3 ms·

This is the same problem that I have with UberX, Lyft, and Sidecar. As a customer, I love the services. As a citizen of where I live, I'm upset at them breaki

This is the same problem that I have with UberX, Lyft, and Sidecar. As a customer, I love the services. As a citizen of where I live, I'm upset at them breaking the law--or, more specifically, condoning and aiding breaking the law[0]--and not only expecting not to have any consequences for that but going so far as to be furious when there are consequences. The actions of UberX and Lyft in Seattle over the "ridesharing" debate have been demonstrative. I'll say upfront that the Seattle City Council's idea to cap Transportation Network Company (TNC) drivers to 150 per TNC seems shortsighted, but I can understand why[1]. When Lyft and UberX didn't get exactly what they wanted, they filed and paid for signature gathering to put the ordinance to a referendum; their right to do so under law. However, that referendum suspends the ordinance that makes their business model legal. Instead of ceasing, both companies doubled-down. Why do they get to break the law in the name of "disruption" when most of the rest of us don't? 0 - For-hire drivers have to meet certain requirements that Lyft and UberX drivers don't meet. Further, both companies actively solicit for people to violate the terms of their auto insurance. Being canceled "for cause" by an auto insurer is an almost guaranteed way to see a person's rates double with the next company. 1 - I can think of two reasons. First, it's because taxis are capped and, while that system is badly broken, it can't just be yanked out from under the existing taxi system. That leads to the second reason, which is the Council not wanting to have hundreds or thousands of cars trying to cruise the same areas while looking for passengers.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Zak 13y ago
breaking the law[0]--and not only expecting not to have any consequences for that but going so far as to be furious when there are consequences. I don't think UberX and airbnb are operating under any illusions that there won't be consequences. I think that they're hoping members of the public will grow to like their services faster than regulators can stamp them out, and that public fury over attempts to stamp out the services will prompt changes in the law. I see this as objectionable if the companies mislead their users who provide services about the legal risks they may incur, but not otherwise. People who feel strongly about a moral duty to obey the law may disagree on this point.
- rexf 13y ago
  Correct, the article says the same: Kevin Laws of AngelList, a site that unites start-ups and investors, explained that “the approach almost all start-ups take is to see if they can be successful fast enough so they can have enough money to work with the regulators.”
  - Zak 13y ago
    Having money isn't quite the same as having passionate users and therefore public support. Both are important for getting regulations changed.
fraserharris 13y ago
Re 0: Lyft and UberX now offer insurance.[1] Re 1 - Market supply and demand fixes the problem of hundreds or thousands of cars trying to cruise the same areas. [1] http://pando.com/2014/03/31/half-of-ubers-insurance-arrangements-leaked-were-still-waiting-for-the-other-half/ http://pando.com/2014/03/31/half-of-ubers-insurance-arrangem...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
DenisM 13y ago
Having used both Uber and Taxi in Seattle and Vegas, I honestly can't see how licensed cabbies are any better. That regulation you speak of doesn't help them to find the location (one couldn't find Seattle Opera, neither by name nor by address, nor by GPS), nor hear you clearly (took me to the wrong hotel, still charged for the whole trip), nor take the short road (Vegas cabbies always take you the long road from airport to the hotels, despite a poster inside saying they must take the short road). With Uber I can leave a nasty review, which is a quick and easy way to weed out bad drivers. In theory, regulation should make cabbies better, but that just doesn't happen. I dread using cabs - more than half the time I feel like I have to take part in the driving if I want to get anywhere.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  >In theory, regulation should make cabbies better It depends what you mean by 'better.' The regulation of nuclear plants isn't intended to make them more efficient.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Zak 13y ago

breaking the law[0]--and not only expecting not to have any consequences for that but going so far as to be furious when there are consequences. I don't think UberX and airbnb are operating under any illusions that there won't be consequences. I think that they're hoping members of the public will grow to like their services faster than regulators can stamp them out, and that public fury over attempts to stamp out the services will prompt changes in the law. I see this as objectionable if the companies mislead their users who provide services about the legal risks they may incur, but not otherwise. People who feel strongly about a moral duty to obey the law may disagree on this point.

rexf 13y ago
Correct, the article says the same: Kevin Laws of AngelList, a site that unites start-ups and investors, explained that “the approach almost all start-ups take is to see if they can be successful fast enough so they can have enough money to work with the regulators.”
- Zak 13y ago
  Having money isn't quite the same as having passionate users and therefore public support. Both are important for getting regulations changed.

fraserharris 13y ago

Re 0: Lyft and UberX now offer insurance.[1] Re 1 - Market supply and demand fixes the problem of hundreds or thousands of cars trying to cruise the same areas. [1] http://pando.com/2014/03/31/half-of-ubers-insurance-arrangements-leaked-were-still-waiting-for-the-other-half/ http://pando.com/2014/03/31/half-of-ubers-insurance-arrangem...

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

DenisM 13y ago

Having used both Uber and Taxi in Seattle and Vegas, I honestly can't see how licensed cabbies are any better. That regulation you speak of doesn't help them to find the location (one couldn't find Seattle Opera, neither by name nor by address, nor by GPS), nor hear you clearly (took me to the wrong hotel, still charged for the whole trip), nor take the short road (Vegas cabbies always take you the long road from airport to the hotels, despite a poster inside saying they must take the short road). With Uber I can leave a nasty review, which is a quick and easy way to weed out bad drivers. In theory, regulation should make cabbies better, but that just doesn't happen. I dread using cabs - more than half the time I feel like I have to take part in the driving if I want to get anywhere.

pessimizer 13y ago
>In theory, regulation should make cabbies better It depends what you mean by 'better.' The regulation of nuclear plants isn't intended to make them more efficient.