3 ms·

I've complained about this here before after Uber and Lyft did the same thing in Texas (https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2017-03-14/lege-for-sale/ htt

by dvtrn 8y ago

I've complained about this here before after Uber and Lyft did the same thing in Texas (https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2017-03-14/lege-for-sale/ https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2017-03-14/lege-f...), states certainly have an interest in legislative preemption when there's a good and prevailing cause for it, I won't argue the legal merits there, but I think this warrants serious consideration beyond the surface when voters (as was the case in Austin) decide on municipal code and business effectively 'buy' preemption or else threaten to take their ball and go home (https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2016-05-13/our-city-our-headache/ https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2016-05-13/our-city-our...).

SOLAR_FIELDS 8y ago
The most infuriating part of the state legislative preemption is that it was very obviously not necessary. Within days of the departure of Uber and Lyft there were competing services that operated just fine under the new regulations. I won’t speak to whether the regulations were necessary or effective, but when the companies argued that there was an undue burden being imposed that would make it difficult to do business and then we witnessed the very opposite happen (smaller companies such as Fasten and nonprofits such as RideAustin were able to do just fine with the regulations), it sure made it smellier when the legislature came in and deemed it necessary to overturn the regulations.
- dvtrn 8y ago
  Within days of the departure of Uber and Lyft there were competing services that operated just fine under the new regulations. Good point, I always forget to mention those. While not without their own technical issues, I think RideATX (I forget what the other competing service that sprung up during that legislative frackas was named-was it Fasten that you mentioned?) had a lot going for it with real promise as a model cities could follow during the months Austin went without the two big names in ridesharing. The story is even more baffling when you consider the story of HeyRide, who launched in Austin before Uber and Lyft even showed up (http://austin.culturemap.com/news/innovation/11-01-12-15-51-new-heyride-app-replaces-yellow-cabs-with-drivers-own-vehicles/#slide=0 http://austin.culturemap.com/news/innovation/11-01-12-15-51-...)
  - sngz 8y ago
    i loved fasten the app was pretty well run and handled the load during SXSW pretty well.
    - lovehashbrowns 8y ago
      They had great customer service, too. I loved that app and was pretty sad when it closed down. They apparently paid better than Uber/Lyft, too, but I've never been able to confirm this; it's just what I heard from drivers whenever I asked.
pbreit 8y ago
Shouldn't legislation be more reactive than preemptive? Isn't the Uber/Lyft worst case scenario that traffic gets a little worse?
- int_19h 8y ago
  Preemptive in this case means that only the state legislature can pass laws on this, and cities can't have bylaws on the subject. The declared intent is to ensure that some legislative subject is uniform throughout the state.
- vkou 8y ago
  The worst case scenario is also that fixed rate, lottery availability taxi is completely replaced by highest bidder availability. Depending on your value system, this can be a good, or a bad thing.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    Nothing about Uber and Lyft existing prevents taxis from continuing to operate via fixed rate availability. In many of the big cities, taxis still exist alongside Uber and Lyft.
  - SilasX 8y ago
    That’s only how it works in theory. No city actually has a blinded lottery system for equitable pickups. In practice, drivers just discriminate on who looks likely to tip more when demand is hot, and this is very hard to police. Price controls rarely have this ideal outcome.

by dvtrn 8y ago

SOLAR_FIELDS 8y ago

The most infuriating part of the state legislative preemption is that it was very obviously not necessary. Within days of the departure of Uber and Lyft there were competing services that operated just fine under the new regulations. I won’t speak to whether the regulations were necessary or effective, but when the companies argued that there was an undue burden being imposed that would make it difficult to do business and then we witnessed the very opposite happen (smaller companies such as Fasten and nonprofits such as RideAustin were able to do just fine with the regulations), it sure made it smellier when the legislature came in and deemed it necessary to overturn the regulations.

dvtrn 8y ago
Within days of the departure of Uber and Lyft there were competing services that operated just fine under the new regulations. Good point, I always forget to mention those. While not without their own technical issues, I think RideATX (I forget what the other competing service that sprung up during that legislative frackas was named-was it Fasten that you mentioned?) had a lot going for it with real promise as a model cities could follow during the months Austin went without the two big names in ridesharing. The story is even more baffling when you consider the story of HeyRide, who launched in Austin before Uber and Lyft even showed up (http://austin.culturemap.com/news/innovation/11-01-12-15-51-new-heyride-app-replaces-yellow-cabs-with-drivers-own-vehicles/#slide=0 http://austin.culturemap.com/news/innovation/11-01-12-15-51-...)
- sngz 8y ago
  i loved fasten the app was pretty well run and handled the load during SXSW pretty well.
  - lovehashbrowns 8y ago
    They had great customer service, too. I loved that app and was pretty sad when it closed down. They apparently paid better than Uber/Lyft, too, but I've never been able to confirm this; it's just what I heard from drivers whenever I asked.

pbreit 8y ago

Shouldn't legislation be more reactive than preemptive? Isn't the Uber/Lyft worst case scenario that traffic gets a little worse?

int_19h 8y ago
Preemptive in this case means that only the state legislature can pass laws on this, and cities can't have bylaws on the subject. The declared intent is to ensure that some legislative subject is uniform throughout the state.
vkou 8y ago
The worst case scenario is also that fixed rate, lottery availability taxi is completely replaced by highest bidder availability. Depending on your value system, this can be a good, or a bad thing.
- stale2002 8y ago
  Nothing about Uber and Lyft existing prevents taxis from continuing to operate via fixed rate availability. In many of the big cities, taxis still exist alongside Uber and Lyft.
- SilasX 8y ago
  That’s only how it works in theory. No city actually has a blinded lottery system for equitable pickups. In practice, drivers just discriminate on who looks likely to tip more when demand is hot, and this is very hard to police. Price controls rarely have this ideal outcome.