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

91–100 of 100 posts

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

#91

Post by tptacek »

Zak wrote: post #90
tptacek wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Medallions increase the cost to taxi operators of violations by threatening a difficult-to-recover license. Talk to Uber drivers, like friends of mine have, and you quickly learn that many Uber drivers like the service principally because no other licensed operator would allow them to drive; it's too risky for a cab or black car operator to hire on a driver with a suspension.

I can imagine a simple solution to this problem that doesn't require a complex regulatory framework or artificial restrictions on supply: require a large amount of insurance coverage. The insurance companies would do the rest.

So, instead of a medallion system, we'd have a corporatocracy run by major insurers and the large companies that could afford long-term relationships with them, and instead of voting to decide how we'd regulate cabs, we'd be stuck with whatever rules the insurers came up with. This does not seem like a public policy improvement.

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

#92

Post by Zak »

tptacek wrote: post #91
Zak wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can imagine a simple solution to this problem that doesn't require a complex regulatory framework or artificial restrictions on supply: require a large amount of insurance coverage. The insurance companies would do the rest.

So, instead of a medallion system, we'd have a corporatocracy run by major insurers and the large companies that could afford long-term relationships with them, and instead of voting to decide how we'd regulate cabs, we'd be stuck with whatever rules the insurers came up with. This does not seem like a public policy improvement.

I believe a significant insurance requirement already exists for taxis. What I'm proposing is that, if it isn't already, it be worded such that it applies to anyone who regularly drives people for money.

Fundamentally, what I want is for simple rules to exist that don't interfere with new business models and serve to align the interests of businesses with society as a whole. To mitigate the impact of corporate deals, each driver could be required to apply for insurance individually with the insurer of their choice and that the employer pay it (or not hire the driver if it's too much). This would allow competition to do its job.

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

#93

Post by danielweber »

glomph wrote: post #71
Zak wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because everyone else in the business is still paying a special additional tax? If you disagree with that, you have to fight to change it for everyone. You don't just start competing without paying the same taxes as everyone else.

Earnest question: have any of Lyft et al tried to just say "okay, we'll pay the tax, give us the form to fill out"?

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

#94

Post by tptacek »

Zak wrote: post #92
tptacek wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, instead of a medallion system, we'd have a corporatocracy run by major insurers and the large companies that could afford long-term relationships with them, and instead of voting to decide how we'd regulate cabs, we'd be stuck with whatever rules the insurers came up with. This does not seem like a public policy improvement.

I believe a significant insurance requirement already exists for taxis. What I'm proposing is that, if it isn't already, it be worded such that it applies to anyone who regularly drives people for money. Fundamentally, what I want is for simple rules to exist that don't interfere with new business models and serve to align the interests of businesses with society as a whole. To mitigate the impact of corporate deals,…

SF taxi insurance requirements are low: $1MM, on the order of what a typical sr. software engineer should already be buying for their own insurance.

My point is, by delegating regulation of cabs to the insurance markets, you don't make the market any more transparent or efficient; instead, you cede it to private businesses who can make arbitrary decisions with no oversight at all.

Crappy oversight is better than no oversight.

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

#95

Post by Zak »

tptacek wrote: post #94
Zak wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe a significant insurance requirement already exists for taxis. What I'm proposing is that, if it isn't already, it be worded such that it applies to anyone who regularly drives people for money. Fundamentally, what I want is for simple rules to exist that don't interfere with new business models and serve to align the interests of businesses with society as a whole. To mitigate the impact of corporate deals,…

SF taxi insurance requirements are low: $1MM, on the order of what a typical sr. software engineer should already be buying for their own insurance. My point is, by delegating regulation of cabs to the insurance markets, you don't make the market any more transparent or efficient; instead, you cede it to private businesses who can make arbitrary decisions with no oversight at all. Crappy oversight is better than no o…

Crappy oversight is better than no oversight.

I don't care about oversight. I care that the taxi I get in to doesn't crash.

I don't have a lot of faith that regulators will do a good job reducing the probability of that outcome. I think they're likely to be corrupt, incompetent, apathetic or some combination of the three.

I do have a lot of faith that insurance companies will do a good job maximizing their own profits. Those that fail to do so will cease to exist. If we can tie insurance company profits to my taxi not crashing, I think they'll do a near-optimal job of reducing the probability of that outcome.

I agree that $1M seems low for a taxi. That doesn't even cover one wrongful death.

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

#96

Post by tptacek »

Zak wrote: post #95
tptacek wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SF taxi insurance requirements are low: $1MM, on the order of what a typical sr. software engineer should already be buying for their own insurance. My point is, by delegating regulation of cabs to the insurance markets, you don't make the market any more transparent or efficient; instead, you cede it to private businesses who can make arbitrary decisions with no oversight at all. Crappy oversight is better than no o…

Crappy oversight is better than no oversight. I don't care about oversight. I care that the taxi I get in to doesn't crash. I don't have a lot of faith that regulators will do a good job reducing the probability of that outcome. I think they're likely to be corrupt, incompetent, apathetic or some combination of the three. I do have a lot of faith that insurance companies will do a good job maximizing their own profit…

I understand, but oversight is the thing that allows you to say, for instance, that a cab driver can't drive for more than 30 hours straight without losing their license.

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

#97

Post by yardie »

Zak wrote: post #69
yardie wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because visitors don't pay taxes or elect politicians. So when the cities need to balance their budget and vote on a new revenue stream guess where it's coming from? Property and sales tax increases are widely unpopular so politicians look for revenue that won't impact their career: cigarettes, liquor, gambling, and hotels.

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

#99

Post by viscanti »

eli wrote: post #81
viscanti wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The licensing proves to the agency that the drivers are drug tested and insured instead of simply taking Uber's word for it. I think it is unreasonable to expect that regulatory paperwork doesn't apply to you just because you're probably in compliance anyway.

This doesn't seem to be an issue of regulatory paperwork though. What does double licensing accomplish and what does it actually mean? I'm all for fines if they're found using unlicensed drivers. I guess I don't know that it's necessary to double drug test the drivers though. I don't think the issue here is filling out a permit, I think it's a matter of "what does that mean". If asked, they should probably be required to show that all their drivers are properly licensed. If their drivers are all properly licensed, I don't see what requiring Uber to be licensed accomplishes.

It's not a question of "probably in compliance". If Uber is using unlicensed drivers (which I haven't heard any evidence of), they should be fined. If they are using 100% properly licensed drivers, I think this is a non-story.

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

#100

Post by PKop »

polemic wrote: post #57
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?

You're avoiding the issue by framing the question in specific terms. Please specify how, in this case, what is beneficial about the illegal operation of a taxi company for consumers (and taxi drivers) concerned about safety? See what I did there? I'm, not going to dig through the history of taxi regulation in the SF bay area to defend a point that is already made in law. Rape on women by unlicensed taxi operators has…

I'm not sure I see how money could be made in the taxi, or any, industry where a business kills and rapes it's customers.

Benefits: more choice and competition in the marketplace, lower prices.

See: http://www.econ.armstrong.edu/toma/Taxis.pdf

There are already laws against violations of safety of passengers. If you really wanted to ensure passenger safety allow for concealed carry laws in the city, you'd have no issue with drivers harming passengers, or vice versa.

Post reply on HN