11 ms·

Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

82 points by co_pl_te 14y ago

usaar333 14y ago
Interesting how Uber is lumped in with Lyft and SideCar. Uber drivers at least have (towncar) licenses. I haven't figured out yet how Lyft/SideCar are anything more than illegal taxi services that rename "fare" "donation".
- cj 14y ago
  Uber also runs Uberx, a cheaper non-towncar version of Uber similar to Lyft. Does anyone know if uberx drivers also have towncar licenses?
  - sbacheld 14y ago
    Uber also has extended their service to include some real taxi drivers in San Francisco (which would have a normal taxi license)
  - brianr 14y ago
    UberX cars still have towncar licenses though, judging by the TCP stickers on their bumpers.
  - j-v 14y ago
    In Chicago I've seen taxi drivers using Uber X, but that may be a city-specific pilot. This TC interview with Uber indicates that Uber X drivers have TCP licenses, but may not necessarily drive limos or town cars: http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/01/uber-opens-up-platform-to-non-limo-vehicles-with-uber-x-service-will-be-35-less-expensive/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/01/uber-opens-up-platform-to-n...
eli 14y ago
I'm a customer not a lawyer, but Uber certainly feels like a "provider" to me. It's not like they are just a referral service. They dispatch a driver of their choice, they process the payment, and they pay the driver. And while I think Uber is an awesome service, it's not totally unreasonable for the state to insist that if you are acting as a taxi, you need to have proof of insurance beyond what's required for a normal driver.
- dinedal 14y ago
  The problem is that the cars Uber has are already insured as limos. Just by the parent company that they are getting them from, not by Uber itself.
  - eli 14y ago
    If the drivers already have the required paperwork and insurance then why doesn't Uber just register as a taxi provider and submit it as CPUC requested? Is that really so onerous (honest question)?
    - dinedal 14y ago
      I believe that's a question for Uber, I'm just paraphrasing from the article which states as I've said. Speculating though, perhaps there are limitations and red tape issues that would prevent them from doing so. Most likely, they don't want / need to operate the fleet of cars, just the technology that connects them to the customers.
    - rhizome 14y ago
      Because cities limit the number of taxi drivers through the use of medallions or similar. https://www.google.com/search?q=taxi+medallion https://www.google.com/search?q=taxi+medallion
      - eli 14y ago
        State of california doesn't appear to require medallions, so I don't think that applies in this specific case.
        squeed 14y ago
        San Francisco is currently limited to 1494 taxi medallions. That means, legally, there can be a maximum of 1494 cars making street hails at any given moment. Car services are licensed by the state instead of the city, and are not subject to medallion restrictions. However, they cannot legally make street hails. Source: http://www.sfmta.com/cms/xind/medallionsissued.htm http://www.sfmta.com/cms/xind/medallionsissued.htm
eridius 14y ago
The lawsuit against Uber seems to me like nothing more than taxi drivers upset that their monopoly is being threatened. As the article said, all the Uber drivers are already licensed, and there's no explanation as to why Uber is "unfair".
- eli 14y ago
  Uber claims their drivers already meet the requirements, but if Uber doesn't register with CPUC how can they know if it's true? Are they supposed to take Uber's word for it?
  - eridius 14y ago
    I don't know anything about CPUC so I can't really answer that question, but the lawsuit isn't about the licensing. The lawsuit is about Uber being "unfair", with no explanation for what that means. The only hint is that taxi drivers are seeing lower incomes, and the implication is that the lower incomes must somehow mean that Uber is being "unfair" rather than simply being a consequence of competition.
    - eli 14y ago
      Well, you should probably read the actual complaint before deciding anything. You can see the whole thing at the bottom of this article: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/11/14/class-action-lawsuit-filed-against-uber-by-san-francisco-taxicab-drivers-citing-unfair-business-competition/ http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/11/14/class-action-lawsui... IANAL and I don't know if the lawsuit has merit, but there is slightly more to it then just someone stamping their foot and yelling, "Unfair!"
    - sk5t 14y ago
      Unqualified statements of "X is unfair" are quite popular with unions in the northeast, to protest the hiring of any non-union labor. I guess one can't accuse them of libel or slander for accusations of "unfairness."
      - 14y ago
tvladeck 14y ago
I really like Lyft. I use it when I need a taxi and it works very well. Although I do agree that a world where these types of "collaborative consumption" services (like AirBNB) are essentially unregulated (or at least more open to competition) is much better, it is true that a number of industries are regulated, and incumbents that have been "playing by the rules" were promised a protected business environment. And it's not like they didn't have to give anything up in that trade - a taxi medallion in NYC is worth a lot of money - they have been exchanged for over a million dollars. So the question is: how do we transition to the better world without being unfair to the "stranded capital"?
- smsm42 14y ago
  We managed to transition from horsepower to cars without economy breaking down and I'm sure some people investing in horses lost some money on that. If some people investing in taxi business being shielded from competition will lose some money - sucks for them, but definite benefit for everybody else. And also would teach people not to invest in schemes that rely on government coercion and anti-competitiveness. It'd be no more "unfair" to them than their rent-extraction based on excluding competition is unfair to consumers.
  - tvladeck 14y ago
    I'm not sure I was clear. In the cases I'm discussing, society has made an explicit deal with a group of providers within an industry. Essentially that deal is: purchase a license, run your business this way, charge these prices, etc., and we'll protect your market. NB this does not apply in equal degrees across all industries, and your horses -> cars example doesn't qualify. In addition, note that I was agreeing with you that the transition, on the whole, is definitely desirable. I'm only arguing that there may be moral consequences in not upholding society's end of the trade I describe above.
    - brc 14y ago
      >society has made an explicit deal with a group of providers within an industry. >not upholding society's end of the trade I describe above. The deal - as it was, has been, or whatever, was simply some type of legislative barrier passed using the threat of imprisonment and/or fines as the stick. While you could argue that 'society' passed and agreed to these rules through the democratic legislative process, in reality it's far more arcane than that (don't watch sausages or laws getting made). In reality, no law in a democracy can be promised to exist past the next election period. Sure, mostly it doesn't happen that way, but laws passed some time ago in a different technological state of progress are not inviolate, never-to-be-repealed things cast in stone. There are no moral consequences at all. People win and lose every day, in every industry, for millions of reasons. It would be immoral to try and stop this creative destruction process and try to freeze life at a certain point. Because that would deny the future winners from winning, and permanently cast the losers in the 'loser' role. The underlying beauty and strength of democracy is that it can change and destroy old concepts, old rules and old leaders peacefully. This is the killer feature that makes up for it's otherwise many flaws.
smsm42 14y ago
It just reeks of special interests protecting their turf. Of course when you are operating in highly regulated environment and have a well-oiled connections with local politicians it is annoying when somebody new comes around and tries to take part of your customer share. However for me as a consumer it is annoying that government yet again tries to take away my choice under the guise of protecting me from imaginary threats - and instead ends up protecting me from better service and lower prices. I don't need this kind of protection.
- polemic 14y ago
  Oh please. Regulation doesn't exist in a vacuum, and acting as if you're exempt from the law in the noble pursuit of lower prices is bollocks.
  - PKop 14y ago
    So please specify how, in this case, what is beneficial about the regulation of the taxi industry for consumers who want choices and lower prices?
    - usaar333 14y ago
      Well the argument has always been: 1. Safer cabs a. mechanical inspections b. limited hours - safer driver 2. Prevent price gouging 3. Prevent circuitous routing 4. Limit congestion by reducing vehicles on road
      - jamiequint 14y ago
        re: 1 & 3, have you ever ridden in a SF cab?? This is not the case at all. re: 4, so when people can't take a cab they just forget about where they are going and don't go. These arguments are nonsense.
        usaar333 14y ago
        Not saying I necessary agree with the arguments. That said: 1. Never felt unsafe. Only time I've ever felt unsafe in a cab was mainland China which has less (enforced?) regulation. 3. Never happened to me in SF. Happened in Las Vegas (common thing where cab drivers take I-215 from airport to the Strip rather than surface streets); it's very easy to request a complete refund. 4. Public transit, bike, etc. Ensures that those who are really willing to pay for a cab get there quicker due to lower traffic congestion (theoretically - this probably only applies to areas dominated by cabs like Manhattan).
jasonhancock 14y ago
In practice these behave exactly like a taxi service. I don't think it matters much who owns the cars. No one would argue that a cab company from, say, LA, should be able to just bring a portion of its fleet to SF and start picking up passengers without complying with the laws that govern taxis here. If these start-ups affect the market in essentially the same way, we and they all know they are trying to enter a market with rules in a way that does not abide by them
- penrod 14y ago
  I'll take the bait: Yes an external cab company should be able to come into SF and compete with the local firms. The SF regulations have expressly been rigged to support a local cartel and are morally illegitimate.
  - jasonhancock 14y ago
    You may think that an external cab company (or Lyft) should be able to come into SF and complete with local firms but you also apparently agree it is illegal. I personally consider it equally morally illegitimate for individual actors in a society governed by the rule of law to decide which laws and regulations "work" for them and which ones don't, then to disregard those they don't like. And in practical terms I think it is irresponsible for a group of people with one goal -to make money- to set up a company which they know is breaking the law, and to convince a lot of people to join them in breaking the law (their drivers) and creating ridiculous contortions that allow them to pretend not to be governed by the rules ("the donation thing" e.g.) when everyone knows they are a taxi service, plain and simple.
dreamdu5t 14y ago
Another example of government regulation keeping us safe from evil taxi drivers. Thank God regulations like this exist to make sure that everybody pays their protection money. Anyone who disagrees clearly hates poor people and taxi drivers... or something.
crazy1van 14y ago
This is outrageous that the taxi companies are just lobbying for laws that protect their business at the expense of other businesses! Ok, now please pass a law saying internet providers can't limit how much data I can send each month nor prioritize one type of traffic over another. After all, that is hurting internet businesses!
- 1123581321 14y ago
  Traffic prioritization is an important issue that does hurt businesses and users to the benefit of telecoms and ISPs. It is better known as the "net neutrality" issue. https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality To your larger point, the disgusting part is the behavior of the regulators, who should not succumb to the lobbyists and campaign donations of the livery industry. However, it's also absolutely wrong to attempt to influence government for personal gain. We all have a moral duty to do what's good for everyone including ourselves. Taxi unions need to recognize that protecting incompetent systems to enrich their members at the expense of everyone else, by using government as a weapon, harms every user of public transportation and several businesses and in the long run sets the drivers up for an unnecessary catastrophic collapse of the taxi system when it becomes completely unbearable by the public.
ajays 14y ago
The deck is stacked against Uber, Lyft and Sidecar. You have to realize that the taxi industry is a government-cab collaboration, with the customer getting fleeced. It is not as simple as "government grants license to cab operator, cab operator runs his cab and makes money". No. The government takes a cut from the daily action too. Use a credit card in the cab? The government takes a cut. Want to rent your medallion to someone else? The government takes a cut. Right now, the financial impact of these outfits is minimal. But when they seriously start impacting government revenues, expect the lawmakers to come out swinging. They'll tag-team with the taxi union(s) and make life hell for the Sidecars, Ubers and Lyfts of the world.
- firefoxman1 14y ago
  I wonder if Uber, Lyft and Sidecar aren't competing against each other right now, seeing as they have a common enemy. It would be wise to have all the people on your side as possible even if they won't be in the future.
  - Robelius 14y ago
    As far as I know they are not competitive with each other. They are small enough that they don't effect one another.
- callmeed 14y ago
  I've always thought AirBnB has as big a deck stacked against it (or bigger). There are a lot of cities whose main industry is tourism and collect 10%+ bed taxes. I can't imagine they'll give those up easily.
  - yardie 14y ago
    I don't think so. The VRBO market has existed for years (decades even) AirBnB just made it marketable and easy to enter. The controversy with them is some of the property owners are really taking the piss and treating their residential property as hotels and not paying the hotel taxes (BTW, Florida is 20%). All the reports I've read have been spot on (though the AirBnB founders disagree). The hotels are paying this tax. Some of your members properties look awfully like a hotel. You collect the money, you collect the tax. Unlike the taxi companies who actually have a monopoly, the hoteliers just want the same deal to apply to everyone.
colevscode 14y ago
The few uber drivers I've talked to love the service. One driver told me that, with uber, he can often find a nearby fare in minutes. He said that the combination of flags, the dispatcher, and über means the meter is always running. It's pretty clear to me that the folks that are suffering from über are the taxi dispatch companies. These companies lease out the cars for a daily fee, like 150 bucks per day. The driver can do whatever he wants as long as he pays that daily fee. The cab company pays insurance because they own the cabs. Cab drivers are essentially independent contractors. They start making money after they've covered the cab cost for the day. So why should the cab companies care if a driver is using über? From what I've heard, when a dispatcher has a good order, like for a trip across town on a slow day, they'll ask for a cut. In other words the cab companies are supplementing their taxi rental service with a cut of the fares they dispatch. And as a cab driver, if you want to get good orders you have to stay on the dispatchers good side. Über changes the balance of power. As more people use über, the drivers have to rely on the dispatchers less, and the tit-for-tat system is deflated. I think this class action suit is an attempt to retain the status quo by cab companies. Über shouldn't be responsible for insurance until they start owning their own cabs. If the cab companies have their way, both the drivers and passengers will suffer.
pfortuny 14y ago
This was clearly going to happen. News at eleven. Not that I agree with the fine, but it was really deemed to happen.
ALee 14y ago
If I were them, they should just get users to use real names and addresses to send e-mail, faxes, and paper mail to the offices of the public utilities commission and to other officials who will pressure them. Fundamentally, these guys just need to increase social capital with regulators and invest in legal infrastructure. The government is just like another giant company with dependencies and old architecture. Trust me, it's just like investing in weird ERP integration to get access to all of those clients. It's not something that is necessary to the evolution of your product, but it's something you just have to do because the market is just shaped that way. Also, any press is good press, and once these three get large enough, it'll be widely unpopular to not support them.
dean783 14y ago
Lets help them out Tell the PUC to support ride sharing services Sign the Petition: https://www.change.org/petitions/tell-the-puc-to-support-ride-sharing-services https://www.change.org/petitions/tell-the-puc-to-support-rid...

82 points by co_pl_te 14y ago

Interesting how Uber is lumped in with Lyft and SideCar. Uber drivers at least have (towncar) licenses. I haven't figured out yet how Lyft/SideCar are anything more than illegal taxi services that rename "fare" "donation".

cj 14y ago
Uber also runs Uberx, a cheaper non-towncar version of Uber similar to Lyft. Does anyone know if uberx drivers also have towncar licenses?
- sbacheld 14y ago
  Uber also has extended their service to include some real taxi drivers in San Francisco (which would have a normal taxi license)
- brianr 14y ago
  UberX cars still have towncar licenses though, judging by the TCP stickers on their bumpers.
- j-v 14y ago
  In Chicago I've seen taxi drivers using Uber X, but that may be a city-specific pilot. This TC interview with Uber indicates that Uber X drivers have TCP licenses, but may not necessarily drive limos or town cars: http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/01/uber-opens-up-platform-to-non-limo-vehicles-with-uber-x-service-will-be-35-less-expensive/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/01/uber-opens-up-platform-to-n...

eli 14y ago

I'm a customer not a lawyer, but Uber certainly feels like a "provider" to me. It's not like they are just a referral service. They dispatch a driver of their choice, they process the payment, and they pay the driver. And while I think Uber is an awesome service, it's not totally unreasonable for the state to insist that if you are acting as a taxi, you need to have proof of insurance beyond what's required for a normal driver.

dinedal 14y ago
The problem is that the cars Uber has are already insured as limos. Just by the parent company that they are getting them from, not by Uber itself.
- eli 14y ago
  If the drivers already have the required paperwork and insurance then why doesn't Uber just register as a taxi provider and submit it as CPUC requested? Is that really so onerous (honest question)?
  - dinedal 14y ago
    I believe that's a question for Uber, I'm just paraphrasing from the article which states as I've said. Speculating though, perhaps there are limitations and red tape issues that would prevent them from doing so. Most likely, they don't want / need to operate the fleet of cars, just the technology that connects them to the customers.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    Because cities limit the number of taxi drivers through the use of medallions or similar. https://www.google.com/search?q=taxi+medallion https://www.google.com/search?q=taxi+medallion
    - eli 14y ago
      State of california doesn't appear to require medallions, so I don't think that applies in this specific case.
      - squeed 14y ago
        San Francisco is currently limited to 1494 taxi medallions. That means, legally, there can be a maximum of 1494 cars making street hails at any given moment. Car services are licensed by the state instead of the city, and are not subject to medallion restrictions. However, they cannot legally make street hails. Source: http://www.sfmta.com/cms/xind/medallionsissued.htm http://www.sfmta.com/cms/xind/medallionsissued.htm

eridius 14y ago

The lawsuit against Uber seems to me like nothing more than taxi drivers upset that their monopoly is being threatened. As the article said, all the Uber drivers are already licensed, and there's no explanation as to why Uber is "unfair".

eli 14y ago
Uber claims their drivers already meet the requirements, but if Uber doesn't register with CPUC how can they know if it's true? Are they supposed to take Uber's word for it?
- eridius 14y ago
  I don't know anything about CPUC so I can't really answer that question, but the lawsuit isn't about the licensing. The lawsuit is about Uber being "unfair", with no explanation for what that means. The only hint is that taxi drivers are seeing lower incomes, and the implication is that the lower incomes must somehow mean that Uber is being "unfair" rather than simply being a consequence of competition.
  - eli 14y ago
    Well, you should probably read the actual complaint before deciding anything. You can see the whole thing at the bottom of this article: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/11/14/class-action-lawsuit-filed-against-uber-by-san-francisco-taxicab-drivers-citing-unfair-business-competition/ http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/11/14/class-action-lawsui... IANAL and I don't know if the lawsuit has merit, but there is slightly more to it then just someone stamping their foot and yelling, "Unfair!"
  - sk5t 14y ago
    Unqualified statements of "X is unfair" are quite popular with unions in the northeast, to protest the hiring of any non-union labor. I guess one can't accuse them of libel or slander for accusations of "unfairness."
    - 14y ago

tvladeck 14y ago

I really like Lyft. I use it when I need a taxi and it works very well. Although I do agree that a world where these types of "collaborative consumption" services (like AirBNB) are essentially unregulated (or at least more open to competition) is much better, it is true that a number of industries are regulated, and incumbents that have been "playing by the rules" were promised a protected business environment. And it's not like they didn't have to give anything up in that trade - a taxi medallion in NYC is worth a lot of money - they have been exchanged for over a million dollars. So the question is: how do we transition to the better world without being unfair to the "stranded capital"?

smsm42 14y ago
We managed to transition from horsepower to cars without economy breaking down and I'm sure some people investing in horses lost some money on that. If some people investing in taxi business being shielded from competition will lose some money - sucks for them, but definite benefit for everybody else. And also would teach people not to invest in schemes that rely on government coercion and anti-competitiveness. It'd be no more "unfair" to them than their rent-extraction based on excluding competition is unfair to consumers.
- tvladeck 14y ago
  I'm not sure I was clear. In the cases I'm discussing, society has made an explicit deal with a group of providers within an industry. Essentially that deal is: purchase a license, run your business this way, charge these prices, etc., and we'll protect your market. NB this does not apply in equal degrees across all industries, and your horses -> cars example doesn't qualify. In addition, note that I was agreeing with you that the transition, on the whole, is definitely desirable. I'm only arguing that there may be moral consequences in not upholding society's end of the trade I describe above.
  - brc 14y ago
    >society has made an explicit deal with a group of providers within an industry. >not upholding society's end of the trade I describe above. The deal - as it was, has been, or whatever, was simply some type of legislative barrier passed using the threat of imprisonment and/or fines as the stick. While you could argue that 'society' passed and agreed to these rules through the democratic legislative process, in reality it's far more arcane than that (don't watch sausages or laws getting made). In reality, no law in a democracy can be promised to exist past the next election period. Sure, mostly it doesn't happen that way, but laws passed some time ago in a different technological state of progress are not inviolate, never-to-be-repealed things cast in stone. There are no moral consequences at all. People win and lose every day, in every industry, for millions of reasons. It would be immoral to try and stop this creative destruction process and try to freeze life at a certain point. Because that would deny the future winners from winning, and permanently cast the losers in the 'loser' role. The underlying beauty and strength of democracy is that it can change and destroy old concepts, old rules and old leaders peacefully. This is the killer feature that makes up for it's otherwise many flaws.

smsm42 14y ago

It just reeks of special interests protecting their turf. Of course when you are operating in highly regulated environment and have a well-oiled connections with local politicians it is annoying when somebody new comes around and tries to take part of your customer share. However for me as a consumer it is annoying that government yet again tries to take away my choice under the guise of protecting me from imaginary threats - and instead ends up protecting me from better service and lower prices. I don't need this kind of protection.

polemic 14y ago
Oh please. Regulation doesn't exist in a vacuum, and acting as if you're exempt from the law in the noble pursuit of lower prices is bollocks.
- PKop 14y ago
  So please specify how, in this case, what is beneficial about the regulation of the taxi industry for consumers who want choices and lower prices?
  - usaar333 14y ago
    Well the argument has always been: 1. Safer cabs a. mechanical inspections b. limited hours - safer driver 2. Prevent price gouging 3. Prevent circuitous routing 4. Limit congestion by reducing vehicles on road
    - jamiequint 14y ago
      re: 1 & 3, have you ever ridden in a SF cab?? This is not the case at all. re: 4, so when people can't take a cab they just forget about where they are going and don't go. These arguments are nonsense.
      - usaar333 14y ago
        Not saying I necessary agree with the arguments. That said: 1. Never felt unsafe. Only time I've ever felt unsafe in a cab was mainland China which has less (enforced?) regulation. 3. Never happened to me in SF. Happened in Las Vegas (common thing where cab drivers take I-215 from airport to the Strip rather than surface streets); it's very easy to request a complete refund. 4. Public transit, bike, etc. Ensures that those who are really willing to pay for a cab get there quicker due to lower traffic congestion (theoretically - this probably only applies to areas dominated by cabs like Manhattan).

jasonhancock 14y ago

In practice these behave exactly like a taxi service. I don't think it matters much who owns the cars. No one would argue that a cab company from, say, LA, should be able to just bring a portion of its fleet to SF and start picking up passengers without complying with the laws that govern taxis here. If these start-ups affect the market in essentially the same way, we and they all know they are trying to enter a market with rules in a way that does not abide by them

penrod 14y ago
I'll take the bait: Yes an external cab company should be able to come into SF and compete with the local firms. The SF regulations have expressly been rigged to support a local cartel and are morally illegitimate.
- jasonhancock 14y ago
  You may think that an external cab company (or Lyft) should be able to come into SF and complete with local firms but you also apparently agree it is illegal. I personally consider it equally morally illegitimate for individual actors in a society governed by the rule of law to decide which laws and regulations "work" for them and which ones don't, then to disregard those they don't like. And in practical terms I think it is irresponsible for a group of people with one goal -to make money- to set up a company which they know is breaking the law, and to convince a lot of people to join them in breaking the law (their drivers) and creating ridiculous contortions that allow them to pretend not to be governed by the rules ("the donation thing" e.g.) when everyone knows they are a taxi service, plain and simple.

dreamdu5t 14y ago

Another example of government regulation keeping us safe from evil taxi drivers. Thank God regulations like this exist to make sure that everybody pays their protection money. Anyone who disagrees clearly hates poor people and taxi drivers... or something.

crazy1van 14y ago

This is outrageous that the taxi companies are just lobbying for laws that protect their business at the expense of other businesses! Ok, now please pass a law saying internet providers can't limit how much data I can send each month nor prioritize one type of traffic over another. After all, that is hurting internet businesses!

1123581321 14y ago
Traffic prioritization is an important issue that does hurt businesses and users to the benefit of telecoms and ISPs. It is better known as the "net neutrality" issue. https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality To your larger point, the disgusting part is the behavior of the regulators, who should not succumb to the lobbyists and campaign donations of the livery industry. However, it's also absolutely wrong to attempt to influence government for personal gain. We all have a moral duty to do what's good for everyone including ourselves. Taxi unions need to recognize that protecting incompetent systems to enrich their members at the expense of everyone else, by using government as a weapon, harms every user of public transportation and several businesses and in the long run sets the drivers up for an unnecessary catastrophic collapse of the taxi system when it becomes completely unbearable by the public.

ajays 14y ago

The deck is stacked against Uber, Lyft and Sidecar. You have to realize that the taxi industry is a government-cab collaboration, with the customer getting fleeced. It is not as simple as "government grants license to cab operator, cab operator runs his cab and makes money". No. The government takes a cut from the daily action too. Use a credit card in the cab? The government takes a cut. Want to rent your medallion to someone else? The government takes a cut. Right now, the financial impact of these outfits is minimal. But when they seriously start impacting government revenues, expect the lawmakers to come out swinging. They'll tag-team with the taxi union(s) and make life hell for the Sidecars, Ubers and Lyfts of the world.

firefoxman1 14y ago
I wonder if Uber, Lyft and Sidecar aren't competing against each other right now, seeing as they have a common enemy. It would be wise to have all the people on your side as possible even if they won't be in the future.
- Robelius 14y ago
  As far as I know they are not competitive with each other. They are small enough that they don't effect one another.
callmeed 14y ago
I've always thought AirBnB has as big a deck stacked against it (or bigger). There are a lot of cities whose main industry is tourism and collect 10%+ bed taxes. I can't imagine they'll give those up easily.
- yardie 14y ago
  I don't think so. The VRBO market has existed for years (decades even) AirBnB just made it marketable and easy to enter. The controversy with them is some of the property owners are really taking the piss and treating their residential property as hotels and not paying the hotel taxes (BTW, Florida is 20%). All the reports I've read have been spot on (though the AirBnB founders disagree). The hotels are paying this tax. Some of your members properties look awfully like a hotel. You collect the money, you collect the tax. Unlike the taxi companies who actually have a monopoly, the hoteliers just want the same deal to apply to everyone.

colevscode 14y ago

The few uber drivers I've talked to love the service. One driver told me that, with uber, he can often find a nearby fare in minutes. He said that the combination of flags, the dispatcher, and über means the meter is always running. It's pretty clear to me that the folks that are suffering from über are the taxi dispatch companies. These companies lease out the cars for a daily fee, like 150 bucks per day. The driver can do whatever he wants as long as he pays that daily fee. The cab company pays insurance because they own the cabs. Cab drivers are essentially independent contractors. They start making money after they've covered the cab cost for the day. So why should the cab companies care if a driver is using über? From what I've heard, when a dispatcher has a good order, like for a trip across town on a slow day, they'll ask for a cut. In other words the cab companies are supplementing their taxi rental service with a cut of the fares they dispatch. And as a cab driver, if you want to get good orders you have to stay on the dispatchers good side. Über changes the balance of power. As more people use über, the drivers have to rely on the dispatchers less, and the tit-for-tat system is deflated. I think this class action suit is an attempt to retain the status quo by cab companies. Über shouldn't be responsible for insurance until they start owning their own cabs. If the cab companies have their way, both the drivers and passengers will suffer.

pfortuny 14y ago

This was clearly going to happen. News at eleven. Not that I agree with the fine, but it was really deemed to happen.

ALee 14y ago

If I were them, they should just get users to use real names and addresses to send e-mail, faxes, and paper mail to the offices of the public utilities commission and to other officials who will pressure them. Fundamentally, these guys just need to increase social capital with regulators and invest in legal infrastructure. The government is just like another giant company with dependencies and old architecture. Trust me, it's just like investing in weird ERP integration to get access to all of those clients. It's not something that is necessary to the evolution of your product, but it's something you just have to do because the market is just shaped that way. Also, any press is good press, and once these three get large enough, it'll be widely unpopular to not support them.

dean783 14y ago

Lets help them out Tell the PUC to support ride sharing services Sign the Petition: https://www.change.org/petitions/tell-the-puc-to-support-ride-sharing-services https://www.change.org/petitions/tell-the-puc-to-support-rid...