California Continues To Be Anti-Innovation: Tells Ridesharing Services That Carpooling Is Illegal
from the oh-come-on dept
There has been plenty of discussion about ridesharing services lately, and whether they should be subject to the same sorts of regulations as taxis. As we've discussed, while taxi regulations have some historical basis in protecting riders from scammers, most of that was for a time when there was significant information asymmetry between drivers and riders, making it much easier for drivers to scam, rip off or endanger passengers. The wonderful thing that services like Uber, Lyft and Sidecar do is get rid of much of that information asymmetry and risk. The drivers are rated and monitored. The services handle the payment terms. The regulations that once served a purpose are less and less important. And, of course, then the reality starts to become clear. Where those regulations may have once had some benefit for the public, these days, they're much more about limiting competition, keeping prices artificially high and limiting new forms of innovation.That's become especially clear in the last few days, where the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has alerted Uber, Lyft and Sidecar that their new carpooling offerings are illegal. All three companies recently introduced a rather useful innovation that actually makes it much more accurate to call these services "ridesharing." By enabling "carpooling," the services find multiple people heading in the same general direction, and put them in the same car, allowing all of them to get a cheaper fare. It's the kind of useful innovation that seems like it's better for everyone. But, not the CPUC. In the world of the CPUC, you can't innovate if you haven't first groveled for permission:
Basically, the CPUC says that under California law it's illegal for these ride-sharing services to charge passengers an individual fare when carrying multiple people in one vehicle. If the companies would like to add a carpool feature, they first have to request an adjustment to their existing permits with the CPUC or petition the state legislature to modify the law.Some people like to mock the idea that these companies like to innovate first and deal with the regulatory issues later -- and there may be something to that. But anyone who's ever worked in a setting where innovation is happening knows that having to ask for permission is a recipe for no innovation. California has a long history of enabling innovation. It would be quite a sad state of affairs for it to go the other way.
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: california, carpool, carpooling, cpuc, innovation, permission, ride sharing
Companies: lyft, sidecar, uber
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Perhaps it would have made more sense to adjust the permits and make a public statement that you did it in the best interests of the public would have been a better PR move. Because while you claim it is illegal, you suggest there is a way for them to be in compliance with the law currently. Perhaps instead of making the people trying to make things better try and get the legislature do something (without screwing it all up) you take the initiative and try to get the law changed to promote these sorts of services.
No one is forced to use these services, no one getting a ride from the companies is being blindsided, and it benefits he public by putting fewer cars on the road moving more people...
Perhaps one should be questioning if the CPUC is actually interested in making things better for the public, or keeping themselves power tripping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but did that include lining the pockets of certain individuals? if so, i understand why this is failing.
the strange thing is in other countries this would be applauded as it reduces road congestion and pollution. strange how in the USA, it is illegal to do these things and legal to do the opposite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What does it have to do with innovation?
If I've got it right, they say "you can't charge like a taxi unless you're acting like a taxi". Which is OK in my book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What does it have to do with innovation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What does it have to do with innovation?
All 3 ride services decided this was an offering customers wanted, because it saves them money and no one else is offering it (innovation in getting people from A to B).
It seems like there is much public benefit, except the group who is supposed to benefit the public decided they needed to make them stop now (or before they even began) until they all appeased the CPUC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What does it have to do with innovation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thinking outside the box is impossible for these organizations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 15th, 2014 @ 4:30am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 15th, 2014 @ 4:30am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: custom adayemi paul on Sep 15th, 2014 @ 4:06am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: custom adayemi paul on Sep 15th, 2014 @ 4:06am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: custom adayemi paul on Sep 15th, 2014 @ 4:06am
As usual, Masnick tries to inflame first, and then cover his butt at the end with the little note about "regulatory" issues. That issue would happen to be liability car insurance, and it's a big one. But don't expect to learn why on this blog.
This post will now be censored by Techdirt for being 100% truthful. How innovative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: custom adayemi paul on Sep 15th, 2014 @ 4:06am
If "honest" means inaccurate information, yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No cash change hands for the rideshare, but we are still "paying." The driver allows two strangers into his or her car, and I get into cars with strangers, something out parents told us never, ever to do! It's a wonder that this is legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It wouldn't surprise me, since there are proposals to tax hybrids extra because they use less fuel and thus incur fewer gas taxes:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/economics/item/15673-states-propose-fees-on-hybrids-to-c over-gas-tax-losses
Or raise the gas tax just because cars are generally getting more efficient:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/eric-scheiner/democrat-raise-gas-tax-make-lost-revenue-fue l-efficient-vehicles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: passenger security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
this has been a recording.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For or against innovation?
"California Continues To Be Anti-Innovation"
"California has a long history of enabling innovation"
That seems like a contradiction. Are you saying they are for or against innovation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For or against innovation?
California has a long history of enabling innovation.
This sentence means that over a historically significant period of time, the state has been innovative.
California continues to be anti-innovation.
This sentence refers to the last few years of bad law creation and or enforcement that has been contrary to the greater history of innovation.
English is an amazing language that allows tons of differing opinions and thought processes. Please stop imposing your own lack of thought processing into articles you read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: For or against innovation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is not ridesharing, it is transport for hire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is not ridesharing, it is transport for hire
https://support.uber.com/hc/en-us/articles/202347808-In-the-US-what-insurance-is-available -if-there-s-an-accident-
From a brief look it does seem Uber has some issues with background checking and safety inspections. I didn't look at any other services. On the other hand, one source I found indicated that less than 2% of car accidents are caused by vehicle defects, so while inadequate safety inspections sound scary, they're probably not really that important. Keeping people from driving around while under the influence would be great and is not something that should be entrusted to user ratings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It is not ridesharing, it is transport for hire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is not ridesharing, it is transport for hire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is not ridesharing, it is transport for hire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is not ridesharing, it is transport for hire
Whatever you're on, can I have some? The "rule followers" ARE the big guys, genius.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is not ridesharing, it is transport for hire
Hmm:
https://support.uber.com/hc/en-us/articles/202347808-In-the-US-what-insurance-is-avail able-if-there-s-an-accident-
"there’s a commercial insurance policy for ridesharing with $1 million of coverage per incident. This policy covers drivers’ liability from the time a driver accepts your trip request through the app until the completion of your trip."
https://www.lyft.com/drivers
"Lyft provides additional insurance policies, at no cost to the driver. We worked with leading insurance carriers get our drivers: commercial auto liability insurance up to $1M per occurrence, contingent collision insurance for drivers who carry collision coverage on their personal auto policy, and coverage for bodily injury caused by uninsured/underinsured motorists."
The drivers are not drug tested nor properly background checked/fingerprinted.
Hmm:
http://blog.uber.com/driverscreening
"All Uber ridesharing and livery partners must go through a rigorous background check that leads the industry. The three-step screening we’ve developed across the United States, which includes county, federal and multi-state checks, has set a new standard. These checks go back 7 years, the maximum allowable by California law. We apply this comprehensive and new industry standard consistently across all Uber products, including uberX."
https://www.lyft.com/safety
"Every driver is screened for criminal offenses and driving incidents. The criminal background check includes national and county-level databases, as well as national sex offender registries."
Got any other lies you'd like to spread?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It is not ridesharing, it is transport for hire
Also, most cab and livery drivers are independent contractors or owner/operators. They are most definitely the little guys.
Further, you can tell the intent of companies like Uber and Lyft by the fact that they offer services without bothering to become legal first. They are currently illegal in Arizona (they must carry $300,000 in commercial vehicle insurance full time, not just when they are on a call). They refuse to do this). Also, I lived 3 doors down from a convicted felon who passed Uber's alleged background check.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It is not ridesharing, it is transport for hire
You know who else sometimes hits and kills people? Regulated taxi drivers. A single incident means nothing -- what are the incident rates?
"Also, I lived 3 doors down from a convicted felon who passed Uber's alleged background check."
This also happens with regular taxi drivers -- many of them are convicted felons as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It is not ridesharing, it is transport for hire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is not ridesharing, it is transport for hire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is not ridesharing, it is transport for hire
And then they wonder why recidivism is so high.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is not ridesharing, it is transport for hire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is not ridesharing, it is transport for hire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It is not ridesharing, it is transport for hire
What exactly are you claiming is untrue?
And why bring up a single incident involving Uber? If you are really worried about pedestrian safety then your focus should really include traditional taxicabs too.
Also, I lived 3 doors down from a convicted felon who passed Uber's alleged background check.
Anecdotal references are meaningless. Got [citation]?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It is not ridesharing, it is transport for hire
What was he convicted of? It may not even be relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It is not ridesharing, it is transport for hire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Certainly not in the business models of their content producers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regulation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, UberHeadline is the new product?
In other words, the same tactic as a certain "inventor" who called his product "EMAIL" and lead the public on a merry dance...if his service was shut down for violating regulations, I take it Mike would also cry foul over "banning email"? Or does that tactic just apply for companies marketing themselves as the hip alternative to evil "Big X"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]