Car and Housing Sharing Services Regulations

[Lord MJ]

So what say you?

Are cities and states crackdowns on services like Uber, Lyft, and AirBnb, exercises in sound governance and regulations, or is it an example of government intruding into the free market with burdensome regulations?

http://dcist.com/2014/06/virginia_tells ... to_sto.php

Virginia DMV Tells Uber And Lyft To Stop Operating
07102012_uberlogo.jpegWhile D.C.'s taxi regulators and sedan services like Uber have not gotten along in the past, a government agency in Virginia has taken things to the next level.
The Virginian-Pilot reports that the state's Department of Motor Vehicles sent cease-and-desist letters to Uber and Lyft informing the companies that their operations are currently illegal. (The DMV is studying a change in the passenger carrier law, but in the meantime they must stop.
:
In the cease and desist letters, DMV Commissioner Richard Holcomb told representatives for both companies that he is “once again making clear” that they must stop operating in Virginia until they get the proper authority.
Holcomb wrote that he “strongly” suggested the companies focus their resources on participating in the state study “rather than continue illegal operations in the meantime.”
He told the companies to alert their drivers in Virginia that the DMV will be enforcing its existing laws.
If Uber and Lyft drivers continue to operate, they face fines.

An Uber representative said a statement is forthcoming. See the letters [PDF] here and here.
Update: Lyft will continue to operate in Virginia. From a spokesperson: "We've reviewed state transportation codes and believe we are following the applicable rules. We'll continue normal operations as we work to make policy progress." :

Virginia residents have enthusiastically embraced Lyft as an affordable and reliable transportation alternative that increases safety by going above and beyond what is required by existing transportation services. As many of the current regulations surrounding taxis and limos were created before anything like Lyft's peer-to-peer model was ever imagined, we're committed to continuing to work with state officials to craft new rules for this new industry. We truly believe that if we approach situations like this positively and collaboratively, we can work together with local leaders to greatly improve transportation access, safety and affordability.

And here's a statement from Uber:
The DMV’s actions today are shocking and unexpected. Uber has been providing Virginians with safe, affordable and reliable transportation options for months and has continued to work in good faith with the DMV to create a regulatory framework for ridesharing. The DMV decision today hurts thousands of small business entrepreneurs who rely on the Uber platform to make a living, create new jobs and contribute to the economy - and it hurts the countless residents who rely on Uber to connect them with affordable, safe and reliable transportation alternatives. We look forward to continuing to work with the Virginia DMV to find a permanent home for ridesharing in the Commonwealth.

[Purple]

So what say you?

Are cities and states crackdowns on services like Uber, Lyft, and AirBnb, exercises in sound governance and regulations, or is it an example of government intruding into the free market with burdensome regulations?

We say that for an article explaining that something was made illegal and what is now happening to that something it does not do terribly much to explain what that something is. And without that knowledge we can hardly have an opinion on the subject.

[Mr Bean]

The fact they have to stop RIGHT NOW, this INSTANT before we bother to get around to changing the laws pushes me towards burdensome regulation. If you can't point to the regulation that says "you can't do this" but you want me to stop this instant.... well that looks like someone got paid to make the competition go away not an exercise in good goverment.


Keep in mind what Uber and Lyft and the like are. You call up or use the app and say "I want to get from point A to B" using something like Google maps. The app generates a price and says "You will pay X dollars to get from A to B, do you want to book a ride?" If you say yes any driver with the app knows to come get you and drive you.

I think this falls under the "you get what you pay for" area of the law. Yes a Taxi license costs money and you have to be registered but that's for someone operating a Taxi in a busy area and Uber and Lyft are not meant as Taxi replacements but alternatives since lots of places Taxi either don't go normally or charge you massive surge charges to drive you. A taxi is normally cheaper than these service but they are not anywhere near as convenient and by design not as reliable since it's just "some guy" follow directions on his app.

Do these service make sense? To that I say in lots of places they make great sense. In my home town the nearest non-limo based transport service was 150 miles away. If I wanted to go shopping then fuck you own a car or be friends with someone who has a car. Something like Uber even if my town of 5000 only has 5 or 6 drives would be great.

[Lord MJ]

Uber and Lyft allow private individuals to offer rides to people in their personal vehicles for money. And it's managed by a mobile app.

AirBnb allows people to rent out rooms in their houses for short term stays. As in tourist is visiting my city, and I have a room they can stay the night (or several nights) in for a fee. Also managed by an online service.

[Mr Bean]

So what say you?

Are cities and states crackdowns on services like Uber, Lyft, and AirBnb, exercises in sound governance and regulations, or is it an example of government intruding into the free market with burdensome regulations?

We say that for an article explaining that something was made illegal and what is now happening to that something it does not do terribly much to explain what that something is. And without that knowledge we can hardly have an opinion on the subject.

What Uber and Lyft and AirBnb are Purple is basically Taxi services except instead of paying the Taxi driver you pay Uber directly who pays the driver to come pick you up. All you need is a car and a phone to run the app. Uber takes it cut of the drive time and you collect the rest. You have to have a lisence but it's not a full on Taxi service since the drivers are mostly part time. However services like Uber and Lyft make getting a driver easy if sometimes the price changes based on demand. The more drives in an area the lower the service sets the price until the drives move out a bit to the more isolated fares.

Since everything is GPS and map based it's far faster and easier to get anywhere you need to go with Uber and Lyft since the driver already has the address ready to go before he or she even picks you up. But Taxi companies hate these crowd source transport companies because they remove a great deal of the overhead and dodge the pages of Taxi regulations. To be fair they also can't take advantages of all of the handy Taxi laws but the way they get around this is in essence every Uber pickup is a one time contract between You (The passenger) and the Driver to go from point A to point B in their car for X number of dollars.

No different from hitching a ride and paying for gas an a touch extra. Or so Uber says (And to be fair the law is on their side since You don't ever pay the driver anything)

[Raw Shark]

[snip] Since everything is GPS and map based it's far faster and easier to get anywhere you need to go with Uber and Lyft since the driver already has the address ready to go before he or she even picks you up.

I can't speak to the regulations and equipment in other states and companies, but here in Colorado, you get all that plus a professional driver who can't have any DUIs on their record if you use my company's booking app. Talking to Dispatch, is, admittedly, a hit-and-miss proposition, but we've had the app for a couple of years now and it works just fine.

But Taxi companies hate these crowd source transport companies because they remove a great deal of the overhead and dodge the pages of Taxi regulations.

That about sums up my opinion on the matter, yes. If they want to do exactly what a taxi company does in practical terms (and don't think that they are only competing for call-in customers, either: I see plenty of these shady fucks trying to drink my milkshake by illegally staking out bars downtown every night), I think that they should have to play by the same rules (including medallion limits) and pay the same overhead that taxi drivers do. That or remove all the additional overhead that I have to pay and regulations that I have to abide by; either way would restore the fairness of the competition, which is currently fucked six ways to Sunday.

To be fair they also can't take advantages of all of the handy Taxi laws but the way they get around this is in essence every Uber pickup is a one time contract between You (The passenger) and the Driver to go from point A to point B in their car for X number of dollars. [snip]

I'm extremely curious to find out what these advantageous taxi laws that I benefit from and they don't are...

[Mr Bean]

I'm extremely curious to find out what these advantageous taxi laws that I benefit from and they don't are...

In places with proper Taxi services they benefit from access to any carpooling lanes (Regardless of if you have a passenger) and most major buildings have taxi only parking spots to wait for customers and cheaper insurance. In addition to protections against customers trying to complain and lawsuit protection. There is also price controls and inspections in such areas to prevent shady fly by night style setups and sharing to ensure you don't have aggressive taxi trying to fight for passengers. DC used to have most of this until the 2000s when all of it got repealed for the glory of free markets.

[Raw Shark]

I'm extremely curious to find out what these advantageous taxi laws that I benefit from and they don't are...

In places with proper Taxi services they benefit from access to any carpooling lanes (Regardless of if you have a passenger)

I guess the Centennial State is not a place with proper taxi services, then, because not so much with that, here. I can use the HOV lane for free if I have other people in the car, and if I'm driving a hybrid (which I don't, but only because the rent is a total ripoff), or else they bill the company and the company bills me.

and most major buildings have taxi only parking spots to wait for customers

True, but IMHO this is a shitty way to work, because local statutes require that a taxi driver accept any customer who approaches them if they have placed themselves in a cab stand, even if they're going one block, covered in their own vomit, etc, not a prize worth fighting over.

and cheaper insurance.

What.

In addition to protections against customers trying to complain and lawsuit protection.

My protection against customers trying to complain is: the company doesn't give a fuck about them. My protection from lawsuits is: the company has a fat war chest. Neither of these things is enshrined in law here.

There is also price controls

Yeah, on me. What I can charge the passenger is regulated strictly in CO, while UberBlack routinely triples the prices if it's a weekend or something (UberX and Lyft are also not regulated in this manner, but happen to charge less than taxis do at present because their overhead is practically nil and they'd like to drive me out of business, so I'm getting beat up from both ends of the market). What the company can charge me is most-definitely not controlled; they raise the rent with zero notice whenever they feel like it.

and inspections in such areas to prevent shady fly by night style setups

You mean like Uber, and Lyft?

and sharing to ensure you don't have aggressive taxi trying to fight for passengers.

Only in the aforementioned shitty cab stand scenario, and insofar as aggressive driving is prohibited to everyone here.

DC used to have most of this until the 2000s when all of it got repealed for the glory of free markets.

My condolences.

[Mr Bean]

DC cabs to the cabby who explained to me about how he was pissed he was losing it were much cheaper than normal as it was collective for the company rather than each driver.

Also the DC cabbies got in pools with the city goverment so all cabs were the same cars from the same manufacturer and the city used it's bargaining power so each company could get good prices on new cars since each company would buy X cars and the city would bundle them up along with I believe Boston and say hey Ford we want to buy X number of cars what price will you offer?

[Raw Shark]

That's a pretty sweet arrangement. My company just buys used Crown Vics one at a time at the police auctions for about US$3000-5000 right now, but that's probably only going to last for a few more years now that Ford's stopped making them. We drive those things into the ground, though - the one I had retired out from under me that one time hit about 420,000 miles. They buy the hybrids new, which they use as the justification for totally gouging for the rent on them. They claim that they intend to replace the entire Crown Vic fleet with the Prius, but I wouldn't be too surprised to see the new Taurus Interceptor showing up in the cab fleet soon, and we already have one of the new Charger Interceptors (which looks pretty badass for a taxi. The only possible improvement would be to make it an old Charger).