California Lawmaker Votes To Kill Uber... Then Caught Driving Drunk Just Hours Later
from the karma dept
It's a little early in the data to tell for sure, but there are some early indications that ride services like Uber and Lyft decrease cases of drunk driving by making it that much easier for intoxicated people to get somewhere without getting behind the wheel themselves. So it seems notable, if somewhat ridiculous, that California State Senator Ben Hueso was arrested for drunk driving just hours after voting in favor of a taxi-lobby supported bill that would profoundly limit services like Uber and Lyft. The bill was designed to dump a bunch of unnecessary and burdensome regulations on those companies to make it difficult for them to compete or survive in California.Hueso voted in favor of it, and then a few hours later was spotted driving the wrong way down a one way street at 2:24 in the morning.
Powell said officers identified the driver as Hueso and said he was alone in the car. Hueso showed “objective signs and symptoms” of being under the influence of alcohol and was given a field sobriety test.Hueso has apologized for the drunk driving, but perhaps he should apologize for his vote... and for not calling an Uber to take him home (or wherever he was headed) that night...
He was arrested shortly after, taken in without incident and booked into Sacramento County jail at 3:27 a.m, she said. Jail records show he was booked with a blood alcohol content of .08 or higher at 3:27 a.m. Powell said the CHP would not release the precise blood alcohol reading. He was released from jail late Friday morning.
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: ben hueso, california, drunk driving, dui, innovation, politics, regulations
Companies: lyft, uber
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Caught you politics
Careful down there, you could get splinters from the bottom of the political barrel. Say hi to Sarah Palin while you are down there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caught you politics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caught you politics
Keep it up, Whatever... You'll surely win this audience to your side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Caught you politics
The republicans are pretty good at it, especially the baggers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Caught you politics
Because he's noting how the two are possibly related. Politicians are responsible for setting the laws, for them to then break the very laws they are responsible for creating and maintaining is hypocritical and deserves mention.
"It's about making fun of and trying to find benefit in the mistakes of others."
So when a politician does something wrong it should just go unmentioned? The people shouldn't be informed about who they are voting for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Caught you politics
One that addresses the issue instead of merely changes the subject and attacks Mike for merely informing us about issues that interest us. If you don't like what Mike posts about you can either
A: Find another blog to visit
B: Start your own blog.
We visit this blog because we are interested in what Mike posts about. You may have other interests. There are other blogs out there that cover other interests. Or you can start your own blog. But don't try to force a blog that covers subjects you may not be interested in to not cover them. You are free to exercise one of the other options listed above like starting your own blog.
Oh, that's right, no one cares about your dumb and very often uninformed and wrong opinion so your blog will have almost no audience. No, if you want to be heard you must go elsewhere and start trying to dictate to others what they should post about because trying to start your own blog and posting what you think would gain almost zero audience.
Mike has a successful blog. People listen to him because he posts about subjects his community cares about. You're jealous because no one cares about your dumb opinion. I get that. But don't come here and take out your anger on others and expect to be taken seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Caught you politics
Even the best sites and the best writers sometimes stoop low to play dirty politics, and yes, I am calling out Mike for it.
It doesn't matter how successful he is, it's still a cheap shot. Moreover, if they guy is in fact related to someone in the taxi industry, he could have called them for a ride if he was smart enough to do it instead of driving drunk.
His vote for or again Uber doesn't mean anything, and Uber is not the only way to avoid driving drunk.
It adds up to a cheap shot, nothing more.
You're jealous because no one cares about your dumb opinion.
you don't get it. If I wanted people to like my opinion, I would bend over and lick Mike's boots like so many here do. If you think that's the idea, then you missed out totally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Caught you politics
You are spewing your usual bullshit and being called off for it. Not the most polite way for sure but you reap what you sow.
His vote for or again Uber doesn't mean anything, and Uber is not the only way to avoid driving drunk.
You should learn the meaning of irony. Really.
If I wanted people to like my opinion...
... you'd present facts and comment on the point of the article, not on strawmen on your head or some lame, unimportant thing you had to spin out of your ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Caught you politics
Bought-and-paid-for legacy taxi industry supporter doesn't support the industry by actually using them in such an obvious situation, OR politician too stupid to realize he should call a taxi instead of driving. Probably both. You call it a cheap shot, I call it voter education. The guy deserves a very public shaming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Caught you politics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Caught you politics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Caught you politics
"Actively refuses to comply with majority's requests or consensus-supported rules.
Check.
"Performs actions deliberately to annoy others."
Check.
"Angry and resentful of others."
Check.
"Argues often."
Check.
"Blames others for his or her own mistakes."
Check.
"Frequently loses temper."
Check.
"Spiteful or seeks revenge."
Check.
"Touchy or easily annoyed."
Check.
That seems to settle it. You are apparently a child who suffers from Oppositional Defiant Disorder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Caught you politics
Oh, and remember, what you say in the chat area appears here. So when you insult me and call me names, it does show up. Shows some real issues, hopefully this diagnosis will help you out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Caught you politics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Caught you politics
I do have to say though, are you suggesting that I should limit my freedom of speech to make you happy?
"Actively refuses to comply with majority's requests or consensus-supported rules."
Which rules would those be? I use punctuation, I write in sentences, and I express my personal opinion.
Notice that we only end up in this discussion after someone starts to attack me personally (rather than discussing the story). Perhaps you should ask them to stay on topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Caught you politics
"Angry and resentful of others."
"Argues often."
"Blames others for his or her own mistakes."
"Spiteful or seeks revenge."
"Touchy or easily annoyed."
This is getting to be a great drinking game.
You should add persecution complex to your list of personality quirks.
The fact that you don't recognize that "the majority's requests or consensus-supported rules" that you're refusing to comply with are the general rules of internet civility is the problem:
Don't troll. Don't post just to be oppositional. Contribute to the conversation rather than detract from it. Even if you disagree with someone, you don't have to attack them. If your opinion seems too off-topic, direct readers to your own blog where you can write as much as you like on your particular tangent. If you don't like the site you're visiting, you are neither required to read the articles or comment on them. There's a whole world wide web out there for you to explore and find something you like instead.
You shouldn't limit your freedom of speech to make others happy. You should find a way to express yourself that makes you happy. You don't seem very happy when you comment here. If you are happy when you comment here, then you seem to have some immaturity issues because you would then only seem to take pleasure in annoying others.
Go take up painting. Learn to play an instrument. Join an ultimate frisbee team. Take your wife to a nice dinner and don't stare at your mobile device instead of pay attention to her. Find a way to self-actualize that isn't dependent on annoying others, because that isn't psychologically or emotionally healthy and it isn't productive for anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Caught you politics
I'm rubber and you're glue!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Caught you politics
Except no one argued that this was the case. The argument is that more competition makes transportation more ubiquitous, convenient, and cheaper. So instead of taking a car to a place someone might get drunk at and then having to drive the car back home (instead of leaving it there and coming back for it later), with competition, it could become a lot more convenient to take another form of transportation to where you want to go to plan for the possibility of being drunk on your way back home. The sad reality is that many people will unfortunately put expedience above safety in many situations and making transportation cheaper and more convenient, through competition, might help improve safety.
So instead of addressing your own version of the argument why not address the actual argument being made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Caught you politics
Politician gets arrested for Drunk Driving later that night.
I'd make a blog post comment about that as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caught you politics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Caught you politics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Caught you politics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taxi monopoly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taxi monopoly
You want to let Uber, Lyft and Ride run around picking people up. I am all for it. But while you bitch about cab companies wanting to put a pile of regulations on them and how unfair it is ... How about you attack your city and county officials about all the crap they make cab companies comply with?
If you do not want to regulate ride sharing companies make it fair and deregulate cabs as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Taxi monopoly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taxi monopoly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Taxi monopoly
Unfortunately, here they are weak geographic monopolies (well, strictly speaking it is planning consent for a business selling alcohol which is monopolistic, which is separate from the licence) - local councils can prevent a new bar or nightclub opening if there are already some in the area, or if there are churches, schools, or some other facilities present.
Actually, here you can sell rubbing alcohol on street corners without any licence provided you meet the rules for a street vendor (i.e. not causing an obstruction), you correctly label the rubbing alcohol in accordance with dangerous goods labelling and trades practices law,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Taxi monopoly
The city government is a monopoly. Unless your city has multiple competing governments...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Taxi monopoly
Depends on the state. In my state, the sale of liquor is officially a state monopoly. Liquor "licenses" authorize the holders to act as a state agent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you haven't read that yet, it notes that Hueso's brother owns a cab company, suggesting a motive for voting to kill Uber and Lyft...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
At best he is an idiot.
At worst he is a corrupt offical who put his brother ahead of progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hueso Ride-Sharing
http://www.calnewsroom.com/2014/08/22/hours-after-voting-to-end-ride-sharing-industry-senator-ben-hu eso-arrested-for-dui/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legistlating under the influence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legistlating under the influence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legistlating under the influence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't it Ironic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time for a recall
There are numerous levels of stupid actions out there, but knowingly getting behind the wheel of a vehicle while impaired both physically and mentally is right up there near the top, and shows an absolutely abysmal level of common sense, intelligence, and care for the lives around you, and someone that stupid and reckless has no business in an important position like politics/public service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time for a recall
Every time we say "nobody who ever did X should be in politics", we exclude another segment of the population. Now it's drunk driving, but it can be "said something racist", "paid their taxes late", "posted embarrassing pictures on Facebook", etc...
Either we all learn some tolerance of human frailty, or we'll end up with a political class of bland, risk-averse cowards terrified of their own shadows.
.
.
....oh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Time for a recall
With drunk driving on the other hand, you are pretty much literally putting the lives of everyone around you on the road at risk due to your stupidity and lousy decision making skills, and someone so terrible at decision making, someone who holds the lives of others as less important than their 'need' to get someone now, rather than later, needs to be kicked right out of office, as they are showing a complete lack of traits needed to properly serve the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Time for a recall
I'd also like to do something horrible to politicians who don't pay back any benefits they received and then abolish once they stop getting them - all those politicians who received free tertiary education and living grants and then voted to introduce fees, I'm looking at you. Unfortunately, I can't think of a way to enforce that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Time for a recall
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time for a recall
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Connection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What Connection
He drove drunk, calling up a ride via Uber could have prevented that, yet his actions are aimed at killing off Uber in that area, meaning other people will be faced with the choice of 'drive drunk or try and find some other way home', without the possible solution of just calling up a cab from Uber, much like he was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What Connection
He could have called a taxi. he didn't, making him an idiot. Uber or no Uber didn't change that one iota.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What Connection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What Connection
I'm going to safely assume you have zero experience with these services and haven't read up on why they've become so popular so fast. It's a lot more than just a "snazzy interface", it's a superior service.
"He could have called a taxi. he didn't, making him an idiot."
Agreed, and idiot politicians should be called out as such. It is public office after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What Connection
Or do you need idiots in politics so your favorite policemen can run around shooting people holding Wiimotes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What Connection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ahem. Uber should use it in their ads: if mr Hueso had our app he could have gotten a ride even in a borderline comma thus making other citizens safer and avoiding jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem isn't the existence of consumer protection and safety regulations. If it's just a matter that competitors have to follow those same regulations then I don't see that as much of a problem. The problem is that the law forbids competition and requires medallions to operate and the number of medallions are artificially and arbitrarily kept limited. The number of taxicab drivers is artificially kept below a certain number period. This has nothing to do with safety and consumer protection or the fact that incumbents need to pass some test (a test that everyone else can also pass and receive a license for passing). There aren't a set of standards and tests that anyone can meet/pass and receive a license since the number of available licenses is artificially limited.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140709/16572527829/lyft-launches-nyc-taxi-commission-dec lares-it-illegal-hours-later.shtml#c128
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
there are plenty of good reasons to do this. In part, it's to assure that those people owning / operating a cab can make enough money to actually maintain their vehicle in a safe manner, and so that they don't have to work insane numbers of hours just to make a basic living. The risks of poorly maintained cars and over tired drivers is truly a big issue.
It's one of the many issues facing Uber and Lyft. Uncertified and unlicensed drivers will create a legal nightmare at some point, and the taxi commissions and private car operators will be there to pile it on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In the absence of other effectively enforced regulations specifically targeted at those issues, restricting supply will not necessarily accomplish those goals, and in the presence of such regulations restricting supply will not be necessary to accomplish them. So no, those are not legitimate reasons to restrict supply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What are they? The only one I can think of is to protect the established cab companies -- which doesn't actually count as a "good" reason.
"In part, it's to assure that those people owning / operating a cab can make enough money to actually maintain their vehicle in a safe manner"
Also not a good reason. The law shouldn't protect profitability. If the concern is safety, you address that by requiring regular inspections, rather like Uber does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your competition harms safety argument can be applied to any industry. Electronics can fail and cause fires. Fans and heaters can fail and cause fires. So lets restrict competition to ensure the fans and heaters cost more so that they're built safe. Those issues can better be served by passing safety regulations that the equipment must meet. No one is against this.
As far as the number of hours worked the law already has provisions, in various states, for things like the maximum number of hours a trucker is allowed to drive before taking a break.
Your argument also ignores basic economic principles (not that you know anything about that). The laws of supply and demand would naturally ensure that everyone in the industry makes a normal profit. If they must work harder and more hours to make an equal profit with that of another industry some will naturally migrate to that other industry until everyone in all industries make a normal profit. In your argument you make up your own personal, unorthodox, economic principles that go against conventional economic principles and are unsupported by economic theory or evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True, but we have seen, for example in the trucking industry, that market forces will not necessarily lead to drivers getting enough sleep. In the taxi/car industry that concern is probably not as important since not many people need a car in the middle of the night.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In a capitalistic market an overworked and underpaid cab driver that must work too many hours for too little pay can simply go independent if they see it as more profitable. This creates pressure for cab employers to give better hours and better pay to drivers because if they overwork and underpay them too much at some point it will become more profitable for drivers to go independent (and become competitors).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Uber drivers should be covered by the same regulations as other minicab operators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://qz.com/254495/why-shutting-uber-down-is-poor-regulation-by-indias-central-bank/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No party affiliation mentioned.
Yep. He sure is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No party affiliation mentioned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Demand mandatory 3x punishment for legislators!
All legislators should have mandatory triple punishment because they are the ones that make the laws.
Instead, we have just the reverse where law enforcement is often excused and legislators are specifically immune from prosecution for the laws that they write.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
uber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hueso Cab Company
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]