Massachusetts Governor Introduces Bill To Regulate Uber, Lyft 193
jfruh writes: The "wild west" days of ridesharing services may be coming to an end. The governor of Massachusetts has proposed a bill that would regulate Uber, Lyft, and their rivals in the state. Among the new rules: ridesharing services would have to run background checks on their drivers and keep a roster of active drivers; vehicles would need to have some external marker indicating that they're a ridesharing car; and drivers would need to hold at $1 million worth of insurance when transporting passengers.
Yeah.... (Score:3, Interesting)
As if they will give a damn any your regulations... If they did, they would be a proper taxi service.
Re: (Score:2)
States have these peculiar individuals who work for them known as "police" who throw people who explicitly violate their regulations a place called "jail", and possibly another one called "prison".
Uber will have to play by the rules or get out of state. Otherwise their drivers and Uber corporate itself will be heavily fined at the least every day of operation, and at worst, people will go to prison.
Uber is a
Re:Yeah.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I saw no mention of rationed or limited licenses when skimming through the article and law. The provisions seemed rather common sense to me when reading through them: Maintaining a list of drivers, criminal background checks, sufficient insurance for commercial purposes, visible external marker on the car, yearly safety inspections, minimum age of 21, and a license fee for the privilege of this oversight, of course.
I don't think this is a bad thing at all. Every other business that deals with transporting the public is licensed and regulated in order to adhere to reasonable safety standards. Uber is apparently supporting this legislation as well. I think they feel that it's a good thing to be officially recognized by the state as a legitimate business. It's certainly better than existing in a grey area and getting fined or having lawsuits tossed at you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Christ, you fucking liberals and your "basic needs". You'll have us all living in caves before you're through.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that there is no service that is less conducive to violent or property crime than Uber, right? It would be like a store owner with video surveillance in his own store raping someone as they come in. Might as well walk into a police station and rape the guy at the front desk. There is literally no way you can't get caught. Your every move is tracked by GPS. Christ, you fucking liberals and your "basic needs". You'll have us all living in caves before you're through.
I don't remember a lot of stories about people being attacked by their taxi driver. But I do remember this [laweekly.com] and this [boston.com] and this [forbes.com]. I'm not saying Uber is inherently dangerous. But it seems more than "no service that is less conducive to violent or property crime than Uber". According to my unscientific quick Googling, it seems regular taxis are safer.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone seems to hate corporations, but bring up the idea of banning them in favor of a natural system (ie no government imposed "corporate veil" limiting the liability of the owners/shareholders) where the owners are actually responsible for the actions of their employees, and everyone goes crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps that's no loss. There's no rule that every business model under the sun -has- to exist. None of the requirements described in the summary seem out of line to me.
I see no problem with uber having a little star next to the people that have a million dollar liability coverage but
also I don't see why a person can't opt to go with someone cheaper that only has 10k liability coverage.
If people actually wanted 1M liability coverage then uber could flag those accounts and push them to the top
but most people don't care and would rather have cheaper fare.
Re: (Score:2)
If people actually wanted 1M liability coverage then uber could flag those accounts and push them to the top but most people don't care and would rather have cheaper fare.
People are also often short-sighted and bad at estimating risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that liberals value labels over actions. I don't care if the guy says he's a Tory, a Nazi, or a high priest of Ayn Rand, his actions are those of a liberal.
And no, just because I am against the current administration doesn't make me a tea party member OR a conservative. Conservatives all paint me as a liberal, liberals paint me as a conservative. This is the life of a liberta
Re: (Score:2)
It will take just one Charles Manson-like incident to make people want regulations again. It's all fun and flower-power until somebody takes advantage of trust.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, someone ought to just make murder illegal. Seems like that would be simpler.
Re:Yeah.... (Score:4, Informative)
Maintaining a list of drivers, criminal background checks, sufficient insurance for commercial purposes, visible external marker on the car, yearly safety inspections, minimum age of 21, and a license fee for the privilege of this oversight, of course.
I think Uber actually already satisfies most of this. They need external markers on the cars (slap some magnetic signs on), and would probably need to do more safety inspections if MA doesn't already require annual inspections of all registered vehicles, and pay a license fee. They already have $1M insurance coverage and obviously have a list of drivers. I think they do background checks, too, though I'm not completely sure.
Frankly, this seems more like a minimal set of regulations to shut up people who are complaining about the unregulated taxi service. Now they technically won't be unregulated, even though the actual changes to their business will be negligible, assuming the license fee is reasonable.
Re: (Score:3)
What's the point of the external marker? I never had issues identifying an Uber vehicle when it was coming to pick me up. External markers are obviously needed when you're hailing vehicles on the street, but they don't do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Believe it or not, and I know not everyone complies with this, but I believe external markers are required (here in MA) on ANY vehicle with commercial plates. Note, of course, that no Uber driver is going to have commercial plates, and really shouldn't, generally people don't need commercial plates when they supply their own personal vehicle for the job. (imagine what that would do to pizza delivery)
Re: (Score:2)
Wal-mart was for forcing companies to pay medical insurance. Why increase their own costs? Because it blocks new competition from entering the market. This is the ultimate effect of prett
Re: (Score:2)
sufficient insurance for commercial purposes
Why is it OK for me to have my regular insurance and carry four friends in the car who give me money for gas, yet suddenly I need more insurance if there are four people riding in my car and paying me but I just met them?
yearly safety inspections
Again, why do 99.9% of the cars on the road not need yearly expenses, but if I want to have other people ride with me that aren't friends / family members, suddenly my car needs a yearly inspection?
minimum age of 21
Because college students shouldn't make money, they should be racking up more debt.
and a license fee for the privilege of this oversight
You want t
Re: (Score:3)
You want to tell the person trying to earn a living that they have to pay for a bunch of pointless shit, then you want to make them pay for the PRIVILEGE of paying for that pointless shit? Yup, you're a politician alright.
I was hoping you'd catch the irony in that statement. Obviously not. I was trying to point out that there was indeed a regulatory burden imposed here.
In general, *everything* changes when you start doing things commercially, and it's been that way since the beginnings of human civilization, as evidenced by ancient Babylonian building codes. For instance, you're free to cook meals for family and friends, but when you charge the public money for that same food, you're now a restaurant, and you're subject t
Minimum age of 21 (Score:2)
That always gets me. At 17, you're old enough to enlist in the military, be issued deadly weapons and get shipped over seas to enforce U.S. foreign policy, which may involve killing lots and lots of people.
"What's that you say? You want to be an Uber driver and have a beer when you get home? Sorry, son, you're just not mature enough for that."
Re:Yeah.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds pretty good. I wonder if it will extend to the ride share boards up in many of the state's colleges.
I doubt it. Those are actually ride sharing situations. People are actually going to a destination and willing to share expenses. Lyft and Uber call themselves Ridesharing, but they are actually a taxi for hire service.
Re: (Score:2)
Lyft and Uber call themselves Ridesharing, but they are actually a taxi for hire service
Last week I took Uber to SFO. I shared the car with another guy who was also going to SFO. The UberDude picked that guy up, then picked me up.
Re:Yeah.... (Score:5, Informative)
Lyft and Uber call themselves Ridesharing, but they are actually a taxi for hire service
Last week I took Uber to SFO. I shared the car with another guy who was also going to SFO. The UberDude picked that guy up, then picked me up.
That's a share-taxi. A ride share would be if the UberDude dropped you off at the terminal, then parked the car and got on a plane.
Re: (Score:2)
parked the car and got on a plane.
You just came up with the next big idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Last Thursday I booked a normal taxi (in Oregon) to take me to the airport. He picked up another guy as well. He asked us first and we got a discount (but the driver made more.. the discount was not 50%).
So I don't see how ride sharing and taxi service are mutually exclusive.
Re: (Score:3)
Last Thursday I booked a normal taxi (in Oregon) to take me to the airport. He picked up another guy as well. He asked us first and we got a discount (but the driver made more.. the discount was not 50%).
So I don't see how ride sharing and taxi service are mutually exclusive.
Well, you have not experienced ride sharing. Ride sharing is when person A is going somewhere and finds a person B who also wants to go there and they share expenses. Your situation was not ride sharing because person C, the taxi driver was not already going to that location and went there at your will (just like an Uber driver does). If person A and person B prearranged to share the same taxi, that would be ride sharing for the two of you, but from the Taxi (or Uber of Lyft) perspective, it would still be
Re:Yeah.... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's sharing a taxi.
The pre-Uber general characterization of ride-sharing is person 1 is going from A to B, and offers/finds/solicits someone else (Person 2) from around A (or along the path from A to B) and drives with Person 2 further along the path to B or around B, drops off person 2, then Person 1 continues on to B.
Person 2 may give person 1 money and/or sex in exchange for the ride.
It's predicated on Person 1 already wanting to go from A to B.
Uber and Lyft have completely perverted the phrase, using it to refer to taxi rides arranged over the internet, at random prices, while ignoring any taxi regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber and Lyft have completely perverted the phrase, using it to refer to taxi rides arranged over the internet, at random prices, while ignoring any taxi regulations.
I'm not so sure it was Uber and Lyft. I think originally Uber and Lyft probably intended for it to be ride-share where people commuting to the
same location shared a car but the prices were high enough that people realized that they could make a living at it.
If Uber and Lyft cut the fares charged/paid by 75% then it would probably go back to that as then the only time it would be profitable to
take on a passenger would be if you were already going that direction.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They're really more a limousine service (that's the legal category in California, anyway), which is similar, but less regulated than real taxis, and less expensive to get in to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Yeah.... (Score:4, Insightful)
gotta love the government. stifling innovation for generations.....
What is innovative about an illegal taxi service?
These have been running in third world countries that I've been visiting for decades. They haven't caught on in the west as we tend not to like the violence and terrible driving that comes along with it.
Re: (Score:2)
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Everyone I have talked to on the subject has enjoyed Uber much more than your precious taxis. They are prompt, courteous, clean, and the vehicles are in good repair. If something is wrong with the driving, you give a bad rating, and the driver will soon be deactivated. That is market regulation. Try getting a union ta
Re: (Score:2)
gotta love the government. stifling innovation for generations.....
Exactly which rules outlined in the two linked articles "stifle innovation."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yeah.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yeah.... (Score:4, Insightful)
You really don't grok that "liabilty" thing, do you?
Re:Yeah.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Realistically, if they pick someone up once in a while, they are (a) unlikely to be much of a problem, and (b) are likely to be overlooked by the regulators. If they want to do it on a regular basis, they can comply with the regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH aside from existing regulations aimed at the business side, I don't see what is wrong from that persons perspective. In principle I have no issue with a service that allows people to, on a part time basis, give other people rides for a few bucks to make some spare income.
Why does everything need to be professional? I think the problem with amateurs providing services are mostly overblown.
Taxis (Score:3, Insightful)
Or they could classify them as taxis and leave legit ride shares alone. Its not ride sharing when you pick someone up and their location and deliver them anywhere they want. You aren't going near there, you are driving people for money, so you are a taxi driver... because internet doesn't change this.
The über price model reflects this with surge pricing to get more drivers on the road..... how can you do that with people who are just sharing rides?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Some day I want to find the author or pundit who started this whole 'the government is responsible for monopolies, they can not exist without the state' meme and punch them. Then force them to take actual classes in history and economics.
Please do... I suspect it's the same crowd that thinks EU anti-trust cases against Microsoft, Google, etc. is all about handing out fines to American companies...
Re: (Score:2)
Lets put it this way: "monopolies" created by the free market are still regulated by the free market because there are still competitors (SO had a 90% market share at its apex, the remaining competitors got to be efficient and cost effective enough to compete with them). If they raise their prices or let slip their quality, then competition will come out of the woodwork. This has happened in the
Re: (Score:2)
Regulation for Taxation (Score:5, Funny)
This is Massachusetts doing what it does best - looking to rake in some tax money. Massachusetts is particularly diligent to make sure they get a cut when cash changes hands. I'm pretty sure that the legislators here get twitchy in summer when they see kids setting up unregulated lemonade stands.
I do see this being ignored completely, until someone gets pulled over and stupidly blurts out "Uber" in the conversation with the officer. At that point they will probably set up checkpoints on the HOV lanes where one must pull over and look deeply in a trooper's eyes and state that they are not an Uber/Lyft driver, honest!
Re:Regulation for Taxation (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a term for that. Wait a minute, ... got it. The term is "the law".
sPH
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know there was peacetime income tax in the US prior to 1913?
Re:Regulation for Taxation (Score:5, Insightful)
This is Massachusetts doing what it does best - looking to rake in some tax money.
It's one of the reasons that if you look at the census data, Massachusetts comes out looking good. unlike say Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, etc etc
Massachusetts isn't a net burden on the US like those states are. Massachusetts pays it's own way and more than that it's a better place to live.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You'll notice it varies year to year, so if you check out the numbers for Texas in the bottom tabble ....they've had some VERY bad years. They're doing better than they did in the past, you're right on that.
And I do have an inherent bias. While my bias isn't quite as bad as this: http://fuckthesouth.com/ [fuckthesouth.com]
I do believe the south's been bringing the rest of the country down practically since the founding of the country. The north has had to drag the south along kicking and screaming into each new century, it
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
All those taxes and we get: universal healthcare (first in the nation), top ten schools nationally and a lower per capita rate of crime than half the nation.
Re: (Score:2)
Though higher than New York. Or South Carolina. Or Mississippi....
Similar bill in many states (Score:5, Interesting)
A quick web search shows that similarly worded legislation is being considered in Arkansas [state.ar.us], Kansas [kslegislature.org], Utah [utah.gov], South Carolia [scstatehouse.gov], and New York [nysenate.gov].
While I didn't do an item-by-item comparison, a quick glance suggests that most or all these were crafted by a common hand. Anyone want to guess who that might be?
Re:Similar bill in many states (Score:4, Insightful)
Looks like I missed North Dakota [nd.gov], Hawaii [hawaii.gov], Arizona [azleg.gov], New Mexico [nmlegis.gov], Connecticut [ct.gov] and one from Minnesota [state.mn.us], that's just mentioned in their journal.
Re: (Score:2)
New Mexico,
Ah yes, good to enforce driving standards in NM. Such standards would include:
* Making sure you are in a convoy of 3 cars tailgaiting each other in the middle lane of an otherwise completely empty 3 lane road
* Driving round on the emergency spare for at least 6 months of the year
* Recommended (but not required) to use the temporary paper license plate until it fades completely (about a year in strong sunlight).
* A chipped windscreen
* One headlight
Re: (Score:2)
It's no great mystery.
Uber has been working with state legislatures to try to get all the bans and regulatory uncertainty to go away. The legislation reads like a list of things Uber already does, except for the required markings, which is something Uber surely wants but can't force on its drivers - "it's not our fault, it's the law now in Massachusetts, so pick - Uber or Lyft - you can't have both."
Crafted by consumers (Score:3)
"Innovation" (Score:2)
Uber backs the legislation, saying the bill would promote innovation and keep Uber drivers and passengers safe, said Meghan Joyce, Uber East Coast general manager, in a statement. Massachusetts residents have shown they support ride-hailing and Lyft will work with the state to pass legislation that maintains this transportation option, according to the company.
The main innovation of Uber and Lyft is that it bypassed taxi legislation. It introduced a supply/demand based pricing system (which presumably bypasses legislation on pricing). It does not limit the amount of drivers that can be on the road (bypassing the legislation requiring taxis to have medallions designed to limit the supply of drivers). I don't think the government would have considered these to be innovations until it worked better than the existing corrupt taxi system.
Re: (Score:3)
Now that they own the market they will lobby to lock out other disrupters. The miracle of the "Free" market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Taxis can pick people up off the street. Uber and limos can't.
One less job opportunity for felons... (Score:2)
Like to Know Required Taxi Insurance (Score:2)
How much coverage do cab drivers have to carry?
Re:Banning by regulation (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if it walks like a taxicab and talks like a taxicab, how is it not a taxicab? Because you signal it with a hep and cool app instead of making a phone call?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. That's the difference between car services and taxi cabs. Usually they are regulated differently.
Re:Banning by regulation (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, if it walks like a taxicab and talks like a taxicab, how is it not a taxicab? Because you signal it with a hep and cool app instead of making a phone call?
No $300,000 buy-in for a medallion in San Francisco or Chicago?
They actually show up when they're supposed to, rather than taking whoever flags them down instead on their way to you?
They don't blow you off and lie to the dispatcher about it?
Let's see... how else are Uber and Lyft different from taxis?
Modern cars instead of a 20 year old Ford Crown Victoria or Dodge Diplomat?
Lack of vomit smell/stale cigarette smoke smell?
Re: (Score:2)
They differ in terms of insurance and driver background checks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
as opposed to just throwing it all in and surrendering to Uber...
Yes, how DARE We "surrender" to the people providing the best service at the best price! THOSE BASTARDS!
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Banning by regulation (Score:5, Funny)
Well, if it walks like a taxicab and talks like a taxicab, how is it not a taxicab? Because you signal it with a hep and cool app instead of making a phone call?
It's not a taxicab because it actually shows up when you call one.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if it walks like a taxicab and talks like a taxicab, how is it not a taxicab? Because you signal it with a hep and cool app instead of making a phone call?
It's not a taxicab because it actually shows up when you call one.
I keep seeing people making this exact same quip without providing any evidence that there is any such guarantee. "I think I sound clever" and "They have an app" don't count.
Re: (Score:3)
I keep seeing people making this exact same quip without providing any evidence that there is any such guarantee. "I think I sound clever" and "They have an app" don't count.
I don't need a guarantee. Uber lets me know in real-time where the available Uber cars are located (along with real-time traffic information and the number of stars that a driver has). That's more than enough for me. If I don't see an available Uber car on the map near me before I order, then I know I can't rely on Uber to pick me up. It's as simple as that.
And if I make an order, and an Uber driver accepts that order, then that Uber car is immediately taken off the public map of Uber cars, and I am the onl
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think is happening to the Uber driver that he isn't showing up? They can't just pick people up off the street like a cab (which is probably the main difference between them and a taxi company). So what do you think they are doing in that little fantasy world inside your head? Stopping for a burger?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, to regulate them seemingly as if they are normal taxi cabs, forcing the same large costs upon them and so totally destroying their current form, which is what makes them so valuable - in other words, banning by regulation.
It is already banned by regulation and they are doing it anyway. Boston is just making new regulations recognizing them as some different sort of commercial for hire service. But they aren't. They are just a taxicab that chooses not to obey the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I bet if the government banned the sale of tomatoes, you would try to justify it. "They're a deadly nightshade!" you would say. "It should be illegal to sell them!"
No. There are plenty of regulations I don't agree with. However, I don't think that if there is an existing regulation that some companies should have to work within those regulations and other companies should get to do whatever they want.
Re: (Score:2)
When there is a bad regulation, get rid of it! Don't force people to obey it.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Massachusets blows other states away in actual census data. Education, economy, median income, poverty rates, teen pregnancy.
And it isn't dependent on federal dollars, unlike other places. The reason for that is that Massachusetts isn't trying to race to the bottom with the South.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or you can move to Texas like the best and brightest are currently doing.
Texas is a shithole dependant on Federal dollars. Sure, businesses love a place that lets them do whatever they want at the expense of the actual workers and populace. But it's a race to the bottom that even Texas can't win.
Get good weather
100 degrees in summer?
AND good government.
Wannabe theocrats?
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I think you are confusing your Tea Party talking points for facts. California isn't bankrupt. In fact the state budget outlook is very good.
Re: (Score:2)
NH is full, no vacancies. You should never come here. It's awful.
I was born there, if the weather didn't indeed suck, I'd move back in a second.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously. What are we talking, like an average annual snowfall of 60 inches? I know Vermont is 80 inches annually.
Maybe 80 sunny days per year. I'd lose my mind. Chicago's bad enough.
Re:Learn civics (Score:4, Informative)
Err, under the Massachusetts constitution, any citizen (governor or not) may file a proposed piece of legislation. If you're going to rail on about the government, maybe try a different state?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you so stupid? Must have gone to a public school and really, really paid attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism in the US ended in 1913 with the founding of the Federal Reserve. Central banks are a central pillar of non-capitalist economic systems. They create a monopoly on the very core of free exchange, minting and issuance of money. Prior to that, anyone could issue currency, and many did, mostly backed by gold. This worked well enough to see the US rise from agrarian backwater to industrial supe
Re: (Score:2)
I carry ~$500,000 worth of unrestricted personal liability coverage as part of my homeowner's policy, which runs me ~$500 a year total. (Amounts converted from SEK.)
Re: (Score:2)
The question is will your insurance company allow it to cover professionally as well. That may be a sticking point.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber's PR department sucks ass apparently. EVERYONE should know this, but no-one seems to.