Live data from Hacker News

Ridesharing startups hit with cease-and-desist by California regulator

arstechnica.com

11–20 of 28 posts

Re: Ridesharing startups hit with cease-and-desist by California regulator

#11
post #3

Would this apply to Zimride, Riderbee, Ridejoy, etc. ?

Tough to say. For Ridejoy in particular, regulation could be a challenge, because it will be argued that by matching drivers with underused vehicles, there's an implicit promise that the vehicles are roadworthy and so on. Sure, you can invite users of the service to waive some of their rights or voluntarily accept a degree of risk and uncertainty to use the service, but courts sometimes view such arrangements as contracts of adhesion - tilted in favor of the offeror by virtue of the fact that a large organization has substantially more bargaining power than an individual, who is left with little choice but to accept or reject terms rather than negotiate them.

I don't have a strong opinion on how this should turn out and am not an attorney. Rules that limit industry like this are sometimes the result of regulatory capture, but are equally often the result of consumer pressure following malfeasance by unscrupulous service providers some time in the past. Certainly such rules represent an increase in red tape, but that doesn't mean they're inherently bad; one might argue that they're an unavoidable corollary of a complex technological society, reflective of the challenges faced by its members - just as product liability rules are reflective of industrialization's severance of the traditional relationship consumer and producer that used to exist at the local level (blacksmiths, carpenters, et al.).

Incidentally, I hope people won't interpret the CPUC's representatives mention of enforcement mechanisms as a threat. Spokespersons for public bodies like this are duty-bound to cite the way the law actually operates, rather than make policy statements about how it should operate. So discussion of enforcement mechanisms is no more than a restatement of fact in response to journalistic inquiry.

Re: Ridesharing startups hit with cease-and-desist by California regulator

#12
post #3

Would this apply to Zimride, Riderbee, Ridejoy, etc. ?

Possibly Riderbee, since IIRC they are similar to sidecar and lyft. Zimride and Ridejoy operate like a traditional bulletin board so they should be fine.

When you're dispatching drivers in real time, just like a taxi dispatcher, the law can interpret you as one. The passenger is entrusting the service to assure the driver is safe. That's not a responsibility that the government wants to bestow upon a non-registered entity.

Re: Ridesharing startups hit with cease-and-desist by California regulator

#13
post #10

I know people in the echo chamber don't like to hear this, but ridesharing is not an innovation. Los Angeles and Chicago have had ridesharing programs for at least a decade. Hell, even Cleveland had a ridesharing program years before Uber or Lyft were founded (and that was how I got around Cleveland in law school). Uber and Lyft call themselves "ridesharing" programs where passengers "donate" money to a driver who "j…

The regulation to ensure a minimal level of competence is a driver's license and the regulation to ensure recompense is (as you mention) insurance. Both of which are required of every driver whether a taxi or not. The regulations on taxis exist to protect taxi owners.

And yes it is clear that Uber and Lyft are taxi services.

Re: Ridesharing startups hit with cease-and-desist by California regulator

#14
post #10

I know people in the echo chamber don't like to hear this, but ridesharing is not an innovation. Los Angeles and Chicago have had ridesharing programs for at least a decade. Hell, even Cleveland had a ridesharing program years before Uber or Lyft were founded (and that was how I got around Cleveland in law school). Uber and Lyft call themselves "ridesharing" programs where passengers "donate" money to a driver who "j…

The regulation to ensure a minimal level of competence is a driver's license and the regulation to ensure recompense is (as you mention) insurance. Both of which are required of every driver whether a taxi or not. The regulations on taxis exist to protect taxi owners. And yes it is clear that Uber and Lyft are taxi services.

Uber is in an entirely different legal category. All of their drivers are registered. Their main issue is essentially a turf war between limos and taxis.

Lyft and sidecar are being accused of enabling unregistered professional transportation.

Re: Ridesharing startups hit with cease-and-desist by California regulator

#15
post #10

I know people in the echo chamber don't like to hear this, but ridesharing is not an innovation. Los Angeles and Chicago have had ridesharing programs for at least a decade. Hell, even Cleveland had a ridesharing program years before Uber or Lyft were founded (and that was how I got around Cleveland in law school). Uber and Lyft call themselves "ridesharing" programs where passengers "donate" money to a driver who "j…

Did you read the article? Uber is definitely not being served hear, and they don't call themselves a ride sharing services.

Besides that, I agree with your point about these services really being car's for hire, but calling themselves ride sharing services.

Re: Ridesharing startups hit with cease-and-desist by California regulator

#17
post #16

Prostitutes attempt to skirt the law in the same way by accepting "donations" for time instead of payment for services. You know how well that works for them.

I thought prostitution laws were avoided by escorting, providing time with another adult (which totally won't have sex involved!) for a fee? or is that to avoid different laws?

Re: Ridesharing startups hit with cease-and-desist by California regulator

#18
post #10

I know people in the echo chamber don't like to hear this, but ridesharing is not an innovation. Los Angeles and Chicago have had ridesharing programs for at least a decade. Hell, even Cleveland had a ridesharing program years before Uber or Lyft were founded (and that was how I got around Cleveland in law school). Uber and Lyft call themselves "ridesharing" programs where passengers "donate" money to a driver who "j…

Check your impressions about Uber - they have never pretended to be a ridesharing service. Uber fares are metered and non-negotiable. The controversy with Uber is that it straddles livery car service and traditional taxis, and that makes its legal position fuzzy.

Uber is distinctly different from what the article talks about here: Sidecar for example does project itself as a "ridesharing" service, where fares are determined by the rider (with not-very-subtle "suggestions" by the service) and optional (though of course, not really).

I'm a fan of upsetting the corrupt and outdated taxicab industry, but at the same time I have few sympathies for Sidecar and the like when governments rightly call them out on their bullshit: they are not ridesharing services, no matter how dumb they play.

Re: Ridesharing startups hit with cease-and-desist by California regulator

#19
post #16

Prostitutes attempt to skirt the law in the same way by accepting "donations" for time instead of payment for services. You know how well that works for them.

Heh heh. If they're donations then it's just like church - you don't have to pay if you don't want to.

On the other hand the usher doesn't beat the crap out of you if you don't.

Post reply on HN