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

[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

[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.

Ride hailing

[Oneflower]

There, corrected it for you.

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