8 ms·

Charleston, SC police plan to sting UberX drivers

51 points by ryandvm 12y ago

outside1234 12y ago
"The San Francisco-based technology company is backed by Google Ventures, which recently estimated that the company is worth more than $200 billion, according to Bloomberg." Ok, Uber is great, but $200B? A third as valuable as Apple? Errr, no.
- 67726e 12y ago
  Knowing The Post & Courier and their notorious lack of spell check, that is probably a typo no one caught because no one reviews the articles.
- ConnorBoyd 12y ago
  Sort of a misquote. The Bloomberg article quotes the Google Ventures managing partner, who says the long-term market value could be $200 billion or more. This article makes it sound like that's their current valuation. Still sounds too high, but it's not quite as ridiculous. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-15/worth-more-than-toyota-google-ventures-head-says-uber-value-could-exceed-200b.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-15/worth-more-than-toy...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
pdabbadabba 12y ago
I find this totally infuriating. Yes, Uber offers a valuable service that I wish more localities would accommodate. But we are bound even by laws that we think are stupid, and Uber shouldn't be allowed to operate in flagrant violation of local laws simply because they have enough money to pay the fines they rack up. And this is to say nothing of the fact that Charleston may well have legitimate policy reasons for wanting to regulate taxi drivers, reasons that Uber is now actively undermining. If I were Charleston, my next order of business would be to enact an ordinance providing for exponentially increasing fines for businesses that materially encourage the violation of local laws.
- jmckib 12y ago
  I agree with your point that in general one shouldn't be able to use money to skirt the law, but I can hardly be infuriated with Uber for violating laws that only exist to fleece consumers by preventing competition in the taxi industry. To make an analogy, it's clear that civil disobedience should not be practiced against laws forbidding murder or theft, but in the case of jim crow laws or similarly unjust laws I would fully support acts of civil disobedience.
  - pdabbadabba 12y ago
    I can't say I'm persuaded by the civil-rights-era civil disobedience analogy. While I might support civil disobedience to help rectify a centuries-long history of racial discrimination, I can't say I feel the same way about helping consumers find a cheaper and easier way to get around town (or to help drivers sell time and space in their car without getting a taxi license). And this is, of course, to ignore the real motive: Uber is actually only flouting the law in order to make a profit. Not exactly Selma. Also, does it not bother you that this particular form of civil disobedience is only available with extremely deep pockets?
    - thrill 12y ago
      Bad laws make for bad liberty.
      - krapp 12y ago
        Every company believes the laws which interfere with their capacity for profit are bad laws. That doesn't actually make them so.
      - pdabbadabba 12y ago
        I'm not sure I understand your point. Is it that you should be free to disregard any law you think is bad, because these bad laws infringe on your liberty?
        12y ago
rvanniekerk 12y ago
"We have a big public safety issue here, and we need to get them to understand that this a problem ... and that we do not intend to ignore it." What an absolute cop-out this is, no pun intended.
- pdabbadabba 12y ago
  How so? It seems to me that the City of Charleston is perfectly within its rights to impose a licensing requirement on taxi drivers as a way of ensuring that drivers, among other things, have the proper insurance. And it shouldn't be expected to simply waive this requirement because Uber is a big company that that says it offers insurance coverage for its drivers. Maybe Charleston would like to make Uber and its drivers demonstrate that they actually have that insurance, in a particular way and to a particular level of proof. Or maybe Charleston requires more or different insurance than Uber provides. I don't doubt that there is an element of protectionism here as well. But that doesn't mean that there isn't also a public safety issue, or, regardless, that Uber is free to flout local law so long as it can pay the fines.
  - VLM 12y ago
    "perfectly within its rights to impose a licensing requirement" How so? I can think of two example of near unanimous modern agreement where lower governmental levels are not allowed to impose additional randomly purchased rules on subjects regulated at a higher level, its a thought crime to even suggest the rationale behind these historical issues: 1) Poll taxes and election tests 2) Enforcement of immigration law
    - pdabbadabba 12y ago
      Well of course there are certain licensing requirements that a municipality cannot impose. But you remain very far from showing that a license to operate a taxi -- an area that is subject to strict regulation in virtually every municipality in the U.S. -- is one of them.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
funkiee 12y ago
Charleston resident here, our politics are so backwards in this regard. We're also considering making new bars close at midnight to make downtown 'more attractive to tech companies'. At least local lawyers have stated that they're willing to take the case of any uber driver caught by this for free.
- 67726e 12y ago
  Don't forget the "War on Touror" wherein undercover police officers hand out $1000 fines to college kids after they've asked them to give an impromptu history tour of the peninsula.
  - simcop2387 12y ago
    Any sources for that, it's hard to find anything googling that, and it sounds like a pretty open and shut case of entrapment on the surface.
    - 67726e 12y ago
      Source[0] I'm not a lawyer, but the police can ask you to perform a crime and bust you for it if "you were inclined to commit the crime anyway" or something like that. The rule of thumb is like if a tourist walked up and asked for a tour, would the suspect do it then? If so a cop can nab you for it. The sting revolves around Charleston licensing tour guides who must pass a pretty hard test and the rickshaw/bike-taxi operator not having taken/passed that test. Of course there was a recent case in Washington D.C. where the same law regarding tour guides was recently struck down[1], so who knows if he could have fought it. Last I heard the guy who got busted was paying his fine in installments. [0] - http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140122/PC16/140129828 http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140122/PC16/14012982... [1] - http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-freespeech-tourguides-court-20140711-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-freespeech-t...
- VLM 12y ago
  Serious question about the bar time thing: Is that a poorly disguised blue law where they're doing the "big lie" PR technique, or are they actually serious because bar close time is currently 9pm on school nights or some similar paternalism?
lotsofmangos 12y ago
Uber's controversial method of recruiting average citizens to drive for the service I wasn't aware that average citizens becoming taxi drivers was particularly controversial. There must be some minimum level of oddness normally required I guess. Which would explain a lot.
tzs 12y ago
> However, the city's strategy of penalizng UberX drivers may be futile. Taylor Bennett, a spokesman for Uber, said the company will pay for all the fines that its drivers in Charleston are issued by law enforcement officers, even if the drivers are cited more than once for the same violation. > That may not be an empty promise. The San Francisco-based technology company is backed by Google Ventures, which recently estimated that the company is worth more than $200 billion, according to Bloomberg I'm a bit surprised this works. My big concern if I were paying someone's fines for breaking the law would be RICO laws. I guess this is not a problem because nobody (yet) includes operation of unlicensed taxi services as a predicate offense in their RICO statute?
ChuckMcM 12y ago
This is what I perceive to be the problem: From the article: > "I think when you look at Uber's ads on Facebook > saying you can make $52,000 a year driving for them, > it's very appealing in this town of kids that > wait tables," said Clayton Dennard of Going Coastal > Transportation. I think it is appealing, and because it is possible to make money driving for UberX in a town with taxis tells you not that Uber is borked but that the taxi system is. That the municipalities don't see this (or perhaps they do if they are complicit in the existing status quo) is somewhat infuriating. It seems to me that if taxis were great then Uber wouldn't get any traction.
- sheetjs 12y ago
  > if taxis were great then Uber wouldn't get any traction. Uber has a few luxuries that taxis are not afforded (due to regulation), including significant surge pricing and the general ability to turn down fares. To compare, Uber is allowed to charge 3x the normal price during peak hours, whereas NYC cabs have a fixed 50 cent surcharge at night and $1 during evening commuting hours. Personal anecdote: requested an Uber at the ferry terminal on the embarcadero 20 minutes before a surge. Driver was a block away and suddenly canceled, forcing me to request again. The second request occurred during a surge, so I had to pay 2.5x for that trip! Fortunately Uber refunded me but that type of stunt is what the laws exist to prevent. As I understand UberX, since the drivers are not required to take on commercial insurance, their insurance costs are also significantly limited. The biggest botheration, though, is the fact that the insurance policies technically don't allow driving for hire. It seems we all want a situation with the regulations, guarantees and protections that are currently provided by the laws AND the convenience and benefits of Uber. Unfortunately they are mutually exclusive. If we allowed taxis to charge more for fares and to skirt the other regulations that they are currently bound to, I'd expect that the taxi landscape would improve immensely
  - nugget 12y ago
    Have you talked to many UberX drivers? More than the money, most have told me that they love the flexibility to clock in and clock out as needed. When you lease a cab, you pay a flat fee per week to the medallion owner and then work every minute to turn a profit. As a result of this, any down time comes out of your own pocket. I spoke with a driver last week who hadn't been on vacation in 4 years because he was afraid that one missed week would take him out of the driver lineup. He would have had to pay to rent the cab even the week he was out, in order to keep his spot. It reminded me of stories from sharecroppers in the south who lived and worked with a low but constant level of fear, pressure and anxiety. The problem isn't with insurance or vehicle standards, all of which will be addressed in time. Uber fixed a fundamental structural problem with an antiquated system that favors medallion owners at the expense of both drivers and riders.
reuwsaat 12y ago
Why do taxi organizations spend all their effort trying to make life difficult for Uber. It's not as if Uber has some sort of top-secret tech they refuse to share with the world. Perhaps some of their efforts should be spent on improving their own product. As someone that spent 5 years living in Manhattan, I feel qualified to comment on the state of taxi rides. I now take Uber almost exclusively. And several Uber drivers I've had the pleasure of riding with were previously taxi drivers. They've told me the experience is much better for them with Uber as well. Stop trying to kill Uber. Make taxis better for your drivers and passengers and the rest will follow.
- hkmurakami 12y ago
  I was in Manhattan the other day, and as a non'New Yorker, I spent 10 minutes trying and failing to catch a cab. Gave up and used uberx. Never going to even attempt to catch a cab again in the city :(
  - reuwsaat 12y ago
    Any chance you're "the" Haruki Murakami?! Big, big fan here.
    - vinceguidry 12y ago
      Just check his profile. You can get there by clicking on his name.
      - reuwsaat 12y ago
        Ah. Sorry. Should have been able to figure that out. Thank you.
        hkmurakami 12y ago
        No worries, I get that a lot ;)
oiw78 12y ago
Uber will never work out. Following are few reasons : 1. Uber is directly competing against taxi drivers in each city. These are low-wage workers having strong unions in each city. 2. Traffic laws are controlled by city or town. Because there is no single govt. in every city/town , local mandates vary. 3. Uber might project that it is helping local economy. What are taxi drivers ? Are they not part of economy ? There are 233,000 taxi drivers according to BLS. If every common man tries to take share of these drivers , who by the way part of same city/town and local economy Uber is claiming to help, it will result in voilence ultimately. 4. Uber is tanking dollars in VC and select-few founders pockets with false pretension of giving back to local economy. What about taxes on drivers' earning ? That is great loss for city/town in terms of revenue. Individuals are not necessarily honest about their earnings from Uber. 5. Uber has also entered Indian market. India is all together different country and there is very very strong support for taxi drivers in mumbai , banglore etc. Wait until these uneducated people learn about Uber and start smashing every Uber car. edit - Now shills are down voting truth.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Malician 12y ago
  Your reasons are relevant and important as a list of threats to Uber, but just listing them out doesn't prove that Uber cannot overcome them. #1: Yes, but they can win. For example, here we have Uber with the advantage against heavy opposition from one of the most entrenched taxi markets in the world: http://www.brw.com.au/p/business/uber_gets_london_green_light_black_XNUC7XI8mIZEovAMpNlhxK http://www.brw.com.au/p/business/uber_gets_london_green_ligh... #2 Sure, and Uber has been dealing with this surprisingly well considering the challenges involved. #3, #4, these are more of a moral attack on Uber as being bad for the populace they serve. Correct or not, it doesn't necessarily mean they will fail. Finally, in #3-#5 there is a big element of the idea that there will be mass vigilante violence against Uber which will shut it down. This is certainly possible (as with the anti-tech protests in the Bay), but its implications reach far beyond Uber. Violence here represents a data point in a larger war between communities with declining opportunities and declining income and the tech sector. I do not think the mobs will win.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
tomblomfield 12y ago
My limited experience with the taxi service in Charleston has been very poor - run-down vehicles, openly racist drivers and general reluctance to use the fare meters. Uber is the exact opposite each case.

51 points by ryandvm 12y ago

"The San Francisco-based technology company is backed by Google Ventures, which recently estimated that the company is worth more than $200 billion, according to Bloomberg." Ok, Uber is great, but $200B? A third as valuable as Apple? Errr, no.

67726e 12y ago
Knowing The Post & Courier and their notorious lack of spell check, that is probably a typo no one caught because no one reviews the articles.
ConnorBoyd 12y ago
Sort of a misquote. The Bloomberg article quotes the Google Ventures managing partner, who says the long-term market value could be $200 billion or more. This article makes it sound like that's their current valuation. Still sounds too high, but it's not quite as ridiculous. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-15/worth-more-than-toyota-google-ventures-head-says-uber-value-could-exceed-200b.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-15/worth-more-than-toy...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

pdabbadabba 12y ago

I find this totally infuriating. Yes, Uber offers a valuable service that I wish more localities would accommodate. But we are bound even by laws that we think are stupid, and Uber shouldn't be allowed to operate in flagrant violation of local laws simply because they have enough money to pay the fines they rack up. And this is to say nothing of the fact that Charleston may well have legitimate policy reasons for wanting to regulate taxi drivers, reasons that Uber is now actively undermining. If I were Charleston, my next order of business would be to enact an ordinance providing for exponentially increasing fines for businesses that materially encourage the violation of local laws.

jmckib 12y ago
I agree with your point that in general one shouldn't be able to use money to skirt the law, but I can hardly be infuriated with Uber for violating laws that only exist to fleece consumers by preventing competition in the taxi industry. To make an analogy, it's clear that civil disobedience should not be practiced against laws forbidding murder or theft, but in the case of jim crow laws or similarly unjust laws I would fully support acts of civil disobedience.
- pdabbadabba 12y ago
  I can't say I'm persuaded by the civil-rights-era civil disobedience analogy. While I might support civil disobedience to help rectify a centuries-long history of racial discrimination, I can't say I feel the same way about helping consumers find a cheaper and easier way to get around town (or to help drivers sell time and space in their car without getting a taxi license). And this is, of course, to ignore the real motive: Uber is actually only flouting the law in order to make a profit. Not exactly Selma. Also, does it not bother you that this particular form of civil disobedience is only available with extremely deep pockets?
  - thrill 12y ago
    Bad laws make for bad liberty.
    - krapp 12y ago
      Every company believes the laws which interfere with their capacity for profit are bad laws. That doesn't actually make them so.
    - pdabbadabba 12y ago
      I'm not sure I understand your point. Is it that you should be free to disregard any law you think is bad, because these bad laws infringe on your liberty?
      - 12y ago

rvanniekerk 12y ago

"We have a big public safety issue here, and we need to get them to understand that this a problem ... and that we do not intend to ignore it." What an absolute cop-out this is, no pun intended.

pdabbadabba 12y ago
How so? It seems to me that the City of Charleston is perfectly within its rights to impose a licensing requirement on taxi drivers as a way of ensuring that drivers, among other things, have the proper insurance. And it shouldn't be expected to simply waive this requirement because Uber is a big company that that says it offers insurance coverage for its drivers. Maybe Charleston would like to make Uber and its drivers demonstrate that they actually have that insurance, in a particular way and to a particular level of proof. Or maybe Charleston requires more or different insurance than Uber provides. I don't doubt that there is an element of protectionism here as well. But that doesn't mean that there isn't also a public safety issue, or, regardless, that Uber is free to flout local law so long as it can pay the fines.
- VLM 12y ago
  "perfectly within its rights to impose a licensing requirement" How so? I can think of two example of near unanimous modern agreement where lower governmental levels are not allowed to impose additional randomly purchased rules on subjects regulated at a higher level, its a thought crime to even suggest the rationale behind these historical issues: 1) Poll taxes and election tests 2) Enforcement of immigration law
  - pdabbadabba 12y ago
    Well of course there are certain licensing requirements that a municipality cannot impose. But you remain very far from showing that a license to operate a taxi -- an area that is subject to strict regulation in virtually every municipality in the U.S. -- is one of them.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

funkiee 12y ago

Charleston resident here, our politics are so backwards in this regard. We're also considering making new bars close at midnight to make downtown 'more attractive to tech companies'. At least local lawyers have stated that they're willing to take the case of any uber driver caught by this for free.

67726e 12y ago
Don't forget the "War on Touror" wherein undercover police officers hand out $1000 fines to college kids after they've asked them to give an impromptu history tour of the peninsula.
- simcop2387 12y ago
  Any sources for that, it's hard to find anything googling that, and it sounds like a pretty open and shut case of entrapment on the surface.
  - 67726e 12y ago
    Source[0] I'm not a lawyer, but the police can ask you to perform a crime and bust you for it if "you were inclined to commit the crime anyway" or something like that. The rule of thumb is like if a tourist walked up and asked for a tour, would the suspect do it then? If so a cop can nab you for it. The sting revolves around Charleston licensing tour guides who must pass a pretty hard test and the rickshaw/bike-taxi operator not having taken/passed that test. Of course there was a recent case in Washington D.C. where the same law regarding tour guides was recently struck down[1], so who knows if he could have fought it. Last I heard the guy who got busted was paying his fine in installments. [0] - http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140122/PC16/140129828 http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140122/PC16/14012982... [1] - http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-freespeech-tourguides-court-20140711-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-freespeech-t...
VLM 12y ago
Serious question about the bar time thing: Is that a poorly disguised blue law where they're doing the "big lie" PR technique, or are they actually serious because bar close time is currently 9pm on school nights or some similar paternalism?

lotsofmangos 12y ago

Uber's controversial method of recruiting average citizens to drive for the service I wasn't aware that average citizens becoming taxi drivers was particularly controversial. There must be some minimum level of oddness normally required I guess. Which would explain a lot.

tzs 12y ago

> However, the city's strategy of penalizng UberX drivers may be futile. Taylor Bennett, a spokesman for Uber, said the company will pay for all the fines that its drivers in Charleston are issued by law enforcement officers, even if the drivers are cited more than once for the same violation. > That may not be an empty promise. The San Francisco-based technology company is backed by Google Ventures, which recently estimated that the company is worth more than $200 billion, according to Bloomberg I'm a bit surprised this works. My big concern if I were paying someone's fines for breaking the law would be RICO laws. I guess this is not a problem because nobody (yet) includes operation of unlicensed taxi services as a predicate offense in their RICO statute?

ChuckMcM 12y ago

This is what I perceive to be the problem: From the article: > "I think when you look at Uber's ads on Facebook > saying you can make $52,000 a year driving for them, > it's very appealing in this town of kids that > wait tables," said Clayton Dennard of Going Coastal > Transportation. I think it is appealing, and because it is possible to make money driving for UberX in a town with taxis tells you not that Uber is borked but that the taxi system is. That the municipalities don't see this (or perhaps they do if they are complicit in the existing status quo) is somewhat infuriating. It seems to me that if taxis were great then Uber wouldn't get any traction.

sheetjs 12y ago
> if taxis were great then Uber wouldn't get any traction. Uber has a few luxuries that taxis are not afforded (due to regulation), including significant surge pricing and the general ability to turn down fares. To compare, Uber is allowed to charge 3x the normal price during peak hours, whereas NYC cabs have a fixed 50 cent surcharge at night and $1 during evening commuting hours. Personal anecdote: requested an Uber at the ferry terminal on the embarcadero 20 minutes before a surge. Driver was a block away and suddenly canceled, forcing me to request again. The second request occurred during a surge, so I had to pay 2.5x for that trip! Fortunately Uber refunded me but that type of stunt is what the laws exist to prevent. As I understand UberX, since the drivers are not required to take on commercial insurance, their insurance costs are also significantly limited. The biggest botheration, though, is the fact that the insurance policies technically don't allow driving for hire. It seems we all want a situation with the regulations, guarantees and protections that are currently provided by the laws AND the convenience and benefits of Uber. Unfortunately they are mutually exclusive. If we allowed taxis to charge more for fares and to skirt the other regulations that they are currently bound to, I'd expect that the taxi landscape would improve immensely
- nugget 12y ago
  Have you talked to many UberX drivers? More than the money, most have told me that they love the flexibility to clock in and clock out as needed. When you lease a cab, you pay a flat fee per week to the medallion owner and then work every minute to turn a profit. As a result of this, any down time comes out of your own pocket. I spoke with a driver last week who hadn't been on vacation in 4 years because he was afraid that one missed week would take him out of the driver lineup. He would have had to pay to rent the cab even the week he was out, in order to keep his spot. It reminded me of stories from sharecroppers in the south who lived and worked with a low but constant level of fear, pressure and anxiety. The problem isn't with insurance or vehicle standards, all of which will be addressed in time. Uber fixed a fundamental structural problem with an antiquated system that favors medallion owners at the expense of both drivers and riders.

reuwsaat 12y ago

Why do taxi organizations spend all their effort trying to make life difficult for Uber. It's not as if Uber has some sort of top-secret tech they refuse to share with the world. Perhaps some of their efforts should be spent on improving their own product. As someone that spent 5 years living in Manhattan, I feel qualified to comment on the state of taxi rides. I now take Uber almost exclusively. And several Uber drivers I've had the pleasure of riding with were previously taxi drivers. They've told me the experience is much better for them with Uber as well. Stop trying to kill Uber. Make taxis better for your drivers and passengers and the rest will follow.

hkmurakami 12y ago
I was in Manhattan the other day, and as a non'New Yorker, I spent 10 minutes trying and failing to catch a cab. Gave up and used uberx. Never going to even attempt to catch a cab again in the city :(
- reuwsaat 12y ago
  Any chance you're "the" Haruki Murakami?! Big, big fan here.
  - vinceguidry 12y ago
    Just check his profile. You can get there by clicking on his name.
    - reuwsaat 12y ago
      Ah. Sorry. Should have been able to figure that out. Thank you.
      - hkmurakami 12y ago
        No worries, I get that a lot ;)

oiw78 12y ago

Uber will never work out. Following are few reasons : 1. Uber is directly competing against taxi drivers in each city. These are low-wage workers having strong unions in each city. 2. Traffic laws are controlled by city or town. Because there is no single govt. in every city/town , local mandates vary. 3. Uber might project that it is helping local economy. What are taxi drivers ? Are they not part of economy ? There are 233,000 taxi drivers according to BLS. If every common man tries to take share of these drivers , who by the way part of same city/town and local economy Uber is claiming to help, it will result in voilence ultimately. 4. Uber is tanking dollars in VC and select-few founders pockets with false pretension of giving back to local economy. What about taxes on drivers' earning ? That is great loss for city/town in terms of revenue. Individuals are not necessarily honest about their earnings from Uber. 5. Uber has also entered Indian market. India is all together different country and there is very very strong support for taxi drivers in mumbai , banglore etc. Wait until these uneducated people learn about Uber and start smashing every Uber car. edit - Now shills are down voting truth.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Malician 12y ago
Your reasons are relevant and important as a list of threats to Uber, but just listing them out doesn't prove that Uber cannot overcome them. #1: Yes, but they can win. For example, here we have Uber with the advantage against heavy opposition from one of the most entrenched taxi markets in the world: http://www.brw.com.au/p/business/uber_gets_london_green_light_black_XNUC7XI8mIZEovAMpNlhxK http://www.brw.com.au/p/business/uber_gets_london_green_ligh... #2 Sure, and Uber has been dealing with this surprisingly well considering the challenges involved. #3, #4, these are more of a moral attack on Uber as being bad for the populace they serve. Correct or not, it doesn't necessarily mean they will fail. Finally, in #3-#5 there is a big element of the idea that there will be mass vigilante violence against Uber which will shut it down. This is certainly possible (as with the anti-tech protests in the Bay), but its implications reach far beyond Uber. Violence here represents a data point in a larger war between communities with declining opportunities and declining income and the tech sector. I do not think the mobs will win.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

tomblomfield 12y ago

My limited experience with the taxi service in Charleston has been very poor - run-down vehicles, openly racist drivers and general reluctance to use the fare meters. Uber is the exact opposite each case.