California Regulators Tell Ride-Shares No Airport Runs 314
An anonymous reader writes in with news about ride-share crackdowns in California. California regulators are threatening to revoke permits for on-demand ride companies UberX, Lyft, Sidecar, Summon and Wingz unless they stop giving rides to and from airports within two weeks. The move could lead to the state shutting down the companies' operations. Flouting the airport rules also flouts regulations that the CPUC set up for the new generation of ride companies to operate in California. In a clear rebuttal to an argument often made by the ride companies, Peevey wrote: "These safety requirements should not hinder your creativity nor should they impede your innovation."
Re:"Safety Requirements"? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not safe, ya sees, because Luigi here will have to come over and accidentally adjust your kneecaps if you interfere with this bizness opportunities in the Yellow Cab.
Re:Protectionism (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Cabbies. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, sounds like the LA taxi drivers need a union. Get a load of this crap:
In a study of Los Angeles taxi drivers, UCLA professors Gary Blasi and Jacqueline Leavitt found that taxi drivers work on average 72 hours a week for a median take home wage of $8.39 per hour. Not only do they have to pay $2000 in “leasing fees” per month to taxi companies, but the city regulates things like what color socks they can wear (black) and how many days a week they can go to the airport (once). None of the drivers in the survey had health insurance provided by their companies and 61% of them were completely without health insurance.
-- Pricenomics -- The Tyranny of the Taxi Medallions [priceonomics.com]
Re:"Safety Requirements"? (Score:5, Informative)
It's about money as always. Airports typically charge $5 to the cab whenever it does a run to or from the airport.
Re:next it will be illegal (Score:2, Informative)
No, actually, that's not true either. Although the gun-ownership is explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights as a right, even the most liberal locales (like Texas) treat it as a mere privilege — and, somehow, we are all Ok with that.
Re:"Safety Requirements"? (Score:4, Informative)
Because Republicans aren't logical. They hate the idea of people being able to work for themselves so they have destroyed the ride share business.
Earth to AC: The "California Regulators" mentioned in the first two words of the headline are not Republicans.
Re:"Safety Requirements"? (Score:4, Informative)
This has Little to do with the cabs themselves. This is about the Airports.
Airports are legally "private" property (even though they are run by the city). All airports in the US at least have a long standing history of charging cabs and limo services for picking up, dropping off customers. Its a simple fact that if you run a private car company you have to pay the airport, period, full stop. The airports in turn will and have charged people with "illegal trespassing" for not paying.
Many private car companies nowadays accept Uber Black and they do pay the airports their share. UberX drivers being "regular people" don't know to pay the airport, and don't have the appropriate tags/markings for the airport to know what they are. Uber has been trying to work out a solution, but it requires privately negociation between Uber and each and every airport in the country. A LONG and costly operation. California, one of the prime places where the airports have been treating UberX drivers as trespassers is making this as "safety regulation". Ultimately I guess it is a safety issue, as its creating a physical confrontation between drivers and the security officers attempting to ticket them.