4 ms·

Here's a better headline: "My Uber gor pulled over by the Denver Police, and the officer mistakenly told us Uber is illegal." Maybe not so many clicks that way,

Here's a better headline: "My Uber gor pulled over by the Denver Police, and the officer mistakenly told us Uber is illegal." Maybe not so many clicks that way, though. I agree that this was a rather unfortunate and odd experience, but I don't see what the big deal is. The only thing that struck me as "really weird" about this is that the author called a Denver Post reporter to get live legal information while he was in the car, and that the author wrote this sentence: "Did I really want to take a ride from an individual who clearly lied to me, then was evasive when I asked one basic question?" (Did it ever occur to the author that the cop might just have been mistaken about Uber's legality? Did it occur to him the the officer was just trying to do him a favor?) At the end of the day, we have a cop who pulled an Uber driver over for speeding and, though he mistakenly thought Uber was illegal, nonetheless only issued a speeding ticket and offered to drive the passenger to the airport. The author goes out of his way to pain the officer as behaving "really weirdly," and I suppose I don't see why the officer needed the passenger's ID (though I also would not be surprised to learn that it is totally normal for an officer to request a passenger's ID), but for the most part this seems like everyone did their jobs properly. Of course, in a perfect world, an officer would know everything about Colorado law. But that is clearly unrealistic. So while yes, of course, it would be preferable for an officer to be properly informed about Uber's legality, I don't think we should be judging him too harshly for his mistake, especially when it sounds like Colorado has only recently legalized Uber, and the officer did not attempt to ticket or detain anyone for the purported violation. Edit: By the way, the Colorado law imposes a number of requirements. Companies must obtain permits, drivers must display various notices and "[t]o obtain permits, the companies must have drivers pass criminal-background and driving-history checks. The drivers' cars must pass vehicle inspections, and be clearly marked as ['transportation network company'] cars. The drivers must also carry personal car insurance, in addition to the commercial insurance Uber and Lyft provide." http://gazette.com/uber-lyft-become-regulated-in-colorado/article/1521068 http://gazette.com/uber-lyft-become-regulated-in-colorado/ar... Nothing in the article on whether Uber, or his Uber driver, has complied. The officer could well have been correct (though perhaps not for the reason he was thinking). Here's the bill itself: http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2014a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont2/70364091166B28FC87257C4300636F6B/$FILE/125_01.pdf http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2014a/csl.nsf/fsbillco... Edit 2: From the City of Denver's traffic enforcement FAQ: "Depending on the circumstances, officers may request identification from passengers as well." http://www.denvergov.org/police/PoliceDepartment/TrafficEnforcement/tabid/440752/Default.aspx http://www.denvergov.org/police/PoliceDepartment/TrafficEnfo...

ryoshu 12y ago
> Of course, in a perfect world, an officer would know everything about Colorado law. But that is clearly unrealistic. Citizens of Colorado are supposed to know and obey the law and apparently citizens of Washington state are expected to as well, if they are visiting. Why is it unrealistic to expect a Colorado police officer to know the law?
- jfoster 12y ago
  Besides, the police shouldn't try to enforce particular laws until they are confident about their understanding of them.
  - pdabbadabba 12y ago
    Where in this article did the officer try to enforce whatever law it was he thought Uber was violating?
    - chris_wot 12y ago
      He started to, then he realised he'd really fucked up.
    - jfoster 12y ago
      True, he didn't follow through, but he did bring it up in a way that suggested he was planning to enforce his flawed understanding of the law. My point is that he shouldn't even bring it up if he is uncertain.
- pdabbadabba 12y ago
  The better argument, I think, is that it is also unrealistic to expect citizens to know all the laws. The theoretical answer to this is that citizens are expected to know all the major laws that govern everyday activity, and are then expected to educate themselves when they engage in a particular activity or line of business that a reasonable person would expect might be specially regulated about more obscure laws that might apply to that activity. Officers, on the other hand, have no way of knowing what sorts of violations they are about to encounter when they go out on patrol. I don't claim, though, that this is always true of fair in practice -- I'm just relaying the conventional reply. And I think some perspective is in order: the officer's information was, at most, a few weeks out of date, and he did not attempt to actually enforce any Uber-related law. Also note what I pointed out in my edit: the new law includes regulatory restrictions that the driver may well have been violating.

ryoshu 12y ago

> Of course, in a perfect world, an officer would know everything about Colorado law. But that is clearly unrealistic. Citizens of Colorado are supposed to know and obey the law and apparently citizens of Washington state are expected to as well, if they are visiting. Why is it unrealistic to expect a Colorado police officer to know the law?

jfoster 12y ago
Besides, the police shouldn't try to enforce particular laws until they are confident about their understanding of them.
- pdabbadabba 12y ago
  Where in this article did the officer try to enforce whatever law it was he thought Uber was violating?
  - chris_wot 12y ago
    He started to, then he realised he'd really fucked up.
  - jfoster 12y ago
    True, he didn't follow through, but he did bring it up in a way that suggested he was planning to enforce his flawed understanding of the law. My point is that he shouldn't even bring it up if he is uncertain.
pdabbadabba 12y ago
The better argument, I think, is that it is also unrealistic to expect citizens to know all the laws. The theoretical answer to this is that citizens are expected to know all the major laws that govern everyday activity, and are then expected to educate themselves when they engage in a particular activity or line of business that a reasonable person would expect might be specially regulated about more obscure laws that might apply to that activity. Officers, on the other hand, have no way of knowing what sorts of violations they are about to encounter when they go out on patrol. I don't claim, though, that this is always true of fair in practice -- I'm just relaying the conventional reply. And I think some perspective is in order: the officer's information was, at most, a few weeks out of date, and he did not attempt to actually enforce any Uber-related law. Also note what I pointed out in my edit: the new law includes regulatory restrictions that the driver may well have been violating.