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."
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Everybody knows that only your closest cronies will do the airport pickup. It's the sign of a true crony.
Cabbies. (Score:5, Insightful)
"We have heard numerous complaints that (our) safety rules are being ignored,"
Yeah, the cabbies are complaining. I would guess non-cabbies love the service.
Re:"Safety Requirements"? (Score:5, Insightful)
They might hit a cabbie or airport shuttle operator's profit margin.
Fine. I won't take UberX to the airport, I'm taking it to the airport parking garage, from which I'll walk the extra ten feet to the airport.
All Uber in endangering... (Score:5, Insightful)
is the revenue of competing services.
Translation : (Score:5, Insightful)
These rules are here to defend taxi companies at their most lucrative source of income. There is not a single reason else.
And frankly, airports are exactly where I would WANT a ride sharing service over the entrenched taxi industry. After dealign with flying, the last thing I want is to deal with a taxi driver not interested for a second where or how far I want to go - and in fact is forced by law to pick up my patronage here because before that law... they would reject my destination for a "better" fare. Let alone the other issues taxis have like the queues and half the time there isnt one availible for too long.
No, fuck em. If I can have a service that is waiting to pick me up, go where I want to go, more often than not in a clean and comfortable car, with a driver who (and I apologise for the next comment but you know this happens too often) understand what you are saying and is interested more in customer service.... I'll take it.
We do have a premium taxi service here that works more like Uber and in general it's a mile better than the regular taxi services. Unfortuantly it's too small to be truly able to handle capacity. You know, if taxis worked more like the premium serives I'd be less sympathic to Uber and Co, but they arent so.... fuck em. Bring the ride sharign services on.
Re:"Safety Requirements"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because states get huge amounts of money tacked on to cab fares to and from airports, it would clearly count as much, much less safe to the state's coffers.
Can't have any of those dirty ridesharing hippies putting a sweet revenue stream at risk!
Re:next it will be illegal (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know, if you meant it, but this is a very good point. At some point decades ago, the government declared driving on public roads to be a privilege to be granted to the good by the Executive, rather than a right to be withdrawn from naughty by the Judiciary (as walking is). We, the populace, accepted it and it has been downhill from there...
Re:"Safety Requirements"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because if they drive to the airports they'll upset the cabbies' union, which is unsafe for them.
Re:"Safety Requirements"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Cabbies. (Score:5, Insightful)
Innovation? (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess what really bugs me about these ride share guys is the real reason they're so big: massive unemployment and 40 years of declining wages. People don't participate in ride share sites for fun. I know taxi and limo drivers. They're some of the most abused people in the world. They're 'independent contractors' only in so long as it involves not getting the benefits of being employees (unemployment insurance, heath care, etc).
Fix the broke ass economy and all this 'innovation' would go away tomorrow. Christ, $16 billion in ipo value build on the corpse of the American Middle Class.
Just videotape it and you'll be fine. ;) (Score:4, Insightful)
The first one is a prostitute
Family Guy reference:
1. Paying someone to have sex with you: Prostitution. Illegal.
2. Paying someone to have sex with you while you run a camera: Production of pornography. Legal.
Re:next it will be illegal (Score:2, Insightful)
how in the fuck does the "Taxi & Limousine Commission" have the right to pull someone over and steal their car? this is why we have guns. too bad they took them away in NY.
Re:Cabbies. (Score:5, Insightful)
The "trade dress" and "permit" rules are safety rules, but not road safety, which is why it's not immediately apparent. The safety being assured by those rules is the *passenger* safety, against being abducted, mugged, scammed, etc.
Airports are locations where a large number of people who are not familiar with the local customs arrive, and this makes them prime targets for scams. For a time, it was common for fake taxis/limousines to turn up, pick up unsuspecting travellers, then hold them hostage until they gave up items of value or overcharge them for short journeys (possibly by driving around town before proceeding to their destination).
In response, airports now require checks for anyone providing a pick-up service at the airport; this includes buses, taxis, and limousines. The airport permit fee covers the cost of performing these checks. The trade dress requirement is so that vehicles are clearly identifiable as providing a commercial pick-up service, which can then be monitored by police, airport officials, and other relevant authorities.
Not to say that their motivation in excluding ride-share organisations is not a financial one, but there are reasons these things were put in place...
Your dream world is broken (Score:4, Insightful)
... the cab fare will be the same except there won't be a human receiving the wages.
Like how a Snickers bar costs $1.25 in a vending machine.
Not that there will be commonplace autonomous cars in the next 20 years, they will remain as common as the flying cars hypothesized in the 1960s
Q) Why won't there be autonomous cars?
A) Because even a car that can handle 99% of normal driving situations is incredibly dangerous in that other 1% scenario. And that 1% scenario --- power is out and stop lights don't work or ad-hoc road construction or a very destructive pothole or severe rain that blunts sensors --- those happen on a very regular basis.
The only autonomous cars will be the ones we already have --- they are called trains! Not that they are "smart", but because their driving conditions are extremely simplified --- yet they STILL have drivers!!!
Republicans Just Shorthand... (Score:0, Insightful)
...for politicians the AC doesn't like. It's the only way he can remember which lever to pull on Election Day