4 ms·

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.

by dinedal 14y ago

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
      - whyenot 14y ago
        If the people of SF want more medallions, they can always create a proposition and vote at the ballot box. Proposition A in 2007 is the reason the MTA regulates taxis in the first place, and previous propositions ("Transit First") have shaped the number of medallions that are issued. If Uber is operating as a taxi, they should have to get medallions just like every other taxi company. If they, or anyone else doesn't like the taxi system in SF, it's possible to change it, assuming you can convince enough voters... It's not all that hard to get a proposition on the ballot in SF. There were 7 propositions in our last election, and that's on the low end for SF.
        Zak 14y ago
        Why should there be medallions at all? How do they benefit society as a whole or serve any legitimate government function, as opposed to shall-issue licencing for anyone who meets the safety/training/testing/insurance requirements?
        rprasad 14y ago
        Why should there be medallions at all? It would seem that the good people of San Francisco voted to require medallions and to impose regulation on taxi services.
        Zak 14y ago
        I couldn't find the origin of the permitting system in a couple minutes of googling, but I did find that there was a medallion system at least as early as 1950. It therefore seems unlikely that many of the people who currently live in San Francisco voted to impose one. It does not appear that there has been any serious effort to eliminate the system.
        smsm42 14y ago
        Most of the good people of San Francisco have no idea and couldn't care less until they need a taxi. Then they get ripped off, but then they forget about it in the next half an hour.
- brc 14y ago
  I'm guessing that taxis are a protected industry, as a result from lobbying, and that you can't just register as a taxi provider. I'm guessing that, like most cities, they have found taxi licensing to be a nice little earner for the city, and intentionally limit supply in order to keep the prices high.
- viscanti 14y ago
  What does the licensing accomplish? Are drivers double drug tested? Are they double insured? They're using all licensed drivers, which means any arguments of "unfairness" are baseless. They aren't benefiting from lower labor costs because they're using unregulated drivers who might be able to compete at lower costs. I don't think it's a degree of how onerous the requirement is. It's more a matter of what does it accomplish? There's not a precedent for double covering in the industry, and Uber certainly isn't gaining a competitive advantage because of it. It seems strange that they're lumped in with the other two services who clearly use unlicensed drivers.
  - sk5t 14y ago
    I made some remarks elsewhere in this thread about the term "unfair," and AFAIK it usually refers to anyone doing work outside the reach of the protestor's collective bargaining agreement. "We have rigged the market to our satisfaction, and it would be unfair of you to alter that comfortable dynamic."
  - eli 14y ago
    The licensing proves to the agency that the drivers are drug tested and insured instead of simply taking Uber's word for it. I think it is unreasonable to expect that regulatory paperwork doesn't apply to you just because you're probably in compliance anyway.
    - viscanti 14y ago
      This doesn't seem to be an issue of regulatory paperwork though. What does double licensing accomplish and what does it actually mean? I'm all for fines if they're found using unlicensed drivers. I guess I don't know that it's necessary to double drug test the drivers though. I don't think the issue here is filling out a permit, I think it's a matter of "what does that mean". If asked, they should probably be required to show that all their drivers are properly licensed. If their drivers are all properly licensed, I don't see what requiring Uber to be licensed accomplishes. It's not a question of "probably in compliance". If Uber is using unlicensed drivers (which I haven't heard any evidence of), they should be fined. If they are using 100% properly licensed drivers, I think this is a non-story.

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.

by 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
    - whyenot 14y ago
      If the people of SF want more medallions, they can always create a proposition and vote at the ballot box. Proposition A in 2007 is the reason the MTA regulates taxis in the first place, and previous propositions ("Transit First") have shaped the number of medallions that are issued. If Uber is operating as a taxi, they should have to get medallions just like every other taxi company. If they, or anyone else doesn't like the taxi system in SF, it's possible to change it, assuming you can convince enough voters... It's not all that hard to get a proposition on the ballot in SF. There were 7 propositions in our last election, and that's on the low end for SF.
      - Zak 14y ago
        Why should there be medallions at all? How do they benefit society as a whole or serve any legitimate government function, as opposed to shall-issue licencing for anyone who meets the safety/training/testing/insurance requirements?
        rprasad 14y ago
        Why should there be medallions at all? It would seem that the good people of San Francisco voted to require medallions and to impose regulation on taxi services.
        Zak 14y ago
        I couldn't find the origin of the permitting system in a couple minutes of googling, but I did find that there was a medallion system at least as early as 1950. It therefore seems unlikely that many of the people who currently live in San Francisco voted to impose one. It does not appear that there has been any serious effort to eliminate the system.
        smsm42 14y ago
        Most of the good people of San Francisco have no idea and couldn't care less until they need a taxi. Then they get ripped off, but then they forget about it in the next half an hour.
brc 14y ago
I'm guessing that taxis are a protected industry, as a result from lobbying, and that you can't just register as a taxi provider. I'm guessing that, like most cities, they have found taxi licensing to be a nice little earner for the city, and intentionally limit supply in order to keep the prices high.
viscanti 14y ago
What does the licensing accomplish? Are drivers double drug tested? Are they double insured? They're using all licensed drivers, which means any arguments of "unfairness" are baseless. They aren't benefiting from lower labor costs because they're using unregulated drivers who might be able to compete at lower costs. I don't think it's a degree of how onerous the requirement is. It's more a matter of what does it accomplish? There's not a precedent for double covering in the industry, and Uber certainly isn't gaining a competitive advantage because of it. It seems strange that they're lumped in with the other two services who clearly use unlicensed drivers.
- sk5t 14y ago
  I made some remarks elsewhere in this thread about the term "unfair," and AFAIK it usually refers to anyone doing work outside the reach of the protestor's collective bargaining agreement. "We have rigged the market to our satisfaction, and it would be unfair of you to alter that comfortable dynamic."
- eli 14y ago
  The licensing proves to the agency that the drivers are drug tested and insured instead of simply taking Uber's word for it. I think it is unreasonable to expect that regulatory paperwork doesn't apply to you just because you're probably in compliance anyway.
  - viscanti 14y ago
    This doesn't seem to be an issue of regulatory paperwork though. What does double licensing accomplish and what does it actually mean? I'm all for fines if they're found using unlicensed drivers. I guess I don't know that it's necessary to double drug test the drivers though. I don't think the issue here is filling out a permit, I think it's a matter of "what does that mean". If asked, they should probably be required to show that all their drivers are properly licensed. If their drivers are all properly licensed, I don't see what requiring Uber to be licensed accomplishes. It's not a question of "probably in compliance". If Uber is using unlicensed drivers (which I haven't heard any evidence of), they should be fined. If they are using 100% properly licensed drivers, I think this is a non-story.