Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Transportation

California Regulators Tell Ride-Shares No Airport Runs 314

Posted by samzenpus
from the no-airport-for-you dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California Regulators Tell Ride-Shares No Airport Runs

Comments Filter:
  • by Chris Mattern (191822) on Thursday June 12, 2014 @07:04PM (#47226179)

    Why is it not safe for them to drive to the airports, but it's safe for them to drive elsewhere? Are they going to hit a plane or something?

    • by hermitdev (2792385) on Thursday June 12, 2014 @07:19PM (#47226257)
      Its because these non-cabbies tend to drive in a safe and predictable manner, rather the the cabbies that drive erratically, changing lanes without signalling, running lights & stop signs, generally being a nuisance. Obviously not safe to mix the two. (This based on Chicago experiences, I assume CA cabbies are likewise assholes).
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 12, 2014 @07:19PM (#47226263)

      Why is it not safe for them to drive to the airports, but it's safe for them to drive elsewhere? Are they going to hit a plane or something?

      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.

    • by v1 (525388) on Thursday June 12, 2014 @07:22PM (#47226283) Homepage Journal

      Why is it not safe for them to drive to the airports,

      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.

    • by pla (258480) on Thursday June 12, 2014 @07:46PM (#47226393) Journal
      Why is it not safe for them to drive to the airports, but it's safe for them to drive elsewhere?

      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!
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 12, 2014 @09:48PM (#47226961)

        In fact, it was so bad in my hometown for a while, that they actually guaranteed the public bus wouldn't run to the airport. That way, you would have to take a cab.

        Our company would hire a limousine (actually a chouffered luxury car) to the airport because it was much cheaper than taking a cab). Eventually the hotels were getting people hitching rides on the hotel shuttles who were not staying at the hotel, to such a degree that the hotel charged a nominal fee, about 1/4th the cab fare. That eventually broke the monopoly, and finally, ten years later you can take the public bus too.

        It is crazy, but due to the changes, you can finally ride a cab to the airport for about half what it cost fifteen years ago. (and that's not adjusting for inflation)

    • by Imrik (148191) on Thursday June 12, 2014 @07:52PM (#47226415) Homepage

      Because if they drive to the airports they'll upset the cabbies' union, which is unsafe for them.

      • by MindStalker (22827) <mindstalker AT gmail DOT com> on Friday June 13, 2014 @11:08AM (#47230497) Journal

        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.

    • by pepty (1976012) on Thursday June 12, 2014 @07:59PM (#47226451)
      It's not clear that it's safe for UberX drivers in either situation. If the driver causes an accident UberX will cover their liability costs only. Their own costs they will have to pay out of pocket unless they get commercial insurance, since their personal insurance won't cover them.
    • by knightghost (861069) on Thursday June 12, 2014 @08:52PM (#47226705)

      It's about money as always. Airports typically charge $5 to the cab whenever it does a run to or from the airport.

    • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Thursday June 12, 2014 @08:53PM (#47226709)

      its a lie.

      you and I can drive to the airport. and we can drop people off and pick them up!

      so its a total bullshit lie.

      can you say 'protectionism'? sure, I knew you could.

    • by Karmashock (2415832) on Thursday June 12, 2014 @11:39PM (#47227291)

      Obviously its just protectionism for the taxi companies. Nothing more or less.

      They do the same thing with mass transit. The subway they're building in Los Angeles will not go to the airport.

      A lot of this comes down to the taxi medallions which the cities charge taxi companies to run their fleets.

      Those medallions can be very expensive. And so the cities have a very strong financial interest to protect the taxi companies.

      Really the taxi companies are quite justified in asking for protection. They've paid for it. The issue however is that the protection shouldn't have been for sale in the first place. Drop the cost of new medallions to something reasonable. A price similar to what the DMV charges for car registration. Then require uber etc to get the same license for all its drivers. The cost in this case would be nominal.

      Then everyone is on an equal footing. The cities won't get the same revenue from medallion sales. But then neither will they have to subvert city policy to protect taxi companies. So it should balance out in the end.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        If Taxi medallions are too expensive, give the drivers small lapel badges instead.

    • by derfla8 (195731)

      How is this any less safe than my mom or dad giving me a ride to the airport?

  • Of course (Score:5, Insightful)

    by istartedi (132515) on Thursday June 12, 2014 @07:04PM (#47226181) Journal

    Everybody knows that only your closest cronies will do the airport pickup. It's the sign of a true crony.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    who tell everyone what to do. problem solved.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    to drive your friend to the airport without a permit.

    • by Adriax (746043)

      How do they know you're not driving your family to the airport for a fee? Or yourself for that matter.
      Obviously they can't take your word for it, you could be in collusion with yourself in a conspiracy to defraud the airport and cab drivers.

      No, best thing to do is make it completely illegal for someone to drive to the airport or anywhere within a 4 hour walking distance without a commercial license.

      • These are not car pools. That same car comes and goes *just* like the commercial drivers. All day long. Day after day. Week after week. One airport run after another. Not hard to spot.
        • OH... MY... GOD... You mean people drive TO the airport, BACK from the airport, and TO the airport again? And..... let me guess, BACK again???? Oh no, you say, carrying passengers for less than us fellow cabbies extort? It's a disaster. Quick - get on social medias and tweet out to our fellow cabbies, get our lobbyists on the phone and let our representatives know they wont be getting that whopping $1500 campaign donation check to do our bidding any more if they don't shut this shit down ASAP.
    • by EmagGeek (574360)

      It is already illegal to drive your friend to the airport without a permit. You need a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by mi (197448)

        It is already illegal to drive your friend to the airport without a permit. You need a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle.

        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...

        • by Livius (318358)

          Build and pay for your own road and you can drive on it all you want.

          • by mi (197448)

            Build and pay for your own road and you can drive on it all you want.

            By this logic, simply walking on the street should also be considered a privilege, rather than a right.

            Ergo, the logic is invalid. Had you read my post more carefully, you could've spared yourself the embarrassment.

        • The right to travel is a right guaranteed by the US Constitution.

    • by mi (197448) <slashdot-2014@virtual-estates.net> on Thursday June 12, 2014 @07:45PM (#47226387) Homepage
      Or even your wife [dnainfo.com].
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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.

  • by mark_reh (2015546) on Thursday June 12, 2014 @07:11PM (#47226229) Journal

    area. There were three airports and four train systems (or was it four airports and three train systems?). None of the trains went to any of the airports. I always figured the taxi union lobbied hard when it was time to decided the train line terminations. I think it has improved a little since the early 90s, but probably not much.

    • by mythosaz (572040)

      Yeah, uh, just a little...

    • They are looking to expand the train here and they won't put the airport on the main line. Maybe in the future they will decide to make an extension and passengers will have to switch. Everyone knows it's the taxi lobby that doesn't want the train even though it would be replacing the bus line that already goes there.
    • by Isara (869637)
      SFO, Oakland and San Jose are the major airports in the area.

      BART now runs to SFO, and they're just finishing up an extension to Oakland, so that's good.

      Caltrain doesn't connect directly to SFO, but it does stop at the Millbrae BART station which is one of the two stations from which the BART-SFO extension connects.

      San Jose is still pretty disconnected from public transit except for some shuttle busses.

    • area. I think it has improved a little since the early 90s, but probably not much.

      BART finally made it to SFO. the bart station there is one of the stops on the shuttle tram that connects the terminals with each other and the parking structure. it's pretty sweet that you don't need a cab to get to the city.

      At OAK bart runs an "air bart" shuttle that directly goes between the coliseum station and the airport. it's seamless in that the shuttle accepts bart tickets as payment and the stations are nicely located.

      SJC: you take a free bus (SCVTA to caltrain, 20 mins. I used to commute on t

  • Cabbies. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Thursday June 12, 2014 @07:13PM (#47226237) Homepage Journal

    "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.
    • by BitZtream (692029)

      Does it matter who's complaining?

      If they are violating safety regulations, its a problem. Of course cabbies who are in competition are going to report it, but thats a good things.

      Customers don't always know whats unsafe since they aren't in the business so its not surprising they would think the cheaper but unsafe ride is great, doesn't make them right.

      You've been on slashdot for ever, you're normally a very intelligent poster, do you really mean to imply this is a bad thing or am I just reading you wrong

      • Re:Cabbies. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Thursday June 12, 2014 @08:05PM (#47226495) Homepage Journal
        I was suggesting that the bulk of the complaints are likely coming from cabbies.

        Michael Peevey mentions "safey rules" but then goes on to 'lacking airport permits, as well as lacking proper "trade dress" on their vehicles and lacking proof of insurance.' Ok, lacking proof of insurance I can understand. So carry papers in the glovebox and all is well.
        Airport permits? That's just money denied to the airports. I'd wager the complaints that are not from cabbies are from the airport authorities for this very reason.
        Trade dress? Fine, slap on a cheap magnetic sign. That is not a safety issue.

        They dress is up as "safety rules" but the real motives are financial.
        • by sabri (584428)

          They dress is up as "safety rules" but the real motives are financial.

          Hammer, nail.

          Their next argument will probably use child pornography or terrorism as well.

        • Re:Cabbies. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by stoborrobots (577882) on Thursday June 12, 2014 @10:29PM (#47227115)

          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...

          • by radtea (464814)

            The safety being assured by those rules is the *passenger* safety, against being abducted, mugged, scammed, etc.

            Absolutely none of which is relevant to ride-share arrangements, but was relevant before a ubiquitous network allowed people arriving at airports to pre-arrange with a party on the receiving end, who has been vetted by an honest broker (Uber et al).

            The ability to personally connect with the person picking you up makes rideshare services more like a buddy picking you up and you paying for gas than a traditional, anonymous taxi service.

            tl;dr: Irrelevant rules are irrelevant.

  • by Sean (422) on Thursday June 12, 2014 @07:19PM (#47226267)

    is the revenue of competing services.

  • Translation : (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Darth Turbogeek (142348) on Thursday June 12, 2014 @07:21PM (#47226275) Homepage

    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.

    • by mythosaz (572040)

      Hotel and Airport taxis must do short hauls. Uber drivers can cherry pick and skip short hauls.

      • Did you miss the part where I address the fact they by law MUST take short hauls? Until that was forced onto them, taxis would regularly refuse.

      • Uber drivers and cherry pick and skip any job that doesn't seem worth it for them. One of the advantages of the Uber system is that they try to set prices so that there will always be *some* drivers willing to take the job for that price.

        This in my opinion is a much better solution. It is more elegant. It doesn't force anyone to do anything they don't want to do. Rather than forcing taxis to take small jobs, why not allow them to be compensated enough to make them want to do those jobs?

        Laws are just not

        • by vux984 (928602)

          Maybe, or is it the just the case that uber drivers are just cherry picking the best fares. Living the dregs to cabbies, who are mandated to take them.

          Eliminating the regulations would allow both the uber and taxis to skip them. Not sure how that makes life better for people who need a ride nobody wants to take them on?

          Or is this a market will fix the problem situation? And anyone who wants a ride somewhere off the beaten path, so there is no chance of a return fare, or a short haul which is less profitable

    • I have a question about how you phrase this. Specifically "ride sharing".

      I own a car, and don't fly very often, so don't need taxis very often. But did these services start out an an actual "ride sharing" service? In other words, were they for people who were going to the airport for their own flight, agreeing to help someone else get to the airport? And the same coming back home, sharing your return trip from the parking garage with a stranger that you dropped off on your way home?

      Or did they just start as

      • by Imrik (148191)

        I believe it went pure ride sharing > ride sharing with built in ability to tip > taxi service, but the ones that are popular/still around are the ones that started later as taxi services.

    • I take it you don't fly in or out of LAX very much? Traffic is a nightmare. It can take 30-45 minutes to simply loop through the terminals a single time when it's busy, which is damn near every night. I'm not saying that these rules don't defend taxi's turf, but there is more reason to it than just that.

    • 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.

      There is. It's called a car service; who has the requisite insurance and permits. You can even book in advance and if your plane is late they will adjust their schedule to meet you when you get in. Cabbies hate them as well but they play by the city rules and thus can operate. Uber appears to be trying to meet the city ordinances, which IMHO is as much about permit revenue as safety, so the may yet be able to take airport fares.

  • So wait... what? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mark-t (151149) <markt@ l y n x.bc.ca> on Thursday June 12, 2014 @07:23PM (#47226285) Journal
    If I call my friend and ask him to give me a lift to the airport and I give him, say, $20 in exchange which is considerably more than what it would cost in gasoline (almost an order of magnitude more, in fact), is he breaking the law by accepting the transaction? Am I breaking the law by soliciting such assistance? If not, then why is it somehow different if the driver is not somebody personally known to me?
    • by mi (197448)

      Yes, he would be breaking the law. And you, probably, would be breaking it too.

      A lot of things become flat-out illegal — or subject to heavy regulations — when somebody is getting paid. It is a rather unfortunate state of affairs...

      It is almost as if our rulers would rather we sat idle depending on their benevolence to provide us with the necessities we need — in their omniscient opinion. Oh, wait...

      • by rev0lt (1950662)

        Yes, he would be breaking the law. And you, probably, would be breaking it too.

        He would not. The friend would not engage on the activity motivated by monetary compensation, and the $20 isn't payment, its a tip. And this is legal in most countries. You are liable for services you've been paid for, not tipped for. As an extreme example, there is a huge difference between a commercial agreement regarding sexual intercourse (soliciting, as you're *bidding* for the service) and giving a tip - either in money or goods. The first one is a prostitute, the second one is a fuckfriend/girlfriend

    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      If I call my friend [...] is he breaking the law by accepting the transaction? Am I breaking the law by soliciting such assistance? If not, then why is it somehow different if the driver is not somebody personally known to me?

      There's no difference.
      Not even if you solicit such assistance from a stranger.

      The difference is when the stranger is part of a commercial enterprise.

    • by BitZtream (692029)

      Thats not what this is about. This is about companies running unlicensed taxi services and calling it ride sharing, and skirting the rules everyone else has to play by.

      • by mark-t (151149)
        You're missing my point... what Uber is doing is essentially not any different from what I mentioned above... in both cases, there is profit being made, so I'm just not seeing why they should be treated any differently.
        • by alen (225700)

          you're not asking your friends for rides and at some point they will get into accidents and if they don't have insurance coverage then the state will have to pay for the passenger's medical bills

          and airports cost money to build and operate. this is borrowed and the bonds are paid back by customers using the facility and the businesses in the airport. if uber and everyone else wants to pick up at airports they need to pay a fee like everyone else to pay back the bonds and pay the operational costs

          • everyone in calif is required to have auto insurance, so THAT's a total non-argument about ride-sharing.

            and to blow your other 'help pay for airports' point away, its paid thru taxes and fees, fees, fees and more fees. I don't have to pay fees to pick a friend up and I can do that all day long if I want, without any legal issues.

            so, this is not about ANYTHING but keeping the cabbies in a nice profit center.

            nothing more and nothing less.

        • by BitZtream (692029)

          Is a third party organizing these ride shares? Is there REALLY profit involved between you and your friend? Once your friend accepts cash, he's uninsured under his standard insurance policy as he's now doing commercial work, that will be FAR FAR more than any 'profit' your friend made from your $20. Is a third party taking a cut of this profit?

          No, there is absolutely nothing similar between you taking a ride with your friend and Uber except they both use a car to get you some where, except you don't real

    • by pepty (1976012)
      Some states limit the ride sharing designation to non-profits. The difference in the case you pose is 1, frequency - how often does your friend get paid to transport people? Should the municipality spend time and money enforcing statutes against one offs or instead prioritize habitual offenders? 2, insurance: if you and your friend got in an accident and he told his insurance company he was actually being paid to transport you they wouldn't pay the claim.
    • by Kjella (173770)

      You're probably not in violation of any law unless there's some bat shit crazy laws about conspiracy to commit tax fraud. Your friend though might be in trouble, depending on how often he provides a "taxi" service to other people. In our tax system the condition (translated) is:

      "A sustained activity which is likely to provide net income and operated by the taxpayer at its own expense and risk."

      The key points here is
      a) Sustained, one-offs or highly irregular activities don't count
      b) Provide net income, activ

  • Fuck taxis (Score:5, Funny)

    by ArcadeMan (2766669) on Thursday June 12, 2014 @07:24PM (#47226291)

    I want to be able to call an Amazon quadcopter to carry me to my destination.

  • This kind of crap is where the Lyft cars, with their visible mustaches, are more vulnerable to enforcement. The airport cops will be able to spot them easily and bust the drivers.
  • In my city, Perth, Western Australia taxi's picking up passengers have to pay $2 to open the boomgate to get out, make the Uber drivers go there. That way the airport still gets it's revenue.

    My personal feelings with "ride sharing" is that it needs to be governed under the same laws as other taxi/private car services. Drivers need to have a taxi license and insurance (private insurance does not cover you if you're using your car for a business).

    The problem is, Uber cant operate under these conditions
    • by Shakrai (717556)

      (private insurance does not cover you if you're using your car for a business).

      Yes it does. It's just rated differently. Where do you think for-hire cars get their insurance from? The private sector or Uncle Sam?

      I had my policy rated for business when I was working for a cheap ass consulting firm that made us use our own cars. It raised my premium less than 20%, a comparative bargain when compared to the prospect of paying a six digit bodily injury judgment. For-hire rates are a bit higher than this, but not particularly onerous, unless you live somewhere (New York City) that al

      • by BitZtream (692029)

        You're mis-interpreting his statements, and you're wrong for many reasons.

        First, he means personal coverage, standard insurance, which doesn't cover people when working for hire, car, passengers or drivers.

        He lives in Australia, so Uncle Sam has got shit to do with it.

        You got a minor increase because you drove your car more, this is considered commercial, not private, but we'll ignore your ignorance and inability to comprehend simple statements.

        You didn't get it based on carrying passengers for hire, which

  • Innovation? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun (571051) on Thursday June 12, 2014 @08:42PM (#47226659)
    At the risk of being modded troll, what innovation? All of the tech that powers these sites was built by other people. The only thing these guys did is get enough capital to fend off lawsuits.

    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.
  • I have heard many comments that maybe those rides are unsafe. Well, I challenge that as I once had a ride in a taxi where the driver admitted to being stoned. But not paying him probably was not the thing to do if you didn't want him to come back to settle the score.
    But it seems as if all the talk about reducing red tape only applies to businesses and not individuals. Most businesses exist because of red tape to force you to use them. My kid's class parties can only be supplied by store made cakes an
  • How close a friend must someone be for me to drive him or her to the airport? If I get gas money for so doing is it a crime? Why is Uber any different and how can it be legal to treat different people differently? Older modes of doing business will now vanish. It is called progress.
    • Picking up your friend, even in exchange for some compensation, is you and your friend exercising your general freedom to do stuff. Your friend doing that for strangers as his main source of income is a profession, and it makes more sense to regulate. You wouldn't actually like it if either everything that someone does professionally got regulations that apply to everyone, nor if everything that someone does non-professionally got entirely deregulated. Either extreme would be terrible, either for personal f

    • by BitZtream (692029)

      When your friend sits around in his car for the sole purpose of being ready to transport people, for profit, waiting for a call to do so, thats when it becomes a crime.

      If you really are so stupid as to not be able to see the difference between someone doing it as a favor and someone doing it for random people in a commercial context then you need to go back to grade school and start over.

  • Regulating pick-ups at the airport at least makes a kind of sense, as the airport has the authority to regulate commerce occurring on its property. Whether the fees involved are justified is of course a separate question.

    But if you've hired someone to take you *to* the airport, once you're on the airport property it's a little late for the airport to do anything about it.

  • by monkeyFuzz (3398671) on Thursday June 12, 2014 @09:41PM (#47226939)
    The ride-share drivers may as well make hay while the sun shines as I suspect their 15 mins of fame is close to done. Once autonomous vehicles are approved for use (yes I expect the same lobbies to fight it) neither ride share drivers not cabbies will be required to provide safe transportation and all this crying over this and that issue will be moot. All one needs is a fleet of self driving cars taking the human factor out of the equation for good!
    • by TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) on Friday June 13, 2014 @12:29AM (#47227493)
      >Once autonomous vehicles are approved for use

      ... 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 ... and the reason is simple:

      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!!!
  • by jcr (53032) <jcr.mac@com> on Thursday June 12, 2014 @11:32PM (#47227279) Journal

    I use Uber every time I fly out of SFO, and these shitheads want to stop it because Uber doesn't pay bribes the way the cabbies do. Fuck every last thing about this.

    -jcr

How many Unix hacks does it take to change a light bulb? Let's see, can you use a shell script for that or does it need a C program?

Working...