4 ms·

Then how are the Google and Faceblock buses legal?

by o0-0o 12y ago

sliverstorm 12y ago
Because they are busses, not carpools?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- o0-0o 12y ago
  I remember when California passed the no smoking law for indoor establishments. One way around it was to make all of the employees of the bar or restaurant an owner in the business - therefore the law didn't apply because you didn't have any employees. Maybe if Lyft just made every user own .00000000000000001% of the firm, that would be a way around this asinine argument.
  - andrewfong 12y ago
    Then you'd have to worry about securities laws (both California and federal). Also, I doubt there's some sort of employee-owner exception to the CPUC rules.
  - Shivetya 12y ago
    or rent the car, which happens to have its own driver.
    - mayneack 12y ago
      That seems like it's not compatible with lyft and uberx if a driver wants to not be a full time driver.
  - pkaye 12y ago
    It would probably be easier to work with state legislators to change the laws.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    I also remember bar and restaurant owners saying it would devastate their industry and so on. Still waiting for that particular section of the sky to fall.
    - glenra 12y ago
      That section of sky did fall, but the effects aren't evenly distributed. A few kinds of bars and restaurants are predictably unaffected (or even positively affected) so averaging them all together can produce misleading results. Meanwhile other kinds of related businesses are devastated, but rarely considered in studies of the issue. Anyway, here's a pretty good rundown of where to look for the biggest fallen pieces of sky: http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banstudies.html http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banstudies.html Quote: "Don't look for bingo halls in the anti-smoker studies - you won't find them. Bowling alleys are also ignored in most of these studies. They have a unique problem - shoes. A smoker can't just step outside for a smoke while wearing bowling shoes. They'd have to change their shoes twice each time they wanted a cigarette. Most of them won't bother. Laurel Bowl, in San Luis Obispo, CA, had been successful for thirty-four years before California's statewide ban. Three Hundred and Eighty-five league bowlers quit because of the ban, which cost the business $200,000 in annual revenues. The place struggled along for another year, then closed its doors."
      - Retric 12y ago
        Most regulations have a minor negative effect on businesses, balanced with a significant reduction in cancer risks it's probably a net win for society.
      - sethammons 12y ago
        Seems like the business could have saved itself. Just have a patio that extends off the bowling lanes and maintains the flooring. (Shrug)
        glenra 12y ago
        That would certainly help (albeit at a rather large expense for existing businesses) but probably wouldn't really solve the problem. The core issue is that bowling in a team involves an awful lot of waiting around and watching while other people on your team or the other team are bowling. A hardcore smoker would like to take a few puffs during those pauses while waiting for their turn....and that used to be okay. If the smokers in the group have to take turns running out to a patio to puff, they can't continue to cheer/boo their teammates/rivals and might miss or delay their turn. Which destroys the group dynamic. The bowling alley used to be selling (to some) the experience of smoking while bowling, just as music clubs used to be selling the experience of smoking while listening to a band; taking smoke breaks between sessions of bowling is not much of a substitute.
- SilasX 12y ago
  >they don't charge individual riders for a shared ride, Yes, they do. TVCs at Google [1] have to pay $1.50 each way when they ride the bus. [1] their term for temps, vendors, and contractors
TallGuyShort 12y ago
They're not charging individuals fees. I don't understand all the intricacies of how they're breaking the law (I posted a separate question about how Super Shuttle has been around so long) - but Google and Facebook buses aren't doing it as a business.
dragonwriter 12y ago
Most likely, they aren't Charter Party Carriers -- their purpose and operation in general don't seem like that kind of carrier -- and therefore aren't covered by the laws that restrict what Charter Party Carriers can do, but by entirely different sets of rules.

Then how are the Google and Faceblock buses legal?

by o0-0o 12y ago

Then how are the Google and Faceblock buses legal?

sliverstorm 12y ago

Because they are busses, not carpools?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

o0-0o 12y ago
I remember when California passed the no smoking law for indoor establishments. One way around it was to make all of the employees of the bar or restaurant an owner in the business - therefore the law didn't apply because you didn't have any employees. Maybe if Lyft just made every user own .00000000000000001% of the firm, that would be a way around this asinine argument.
- andrewfong 12y ago
  Then you'd have to worry about securities laws (both California and federal). Also, I doubt there's some sort of employee-owner exception to the CPUC rules.
- Shivetya 12y ago
  or rent the car, which happens to have its own driver.
  - mayneack 12y ago
    That seems like it's not compatible with lyft and uberx if a driver wants to not be a full time driver.
- pkaye 12y ago
  It would probably be easier to work with state legislators to change the laws.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  I also remember bar and restaurant owners saying it would devastate their industry and so on. Still waiting for that particular section of the sky to fall.
  - glenra 12y ago
    That section of sky did fall, but the effects aren't evenly distributed. A few kinds of bars and restaurants are predictably unaffected (or even positively affected) so averaging them all together can produce misleading results. Meanwhile other kinds of related businesses are devastated, but rarely considered in studies of the issue. Anyway, here's a pretty good rundown of where to look for the biggest fallen pieces of sky: http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banstudies.html http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banstudies.html Quote: "Don't look for bingo halls in the anti-smoker studies - you won't find them. Bowling alleys are also ignored in most of these studies. They have a unique problem - shoes. A smoker can't just step outside for a smoke while wearing bowling shoes. They'd have to change their shoes twice each time they wanted a cigarette. Most of them won't bother. Laurel Bowl, in San Luis Obispo, CA, had been successful for thirty-four years before California's statewide ban. Three Hundred and Eighty-five league bowlers quit because of the ban, which cost the business $200,000 in annual revenues. The place struggled along for another year, then closed its doors."
    - Retric 12y ago
      Most regulations have a minor negative effect on businesses, balanced with a significant reduction in cancer risks it's probably a net win for society.
    - sethammons 12y ago
      Seems like the business could have saved itself. Just have a patio that extends off the bowling lanes and maintains the flooring. (Shrug)
      - glenra 12y ago
        That would certainly help (albeit at a rather large expense for existing businesses) but probably wouldn't really solve the problem. The core issue is that bowling in a team involves an awful lot of waiting around and watching while other people on your team or the other team are bowling. A hardcore smoker would like to take a few puffs during those pauses while waiting for their turn....and that used to be okay. If the smokers in the group have to take turns running out to a patio to puff, they can't continue to cheer/boo their teammates/rivals and might miss or delay their turn. Which destroys the group dynamic. The bowling alley used to be selling (to some) the experience of smoking while bowling, just as music clubs used to be selling the experience of smoking while listening to a band; taking smoke breaks between sessions of bowling is not much of a substitute.
SilasX 12y ago
>they don't charge individual riders for a shared ride, Yes, they do. TVCs at Google [1] have to pay $1.50 each way when they ride the bus. [1] their term for temps, vendors, and contractors

TallGuyShort 12y ago

They're not charging individuals fees. I don't understand all the intricacies of how they're breaking the law (I posted a separate question about how Super Shuttle has been around so long) - but Google and Facebook buses aren't doing it as a business.

dragonwriter 12y ago

Most likely, they aren't Charter Party Carriers -- their purpose and operation in general don't seem like that kind of carrier -- and therefore aren't covered by the laws that restrict what Charter Party Carriers can do, but by entirely different sets of rules.