SF Airport Officials Make Citizen Arrests of Internet Rideshare Drivers 510
transporter_ii writes "In the past month, San Francisco International Airport officials have been citing and arresting drivers from mobile-app enabled rideshare companies that pick up and drop off passengers, an airport spokesman said. Doug Yakel said there have been seven citizen arrests issued to 'various offenders' since July 10. The airport had issued cease and desist letters to several rideshare companies, including Lyft, Sidecar and Uber, in April. Taxi drivers are holding a noon rally at San Francisco City Hall Tuesday to 'keep taxis regulated and safe' and are calling for the end of ridesharing services."
Well (Score:5, Funny)
Regulations = safety... right?
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Regulations = safety... right?
You declared it.
You should have said
Regulations == Safety.
And here is where you need to understand the intent rather then the method. Regulations can be and are often used as important tools for safety, regulations prohibit engine destroying additives being added to fuel, encourage electrical systems to have devices that prevent electrocution, lower prices by fostering a single standard that is available for everyone.
OTOH, regulations can be used for evil, to lock out competition and fix prices for example.
So you cant say all regulations are evil without being extremely ignorant. It's the intent, not the method that determines if something is helpful or harmful.
And yes, I've lived in a country with very few regulations... This makes building anything to be a full time job just making sure they put the plumbing and electrics in right, so the house doesn't burn down.. We're not even considering the time checking and chasing up on shonky plastering jobs.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Regulations == Safety.
I'm not sure in the Airport and Taxi's are unions, but that would explain all of this. This is how unions operate, in groups, again if one or both are unions.
In this case it isn't about Safety, it is about losing money.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Regulations == Safety.
I'm not sure in the Airport and Taxi's are unions, but that would explain all of this. This is how unions operate, in groups, again if one or both are unions.
In this case it isn't about Safety, it is about losing money.
This is also how companies operate. In my town, union is a 4-letter word, but any time private transportation companies are involved, they collude to keep out newcomers.
Re:Well (Score:4, Funny)
> In my town, union is a 4-letter word
unon? unyn?
Re:Well (Score:5, Funny)
Uñon!
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The best union, in my opinion is the one that you're threatening to form.
Well said. I like the idea of unions, but somehow they often just turn into an extra layer of bureaucracy making tough decisions tougher, and getting in the way of employees doing what they want to do, all in the name of a perceived fairness. This is why I usually advocate right-to-work laws, because they add an incentive for the unions to stay working in the employee's favor, rather than just getting embroiled in power struggles.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, there are several competing taxi services and any company that wants to start a taxi company can start a service. I don't know about SF in particular but in some cities there are many independent operators as well. What they all have in common is that they work within the existing regulations according to a common set of rules. Those rules were put in place to make the competition fair and to protect customers.
Now these new companies are coming in and saying essentially, "The rules don't apply to us
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
You're really naive. Why don't you start Shavano's Taxi in NYC? Think you can? Taxi service is highly regulated everywhere. The prices are set by the local authorities, who have the ability to deny licensing to anybody they want to. It's a rigged game.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most places in the US, the taxi service is highly regulated not merely for safety but for the purpose of excluding competition. The common "regulation" is that a new taxi service must show customer demand that requires their new service. This is typically overseen by a board of their competitors who never seem to agree that they need another competitor.
You're spot on about the near impossibility of starting a new cab in a lot of major US cities. The price of a medallion for a cab in NYC is roughly $360
Re:Well (Score:4, Informative)
The prices are set by the local authorities
In NYC it is even worse. The licenses (or medallions) are sold as commodities. I think the latest estimate is that one goes for over $1,000,000 in NYC now.
Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)
No, there are several competing taxi services and any company that wants to start a taxi company can start a service...
Check up on the "medallion" system and how it's been manipulated to get an idea of how your statement (though technically correct) is not practically true. The gist is that there are a limited number of "medallions" or similar tokens given out to allow roaming taxi operators, and new ones are allotted only rarely. Due to this lock on competition there is a lot of bribery and corruption in deciding who gets them during the "random" selection, and a common scam of medallion holders continuing to hold them while not operating a service, then renting them out for exorbitant prices to other operators.
There's a process for changing laws if people think they are outdated.
Historically, what's happening is exactly how most regulatory laws get changed. Someone starts by showing that their service is in-demand and safe. Eventually they are challenged on whether they're breaking some regulatory limit, and either fight it in court or petition the local government to make the needed changes.
Now these new companies are coming in and saying essentially, "The rules don't apply to us because we're special.," or, "Fuck the rules."
Actually, they're arguing that people are trying to apply the wrong rules to them. Since their drivers don't roam and pick people up at random, instead arriving on request to pick up a specific individual, they have typically been arguing that they are a chartered transportation service. Those services are regulated under different rules, so Lyft, Uber et al are obeying those regulations. They're claiming that the fact that they book their rides minutes in advance instead of days doesn't change the nature of their business, since the only change is the speed at which they deliver the requested service. The taxi operators are trying to get them classed as taxis because those companies have a lock on the limited number of permits for such vehicles, which would allow them to shut down a source of potential competition.
In terms of obeying the spirit of the law, Lyft and Uber actually pass that test fairly well. The most commonly cited reason for the limited number of taxi medallions given out is to keep people from clogging up the roadways with idling taxis waiting for fares. Uber and Lyft drivers park or idle in parking lots and other out of the way places, only entering the roadways to pick up a customer.
Re: (Score:3)
It is against the law.. everything is against the law in some way, or at least can be interpreted to be.
In this case, its pure extortion (Score:5, Informative)
It's all about the money. The SF airport officials want their cut of the fares and are bullying the rideshare cabs to get it. This is what they said in April [sfexaminer.com] :-
So, when banning the ridesharing cabs (who don't pay their 'nominal fees') didn't work, they started arresting the cab drivers [arstechnica.com].
Re:In this case, its pure extortion (Score:5, Informative)
Metro Airport in Detroit has a similar scam going on. They built a fancy new parking structure about 20 years ago.
Now, like many airports, they had private parking places, long-term, off site, that dropped off customers and picked them up. However, their own. new place, being unable to compete (rage as you hear this, shocked, shocked you are) passed a law slapping a 30% tax on them.
This exactly demonstrates government in action w.r.t. efficiency, and what isn't supposed to happen in a free country. Private business isn't supposed to be able to use law to hinder the competition, much less government businesses.
Oh, hotels nearby frequently had outstate people drive in, spend the night, then fly out leaving their cars in the hotel lots as a bonus. The airport outlawed this, too. This is the kind of BS context in which the nearby city of Detroit is going bankrupt.
Re:In this case, its pure extortion (Score:5, Insightful)
This exactly demonstrates corrupt government in action
FTFY. Not all government action is a scam perpetrated by corrupt scumbags. This may be hard to believe in Detroit, but there are actually towns in the U.S. where the city government actually works FOR the people, and isn't just populated by thieves and their friends and relatives.
Re: (Score:3)
In fairness, the scam doesn't come from the taxi companies themselves. Make no mistake, they gladly take advantage of the government imposed restriction of competition, but in some regards they count as victims here just as much as the rest of us.
The real criminals here? In NYC (which has pretty solid published numbers), guess who sells those licenses to operate 13,237 cabs at a million bucks a pop? That literally comes out to NYC pulling in slightly more than my entire state's budget, just to keep cab f
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
OTOH, regulations can be used for evil, to lock out competition and fix prices for example.
The taxi drivers assert that this is a safety matter. They claim that without well regulated taxi service people are going to get hurt riding in cars driven by who knows whom.
I honestly can't say which of either taxi drivers or random ride share people are a greater threat. I just know the GP wasn't wrong pointing out that this brand new 'outrage' has its basis in regulation, whether the little statist neck beards around here like it or not.
It is a safety matter (Score:3)
The taxi drivers assert that this is a safety matter.
They are correct - it is a matter of keeping their jobs safe.
Re: (Score:3)
OTOH, regulations can be used for evil, to lock out competition and fix prices for example.
The taxi drivers assert that this is a safety matter. They claim that without well regulated taxi service people are going to get hurt riding in cars driven by who knows whom.
I honestly can't say which of either taxi drivers or random ride share people are a greater threat. I just know the GP wasn't wrong pointing out that this brand new 'outrage' has its basis in regulation, whether the little statist neck beards around here like it or not.
Well, maybe our licensing standards for drivers are too low. Likewise for vehicle maintenance standards. IMO, if they're too dangerous of a driver/car to have a passenger with them, I don't want them on the road with me AT ALL. So lets fix our lax standards for everyone, and this will be a non-issue.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not safety as in road safety, it's safety as in not going to take you somewhere and rob, rape, or kill you.
Re: (Score:3)
With these rideshares, the passenger is submitting a request over the internet to a public facing company. That company in turn sends out a pickup request to a specific driver, who accepts it and logs their intent to pick up the passenger.
And here is the problem with the whole situation. These companies aren't offering a 'rideshare' service, they are offering a 'shuttle' service. Rideshare, I'm going someplace and I'll offer to take someone along to share the expenses. These companies are hiring drivers
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"regulations prohibit engine destroying additives being added to fuel"
Um..... no: http://www.cycleworld.com/2013/07/05/everything-you-need-to-know-about-ethanol-fuel-and-your-motorcycle [cycleworld.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Not in Pascal.
Re:Dispute - not often at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Your post reads like you have absolutely no perspective, have chosen a side, and are completely focused on supporting that position. The idea that 99% of regulation isn't beneficial is absolute nonsense.
When I came into work today in my car I benefited from regulation of air-bags, lighting, road markings, junction positioning, emissions, brakes, vehicle road worthiness and probably dozens, if not hundreds, of others.
There are stupid regulations, just like there are stupid laws, but the exceptions should be dealt with rather than throwing the whole system out.
Re:Dispute - not often at all (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dispute - not often at all (Score:4, Insightful)
That would depend on the definition of a "good" regulation. You seem to cite the airbag regulation as a bad thing. Yet what was the alternative? When they first came out many countries were struggling to get passengers to buckle up. Killing a few lighter passengers vs not saving a large proportion of the population that fails to follow another regulation is not necessarily a bad thing.
Just like our building codes where I live say nothing about earthquake hardening. Though if an earthquake were to hit now and kill thousands of people would that be a failed regulation? No it would likely be an edge case given the historical lack of earthquakes.
Also with lane markings you're getting regulations and best practices convoluted. Best practice is to include lane markings on the road. Where they are included they need to follow the regulations which dictate what they will look like.
Re:Dispute - not often at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Your quoting airbags reminded me - the first generation of airbags were dictated by the government to be set up to do a lick of good for an unbuckled passanger. As a result they detonated with such force they killed lighter people (children and small females).
Is the street lighting, road markings, and junctions a result of regulations or industry 'best practices'?
While airbags were a bit off the mark to start, the goal and intent were correct and eventually got us where we are today. Airbags have saved many many more lives than they have taken, so I'm willing to take the growing pains as a society to get to where we are today.
As for best practices, how many cities are willingly putting up more street lights? Or repainting roads to make the markings clear? Most of these things the cities/states are required to do. If we got rid of all regulations, we would be fucked. What incentive would a city or state have to fix anything? Why wouldn't a business just dump waste into streams and lakes that feed your drinking water? Its faster/cheaper/easier so it would happen over night.
I hate red tape just as much as the next guy, and I spend a good chunk of my time at work filling out "TPS" reports, but these systems are in place to keep douchebags (people/corporations) from doing what comes naturally to them, screwing us all over. As far as the story goes, I like the idea of rideshare, and can see how taxis are getting pissed, but is that the best thing our police departments can be doing, investigating and ticketing normal people over stepping on a taxi drivers toes?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So, you're in favour of cities favouring wealthy neighborhoods over poorer neighborhoods, since they'll get more tax revenues from the millionaires paying taxes than the poor receiving welfare?
Interesting idea, that....
Re: (Score:3)
Is the street lighting, road markings, and junctions a result of regulations or industry 'best practices'?
Yes, there are regulations for all of that, and if you want to see a cluster fuck, visit a country where there are none, or if there are, they are not enforces (India and Philippines come to mind)
Re:Dispute - not often at all (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know where you live, but at least in the U.S., pretty much all building codes say that if an engineer has designed it, so it will be. No problems with non-traditional houses, as long as you've got someone competent to design it.
Says the man who has never met a county building inspector. It doesn't matter if code explicitly states that something is permissible--if they don't personally understand it, it doesn't meet code. If they don't like the practice, it doesn't meet code. If they had a fight with their wife that morning, their kid hates them, and the dog just bit them, it doesn't meet code.
Re: (Score:3)
Having recently paid for three permits and six inspections for me and myself doing the work on my own house, I beg to differ. If you're building a non-standard, engineer-designed home, presumably you have enough money to immediately quash any attempts by inspectors at not following the rules. Lawyers come comparatively cheap when you think about the cost of the entire project.
If they don't get it, they'll (at least they should) ask for plans - plans that are sealed by a PE or an architect and are approved b
Re:Dispute - not often at all (Score:5, Interesting)
And you can challenge them on the spot and through the process if they won't follow the rules.
Three Civil engineers were building a large retaining wall on one of their property. The inspector showed up and said you can't build walls higher than 4 feet tall without a plan and inspection every few feet. The engineer who's property it was grabbed a sketch that was nothing more than line on paper, grabbed his seal and stamped and signed the "design plan" handed it to the inspector and informed the inspector that private inspection of the wall would be handled by the 3 on site engineers. The inspector called his boss who came out and told him to shut up.
Regulation is there to protect future owners of the property. You build the house wrong or don't follow code and you can end up killing someone. That inspection prevents you from being charged with homicide later. Inspection is a good thing even if some of the jackasses in the business are just that.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't matter if code explicitly states that something is permissible--if they don't personally understand it, it doesn't meet code. If they don't like the practice, it doesn't meet code.
As someone who does have experience with codes enforcement, I can tell you for a fact that in the US, if the code explicitly states something is permissible, it will be accepted by the inspector. City/County governments don't like to get sued any more than the rest of us do. If my city codes inspector failed my inspe
Re:Dispute - not often at all (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to preface this by saying I'm using the term "regulation" in this post to mean "government regulation". Private entities impose regulations on member companies all the time, and I have no issue with it. This response is a rebuttal only to the idea of "government regulation". Is there regulation that specifies network architectures? Is there regulation that says TCP/IP is the backbone of the Internet? Is there regulation that says USB is the standard method of connection for a whole slew of devices? Information Technology is the most UNregulated industry in the world....it also happens to be the fastest growing (for decades now) and the most diverse in terms of job opportunities and applications to customers. Regulations are ALWAYS about protecting a preferred interest, never about safety. The old addage is "you get what you pay for". If you pay for something that has an inherent lack of safety, but it's cheaper, and you get more customers than the guy that charges a higher price for the safe product...who do you think is going to demand the regulation? The customers certainly aren't, they are obviously happy with the less safe product, else they wouldn't buy it. The only person that would scream for safety regulation is the one knows he can drive his competition if his competitor were FORCED to meet the same standards. You cite air-bags, lighting, road markers, etc. as regulations you "benefit" from. Are you telling me that if not for regulations cars would wander aimlessly through the dark on dirt paths? This is absolutely ludicrous and is simply a "who will build the roads?" argument. It stems from a belief that without forced coercion at the point of a gun that people would not provide a quality product (and if roads and general safety were products to be sold instead of given away after stealing from others, they would be quality...to those that purchase them). Life is about risk management. No one can be 100% safe all the time. It is incumbent upon the individual to take the various risks in their own life and weigh those against the resources available to them. Some people don't trust elevators, they simply don't ride them, they take the stairs instead. It takes longer, thus it consumes their time. That is resource and risk management, and if you don't do it for yourself you're simply helpless and reliant on others to make decisions for you.
Look, this is ridiculous. I am all for personal responsibility and I try to exercise it in my daily life. I ride a motorcycle for crying out loud, I need to be personally responsible. So I agree that people need to think about what they are doing and consider the consequences.
But our modern world is too complex to have people weighing every decision. I don't have time to make sure that every restaurant I eat at has clean facilities. Are we all supposed to inspect the kitchen ourselves? I can't personally verify that the apartment building I live in was properly built, or that the airbags in my car will work properly and only when they are needed, or that the taxi I'm riding in has been properly maintained, or that the medicines I'm taking are safe and effective. And if I find that any of these are not the case, I don't have the resources to correct them. I can take my money elsewhere, but that's not incredibly effective; I'm a drop in the bucket.
It would be great if we all had perfect information and could make rational choices based on our own sense of what is most important to us. Really, I would dig that. But the fact is we don't have the expertise or the resources to independently judge the entirely of the world around us. It's too big, and life moves too fast these days. We need regulations to make sure basic standards are being met. Sometimes those regulations are used for anti-competitive goals, and I agree that's wrong. But to say regulations are ALWAYS about protecting a preferred interest, never about safety is not correct either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a hugely sweeping assertion that requires some justification. Do you have any statistical evidence to back it up, or are you speaking from sheer prejudice?
There is a huge amount of regulation. Which means that if only a very tiny bit of regulation is bad, there is a lot of bad regulation. But to generalise from the fact that there is a lot of bad regulation to the idea that 99% of regulation is bad is the sloppiest of sloppy thinking.
From you statement, for example, road safety regulations are a was
Re:Dispute - not often at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you clarify: you are happy to take the risk of an incident which will leave millions dead, and cost trillions in property damage, and depend on financial restitution after the accident? You say you wouldn't live near it: a serious nuclear accident could pollute 1/3 of the US (Chernobyl polluted Scotland): three such plants and you have to leave the country. Do you know how open-cast mining companies have managed to manipulate such a system? An initial company opens the mine, extracts the coal and gets the profits, then as the mine is coming to the end of its life, transfers it to a shell company which has no assets. When the time comes to close the mine and rehabilitate the land, the company goes bust, with no resources to do the job their long-distant predecessors started. Ditto with pollution (Love Canal etc). Have you not heard of Bhopal - how many of them (a) got financial restitution, and (b) would not far rather have healthy lives than any financial payback? The law should prevent this, you say? Would you bet your life against the lawyers and political favours that a significant slice of a ten billion dollar profit can buy? And do you really think money can compensate for human lives? Will you sell permits to murder - which is essentially your proposition?
How much time are you willing to spend researching before going into a burger bar? Remembering that the burger chain owners will be spending significant amounts of money whitewashing their reputation and attacking those who say their food is dangerous even if it isn't. There is a proven history over millennia of big guys screwing consumers, often fatally, and getting away with it. Before food regulations were instituted in London, approximately 10% of food sold was actively dangerous (flour padded out with white lead) and more than 80% was adulterated (bread padded out with chalk). The profits from "getting away with it", and the ease of providing a fall guy to take the heat if you don't, are irresistible to the small percentage of the population who are actively dishonest - and then the majority who are trying to compete with them have to do the same and go bust.
Big business, due to simple financial muscle, can always outgun the little guy. The only solution the little guy has is to gang up together: all together we have the muscle to match business. Such a ganging-together of all the little guys is called a "government".
I can only conclude that you are completely ignorant of the law of the past 200 years if you have such a naive trust in post-facto restitution, and ignorant of advertising if you trust on reputation to warn of bad providers. That worked in a medieval village. It didn't work even in a medieval town, let alone an industrial country with tens of millions of businesses,
Re: (Score:3)
I would be happy to see nuclear power regulations repealed, so long as those that build and run nuclear power plants are actually accountable for any incidents that occur as a result of preventable actions on their part. This goes to the heart of statism: the protection of corporations. Corporations are an invention of government, allowing them to esacpe culpability when their interests at risk. If I run a power plant, and I neglect to have proper safety precautions and something happens, I should be held accountable for those actions.
I don't say this often, or lightly, but this is stupid idea. This is free-market libertarianism taken to the (il)logical extreme. Are you arguing that regulations are never good or necessary? What if someone wants to build a nuclear power plant near a highly populated area? Near a large water source for easy cooling, eg Fukushima? What if they are using a design that has known flaws? Are you still OK as long as those responsible will be "accountable" in the end? What about if they cut corners to recoup thei
Re:Dispute - not often at all (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sick of hearing the same old tired bullshit from conservatives and libertarians about how regulations, unions, and taxes are so awful.
You can always find some instance of where a given regulation is bad, a union is over-reaching, or taxation is burdensome. But these three things, regulations, unions, and taxes, define civilization as we know it in the contemporary U.S.
Regulations (laws) and the regulatory agencies were demanded by the people and put into place to protect citizenry from consistently ethics-challenged business world. Likewise unions. Business, it turns out, cares more about turning a profit than the health, safety, and welfare of you, your family, employees, and the environment we all live in. If you don't threaten to throw 'em in jail, or subject them to penny ante fines and public humiliation, businesses will happily bait and switch your ass to death. They'll pay you starvation wages to work in situations as dangerous as the most dangerous situation you can imagine. And dock your pay if you're late.
For every bad regulation you come up with, there are a thousand that have saved your life in the last week. For every non-union shop that you claim is fair and treats its employees fairly and looks out for their safety there are a thousand people on disability from preventable industrial accidents.
And taxes help pay for those life-saving regulations. And roads. And bridges. And schools. And police and fire departments, health departments, public parks, libraries, universities, basic research, the arts, THE MILITARY... Need I go on?
And for every onerous tax you mention, there are a thousand benefits you've personally reaped in services and infrastructure paid for by our taxes.
So I don't want to hear about how bad government regulation is, or that unions're bad, mmm'kay? Or that we shouldn't pay taxes. If you don't want to participate in our society and partake of the benefits, fucking move someplace where you don't have to suffer those "burdens".
I hear Somalia doesn't have personal income tax...
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Regulations = safety... right?
In most of Europe yes; the regulations are there in order to improve people's lives and especially safety. It is true that, in some places, people are able to change the regulations for their own profit or in ways that interfere with business. That is a symptom of failing democracy not that regulations are always bad. Your first priority must be to change your politicians. After that; once you have politicians who are trying to limit the regulations to the ones that actually matter, then is the time to start reducing the regulation which is getting in your way for no benefit.
Very often, the alternative to regulations which make it clear what needs to be done and what is just an optional extra is lawsuits, which are even more costly.
Re:Well (Score:4, Informative)
It's not the airport charging that fee. The railroad to Arlanda is one of the only private rails in Sweden in a deal where the builder, A-Train (Arlanda Express) would get monopoly on rail traffic to the airport for 40 years.
Re:Well (Score:4, Informative)
Note that the Arlada Express train does not have a paid exit, and the 75 SEK (~10 USD) fee is you're on a monthly travel card going by commuter train.
If you simply get a one way ticket on the commuter train (130 SEK or so), the exit cost is included in the price.
There really isn't a difference from some of the other train lines (Further than BÃ¥lsta requires an extra ticket, as does travel to Gnesta I believe).
Also, you can get a monthly card that actually includes the Arlanda station fee.
Obviously, neither taxis, private cars, Uber et.c. get to drop you off where you are.
However, the pre-filled line with cabs is regulated to be only Taxi Stockholm, Taxi Kurir and Taxi 020 to my knowledge.
Others can just simply pick you up next to that queue.
Basically, you've been misinformed.
Clean their own act first (Score:5, Informative)
Before regulating, how about the existing cab companies clean up their own act first.
From TFA:-
Apparently, regulated taxis in San Francisco are so safe that theres a dedicated webpage discussing homicide prevention strategies [taxi-library.org]. For cabs specifically in SF only.
And one of the main reasons ridesharing is taking off is that apparently existing regulated cabs offer terrible service [baycitizen.org].
Actually, hmm, my sympathies might lie with the cab driver on the making out bit. But only if shes hot. ^_-
Re:Clean their own act first (Score:5, Funny)
Who said that there was a girl/woman involved? This is San Francisco after all...
Sharing is evil (Score:5, Insightful)
The entertainment industry says so. It seems only reasonable to see others take up the cause. Parents who tell kids to share their toys should be arrested also. It's killing the Toys R us franchise.
Re:Sharing is evil (Score:4, Interesting)
These aren't shares in that sense. While the donations they suggest are technically not mandatory, if you don't pay them then you're cut out of the system quickly. They're for-profit companies running something closer to a limo service than what anyone would mean by "rideshare". Which is fine with me, the taxi monopolies are ludicrous. But it's not like they're arresting people for carpooling or slugging or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Outlaw corporations! They issue shares!
Re: (Score:3)
Parents who tell kids to share their toys should be arrested also. It's killing the Toys R us franchise.
Of course! The only shares nobody is arrested when they got busted are the ones used by Wall Street.
Civil Offense = Arrested? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Arresting someone for what amounts to a civil offense seems like government power overreach to me, otherwise known as fascism.
They are being arrested for being stupid, which is (or should be) a criminal offense. This is nothing new. The SFO Airport Gestapo has always watched for any money changing hands at the curb. You just need to pay the driver before you get to airport.
Re:Civil Offense = Arrested? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was going to use my mod points in this thread, but I tire of seeing people like you complain about the moderation.
Look, mod points are supposed to be used to bring about conversation to the top, whether you agree with it or not. If you see a comment that is, or has sparked debate, moderate it to the top so discussion can continue. That is the whole point. The fact that you don't know this means that you more than likely have never gotten mod points. Every time you get them, it gives you a link to the guidelines.
So the fact that something is moderated to 5 doesn't mean anything other than a few people thought the comment deserved to be promoted to the top to encourage more discussion.
indictable offense? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is picking someone up at the airport an indictable offense?
reason #8732 not to fly to the US...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No. In the USA, an "indictable offense" is by legal definition a felony. These citizens arrests are not for felonies.
Stop using words and phrases when you don't know what they mean, OK?
Re:indictable offense? (Score:5, Informative)
http://jpdefense.com/new-york-criminal-defense/2011/01/can-a-defendant-be-indicted-in-new-york-state-on-a-misdemeanor-charge/ [jpdefense.com]
An indictment is a written statement charging a party with the commission of a crime or other offense, drawn up by a prosecuting attorney and found and presented by a grand jury. Although the idea of a person being indicted on a misdemeanor charge may be uncommon, since the purpose of an indictment is generally used to charge a person with a felony; itâ(TM)s not always the case. ...(deleted text)
When a defendant is indicted in New York Criminal Court on a misdemeanor charge, he is subject to a petit jury hearing which has a total of six members. This hearing is used to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute the defendant.
If the misdemeanor is prosecuted by the indictment, then the defendant is entitled to twelve jurors even though the highest charge is a misdemeanor. ...(deleted text)
Re:indictable offense? (Score:5, Funny)
Is picking someone up at the airport an indictable offense?
Depends upon the following: .. home of the brave.
- The speed at which you approach
- Where you park
- Whom the person is
- What your intent is
- What you're carrying in the boot of your car
- Whether your car is correctly registered and insured
- Whether the NSA has you, your grandmother, your housemate or your neighbour on a watch list
But apart from that, land of the free
Re:indictable offense? (Score:5, Informative)
If you're looking for reason #8733, the first time I flew into SFO there was a cop standing next to a pedestrian crossing en route to the rental car lot ticketing all the furriners who didn't realise that pedestrian signals were mandatory and who were crossing against the light. I'm sure he believed it was in the interests of "safety", too, and nothing at all to do with finding an easy way to meet his performance metrics.
Once more government protecting big business (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What is that "free economy" you talk about and where does it exist? It's kinda intriguing, I think we should try it some day.
Re:Once more government protecting big business (Score:5, Informative)
Why should someone else be able to pick up strangers for the cost of gas?
Why shouldn't someone else be able to pick up strangers for the cost of gas?
On top of that there are vehicle licenses, inspections and higher insurance.
This adds nothing of value . . . except to the government and insurance agencies. All cars need licenses, inspections and insurance anyway. If you are using your car for professional purposes, you need to report it to your insurance company anyway.
You can't tell me that the driver does not get a few bucks for the trouble.
No, I shouldn't tell you, but the drivers should report it to the IRS as income.
The whole thing is about protecting the taxi business from competition.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why shouldn't someone else be able to pick up strangers for the cost of gas?
Because all of the above costs exist for a reason. They didn't just get made up because it was fun to regulate taxi drivers, they're there to protect people getting into the back of cars with strangers driving them. If they don't fight it, it allows unregulated taxis to pop up all over the place, simply by repeatedly "offering a lift" at the airport, sidestepping the entire taxi regulation system.
The whole thing is about protecting the taxi business from competition.
No, the whole thing is about protecting people from ending up in the back of "taxis" that couldn't or wouldn't
Re:Once more government protecting big business (Score:5, Insightful)
None of the reasons are of any value to me. If I want the safety of a regulated taxi, I'll take one. If I am willing to accept the risk of taking an unregulated one, where is the reason to disallow me to do that?
Go to your boss and tell him you need to earn 100 bucks more for "union fees" and inform me of his reply, please. Especially if you keep screaming at him that non-union workers should be banned while he has you thrown out.
Re:Once more government protecting big business (Score:4, Interesting)
The fix for this and many other is to return the public green. Airports, malls all get built with public funds, eminent domain tax breaks etc. Need to amend the laws to make these public places. None of this trespass BS.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't want a libertarian utopia. I want sensible checks in place to ensure that the free market can actually work. Your example is one where the free market cannot solve the problem, by definition, since the airport does have a certain monopoly position which cannot be cracked sensibly. Unless you're willing to sacrifice more and more land to create more and more airports.
It's similar to various infrastructure services which should not be handled by the free market simply to ensure all other services can
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry. I come from a country where laws are actually expecting people to apply common sense.
It kinda grows on you.
Re:Once more government protecting big business (Score:5, Informative)
They didn't just get made up because it was fun to regulate taxi drivers, they're there to protect people getting into the back of cars with strangers driving them.
Oh, please. They are there because the taxi drivers lobbied for it, going as far as rioting in the streets, beating the other drivers senseless and cutting off traffic in the financial districts, because during the great depression everyone who had a car was competing with them.
Here's an article from 1934: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/17056337/ [nla.gov.au]
Re: (Score:3)
they are there because taxis used to be giant scams robbing people blind, driving like maniacs killing people (only the early ambulances were bigger threats on the road, and they too got regulated), dropping them at wrong location, extorting money to get to the right location, etc.
Re:Once more government protecting big business (Score:4, Informative)
The legal system disappears if everyone decides they can decide on their own which laws to be ignored.
The thing you overlook is WHY people start to ignore laws. It becomes common practice in a country to ignore laws which people do not like when the number and complexity of laws and regulations exceed the ability of anyone to keep track of what they need to do to remain in compliance with those laws and regulations. The U.S. has reached that point and has reached the point where that is beginning to happen. It has gotten so bad that the President of the United States decides on his own which laws to ignore, even when some of those laws were ones that he fought to have passed.
The reason is as stated - protection racket (Score:4, Informative)
They didn't just get made up because it was fun to regulate taxi drivers
No, they got made up because someone could then make money from ALL drivers picking up someone, and furthermore artificially jacking up prices by lowering supply.
No, the whole thing is about protecting people from ending up in the back of "taxis" that couldn't or wouldn't get through
Ha! Spoken like someone who has never been in a real taxi. In London perhaps with the black cabs we could buy your bullshit. In most other cities or most other companies you just need to fork over the VERY LARGE amount of cash required to join the club - your only instructors required being Washington and Benjamin.
To change the rules? (Score:3)
The best way to get rules changed is to refuse to follow them. Done right, this sparks a discussion of whether the rules are sensible or not. There's really no other way to do it. The government put these rules into place, and will not want to spend time reviewing or changing them. They have to be pressured into doing so, and that's exactly what is happening.
It is a very important responsibility of any citizen is to disobey senseless regulations. When you are called on one, invest the time in your society b
Taxi Driving maybe not... Taxi Companies are. (Score:3)
Driving a cab might not have been a big business where you were, but consider NYC, where a medallion costs well over $1M at this point. The interest on the loan to buy the medallion pretty much dwarfs any other costs -car, gas, etc...
Taxi drivers enjoy legal semi-monopolies. It's sold to the public that it ensures that they will be picked up(despite being black), get a safe vehicle(despite pretty much all vehicles being safe today), with enough legroom and a 'professional' driver.
The problem comes in that
What. (Score:5, Funny)
I just read the summary several times, and the article twice, and I still have no idea what the hell people are getting arrested for...
But I get the feeling that if someone explains it to me, it'll only lead to me yelling "WHAT THE FUCK, AMERICA?!" and I already have a headache, so I would rather just remain ignorant this one time...
Re:What. (Score:4, Informative)
This is actually not an American only thing.
Generally, you must have a license to be a taxi driver, ride sharing like that is akin (and probably in the eyes of the government equal to) operating a taxi service, thus, if you are not licensed to do so, you are breaking the law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So from now on, there will only be one person in each car in the US?
Re:What. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But a licensed violent criminal!
Re: (Score:2)
Your headache can go away. It's just all about taxi drivers not liking pink mustaches: http://www.businessinsider.com/lyft-ride-sharing-john-zimmer-2012-9 [businessinsider.com]
Meet Lyft, A Startup Trying To Change San Francisco's Decades-Old Transportation System
n San Francisco, a hotbed of transportation innovation from ferries to cable cars to high-speed rail, the latest way to get around is sporting a giant, pink, fluffy mustache. If you see a car with that hood decoration, you're looking at a driver for Lyft, a new app from a startup called Zimride that lets you order a car ride from one point to another on demand. Instead of working like Uber, a similar service for professional limo drivers, Lyft has more of a community aspect, focusing on regular car owners who want to help their friends and meet new people.
Re:What. (Score:5, Informative)
Part of the confusion is that these aren't really ride"shares", they're closer to being unlicensed cab companies. Or maybe limo companies--they don't pick up random street fares, you have to put in a request through their apps. Passengers put in online requests and pay the drivers to come and pick them up and drive them somewhere, and while there's not a mandatory fee there is a "suggested fee" given in the app at the end of the ride and the rating system ensures that passengers who don't pay get cut out of the system quickly. The company takes a percentage of each fare (20% is typical).
All of which I'm okay with (taxi monopolies are ridiculous, and the lyft/sidecar/etc market has settled on rates that are about 30% lower than what hack rates are set at), but they're for-profit companies where drivers typically make $30+ an hour. It's not like they're shutting down a "rideshare" in the sense that it sounds like.
All three of these companies have previously been fined by the California Public Utilities Commission and issued cease and desists. But the timing is surprising. CPUC had recently reversed the fines and C&Ds against all three after ensuring that they'd follow some safety regulations going forward--they're in the process of getting their drivers licensed, have agreed to have criminal background checks for all drivers (some of them did that already), and have picked up bond insurance for passengers, etc.
It looked before today like they were in the process of coming into compliance and that CPUC was backing down from a previously confrontational position in light of those concessions. See, for instance, http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57596259-93/uber-lyft-and-sidecar-get-tentative-green-light-in-calif/ [cnet.com] They've gone through the same thing in other cities (I know they have at least tentative approval in New York after going through a lot of back and forth to make sure that they're not just bandit cabs that operate by no rules).
None of the airport's business (Score:3)
How a passenger arrives at the airport - by bicycle, by train , by rideshare or by stork - is simply none of their business as long as it is not disruptive. From the airport's perspective, there is no difference between a taxi and a rideshare, so claiming that the rideshare is "trespassing" is absurd.
Of course, the regulatory capture by taxi companies is the real, underlying issue here. There is no reason to restrict who can take another person in their car; this is an arrangement for services between conse
Re:What. (Score:5, Informative)
They're not being arrested and hauled off to jail. "Arrest" means they were stopped and cited, ie, given a ticket.
Ride share used to mean a group of people who shared a ride to work or a nearby location; possibly renting a van as a group. This new thing is a smart phone app that pairs you up with someone wanting a ride. Technically it could just be about finding someone in your area who is going to the same location you are. In practice people are turning this into an actual business, in essence they are becoming a taxi service with a smaller fare but without following regulations regarding taxis/limousines/shuttles or getting a license. The SFO airport considers these professional ridesharers to be trespassing.
Re: (Score:2)
try just one more time!
Hint: its the 5th sentence.
Here's the 5th sentence from the article.
Yakel said the companies are not permitted to offer their services at SFO and they are now being arrested for unlawful trespassing.
Except it doesn't really describe what the services are. Is ridesharing something like couchsurfing, and the drivers volunteers and and the companies just coordinating?
Later on it has:
He said the drivers are simply offering rides to people for a donation,
Which makes me think the drivers are looking to make some money (ie "suggested donati
How are they identified? (Score:2)
Re:How are they identified? (Score:5, Informative)
Are the cars marked or painted with the company names and/or logos?
For one of the companies at least, the cars are wearing pink mustaches. (yes, really)
Re:How are they identified? (Score:5, Funny)
the cars are wearing pink mustaches
They're in disguise.
Re: (Score:2)
Won't be happening for much longer (Score:4, Informative)
SFO hostility (Score:3)
I've got to say SFO is consistently the most hostile airport I've ever been to, and I've been to a lot of them.
But this just beggars belief and basically boils down to taxi drivers wanting a monopoly and "somehow" convincing the airport officials to back them.
You can't do anything for free in the good old US-of-A, its bound to upset some corporation or other, and they're the ones with all the power, not the voters.
yay! (Score:3)
Because we are so much safer paying a taxi $55 for the ride to the hotel and then the expected $20 tip.
uh... (Score:4, Funny)
The one time someone said to me: "I'm placing you under citizens arrest"
My reply was "Go fuck yourself"
and when the police showed up, it wasn't me that got carted off to jail.
People need to learn about their rights.
There's regulation and then there's protectionism (Score:3)
Regulation certainly has important uses: it keeps your house from burning down, makes you safer in car accidents and ensures that your food is clean and properly prepared.
But this is mostly self-protectionism by the taxi industry. Ride sharing is basically "accelerated friend making" for the purposes of carpooling. Any claim that it's unsafe because its unregulated is more or less bullocks. It's maybe a matter of service quality, but that should really a choice left made up to the customer, shouldn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly what they are doing (the airport officials) isn't right. But so far as I can tell, airport officials have made a career of doing wrong things and saying it's in our favour. From little things like taking away our water, to major things like irradiating us. It's a little disconcerting.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, but tresspass is. The airport has banned those hiring the non-taxi rides. It's a jerk move, but it's legal.
Re: (Score:3)
It's partly about their business and partly about public safety. Taxi services have higher insurance rates as well as safety inspections of both the cars and the drivers.
Look, this ride share serves is every bit as dangerous as hitchhiking. You are taking your chances with it that you won't be robbed of everything you have with you and your naked corpse found in the remotest part of California.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually feel sorry for the taxi drivers. It's not just a threat to their business - they are being undercut in ways they are not legally able to compete.
I do not feel sorry for buggy whip makers. I will not feel sorry for taxi drivers. I will not feel sorry for ride-share services when self driving cars do them in.
I do not stand idly by while human progress is hindered. When the herd is hindered I first drop subtle hints that those who are hindering the herd should not do so. Next I advocate for field trips to the tar pit. Finally, we proceed unhindered, and not even the hipsters miss the buggy whip makers -- they burn them in their power plants or
Re: (Score:2)
Then why don't taxi drivers instead do the same, forgo licensing and other fees and offer their services at the same level? Obviously, it's what the market demands.
Re: (Score:3)