California Regulators Tell Ride-Shares No Airport Runs 314
An anonymous reader writes in with news about ride-share crackdowns in California. California regulators are threatening to revoke permits for on-demand ride companies UberX, Lyft, Sidecar, Summon and Wingz unless they stop giving rides to and from airports within two weeks. The move could lead to the state shutting down the companies' operations. Flouting the airport rules also flouts regulations that the CPUC set up for the new generation of ride companies to operate in California. In a clear rebuttal to an argument often made by the ride companies, Peevey wrote: "These safety requirements should not hinder your creativity nor should they impede your innovation."
"Safety Requirements"? (Score:5, Funny)
Why is it not safe for them to drive to the airports, but it's safe for them to drive elsewhere? Are they going to hit a plane or something?
Re:"Safety Requirements"? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"Safety Requirements"? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm pretty sure the LA cab drivers are on some secret contract to thin the general populace.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the LA cab drivers are on some secret contract to thin the general populace.
OK, I'm looking for a down side... nope, don't see it...
That does bring to mind the short story "The Carnival" by Michael Fedo [wikipedia.org]
Damn Fine Read if you can find it...
Re:"Safety Requirements"? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"Safety Requirements"? (Score:5, Insightful)
They might hit a cabbie or airport shuttle operator's profit margin.
Fine. I won't take UberX to the airport, I'm taking it to the airport parking garage, from which I'll walk the extra ten feet to the airport.
Re: "Safety Requirements"? (Score:4, Funny)
Do you have a valid walking permit?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How do you expect to walk, if you don't have any legs?
Mr Anderson.
Re:"Safety Requirements"? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not safe, ya sees, because Luigi here will have to come over and accidentally adjust your kneecaps if you interfere with this bizness opportunities in the Yellow Cab.
Re:"Safety Requirements"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because states get huge amounts of money tacked on to cab fares to and from airports, it would clearly count as much, much less safe to the state's coffers.
Can't have any of those dirty ridesharing hippies putting a sweet revenue stream at risk!
Re:"Safety Requirements"? (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, it was so bad in my hometown for a while, that they actually guaranteed the public bus wouldn't run to the airport. That way, you would have to take a cab.
Our company would hire a limousine (actually a chouffered luxury car) to the airport because it was much cheaper than taking a cab). Eventually the hotels were getting people hitching rides on the hotel shuttles who were not staying at the hotel, to such a degree that the hotel charged a nominal fee, about 1/4th the cab fare. That eventually broke the monopoly, and finally, ten years later you can take the public bus too.
It is crazy, but due to the changes, you can finally ride a cab to the airport for about half what it cost fifteen years ago. (and that's not adjusting for inflation)
Re:"Safety Requirements"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because if they drive to the airports they'll upset the cabbies' union, which is unsafe for them.
Re:"Safety Requirements"? (Score:4, Informative)
This has Little to do with the cabs themselves. This is about the Airports.
Airports are legally "private" property (even though they are run by the city). All airports in the US at least have a long standing history of charging cabs and limo services for picking up, dropping off customers. Its a simple fact that if you run a private car company you have to pay the airport, period, full stop. The airports in turn will and have charged people with "illegal trespassing" for not paying.
Many private car companies nowadays accept Uber Black and they do pay the airports their share. UberX drivers being "regular people" don't know to pay the airport, and don't have the appropriate tags/markings for the airport to know what they are. Uber has been trying to work out a solution, but it requires privately negociation between Uber and each and every airport in the country. A LONG and costly operation. California, one of the prime places where the airports have been treating UberX drivers as trespassers is making this as "safety regulation". Ultimately I guess it is a safety issue, as its creating a physical confrontation between drivers and the security officers attempting to ticket them.
Re:"Safety Requirements"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is Beta posting line breaks all over my reply? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's who replaced Data right before the TNG franchise ended.
Thus you can consider Slashdot's current state to be optional Data loss.
Re:"Safety Requirements"? (Score:5, Informative)
It's about money as always. Airports typically charge $5 to the cab whenever it does a run to or from the airport.
Re:"Safety Requirements"? (Score:5, Interesting)
its a lie.
you and I can drive to the airport. and we can drop people off and pick them up!
so its a total bullshit lie.
can you say 'protectionism'? sure, I knew you could.
Re:"Safety Requirements"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Obviously its just protectionism for the taxi companies. Nothing more or less.
They do the same thing with mass transit. The subway they're building in Los Angeles will not go to the airport.
A lot of this comes down to the taxi medallions which the cities charge taxi companies to run their fleets.
Those medallions can be very expensive. And so the cities have a very strong financial interest to protect the taxi companies.
Really the taxi companies are quite justified in asking for protection. They've paid for it. The issue however is that the protection shouldn't have been for sale in the first place. Drop the cost of new medallions to something reasonable. A price similar to what the DMV charges for car registration. Then require uber etc to get the same license for all its drivers. The cost in this case would be nominal.
Then everyone is on an equal footing. The cities won't get the same revenue from medallion sales. But then neither will they have to subvert city policy to protect taxi companies. So it should balance out in the end.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If Taxi medallions are too expensive, give the drivers small lapel badges instead.
Re: (Score:3)
How is this any less safe than my mom or dad giving me a ride to the airport?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and the article also says that the airports will not sell them the permits.
Re:"Safety Requirements"? (Score:4, Informative)
Because Republicans aren't logical. They hate the idea of people being able to work for themselves so they have destroyed the ride share business.
Earth to AC: The "California Regulators" mentioned in the first two words of the headline are not Republicans.
Re: (Score:3)
But the word Republic is right on California's flag. As residents of a Republic, they are Republicans.
Re: (Score:3)
Given that I don't really give a darn about half the stuff on your list, how about let the consumer make those choices for themselves?
Re: (Score:3)
What if an innocent by stander is hit by a 'Dial-a-Ride' driver. Is the driver insured properly? It's not just about you.
Re:"Safety Requirements"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Do I have to be licensed for chauffeur work if I drop my friends off at the airport?
What about if they pay me for it? Maybe they're just covering gas money, but cash exchanged hands for rides? Have I run an illegal taxi service?
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Everybody knows that only your closest cronies will do the airport pickup. It's the sign of a true crony.
let's just kill all these busybody fucks (Score:2, Interesting)
who tell everyone what to do. problem solved.
next it will be illegal (Score:2, Interesting)
to drive your friend to the airport without a permit.
Re: (Score:2)
How do they know you're not driving your family to the airport for a fee? Or yourself for that matter.
Obviously they can't take your word for it, you could be in collusion with yourself in a conspiracy to defraud the airport and cab drivers.
No, best thing to do is make it completely illegal for someone to drive to the airport or anywhere within a 4 hour walking distance without a commercial license.
Re: next it will be illegal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It is already illegal to drive your friend to the airport without a permit. You need a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know, if you meant it, but this is a very good point. At some point decades ago, the government declared driving on public roads to be a privilege to be granted to the good by the Executive, rather than a right to be withdrawn from naughty by the Judiciary (as walking is). We, the populace, accepted it and it has been downhill from there...
Re: (Score:3)
Build and pay for your own road and you can drive on it all you want.
Re: (Score:3)
By this logic, simply walking on the street should also be considered a privilege, rather than a right.
Ergo, the logic is invalid. Had you read my post more carefully, you could've spared yourself the embarrassment.
Re: (Score:2)
The right to travel is a right guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, it does "make sense", sure. Unfortunately, it also removes the "clear b
Re:next it will be illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
how in the fuck does the "Taxi & Limousine Commission" have the right to pull someone over and steal their car? this is why we have guns. too bad they took them away in NY.
A remember in the early 90 when I lived in the bay (Score:5, Interesting)
area. There were three airports and four train systems (or was it four airports and three train systems?). None of the trains went to any of the airports. I always figured the taxi union lobbied hard when it was time to decided the train line terminations. I think it has improved a little since the early 90s, but probably not much.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, uh, just a little...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BART now runs to SFO, and they're just finishing up an extension to Oakland, so that's good.
Caltrain doesn't connect directly to SFO, but it does stop at the Millbrae BART station which is one of the two stations from which the BART-SFO extension connects.
San Jose is still pretty disconnected from public transit except for some shuttle busses.
Re: (Score:3)
area. I think it has improved a little since the early 90s, but probably not much.
BART finally made it to SFO. the bart station there is one of the stops on the shuttle tram that connects the terminals with each other and the parking structure. it's pretty sweet that you don't need a cab to get to the city.
At OAK bart runs an "air bart" shuttle that directly goes between the coliseum station and the airport. it's seamless in that the shuttle accepts bart tickets as payment and the stations are nicely located.
SJC: you take a free bus (SCVTA to caltrain, 20 mins. I used to commute on t
Cabbies. (Score:5, Insightful)
"We have heard numerous complaints that (our) safety rules are being ignored,"
Yeah, the cabbies are complaining. I would guess non-cabbies love the service.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it matter who's complaining?
If they are violating safety regulations, its a problem. Of course cabbies who are in competition are going to report it, but thats a good things.
Customers don't always know whats unsafe since they aren't in the business so its not surprising they would think the cheaper but unsafe ride is great, doesn't make them right.
You've been on slashdot for ever, you're normally a very intelligent poster, do you really mean to imply this is a bad thing or am I just reading you wrong
Re:Cabbies. (Score:5, Interesting)
Michael Peevey mentions "safey rules" but then goes on to 'lacking airport permits, as well as lacking proper "trade dress" on their vehicles and lacking proof of insurance.' Ok, lacking proof of insurance I can understand. So carry papers in the glovebox and all is well.
Airport permits? That's just money denied to the airports. I'd wager the complaints that are not from cabbies are from the airport authorities for this very reason.
Trade dress? Fine, slap on a cheap magnetic sign. That is not a safety issue.
They dress is up as "safety rules" but the real motives are financial.
Re: (Score:3)
They dress is up as "safety rules" but the real motives are financial.
Hammer, nail.
Their next argument will probably use child pornography or terrorism as well.
Re:Cabbies. (Score:5, Insightful)
The "trade dress" and "permit" rules are safety rules, but not road safety, which is why it's not immediately apparent. The safety being assured by those rules is the *passenger* safety, against being abducted, mugged, scammed, etc.
Airports are locations where a large number of people who are not familiar with the local customs arrive, and this makes them prime targets for scams. For a time, it was common for fake taxis/limousines to turn up, pick up unsuspecting travellers, then hold them hostage until they gave up items of value or overcharge them for short journeys (possibly by driving around town before proceeding to their destination).
In response, airports now require checks for anyone providing a pick-up service at the airport; this includes buses, taxis, and limousines. The airport permit fee covers the cost of performing these checks. The trade dress requirement is so that vehicles are clearly identifiable as providing a commercial pick-up service, which can then be monitored by police, airport officials, and other relevant authorities.
Not to say that their motivation in excluding ride-share organisations is not a financial one, but there are reasons these things were put in place...
Re: (Score:3)
The safety being assured by those rules is the *passenger* safety, against being abducted, mugged, scammed, etc.
Absolutely none of which is relevant to ride-share arrangements, but was relevant before a ubiquitous network allowed people arriving at airports to pre-arrange with a party on the receiving end, who has been vetted by an honest broker (Uber et al).
The ability to personally connect with the person picking you up makes rideshare services more like a buddy picking you up and you paying for gas than a traditional, anonymous taxi service.
tl;dr: Irrelevant rules are irrelevant.
Re: Cabbies. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Cabbies. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, sounds like the LA taxi drivers need a union. Get a load of this crap:
In a study of Los Angeles taxi drivers, UCLA professors Gary Blasi and Jacqueline Leavitt found that taxi drivers work on average 72 hours a week for a median take home wage of $8.39 per hour. Not only do they have to pay $2000 in “leasing fees” per month to taxi companies, but the city regulates things like what color socks they can wear (black) and how many days a week they can go to the airport (once). None of the drivers in the survey had health insurance provided by their companies and 61% of them were completely without health insurance.
-- Pricenomics -- The Tyranny of the Taxi Medallions [priceonomics.com]
All Uber in endangering... (Score:5, Insightful)
is the revenue of competing services.
Translation : (Score:5, Insightful)
These rules are here to defend taxi companies at their most lucrative source of income. There is not a single reason else.
And frankly, airports are exactly where I would WANT a ride sharing service over the entrenched taxi industry. After dealign with flying, the last thing I want is to deal with a taxi driver not interested for a second where or how far I want to go - and in fact is forced by law to pick up my patronage here because before that law... they would reject my destination for a "better" fare. Let alone the other issues taxis have like the queues and half the time there isnt one availible for too long.
No, fuck em. If I can have a service that is waiting to pick me up, go where I want to go, more often than not in a clean and comfortable car, with a driver who (and I apologise for the next comment but you know this happens too often) understand what you are saying and is interested more in customer service.... I'll take it.
We do have a premium taxi service here that works more like Uber and in general it's a mile better than the regular taxi services. Unfortuantly it's too small to be truly able to handle capacity. You know, if taxis worked more like the premium serives I'd be less sympathic to Uber and Co, but they arent so.... fuck em. Bring the ride sharign services on.
Re: (Score:2)
Hotel and Airport taxis must do short hauls. Uber drivers can cherry pick and skip short hauls.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you miss the part where I address the fact they by law MUST take short hauls? Until that was forced onto them, taxis would regularly refuse.
Re: (Score:3)
Uber drivers and cherry pick and skip any job that doesn't seem worth it for them. One of the advantages of the Uber system is that they try to set prices so that there will always be *some* drivers willing to take the job for that price.
This in my opinion is a much better solution. It is more elegant. It doesn't force anyone to do anything they don't want to do. Rather than forcing taxis to take small jobs, why not allow them to be compensated enough to make them want to do those jobs?
Laws are just not
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe, or is it the just the case that uber drivers are just cherry picking the best fares. Living the dregs to cabbies, who are mandated to take them.
Eliminating the regulations would allow both the uber and taxis to skip them. Not sure how that makes life better for people who need a ride nobody wants to take them on?
Or is this a market will fix the problem situation? And anyone who wants a ride somewhere off the beaten path, so there is no chance of a return fare, or a short haul which is less profitable
Re: (Score:2)
I have a question about how you phrase this. Specifically "ride sharing".
I own a car, and don't fly very often, so don't need taxis very often. But did these services start out an an actual "ride sharing" service? In other words, were they for people who were going to the airport for their own flight, agreeing to help someone else get to the airport? And the same coming back home, sharing your return trip from the parking garage with a stranger that you dropped off on your way home?
Or did they just start as
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it went pure ride sharing > ride sharing with built in ability to tip > taxi service, but the ones that are popular/still around are the ones that started later as taxi services.
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you don't fly in or out of LAX very much? Traffic is a nightmare. It can take 30-45 minutes to simply loop through the terminals a single time when it's busy, which is damn near every night. I'm not saying that these rules don't defend taxi's turf, but there is more reason to it than just that.
Re: (Score:2)
No, fuck em. If I can have a service that is waiting to pick me up, go where I want to go, more often than not in a clean and comfortable car, with a driver who (and I apologise for the next comment but you know this happens too often) understand what you are saying and is interested more in customer service.... I'll take it.
There is. It's called a car service; who has the requisite insurance and permits. You can even book in advance and if your plane is late they will adjust their schedule to meet you when you get in. Cabbies hate them as well but they play by the city rules and thus can operate. Uber appears to be trying to meet the city ordinances, which IMHO is as much about permit revenue as safety, so the may yet be able to take airport fares.
So wait... what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, he would be breaking the law. And you, probably, would be breaking it too.
A lot of things become flat-out illegal — or subject to heavy regulations — when somebody is getting paid. It is a rather unfortunate state of affairs...
It is almost as if our rulers would rather we sat idle depending on their benevolence to provide us with the necessities we need — in their omniscient opinion. Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, he would be breaking the law. And you, probably, would be breaking it too.
He would not. The friend would not engage on the activity motivated by monetary compensation, and the $20 isn't payment, its a tip. And this is legal in most countries. You are liable for services you've been paid for, not tipped for. As an extreme example, there is a huge difference between a commercial agreement regarding sexual intercourse (soliciting, as you're *bidding* for the service) and giving a tip - either in money or goods. The first one is a prostitute, the second one is a fuckfriend/girlfriend
Just videotape it and you'll be fine. ;) (Score:4, Insightful)
The first one is a prostitute
Family Guy reference:
1. Paying someone to have sex with you: Prostitution. Illegal.
2. Paying someone to have sex with you while you run a camera: Production of pornography. Legal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If I call my friend [...] is he breaking the law by accepting the transaction? Am I breaking the law by soliciting such assistance? If not, then why is it somehow different if the driver is not somebody personally known to me?
There's no difference.
Not even if you solicit such assistance from a stranger.
The difference is when the stranger is part of a commercial enterprise.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats not what this is about. This is about companies running unlicensed taxi services and calling it ride sharing, and skirting the rules everyone else has to play by.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you're not asking your friends for rides and at some point they will get into accidents and if they don't have insurance coverage then the state will have to pay for the passenger's medical bills
and airports cost money to build and operate. this is borrowed and the bonds are paid back by customers using the facility and the businesses in the airport. if uber and everyone else wants to pick up at airports they need to pay a fee like everyone else to pay back the bonds and pay the operational costs
Re: (Score:2)
everyone in calif is required to have auto insurance, so THAT's a total non-argument about ride-sharing.
and to blow your other 'help pay for airports' point away, its paid thru taxes and fees, fees, fees and more fees. I don't have to pay fees to pick a friend up and I can do that all day long if I want, without any legal issues.
so, this is not about ANYTHING but keeping the cabbies in a nice profit center.
nothing more and nothing less.
Re: (Score:2)
Is a third party organizing these ride shares? Is there REALLY profit involved between you and your friend? Once your friend accepts cash, he's uninsured under his standard insurance policy as he's now doing commercial work, that will be FAR FAR more than any 'profit' your friend made from your $20. Is a third party taking a cut of this profit?
No, there is absolutely nothing similar between you taking a ride with your friend and Uber except they both use a car to get you some where, except you don't real
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're probably not in violation of any law unless there's some bat shit crazy laws about conspiracy to commit tax fraud. Your friend though might be in trouble, depending on how often he provides a "taxi" service to other people. In our tax system the condition (translated) is:
"A sustained activity which is likely to provide net income and operated by the taxpayer at its own expense and risk."
The key points here is
a) Sustained, one-offs or highly irregular activities don't count
b) Provide net income, activ
Re: (Score:2)
"An order of magnitude more? 200 dollars? Really?"
Apparently you're too dumb to comprehend that he very clearly stated that $20 is *more* than the gas cost by an order of magnitude. That means he's spending $2 in gas for the trip. At the current ~$4/gal with what passes for an "efficient" vehicle in the US, that puts his round trip at ~12.5mi, or roughly 6 miles from the airport.
The depth of your illiteracy truly astounds me.
Fuck taxis (Score:5, Funny)
I want to be able to call an Amazon quadcopter to carry me to my destination.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll just put on my Google Glasses, and tune in to my destination, and fool myself that I'm already there!
Re:Fuck taxis (Score:5, Funny)
Just make absolutely sure you check-mark the option:
* Group my items into as few shipments as possible. (at additional cost)
Lyft will have it worse than Uber (Score:2)
Airports are expensive to run. (Score:2)
My personal feelings with "ride sharing" is that it needs to be governed under the same laws as other taxi/private car services. Drivers need to have a taxi license and insurance (private insurance does not cover you if you're using your car for a business).
The problem is, Uber cant operate under these conditions
Re: (Score:2)
(private insurance does not cover you if you're using your car for a business).
Yes it does. It's just rated differently. Where do you think for-hire cars get their insurance from? The private sector or Uncle Sam?
I had my policy rated for business when I was working for a cheap ass consulting firm that made us use our own cars. It raised my premium less than 20%, a comparative bargain when compared to the prospect of paying a six digit bodily injury judgment. For-hire rates are a bit higher than this, but not particularly onerous, unless you live somewhere (New York City) that al
Re: (Score:2)
You're mis-interpreting his statements, and you're wrong for many reasons.
First, he means personal coverage, standard insurance, which doesn't cover people when working for hire, car, passengers or drivers.
He lives in Australia, so Uncle Sam has got shit to do with it.
You got a minor increase because you drove your car more, this is considered commercial, not private, but we'll ignore your ignorance and inability to comprehend simple statements.
You didn't get it based on carrying passengers for hire, which
Innovation? (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess what really bugs me about these ride share guys is the real reason they're so big: massive unemployment and 40 years of declining wages. People don't participate in ride share sites for fun. I know taxi and limo drivers. They're some of the most abused people in the world. They're 'independent contractors' only in so long as it involves not getting the benefits of being employees (unemployment insurance, heath care, etc).
Fix the broke ass economy and all this 'innovation' would go away tomorrow. Christ, $16 billion in ipo value build on the corpse of the American Middle Class.
Land of the Free (Score:2)
But it seems as if all the talk about reducing red tape only applies to businesses and not individuals. Most businesses exist because of red tape to force you to use them. My kid's class parties can only be supplied by store made cakes an
Nonsense (Score:2)
It's different because it's a profession (Score:2)
Picking up your friend, even in exchange for some compensation, is you and your friend exercising your general freedom to do stuff. Your friend doing that for strangers as his main source of income is a profession, and it makes more sense to regulate. You wouldn't actually like it if either everything that someone does professionally got regulations that apply to everyone, nor if everything that someone does non-professionally got entirely deregulated. Either extreme would be terrible, either for personal f
Re: (Score:2)
When your friend sits around in his car for the sole purpose of being ready to transport people, for profit, waiting for a call to do so, thats when it becomes a crime.
If you really are so stupid as to not be able to see the difference between someone doing it as a favor and someone doing it for random people in a commercial context then you need to go back to grade school and start over.
Jurisdiction (Score:2)
Regulating pick-ups at the airport at least makes a kind of sense, as the airport has the authority to regulate commerce occurring on its property. Whether the fees involved are justified is of course a separate question.
But if you've hired someone to take you *to* the airport, once you're on the airport property it's a little late for the airport to do anything about it.
Console yourself cabbie, you won't be the only one (Score:3, Interesting)
Your dream world is broken (Score:4, Insightful)
... the cab fare will be the same except there won't be a human receiving the wages.
Like how a Snickers bar costs $1.25 in a vending machine.
Not that there will be commonplace autonomous cars in the next 20 years, they will remain as common as the flying cars hypothesized in the 1960s
Q) Why won't there be autonomous cars?
A) Because even a car that can handle 99% of normal driving situations is incredibly dangerous in that other 1% scenario. And that 1% scenario --- power is out and stop lights don't work or ad-hoc road construction or a very destructive pothole or severe rain that blunts sensors --- those happen on a very regular basis.
The only autonomous cars will be the ones we already have --- they are called trains! Not that they are "smart", but because their driving conditions are extremely simplified --- yet they STILL have drivers!!!
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.tlpa.org/ [tlpa.org]
http://www.medallionholders.co... [medallionholders.com]
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.medallionholders.com/
Wow. Am I the only one who finds uncanny similarity between the NY taxi licensing and 17th-18th century European officer commissions? The fancy uniform seems to be the only thing missing!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Protectionism (Score:4, Informative)