5 ms·

Could someone please explain to me why ride sharing is illegal and why regulation is necessary? I'm prepared to understand but so far have not heard such a thin

by pbreit 12y ago

Could someone please explain to me why ride sharing is illegal and why regulation is necessary? I'm prepared to understand but so far have not heard such a thing articulated.

faitswulff 12y ago
> Oregon Taxi complained in July when Uber started doing business in Eugene. City lawyers concluded last month that Uber, although not a traditional taxi service, is required to obtain a license under the city's "public passenger vehicle" regulations. > A city press release issued Thursday said staff members told the company on Sept. 16 that it must get a license. Uber has yet to apply. http://www.katu.com/news/local/Eugene-says-Uber-ride-sharing-service-illegal-278046961.html http://www.katu.com/news/local/Eugene-says-Uber-ride-sharing...
stonogo 12y ago
Describing Uber as "ride sharing" is fantastically disingenuous. Have you ever lived in a place that did not have taxi regulations? Life gets fairly hellish that way. Drivers will pick you up and then pick other people up on the way to your destination... often until the van is full. There's no recourse for getting overcharged, assaulted, kicked out in the wrong place because a more profitable fare turned up, being totally SOL because the guy got a flat tire and does not have a support structure in place... this list goes on, and if you think it won't happen in America, good luck in your future endeavors.
- NhanH 12y ago
  The question might sounds sarcastic,but it's not meant to be: so why haven't any of those instances happen to Uber's user? Does it mean that the regulation already applies to Uber (to a certain extend). Or is there any other reason?
  - jimboyoungblood 12y ago
    who says they haven't? http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Victim-of-alleged-Uber-hammer-attack-may-lose-eye-5792092.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Victim-of-alleged-Uber... edit: yes it happens in taxis too, but in that case it's pretty clear that the taxi company has liability. not so clear if it happens in an uber. see: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/09/30/uber-driver-hammer-attack-liability/2/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/09/30/uber-driver...
    - wvenable 12y ago
      I had a family member attacked by a cabbie. He was actually mere hours away from getting away with it too because a) The passenger had no record of the transaction and b) The cab service recycles their camera data every few days. The way I see it, there is no guarantee of safety in either situation. You never know if your driver is a criminal or crazy. But services like Uber seem considerably more safe: There is extreme record keeping, user ratings, and no direct money changing hands.
    - santaclaus 12y ago
      Right, but a quick search also turns up numerous stories of traditional taxi drivers attacking/abusing passengers. I think it would be interesting to see statistically significant evidence that one model is demonstrably safer than the other.
- cloakandswagger 12y ago
  The familiar statist's mantra: That red tape is preventing all hell from breaking loose! I suppose if it weren't for government regulations we'd still be living in caves and dying at age 30.
  - ChuckFrank 12y ago
    In some cases that is true. Health and safety regulations have been instrumental in extending life expectancy. Building codes have been essential in creating safe habitable cities. Without those, we'd be dying in fire traps with dysentery and TB at 30.
  - chasing 12y ago
    > I suppose if it weren't for government regulations we'd still be living in caves and dying at age 30. Probably not, but we might be living in rickety homes, eating food that's mainly sawdust, and working eighty hours per week for almost no money. Some of us would still be slaves. A few of us would be fantastically wealthy and powerful, but even they would be limited by living in a violent world populated by uneducated and over-exploited masses incapable of doing things like getting an education and finding their own passions that lead to innovation, invention, and creativity. The pleasant life you live today is due to government regulations. You know how you can shop at the grocery store without fearing that something you buy might literally kill you? You know the drugs you take for headaches? For whatever ailments you have? It's nice knowing there's some science behind those, right? Nice knowing they won't kill you, right? Speed limits? Are they a good idea? You might be more likely to think so if you had kids and wanted to feel safe allowing them to play outside. Flying to an awesome tech conference anytime soon? You'd probably prefer the plane didn't drop out of the sky, right? Etc.
    - ahomescu1 12y ago
      > A few of us would be fantastically wealthy and powerful, but even they would be limited by living in a violent world populated by uneducated and over-exploited masses incapable of doing things like getting an education and finding their own passions that lead to innovation, invention, and creativity. I'd like to point out that Harvard University precedes the United States by 140 years (1636 -> 1776), and the government before 1776 wasn't exactly "for the people".
- lvh 12y ago
  Those things do happen in America, and have happened to me in America, in a "regulated" taxicab. The process for complaining takes forever, and is basically designed to get you to quit.
- pbreit 12y ago
  I think your entire argument breaks down because the Uber/Lyft experience is clearly substantially better than the offering you would apparently prefer (the current taxi scheme?).
ChuckFrank 12y ago
These PEER-TO-PEER TAXI SERVICES (as opposed to genuine ridesharing services) are illegal because privately insured vehicles cannot be used for commercial purposes. The insurance becomes invalidated and so neither the driver nor the passenger are covered. Commercial use is a distinct classification, and Lyft and Uber technically fit under that classification. Lyft and Uber try to get around this by describing passenger payments for these commercially offered rides as 'donations.' However drivers of these services are not being paid for their volunteer work, they are working for these services. They are working for the money, and in this way it's not a donation. Finally ridesharing is a specific gov't defined catagory. Only when the costs are ridesharing costs ($0.565/mile or less) can they be viewed as non-commercial. Ridesharing is defined by the US Government (MAP-21 bill) as offering the use of seats in privately owned vehicles to other passengers on a cost-reimbursement basis only. H.R. 4348 (112th): MAP-21 So any fee the exceeds costs-reimbursement is income, and these drivers are working, and they are doing so commercially. So they are commercial drivers, getting paid to drive people around. Ergo they are taxis, and they are required by law to be regulated like taxis. And why legislate taxis? Because of the commercial abuse of the common carrier, in this case the roads. All commercial use of common carriers - roads, canals, highways, etc - they are all regulated to prevent abuse. What does this abuse look like? Too many users. What does Uber and Lyft allow? More users of the common carrier. This is not a new battle, truckers, couriers, ship companies, all fight this - what's new is the social distribution that new technology has empowered. For more discussion see -- Hill Brothers Chemical Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2004) DJDAR 13414 http://www.bledsoelaw.com/articles/treppa_michigan_trucking.pdf http://www.bledsoelaw.com/articles/treppa_michigan_trucking.... In part, from Quora discussion. http://www.quora.com/Ride-Sharing/How-are-Lyft-and-Sidecar-legal http://www.quora.com/Ride-Sharing/How-are-Lyft-and-Sidecar-l...
- fru2013 12y ago
  >The insurance becomes invalidated and so neither the driver nor the passenger are covered. It seems like this is the true crux of the problem. Would the costs of commercial auto insurance be prohibitively expensive? Perhaps Uber could get into the business of cheap commercial auto insurance as well...
rahimnathwani 12y ago
Both sides of the argument have been articulated in previous threads, multiple times. A few posts about why regulation exists: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8230413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8230413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8229867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8229867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7340371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7340371 tl;dr - taxi regulation was created in order to (i) guarantee standards, back when the free market didn't do a good job of it, and (ii) ensure drivers could earn 'enough' by preventing a race to the bottom on prices. Taxi regulation _continues_ to exist due to lobbying by those who benefit from the current system, inertia and, perhaps, no one yet proving that the world would be better without this regulation.
chasing 12y ago
Regulation is how we, the people (via our government), get to have a say in how companies' that provide us critical services like food, healthcare, housing, finances, and (yes) transportation are run. It's a check on exploitation. Regulations are often not perfect, but they are important.

by pbreit 12y ago

Could someone please explain to me why ride sharing is illegal and why regulation is necessary? I'm prepared to understand but so far have not heard such a thing articulated.

faitswulff 12y ago

> Oregon Taxi complained in July when Uber started doing business in Eugene. City lawyers concluded last month that Uber, although not a traditional taxi service, is required to obtain a license under the city's "public passenger vehicle" regulations. > A city press release issued Thursday said staff members told the company on Sept. 16 that it must get a license. Uber has yet to apply. http://www.katu.com/news/local/Eugene-says-Uber-ride-sharing-service-illegal-278046961.html http://www.katu.com/news/local/Eugene-says-Uber-ride-sharing...

stonogo 12y ago

Describing Uber as "ride sharing" is fantastically disingenuous. Have you ever lived in a place that did not have taxi regulations? Life gets fairly hellish that way. Drivers will pick you up and then pick other people up on the way to your destination... often until the van is full. There's no recourse for getting overcharged, assaulted, kicked out in the wrong place because a more profitable fare turned up, being totally SOL because the guy got a flat tire and does not have a support structure in place... this list goes on, and if you think it won't happen in America, good luck in your future endeavors.

NhanH 12y ago
The question might sounds sarcastic,but it's not meant to be: so why haven't any of those instances happen to Uber's user? Does it mean that the regulation already applies to Uber (to a certain extend). Or is there any other reason?
- jimboyoungblood 12y ago
  who says they haven't? http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Victim-of-alleged-Uber-hammer-attack-may-lose-eye-5792092.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Victim-of-alleged-Uber... edit: yes it happens in taxis too, but in that case it's pretty clear that the taxi company has liability. not so clear if it happens in an uber. see: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/09/30/uber-driver-hammer-attack-liability/2/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/09/30/uber-driver...
  - wvenable 12y ago
    I had a family member attacked by a cabbie. He was actually mere hours away from getting away with it too because a) The passenger had no record of the transaction and b) The cab service recycles their camera data every few days. The way I see it, there is no guarantee of safety in either situation. You never know if your driver is a criminal or crazy. But services like Uber seem considerably more safe: There is extreme record keeping, user ratings, and no direct money changing hands.
  - santaclaus 12y ago
    Right, but a quick search also turns up numerous stories of traditional taxi drivers attacking/abusing passengers. I think it would be interesting to see statistically significant evidence that one model is demonstrably safer than the other.
cloakandswagger 12y ago
The familiar statist's mantra: That red tape is preventing all hell from breaking loose! I suppose if it weren't for government regulations we'd still be living in caves and dying at age 30.
- ChuckFrank 12y ago
  In some cases that is true. Health and safety regulations have been instrumental in extending life expectancy. Building codes have been essential in creating safe habitable cities. Without those, we'd be dying in fire traps with dysentery and TB at 30.
- chasing 12y ago
  > I suppose if it weren't for government regulations we'd still be living in caves and dying at age 30. Probably not, but we might be living in rickety homes, eating food that's mainly sawdust, and working eighty hours per week for almost no money. Some of us would still be slaves. A few of us would be fantastically wealthy and powerful, but even they would be limited by living in a violent world populated by uneducated and over-exploited masses incapable of doing things like getting an education and finding their own passions that lead to innovation, invention, and creativity. The pleasant life you live today is due to government regulations. You know how you can shop at the grocery store without fearing that something you buy might literally kill you? You know the drugs you take for headaches? For whatever ailments you have? It's nice knowing there's some science behind those, right? Nice knowing they won't kill you, right? Speed limits? Are they a good idea? You might be more likely to think so if you had kids and wanted to feel safe allowing them to play outside. Flying to an awesome tech conference anytime soon? You'd probably prefer the plane didn't drop out of the sky, right? Etc.
  - ahomescu1 12y ago
    > A few of us would be fantastically wealthy and powerful, but even they would be limited by living in a violent world populated by uneducated and over-exploited masses incapable of doing things like getting an education and finding their own passions that lead to innovation, invention, and creativity. I'd like to point out that Harvard University precedes the United States by 140 years (1636 -> 1776), and the government before 1776 wasn't exactly "for the people".
lvh 12y ago
Those things do happen in America, and have happened to me in America, in a "regulated" taxicab. The process for complaining takes forever, and is basically designed to get you to quit.
pbreit 12y ago
I think your entire argument breaks down because the Uber/Lyft experience is clearly substantially better than the offering you would apparently prefer (the current taxi scheme?).

ChuckFrank 12y ago

These PEER-TO-PEER TAXI SERVICES (as opposed to genuine ridesharing services) are illegal because privately insured vehicles cannot be used for commercial purposes. The insurance becomes invalidated and so neither the driver nor the passenger are covered. Commercial use is a distinct classification, and Lyft and Uber technically fit under that classification. Lyft and Uber try to get around this by describing passenger payments for these commercially offered rides as 'donations.' However drivers of these services are not being paid for their volunteer work, they are working for these services. They are working for the money, and in this way it's not a donation. Finally ridesharing is a specific gov't defined catagory. Only when the costs are ridesharing costs ($0.565/mile or less) can they be viewed as non-commercial. Ridesharing is defined by the US Government (MAP-21 bill) as offering the use of seats in privately owned vehicles to other passengers on a cost-reimbursement basis only. H.R. 4348 (112th): MAP-21 So any fee the exceeds costs-reimbursement is income, and these drivers are working, and they are doing so commercially. So they are commercial drivers, getting paid to drive people around. Ergo they are taxis, and they are required by law to be regulated like taxis. And why legislate taxis? Because of the commercial abuse of the common carrier, in this case the roads. All commercial use of common carriers - roads, canals, highways, etc - they are all regulated to prevent abuse. What does this abuse look like? Too many users. What does Uber and Lyft allow? More users of the common carrier. This is not a new battle, truckers, couriers, ship companies, all fight this - what's new is the social distribution that new technology has empowered. For more discussion see -- Hill Brothers Chemical Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2004) DJDAR 13414 http://www.bledsoelaw.com/articles/treppa_michigan_trucking.pdf http://www.bledsoelaw.com/articles/treppa_michigan_trucking.... In part, from Quora discussion. http://www.quora.com/Ride-Sharing/How-are-Lyft-and-Sidecar-legal http://www.quora.com/Ride-Sharing/How-are-Lyft-and-Sidecar-l...

fru2013 12y ago
>The insurance becomes invalidated and so neither the driver nor the passenger are covered. It seems like this is the true crux of the problem. Would the costs of commercial auto insurance be prohibitively expensive? Perhaps Uber could get into the business of cheap commercial auto insurance as well...

rahimnathwani 12y ago

Both sides of the argument have been articulated in previous threads, multiple times. A few posts about why regulation exists: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8230413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8230413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8229867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8229867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7340371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7340371 tl;dr - taxi regulation was created in order to (i) guarantee standards, back when the free market didn't do a good job of it, and (ii) ensure drivers could earn 'enough' by preventing a race to the bottom on prices. Taxi regulation _continues_ to exist due to lobbying by those who benefit from the current system, inertia and, perhaps, no one yet proving that the world would be better without this regulation.

chasing 12y ago

Regulation is how we, the people (via our government), get to have a say in how companies' that provide us critical services like food, healthcare, housing, finances, and (yes) transportation are run. It's a check on exploitation. Regulations are often not perfect, but they are important.