Uber and Lyft Spend $8.2 Million To Lose Fingerprint Election, Vow To Leave Austin (examiner.com)

On Saturday voters in Austin, Texas refused to repeal a new regulation that requires fingerprinting drivers for ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft. In Austin's most expensive election ever, the ride-sharing services spent over $8.2 million pushing Proposition 1, apparently outspending their opponents by a 80:1 ratio. But on election day, the proposal to repeal ultimately received just 39,083 votes -- 44% of the total cast -- meaning the lobbyists spent $209 for each vote received. Both services have said they will cease operations in Austin rather than perform the fingerprint-based criminal background checks.

Comments

Waste of money

[etinin]

They could rather have spent this kind of money performing the actual background checks.

Re:Waste of money

[Iamthecheese]

I'm glad they fought this law, but not because I case about Uber. The Stasi had nothing on the level of surveillance being done in modern America.

Re:Waste of money

[SvnLyrBrto]

There is the old saying: "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.". If Uber and Lyft let themselves get bullied into submission in one place, doesn't that set the precedent for it to happen everywhere? Hell, Google even left the largest market in the world when pushed too far. And we celebrated that move.

Re:Waste of money

[sycodon]

They already do perform background checks.

Make no mistake, this had nothing to do with "safety" on the party of the City Council. This was about control, political connections, and Austin getting a taste of Uber and Lyfts cash. It's a classic shake down. Several City Council members have close ties to the local Taxi companies, who were getting their clocks cleaned.

Taxi Cabs have enjoyed a public monopoly and regulated shortages for decades, The barrier to entry is very high in the Taxi market. The city made lots of money from taxes and fees and regulated what taxis went when and where. Along come Uber and Lyft. they don't play Austin's game.

Before Uber and Lyft, it was very difficult to find a cab at 2AM downtown. There weren't enough for all the partiers. With Uber and Lyft in the market, drunk driving incidents have gone down and people were very satisfied with Uber and Lyft's service. So what happens when a business is making money and has happy customers? Yep, the politicians step in to fuck it up. Austin wants to control prices, wants fees, and wants to limit the number of drivers.

So now Uber and Lyft leave and more people will stumble to their cars at 2am and drive drunk, More people will drive their own vehicles downtown, taking up parking and clogging up traffic. The cost of getting a ride will go up and service will decline.

It's the Detroit model where special interests win out over common sense.

Re:Waste of money

[Anonymous Coward]

I am very much a libertarian sort of person, but I don't agree with Uber and Lyft on this one. That they should spend so much money to avoid conducting the most basic level of a serious background check makes me wonder if the are trying for willful blindness. A bogus background check just asks you to say who you are, and then they check your name. By requiring fingerprinting, Austin is helping to insure that individuals aren't side-stepping a criminal past.

It is fairly easy to get fake credentials such as name and SS#, and pass yourself off as someone else. Admittedly, someone could fake or alter their fingerprints, but it is more durable. It is also less intrusive than a DNA check, which I would oppose, even though it might catch a few more people than fingerprints alone.

I don't believe there should be unlimited "liberty" for those who are going to have another person alone in their vehicle, for hire.

Re:Waste of money

[buddyglass]

Full disclosure: I live in Austin and voted "Yes" on Prop 1. Two things I don't understand about your argument above:

First, how does requiring fingerprint-based background checks put money in the City's pocket?

Second, what is the actual cost (both in terms of "dollars" and "inconvenience") to implement fingerprint-based background checks? Is it really that much? Couldn't Uber and Lyft simply require prospective drivers to foot the cost for their own fingerprinting? That might shrink the pool of drivers, but Uber and Lyft would still get their cut.

Re:Waste of money

[sycodon]

Austin is going to actually do the fingerprinting and background check

Odds that the costs will be passed along without some fee or markup?

Nil.

Austin never regulates anything without some sort of cost plus arrangement.

Re:Waste of money

[squiggleslash]

So why were voters adamantly against Lyft and Uber being exempt from these regulations?

I mean, you describe it as a "shakedown" by "City Council members (with) close ties to the local Taxi companies", yet it looks to me like even in the face of overwhelming pressure to do the opposite, a majority of Austinites supported it. Are you arguing a majority of the people in Austin have "close ties" to the local Taxi companies? Or were they bamboozled by a campaign that apparently barely existed and somehow managed to miss the "truthful" message of a campaign that was supposedly hard to miss?

And what, exactly, is the problem with free city mandated background checks anyway?

Just curious, but this kinda sorta looks like one of those cases where Uber (et al) has decided their business shouldn't be subject to any of the same regulations as existing companies that do the same thing, even the regulations that have nothing to do with the differences in their service. Would you say this is a fair description of what's happening here?

Or do you think local governments should only be able to regulate the precise nature and quality of background checks if it applies to drivers who are hailed from the street, but not if they're hailed from an app on a mobile phone?

What is it about apps that makes the concept of background checks entirely different?

Re:Waste of money

[Frosty Piss]

The taxi companies (and according to you, the city council members in their pockets) spent *CLOSE TO NOTHING* to oppose this proposition. Uber and Lyft spent 8.2 million to push is. Yet the CITIZENS of Austin rejected Uber / Lyft's view. Did the taxi companies pay off everyone who opposed this prop? Or perhaps you drink too much right-wing Kool-Aid...

Re:Waste of money

[AK Marc]

A libertarian would be for an absence of checks, but increased penalties for violating them. Have the Uber driver sign that they have no criminal past (no check needed, no work by the gvt), but if someone is found to have lied, pull their license, and black-list them from doing it again (subsequent infractions punished by jail time). That's a more libertarian mechanism.

Re:Waste of money

[art123]

And that is why the libertarian mechanism does not always work. Oh, you lied about having 10 DWIs and now you just killed your passenger and yourself? Well, that's it! You are blacklisted and can never drive for Uber again. Take that.

Re:Waste of money

[AK Marc]

First, how does requiring fingerprint-based background checks put money in the City's pocket?

The last time I had a fingerprinting done in Texas for a background check, I had to go to the local police department and pay them cash (only cash, and no change given) for a police officer to print me. They had to stamp it to verify that the prints were from the person on the ID, so you can't print yourself and "borrow" someone else's fingers. The fee wasn't huge, but it was a fee paid to the local city. There was a separate fee to the state for the actual background check.

Do you know what the process is for fingerprint background checks, or were you just assuming it wasn't a revenue source?

Couldn't Uber and Lyft simply require prospective drivers to foot the cost for their own fingerprinting?

That's the standard practice, but is illegal. Requiring an employee to pay to work was outlawed in the 1800s, as part of Reconstruction. The laws have since been loosened, bot early post-slavery practices included "hiring" a person at $1 to work a field, and charging him a $2 fee to work the field. Then, once in debt, require he work off the debt. It resulted in permenant indentures servitude, which is more commonly called slavery. So outlawing slavery didn't work, and laws were put in place, especially in the south (and some federal laws) that ban an employer from requiring costs to work. They are not commonly applied, but for someone like Uber, I'm sure the crowd here would have no qualms equating Uber to slavery, and holding Uber to laws that are never used these days.

Re:Waste of money

[Frosty Piss]

No, we just have lots of leftists who like government being involved in every aspect of your life. We also have asinine bans on bags at grocery stores.

Might I suggest Austin is not the right own for you?

Re:Waste of money

[thrich81]

If you don't like it, then move somewhere else in Texas. Austin is pretty unusual in the state, being 'leftist' and all. Maybe that's why Austin is such a desirable place to live and people are moving in like crazy. I've got a friend up in Wichita Falls, there's no problem getting cheap property up there. Or if you prefer coastal living, I've got another friend in Brazosport, no leftyness there and plenty of cheap property. What does Austin have that Wichita Falls, Brazosport, Vidor, Odessa etc. don't, that could make it worth living in such a leftist community?

Re:Waste of money

[Watter]

And that is why the libertarian mechanism does not always work. Oh, you lied about having 10 DWIs and now you just killed your passenger and yourself? Well, that's it! You are blacklisted and can never drive for Uber again. Take that.

Incorrect. The damages to the business of allowing something like that to happen would be a strong and compelling incentive to perform self regulation, which is exactly what Uber was already doing.

Seriously. It would take 10 seconds of research to know that Uber ALREADY does exactly the kind of background check yo complain about them them not doing; and they do this without the government forcing them to do so. Why? Because previous attempts by others in this market failed to take the necessary precautions and for that, and other reasons, are no longer around.

Free and open markets aren't perfect, but they are so much better than the government controlled alternative that I'm constantly stunned with people failing to see the difference, especially with an example like Uber right there in front of them.

Re:Waste of money

[dywolf]

rank utter ignorance.

research some actual corporate malfeasance.

the tobacco industry is a GREAT example.
or early food processors.
or DuPont's legacy involving C8, using in making Teflon, a chemical now so prevalent that there is no place on earth NOT contaminated by it.
or lead, something most of the rest of world had reduced usage of by the 1920s, but the US went along putting in everything, everywhere, for another 60 years, blatantly ignoring, at the behest of the companies dependent on it, all the science pointing to its ill effects.

the fact is that damages to the business have never scared companies from poisoning customers, destroying the environment, or any other possible harms. they are amoral institutions that know exactly what the value of a human life is to their bottom line. and the math frequently comes out to "we can afford to harm X number of people before profits suffer", and then they operate as such.

self-regulation is a fairy tale told by the ignorant.

Re:Waste of money

[TheRaven64]

self-regulation is a fairy tale told by the ignorant.

Not so, it's a fairy tale told by the informed who have a vested interest in continuing to operate without regulation. Unfortunately, they've also now learned about regulator capture, so the choice is often between ineffective regulation and no regulation.

Re:Waste of money

[rgbscan]

Austin Limo's and Taxis are already fingerprinted. All they wanted was for Lyft and Uber to make a one time 30 minute visit to get fingerprinted like the other drivers.

This is not about Austin getting in on Uber and Lyft's cash. It would be a one time fee, and you know it would be paid for by the drivers as independent contractors - just like the required vehicle inspection is, so how is Austin getting in on that sweet, sweet rideshare money?

I disagree about your premise of the quality of the rideshare background checks too. Uber and Lyft background check the input of the phone app - which could be anything. Uber never meets you in person after all. "Borrowing" an identity someone else isn't too hard in that case. At least doing it by fingerprint matches up the human to the background check.

Re: Waste of money

[daninaustin]

There is no reason that another service couldn't have background checks and use that as a selling point.

Re:Waste of money

[gzuckier]

No, we just have lots of leftists who like government being involved in every aspect of your life. We also have asinine bans on bags at grocery stores.

You think you got it bad, in my town the government has set up big colored lights at the corners of streets and is telling us drivers we need to stop when the red light is on or some such overly complex system, typical government regulatory bureaucracy. A big giveaway to the people who make those lights. What a crock. What right does the government have to interfere in my right to move from place to place peaceably? I can judge perfectly well if I can get through the intersection before the other guy, certainly better than some incompetent corrupt lifetime civil servant in his posh office with his union and his pension.

It is their right to leave

[davidwr]

Austin voters just said "we don't like your current business model, change it or stop doing business until you do."

The companies replied "okay, we can do that."

By the way, there are talks in the works. I wouldn't be surprised to see the companies come back within a year, under some sort of compromise.

Re:It is their right to leave

[pem]

That's completely backwards.

Austin defeated an ordinance that was forced onto the ballot by Uber and Lyft, who said "Pass our ordinance or we'll pick up our toys and go home."

This was never really about Austin. It was about teaching a lesson to other cities who might follow Austin's lead.

Uber and Lyft have backed themselves into a corner. If they leave, they'll leave an opening for other companies to come in and grow (GetMe is already here and probably salivating at the prospect); if they don't leave, they'll show other cities they can be cowed after all. So expect them to leave long enough to show other cities they mean business, but then come back with deep discounts and free rides to kill off any homegrown competition.

FWIW, it's not just about fingerprints. For example, currently, Uber and Lyft are theoretically prohibited from stopping in traffic lanes (because people die when they do that), but the proposed ordinance was going to change that because they can make more money if they inconvenience everybody else.

But to the extent it was about vetting drivers, don't for a minute think that Uber and Lyft are planning on cheerfully taking responsibility for the actions of their drivers anyway.

Re:It is their right to leave

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but the passenger still died. The regulation is designed to prevent the death, instead of just correctly assign blame after the death. Sort of the difference between the liberal and libertarian viewpoints I guess.

Re:It is their right to leave

[gcswt]

"Against the public will" is the basis of freedom. What Rights are violated by a business not doing background checks? Who is the victim? This is bad law run amok. If you don't like their policies don't use it, don't cry to the government to be a goon and bully. Absurd.

Re:It is their right to leave

[Anonymous Coward]

Property rights. Who do you think owns the roads?

Ads Backfired, I Hope

[thrich81]

I live just outside of Austin and couldn't vote on this but would have voted against Prop 1 (against Uber an Lyft) just because of the annoying radio ads constantly running against it -- the ads with the hushed, concerned female voice saying things like, "Did you know that the city will take over background checks, at taxpayers expense?" Combine that with the threats to leave the market... After enough of those I wasn't even interested in looking into the merits of the arguments on both sides. Good riddance, although Uber and Lyft will probably run to the state government and get some State Rep from Bumscrew, West Texas to sponsor a bill overturning all local elections/ordinances preventing "consumer ride choice freedom".

Re:Ads Backfired, I Hope

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in the city and got tired of the ad barrage about government overreach. What Prop 1 would have done is not have regulations that apply to taxi drivers apply to them, as well as giving Uber/Lyft drivers the ability to stop and park -anywhere-, which causes traffic jams as they can sit blocking a road for almost a half hour.

Taxi drivers also have to have a special licence in Texas, a chauffeur's license. This is not cheap. Ridesharing services? AFIAK, Nothing needed, so they get a free pass when it comes to this regulation.

My take... if they want to take their toys and go home... so be it. There are other ridesharing companies which will obey the law of the land, who will gladly take their business.

Re:Ads Backfired, I Hope

[casings]

I also live in Austin and completely agree with you. Unsolicited text messages are no way to endear yourself to people. But the radio in my car was broken so at least I was spared of those ads, and I never received any physical mail either.

But my real qualm is that these companies used to be start-ups. Now that they are so huge, they have become just as stubborn to change as the Taxi companies. Nicht Gut, Uber. As this will only allow competitors to enter the market and take over.

Also I would not be surprised to see other areas adapting similar regulations on ride sharing services, as to be honest they seemed pretty reasonable. Are they going to spend $200 bucks per vote to lose again? I bet the spend even more next time, because apparently they've lost any sort of flexibility they had as a start up, so they would only see this as a problem of not having spent enough when really they should have just add the features to support it. Oh well free money to getme.com and others.

Re:Ads Backfired, I Hope

[R3d M3rcury]

I live in the city and got tired of the ad barrage about government overreach. What Prop 1 would have done is not have regulations that apply to taxi drivers apply to them [...]

This is what torques me off about Uber/Lyft.

It's not ride-sharing. It's a taxi service.

Ride-sharing is, like, "Hey, I'm going to work and I happen to drive past the airport. If anyone needs a lift to the airport and it's not too inconvenient, I'll give you a ride." Taxis, conversely, drive around to areas and wait for people who need rides and then take them where they want to go. When they drop off that person, they wait for someone else.

I would be more than willing to bet that the majority--even the vast majority--ascribe more to the taxi model than the ride-sharing model. Sorry--they're taxis. Uber/Lyft are, essentially, nationwide taxi companies.

Incessant advertising

[SydShamino]

My friends who have used Uber said that they were getting like 3-4 mail advertisements a week about this, plus emails, texts, etc. Some who otherwise wouldn't care voted against it because they were so annoyed at the spam.

Austin still has a driver service besides taxis. Get Me operates here and complies with the background checks.

Re:Incessant advertising

[pem]

I don't use Uber, and a couple of times, I got 3 physical mail advertisements in a single day, not to mention phone calls.

AFAICT, they really screwed themselves with the lies and distortions in their ad campaign. They had a petition of 65K signatures to put the issue on the ballot, and then only got 39K votes. (At a cost of well over $200 / vote.)

Where were the rest of the petitioners?

Re:Incessant advertising

[philthedrill]

As someone who lives in Austin, I can confirm the bombardment in advertising. Over the last few weeks I got between one and four pro-Prop 1 mailers per day. My wife and I didn't get texts, and we don't answer unknown numbers so we don't know if they actually called us or not. They did call my mother-in-law twice. The first time, they deliberately lied to her. "They" never identified themselves, but I'm assuming it was Rideshare Works for Austin (the Uber/Lyft PAC).

RWA: Which way are you planning on voting on Prop 1?
MIL: I'm FOR fingerprinting.
RWA: Then you want to vote FOR Prop 1.
MIL: Are you sure? I thought I'm supposed supposed to vote against.
RWA: Nope, you're supposed to vote FOR it if you're in favor of fingerprinting.

We got at least four canvassers. The first guy asked us how we were planning on voting for Prop 1, and my wife replied that she was for fingerprinting. He tried to argue that fingerprinting wasn't necessary, so he was pro-Prop 1. I answered the door to another canvasser who was anti-Prop 1. My wife ignored the last two when she saw that they were carrying clipboards.

I ran into a pro-Prop 1 canvasser while out jogging with my neighbors. The canvasser got lost in our neighborhood, so we walked with her for a block. She tried to use some of the pro-Prop 1 talking points, but she admitted that she didn't really care about it, so she was probably paid.

On top of that, the internet was on fire. Here and here are two reddit posts just about the phone calls. Nextdoor threads were epic.

Re:Incessant advertising

[philthedrill]

... the CEO is "anonymous" leading many to believe that the whole thing is a taxi company run plant

You're posting this anonymously, leading many to believe that you're a corporate plant. But anyway, so what if it's a taxi company? If they can provide a valuable service and cooperate with local municipalities, good for them.

Voters rejecting ads, amazing

[fustakrakich]

Imagine applying the same process to the November elections and completely purging the House of all incumbents. Let them have their Citizens United and spend all the money they want. With our votes, we can turn that money into confetti. No phony "reform" or term limits needed.

So, they "vowed" to leave Austin. Maybe that was the idea behind the rule. This is a vaporous company (really, what's this 50 billion "valuation"bullshit?) that is going to leave a lot of people holding the bag when it disappears.

Re:the issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Their objection is that they're a "disruptive" "startup" "app" so they shouldn't have to play by any rules, because rules are so last year. They'd rather piss away $8 million fighting the regulations than spend a fraction of that to comply with them. Welcome to the new dot bomb, with a bunch of entitled twats leading the way.

Re:Another example of the rich buying elections

[XanC]

No, you've drawn the opposite of the correct conclusion. This demonstrates that no matter how much money you plough into a campaign, it's the votes that really matter.

Re:the issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Entitled? How about let the consumer decide.

The consumers did decide, it went to a vote and Uber lost.

Re:And Nothing Of Value Was Lost

[guises]

I dislike Uber as much as anyone... as much as most people, but demanding biometric identification which will stay on file forever is not acceptable. Not even if, in exchange, they allow to drive a taxi. Compelling incentive though that may be.

Fingerprints should not be allowed for this

[markdavis]

There is absolutely no reason the government should require collecting and using fingerprints, especially just to run background checks. Using fingerprints and allowing the government (or any other party) to have access to that data is unacceptable. Not only because the government should have no need to track what people are doing but because the gov should not have fingerprint registration data- which will be horribly abused. To me this is just SHOCKING.

Stand up for your rights, people... (and the rights of your children, too). Once you give this data to the government (or big business), it will NEVER be erased or restricted, regardless of claims or laws- it will go into huge databases and shared between all agencies and used however they want for as long as they want. Even worse, with every crime investigation, you will be searched without probable cause.

Again, there is ZERO reason for fingerprints just to do a background check of *LICENSED DRIVERS*, but if one MUST use biometrics, there is only one safer and practical biometric I know of- that is deep vein palm scan. That registration data cannot be readily abused. It can't be latently collected like DNA, fingerprints, and face recognition can. You have to know you are registering/enrolling when it happens. You don't leave evidence of it all over the place. When you go to use it, you know you are using it every time. And on top of all that, it is accurate, fast, reliable, unchanging, live-sensing, and cheap. If you must participate in a biometric, this is the one you should insist on using.

Re:Another example of the rich buying elections

[Sarten-X]

That's a key detail, that is often lost on Slashdotters. You can't buy votes. You can buy attention and reputation, and that may lead to votes, but that connection is not guaranteed, and any attempt to ensure that votes are bought is illegal.

Re:I dont understand what the problem is

[ShanghaiBill]

I'm assuming regular taxi drivers also need to be fingerprinted

Taxi drivers do not currently need to be fingerprinted, but under the new regulation they will need to submit fingerprints by Feb 2017. The fact that nobody cared about fingerprinting drivers until Uber and Lyft came along, indicates that fingerprinting is not designed to address an actual safety problem.

Re:I dont understand what the problem is

[JustNiz]

Because people have to actually be victims before you find out who the bad guys are.

Re:And Nothing Of Value Was Lost

[Harlequin80]

One question though. There are plenty of jobs were biometric data is taken and used for security or background checks. Defence, Medical, Police, for the public sector and then lots of secure facilities use biometrics as one of there data points. I assume you wouldn't ever do one of those jobs because of the need to give a finger print, but if you know that that is the requirement of the job what is the issue? It's not like this is the only role where finger prints are taken.

Re:I dont understand what the problem is

[Harlequin80]

Unless you want to work anywhere where biometrics are used as part of the security infrastructure.

They can't afford the checks

[rsilvergun]

because they're already short drivers. Uber doesn't pay enough to cover rent let alone the wear and tear on a vehicle. I know the popular belief is that their drivers are college kids out for beer money but in my experience it's mostly desperate people. A lot of those are ex-cons who can't get any other work in an increasingly bad economy. Why hire an ex-con when you've got 100 guys with clean records to choose from? A lot of Uber drivers won't pass the checks. That'll mean Uber will have to pay better to get more drivers. e.g. more surge pricing. That'll eliminate their competitive advantage over taxis.

Uber and really the entire "sharing" economy can't survive without white knuckle desperation. Take those people out, however you do it, and they'll collapse. And that's just what they did in Austin.

Wow, such a low turn-out...

[Frosty Piss]

But on election day, the proposal to repeal ultimately received just 39,083 votes -- 44% of the total cast...

So, in Austin, a city of a little over 910,000 people, only 89,000 or so voted... And people wonder why government doesn't represent them...

There are lots

[rsilvergun]

my brother just took an Uber and both folks were recently laid off. Also, I hate to be rude but were you not listening? Uber doesn't pay enough to pay for the wear and tear you're putting on your car. You're making well under minimum wage when you factor in the actual costs. And that's before we talk about the risk of driving professionally without commercial insurance (which again, Uber doesn't pay enough for).

Uber was, is and always will be only viable so long as they can externalize their costs. That's why every single one of these "sharing" economy companies shut down the moment they were made to stop doing that. Remember that company that did the same thing with Maid services? As soon as the local government demanded they pay minimum wage by reimbursing the workers for mileage and supplies they shut down. Completely. Hell, they couldn't survive paying _minimum wage let alone a living wage. Neither could Uber.

When do we stop fingerprinting?

[thesupraman]

So, what you are saying is that private jobs with any public risk should require recorded fingerprints, and perhaps other personal data also?
I can imagine that extends to a goodly percentage of occupations..

I can only assume that right now all people working bus, taxi, aircraft, ferry, etc services in the US are fingerprinted?
Also all doctors, nurses, teachers, etc? pretty high risks there.
Better throw in all construction workers, and others in situations where equipment drops, etc could kill others.
Must come in damn useful when you need to unlock their iphones ;) in fact, we better make it mandatory
for phone ownership....

I am sure thats just a tip of the iceberg, but think of the children!

Because, as we know, registered taxi drivers have never committed crimes against passengers, and this is not all part
of a buggy-whip protectionist racket.

However, on the flip side, can we PLEASE stop calling these minicab services ride-sharing, and convince the rest of the
world that minicab is the correct term, as used in the UK? That in itself would address 90% of the issues.

Please stop calling it "ride sharing"

[dave420]

It's not ride sharing. Ride sharing is when someone is going to go to a specific destination, and is willing to take other people there, splitting costs. Pretending to be a taxi is not "ride sharing".

Re:language

[gzuckier]

I live in Austin and voted prop 1. Why? Because the city government is out of control here in general, and even though I am not a U/L user, I wanted to send that message. One thing about prop 1 that didn't get a lot of attention was how convoluted the damn language on the ballot was. One local TV station did some reporting on it.

prop 1: "Shall the City Code be amended to repeal City Ordinance No. 20151217-075 relating to Transportation Network Companies; and replace with an ordinance that would repeal and prohibit required fingerprinting, repeal the requirement to identify the vehicle with a distinctive emblem, repeal the prohibition against loading and unloading passengers in a travel lane, and require other regulations."

Yea, how many folks stood in front of the ballot box and scratched their heads on that one.

http://www.kvue.com/news/local...

The sad thing is you know there's some lifer in an office somewhere saying "I don't see how I could make it any clearer"