Judge Strikes Down NYC Law Limiting Uber, Lyft Driver Cruising Time (engadget.com) 27
A New York judge ruled on Monday that a state law designed to control how much time ride-hailing drivers can spend looking for passengers was "arbitrary and capricious." Engadget reports: Had the law gone into effect, it would have limited the amount of time Uber and Lyft drivers could spend searching for passengers in Manhattan south of 96th Street to 31 percent of their overall drive time, down from 41 percent. When it passed the rule this summer, the city's Taxi and Limousine Commission said it was an attempt to reduce traffic congestion in New York's busiest borough where cars driven by Uber and Lyft contractors, along with yellow cabs, can make up as much of 50 percent of traffic.
When Uber challenged the law in September, it said it would threaten the livelihood and flexibility of drivers. In advance of the law going into effect in February 2020, both Uber and Lyft had limited access to their apps, locking local drivers out at certain times and areas of the city. In his ruling, New York State Supreme Court judge Lyle Frank criticized the city for its 31 percent target, saying it provided "scant rationale" for it.
When Uber challenged the law in September, it said it would threaten the livelihood and flexibility of drivers. In advance of the law going into effect in February 2020, both Uber and Lyft had limited access to their apps, locking local drivers out at certain times and areas of the city. In his ruling, New York State Supreme Court judge Lyle Frank criticized the city for its 31 percent target, saying it provided "scant rationale" for it.
Re: (Score:2)
well if they were 99% hire cars wouldn't that reduce traffic? or at least free up parking for the one percenters...
Remove the mystery. (Score:2)
The point of the limitations imposed by the law being "arbitrary and capricious" isn't unfounded. What they need to do is have some people come up with mathematical models demonstrating the impact the limitation would have and how it would scale up and down. If they do this, they can amend the law to their fine-tuned numbers and then would be able to quash an argument that it's arbitrary by showing the effect using real data.
Couldn't say for a certainty that this should be necessary but I can say that it'
Re: (Score:2)
To me "arbitrary and capricious" is such a low bar that it should seldom result in a regulation being overturned. I haven't read the filings, but it looks like the regulation is designed to reduce the amount of traffic in a certain area, and it does that by capping the amount of time that a driver can spend in certain areas without a fare. It seems like the regulation is reasonably calculated to result in less traffic, and it is therefore neither arbitrary nor capricious.
Taking a step further: since the dr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it looks like the regulation is designed to reduce the amount of traffic in a certain area, and it does that by capping the amount of time that a driver can spend in certain areas without a fare.
That is not the purpose of the law. If it was, it would cap the empty cruising time for taxis also. Taxis spend more time cruising empty than Uber drivers do since that is how they find fares. Yet the law does not apply to taxis.
In Manhatten, Uber drivers cruise idle about 40% of the time, taxis about 50% [streetsblog.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Originally a good and stated reason for regulation was too much competition for horse-drawn cabs in the 1800's. When someone raises their hand and 5 teams of horses converge on your spot...
With software to act as a scheduler, that issue should no longer be possible.
Re:Remove the mystery. (Score:4, Insightful)
You realize Uber and Lyft work and show those regulations are nothing but there to keep out competitors, right? People are much happier with Uber and Lyft both working for and utilizing. It opens up pathways to all kinds of business including food delivery to/from small retailers that can't afford their own service being a big one.
You realize they only "work" because they are able to keep prices artificially low and wages artificially high by burning through massive amounts of venture capital, right? If they had to actually operate at a profit (you know, like those evil taxi companies do) the prices wold either be much higher (so there would be fewer riders) or the driver pay much lower (so there would be fewer drivers). Uber lost $5.2 billion in the 2nd quarter of 2019. That's not sustainable, and definitely isn't "working". For comparison, Amazon's worst quarterly loss was $500 million in 2001 (the equivalent of roughly $725 million today). And they at least had a path for profitability.
I thought they were just an app company (Score:2)
I'm confused. How would a company that makes an app have any standing here? You know unless they are more than that.
Re: (Score:2)
The taxi industry still has friends (Score:2)
There are still a lot of vested interests in the long standing traditional taxicab model. I expect a lot more dollars flow from that model to municipal decision makers than from Uber or Lyft.
Why would they need to search? (Score:2)
Doesn't their phone tell them where to go to pick up their next fare?
Re: (Score:3)
Uber's own data says the drivers spend 80% of their day driving around empty and waiting for a fare
too many drivers here chasing too few customers and creating a traffic nuisance
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. If they want to reduce congestion, they should reduce the number of taxis.
Taxis spend more time "cruising" because that is how they find riders.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber's own data says the drivers spend 80% of their day driving around empty and waiting for a fare
Got a citation?
This article [streetsblog.org] says the idle time is 41%.
Re: (Score:2)
This article [streetsblog.org] says the idle time is 41%.
The same article states that yellow cabs are cruising empty 50% of the time. Yet the new law doesn't apply to them.
Judicial activism (Score:2)
Where exactly in the Constitution does it say a judge can cancel any law they like if they think it's too "arbitratry"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's called the due process clause. Interesting thing, that. it's also the reason the government can't just declare you incompetent and then donate all of your money to the charity of themselves in your name, among other things.
Sleep Time (Score:1)
You need to sleep. Drowsy driving is simply dangerous.
Yeah, I work for a taxi company.
IMHO, 16 hrs is too long.