California Declares Carpooling Via Ride-Share Services Illegal 288
An anonymous reader writes: Ride-share companies like Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar got letters from the California Public Utilities Commission this week telling them that carpool features for their services are illegal. "Basically, the CPUC says that under California law it's illegal for these ride-sharing services to charge passengers an individual fare when carrying multiple people in one vehicle. If the companies would like to add a carpool feature, they first have to request an adjustment to their existing permits with the CPUC or petition the state legislature to modify the law. Uber, Lyft and Sidecar all unveiled carpool features last month. The three companies say the feature lets strangers in multiple locations, but heading the same direction, share rides and split fares — saving passengers up to 50 percent per ride."
This news arrives just as Uber gave in to the demands of striking drivers who claim the company is undermining their ability to earn a livable wage.
Can we please cann these companies what they are.. (Score:5, Informative)
Minicab companies.
They are not 'ride sharing' or 'car pooling' or anything even similar.
The business model is old and well established,at least in london.
It means a cab service that does not use fully licensed drivers and vehicles, and cannot be just hailed on the street (must be booked).
The fact that they take most of their bookings from phone apps/online makes no difference at all.
It is just a private hire of transport service - they dont use cab ranks, they cannot pick up people who hail them.
Perhaps if they had admitted this to begin with, they would not have faced the legal hurdles they have.
Re:Can we please cann these companies what they ar (Score:4, Funny)
" and cannot be just hailed on the street"
Thats a good idea, make hail illegal. Can they do the same with straightline winds and tornados too?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can we please cann these companies what they ar (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Are there really taxi unions? Around here taxi drivers are lucky to make minimum wage. There are truckers unions and last year both unionized and non-unionized container truck drivers went on strike as the race to the bottom had gotten to the point where they couldn't maintain their vehicles, buy fuel and eat.
Re: (Score:2)
Are there really taxi unions? Around here taxi drivers are lucky to make minimum wage.
Taxi *owner* "unions". Though I doubt they're "unions" in the traditional sense. More likely "associations" like doctors or lawyers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No - in reality if regulation of cabs is removed, the worst of them will dominate in the short term ($5 cheaper you say! I'm in!) - until their unmaintained and dangerous vehicles cause a serious accident. And then the regulation will be re-introduced amidst a public outcry, and we'll be back where we started from.
Would you deregulate the airline industry too?
Re:Can we please cann these companies what they ar (Score:4, Insightful)
We already did. Seemed to work out okay. [wikipedia.org]
Not saying we should do it to the extent you describe, but surely there's some room in there to make the whole thing suck less. People don't use services that are bad, and lots of people are using Uber, Lyft et al. There must be a middle ground between cab cartel protectionism and the the fly-by-night-itude of these services.
Re: (Score:2)
Often commercial vehicles cut too many corners, kill people and regulations come about. Also as the sibling mentions, those who don't want to compete on the cost cutting and want to operate safe vehicles usually lobby for a level playing field.
I'd hate to be in a business where the only way to make any money is to be totally unsafe. Tires, brakes etc cost money and eat into the bottom line.
Re: (Score:2)
is a call center providing services for 10 minicab companies the minicab company?
but yeah, they're minicab companies, but... is it illegal for the minicabs say in london to pick up two passangers from different locations and drive them at the same time to another city and drop them off at different locations and charge them different fares as if they were individual customers? the reason cab companies didn't fight these call-by-phone-only companies(not just uk, same in finland) was that it's not so easy as
Re:Can we please cann these companies what they ar (Score:5, Informative)
You do realize that they are already regulated and have gotten permits to operate in California right? They won the battle by complying with the law. I don't think this supports your supposition much though.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have to always consider affected third parties that aren't part of the contract. The state's obligation is to protect their interests. You just have a bunch of "consenting adults" exposing the rest of us to their runoff and other dangers.
Re:Can we please cann these companies what they ar (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, for starters, it's expected to enforce these contracts. Every legally binding contract has the state as a third party.
Re: (Score:2)
What moral authority does the state have to stop consenting adults from forming their own contracts and doing business with each other?
Should people be able to sell themselves into slavery ?
Re: (Score:2)
Should people be able to sell themselves into slavery ?
We are talking about contracts, and people do "slavery" contracts all the time. For example, employment contracts.
Contracts, unlike the "slavery" that you want to imply, can be broken. Broken contracts go to civil court, where a judge decides how the harmed person is to be made whole again (typically with a money judgment.)
I'm sorry that you dont understand anything at all about the world of contracts but insist on acting like you do anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
What moral authority does the state have
It's called being a democracy. You appear to be unfamiliar with the concept.
Re:Can we please cann these companies what they ar (Score:4, Interesting)
Those are all wonderful reasons for voluntary government certification: anybody who wants to can go to the government and get some government seal of approval; I as a rider can then make a voluntary choice whether that certification is useful information or whether I want to throw caution to the wind and ride with uncertified drivers.
Your reasons simply don't justify compulsory government licensing.
Re: (Score:3)
But I, as Joe Driver, can't choose whether I want to share the road with a taxi driver who pulls 16-hour workdays out of greed or desperation. Unless, of course, some entity w
Re: (Score:3)
And how is that different from sharing the road with any other tired driver? How do I know you don't drive tired because you are overextended on your mortgage and are rushing from one job to another? Or running a delivery business on the side?
If that's your justification, then let's introduce a system in which everybody is required to state the purpose of their trip a
Re: (Score:3)
None of them require government licensing to engage in; that's what we are talking about here.
Re: (Score:3)
Crony capitalism and lobbying are an inherent feature of licensing schemes (as is a failure to be effective at what they were originally justified by). All licensing scheme have them, and economists understand pretty well why they have them. Proposing licensing schemes on the premise that you can make them free of crony capitalism and lobbying is like trying to legislate pi to be 3.
(Even if crony capitalism and lobbying were not inherent features of licensing schemes, denying some people licenses and increa
Re: (Score:2)
Are there no safety standards which would apply to any vehicle on Californian public roads?
Re: (Score:2)
Are there no safety standards which would apply to any vehicle on Californian public roads?
No. There are not. We don't have safety inspections here. Just smog inspections. That's because they don't care about our safety, just looking like they're doing something about air quality.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand there dosn't appear to be much interst in regulating "school runs".
Re: (Score:2)
In London, they are registered with Transport for London as a minicab company. Taxi drivers are unhappy with them their because only taxi companies are allowed to have meters. Minicabs (a cheaper licence) are supposed to quote the price of the journey in advance and charge that amount regardless of how long it takes them.
Addison Lee, the largest minicab company in London, has an app that is a bit like Uber's. However the difference is that when you enter the details of where you are, and where you want t
Re: Can we please cann these companies what they a (Score:2)
When you do something for profit, your in business. Your legal liability changed. Your insurance needs changed.
Re: Can we please cann these companies what they a (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
When you do something for profit, your in business. Your legal liability changed. Your insurance needs changed.
And that's the wrong-headed doctrine that needs to be gotten rid of. If you have the right to do X, then you have the right to do X regardless of why you want to do X. When the law says otherwise, "then the law is an ass."
Re: (Score:3)
Almost all of law is based on the 'why'. If you kill someone, it starts to really matter 'why'. On purpose? By accident? For profit? All very different scenarios, and treated differently under the law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]
Right - guilty mind. "Why" matters.
Giving your friend a lift is different from organising a car pooling system at work, which is different again from creating a business around sharing rides. All the same 'X', but different 'why's'.
Let's say you have kids, and they misbehave -
Re: (Score:3)
Money changed hands. Tax man needs his cut or something bad might happen to you.
Much as I detest taxation, that's a separate issue -- "you can do X but not in exchange for money" vs. "you can do X, but if you get money for it, we'll be taking some of that money." Though in the case of the IRS, they'll be looking to tax you even if money didn't change hands. If you drive your co-worker to work and he buys you coffee in thanks, the price of that coffee is income as far as the tax man is concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, your liability changes. Your insurance changes as well. That's true for most businesses. What does that have to do with CPUC? Why does this require "legal hurdles"?
Re: Can we please cann these companies what they (Score:5, Insightful)
If you use $6 in gas and they pay you $12 then there is $6 profit. What you deliberately miss is that Uber drivers would not be making those trips if not paid for them.
If you have someone over for dinner and they pay more than their share or the groceries that go into the meal, are you running a restaurant for profit?
No. But if many different people come over, you cook to order and charge more than the cost of ingredients and energy then you are a restaurant.
Allowing someone to piggyback on something you are already doing and contributing to the cost is sharing. Doing something specifically at the request of someone else and charging more than the costs is not sharing. That is called running a business.
Re: (Score:3)
And we cant have that now can we. Unless you can pay off the legislature to protect your business.
What I disagree with is one business getting a lower level of regulation that another business doing the same thing when the only difference is that one business is falsely calling themselves "sharing". Uber does not want a level playing field because they want to keep all their advantages (the ability to pick high use times, ability to discriminate, lower safety standards, little consequence for breaking rules, etc).
Re: (Score:2)
What does "... for profit" mean? If you consume $6 in gas and you friend gives you $5, paying $2 more than their share, is that "for profit"?
If you have someone over for dinner and they pay more than their share or the groceries that go into the meal, are you running a restaurant for profit?
No.
Next question ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The friend paid $5 for a $3 share of the cost. That's where the "profit" comes from. And I wouldn't be surprised if the original poster agrees with your assertion that this isn't a profit.
I am dumbfounded you cannot see the error here.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Now if they were going that way anyway and it costs them $6 in gas whether they're taking a rider with them or not, then they're actually ahead $5, since the trip, which would have cost them $6 of gas, now only costs them $1.
Carpooling 101.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Asshole. We could have gotten a +5 funny if you hadn't spoiled it.
Re: (Score:2)
Your cost in this situation is either $0 (the marginal cost of taking the friend, as you are doing the journey anyway), or $3, your friend's share of the cost.
Re:Read the GP's comment, fuckface. (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess I don't get the mathematics of poverty. If I'm going somewhere with a friend, I was already going there anyway and wouldn't charge them gas money. I'd only charge if I was taking them somewhere I had no intention of going and I wanted to be a dick about it.
Re:Read the GP's comment, fuckface. (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess I don't get the mathematics of poverty. If I'm going somewhere with a friend, I was already going there anyway and wouldn't charge them gas money. I'd only charge if I was taking them somewhere I had no intention of going and I wanted to be a dick about it.
This is not what it’s about in general. It’s about providing a ride. Not picking up someone on the way you were happening to be traveling.
Re:Can we please cann these companies what they ar (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you need to be "fully licensed" to have someone pay you to drive somewhere
Why do you need to be fully licensed to cook food for someone?
don't need anything special to, you know, actually carpool with someone or drive a friend of a friend you don't even know to the airport?
You also don't need anything special to cook a meal and give some of it to a friend of a friend you don't even know. That would be sharing. When you add the exchange of money in excess of costs and cooking to order it becomes a restaurant and subject to health and safety laws.
Part of the licensing of cabs is the safety of the cabs. For example drivers are required to inspect their vehicles daily and have them inspected by an independent company every six months. Part of the driver's license is the ability to do the pre-trip inspection. There are also limits on the number of hours a commercial driver can drive. If drivers cet caught too many time their commercial license is pulled. You can do that with a non-commercial license.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the licensing of cabs is the safety of the cabs. For example drivers are required to inspect their vehicles daily and have them inspected by an independent company every six months.
It takes a special license in order to inspect your vehicle?
As for the daily inspection(which I'd do just for cleanliness), it seems to me that the regulation seems old - cars today are more reliable, but the mechanicals should be 'inspected' every 3-5k or so miles when it gets an oil change.
Re:Can we please cann these companies what they ar (Score:5, Informative)
It takes a special license in order to inspect your vehicle?
No but you need to be able to prove you can do one to get the commercial license. Commercial drivers also have to take a physical before getting a licence.
As for the daily inspection(which I'd do just for cleanliness)
That just goes to show how ill qualified you are to do a real pre-trip inspection. Do you check your tire wear, belts, fluid levels, lights and signals, fluid leaks, etc. A pre-trip inspection is much more than cleanliness.
mechanicals should be 'inspected' every 3-5k or so miles when it gets an oil change.
A non-commercial driver can skip oil changes and therefore inspections and can ignore mechanics' advice. Commercial vehicles do not have those options. By the way a full time Uber driver can easily log 1K miles in a week.
Re: (Score:2)
You have no clue as to my inspection abilities.
Considering the only thing you seemed interested in was cleanliness I have a good idea.
Worst case you do what the military does - hand the driver a checklist to go over.
Without special licensing there is no long term consequence for not doing it. Fail to do pre-trip inspections and your commercial license gets pulled.
I figure that's a suitable inspection period.
I guess you know better than every transport commission in existence that requires daily inspections(almost all do). What are your qualifications in this matter? None I bet. Monthly inspections might be OK for a private vehicle but not for a vehicle that drives a couple hund
Re: (Score:2)
It takes a special license in order to inspect your vehicle?
No.
You are required to have your vehicle inspected to hold the special license.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the licensing of cabs is the safety of the cabs
Have you ever ridden in a cab? I'm guessing you haven't.
Re: (Score:2)
I drove cabs. Do you think fewer regulations would make them safer?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think fewer regulations would make them safer?
Wont make them any more OR less safe, which means that the regulations arent about safety at all. Do you think regulations that arent about safety but are sold to you as if they were about safety is a good thing for you?
Re:Can we please cann these companies what they ar (Score:4, Interesting)
When the Uber driver has to make the decision to get the brakes fixed or pay rent, without mandatory inspections, which one do you think they will choose? If you don't think it is about safety you have not worked in the cab industry.
But I'm not charging them for the ride... (Score:3)
I just need some gas money.
Re: (Score:2)
I just need some gas money.
So, you're charging them for the ride.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that but the companies that manage the booking infrastructure take a cut.
Arrrgh.. (Score:4, Informative)
Laws should be against the law.
Don't hurt anyone, don't lie or steal from anyone and don't crap where we all live. There might be a few more, but probably not too many. All the rest is nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't hurt anyone, don't lie or steal from anyone and don't crap where we all live. ...
Most laws are within the confines you set. So what's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't hurt anyone, don't lie or steal from anyone and don't crap where we all live. ...
Most laws are within the confines you set. So what's your point?
But the law that gives the state the authority to restrict carpooling doesn't appear to be within those confines. Consenting adults should have the right to interact and do business with each other as they want without having to get permission first. .
Re: (Score:2)
Don't hurt anyone, don't lie or steal from anyone and don't crap where we all live.
Sometimes we need specific laws to protect people from the nuanced, less-direct ways to "hurt" people or "steal" from them, like ripping them off or selling products that aren't reasonably safe.
I think that if you examined all of the country's laws (of which I'll agree there are too many), I bet most would fall into one of your three categories.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh! So it shouldn't be a reduced version of the biblical 10 + 1 new age eco one?
Well shit... are you now telling us that not only are you an idiot who does not know what a law IS (and that's not a philosophical issue - there's no room for "what it SHOULD be" in it) - you are also full of shit and won't abide to your own idea of "3 laws only"?
Oh... wait... You're actually retarded... oh...
You probably think law is some letters on paper made up to annoy you personally and steal your freedomz.
That's sad.
No (Score:5, Interesting)
I know everyone is all over Uber and and the other one because the cars are "nicer" and the service "better" than cabs. But I have a basic problem with Uber and Lift, and that is in the fakery of their liability claims. The facts are ( as presented in MANY news stories) if you get injured in an Uber or Lift car, those CORPORATE entities will deny virtually all liability. So you go after the driver, right? But guess what? He's not insured for paying passengers. SHELL GAME.
Re:No (Score:5, Informative)
Except no, that's completely incorrect.
http://blog.uber.com/uberXride... [uber.com]
Isn't that enough? (Score:2)
I know everyone is all over Uber and and the other one because the cars are "nicer" and the service "better" than cabs. But [...]
Um... isn't that enough?
Firstly, you're wrong about the liability [uber.com].
Secondly, you are confusing the possibility of injury with its probability.
If the probability of injury is small and the cost of injury is also appreciably small, the expected cost of using Lyft or Uber may be much less than the expected cost of using a cab.
For an example, if a ride-share is $6 less than a cab fare, and if there is an average of 1 injury every 100,000 rides, then if the average injury costs less than $600,000 then it's a bett
so what? (Score:2)
If that's what you believe, you have a simple solution: don't ride them.
That's no reason to impose your preferences on others.
not sharing but selling (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're charging for access to X (for any given X), you're not sharing, you're selling (or leasing). And you don't get to be exempt from consumer protection regulations just because you're doing your selling on the web.
Re: (Score:2)
There are no "consumer protection" laws. What you so foolishly refer to as "consumer protection" is the result of lobbying by special interests and corporations to enrich themselves.
Carpooling should be as free as speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Your post is absurd, though I guess I should get it from your username.
This is about someone getting paid to drive someone else somewhere for a profit (a significant portion of which is taken by a large company), and that person not being able to use the HOV lane. That's it.
And what's wrong with that? It's not a carpool, it's a business. And in fact it often doesn't even get any cars off the street, anyway, so why should they get to use the HOV lane?
Re: (Score:2)
In the future, when the world is more enlightened, freedom to trade will be as much a basic right as speech is today.
No. The same collectivist and PC-style urges that currently act to prevent free expression will continue to further intercede when you seek to trade with someone. Why? Because there will always be people who think it's unfair that you and someone else have found a mutually beneficial reason to interact, and they will use the force of government to take a piece of that benefit, pay career middlemen in the government to handle it, and hand some of that benefit over to other people who didn't manage to make t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the future, will the government also have the freedom to interact with (and send a symbolic message to) dogmatic free-marketeers by cutting off their access to the publicly owned roads on which they carpool, at least until they demonstrate at least a passing knowledge of the history of how markets and monetary systems were created by heads of state? That would be my utopian fantasy and I think it's better than yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fine (Score:2)
Then declare that multiple physical people in a car are actually a corporation, ie, a single legal person.
Common Carrier (Score:2)
I'm unsure if the law is the same in the US as commonwealth countries, however, this is the relevant legal construct. That to accept passengers you have to be a common carrier, and I wondered how ride share programs got around this.
On the whole though, I think ride share is a good idea - though the odd crazy may be a bit spooky.
Re:Common Carrier (Score:4, Insightful)
The main differences between Uber and true ride share programs are profit motive and frequency. A true ride share program does not make a profit for the company or the drivers. When the driver is making a living by carrying passengers it is for profit and therefore no longer sharing. Profit gives a motive for cutting corners and decreasing safety. Frequency comes in the fact that the driver makes one trip while Uber drivers make several. The more the driver is on the road the bigger chance of an accident.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am trying to tell you that Uber drivers are trying to make a profit and are therefore not "ride sharing" and Uber is not a ride share program.
Capitalism at work (Score:3)
Have we lost judicial oversight? (Score:4, Interesting)
Apropos of nothing, when did we allow unelected regulators complete authority over the law?
It seems that every regulator now has the authority to declare something illegal, judge that an infraction has occurred, assess fines, and force collection.
If someone is in violation of a regulation, shouldn't the regulator present their evidence before a judge? Don't we want an unbiased 3rd party to chime in on whether the law is clear, whether the evidence merits a violation, and whether there are extenuating circumstances?
The policy of default judgement by fiat, with a "go to court to reverse it if you think you've been wronged" is a recipe for injustice and corruption.
When did we lose judicial oversight of our regulations? Did it happen slowly, or was it a sudden change?
Prime Example (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Neither. It is a case of a state regulating a commercial activity which this definitely is. California is heavy handed on regulation but I'm not sure this would be much different elsewhere. I'm sure there has been some incident or something happen in the past in which California decided to regulate like this, or it could be some incident someone theorized about when the laws and regulations were being passed.
And before someone says it's their car, the regulation does not prevent them from picking up extra p
Re:So..... (Score:4, Informative)
And people got killed, imprisoned, and tortured for doing it too. Lets not pretend the revolutionary war was not a war and England turned a blind eye and let it happen.
Are you suggesting that we should face the same? Get enough people together to support you and try it.
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC only about 3% of the US population actively supported the revolution. The rest of them were either loyalists or just didn't give a shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm simply suggesting that "it is the law" is a pretty lousy defense...
I can find you a thousand laws today all over the world that are wrong. That is a crappy defense.
Re: (Score:2)
Your view of what laws are wrong probably does not coincide with my view of such things.
However, the one view that matters is the government's view, because they will arrest you, fine you, imprison you, if they don't like how you treat their laws. Right or wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
And I am saying that there are consequences to not following the laws. Some of them are pretty nasty too. Either be prepared to meet those consequences, find a way to change the laws, or follow the laws- or even do a combination of that.
This is what happens when you get a culture that wants to regulate every business heavily. You will find that when people act like businesses, they become regulated.
They are regulated as a cash cow (Score:2)
Typo "age old quick revenue fix" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it even gets this far.
What is actually happening when someone pays someone else for a ride has been regulated for quite some time now (limousine and taxis). Certainly longer than Uber or Ride Sharing which is actually a taxicab business with limitations has existed. California even created a separate regulation class for the ride sharing but it doesn't cover multiple fares at the same time which is why they need to get more permits.
Re: (Score:2)
...Revolting against England was illegal, yet we did it anyway.
The people who revolted against EDngland were willing to die for what they thought was wrong.
.
I seriously doubt if you would be willing to engage in the same level of risk for what you proffer....
Re: (Score:2)
Nope... of course not...
What we have here is death by a thousand paper cuts...
This in itself isn't enough, nor are a hundred other things...
Heck, the recent report on Yahoo being threatened by $250,000 fines a day isn't enough, Snowden isn't enough...
Frankly, most Americans are fat and happy and just don't care... Look at ISIS, we're about to get into another war... no one seems to care...
Sad, but it has to get much worse before it can get better...
Re: (Score:2)
That's silly. If you are just driving someone somewhere because they paid you, you are not removing any cars off the street.
Re: (Score:2)