Corrupt State Index: Virginia DMV Orders Uber And Lyft To Stop Operating Immediately
from the total-failures dept
Earlier this year, we noted that it was a pretty clear indicator of state or city corruption when those local governments figured out ways to ban innovative new upstarts, like Tesla, Uber or AirBnB. The latest state to jump up the corruption index, then, is Virginia. The Virginia DMV has told Uber and Lyft to stop operating immediately.Virginia’s Department of Motor Vehicles sent cease and desist orders today to Lyft and Uber, telling the two ride services that they must stop operating in violation of state law or face fines against their part-time drivers.This is silly. Uber and Lyft (and others) have been shown to provide some great and convenient services pretty much everywhere else. And almost every attempt to block them seems to really be about keeping such transportation options more limited to limit supply and competition, allowing existing taxi companies to charge more (while being less convenient).
The DMV had already issued civil penalties against the companies in April -- $26,000 for Uber and $9,000 for Lyft -- for trips that their drivers provided in Virginia despite warnings by the state agency that Virginia law does not allow their business model.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: corruption, dmv, ride sharing, virginia
Companies: lyft, uber
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The DMV is studying Virginia’s motor carrier laws with an eye toward legislative changes next year that *could allow Lyft and Uber to legally operate in the state*. Secretary of Transportation Aubrey Layne said last week that *he liked the companies’ business models, but until the law is changed, they are violating it*.
Despite the fines and the DMV’s entreaties to the ride services to work on the study and legislative changes, Lyft and Uber have continued to provide services in Virginia. ..
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.”
Which would seem to contradict "almost every attempt to block them seems to really be about keeping such transportation options more limited".
Of course time will tell, but it seems clear the state is open to the business model but while it is against state law then they clearly can't condone breaking the law and they must enforce the law as it now stands. What else would you expect them to say? Seems TFA is hyperventilating unnecessarily. How about reconvening when they fail to modify the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now, if the politicians involved are serious about being willing to change the laws to allow service like Uber/Lyft to work, and not just make it so the laws make their business models incapable of competing, that's great, but at the same time, it only reached that point because Uber/Lyft were already active there, had they not been, the odds of anything changing would likely have been very slim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The law as it now stands is a result of corruption and every day that it goes by unfixed is also a result of corruption. The government has no business passing and maintaining monopolies just to grease the palms of politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this...
Seems like Uber and Lyft are facing the same battles that others are fighting against the big studios. Interesting how hard the buggy whip manufacturers fight against the flying cars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taxi Fees
The state government determines the amount that is charged by each taxi car. The amount usually goes up by a fewq cents per year. It is currently around AU$2 per kilometre (roughly AU$3.30 per mile). I do not know how much the state government gets in fees and charges from the taxi's owner but I assume they take some.
So far Uber is ssetting up in Australia and taxi drivers are concerned that they'll loose fares and thus money. They won't loose it all because people often take taxis on a whim and you can't use Uber for that. But so far the government hasn't said a thing. Either that or the Australian media doesn't care. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference. I say give it time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taxi Fees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Redtop and Blue top working hard to limit app based companies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ride Sharing
25 Ways to Help Virginia's Environment
Be a smart driver.
Keep your car tuned and its pollution control equipment working properly. Combine shopping with other errands to avoid unnecessary car trips. Also, encourage your employer to participate in a regional ride-sharing program.
http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/locator/allproviders.aspx?type=1
This VA Gov. site has numerious ads for ride sharing.
http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/activities/files/Hampton%20Roads%20Coordination%20Plan%20(PDC%2 023).pdf
page 9
HAMPTON ROADS AREA
PUBLIC TRANSIT –
HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION
COORDINATED PLAN
Key strategies that have been identified for the Hampton Roads area, both for the urbanized area and for rural communities under the jurisdiction of DRPT for funding,
include, but are not limited to:
...
· Improve reciprocal agreements and ordinances for use of accessible taxicabs
· Focus on shared-ride services
http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/faq-rideshare.asp
The Virginia Dept. of Transportation has site for Virginia Rideshare Agencies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/14571614044/administration-bangs-drum-support-need less-protectionism-world-ip-day.shtml#c224
Not to mention that taxicab monopolies likely harm the environment because taxicab companies have incentive to keep their cars as fuel efficient as possible to save money (and perhaps to have their own in-house repair shops or to contract in bulk where repairs that increase efficiency are done routinely in opposed to paying on a per repair basis, ensuring their tires are properly inflated and that they're using tires that save fuel, their car is properly oiled, etc...) and to do whatever they can to provide the most transportation using the least amount of fuel (ie: by carpooling and planning their routs to maximize carpooling). It's much easier and more efficient for a company that specializes in cars to deal with cars than it is to force a much larger population to deal with them many of which are car illiterate.
Not to mention having more taxi-cabs creates efficiencies in that fewer cars can be used to serve more people and fewer cars require less parking space and less parking space is more space that can be used to build buildings and roads and improve congestion (more roads and fewer cars = less congestion).
Another thing that's bad for the economy are these toll lanes. Hypothetically speaking lets assume we have two uniform lanes and the average speed on each is 30 miles per hour. Now lets say one of those lanes turns into a toll lane and its average speed shoots up to 45 miles per hour. Assuming the same number of vehicles and assuming that miles per hour has a linear relationship with speed the other lane may now be reduced to 15 miles per hour (if you have fewer drivers as a result the reduction in the number of drivers is a loss in utility).
Now the utility gained to those driving in the fast lane is 15 miles per hour (30 Mph original speed if fast lanes don't exist + 15 miles per hour extra speed). But what they're willing to pay is an extra 30 MPH of utility (the difference between the toll lane and the regular lanes which are now 15 MPH). So the toll lanes only benefit those that use it that are willing to pay what they are paying at 45 miles per hour had the regular lane been moving 30 miles an hour (and not 15) and it only helps them during the specific times that they are using the toll lanes and are willing to pay what they are paying for those extra 15 miles an hour. It otherwise hurts them and it hurts them during the times that they aren't using the toll lanes and are using the regular lanes instead. In the meantime everyone else that's not using the toll lanes is hurt because they are being forced to travel at a slower speed.
tl/dr: if you draw the economic curves toll lanes almost certainly result in a deadweight loss in social utility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110408/12250213829/study-shows-better-data-apps-improve-publ ic-transit-usage-so-why-do-so-many-transit-authorites-block-useful-apps.shtml#c15
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If so, Lyft and Uber are basically town-car services. That means they've got to fulfill certain statutory obligations -vetting drivers, liability insurance and so on- but it sure as hell doesn't make their business model illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do we have any other example, in the entirety of US history, of a case where a business model - rather than a product or service - has been declared illegal under US law?
I suppose arguably "protection" (i.e. "nice shop you've got here, be a shame if something were to happen to it") and "monopoly" could be described as business models, and those are theoretically illegal... but that idea still seems to be lacking something, somehow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Http://uberpeople.net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
liability insurance
Yellow Cab facing federal probe over Medicaid contract.
April 23, 2014
...drivers for the parent company of Yellow Cab did not have proper insurance required to transport patients in the first place.
Vazquez’ attorney said the government is also asking about misuse of sub-contractors by Yellow. The family alleges Yellow essentially created shell companies around its employees to get around Medicaid regulations and protect Yellow from the liability of serious wrecks, like Vazquez’ death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
insurance and franchises
Cabbies paid for insurance that Yellow Cab never provided
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UBER
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Another Ploy For The State To Make Money...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uber needs to die
all the Taxi and Limousine companies that operate have had to follow the rules for along time. Why should any other company be able to operate without following the rules.
If Uber can go through the proper channels and operate legally then and only then should they be able to operate!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uber needs to die
They had to follow rules that were put into place at a time when such rules were necessary to protect the customers. Things like unsafe vehicles, overcharged fees, unsavory drivers, etc...
What is different now with Uber and Lyft is that most of those rules are now unnecessary. Unsafe vehicles and creepy drivers are dealt with via instantaneous customer feedback. Overcharging is impossible because the route is displayed on the customer's phone with GPS and the fare is negotiated BEFORE the ride takes place.
What is your argument for keeping these outdated rules in place when they are no longer needed? The only two reasons I can see are to keep the legacy cab companies afloat and so the municipalities can keep their licensing revenue flowing. Neither of those are good enough reasons for me.
Not only that, but customer satisfaction seems to be greater with these new services as opposed to the traditional taxi services. If people WANT these services, who are you to limit their choices?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]