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

61–70 of 100 posts

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

#61

Post by pfortuny »

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".

You can just go to Peru, Bolivia or anywhere near them and check if you are insured whenever you get into a 'taxi'...

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

#62

Post by [deleted] »

stevewilhelm wrote: post #50
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?

[deleted]

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

#63

Post by regularfry »

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.

4's argument isn't just traffic congestion, it's also parking congestion.

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

#64

Post by dagw »

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?

I wonder if it would lead to lower prices. Here in Sweden where basically anybody can start a taxi company the end result is that most companies a grouped within a couple of bucks of the two big taxi firms on the low end of scale plus a few companies charging two or even three times as much, and operating on the assumption that enough people (especially tourists who don't understand the taxi system) will simply jump into the first taxi they see without looking at the price. I've yet to see anyone trying to break into the market by significantly undercutting the big players.

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

#65

Post by penrod »

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…

The problem with this argument is that anti-competitive regulations that restrict the size of the taxi market probably do not maximize government revenues. The government would probably receive greater revenues if it deregulated the market since more people would take cabs, albeit at somewhat lower fares.

The more significant dynamic behind regulatory capture is the simple fact that the groups who are most interested in taxi regulations and the membership of CPUC, and who are most incentivized to lobby for advantageous laws and to try and get friendly people on the Commission, are the very taxi firms being regulated.

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

#66

Post by prentis »

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.

Acting as though arguments for the common benefits of a competitive market should be dismissed unless the proponents are selflessly altruistic is an even bigger load of bollocks.

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

#67

Post by Zak »

Robelius wrote: post #53
ramanujan wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Yes! God forbid someone isn't as cynical about the government! I mean obviously regulators that are regulating the cabs are interested in making the government a profit to ensure that the gov is the most profitable organiza....wait a second. Oh yah, the governments role is to provide for the common welfare of this nation. Silly me.

That's its role in theory, but in practice, governments are made out of people, and people don't always have the motives they're supposed to. A government official might be more motivated by a desire to protect the profits of his friend's taxi company than by what's in the interests of society as a whole.

It doesn't always work out this way, but I think in the case of companies like Uber, the interests of the company, the customer and society as a whole all align. To be able to make a profit, Uber needs to be perceived as safe. The most effective way to do that is to actually be safe.

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

#68

Post by Zak »

stevewilhelm wrote: post #50
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?

Uber's drivers pay tax on the fuel they use and there's sales tax on the transaction itself. They are, in fact paying for the use of the roads. Why should there be a special additional tax on that particular type of business?

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

#69

Post by Zak »

yardie wrote: post #55
callmeed wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think so. The VRBO market has existed for years (decades even) AirBnB just made it marketable and easy to enter. The controversy with them is some of the property owners are really taking the piss and treating their residential property as hotels and not paying the hotel taxes (BTW, Florida is 20%). All the reports I've read have been spot on (though the AirBnB founders disagree). The hotels are paying this t…

It might be reasonable in this case to ask why the hotels have to pay a special tax. Why shouldn't they just collect sales tax like every other business?

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

#70

Post by Zak »

whyenot wrote: post #49
squeed wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why should there be medallions at all? How do they benefit society as a whole or serve any legitimate government function, as opposed to shall-issue licencing for anyone who meets the safety/training/testing/insurance requirements?
Post reply on HN