Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 100 posts

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#41

Post by PKop »

polemic wrote: post #29
smsm42 wrote: post #13

It just reeks of special interests protecting their turf. Of course when you are operating in highly regulated environment and have a well-oiled connections with local politicians it is annoying when somebody new comes around and tries to take part of your customer share. However for me as a consumer it is annoying that government yet again tries to take away my choice under the guise of protecting me from imaginary…

Oh please. Regulation doesn't exist in a vacuum, and acting as if you're exempt from the law in the noble pursuit of lower prices is bollocks.

So please specify how, in this case, what is beneficial about the regulation of the taxi industry for consumers who want choices and lower prices?

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#42

Post by evgen »

ramanujan wrote: post #38
uncompetence wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that's not how public safety works. Part of why this regulation exists is because having unregulated taxi drivers (at least to the judgement of lawmakers) poses a danger to everyone else on roads etc.

It surprises me that intelligent people are so ready to take bureaucrats and politicians at their word when they claim that "your safety is our priority".

Is it any less surprising than someone taking the word of a corporate entity when they use the exact same phrase?

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#43

Post by usaar333 »

PKop wrote: post #41
polemic wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh please. Regulation doesn't exist in a vacuum, and acting as if you're exempt from the law in the noble pursuit of lower prices is bollocks.

So please specify how, in this case, what is beneficial about the regulation of the taxi industry for consumers who want choices and lower prices?

Well the argument has always been:

1. Safer cabs a. mechanical inspections b. limited hours - safer driver 2. Prevent price gouging 3. Prevent circuitous routing 4. Limit congestion by reducing vehicles on road

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#44

Post by ajays »

The deck is stacked against Uber, Lyft and Sidecar. You have to realize that the taxi industry is a government-cab collaboration, with the customer getting fleeced. It is not as simple as "government grants license to cab operator, cab operator runs his cab and makes money". No. The government takes a cut from the daily action too. Use a credit card in the cab? The government takes a cut. Want to rent your medallion to someone else? The government takes a cut.

Right now, the financial impact of these outfits is minimal. But when they seriously start impacting government revenues, expect the lawmakers to come out swinging. They'll tag-team with the taxi union(s) and make life hell for the Sidecars, Ubers and Lyfts of the world.

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#45

Post by jamiequint »

usaar333 wrote: post #43
PKop wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So please specify how, in this case, what is beneficial about the regulation of the taxi industry for consumers who want choices and lower prices?

Well the argument has always been: 1. Safer cabs a. mechanical inspections b. limited hours - safer driver 2. Prevent price gouging 3. Prevent circuitous routing 4. Limit congestion by reducing vehicles on road

re: 1 & 3, have you ever ridden in a SF cab?? This is not the case at all.

re: 4, so when people can't take a cab they just forget about where they are going and don't go.

These arguments are nonsense.

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#46

Post by sk5t »

viscanti wrote: post #37
eli wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the drivers already have the required paperwork and insurance then why doesn't Uber just register as a taxi provider and submit it as CPUC requested? Is that really so onerous (honest question)?

What does the licensing accomplish? Are drivers double drug tested? Are they double insured? They're using all licensed drivers, which means any arguments of "unfairness" are baseless. They aren't benefiting from lower labor costs because they're using unregulated drivers who might be able to compete at lower costs. I don't think it's a degree of how onerous the requirement is. It's more a matter of what does it acco…

I made some remarks elsewhere in this thread about the term "unfair," and AFAIK it usually refers to anyone doing work outside the reach of the protestor's collective bargaining agreement.

"We have rigged the market to our satisfaction, and it would be unfair of you to alter that comfortable dynamic."

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#47

Post by usaar333 »

jamiequint wrote: post #45
usaar333 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the argument has always been: 1. Safer cabs a. mechanical inspections b. limited hours - safer driver 2. Prevent price gouging 3. Prevent circuitous routing 4. Limit congestion by reducing vehicles on road

re: 1 & 3, have you ever ridden in a SF cab?? This is not the case at all. re: 4, so when people can't take a cab they just forget about where they are going and don't go. These arguments are nonsense.

Not saying I necessary agree with the arguments. That said:

1. Never felt unsafe. Only time I've ever felt unsafe in a cab was mainland China which has less (enforced?) regulation.

3. Never happened to me in SF. Happened in Las Vegas (common thing where cab drivers take I-215 from airport to the Strip rather than surface streets); it's very easy to request a complete refund.

4. Public transit, bike, etc. Ensures that those who are really willing to pay for a cab get there quicker due to lower traffic congestion (theoretically - this probably only applies to areas dominated by cabs like Manhattan).

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#48

Post by callmeed »

ajays wrote: post #44

The deck is stacked against Uber, Lyft and Sidecar. You have to realize that the taxi industry is a government-cab collaboration, with the customer getting fleeced. It is not as simple as "government grants license to cab operator, cab operator runs his cab and makes money". No. The government takes a cut from the daily action too. Use a credit card in the cab? The government takes a cut. Want to rent your medallion…

I've always thought AirBnB has as big a deck stacked against it (or bigger). There are a lot of cities whose main industry is tourism and collect 10%+ bed taxes. I can't imagine they'll give those up easily.

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#49

Post by whyenot »

squeed wrote: post #39
eli wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

State of california doesn't appear to require medallions, so I don't think that applies in this specific case.

San Francisco is currently limited to 1494 taxi medallions. That means, legally, there can be a maximum of 1494 cars making street hails at any given moment. Car services are licensed by the state instead of the city, and are not subject to medallion restrictions. However, they cannot legally make street hails. Source: http://www.sfmta.com/cms/xind/medallionsissued.htm

If the people of SF want more medallions, they can always create a proposition and vote at the ballot box. Proposition A in 2007 is the reason the MTA regulates taxis in the first place, and previous propositions ("Transit First") have shaped the number of medallions that are issued.

If Uber is operating as a taxi, they should have to get medallions just like every other taxi company. If they, or anyone else doesn't like the taxi system in SF, it's possible to change it, assuming you can convince enough voters... It's not all that hard to get a proposition on the ballot in SF. There were 7 propositions in our last election, and that's on the low end for SF.

Re: Lyft, SideCar, and Uber all slapped with $20K fines from CA regulator

#50

Post by stevewilhelm »

ajays wrote: post #44

The deck is stacked against Uber, Lyft and Sidecar. You have to realize that the taxi industry is a government-cab collaboration, with the customer getting fleeced. It is not as simple as "government grants license to cab operator, cab operator runs his cab and makes money". No. The government takes a cut from the daily action too. Use a credit card in the cab? The government takes a cut. Want to rent your medallion…

So cities, counties, and states are supposed to build and maintain roads, keep them safe, and allow businesses like Uber that use these roads and services to do so without paying for them? How is that sustainable?
Post reply on HN