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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

Ride hailing

[Oneflower]

There, corrected it for you.

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

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?

"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: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.

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.