Virginia DMV Cracks Down On Uber, Lyft 260
An anonymous reader writes 'Talk about regulatory capture! As radio station WTOP reports, "The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles says that ride services Lyft and Uber are violating state law and must stop operating immediately. The DMV sent cease and desist orders to both companies Thursday." Who benefits most? It's not the people who are voting with their dollars and feet — seems more like the current stable of taxi drivers and others blessed by the state of Virginia. Good thing there's no call for or benefit from greater per-car occupancy, or experimentation more generally with disruptive disintermediation. Given enough bribe money down the road, I'm sure a deal can be struck, though.'
Seems reasonable... (Score:4, Insightful)
But of course Libertarians will circle jerk about how poor little Lyft and Uber are being downtrodden upon by democratically elected governments that established the laws in the first place.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Two words: Unlicensed taxis
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/taxi
So, how is Uber and Lyft not a taxi service despite the method to hire said drivers?
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so you showed us a definition of the word 'taxi' to suggest that Uber and Lyft fulfil that definition. (I'm sure there are other definitions of taxi, but whatever.)
But what you have not shown is that they are LICENSED taxis. And from what I understand that is the crucial point: They don't follow all the same regulations that the states put into place for taxi services.
Re: (Score:3)
"with a taximeter"
My car doesn't have a taximeter. You have to take the entire definition. You just can't highlight a partial definition and make it the entire definition.
You were saying?
Also, read my new cookbook, "How to Cook For Humans".
Re: (Score:2)
You say "democratically elected" as though that means something.
People are voting with their dollars and their feet EVERYDAY. What is your "democratically elected" government worth in the face of that? How representative...
Re:Seems reasonable... (Score:5, Insightful)
People are voting with their dollars and their feet EVERYDAY.
And people would buy toys with lead paint in them too if the price was low and they weren't aware of the risks of lead paint. Does that mean the regulations preventing them are wrong?
Similarly people will get into a car operated by a driver without sufficient insurance or any gaurantee that the vehicle is operating correctly and safe, and if its cheaper they won't care either... at least... until there is an accident.
Which is how the regulations came into effect in the first place -- the public was tired of getting into cabs that weren't insured or maintained properly.
The public seems to have a very short memory.
Re:Seems reasonable... (Score:4, Insightful)
As you say, people would buy lead painted toys if the price is lower and no one they know personally got sick from them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And people would buy toys with lead paint in them too if the price was low and they weren't aware of the risks of lead paint. Does that mean the regulations preventing them are wrong?
Children are assumed to lack the capacity to make intelligent decisions for their well-being. They receive both additional protections, and are denied most of the rights which are granted to adults. Regulating toys may hold up in that philosophy, in as much as they are intended for children. However, adults are still allowed to purchase products which contain lead, such as solder, because the assumption is they can adequately assess the risks, and have the right to decide accordingly.
Certainly, we can trea
Re:Seems reasonable... (Score:5, Insightful)
EVERY Uber ride I've ever had has been in a nicer and better-maintained car than any cab I've ever been in in my life.
a) Then UBER should have no trouble meeting the requirements establishing that the cars are in fact safe
b) No idea where you live / travel, but I've never been anything but clean and excellently maintained cabs.
AFAIK, Uber guarantees insurance on all of their drivers as well.
Sure they do. To a faction of the limit than the state requires.
Meanwhile most Uber drivers I've met are effectively operating their vehicles as cabs, but are insuring them as pleasure and commuter cars.
Re:Seems reasonable... (Score:5, Interesting)
It is not the same in EVERY Virginia city, but in Norfolk whenI was a taxi driver, the city licensed a cetin number of cabs to operate. Like the commercial fisherman's license, if you had a license, you had every incentive NOT to operate a vehicle, but to rent it out to a licensed cabdriver for a rental fee of more than $100 per day. That's 1992 dollars.
Moreover, your incentive to maintain a working vehicle was almost minimal. So they were real pieces of trash, that harvested money from poor cabbies and poorer clientele, and redirected it into the pockets of the owner of each cab company.
That's the Virginia way of doing things. YMMV.
Re: (Score:2)
Most cab cars I have been in use decommissioned police cars. They buy them up at auction at reasonable prices because the maintenance and service has been well kept up over the life of the cars as police vehicles (I've actually talked with a few drivers). They use them for a year or two and get new ones.
The interior of a couple cabs I have been in have been rough. But having the fake chrome trim on the cup holders doesn't mean the tires are going to keep traction in the corners or the brakes will stop the c
Re:Seems reasonable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you live in the area? I do. The cabs here can suck. A cab in the middle of summer that smells of old smoke, with no AC, in 95F and 10% humidity in the middle of summer is a not good thing.
That said, there are some amazing cabs too - but it's a guessing game. I've been (illegally) kicked out of cabs because my destination was too far or too "dangerous". Cabs get very picky during peak hours on who they pick up and in what neighborhoods they pick up in. Only this year do DC cabs take credit cards reliably, and only because of much-hated and delayed regulation changes based on Uber entering the game.
Do I think Uber/Lyft/etc. need to join in to regulations? Sure. That's a good direction. But sorry D/M/V cab industry, maybe you should have upped your game a long time ago. I have much respect for a good cabbie, but not much for the industry.
Re: (Score:2)
in 95F and 10% humidity
Seriously? You're bitching about 10% humidity? 95 isn't the most pleasant, but 10% humidity is pretty fucking low.
in the middle of summer is a not good thing.
Time of year is pretty irrelevant when it comes to how you perceive it.
But sorry D/M/V cab industry, maybe you should have upped your game a long time ago
They did, thats what the laws are there for. Perhaps you should do a little research into the history of cabs in general to find out when and why the existing regulations exist.
Re: (Score:2)
it was a typo. if he's talking about DC in the summer, 100% relative humidity is much, much more likely than 10%. FL is the same, and it's hell.
Time of year is pretty irrelevant when it comes to how you perceive it.
oh, don't be an ass.
Uber Insurance (Score:5, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I am an uberX driver in Dallas.
In Dallas the city is rewriting the rules to allow ridesharing services like Uber and Lyft, and both companies have had a seat at the table while the new rules have been drafted. The old regs, bought and paid for by Yellow, limit the number of cars such that if I wanted to start a cab company with the present regs, I literally could not because Yellow is known to be squatting (i.e., bought but not using) about 300 car licences. The rewrite is of rules Yellow itself bought and paid for (Al Lipscomb, a Dallas city councilcritter, was acquitted by an appeals court, but only because they railroaded a guilty man).
A lot of people whine about the so-called "insurance gap." That problem has been resolved:
http://blog.uber.com/uberXridesharinginsurance
Uber has published the text of the policy; I leave it as an exercise to the reader to find it.
There ARE kinks to be worked out, but Uber is in compliance with insurance regs that require as much as $1 million in first-dollar coverage. Drivers' personal vehicles are covered for comp and collision damage while on the road as well. (I might like a smaller deductible, but it's better than what I thought Uber provided, which was nothing.)
Really, all this whining is about protecting entrenched interests. If you had good experiences in cabs, you've obviously never been to a place like Dallas. I hear stories all the times of cabbies assaulting passengers, kicking them out in the dark without knowing where they are, demanding cash at the end of a ride, after agreeing to take plastic at the start, refusing to take plastic when they clearly have the Visa/MC/Disc/Amex/Diners logos on their windows, refusing to use the meter and instead demanding an inflated price, adding excess charges for no apparent reason, refusing to run AC on 110 degree summer days, and having cars that are disgusting and have broken safety equipment (like cut up seat belts).
In Dallas, clients choose Uber because the taxi companies offer a shitty product, and they like Uber's product better. If Uber brings some attention to the problems of the taxi industry's shitty product, all the better.
But if you're going to complain, complain about the right thing. The insurance problem has been resolved. It's time to move on and complain about what's really bugging you: Uber is screwing with your business and you don't like it because you thought you'd bought and paid for your little monopoly years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, I've never used uber, but I've talked to a couple people now whose spouse / significant other was doing some driving as they were otherwise unemployed or whatever and I asked what the car insurance situation was like for that. Like I said, I'd driven pizza as a kid, and the bump from 'pleasure or two and from work within 10 miles" to "commercial delivery vehicle" was pretty severe -- I would only imagine that whatever was needed for "commercial delivery vehicle for people" was even higher than it was "f
Re: (Score:2)
Taxicab operating licenses, or medallions, are traded on a free market for upwards of $100,000 in many large urban areas. The rich capitalists who hold onto these employ minimum wage people who lease the right to use medallions and the cars.
Agreed. this is a real problem, that does need to be resolved in places that have it.
Uber and Lyft are disruptive in the sense that they enable anyone who can afford a car to work, which potentially could invalidate the worth of those medallions to rich people who own th
Re: (Score:3)
And before we go half cocked about 'enable anyone who can afford a car to work' we need to think about what that means -- because you are right they now ARE working. So is uber their employer? Are drivers *really* independent contractors?
Exactly. Uber are really just a huge multinational minicab company. They will then use the advantage of scale to drive smaller local companies out of business. Maybe the local businesses deserve it though, but lets not delude ourselves as to what is happening.
I say this because most minicab firms have their drivers as self employed contractors too so they can avoid having to give them any of the perks that you are entitled to as a regular employee.
Re:Seems reasonable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I didn't realize that the taxis of yore carried continuously updated ratings and reviews from each and every passenger.
So now the number likes you have on facebook means I can trust you? The reputation system of Uber is a good idea, but 'other passengers' are hardly qualified to assess the mechanical condition of the vehicle, or the insurance held by the driver. Its good if I want to know if he speaks Chinese, is friendly, talks too much, or if I want to hear long winded complaints about how the previous passenger must have worn too much perfume that triggered an allergy attack but the driver got him to the hospital efficiently so A+++.
Also, why can't insurance companies start offering "Passenger Plans" for the wary consumer?
Really? So if you get sick at a restaurant, the restaurant shouldn't have any liability or insurance; you were suppose to have your own 'diners insurance'?
Fool; your mind is a fossil. Please, get out of my way.
That's the best you've got? The existing taxi system has lots of room for improvement and competition, and there is some regulatory capture (corruption even) but pretending uber is all rainbows and unicorns from the knights of good is a bit myopic too.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? So if you get sick at a restaurant, the restaurant shouldn't have any liability or insurance; you were suppose to have your own 'diners insurance'?
I do wonder why I am paying so much for health insurance if everyone elses' insurance is supposedly going to pay if I get sick or injured.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The cowardly, terrified cry that no one, clearly, can possibly understand what they're doing. Oh, no.
Doesn't matter if I know that lead paint is dangerous to children licking the toys.
a) I dont' want to have to read the materials manifest for every toy marketed to kids I buy. I don't want to have to dismantle it and make sure the electrical is well engineered to prevent shocks.
b) Even if you KNOW the risks of lead paint, that doesn't do you any good if you don't know lead paint was used. Do I now have to se
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't wah-wah I need the nanny state to protect me from my own stupidity, this is I want to live in a country where if a toy is marketed as suitable for a 3 year old, that it actually contains no small sharp parts or is made of hazerdous toxic materials or is likely to explode, without me having to personally vet them all.
And why do you suppose that every taxpayer and business should have to pay and be subject to prosecution by the government because you don't want to take responsibility for your children and the things you give them to play with?
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you! Exactly this.
I saw a TV news magazine story the other day, and they had people that were shocked and outraged that "there are no federal regulations on how to grow vegetables"! Really. You can't make this shit up.
I'm really tired of legislating by MSM fear-mongering, as if every activity needs some federal law regulating it or we're all in danger.
Re:Seems reasonable... (Score:5, Insightful)
People vote with their dollars and their feet for dumping in unlicensed landfills and on abandoned property EVERYDAY. That doesn't make it a remotely good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
People vote with their dollars and their feet for dumping in unlicensed landfills and on abandoned property EVERYDAY. That doesn't make it a remotely good idea.
"Unlicensed landfills"? WTF are you talking about? Oh, it's just a strawman.
We don't need new regulations for every activity. Your example is (the actual one, of dumping on abandoned property), is people violating others' property rights. That has been illegal for hundreds of years. Why do we need a new law for some specific type of property right violations?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed the point.
The point is that people "vote with their dollars and their feet" is not a good argument in this case.
People "vote with their dollars and their feet" means that people make their choices known through actions other than voting on the issue. But the person you replied to is pointing that "voting with dollars and feet" does not legitimize the contested activity, just like "voting with your feet" that having to pay for garbage removal is too onerous and demonstrating that by dumpi
Re: (Score:2)
People "vote with their dollars and their feet" means that people make their choices known through actions other than voting on the issue.
Voting and voluntary exchanges are legal activities.
But the person you replied to is pointing that "voting with dollars and feet" does not legitimize the contested activity
It legitimizes ALL voluntary exchanges. The only thing "contested" is unnecessary government intervention.
just like "voting with your feet" that having to pay for garbage removal is too onerous and demonstrating that by dumping your trash inappropriately does not legitimize that activity.
That analogy doesn't hold up. The example "dumping trash on abandoned property" is a person illegally violating the rights of the property owner. If I want to create a landfill on my own property, ensuring that it does not contaminate water supplies and doesn't create a nuisance for neighbors, I'm within my rights to do so. I don't have to pay trib
Re: (Score:2)
Nevertheless, rather than just whining about the big, bad, evil DMV (who are mainly enforcing laws passed by others), it would be more productive to work to get the bad/outdated laws changed. Yes, that may mean fighting an uphill battle against a powerful lobby (existing cab companies), but it there is already a lot of public support for this.
Re: (Score:3)
Lyft just announced their opening in Honolulu and the cab companies are already lined up to fight them.
Cab service is very expensive here, for instance $50+ for a 7-mile ride from my place to the airport. Lyft to proposing to undercut taxi service by about 30%, which is a step in the right direction but still nothing close to cheap.
It will be interesting to see what the city does, that is, to find out who has been making the biggest payoffs.
Re: (Score:3)
What is your "democratically elected" government worth in the face of that?
It makes and enforces laws based on the will of the majority. There will always be a few dissenters.
Re: Seems reasonable... (Score:2)
Re:Seems reasonable... (Score:5, Insightful)
In related news, Airbnb thinks they are exempt from food safety regulations.
http://goo.gl/LC73vZ
Newflash- if you offer goods or services to the public for money, you are not part of some new and different "sharing economy" just because it involves an iPhone app. You are part of the old fashioned economy and you need to play by the existing rules.
Re:Seems reasonable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Seems reasonable... (Score:5, Funny)
Well, there's the online bulletin boards that allow people to comment anonymously. It seems perfectly fine, but then little children find their way to the site, and start using terms like "fucktard", and all decent discourse is shut down. Eventually the site goes away, and another takes its place as the destination for mouth-breathing basement dwellers who can't even muster the courage to create a permanent account that other can use to keep track of them.
Who can think of another example for our dim-witted friend here?
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody cares what you say, coward. Go away and let the adults have a discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
...you are not part of some new and different "sharing economy" just because it involves an iPhone app.
What if they have an Android App? Android is Open Source after all.
Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, if you think the regulations are unreasonable, ok, fair enough. But the correct answer then is to push to change the regulations. It isn't ok to say "Oh no those regulations are necessary for the NORMAL economy but our special SHARING economy should be exempt". That is just being greedy and trying to have unfair competition. Either it is good for all or it needs to be changed.
Also, if you think it should be changed, you might first want to look and see why said regulations exist in the first place. Sometimes they are bullshit, but often there is a good reason why a regulation comes in to force. There was a problem, and regulations were created to solve it. OHSA regulations are a good example. For anyone who's had to deal with them they can seem a little onerous, but then you study history and find out why we have them and it seems like a pretty damn good idea.
A business that can only be competitive and offer a lower price by skirting regulations isn't something to be proud of.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.washingtonian.com/blogs/capitalcomment/local-news/virginia-dmv-tells-uber-and-lyft-to-stop-operating.php
Re:Seems reasonable... (Score:4, Insightful)
They may have originally served the purpose of protection of the consumer, but now they clearly serve the purpose of protection of the status quo. You think the fact that taxi licenses/medallions in most major cities are severely limited below demand is because they have just found the cream of the crop of drivers and no one else is trustworthy and capable?
Those companies *love* the regulations they have played by, because they are the status quo and they have used the regulations to prevent what we are seeing today with Uber, etc.
It's the same sort of thing that is preventing Tesla from being able to operate dealerships in some states - there was some obscure argument 60 years ago based on Detroit monopolies and pork politics to separate manufacturers form dealerships, and now the dealerships are using a totally obsolete law to protect their status quo.
Re: (Score:2)
Work to get the laws and regulations changed if you truly believe that. I agree somewhat with you too.
Bad? Because
Re: (Score:2)
But it does have greater merit than some random people declaring otherwise. After all good and bad without any criteria is purely subjective so a democratic government voting for something shows that the representatives of at least the largest minority have been convinced. This means (if it is democratic) that more people think that X is good than think an alternative is better so it does have validity as a counter to fewer people complaining that they should be allowed everything the way they want.
Oh, excellent. So you support Democracy as valid because minorities are always wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
What's with you and deliberately misinterpreting what others say?
The person you responded to at least tried to lay out an argument in a coherent fashion. Your post - not so much.
Third-world Jitney service (Score:5, Insightful)
Uber and Lyft are essentially third-world Jitney services, with a high-tech veneer.
The difference is the driver has been vetted by the company to some degree and there is a social reputation system in place.
Drivers are typically under-insured and under-licensed vs. regulatory requirements.
In California, for example, drivers-for-hire have to be specifically licensed, and carry $1M liability insurance. Uber provides a $100K "umbrella" for the benefit of passengers, "just in case" the driver isn't insured as required by the company. (But the required insurance level is far less than that required by the state.) The car, as well, needs to be registered with the state (TCP). (Unless a taxi, which is regulated locally).
Certainly, taxi and limo companies have a stake in keeping the status quo. That does not change the facts about under-insurance and under-licensing. So, they do have a legitimate beef about unfairness and protection of the public. This also works in their self-interested to limit competition, though.
If we don't have enough taxis, or limitation of taxis is artificially boosting rates, change the local regulations to allow more taxis. Let's have a more fundamental public debate and solution. Sure, taxi and limo companies are greedy. So are Uber and Lyft. Let's work-out what is really best for the public.
Uber/Lyft is "solving the problem" by ignoring it, and avoided a public/political debate by slipping in through a (non-existent, IMO) loophole.
Re:Third-world Jitney service (Score:5, Interesting)
Puerto Rico has these "third world" jitney services.
They're actually pretty cool, when I was there all the drivers of the vans knew each other, and had their own cellphone social network going on, so if you called one for a pickup, and they weren't close to you, they would call another driver who was available to come pick you up.
Even better, they would do their own vanpooling of passengers, kinda like the airport shuttles work here in the US, but coordinated over their social network. So you might be going from town to town, and stop somewhere briefly to pick up and drop off some other paying passengers who called in and just happened to be along the way.
So much efficiency could be achieved...
Disclaimer: I essentially wrote my master's thesis on running mass transit networks more like a jitney service, with smaller, more flexible vehicles:
http://hairball.mine.nu/~rwa2/... [hairball.mine.nu]
Of course, Virginia still gets some points for tolerating "Slug lines"... the instant carpools where people headed in or out of DC could pick up strangers lined up at bus/train stations so they both could ride the HOV lanes in.
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly, taxi and limo companies have a stake in keeping the status quo. That does not change the facts about under-insurance and under-licensing. So, they do have a legitimate beef about unfairness and protection of the public. This also works in their self-interested to limit competition, though.
If we don't have enough taxis, or limitation of taxis is artificially boosting rates, change the local regulations to allow more taxis. Let's have a more fundamental public debate and solution. Sure, taxi and limo companies are greedy. .
Don't confuse rates with what is really at stake here. One of the problems is medallions have become so valuable in some areas that cab companies will fight to the death to prevent more being issued. A medallion can be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars; and may be sold to a cab driver so it's producing a steady income stream whether or not the cab is on the road. It's also easily repossessed, doesn't depreciate and easy to put back in service so if the driver fails to pay you get it back and can sell i
Re: (Score:2)
One reason for the million dollars worth of insurance is that you may be carrying more than one person. Pick up three or four people, have a heinous accident, and you could end up with a million dollars worth of medical expenses.
Part of the reason for the special license is that cab drivers also have their own rules for where they can pick people up or drop them off and we want to be certain that drivers know those rules. For example, where I live, drivers can't just stop on the street and block traffic t
Re: (Score:2)
But who says that it's in the public's best interest to require drivers-for-hire to have $1m insurance and a special license? Why is that? Sure, you need some insurance and an actual drivers license, but why more?
Because this is the United States, and people will sue you at the drop of a hat. Stay in business long enough, it's a mathematical certainty. Liability insurance pays off when you're sued.
Greater per car occupancy? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not sure trying to pass Uber as an environmentally friendly solution will pass muster. Uber drivers operate essentially as unlicensed taxi cab drivers, rather than true "rideshare" or carpool services. They pick up new clients wherever requested and drive them to wherever client wants to go. These are trips that would not have happened otherwise. Since these services are, generally, cheaper than licensed taxi cabs (though, curiously, not by much in the area I just checked) - they may prompt people to call for and use an individual car, whereas otherwise the same riders might have chosen less convenient but cheaper public transportation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what you are saying is that Uber is not even a ride "sharing" platform so much as an enabler for unlicensed car service business? I did not know that.
I have to admit that my opinion on Uber was, so far, essentially neutral. However, if what you are saying is true - I would be inclined to reconsider and think of them as a net-negative. If they are a taxi cab - they should register and operate as one, any instant online hailing and optimal vehicle routing sauce notwithstanding.
I will vote accordingly if/wh
Monopolies upset (Score:2)
Way it is and way it will be.
Re: (Score:2)
You should learn what a monopoly is.
Re: (Score:2)
What I'd like to know.... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Could someone explain what the difference is between taking a cab and carpooling when the driver expects to receive compensation for the ride?
The government's cut and rules that deter competition for established businesses.
Re: (Score:2)
Could someone explain what the difference is between taking a cab and carpooling when the driver expects to receive compensation for the ride?
The government's cut and rules that deter competition for established businesses.
That, and the vehicles are supposed to be safer in case of a crash. Your everyday Detrot/Osaka-made car? Not NEARLY as safe as a Checker cab. Those suckers are the tanks of the street.
Re: (Score:2)
Could someone explain what the difference is between taking a cab and carpooling when the driver expects to receive compensation for the ride?
Its the same as the difference between:
"getting together with some friends for a BBQ, and all throwing $50 the host to help split the cost of the steak and booze they picked up"
versus
"getting together with some friends for a BBQ, and hiring a caterer."
Can you really not see a difference?
Re: (Score:2)
Can you really not see a difference?
Bullshit. Uber/Lyft is simply an unlicensed cab dispatched via a phone app.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Uber/Lyft is simply an unlicensed cab dispatched via a phone app.
I'm not actually sure where we disagreed?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Free Market... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Free Market... (Score:5, Insightful)
OP is an obvious shill. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
MegaCorps? Which are you referring to, the rideshare startups or the local taxi companies?
Sheer Irony (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Virginia does not consider the time saved by slugging to be a "profit", so it's allowed.
Greater car occupancy? (Score:3)
The "great car occupancy" is just wrong. These drivers are not a part of a car pool, where several people going the same way use the same vehicle. This isn't even about friends driving other friends around. Instead these drivers are acting as independent taxi drivers, pure and simple. There may be two people in the car but to infer that it's a reduction in vehicles on the road is disingenuous.
Are taxi services sustainable financially? (Score:2)
Are taxi services sustainable financially at all?
I'm not sure about US, but in most of the world the taxi services are not financially sustainable and thus are subsidized by additional taxes.
In other words, the cheaper services, which disrupt already weak taxi's profit margins, are a burden on the taxpayers themselves.
Let's be realistic here (Score:2)
Dead, Inc. offers this incredible new service, dispose the your ex, for a dynamic fee.
And these pesky authorities around the globe insist that it's murder and illegal. Obviously the authorities want to protect the interests of divorce lawyers.
Basically Uber decided to ignore local laws in most jurisdictions, so I think they should be happy that they are just ordered to cease operating, instead of getting a confiscation order for their illegal gains.
You can tell when regulatory capture occurs (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong with having standards for safety, insurance, accuracy in billing, and so on. But as soon as you see a limit on the number of cab licenses, bingo! That tells you that cabdrivers already in business are fiddling with the law to limit new entrants to the field. We of the dark side call this regulatory capture.
Uber is a multinational skirting regulations (Score:2)
In many cities around the world, taxis are heavily regulated. Among these regulations are a fixed number of license plates, and the costs of these plates (or equivalent medallions, etc). This means that in many instances there aren't enough taxis to go around because these numbers were fixed a long time ago and may not be have been updated to meet demand. This benefits most the taxi operators and to some extent the drivers themselves because a high demand drives the price of the fare up. Also a business wit
Re:does this need refactoring (Score:5, Funny)
Most taxi services have an "anti-serial killer" clause in their contracts. If you are a serial killer, they won't hire you. This is accomplished by swearing on the job application form that you are, in fact, NOT a serial killer. If they find out later on that you ARE a serial killer, they will terminate the contract and you will no longer be able to drive the cab, thus keeping the taxi industry 100% serial killer free. As far as I know, niether Lyft nor Uber have taken any steps whatsoever to prevent serial killers from working for them, which means that as a rider you have no idea if your driver is going to murder you, after having already murdered someone else. (It takes more than one murder to be a serial killer).
So yeah, this is a good thing.
Re:does this need refactoring (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:does this need refactoring (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Taxis take your credit card after the ride is over. A serial killer has plenty of time to do bad stuff to you before your card is used. Uber knows who you are from the moment you hail the cab.
Not if the serial killer has stolen someone else's phone (and killed them too, natch).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How about your driver's car being in poor mechanical condition and their insurance company refusing to pay your medical bills when it loses power on a freeway ramp or doesn't stop at the red light and gets creamed by another motorist.
I'm thinking you most certainly would want your driver to have good insurance- even if you get killed. Your family will likely appreciate it too.
Re: (Score:2)
Not so worried about the cars, Uber and Lyft inspect them to make sure they are in good condition, and even if they didn't the first bad ride would flag it.
Much more worrying is the fact they feel the need to charge extra for extra guarantees of non-serial-killer-drivers...
http://valleywag.gawker.com/wh... [gawker.com]
Re:does this need refactoring (Score:4, Insightful)
Not so worried about the cars, Uber and Lyft inspect them to make sure they are in good condition, and even if they didn't the first bad ride would flag it.
Actually, the examples the poster you replied to gave might not be that obvious. The average consumer of these services rates the service based on things like how clean the back seats were, not on the brakes not working or the car having some other intermittent mechanical fault.
Personally, I don't see any difference between Uber and any other cab company other than the fact they use technology. You still notify the company when you want to go somewhere, they send someone who is self-employed then take a cut of the fare.
I also think that these companies need to recognise that often, local laws exist because the people who live in the are want them to. Here in London we have lawa that may or may not (our courts are still deciding the details) restrict their ability to operate. It is not up to us to change our laws to make things easier for some international company head quartered in the US and sending all its profits there. We should change our laws if the we want to and enough people write to their politicians demanding the change.
You might think us a bunch of backward retards or whatever for having such laws, then fine sod off and don't do business here.
Re: (Score:3)
Most taxi services have an "anti-serial killer" clause in their contracts. If you are a serial killer, they won't hire you.
But Dude! The Invisible hand of the Free Market Dude!
After killing a dozen or so people, no one will want to use that particular Taxi any more, and th eserial killer will go out of business!
Don't you socialists understand anything?
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing like my daily dose of strawmen from slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:does this need refactoring (Score:4, Informative)
Uber is a "carpool" service now? i thought it was a service similar taxi's, but unlicensed.
Re: (Score:2)
It is somewhere in-between.
But one thing TFS got wrong is calling it "disruptive". There's nothing disruptive about it at all - taxis and rental cars won't disappear and be replaced with this. Visitors will still need both.
"Disruptive" seems to be the buzz word of the year (actually last year, but some are slower than others). And it's almost always used to describe something that isn't disruptive at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Rental cars don't come with drivers. Rental cars with drivers are called . . . taxis.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing there's no call for or benefit from greater per-car occupancy, or experimentation more generally with disruptive disintermediation.
I'm thinking Anon was having too much fun writing the summary to give the title a second glance. Editors are notorious for making slight changes to titles as well (it's about the only thing they'll "correct").
Re: (Score:2)
No, "Virginia State" is an US state (with a little-known own name of "Commonwealth of Virginia"), "Virginia State University" is the school. Using bare "Virginia" is not enough to tell what you mean, especially in an international forum.
Re: (Score:2)
1) I guarantee if you say "Virginia State shooting" to any of the many millions of people around here, every single one will immediately assume you mean "a shooting at Virginia State University" and not "a shooting in the Commonwealth of Virginia" or "a shooting in the State of Virginia". And it would hold true for countless millions of people NOT around here, too.
2) I never suggested using "bare Virginia". I said to use "Virginia DMV" which is quite precise, domestic or international.
3) And "Commonwealth
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Predicable (Score:5, Funny)
Just the ones in the open... The Republicans just have a wide stance....
Re: (Score:3)
Plane ticket prices have plummeted thanks to deregulation, and so have the prices of alternatives (online, but also the reach and cost of other quick mailing options, for things that absolutely, positively have to be there overnight), and checked baggage is no longer a built-in cost.
So when you say "dodge mail costs," I just take issue with the connotation :) It's like the old and true saw about taxes: "Avoid," perfectly fine; "Evade," and you might go to jail. Doing favors for friends, cooperating to accomplish tasks is more on the "cooperate" side of the scale than the (criminally) "conspire" side.
The major airline I work for has a shipping option designed specifically for things such as important documents and small packages that guarantees immediate shipping (on the flight booked or earlier) or 100% refund. So there is really no need for air couriers these days anyway unless the item is too valuable to ship unescorted.
Re: (Score:2)
Where is there a taxi monopoly? Do you know what the word means? I don't think you do.