can still do even after they have paid for medical care of the passenger. Also it is illegal in many states not to have auto insurance.

The auto insurance protects the driver. The health insurance protects the passenger (and the driver's health insurance protects the driver).

If the car has no insurance, and the passenger has no health insurance, the passenger can still sue the driver for damages, but there is no guarantee that the driver can pay.

As long as the passenger has health insurance (i.e. the one insurance they can control), they are protected from medical costs of injury, even in an uninsured uber car.

From the passengers

Re:Mixed reaction

[FranTaylor]

so uber should be happy to have a new law that requires their competitors to do the same thing

Re:Mixed reaction

[Ryanrule]

I am all for it. Companies like uber are breaking the law, long enough until they get established, and then they will lobby for laws to keep any other players out. Its how so many of these libertarian fantasy companies operate.

Re:Mixed reaction

[OhPlz]

No. If he doesn't pick anyone up, he doesn't get paid. Otherwise he could go after the passenger for theft of service. He can't, therefore he's not "on the job".

Re:Mixed reaction

[OhPlz]

No, the driver isn't compensated for checking the app. He's not working at that point.

Re: Mixed reaction

[jwdb]

The "social contract" is an outrageous fantasy, that someone else can trade your freedoms on your behalf before you were even born.

Someone else did not, as you're always free to end the contract and leave the society. I'm betting you don't want to, however, as despite it's flaws that contract is pretty good.

Re: Mixed reaction

[Prune]

They first confiscate it from you and me, whether we want it or not.

A common misconception, but one that doesn't match reality. Governments create money through the treasury and central bank (a.k.a. federal reserve in the US). Government spending doesn't proceed from money taken in by taxation; rather, money is created ex nihilo and electronically credited to appropriate accounts, then spent. There's no constitutional requirement that the money removed from circulation by taxation has to balance spending in pretty much any developed country in the world: the two are not operationally linked. Indeed, one of the major purposes of taxation (besides reducing the money supply) is enforcing the use of the official national currency -- and that's why you can only pay your taxes in that currency. Tax "revenue" is not for extinguishing debt. And the debt issue itself is another one attracting misunderstanding, because of the tendency by people to apply microeconomic "common sense" to macroeconomics, which is a well-known fallacy. The majority of the debt of a nation like the US is just a number registered between treasury and central bank/fed, and is like debt between husband and wife, pretty much an accounting fiction that doesn't have to be repaid (reducing it, however, makes for good politics); of the rest, much is held by nationals, not foreigners/foreign governments. This configuration gives governments great power to influence their economies through control of the money supply, something they have exclusive legal power to as monetary sovereigns**. Whether this is generally done correctly, incompetently, or abused, is a matter of politics. I'll point out this, however: the common argument against government spending -- inflation -- only applies when you're close to full employment; otherwise, spending feeds aggregate demand rather than inflation.

** The glaring exception being, of course, the euro currency, which nicely shows how attempting a monetary union without having a fiscal and economic union only benefits those who can maintain a trade surplus (Germany), thus beggaring their neighbors in classic mercantilist manner.

Some further reading: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa... http://bilbo.economicoutlook.n...

Disclaimer: my post is descriptive, not prescriptive. I'm simply pointing out how things are, not passing judgment on whether this is how they ought to be, and will keep my opinion to myself as I've no interest in a political discussion on Slashdot.

Re:Mixed reaction

[pr0fessor]

Uber wants to provide the same services as a taxi company with none of the overhead or liability, can't say I blame them it's a low risk way to make money. They want to shift the overhead and liability to the driver, when the drivers where getting away with private minimum liability insurance on a car they already owned this worked out.

If Uber want to keep with the low overhead and low liability business model then they should have existing taxi companies registering to use them as a ride booking service. The taxi company takes on the overhead of a fleet of cars, insurance, dealing with local regulations and Uber provides them with a booking app and takes a service fee for booking rides.

Re: Mixed reaction

[lgw]

Would it have killed you to have read the next sentence in the post you're responding to before posting?

Also, your post is BS. No amount of government money printing changes the amount of stuff that gets made. All we have is all we make, and nothing is free, regardless of currency games.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

>streets clogged with taxis
there are no more taxis/rideshare than the market supports, if anything there should always be a shortage. however, if your goal is to artificially create an even greater shortage to reduce traffic, why not just create a taxi/rs tax that goes to public transport instead?

Re:Mixed reaction

[TheCarp]

Except that isn't the case, individuals are insuring their own cars, and this new offering from the insurance companies is between them and the insurance companies, it has nothing to do with Uber specifically.

In fact, if anything what I don't see is any need for a new law. Existing law clearly already covers it by requiring insurance, and insurance company policies not covering that usage....so where is a law needed where we already have one and already have people working to comply with the ones we have?

Re:Mixed reaction

[Solandri]

As long as the medallion and similar limiting systems continue to exist, all gloves are off as far as I'm concerned.

The medallion system exists because the number of cars owned by the population far exceeds the capacity of the roads. If that weren't the case (e.g. in small towns in rural U.S.A.) I'd completely agree with you. But as long as road space is limited, something needs to keep the number of "I think I'll make a few extra bucks today by taxiing random strangers" people in check.

Can it / has it been abused to protect establish taxicab companies? Probably yes. But that doesn't mean the system is completely without merit.

Re: Mixed reaction

[Prune]

the amount of stuff that gets made

Gets made from what? Things don't ultimately belong to you, as demonstrated by the fact that eminent domain exists and gets exercised even in a place like the US, where the government can forcefully take possession of any land within its territories and give you money in return (in its currency, of course) -- because it has sovereignty over it. Until you have absolute sovereign title over the land you consider your property, it's not really yours and you don't have real economic freedom, just the illusion of it.

All we have is all we make

This is also BS. You don't make anything; you just transform (usually minimally) bits and pieces whose provenance is ultimately from the land which you do not own. The idiocy of your comment is further highlighted by the fact that the majority of what is considered value is in intangibles which have even less to do with the physical world than fiat currency -- a trend that will continue.

Re: Mixed reaction

[Holi]

No you can't, to do that you actually require a commercial registration and a taxi/chauffeur license. Otherwise you are breaking the law and are what is known as a gypsy cab.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Holi]

The drivers basically don't have a drivers license. If you drive a cab, a limo, or anything like that, you need a different license. So Uber drivers are unlicensed for what they are doing.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Holi]

Uber only covers you when you have a passenger, your insurance does not cover you for commercial activities. So if you hit someone on the way to pickup a fair and you have no coverage.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Holi]

I am not sure any insurance will legally have to cover you unless you have a valid license. If you are driving a car for hire you need to have a taxi license. Without that you are driving without a valid license.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Holi]

Also Uber drivers need commercial plates and a taxi license. I am betting most don't. And insurance will gladly sell you a commercial policy it just costs more.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Holi]

The only point? What about needing commercial plates, and a taxi license? You understand if you get caught using passenger plates for commercial activity can cost you right? And not having a valid license means you can actually get arrested if they so desire.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Holi]

Medallions are no longer worth what they were. In Chicago they went from around 350k to 220k. And yes the taxi market is constrained, to limit the number of cars on the road, not to keep the taxi moguls happy.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Holi]

Car service is more apt. But still the requirements are the same, it's a commercial vehicle, so it requires commercial plates, it requires a commercial license Taxi/Livery, it requires a commercial insurance policy. That's law, Uber is basically an illegal gypsy cab company.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Holi]

It's not being pro big government, it's about wanting our laws to be followed. Sorry but I don't get to ignore laws I don't like, why should Uber?

Re:Mixed reaction

[Holi]

No, it's more like a taxi with out a fare.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Holi]

Whats a Taxi without a fare then?

Re: Mixed reaction

[jwdb]

Right, because there are so many places to move without a social contract. Yes, Somalians have a social contract with local warlords.

Didn't say that. If you want a place without social contract, you'll either have to find somewhere empty or conquer somewhere occupied, all by yourself.

Oh, sorry, you're only an armchair libertarian, and you want someone to just give you such a space? Hah! Well, I want a pony.

No one owes you an easy choice in this matter. If you set yourself outside of society, don't expect them to lift a finger for you.

Re:Mixed reaction

[TheCarp]

Why need? Because its required for some other older services so you just assume the regulation makes sense here too because you want them to be the same in every way and you can't admit that an existing restriction may not make sense to continue in a new paradigm?

I see no reason why a person deciding to use his personal car occasionally to make some extra cash should require commercial plates. Hell, I could see a stronger case for requiring pizza delivery drivers to have commercial plates, and nobody requires that.

Re:Mixed reaction

[TheCarp]

Why when you are not a taxi but a person providing a service out of your own personal transportation?

Just because you want to shoehorn all new services into the same regulation as old ones doesn't mean its justified.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Holi]

No not even close. If you are driving passengers for hire you need a valid license, and no your drivers license does not count, you need a TL License (that's Taxi/Livery), you also need to register your car as a commercial vehicle. You need a commercial insurance policy, because you are on the road for more hours then normal drivers so you have a much higher risk of an accident. Otherwise your asking the rest of us to subsidize your employment.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Holi]

The taxi companies had fuck all to do with the laws in NYC or Chicago or any other major city. The medallion system is to limit the number of cars on the road, so they are not gridlocked with taxis.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Holi]

Really so the fact that there were son many taxis in NYC that emergency vehicles had trouble getting around had nothing to do with the regs? But you go ahead and make up your conspiracy theories so you can defend the unequal playing field.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Zeromous]

Seems to me what this is primarily a supply problem.

The only reason this is happening is because taxis are artificially constrainted, so much that even someone offering a service cheaper and better is precluded from the market due DIRECTLY TO THIS ARTIFICIAL CONSTRAINT.

How "unamerican" /s

Re:Mixed reaction

[Holi]

Great so the passenger is covered, the driver? not so much. http://ridesharedashboard.com/... On a side note, they also refuse to accept service animals so another law they violate.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Holi]

except how many Uber drivers have done the legal thing and gotten a commercial policy? They should require verification of commercial insurance and a valid TL license.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Holi]

You do know why the medallion's exist right? It has nothing to do with your taxi cartel conspiracy. It had to do with too many (over 30,000) taxis on the road causing major traffic problems. In 1937, Mayor Fiorello H. La Guardia signed the Haas Act which introduced official taxi licenses and the medallion system that remains in place today. The law limited the total number of cab licenses to 16,900, but the number dwindled to 11,787 licenses over the next six decades until 1996 when the TLC added 133 new licenses bringing the total to 11,920.Since 1996, more medallions have been added to the fleet bringing the total number of cab licenses to 13,237 as of 2009.

Re: Mixed reaction

[SonicSpike]

Government's don't create money (wealth), they create currency. Money (wealth) is created through commerce.

Re: Mixed reaction

[SonicSpike]

If I agreed to a contract, then show me where I signed?

Re: Mixed reaction

[lgw]

The food we have available to eat isn't more than the food we grow. The cars we have available to drive are the cars we manufacture. We can cheat a little through trade, of course, or "we" can be understood as "humans".

Sure, the government could take and hoard/destroy some of that for no good reason, as often happens under communism, but it can't make more stuff by fiat. So anything the government "buys", wherever the money came from, reflects manufacturing capacity that's now making what the government wants, instead of what the people want. However you look at it, it's still effectively a tax.

And of course, when the government just mails checks to people (which is most of the budget), that doesn't change the amount of available "stuff" at all - the government could print everyone a check for $10k/month without any taxes, sure it could, but we wouldn't have any additional stuff as a result.

Re:Mixed reaction

[TsuruchiBrian]

No not even close. If you are driving passengers for hire you need a valid license, and no your drivers license does not count, you need a TL License (that's Taxi/Livery), you also need to register your car as a commercial vehicle.

Obviously it's not legally enough when you pass a law specifically saying it isn't. I'm saying it's enough from the point of view of preventing people from being stuck with a auto repair bill or a medical bill they can't pay.

You need a commercial insurance policy, because you are on the road for more hours then normal drivers so you have a much higher risk of an accident. Otherwise your asking the rest of us to subsidize your employment.

Shouldn't that be the job of the insurance company to charge you more money based on how many hours you are typically on the road? Why is the government involved in what insurance companies decide to charge their customers?

Re:Mixed reaction

[Charcharodon]

"New Yorkers - not known for their willingness to take shit lying down

You are talking about the city known as New York, located in the State of New York, where they have to build buildings into the sky to make room for all the sheep. That New York right?

Re:Mixed reaction

[demonlapin]

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.

Re:Mixed reaction

[TapeCutter]

Whatever the reason, simply dropping the requirement for a medallion (where it already exists) means you are deliberately screwing people who have paid as much as a house to own one, worked for decades to pay it off, and plan to sell it to fund their retirement. Changing the medallion rules to suit Uber's business model means bankruptcy is a certainty for a lot a very hard working small business folk, or (more likely) a huge compensation bill for the city/state.

In other words, if you change the market rules by removing medallions from where they already exist, everyone loses except Uber. Fine if Uber were offering some massive social benefit that outweighed those costs, but it's not, it's just a bunch of dodgy cheap-labour capitalists running a dispatch center "on the internet".

Re:Mixed reaction

[AK Marc]

Should I be in jail? I once took "gas money" from a hitch hiker. By your absolutes, I should meet all the rules for a commercial carrier at all times. Thankfully, not everyone works on the absolutes you do.

Re:Mixed reaction

[AK Marc]

Ubiquitous and cheap taxis decrease the number of cars on the road. Medallions limiting taxis increase cars, not the other way around. If you can walk out and hail a cheap cab any time of day, anywhere in the city, why would you ever want to own a car?

Re:Mixed reaction

[AK Marc]

You have no such luck at the airport taxi stand, sometimes you get the worst driver who adds miles while talking on the phone.

Walking out of the Frankfurt train station, we ran into that. The first cab and second cab got into a fight. The sign by the side of the cab rank said (in German and English) "You are not required to take the first taxi in the line and may choose any taxi", or something like that. With the taxi driver still screaming at us, I walked to the nearby street, and hailed one.

Did much better with a hailed cab, than taking one waiting in the rank.

Re:Mixed reaction

[danomac]

Where I am, you are not covered unless you are explicitly insured for driving to and from work. In fact, there's two tiers: if you have to drive a long distance to work you pay more. And this is only commuting to work - if you use your car as a part of your work the insurance is even higher.

Re: Mixed reaction

[AK Marc]

So no law passed before your birth is valid? Your system seems unworkable with a unique law for everyone.

Re: Mixed reaction

[AK Marc]

Neither is the government. Where do you think the government gets the money to pay for this?

The people. The government is the will of the people, and serves at the pleasure of the people. The government doesn't "own" anything. The people do, and the government manages some of it on behalf of the people.

In fact, the first roads were entirely private.

No, they weren't. All Roads Lead to Rome was said because the roads were owned by Rome, and thus lead there (for military reasons). Roads go back before that, but you are obviously unaware of how things worked. Who owned the Oregon Trail? Oh yeah, 100% government owned. Roads in the US started out all government owned, and if you are talking world roads, they started government owned as well.

Re:Mixed reaction

[AK Marc]

So I should be in jail for the time I took gas money from a hitchhiker?

Re:Mixed reaction

[TapeCutter]

There are good (and bad) historical reasons for the constraint but that is irrelevant to the ideology you have espoused. Let's take my home town of Melbourne as an example, there are 10,000 medallions (or "plates" as they are known here), that $5B in small business assets that will become worthless overnight if we follow the ideological path your suggesting. I doubt Uber are willing to cough up $5B in compensation for the taxi owners of Melbourne, my guess is they are expecting the government to fund the inevitable plate buy-back that would accompany dropping the requirement for medallions.

BTW: A "market" is a set of rules (artificial constraints) that govern trade, (eg:property law). A "free market" is one that is open to all. Therefore the highly regulated taxi industry is a "free market" in the original sense of the term.

Re:Mixed reaction

[TapeCutter]

Ex taxi driver here. - When things go really bad what recourse do you have against the driver other than posting a bad review on Uber? How do you propose to force bad drivers out of the industry when you have torn up the rule book? Are you suggesting we simply hand the taxi industry to Uber on a silver platter secure in the knowledge they will police themselves - because freedom?

Re:Mixed reaction

[TapeCutter]

That's an excellent point, under the current rules in Oz, Uber and it's drivers should be classified and regulated the same as any other limousine service. All dispatcher services (including Uber) should be treated like the current taxi dispatchers, that is have their feet held to the fire if they fail to ensure they are supplying a licensed and insured driver whose vehicle meets mandated standards.

Re:Mixed reaction

[demonlapin]

1. 1. Uber gives clearly posted rates and I've never had a bill higher than the expected maximum for the ride. Get a taxi to quote you the same thing.
2. 2. It's insanely trivial to identify who an Uber driver is - it's tied to their smartphone. Not so much with traditional taxis.
3. 3. A valid concern, one that Uber claims to have dealt with by having insurance themselves. However, it's not like you ask your taxi driver to show you an up-to-date, online verification of his insurance before you hop in, right? I mean, liability insurance is mandatory in my state... but I still have uninsured motorist coverage. So this is a general problem.
4. 4. Have you ever ridden in a cab? Jankiest things on the road.
5. 5. Uh, no, that's not how it works. If a company starts to abuse their position as a market leader, maybe you do that. But there's absolutely nothing illegal about being so damned good that you compete everyone else into bankruptcy. A monopoly is not inherently illegal, or even wrong.

Re:Mixed reaction

[demonlapin]

It won't, because your job involves driving. Now, you'd have to be an absolute moron to tell your insurance company you were out Ubering for spare cash when it happened - but if they found out, they'd deny you right then and there.

Re:Mixed reaction

[AK Marc]

Everyone else certainly does when you are injured so severely you can't work and have to draw disability for the rest of your life and we are paying for it.

If everyone had the proper insurance, then "we" aren't paying for it, the insured are paying for their risks.

And laws to make things double-illegal are bad. Bad driving is illegal, drugged driving is illegal, so lets pass yet another law to address the same thing and ban 20+ straight hours of driving. Yay, more laws to make already illegal acts even more extra-illegal. It worked the first two times it was made illegal, so maybe it'll work the third time.

Oh, and what about private drivers? I drove from Dallas to Anchorage in 5 days, in winter. I'd have broken lots of laws if the caps on driving were applied equally.

Re:Mixed reaction

[AK Marc]

Don't we already have laws about insurance? Why don't we just update or enforce those, rather than making new laws to accomplish the same thing?

Re:Mixed reaction

[AK Marc]

That's better than those who claim market regulations never work, but government regulations always do.

Re:Mixed reaction

[demonlapin]

The insurance risk of someone who drives 40k miles/year on rural freeways is a lot lower than that of someone who drives 40k miles/year on city streets.

Re:Mixed reaction

[AK Marc]

they are regulating Uber because it IS a taxi.

They are not supposed to, and banned by law, from stopping to pick up a person who hailed them down. Thus, they are not a taxi. They are a private limo service, or other private car service.

Re:Mixed reaction

[AK Marc]

If I'm a construction worker, and I'm driving to work, I'm covered by personal insurance until I'm at work, if I drive to another construction site in my personal vehicle, but am not using it for work (not hauling timber), I'm covered by personal insurance. If I'm a Uber driver, and I'm driving to work (being a pickup of a person), I'm not covered by personal insurance. In both cases, I'm driving solely because I'm working, between "jobs", so I honestly don't see the massive difference that's being asserted here.

Re:Mixed reaction

[AK Marc]

By that logic, I am "working" when I commute in to a desk job. I've accepted the job, and am headed to the clock-in point.

Re:Mixed reaction

[AK Marc]

So my desk job started when I got the offer, and all driving to get me to the job after that is "on the clock" as far as insurance is concerned.

Re:Mixed reaction

[mjwx]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, some of these regulations are clear attempts to just protect the taxi industry from new models. On the other hand, some of the regulations (like having some basic insurance to cover if things go wrong) are pretty reasonable. On the gripping hand, both Uber and Lyft are both just blatantly ignoring regulations in many jurisdictions, and whether or not one thinks the laws should be there, it is hard to think that having cheaper car services is such a compellingly necessary service that it can morally or ethically justify ignoring laws.

If you wish to speak of morals and ethics

If you wish to speak of morals and ethics, I suggest you go and live where illegal taxi services have been operating for decades. There are good reasons for taxi regulation and they've been quite effective at preventing illegal taxi services becoming organised crime.

Re:Mixed reaction

[matfud]

It sort of works this way in Britain. Uber drivers have to be licensed as minicab drivers. The cars are also licensed to that required standard. So yes insurance is required by the driver.
They are not black cabs. They can not randomly pick up passengers.It has to go through a dispatcher (Uber in this case). There needs to be a record of who picked up whom where and when.

Many other countries are trying to figure out where Uber fits into the taxi laws they have. Some work it out. Some just cave in cos UBER. Some just ban it as they took the piss too much.

Re:Mixed reaction

[mjwx]

Medallions limiting taxis increase cars, not the other way around. If you can walk out and hail a cheap cab any time of day, anywhere in the city, why would you ever want to own a car?

Because you like to drive.
Because you want to just pick up and drive somewhere.
Because you dont want to wait 15 minutes to take a 10 minute drive to the shop.
Because you live out in the suburbs or just outside of town.
Because you have kids and dont trust someone being paid less than minimum wage to drive safely.
Because you dislike the mafia-like organisation that illegal taxi operations inevitably become.

Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Ubiquitous and cheap taxis decrease the number of cars on the road. Medallions limiting taxis increase cars, not the other way around.

Reality disagrees with that assertion. London for a long time has had minicabs (private cars for hire) as well as an excellent public transport systems, London is truly a city where you can live without a car and they've still had to introduce congestion taxes to reduce the number of cars because people want to own a car, there are significant benefits to owning a car that outweigh the cost of car ownership.

Re:Mixed reaction

[mjwx]

I wish we could get away from the "we need regulations, because what if *this* happened!" model of legislation.

Sigh,

Is that any worse than "we need regulation because this *has now* happened.

As much as you dont want to admit it, the scenario the GP used is not a "once in a million years" event. In fact its quite likely to happen even if we remove the "hopped up on stims". Hell, just a 4 hour shift without a break is enough to produce enough fatigue that it's the equivalent of driving with a BAC above 0.08%. Now consider an 8 or 12 hour shift.

It's a simple appeal to emotion

Your logical fallacies are stereotype threat and appeal to probability.

The problem is you're dead wrong with the appeal to probability.

A rational argument might analyze not only the possibility of this happening, but also its *likelyhood*.

A rational person will analyse it. The problem you have is that the numbers dont add up for you.

The risk of having an accident is not a fixed thing, it increases with the number of hours you spend on the road. In Uber's case it also increases with the number of drivers. Ordinary transport companies have mitigation procedures to reduce this loss ranging from additional training and increased insurance to punitive measures like employment suspension and termination and in many nations professional drivers are subject to higher punitive measures than private drivers (the penalty for a truck driver speeding is 3-5x that of an ordinary driver in Australia).

Uber is not doing anything to improve the safety of its drivers, so as more drivers spend more time on the road, the likelyhood of a fatal accident becomes ever more likely. Given that Uber drivers are not professional drivers, this increases the risk significantly.

So the risk of being injured or killed by an Uber driver is a real threat and has already surpassed the chance of being injured or killed by an ordinary private driver (which is greater than being injured or killed by a professional driver) by the simple fact that Uber drivers spend more time on the road, increasing fatigue. We'll ignore the extra pressure caused by time constraints, talking passengers and so forth for now, I dont really need those to make my point.

It's a simple case of "market liquidity"

Again you're wrong here. Uber is not competing on the same terms as ordinary taxi companies. They pay no tax, they dont pay for insurance, it is a false economy and the problem with false economies is that they always fail in the end. In Uber's case, we're just waiting for that one fatal crash in a country with decent liabilty laws. Taxi companies here are protected because they pay tax, license fees and insurance so this limits their liability, Uber receives no such protection so when that one fatal crash happens, insurance companies will be allowed off the leash to tear Uber to shreds. Uber being killed by regulation would be a far kinder death.

Re:Mixed reaction

[mjwx]

an uber driver who is on his way to pick up a passenger is most certainly on the job

he started working when he accepted the fare and headed to the pickup point

Most insurance companies will not care if they had a job or not if it can be demonstrated that they were recently using the car for commercial purposes.

Definitely in Australia, if you had just finished an Uber job and run into the back of a Mercedes SL, even if you hadn't accepted another job your private insurance will legally be considered null and void as you were using the car for commercial purposes for that trip. The insurer of that SL will be permitted to come after you and Uber for the costs with no limitations.

I have no doubt insurers in other nations have similar regulations.

Re:Mixed reaction

[matfud]

Interesting take on Uber. How exactly does Uber cause less cars on the road?

Re:Mixed reaction

[matfud]

That depends on where you are. Yes many insurance policies require you to say if you are using your vehicle for company business. The number of miles you do per year and if you use the car for commuting to work. And yet still do not cover being a taxi.

Insurance on a private car can run from low mileage 3rd party fire and theft up to up to large mileage fully comprehensive any licensed driver.
But it does not cover (in this country) commercial taxi services.

It is not hard to get but you pay a fuck load more for it. The insurance companies actuary tables determine the rate. Free market and all. The government requires insurance so they are not left with the bill.

Re:Mixed reaction

[matfud]

Yep. It is not exactly odd is it?

  Used for commuting to work! It is one of those checkboxes on the insurance application forms that can significantly increase your premiums. Along with where you live. How old you are. What you do for a living. How many miles you drive per year. If you use it as a company car, who can drive it...etc. etc.

And none of that covers using it as a taxi.

Insurance companies do actually know how to make money. And they charge commercial taxis far more then privately owned cars as the risk for them is much much higher.

Re:Mixed reaction

[matfud]

The insurance companies can and do charge more depending on how you use your vehicle.
The government makes this simpler by requiring you to have a certain kind of insurance depending on how you use your vehicle. Private 3rd party up to taxi/livery. There are are a whole lot of options in between. But for various different kinds of use there are certain minimum requirements.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Humbubba]

Thanks! I really like the idea of a taxi conspiracy – I wasn't even going there. I was thinking about an emergent system made by insurance companies, lawyers, legislatures and the judiciary - without any intention necessary; and contrasting the liability of the individual in such a system with statistical probabilities of fault. I meant no disrespect to the licensed taxi drivers who do the hard work and offer great service. But as long as you're there, I just vacationed in New York, to say goodbye to Letterman. Guess what? NYC has lawful non-medallion taxis. The medallion system has the unintended consequence of creating a market for unlicensed cabs. Licensed cabs generally stay either in the central business district or the airport. Further, a Gypsy fare is known in advance, whereas the meters of licensed cabs can skyrocket in a traffic jam. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_taxicab_operation) --- BTW, The trouble with teleportation is why Enoch stayed at Simak's Way Station as long as he did.

Re:Mixed reaction

[TsuruchiBrian]

The government makes this simpler by requiring you to have a certain kind of insurance depending on how you use your vehicle.

I don't see how this is simpler.

I think the simplest solution would be that the government's only job is making sure insurance companies honor the contracts they sign (e.g. pay for damage to cars, etc), via the justice system, ensuring that insurance companies are solvent and can cover their claims, and setting basic guidelines for what kind of damage must be covered (i.e. to prevent fraudulent insurance companies that have exploitive gaps in coverage).

I really don't see the point in mandating different classes of licenses, and different classes of insurance.

I really don't see the problem in simply letting insurance companies decide to charge more to who they feel is a greater risk for damages.

Re:Mixed reaction

[matfud]

And the government requires certain levels of insurance coverage depending on what you do.

There are lots of policies available but there are certain limits of cover that are required. These are broken down into simple grouping rules that cover most situations. Private, Commercial, Taxi, LGV, HGV, motorbike etc.Each of which has a different required minimum level of cover.
Many require different licences. In the UK there are even different licences for driving a manual v's an automatic. If you can drive a manual shift you are allowed to drive an auto but not the other way around.

Re:Mixed reaction

[strikethree]

Not that I am arguing for or against any of this... If what you say is true, then why don't I get paid for the hour+ each day I spend in traffic going to and from work?

Re:Mixed reaction

[fluffernutter]

Industry regulation actually does prevent car accidents by ensuring drivers have not been working for 48 hours straight, but that isn't even what I was talking about. What I'm talking about is the fact that Uber does not allow drivers to afford commercial insurance, therefore they will not be covered. Unless you were born yesterday, you will know that insurance companies will use any excuse they can to NOT pay out, and they are fully supported by law, so don't expect your hospital bills to be paid if you lose a leg, can no longer work and need to sue.

If you want to support Uber then go change the laws so that insurance companies are forced to pay out in this situation. But don't support Uber otherwise.

Re:Mixed reaction

[david_thornley]

The law is that drivers must be insured up to legal minimum requirements while driving. After that, insurance is between the driver and the insurance provider the driver has chosen to deal with. If that's more expensive because the driver is driving commercially, the driver can either look for an insurance company that charges less or pay what the policy costs. Insurance companies do a lot of study of expected payouts, since they want to know what a certain batch of policies is likely to cost them, so they can price them accordingly. If most insurance companies overcharged for commercial insurance, then another company could lower its rates and get a lot of customers fast, so presumably commercial drivers do cost them more than personal ones.

We have one law, here, about needing to be insured. The different classes of insurance are simply what the company charges to provide insurance under different circumstances.

Re:Mixed reaction

[david_thornley]

Why must an Uber driver have a different insurance policy than I do? Ask your insurance agent. Mine has been informed that I commute in my car and don't use it commercially, and this affect what I pay for insurance. The difference is that the Uber driver needs to tell the agent that he or she drives commercially, and as it turns out the insurance company charges more.

Re: Mixed reaction

[jwdb]

I can start building a system outside their control here and now?

Because that would be a very concrete and definite violation of the social contract, much more clearly so than the nebulous accusations made against government and corporations earlier in this thread, and it's therefore in my best interest to stop you.

You can't expect to declare the contract invalid and not abide by it but still get the benefits, i.e. the basic protections of living in that society, among many others. That's parasitism.

Re:Mixed reaction

[TsuruchiBrian]

I think that makes a lot of sense. I think insurance laws, if designed correctly, shouldn't need to be changed with the arrival of ridesharing, because ridesharing is still just cars driving on the road that need to be insured.

Every state is different, but what irks me, is the claim that uber and lyft are violating existing regulations, while at the same time there are all these new regulations being passed specifically targeted at ridesharing. It would seem that the necessity of creating a new law implies that thy were not violating existing laws. Furthermore, well crafted laws shouldn't need to be amended by such a trivial change in society.

I would like to see laws designed more like software. Is there a reason to specifically single out taxis? If not then find a way not to do it. In this example it forces one to define what a taxi service is and creates loopholes for companies that can avoid this definition.

That's even assuming that the lawmakers are trying to do their job well. Many lawmakers are self serving and simply enact laws to benefit a particular lobby that supports them.

Re:Mixed reaction

[matfud]

I do not see how totally arbitrary insurance levels (decided on by you and the insurance company both of which do not need to tell the truth about their risks) would make it easier then a requirement for a minimum level of cover for specific usage.

It makes it simple for the police, the insurance companies and for you.

It is sort of like asking why 3rd party insurance is required at all. It is as others do not want to pay for your mistake. Now move that up so that the larger the vehicle the more coverage you need. Let insurance companies in and they will point out that if you have a larger liability then you pay a higher premium. And not at all oddly they will refuse payout if you breached the terms of your policy

Why do taxis pay more for insurance? The above is one of the reasons. Why should you be required to pay for this when you only behave like a cab hundreds of times a week?

Re:Mixed reaction

[TsuruchiBrian]

I do not see how totally arbitrary insurance levels (decided on by you and the insurance company both of which do not need to tell the truth about their risks) would make it easier then a requirement for a minimum level of cover for specific usage.

We already have laws that enforce contracts. And I already said I am not opposed to laws which guarantee minimum coverage provided by auto insurance. I would just have this be for everybody rather than only certain categories of licenses.

Why do taxis pay more for insurance? The above is one of the reasons. Why should you be required to pay for this when you only behave like a cab hundreds of times a week?

I agree that taxis and uber drivers should pay more for insurance. I don't see the point of a law mandating the solution that the market will naturally arrive at anyway.

This is like making a law that fast computers need to cost more than slow computers. We don't need a law like that. People selling fast computers can decide what to charge people, and people selling slow computers can decide what to charge people.

Re:Mixed reaction

[lsatenstein]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, some of these regulations are clear attempts to just protect the taxi industry from new models. On the other hand, some of the regulations (like having some basic insurance to cover if things go wrong) are pretty reasonable. On the gripping hand, both Uber and Lyft are both just blatantly ignoring regulations in many jurisdictions, and whether or not one thinks the laws should be there, it is hard to think that having cheaper car services is such a compellingly necessary service that it can morally or ethically justify ignoring laws.

If you wish to speak of morals and ethics, perhaps you should review the existing structure and their pricing model first.

There's a reason we have a compelling argument for competition here, and it's not because they have cooler looking cars.

There certainly is a compelling argument for competition, as there is for proper regulation. So when one looks at the existing structure the question becomes what parts of it need to be applicable to new entrants providing the same service, i.e a ride for hire? Uber et. al. are merely a modification of the existing call a taxi on a phone model and thus should be subject to similar regulatory oversight. You contact a dispatcher, they send an independent contractor to pick you up and take you to a location for a fee. They may not have a medallion on their car and may or may not own the car but the end result is the same - a ride to a location in exchange for money.

Of course the existing companies are fighting tooth and nail becasue there is a lot of money at stake. In locations where medallions are scarce people can have hundred of thousands of dollars tied up in medallions, the medallion may be the most valuable thing the company or individual owns. Uber threatens that by putting cars on the road, thus threatening to overcome the artificially constrained supply of cabs and make owning a medallion necessary and thus lowering the value of existing medallions. So one can expect the medallion owners, as well as those who lend money to people to buy them, to fight back. Interestingly enough a medallion is one expensive item that is tailored to people with poor or no credit, since as one lender put it "If they don't pay all I have to do is pry the medallion off of the hood. I can then resell it but they can no longer drive so they'll do anything needed to make their payments."

Our taxi drivers are licensed by the province. Licensing includes training as a chauffeur, training in first-aid, adequate legal-training and health checks.
A taxi driver, as chauffeur gets a stiffer driving test and as well, a courteous course and more. Furthermore, the vehicles are open to spot inspections for cleanliness, and safety. A taxi driver is a job that on the easiest days, is a hard life. The hours are long, most of the time, a split shift. and no promotion capabilities to look forward to.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Sabriel]

Make it $200/month net, rather than gross?

In Australia, the law is that you aren't considered a commercial taxi service if you only accept money for the cost of the fuel, but you may be considered one if you accept additional money for your time. So even if you gave someone a lift all the way from Cooktown to Perth, and it cost you $600 in fuel and they gave you $600, you'd be in the clear.

Re:Mixed reaction

[Zeromous]

When independently contracting a single car costs more than 100k/yr in medallions in a mid-size city, it is so expensive because there is huge demand to be met.

I'm not proposing the wild west, just less restraint, as it is clearly artificial and limiting revenue.

Re: Mixed reaction

[AK Marc]

We already practice that in the US, and it's nothing like what was described before.

Re: Mixed reaction

[jwdb]

Now you're just tilting at windmills. Get back to me when you grow up and can actually stay on topic in a discussion.

Re:Mixed reaction

[matfud]

The insurance company needs to know that you work for Uber for the prices to get elevated for you. And they do not in general (unless you tell them and pay more for your policy)

Re:Mixed reaction

[TsuruchiBrian]

They don't need to know you work for uber. They need to know how much you drive regardless of who you work for.

Re:Mixed reaction

[matfud]

No they need to know your risks. Only a part of that is how much you drive and your insurance premium (at least here) does reflect that. It also reflect where you live, where you park your car, what car you have, if you use it for company business and what you do as a profession. All of that for private vehicle insurance.

In the UK Uber cabs are legal but the drivers need to be licensed and registered (token on the plates) as a minicab driver. Mini cabs are only allowed to service by dispatch (no pickups as there needs to be a record) and also need to quote in advance. That sort of fits the bill for Uber drivers. But the insurance is higher as any possible claims for damage may be much much higher.

Re:Mixed reaction

[TsuruchiBrian]

OK so they need to know your risks regardless of who you work for.

This seems to be an argument for a law requiring accurate reporting of information to insurance companies.

But the insurance is higher as any possible claims for damage may be much much higher.

Higher than what? Regular drivers? *All* regular drivers?

There are some regular drivers out there that are much more of a risk than an uber driver. Why should the uber driver have to pay more?

I am all for reporting what you do for a living to the insurance companies. That's valuable information for them in determining risk. All I am saying is that we don't need the government telling insurance companies what that risk is. That is (should be) their job. That's what insurance companies do. They manage risk.

Re:Mixed reaction

[matfud]

At least here it is unlikely or even not possible to successfully sue the driver of the car you are in for damages. If you know them. You can but you are not likely to get a large claim (which the insurance company covers). NHS and all.

A taxi or minicab driver could be sued for a fuck load of money if they were, or could be considered, to have done anything wrong. There is a legal difference between driving for hire and giving someone a lift.

Re:Mixed reaction

[matfud]

And what kind of insurance do you have? Third party. third party, fire and theft. fully comprehensive. full comp and other drivers? Does it cover injuries to the person in your car? (less of a problem here due to NHS) but some injuries are life long and can still be costly.

So there needs to be a minimum level of insurance. The insurance companies will also want to know, and will force you to have some set of minimum maintenance on your vehicle.

All in all it is simpler to make it a requirement for taxis/minicabs to be licensed and for that license to have minimum set requirements.

Here Taxis have a fixed price meter. Minicabs have to be dispatched and a quote given beforehand (there are no hard and fast limits on the number of minicabs)

Re:Mixed reaction

[TsuruchiBrian]

Why shouldn't you be able to sue the driver for damages if their actions have harmed you?

The main purpose of the insurance is to pay for the damages caused by the driver.

Honestly what is the difference between the driver's insurance paying for the damages or the taxi company's insurance paying for the damages? You might say that the taxi company's insurance will pay more, but that is not necessarily the case. There could be a law requiring *every* driver to have adequate insurance (taxi driver or not). This would seem to be a much more useful law as it would offer full protection rather than only partial protection when riding in a friend's car.

Re:Mixed reaction

[TsuruchiBrian]

And what kind of insurance do you have? Third party. third party, fire and theft. fully comprehensive. full comp and other drivers? Does it cover injuries to the person in your car?

We have laws requiring minimum insurance coverage in California. I don't think I have ever seen any insurance ever be "fully comprehensive".

So there needs to be a minimum level of insurance. The insurance companies will also want to know, and will force you to have some set of minimum maintenance on your vehicle.

I have already agreed there needs to be a minimum level. What I am saying is that we don't need special regulations for taxi drivers and uber drivers to achieve this. You can have a law that says "All drivers must have $X coverage of Y different things", and another law that says "You must be truthful in the information you give to insurance companies", and we can let the insurance companies decide what to charge a taxi driver that drives X hours, and an uber driver that drives Y hours, and a pizza delivery man that drives Z hours. We don't need special government regulations for taxi drives. In fact it's better if we don't have them, because then we don;t have to worry about Uber skirting the official definition of a taxi.

All in all it is simpler to make it a requirement for taxis/minicabs to be licensed and for that license to have minimum set requirements.

It is simpler to have the minimum requirement be for everyone. I am not more likely to have higher medical bills if injured in a taxi than if injured in a friends car.

Here Taxis have a fixed price meter. Minicabs have to be dispatched and a quote given beforehand (there are no hard and fast limits on the number of minicabs)

Quote given beforehand is good. I don't think the fixed price is necessary if the price is given beforehand. I rather like the surge pricing of uber as a way to incentivize more drivers to be on the road at times when they are needed.

I think the surge pricing could be executed better. The goal is to get more drivers on the road (not for the price to be super high). I think if they used smarter algorithms, they could get more drivers on the road with more moderate price increases.

Ride hailing

[Oneflower]

There, corrected it for you.

These businesses have nothing to do with sharing: it's hiring a driver and a car.

Stop calling it that!

[Anonymous Coward]

It is NOT ridesharing! Ridesharing is when you share a ride with someone. These are people who are being paid to bring you somewhere, but they don't plan on going there too!

Ridesharing is perhaps carpooling to work. Or maybe a student hopping a ride with another student in college to go home for break.

Re:Stop calling it that!

[Nidi62]

It is NOT ridesharing! Ridesharing is when you share a ride with someone. These are people who are being paid to bring you somewhere, but they don't plan on going there too!

Ridesharing is perhaps carpooling to work. Or maybe a student hopping a ride with another student in college to go home for break.

The idea is they hope if they keep repeating it people will think it's true. Like the War on Christmas, or the Kardashians being famous.

Re:Stop calling it that!

[eepok]

Rideshare is a federally recognized term that refers to carpooling, vanpooling, transit, and even (counter-intuitively) biking and walking. It's generally used as an umbrella term to describe pretty much everything but driving alone in a car or taking a taxi.

The Associated Press' Style Book has requested that all media outlets begin using the term "Ride-hailing" instead of Ridesharing to prevent confusion.

Re:Stop calling it that!

[FranTaylor]

It's generally used as an umbrella term

so this makes it a law?

Re:Stop calling it that!

[DutchUncle]

++this. These are deliberate end-runs around existing taxi regulations. Claiming that it's "voluntary" and "crowd-sourced" is just a variation on companies calling people "contractors" (instead of "employees") to avoid giving them benefits. "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Joseph Goebbels

Re:Stop calling it that!

[tompaulco]

The Associated Press' Style Book has requested that all media outlets begin using the term "Ride-hailing" instead of Ridesharing to prevent confusion.

How about to avoid confusion, they just call it Livery Service?

Re:Stop calling it that!

[edtice1559]

There are regulations around ride sharing. In most government facilities you get a better parking space if you carpool, for example. And there may be special tax treatment. But ride sharing clearly refers to a situation where multiple people are going the same place and can improve efficiency by taking the same vehicle. Two people going from the office to the airport? Take one car! Uber and Lyft are sedan services. The only way it would be "ride sharing" is if two passengers shared an Uber car to the same destination. But then Uber is still a taxi service.

Re:Stop calling it that!

[AK Marc]

They are deliberately making an end run around the private car service by imitating it and meeting all the requirements thereof. The rest is propaganda, from both sides.

Fark those clowns

[spywhere]

Licensed, legitimate cab companies run a gauntlet of state & local regulations before they can collect fares. Uber and Lyft bypass them, start operating, and then act surprised when their illegal operation using unlicensed, unvetted drivers run into trouble.

In most places, the individual drivers and/or the company itself are required to have mercantile licenses... where are theirs?

Re:Fark those clowns

[friedmud]

Licensed, legitimate, crab companies also use the high barrier of entry in many places to keep out competitors in order to artificially inflate prices. They lobby like crazy to make sure that things stay the way they have been.

I think it's interesting that people take this stance against Uber. I thought "we" usually like the upstart guys that are overthrowing established monopolies...

Don't cry for the cab companies...

Re:Fark those clowns

[AthanasiusKircher]

Licensed, legitimate cab companies run a gauntlet of state & local regulations before they can collect fares. Uber and Lyft bypass them, start operating, and then act surprised when their illegal operation using unlicensed, unvetted drivers run into trouble.

Indeed. Can we just stop calling it "ridesharing," too? You want to offer a coworker a ride in your car to work? That's "ridesharing." You want to say, "Can you chip in a little for gas and wear-and-tear on the car and such"? That's still "ridesharing."

When you start offering these services to different strangers every day and trying to make a profit off of giving them rides, that's no longer "ridesharing" -- that's a taxi service.

And there are good reasons why many regulations exist to protect both drivers and passengers in these sorts of transactions. Inevitably, there are probably some bad regulations in most places -- ones that are unnecessary or bring in extra revenue to governments or end up protecting traditional existing cab companies or whatever.

But just because there are SOME bad regulations doesn't mean that NO regulations is the best idea (or is even better than having some bad ones along with the good ones).

Regardless, most businesses in the U.S. have to obey various rules according to the law. Don't like that? Then vote to change the laws or vote for representatives who will. But stop pretending that you're just trying to "share a ride" with people when you're running a business and trying to make money off of it. That's just as crooked and dishonest as some of the bad government regulations you're complaining about.

Re:Fark those clowns

[squiggleslash]

Licensed, legitimate, crab companies also use the high barrier of entry in many places to keep out competitors in order to artificially inflate prices.

Virtually every location I've ever been to that heavily regulates taxis regulates fares too. So no, the taxi company doesn't get to "inflate fares" by taking advantage of a lack of competition.

Re:Fark those clowns

[Holi]

Taxi companies do not set the prices that is done by the government sorry to say, in NYC it's the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission. So no they don't use the high barrier of entry for that at all. Any proof of that crazy lobbying? You have made a bunch of accusations but failed to back any of it up.

Re:Fark those clowns

[AK Marc]

Every location I've ever been to had the regulated fares set by the taxi regulator who is made up of taxi companies representatives.

Re:Fark those clowns

[david_thornley]

I don't care all that much about the taxi companies. I care about how many miles people are driving without insurance. Uber is going to do nothing about a pedestrian hit by a Uber driver without a passenger, and neither is the driver's insurance company unless the policy is effective at the time of impact, meaning a commercial policy. I rather like the idea of higher requirements on drivers who are paid to be on the road all the time.

In the US, it's difficult to get by without a car, since public transportation mostly sucks. Therefore, we tend to make it easy on people who are driving for their own purposes, by allowing what is really insufficient insurance and having easy-to-get driver's licenses. I see no reason why we shouldn't have more reasonable controls on people who are going to be spending a lot of time on the roads and getting paid for it. I'd like to have higher insurance requirements and a more exacting license exam for everybody, other things being equal.

Re:Fark those clowns

[friedmud]

And who lobbies the government to set the fares as high as possible?

Competition is a much better way to set taxi fares. But for that to work there has to be a free-market... which Uber is bringing.

Re:Fark those clowns

[friedmud]

I agree. I'm for some improved regulation to make sure that insurance is in place. But whatever that regulation is... it needs to also allow Uber to exist.

Massachusetts (where I currently live and use Uber) is passing some good regulations to ensure that Uber drivers are properly insured and vetted. Uber is actually happy about the deal because it specifically codifies that Uber is legal.

Both sides win.

"Ridesharing"

[American AC in Paris]

If y'all are still telling yourselves that services like Uber and Lyft are "rideshares", you're not paying attention, and haven't been for a long time.

Ridesharing suggests that people are sharing a ride from point A to point B--that is, they're both going that way, and thus are going to slug together to save gas/cost.

Uber and Lyft are effectively taxi services that uses an app instead of a dispatcher. The driver seeks out a fare, starts the timer, drives the fare to their destination, and then seeks out another fare.

The driver is not "sharing" anything, nor is the passenger. This is a taxi service.

Re:"Ridesharing"

[Hardhead_7]

True. These companies are "ridesharing" like hiring a carpenter is "hammersharing."

Re:"Ridesharing"

[tompaulco]

Or like hiring a high school dropout to operate on you is "Medical Sharing".

Re:"Ridesharing"

[FooAtWFU]

The driver is not "sharing" anything, nor is the passenger. This is a taxi service.

UberPOOL and Lyft Line, anyone?

Re:This is ridiculous!

[Nidi62]

How can something like this become a priority with lawmakers when there are other more serious issues to address such as unemployment, low wages, and the deficit? I for one cannot wait until the younger generation moves into congress. The current bunch of bats in the house are useless!

Nice rant, but what does Congress have to do with laws enacted by state legislatures?

Schizo

[JimSadler]

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.

Re:Schizo

[asylumx]

Yes, I tend to agree with you on this one and am a bit surprised by the anti-ridesharing stance here on slashdot today. That said there is a line between what you described and some of what appears to actually be happening, which is basically self-employed taxi services. In the aviation world we already have a rule that takes care of this problem. With your private pilot's license, you are allowed to carry passengers. Your passengers are allowed to chip in to pay for part of the flight, however the regulation states they can't pay more than their share and also they can't influence the decision to fly nor the plan. That is -- they can ride along and pay for half the gas and they can't tell the pilot where to take them. If you want to carry passengers for a profit, you have to pursue further certification.

A regulation like this but for automobiles would take care of the problem legally. Then all you have to worry about is enforcement (and IMO that's where it really gets difficult).

Re:Schizo

[dave420]

A unlicensed taxi is not "ridesharing", no matter how many times Uber and its ilk scream that's all they're doing. You not seeing the difference should inform you that maybe you need to read a bit more on the subject and see the precise differences, and the arguments made.

Re:Schizo

[American AC in Paris]

Then Uber comes along and creates a way to share a ride and the driver benefits a little bit as well.

Uber drivers aren't sharing a damned thing. They're charging for a service. That's called doing business, and if you want to do business, you need to follow certain rules, just like anything else in life. You can't just jump up and say "nuh-uh, this is sharing!" when you're really requiring people to pay you before you "share" anything.

If I open a gas station and call it a "fuel sharing service", does that mean that I get to bypass all those pesky rules and regulations for making sure my tanks don't leak into the ground? Or that I don't need to spend all that extraneous money to install safety cutoff switches (like anyone ever -uses- those, amirite?)

Re:Schizo

[FranTaylor]

which is basically self-employed taxi services.

you are not "self employed" if you are being told what to do by a third party.

If you want to carry passengers for a profit, you have to pursue further certification.

yeah, that's the ticket. normal car insurance does not cover vehicles for hire. having a driver's license does not qualify you to help handicapped passengers in and out of your vehicle. maybe you are going to tell me that they don't have to take handicapped people? so uber sends a special vehicle? let's go back to this "self employed" thing you said earlier?

Re:Schizo

[DutchUncle]

The difference is that these arrangements are truly between individuals, who were going that way anyway. We have a car-pool board here at work, and I remember a "ride home" carpool bulletin board at college. That's sharing. Uber and Lyft claim that they're just a dating service, and if the "date" turns out to be a hooker it's not their fault - but they also handle the transactions, so it is.

Re:Schizo

[GuB-42]

The difference : try to find an Uber driver who accepts to drive 200 miles for $10.
Uber is not at all like ridesharing. With ridesharing, several people who go to the same place share the same car. It is good as it decrease traffic congestion, pollution, etc... With Uber, it is the same as when you are driving by yourself regarding pollution and congestion, the difference is that you are not the driver, i.e. it is a taxi service.
Price is telling too. With ridesharing service, the driver usually get barely enough to cover the car running costs but it is fine : driver get to drive basically for nearly free and passengers get a cheap ride. With Uber passengers pay for the driver's time, like a taxi.
And now, why regulate Uber drivers more than ridesharing drivers ? A reason I can think of is that because of the finencial insensitive, Uber drivers will spend more time than normal on the road, increasing the risks. Rideshaing drivers would be better off not driving at all, they simply take passengers to lower the burden for the trips they would have done anyways.

If you want to compare with sex, I'm not against paid sex. However it is normal to have laws targeting prostitution because of the increased risks (STD, ...), either by regulating it or banning it altoghether. (putting aside questions about morality and crimmnality).

Re:Schizo

[edtice1559]

I have no idea how such a disingenuous argument got modded up. The idea of the HOV lane is that if people are planning to make the same trip, they can travel together and be more efficient. What your friend is doing is legitimately "ride sharing" but that's not what Uber and Lyft offer. Instead, in their model your friend would ride with somebody who has no interest in going there except for the money that she paid. The fare would be way more than $10. (Probably like $150) Taxis are allowed in many HOV lanes so HOV or not isn't relevant here. What matters is that if you are out charging for rides, it's a taxi service, not ride sharing.

Re:Schizo

[AK Marc]

you are not "self employed" if you are being told what to do by a third party.

By your definition, you are a telephone company employee if you take phone orders.

Re:Schizo

[asylumx]

I'm sorry but I can't follow the point you're trying to make. I seriously just don't get the analogies. Who said anything about whether you could take handicapped people or not? Uber is just a marketplace; the drivers don't work for Uber. That's like saying the companies who sell things on E-Bay work for E-Bay. They don't. E-Bay is just a marketplace.

Re:This is ridiculous!

[American AC in Paris]

Forget it, he's on a roll.

Re: Battle to Regulate Free Market

[smooth wombat]

Auctions. They are they ultimate free market. People bid on something up to the point they believe the product is worth. No government interference or price controls.

Ta ta, Ubes...

[frank_adrian314159]

Uber ... is threatening to leave ... Oregon.

Since we've lived without "pump your own" gas for this long, I figure lack of Uber "services" and reliance on old school taxis and mass transit will be fine with our retro/hipster kultur here in PDX.

Actually, it's fine with me, too. I have a car. I know how to drive.

Re:This is ridiculous!

[jellomizer]

Well Uber, is a good way for people to create/supplement their income with a relatively low starting cost.

The problem with today's economy, it is too tough for the average citizen to work to control their income, If they work part time, they get unpredictable hours so they cannot get a second job, If they work full time, they are either salaried or forced to work their hours.

Our IT infrastructure, has created many good Starter jobs (Mail Room) obsolete, So you will need to be skilled in order to get in.

I will need to applaud Uber, as its business model, allows for people to work for their money, the harder they work the more they get paid.

Not all bad

[friedmud]

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.

Re:Not all bad

[Nidi62]

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.

If the driver of a vehicle is not going to the vicinity of your destination whether you are his passenger or not, then it is not ridesharing. It is a paid taxi service or a hired car. If Uber wants to call themselves a rideshare company, then require drivers to register a destination before they can see potential fares, allow them to only take fares going to the same vicinity as their registered destination, and do not allow them to pick up more fares for a new destination (they can drop off a fare along their route and pick up a new one along the same route however) until they have reached their original destination, checked in, and registered a new destination. There: now you are ridesharing.

Re:Not all bad

[dave420]

Precisely. That is a perfect demonstration of the difference between ridesharing and a taxi service, even though both consist of a driver driving someone somewhere, and sometimes involving money changing hands.

Re:Not all bad

[flopsquad]

That's a very strange sentiment, given your sig. You don't actually advocate that governments require that, do you?

I think we can all agree that the majority of business on Uber or Lyft is not ridesharing under your definition. Drivers are going to destinations to pick up fares. So maybe the semantics are off on "ridesharing."

But in terms of the demographics, I think a much higher proportion of Uber drivers are able to part time taxi in addition to going to school or another job. In that sense, they are sharing their car and time with the Uber/Lyft pool, as opposed to a full time taxi driver with a bright yellow taxi cab.

The fact that you're in another person's non-taxi vehicle makes it different enough that it merits it's own word. And I can't think of a name that's catchier and more apt than ridesharing. I'm open to suggestions, though.

Re:Not all bad

[Nidi62]

That's a very strange sentiment, given your sig. You don't actually advocate that governments require that, do you? I think we can all agree that the majority of business on Uber or Lyft is not ridesharing under your definition. Drivers are going to destinations to pick up fares. So maybe the semantics are off on "ridesharing." But in terms of the demographics, I think a much higher proportion of Uber drivers are able to part time taxi in addition to going to school or another job. In that sense, they are sharing their car and time with the Uber/Lyft pool, as opposed to a full time taxi driver with a bright yellow taxi cab. The fact that you're in another person's non-taxi vehicle makes it different enough that it merits it's own word. And I can't think of a name that's catchier and more apt than ridesharing. I'm open to suggestions, though.

There is a term for that: a part-time job. If a rose by any other name smells just as sweet, then a cab by any other name smells just as....bad? In any case, once you are trying to derive an income from driving passengers around you are a taxi or a for-hire car, all of which have regulations in place. It's fine if you want to have a side job, a lot of people do. But the simple fact that it isn't your primary source of income or what you spend most of your time doing doesn't mean you get to ignore laws and regulations. And yes, I would be fine with the government classifying Uber as ridesharing if they did something similar to what I described. But currently, Uber perfectly fits the definition of a taxi service.

Re:Not all bad

[wired_parrot]

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.

There already exists taxi regulations that cover Uber, which in every respect is taxi company. However, you're dead right as to why Uber is pushing for these changes - it allows them to operate and claim legitimacy, while providing a framework of regulation that is a "light" version of what real taxi companies have to deal with, addressing only the most egregious flouting of commercial taxi operations such as commercial insurance and background checks. These so-called ridesharing regulations appear to completely ignore allowable fare increases (Uber's surge pricing), who they can or cannot pick up, handicap access, amongst others. They are a way for Uber to legitimize into law their competitive advantage.

Re:Not all bad

[edtice1559]

There's nothing wrong with somebody using their own car as a taxi if they are following the state and local regulations. The point is that they are still a taxi. Smaller towns may have looser regulations. Big cities sometimes require certain makes and models of vehicle even. The problem comes when you are operating a tax, calling it something else, and not following the rules.

Re:Not all bad

[flopsquad]

So you've never taken a taxi in a small town? This is pretty much how it works in rural america. The taxi driver drives his own car. You need a new word for that, too?

Honestly, I haven't. For years I had enough trouble getting a taxi in my large (non-NYC) city, and it's even worse where I grew up (both are top 25 US pop). Pretty much any place I go anymore, if I need to hire transportation, I'm not looking up the number for Yellow Cab... it's just much faster and more convenient to pop open the Uber app.

And I do think the Uber/Lyft paradigm is different enough to merit it's own terminology. If I tell a friend I'm taking a taxi, she doesn't think "Oh, he's hailing one of many different types of paid transportation services, one of which is popularly referred to as 'ridesharing.'" She thinks I flagged down an actual cab that was driving by.

Then again, I don't think that "tweep" and "freegan" are all that worthy of new words, but language marches on. Ridesharing isn't really a ride you share with a serendipitous stranger and a peanut is neither a pea nor a nut.

Re:Not all bad

[tompaulco]

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.

Ridesharing has always been a legal activity. But running a taxi service and calling it ridesharing does not make it ride sharing. Otherwise, the other taxi companies could do the same thing.

Re:Not all bad

[flopsquad]

To the freegan with the mod points: I'm sorry, your people really do deserve a word!

Re:Not all bad

[matfud]

A peanut is a pea. Fabaceae

Re:Not all bad

[flopsquad]

A peanut is a pea. Fabaceae

Sure, but then a peanut is also kudzu, and we're also orangutans.

Re:Not all bad

[matfud]

You would not want to eat one if you had allergies. I like orangutans, they live in library's.

But I do disagree agree with your statement about rideshare being used as a "new term" as in this case it is not.

Re:Not all bad

[friedmud]

Sigh - I was just using the words "ride sharing" because it was convenient. The bill cover "ride hailing" services.

Or whatever you want to call them...

Re: Battle to Regulate Free Market

[Nidi62]

Auctions. They are they ultimate free market. People bid on something up to the point they believe the product is worth. No government interference or price controls.

What about price reserves?

What about car pools

[mark-t]

If a driver is driving 3 other people where he works to and from work, and collecting 10 bucks a week from each of them in exchange to help pay for gas, is that illegal too?

Re:What about car pools

[dave420]

Of course not - that is actual ride sharing. The driver is going to their destination regardless of whether others will be driving with them. The money is not intended to be financial gain, but recovering losses. Can you not see the difference?

Re:What about car pools

[mark-t]

I can see the difference easily, of course... but matters of intent can get really hard to differentiate when it comes to law.... you might not have meant to be speeding, for instance, but if you do, you can still get a ticket despite your intentions.

Re:What about car pools

[FranTaylor]

but matters of intent can get really hard to differentiate when it comes to law....

if you have an uber account and you are accepting rides then your intent is pretty clear

Re:What about car pools

[DutchUncle]

He would be going back and forth to work anyway. The only question I would have: is 10 bucks is a reasonable split of costs, or is the driver making a profit? (Including, is the driver sharing in the total cost?) If it's profiteering, then it's on or over the line. If it's sharing the cost, then it's sharing the ride. Uber and Lyft are directing drivers where they wouldn't have been going otherwise, charging fees clearly priced to make a profit. They're taxi dispatching services.

Re:Battle to Regulate Free Market

[serviscope_minor]

I'm outraged by theses stupid politicians trying to regulate away our freedom to do business with whomever we wish.

They're not though. As far as I can tell you're still free to bargain for rides however you want on your own land. Now once you start doing such things on public roads where your decisions affect third parties, well, then it's reasonable the government gets involved.

Or do you think you should have the freedom to impose arbitrary risks on other people?

It's about the market

[fluffernutter]

To people who have the simpleton view that the taxi companies are hiding behind these laws to protect their own income, consider for a moment what will happen to the marketplace if it is deregulated. First of all, the market can't be regulated for some and not for others. If any player is exempted from regulation at all then you might as well not have any, because the average customer just wants the cheapest price and doesn't really give a shit about regulation when they use a service. To get the lowest price, everyone must cut things like regular service and insurance coverage to compete. Now the customer expecting the lowest price will never think of these things when they get in the vehicle, but they benefit from them all the same every time they use the service.

Before you get into an Uber car, will you check the brakes? Will you take a close look at the tires? Will you ask for proof of adequate insurance? Hell no. Therefore you will be riding in an unsafe car, and even worse, safer cars will be unaffordable and therefore nonexistent. Do you really want to be relying on an industry full of shitty cars, and shitty drivers? Do you want an industry where your driver is making pennies and stretched, forced to lie and cheat to keep his living going? Just wait until cars actually are automated. Then no one makes any money at all.

There is no doubt that capitalism is a race to the bottom, we can try to hold it up a little longer.

Re:This is ridiculous!

[fluffernutter]

On the contrary, I am absolutely shocked that lawmakers do care about this since it goes to safety of the public. Lawmakers don't seem to give a crap about citizens these days.

Re:This is ridiculous!

[fluffernutter]

It's very sad that the economy has gotten so bad that people now call being an Uber driver "employment".

Re:This is ridiculous!

[fluffernutter]

Have you conducted a safety inspection of every vehicle you have been in? Do you have proof that the driver is in a reasonable condition to drive in an alert manner? No? I guess it's an awful good thing that the industry takes care of that for you then.

Re:This is ridiculous!

[Rhipf]

This was the same sentiment of the youth in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's.......

By the time the "younger generation" moves into congress they become the same money oriented entities that are in congress now.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: Battle to Regulate Free Market

[Nidi62]

WTF? Interesting? The seller disagrees with the bidders on the value of the product and declines to sell it. The seller may have a point, the seller may be an idiot.

THe person I replied to said auctions have no price controls. A reserve is a price control. If the reserve is higher than the highest bid, then obviously it is priced above market value but they will not sell below that set price.

Re:This is ridiculous!

[FranTaylor]

I will need to applaud Uber, as its business model, allows for people to work for their money, the harder they work the more they get paid.

and just think, with all of these uninsured drivers, we will have lots of ex-uber drivers who are bankrupt because they got into accidents and their insurance would not cover them because they were being paid

and then we will have all of the injured passengers who will get no payment for their injuries and thus will end up having the taxpayer pay for their injuries

yes indeed we look forward to this nirvana of bankrupt drivers and maimed passengers and higher taxes

Re: Battle to Regulate Free Market

[FranTaylor]

who exactly do you call when the winner of the auction pays with counterfeit currency?

who do you call when armed bandits show up at the auction to steal the stuff?

who do you call when the renoir you just bought turns out to be fake?

tell us more about this lack of government interference in auctions

just think

[FranTaylor]

There is a reason why NYC regulated taxis. Before they did, the streets were choked with them because the "free market" asked too many people to drive their taxis at the same time in the same place. Does NYC have the right to regulate its taxis? What about other places?

Prepare for an adequate compromise no one loves :)

[jjn1056]

So in the end what will happen is a bunch of regulations will be passed. Some of them will be sensible stuff to protect consumers and probably stuff to protect all these new contractors (the drivers), and other people on the road. Some will be blatant pandering to the established taxi companies, which will use whatever political power they have to keep their status quo. And some stuff will be some new taxes or personal axes that the legislators have to grind. So basically democracy at work :) Just be sure to make your voice heard so in the end the compromise is one that is acceptable to you.

Re: Battle to Regulate Free Market

[Anonymous Coward]

And?
 
Reserves are set by the seller not by an external party.
 
Apologies for flipping out in the previous comment.

Re:This is ridiculous!

[FranTaylor]

On the contrary, I am absolutely shocked that lawmakers do care about this since it goes to safety of the public. Lawmakers don't seem to give a crap about citizens these days.

insurance companies want people to be insured

property owners want to minimize their losses

does it make sense now?

Ridesharing my ass

[Holi]

Uber is not ridesharing, its a fucking car service with an app. There are already plenty of laws to cover car services, it's just uber ignores them. Hold them accountable for the laws they are breaking, I mean everyone's always saying they want the playing field leveled, well Uber is not leveling the playing field they are burning it down and fuck anyone who gets hurt.

Let them compete.

[Charcharodon]

There should only be a regulation or two for taxis. You should have to identify yourself properly and be registered with the city. That registration shouldn't cost more than the price of filing the paperwork. That is it.

If you piss off enough of your customers no one will do business with you after a while. Personally the Uber concept needs to be spread everywhere.

You are an asshole to date, work with, work for, do business with, go to school, about returning things you borrow, paying your bills, you should be blacklisted from society as a whole. Eventually you'll either stop being an asshole or you will starve.

Re:This is ridiculous!

[Mashiki]

Well back in the depression taxi cab drivers were highly coveted positions. Things really have come full circle. I also like the moderation of my previous comment, it appears the obama shills don't like that.

Re: Battle to Regulate Free Market

[AK Marc]

No government interference or price controls.

The sentence works if you say "No price controls or government interference." as well as "No government interference or government price controls." As written it is ambiguous. Arguing about the ambiguity is silly. Both interpretations are grammatically correct, but the OP hasn't clarified.

Re: Battle to Regulate Free Market

[mjwx]

Auctions. They are they ultimate free market. People bid on something up to the point they believe the product is worth. No government interference or price controls.

Price reserves are a price control.

Besides this, tenders are better as you aren't legally bound to accept an offer you dont like. Tenders have the advantage of not telling the purchaser what you will accept, so a purchaser may offer far in excess of what you wanted, also Auctions can turn against the seller when buyers refuse to bid (which is why you have to have a reserve).

Re:This is ridiculous!

[fluffernutter]

You're missing the point. The government should be making sure that commercial carriers of people have proper protection for those people. That is in essence the role of government, so why would you be confused about the fact that they are focusing on it?

Re:This is ridiculous!

[fluffernutter]

By allowing Uber in and removing regulation, we will be destroying every bit of the taxi industry that you say was so coveted. There will only be a new kind of industry where you need a ride and you can't call a Taxi, you can only call a person driving a car. Once automation cars are a reality, you won't even be able to call a person, just a car.

Re:This is ridiculous!

[Mashiki]

Well that depends now won't it? Where I live, operating any type of taxi service requires a chauffeurs license and insurance to protect against liabilities. In the case of Uber they're operating an illegal taxi service, not a ride share service. Ride share here, falls under specific definitions.

Of course, even with automated cars you're still going to have to have insurance, which should be really interesting.

Re: Battle to Regulate Free Market

[AK Marc]

So anti-competitive collusion from an oligopoly isn't a "price control"? Most people would put price fixing into "price control".

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion