Uber Sues New York City Over 'Cruising Cap' Rule (reuters.com) 65
Reuters: Uber Technologies sued New York City on Friday over a new rule limiting how much time its drivers can spend in their vehicles in Manhattan without passengers, saying the rule threatens to undermine the company's ride sharing model. In its complaint filed in a New York state court in Manhattan, Uber called the "cruising cap" rule adopted last month "arbitrary and capricious," and said it was based on a flawed economic model.
Because (Score:5, Insightful)
cutting down the number of people driving around for no reason is a bad thing some how?
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, everyone who is sensible knows that taxi regulations were actually made to limit competition against the taxi companies that lobbied for those regulations back 75 or so years ago....
Re:Because (Score:4, Insightful)
80 years ago, when NYC put in taxi restrictions, 1/2 of all cars were taxis (which meant most road use was taxis crusing around), and traffic was so bad that the average mph was less than 2. Not everything is nefarious. Ubers cause a shitton of traffic.
Re:Because (Score:5, Interesting)
As anyone who's been to NYC can attest, the reasons for [taxi] regulation are blatantly obvious and you'd have to be a complete idiot to not know why any sane government would propose it. But Uber's being Uber...
As anyone who's been to NYC can attest, the taxi regulations in that city were some of the dumbest fuckin' regulations in the history of government regulation.
You know how much a taxi medallion used to cost, pre-ride share? About 1.3 million dollars. Even today, it's in the six figures. Needless to say, no taxi driver on Earth could afford to pay that kind of money, so taxi drivers became a species of urban sharecropper, forced to turn over a big chunk of their hard-earned salary to the wealthy capitalist who owned the medallion.
The regulations had fuck-all to do with providing better or safer service (NYC cab drivers were not exactly known for being examplary drivers). They were designed to line the city coffers and make money for rich people.
Even today, ride-share drivers absolutely loathe the Taxi and Limousine Commission in NYC. The TLC is notorious for doing anything they can to "entrap" drivers into picking up the wrong customer in the wrong zone, and if they succeed in one of their entrapment operations, they impound your vehicle and demand $10,000 before they'll give it back.
I'm sure the management of Uber/Lyft are a bunch of SOBs who should be taken out back and shot, but the system they were replacing was far far worse. I've never met a single ride-share driver (at least, not in NYC) who wanted to go back to driving a yellow cab.
Re: (Score:2)
As a New Yorker, if I had mod points, I'd pour them into this post.
Re: Because (Score:2)
And what has prevented theft or forgery of those "medallions"?
Re: (Score:2)
It is a thing (Score:2)
"Medallion" is not a physical object
Actually, it is a physical object [wikipedia.org], in NYC at least.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Because (Score:2)
Re:Because (Score:4, Interesting)
Says someone who does not understand how the medallion system saved New York City.
In the 1930's there weere more then 30k taxis in the city, the streets were so clogged that emergency vehicles could not get through at times.
The medallion system was set in place to limit the number of cars for hire to around 16k.
Uber flouted those rules and now is going to have to live under a similar system for the same reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Says someone who does not understand how the medallion system saved New York City. In the 1930's there weere more then 30k taxis in the city, the streets were so clogged that emergency vehicles could not get through at times.
Did the medallion system actually require an entry barrier of hundreds of thousands of dollars? Or would a substantially less dollar amount coupled with a limited number of medallions accomplished the same thing?
Re: (Score:2)
In that case the licenses would be re-sold in the private market for heaps more. Even if you made it a lottery it would likely happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if the medallions can only be used by the driver to which they were sold or issued and are non-transferable.
London seems to have solved (or at least mitigated) the problems with taxi medallions by making them unlimited, but difficult to get ("the knowledge"). This system doesn't have as much opportunity for grift as the system in NYC and other cities, hence it's non-adoption.
How the fuck is that relevenat (Score:2)
Even if that is true (which I doubt, you probably met a lot of Uber drivers who never drove cabs and guess at what it's like), it's totally irrelevant. The point is that Uber drivers are hurting the community. Not that they are unhappy.
Re: (Score:1)
You know how much a taxi medallion used to cost, pre-ride share?
Constraining the number of taxis is a sensible measure. Allow resale and leasing of permits is not.
Re: (Score:3)
Their position is literally "this is not good for our business model!" It's even in the article.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I'd be upset if my local 4 lane road had 2 lanes closed due to being lined with hot dog stands. And if they local restaurants couldnt keep up because the hot dog stands didnt have to have inspections or the same taxes. And it took me twice as long to get to work. I mean, I like hot dogs. but I like getting to work and I like the local restaurant. There would definitely be a cost to me.
It sounds like people are saying that's what the cost of Uber is. That they are eating up local resources that every
Re: (Score:1)
But... (Score:2)
I thought they liked disruption?
Shortest article ever... (Score:1)
Literally 3 sentences. Could have just put the whole thing in the summary and tricked people into actually reading TFA.
"Ridesharing" (Score:4, Insightful)
Uber Technologies sued New York City on Friday over a new rule limiting how much time its drivers can spend in their vehicles in Manhattan without passengers, saying the rule threatens to undermine the company's ride sharing model.
If they were really "ridesharing" they wouldn't be driving around without passengers at all except slightly out of the way of their intended route to pick up/drop off. Cruising around without passengers waiting for a fare sounds a lot more like what something called a "taxi" does.
Re: Very, very wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is why they should be considered employees and paid hourly wages.
Re:Very, very wrong (Score:4, Informative)
You miss the point...
Ride SHARING is not using your car solely to transport others in exchange for payment as your job/primary source of income; that IS a taxi service. If you happen to be out and about or have some SPARE time and want to make a buck then you are SHARING your "ride"; otherwise see my first sentence.
Uber, Lyft et. al., are essentially abusing the "ride sharing" model to avoid labor laws and regulations.
Re: Very, very wrong (Score:2)
If they were really "ridesharing" they wouldn't be driving around without passengers at all except slightly out of the way You have NO UNDERSTANDING of how people who work for Uber make money.
And you're completely missing the point. Ridesharing is very similar to car pooling. You're already going from point A to B and have extra seats, so you find someone who needs to take a similar trip at the same time. Driving around picking people up and taking them to their destination isn't ride sharing, it's a taxi service.
Re: (Score:2)
pretty sure 'law' applies to everyone.
Re: OK, fine. Rule is withdrawn. (Score:2)
You mean - no cars on Manhattan? Only government vehicles and puublic transportation?
Want to move something - put in an application 2 years before or use a hand cart.
Re: (Score:3)
Yup. I live in bumblefuck, NY (compared to NYC) and can get an Uber in less than 5 minutes to go anywhere at about $3/mile.
I tried to go from a hotel in a poor Queens neighborhood to Jamaica LIRR Station, 15 minute wait for a $25 ride for less than 2 miles. Took the shitty bus instead crammed in like a sardine with farebeaters jumping in the back door the whole trip. Supply and demand is a real thing, stop capping supply damn it (I'm surprised Uber corporate isn't loving the artificially higher fares, th
easy (Score:3, Insightful)
easy... a driver isn't 'working' for a rideshare company until someone gets in the car. until then they're just a private citizen driving around looking at an app on their phone.
go on, ban that.
Re:easy (Score:5, Interesting)
easy... a driver isn't 'working' for a rideshare company until someone gets in the car. until then they're just a private citizen driving around looking at an app on their phone.
New law: Anyone logged into a ridesharing (or any gig economy) app for the purposes of finding work through that app is considered to be "working" for that company while logged in. Boom, done.
For bonus points, count the logged in time as "working hours" and apply that towards overtime, minimum wage, etc.
Re: easy (Score:2)
Or ban private vehicles without a permit.
Re: (Score:2)
You click the "login and accept" button.
Done.
New law: Using loopholes ... (Score:1)
... equals breaking the law you thought you circumvented, but we double the punishment.
Ditto for any case of "Technically ..." or other circumventions of the intentions of laws. Including, especially, of this law.
I call it the loophole final solution.
Also: Stop being such criminal sleazebags, capitalists! You're making having a business look like the definition of evil!
Re: (Score:2)
You just need to have the app installed or notifications turned on. Boom. Done.
Re: (Score:2)
go on, ban that.
The city of Salem, OR bans "cruising" on at least one of the main roads in town.
Re: (Score:2)
People have tried being "cute" with the law since the invention of the law. The whole "ah well technically I'm not..." thing is not new, doesn't fly with judges and lawmakers know well enough how to get past that. Yes they are more than capable of banking that behavior. Unfortunately it probably will catch a few legitimate things too, but you know that's why we can't have nice things. Cities don't function when they're completely clogged with cars, and they need to function.
Re: easy (Score:2)
Have you ever been the a large city? They were clogged with aces long before ride-sharing.
Ride-sharing just allows more people to use fewer cars. But hat must be bad, right? âCos now taxis and their whole licensing monopoly scam isnâ(TM)t getting a cut.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in London, so yes I have been to a large city. More taxis (it's not ride sharing, stop blindly parroting uber's marketing) does not magically mean fewer cars.
Re: easy (Score:2)
Yeah, so London has been congest forever. The created the congestion charge say before ride-sharing was even invented. And London has one of the best public transport systems in the world. That are many places, especially in the US, that donâ(TM)t have anything like the train/bus connectivity that London has, and yet people still need to get around. Ride-sharing companies are satisfying a public need that regulated taxi-programs have failed (due mostly to corruption and ineptitude) to fulfill.
No right to a business model. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's sad that it has to be stated but nobody has to the right to have their business model survive. Sometimes governments have to break particular business models because they cause a tragedy of the commons. Uber very much externalizes it's costs upon the public for the use of roads, so if a government determines that your business model is overtaxing a shared system then they have not only the right but the duty (to it's citizens) to put a stop to this undue societal burden.
It's not the commons (Score:3, Interesting)
It's sad that it has to be stated but nobody has to the right to have their business model survive. Sometimes governments have to break particular business models because they cause a tragedy of the commons. Uber very much externalizes it's costs upon the public for the use of roads, so if a government determines that your business model is overtaxing a shared system then they have not only the right but the duty (to it's citizens) to put a stop to this undue societal burden.
Roads aren't the commons; they're maintained with funds raised by user fees. Drivers pay gas tax when they fill up. Riders pay NY's special ridesharing fee on each ride. The company and driver are subject to income tax. More drivers and more rides increase usage of the road, but also result in more revenue raised for road maintenance.
Sure, nobody as the "right" to a business model, but the public is harmed by banning it. The company, the driver, and the rider benefit when the service is used. If the service
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. NY has been here before and knows how is ends. It will end when the roads are completely jammed. The free market is extremely bad at dealing with limited resources with externalised costs. NYC needs roads to function. Utility, emergency and delivery vehicles are needed for the city to function as a city. Even if you never use a car, you still need the roads to live there.
Uber won't stop until they have filed all the roads with cars and it's complete gridlock massively harming the economy of the city bec
Re: (Score:2)
The subway can't compete in terms of construction cost with roads, it never does.
What it does have is convenience.
Ubutt wants SLAVES (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's always an option to start throwing bricks with FU written on them (umlauts are optional) into windshields of newish and blackish looking cars.
Preferably parked.
It's not like bricks or hoodies are expensive or anything. And it would be hella disruptive!
And everyone loves them disruptions...
Next up: How much cement does it take to plug the sewer of a building if you flush it down the toilet of an Airbnb?
Giant loophole and this is easily avoided (Score:3)
Since the government can't limit regular drivers driving around, Lyft/Uber drivers can mark themselves as offline/unavailable, at which point they are no longer Lyft/Uber drivers cruising around.
Further, this is essentially unenforceable as it would mean that the City government would need to track all of the drivers and their busy/idle statuses before determining if the offense has been committed. What if a driver gets stuck in traffic due to an accident blocking a tunnel?
This law (whatever its intentions are) seems to be doomed to complete failure.
Re: (Score:2)
Since the government can't limit regular drivers driving around, Lyft/Uber drivers can mark themselves as offline/unavailable, at which point they are no longer Lyft/Uber drivers cruising around.
Further, this is essentially unenforceable as it would mean that the City government would need to track all of the drivers and their busy/idle statuses before determining if the offense has been committed. What if a driver gets stuck in traffic due to an accident blocking a tunnel?
This law (whatever its intentions are) seems to be doomed to complete failure.
But they can tax you for the time you spend on the roads. NYC already added "congestion pricing" for driving into the city.
What we need, is a loophole law! (Score:1)
As I said above: There should be a law, saying that any loophole, technicality, or otherwise circumventing the intention of the law, should equal breaking said law. With twice the punishment. Once for breaking the law, and once for being such a fucking sleazebag.
Re: (Score:2)
If the law broke every time someone was a smart arse, then it would never have worked. There is about 6000 year history of written law now, so I think people have figured out how to deal with people being people to some extent.
ridesharing should not care about cruising cap (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is Uber suing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uber is just a technology platform. It isn't the entity that should sue over this.
The drivers are individual contractors who are the people who should be suing.
Unless ..... the drivers are really employees.
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing to do with employees (Score:3)
If the rule change damages their business (lost revenue), the company is an injured party, and has standing to sue.
Contractor Taxis are bad for cities (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.citylab.com/transp... [citylab.com]
So now that we've dispersed the myth of "rideshare", traffic, the environment, let's talk about economic benefits.. oh, the drivers earn sub-minimum wages when all taxes and expenses are included.?1?...
https://www.chicagotribune.com... [chicagotribune.com]
So, really, the only money being made is by the corporate owners profiteering off the workers who are essentially living off the equity of their vehicles... got it. late stage capitalism strikes again....
NYC is Showing Its Age (Score:2)
This is an OLD city built on OLD ideology. They can't just shit all over Silicon Valley (not to mention Amazon) and expect to see continued development. There is a reason why more people are leaving NYC than any other city in the US. [yahoo.com]
Relative to entering, or in total? (Score:1)
Also, I presume, in your context, "OLD"==SANE.
Given you contasting it with with world's biggest cesspool of degenerated psychopaths and drugged-up crooks.
Speaking of flawed economic models... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Larger cities like New York or London may need to find ways to properly price the use of very limited and congested public roads.
But many cities are not nearly as congested or densely built up. For instance, here in the Cleveland area, best I can see (built for 2-3 million but only about 300k left in the city, another million in the reasonably close-in suburbs), Ubert/Lyft fill a huge need that taxis and what little is left of our public transportation system cannot, and they do so without causing any issu