Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

San Francisco Goes After Uber, Lyft For Data On City Trips, Driver Bonuses (sfchronicle.com)

Posted by msmash on from the more-transparency dept.

Carolyn Said, reporting for San Francisco Chronicle: It's a San Francisco truism: Every other car on the streets these days seems to bear a logo for Uber or Lyft -- and many are double-parked as they pick up or drop off passengers. Now the city seeks to compel Uber and Lyft to share details on how many cars are roving the streets, so it can ensure that they comply with local laws; assess their impact on traffic congestion, safety, pollution and parking; and ascertain if they are accessible for disabled and low-income riders. City Attorney Dennis Herrera on Monday subpoenaed Uber and Lyft to disgorge records on four years of driving practices, disability access and service in San Francisco. "No one disputes the convenience of the ride-hailing industry, but that convenience evaporates when you're stuck in traffic behind a double-parked Uber or Lyft, or when you can't get a ride because the vehicle isn't accessible to someone with a disability or because the algorithm disfavors the neighborhood where you live," Herrera said in a statement. The subpoenas seek information on "miles and hours logged by drivers, incentives that encourage drivers to 'commute' from as far away as Fresno or Los Angeles, driver guidance and training, accessible vehicle information, and the services provided to residents of every San Francisco neighborhood," Herrera's office said.

58 comments

  1. It's a tax play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They want taxes per mile like any other commercial vehicle pays(although usually at the state level not local). This is setting the framework

    1. Re:It's a tax play. by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they cared about double parked cars, they'd issue tickets.
      If they cared about congestion, they'd put down the car counting strips and adjust signal timing.
      If they cared about accessibility, they'd run more buses to residential areas.

      I don't see a legal reason Uber or Lyft would have to give up that data. My standard policy is "fuck them" for both Uber and Lyft, but they should laugh at this "subpoena".

    2. Re:It's a tax play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Uber should just hire illegal aliens to drive in SF, then they would be left alone.

    3. Re:It's a tax play. by sabri · · Score: 1

      I don't see a legal reason Uber or Lyft would have to give up that data. My standard policy is "fuck them" for both Uber and Lyft, but they should laugh at this "subpoena".

      Exactly right. Progressive in SF means nothing more that to hinder business and to take away as much as they can.

      One jealous city attorney has no business forcing a company to disclose company confidential information. This is why people absolutely hate SF. I'm really surprised business even want to be there.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    4. Re:It's a tax play. by xevioso · · Score: 2

      Except those businesses are hindering other businesses. When trucks can't make deliveries on time because of double-parked Ubers, and buses are constantly dodging people getting in and out of lyft cars and get stuck behind these drivers making illegal left-hand turns, and when cyclists are nearly killed on a daily basis because idiot tourists are opening the doors of their Uber driver into traffic and "dooring" them, then it's hindering the business of other people getting to THEIR business. I know this for a fact because it happens to me daily here in SF. I see all this shit regularly.

    5. Re: It's a tax play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      ALL of those same exact things were being experienced long BEFORE Uber and Lyft ever existed

    6. Re:It's a tax play. by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

      Why not just give out tickets to EVERYONE who is double parked? Why is this just an uber/lyft problem?

    7. Re:It's a tax play. by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Why should the cost be on taxpayers to do all these complicated workarounds when Uber already has the information?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    8. Re:It's a tax play. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      30% of traffic in SF may be cars circling the block while looking for parking. Since Uber/Lyft drivers don't park, they may be relieving more congestion than they are causing.

      As "ride-sharing" becomes more popular, and there is less need for parking, the best way to reduce congestion is to eliminate curbside parking, especially on busy streets. This opens up an additional lane in each direction for traffic.

    9. Re:It's a tax play. by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Uber doesn't have information on who is double parked when, nor would that information result in people not double parking.
      The same goes for Lyft.

      Uber doesn't represent most traffic, nor does Lyft. So their traffic data can't be taken as representative of all traffic. A far better (and still incomplete / non-covering) source would be Google Maps. Should Google honor a subpoena for all location data?

      No, of course they shouldn't. The city should do its job and address these problems directly and with the legal powers they have.

      If they claim they need money to do it, the can issue tickets to everyone double parked. In "the bay area", one traffic cop configured in Parking Nazi mode can generate tantalizing amounts of money. Give them marching orders to target Uber, Lyft, UPS, FedEx, etc. and then REFUSE to negotiate the tickets in bulk. Boot / tow repeat offenders and charge them out the ass for impound fees. Cities like SF and LA already makes tons of money off of parking tickets, but they currently target regular people and often apply tickets erroneously, with no functional method to appeal. Why not target that bullshit at the people who deserve it? or the people / corporations who are repeat offenders (allowing you to increase the amount of the fine each time)?

    10. Re: It's a tax play. by SillyStuff · · Score: 1

      While I don't live in San Francisco, I do spend an incredible amount of time there. Very rarely am I stuck behind a double parked Uber or Lyft driver. When I am, it is only for a relatively short time as they load or unload. Much more frequently I am stuck behind a double parked UPS or FedEx truck and they are gone for extended periods of time as they make their deliveries. They don't seem to be complaining about UPS double parking as UPS drops off their or their neighbors packages from Amazon.

    11. Re:It's a tax play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nailed it.

      If a private company doesn't cater to a specific segment of society, like low-income or disabled individuals, the solution is not to force them to with government action, its to encourage the development of a service to target those segments. The existence of an under-serviced segment implies the existence of demand for a service, which is a basic input for any business model.

    12. Re: It's a tax play. by xevioso · · Score: 1

      Yes, but because there's so many more Uber/Lyft drivers on the streets now, it's more of a problem. It happens much more often. I see it with my own eyes daily.

    13. Re:It's a tax play. by xevioso · · Score: 1

      Because there's more Uber/Lyft drivers on the streets now. Before, if you were driving yourself, you'd have to actually park your car to get where you are going or take a taxi. There were fewer taxis, and while they would double-park, it was put up with because there were so few of them. Now many more people use these services, so it happens more frequently.

    14. Re:It's a tax play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your idea makes way to much sense...

    15. Re:It's a tax play. by sabri · · Score: 1

      Except those businesses are hindering other businesses. When trucks can't make deliveries on time because of double-parked Ubers, and buses are constantly dodging people getting in and out of lyft cars and get stuck behind these drivers making illegal left-hand turns, and when cyclists are nearly killed on a daily basis because idiot tourists are opening the doors of their Uber driver into traffic and "dooring" them, then it's hindering the business of other people getting to THEIR business. I know this for a fact because it happens to me daily here in SF. I see all this shit regularly.

      Last time I checked, a truck driver that gets pulled over for speeding pays his own ticket, and gets the points on his license. A cabby that double parks gets his own ticket. An uber driver that double parks gets his own tickets. Uber and Lyft are platforms. They don't drive the cars, their contractors (or employees, in some views) do. It is not even alleged that Uber encourages breaking the law.

      Uber and Lyft are ride-sharing platform apps. You not liking their business model does not make it illegal. If a car double parks, the police can and will ticket them. That's how you solve this. You don't subpoena a billion dollar company for their confidential information.

      Unless of course, SF is slowly turning into Saint Franciscoburg.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    16. Re:It's a tax play. by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Give them marching orders to target Uber, Lyft, UPS, FedEx, etc. and then REFUSE to negotiate the tickets in bulk.

      Eh? Large offenders get a bulk discount?!? Actually, for repeat offenders, the ticket price should exponentially increase.

      Oh, and for the folks double parked somewhere that might hinder emergency crews, and the like . . . just confiscate their automobile for a week or two. Not the driver's license, but their car. For Über and Lyft drivers, this will mean taking away their livelihood.

      Presto! You won't see any more double-parked Über and Lyft cars anymore!

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    17. Re:It's a tax play. by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      If that is the case, then ticketing EVERYONE who is double parked will naturally disproportionately affect uber/lyft drivers.

      We don't need laws that punish men who rape women. All we need are rape laws punishing all rapists. If it is true that more men are rapists, then more men will be affected by these laws. We don't need to bake that bias into the laws themselves.

    18. Re:It's a tax play. by Zaelath · · Score: 1

      Do Americans give out tickets for double parking? Last time I was there the right hand lane was effectively useless because you couldn't go a block without hitting a double parked car. Most of them with no driver, not an Uber (and I'm no fan of PonziTaxi).

    19. Re:It's a tax play. by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Yup, UPS/FedEx drivers get tickets non stop and they just send them to corporate who negotiates a bulk deal, paying pennies on the dollar (or worse), wiping out all tickets with no ramifications to the driver. This applies even to things that should be classed as moving violations and have actual impacts on the drivers themselves, because FedEx and UPS have money.

    20. Re:It's a tax play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that is the case, then ticketing EVERYONE who is double parked will naturally disproportionately affect uber/lyft drivers.

      Actually, the real problem is that enforcement is EXPENSIVE. You're asking for an expansion of a burdensome and often ineffectual solution, which people in the field already know about, which is why they're investigating this problem more thoroughly to see if they can come up with a better means of accomplishing the desired end.

      Same reason if you have a prescription drug overdose problem, you check out the doctors, pharmacies and pharmaceutical companies.

      We don't need laws that punish men who rape women. All we need are rape laws punishing all rapists. If it is true that more men are rapists, then more men will be affected by these laws. We don't need to bake that bias into the laws themselves.

      Your example was poorly chosen, rape was defined in many jurisdictions already defined as something only men can do.

      And of course, even now, there are issues with fetuses that remain a problem.

    21. Re:It's a tax play. by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Actually, the real problem is that enforcement is EXPENSIVE. You're asking for an expansion of a burdensome and often ineffectual solution, which people in the field already know about, which is why they're investigating this problem more thoroughly to see if they can come up with a better means of accomplishing the desired end.

      If enforcement is expensive, then you're doing it wrong. Law enforcement agencies all across the country use ticketing as a source of revenue. Giving out tickets should pay for itself and then some. If anything the real problem is when law enforcement gets so addicted to the ticketing revenue that they start continue to ticket even after the bad behavior is effectively disincentivized.

      Your example was poorly chosen, rape was defined in many jurisdictions already defined as something only men can do.

      If you have a little imagination, you can probably use my example as a case against poor legal definitions of rape as well. My intent was not to find an example where everyone in the world currently does something exactly correctly, but rather as an example that shows a clear delineation between the right and wrong ways to do it. The fact that some may choose to do it the wrong way only shows that this delineation is not just theoretical.

    22. Re:It's a tax play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If enforcement is expensive, then you're doing it wrong.

      Nope, doing things like this, which requires enforcement across a whole city, is never cheap. You didn't even argue the point, you just tried to make a claim of using the fees to pay for itself.

      Law enforcement agencies all across the country use ticketing as a source of revenue. Giving out tickets should pay for itself and then some. If anything the real problem is when law enforcement gets so addicted to the ticketing revenue that they start continue to ticket even after the bad behavior is effectively disincentivized.

      DOJ reports across the country have documented the civil rights abuses that have come about because of that attitude, actually. It's not merely a matter of the revenues, it's a matter of potential for abuse.

      Especially when as you are, you talk about the method of payment being the collections. That's a route to disaster.

      And it still doesn't make it inexpensive.

      Your example was poorly chosen, rape was defined in many jurisdictions already defined as something only men can do.

      If you have a little imagination, you can probably use my example as a case against poor legal definitions of rape as well.

      I'm just pointing out that historically, the condition was, in fact, present in the definition of rape.

      Some places have changed it, some places have addressed the issue in other ways.

      Of course, as practice goes, you will find arguments that it's ignored anyway. But that's a separate issue.

      My intent was not to find an example where everyone in the world currently does something exactly correctly, but rather as an example that shows a clear delineation between the right and wrong ways to do it. The fact that some may choose to do it the wrong way only shows that this delineation is not just theoretical.

      Your example was less effective, because of that historical case. You're just not making a very convincing case, because even if you do know it, you're just not covering it very well.

      Same with your ticketing idea. And some of the others that have been brought up. Not very much intellectual rigor around.

    23. Re:It's a tax play. by plopez · · Score: 1

      It sounds like Bangalor.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    24. Re:It's a tax play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if a trucking company or taxi firm was as big as ubber/lyft then they to would be seeing this ...

    25. Re: It's a tax play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taxis are allowed to double park to take in or let if passengers when necessary in San francisco

    26. Re: It's a tax play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh believe me a lot of Uber and lyft are illegals. Cousin who is legal signs up; you pretend to be him and drive.

  2. San Francisco Wants to enforce the traffic laws? by OYAHHH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I call BS on that.

    At any moment in time it would take me probably less than 5 minutes to locate a delivery truck parked on a city street while being unloaded.

    When I see that being curtailed I will believe the rest.

    --
    Caution: Contents under pressure
  3. accessible to someone with a disability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know about SF but Uber access or whatever the handos have to use is always half the price of a regular uber and always close by. Sometimes I tell the guy I have palsy or some shit for a cheap ride

  4. Inquiring minds want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't we all like to see what government officials are getting from various lobbyists, campaign contributors, and insider trading deals. Inquiring minds would like to know how so many members of Congress and others (of both parties) somehow manage to amass $ Millions on a salary that does not seem to warrant that. Perhaps if we invite them to share all their intimate financial details (bank accounts, expense accounts, offshore accounts, etc.) with everyone then we could do something about it. Fat chance at transparency when it comes to that. They will fight tooth and nail to maintain their own privacy while advocating the government violating everyone else's.

    1. Re:Inquiring minds want to know... by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      Look no further than SF's representative in Congress, Nancy Pelosi.

    2. Re:Inquiring minds want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting, it seems you don't want this investigation to be thorough. What are you trying to hide?

  5. Double Parked Uber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How is a double parked Uber different than a double parked Yellow Cab?

    Oh right, it's not...

    1. Re:Double Parked Uber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uber and Lyft don't have powerful unions behind them like the old school cabbies do.

    2. Re:Double Parked Uber by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      How is a double parked Uber different than a double parked Yellow Cab?

      The big difference is that taxi companies spend way more on political donations and lobbyists.

    3. Re:Double Parked Uber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cab company doesn't send it's profits to an off-shore tax haven
      the cab plate owners aren't greedy self serving six figure upper management parasites
      the cabbies went broke and are now double parking in that Uber but making far less
      you fan boyz are going to pay more soon while Uber continues to double park

      greedy people just want a free ride for nothing, and no respect for the servant

      upper class twit

    4. Re:Double Parked Uber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uber and Lyft don't have powerful unions behind them like the old school cabbies do.

      give it a break, we're getting so tired of your fascist anti-union propaganda

    5. Re:Double Parked Uber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is a double parked Uber different than a double parked Yellow Cab?

      The big difference is that taxi companies spend way more on political donations and lobbyists.

      not for long http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/315678-uber-triples-its-lobbying-efforts-in-2016

    6. Re:Double Parked Uber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is a double parked Uber different than a double parked Yellow Cab?

      Oh right, it's not...

      This is what I am thinking... It is not uncommon that some Uber drivers to park and wait for a job (happened in any cities). It might be that some Uber/Lyft drivers in SF double park because of limited parking in the area where service volume is high. For a cap, they can't do that and they are easily spotted. If a police spots a cap doing that, the cap would either be called to move out or gets a ticket.

    7. Re: Double Parked Uber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taxis limited to 2000 in San Francisco. With breakdowns shift changes and airport work there are usually 1000 on the road. Compare to Uber's 40,000

  6. Enforce the current laws... by Paul+Pierce · · Score: 1

    and get over it. Whenever a city/state tries to mandate something that is the most common current cause of something bad it fails and just limits our freedoms more. In Mass we made it illegal to text while driving; why? well obviously because the odds of driving poorly are much higher while texting - which is very true; however just pull over people that are driving poorly. There is already a law for that. The result was accidents actually went up because most people try to hide their texting now.

    Would you rather be on the road with someone texting and driving perfectly or someone driving like a nut because they felt like it? San Fran gains nothing from this information; if there is a new problem because of Uber and Lyft then directly address it, vote on it and fix it.

    1. Re:Enforce the current laws... by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously arguing in favor of texting while driving?

    2. Re:Enforce the current laws... by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      and get over it. Whenever a city/state tries to mandate something that is the most common current cause of something bad it fails and just limits our freedoms more. In Mass we made it illegal to text while driving; why? well obviously because the odds of driving poorly are much higher while texting - which is very true; however just pull over people that are driving poorly. There is already a law for that.

      This is very easy to do: the signal that a driver is driving poorly is that they crash into things. So, just give tickets to the people who crash into things.

      Oh, wait, you'd like to solve the problem before the drivers crash and kill people? Oops, sorry, that's harder.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    3. Re:Enforce the current laws... by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

      I would. it's a silly restriction designed to appease people's feelies. On one hand we can trust people to be responsible enough to navigate 3,500 pounds of steel going 60+ mph, but we don't trust them enough to use some discretion for using a phone.

      (see also: cupholders, screaming kids in the back, make-up, radios, in-dash turn by turn navigation systems)

      basically it's the new virtue signaling outrage issue. The real problem is distracted drivers.

      Good luck legislating away every conceivable cause of distraction while driving. But don't worry, you look totally awesome and civic minded by decrying those foul heathens who'd divert their hands from 10 and 2, or their momentary gaze from the road.

      (or maybe it's a conspiracy between some shadowy cartel representing future self driving car makers, and the police looking for additional excuses to pull people over for nuisance stops.)

    4. Re:Enforce the current laws... by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      The entitlement of your generation is staggering.

    5. Re:Enforce the current laws... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Oh, wait, you'd like to solve the problem before the drivers crash and kill people? Oops, sorry, that's harder.

      It is harder, which is why it is yet to be solved through policy.

      Here's an idea. Not all crashes kill people. In fact most don't. We should be able to stop lot's of people after they crash but before they kill anyone.

    6. Re:Enforce the current laws... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      the odds of driving poorly are much higher while texting - which is very true; however just pull over people that are driving poorly.

      You could use the exact same logic to argue that drunk driving should be legal.

      Driving while texting may be worse than driving while drunk.

    7. Re:Enforce the current laws... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I would. it's a silly restriction designed to appease people's feelies. On one hand we can trust people to be responsible enough to navigate 3,500 pounds of steel going 60+ mph, but we don't trust them enough to use some discretion for using a phone.

      (see also: cupholders, screaming kids in the back, make-up, radios, in-dash turn by turn navigation systems)

      basically it's the new virtue signaling outrage issue. The real problem is distracted drivers.

      And the numbers say that distracted driving is now the #1 cause of accidents and deaths, beating out.. drunk driving! (MADD will have to rename themselves to Mothers Against Distracted Driving now). That's a huge change brought about by the rise in smartphones.

      And if you're arguing cupholders etc. are as distracting, perhaps, but everytime cops pull someone over for distracted driving, it's because of the shiny slate in their hands. Sure they do catch the few people reading, doing their makeup and hair and such, but by far the biggest offender is the phone.

      And yes, most people cannot drive because that shiny slate is such an attention grabber.

  7. Opioid analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While average Americans become hopelessly addicted to Opioids, all governments historical addition has been to our earnings and its taking more and more of it to satisfy their fix.

  8. The convenience stays the same by DeplorableCodeMonkey · · Score: 1

    "No one disputes the convenience of the ride-hailing industry, but that convenience evaporates when you're stuck in traffic behind a double-parked Uber or Lyft, or when you can't get a ride because the vehicle isn't accessible to someone with a disability or because the algorithm disfavors the neighborhood where you live,"

    Most of us are not even slightly inconvenienced by these things. The benefit does not dry up in the least for us. Particularly for the "disadvantaged neighborhood" which is a UMC euphemism for "poor, crime-ridden blighted neighborhood I would actually overcome my gut-level hatred of guns to buy an AR15 and a 0.40 if I had to live there."

  9. regurgitate, retch, upchuck, discharge, spew... by JOstrow · · Score: 1

    lol @ disgorge. Somebody is getting a lot of mileage out of their WOTD screensaver.

  10. Sell out local business for multinationals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    imo, Uber and Lyft are evil companies who cheat their customers, their drivers and the public

    they openly ignore laws, lie to officials, corrupt them and avoid the responsibilities of being part of a community

    way to go you corporate scumbags

  11. Re:San Francisco Wants to enforce the traffic laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What you don't see are those truck companies paying fees to the city so each truck doesn't get a ticket. App-based taxi companies don't pay those because it's the driver parking illegally not the company parking illegally...

  12. Just Another SF Gov Extortion Play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All Uber and Lyft have to do is to supply the Mayor and City Attorney their demands for child prostitutes per day and cocaine per hour.

    Simple.
     

  13. Are The SF Mayor And City Attourney A Threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good Question!

    A threat to the lives of all SF citizens, illegal migrants and illegal immigrants and their properties held legally or illegally within San Francisco.

    I think the Emperor Mayor and General Attorney argue that each living creature in San Francisco is the property of the Emperor and General and the Emperor and General can and will do to each creature under jurisdiction whatever the Emperor and General will, for their pleasure and enjoyment.

  14. least-free city in America by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

    The people of San Franshitsco sure do love rules. Now if only the could pass a rule to prevent the municipally subsidized crackhead population from pissing on the doorsteps of apartment buildings.

    I regularly thank God for having delivered me out of that great sewer of humanity. One of my big regrets is having wasted eleven years of my life in the toxic Progressive hellhole that is SF. Oh, and the weather sucks too. And the culture makes LA seem positively intellectual.

  15. You can see where this is going by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1
    The subpoenas seek information on "miles and hours logged by drivers, incentives that encourage drivers to 'commute' from as far away as Fresno or Los Angeles, driver guidance and training, accessible vehicle information, and the services provided to residents of every San Francisco neighborhood,"

    .

    Pretty evident that they hope to attack the companies on several fronts: wages paid, overwork, violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act, violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and discrimination.

  16. Data Retention Policies Are Your Friend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Sorry - that detailed data is aggregated and then purged after 2 months. The specific data you requested is not included in any of our current or planned aggregates"