PPA Impounds UberX Vehicles in Undercover Sting Operation

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/10/26/uber-philadelphia-uberx-ppa-sting-impounds/

by themartorana • 12 years ago

115 126 12 years ago

phillymag.com

tedunangst8• 12 years ago

Will Uber be reimbursing the drivers for expenses since they apparently told the drivers it was legal?

jacquesm2• 12 years ago

Is that a rhetorical question?

sillysaurus32• 12 years ago

I had the same question, for what it's worth. Why make someone feel dumb for asking?

I wonder if HN would benefit from a guideline like, "If someone asks a question whose answer seems obvious, try to answer it in a straightforward way. For example, 'You really don't know what 2+2 is?' can be shortened to '2+2 is 4.'"

There are interesting followup questions on this topic, too. If Uber won't reimburse them, why not? On the other hand, would it even be legal for Uber to reimburse them, since Uber is doing so with the intent of "transferring" the penalty of the law from the driver to Uber? One reason to have laws is so that their penalties act as a deterrent. If Uber is preventing the deterrent from having an effect, then perhaps the legal system might take a dim view of this. Whether that'd be punishable, I have no idea; the point is simply that there are many interesting questions that can be derived from the starting point of "Will Uber be reimbursing the drivers?"

tedunangst8• 12 years ago

Not entirely. I certainly expected the answer to be "no", but I was surprised.

trevyn• 12 years ago

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/10/26/uber-calls-ppa-uber...

"We fully stand behind our partners and will cover all costs associated with this deplorable charade."

ripb6• 12 years ago

Strong statement and fair play to them for standing behind their operators.

tedunangst8• 12 years ago

Thanks.

"Deplorable charade." Are they referring to their own actions? I mean "charade (n.) something that is done in order to pretend something is true when it is not really true." The PPA regulations are true, are they not? It's the legality of driving an UberX which is the charade, no?

swartkrans3• 12 years ago

If you pay someone to commit a crime, doesn't that make you criminally liable as well? How are they going to reimburse someone for being caught breaking the law? That seems less than sane.

morganvachon6• 12 years ago

That was the first thing that came to my mind too. The more I read about Uber, the more I dislike them. And it's really just that company I don't like; I think the idea of taxi alternatives like Uber and Lyft is a good one, but Uber has shown several times that they don't give a shit about their drivers, their riders, or the law. I see other companies like Lyft, who seem to be playing by the rules and treating their drivers and riders with respect, as the future of this industry.

ripb6• 12 years ago

What is involved in becoming a cab driver in Philly? Is it medallion costs, vehicle costs (buying or renting), tests, etc.?

Another example of backlash to Uber/Hailo etc. has been the London black taxis. Their operators study for years for very difficult tests in order to be licensed operators, and pay significant costs in doing so, and as such I can understand why they would be irritated by competition coming in without these conditions, but if these conditions don't exist then it's market protectionism at a cost to the consumer.

DanBC2• 12 years ago

London black cabs can use a meter and don't need pre-booking. London private hire cabs must be pre-booked and they must arrange a price before travelling - they can't use a meter.

Uber is free to conform to either of those modes but choses not to.

kemiller• 12 years ago

I can certainly understand why people who have invested a ton into the current system are upset, but that just argues for a more orderly transition. The Knowledge is pretty well obsolete in the age of GPS. It'd be a sad thing to lose, though.

logn• 12 years ago

I can see why London operators would be upset. They're the most consistently professional and knowledgeable service force I've ever encountered. And London traffic I think is greatly improved by the road being taken up almost exclusively with taxis and buses, as they're all driving in optimal and intelligent ways.

ripb6• 12 years ago

Indeed, internationally London taxi drivers far outrank their competitors.

The only issue, I suppose, is that their base of knowledge - the studying they do, the tests they pass to be licensed, etc. - is already irrelevant in a time of modern GPS and Sat Nav, and will become increasingly so as we begin to move to an era of self-driving vehicles.

colinbartlett• 12 years ago

It seems like Uber does this just for the headlines. They know they need to have laws changed in order to break past government-sanctioned taxi monopolies. And they know they're going to get in trouble for breaking the current laws.

The headlines always end up as The Government sticking it to The Working Man, and Uber eats that stuff up.

themartorana• 12 years ago

Well, here, the PPA is deplored almost absolutely, for constant abuse of power. Over the weekend, an insurance company went bankrupt leaving about 1/3 of Philadelphia's taxi fleet without insurance. The PPA decide to allow taxis to continue to roll despite their insurance company being bankrupt[0] and then the next day did this to an UberX driver over insurance woes.

This is why it's a big deal here in Philly. The corruption of the PPA knows no bounds.

[0] http://mobile.philly.com/business/?wss=/philly/business/tran...

tedunangst8• 12 years ago

I think I'm the one person who likes the PPA (though I had no idea they regulated taxis before today). I don't usually park in the street, but when I do there's almost always a spot free because people actually move their cars when time is up. People hate getting caught, then transfer that hate to the PPA even though they should know the odds of slipping by are slim.

snom390• 12 years ago

I don't know anything about the PPA, but that's not really a good comparison. The taxis that were without insurance were presumably working around the clock to get it sorted out, and had some communication with the PPA to let them know about the problem.

Uber on the other hand knew that what they were doing was illegal from the start, had been warned about it and had every opportunity to delay the launch of the service until the legal stuff was sorted out.

arthurcolle• 12 years ago

What insurance company went bankrupt?

baddox6• 12 years ago

I wouldn't say they do it just for the headlines. It's clearly also in their interest to offer service in major cities, and Philadelphia is one of them.

That said, I'm sure they're also aware of the possibility of good press from incidents like this. I don't have a problem with that.

mcovey• 12 years ago

I think they have to break the laws in order to have standing to challenge them.

azinman2• 12 years ago

Good for the PPA. Regardless of the laws being stuck in time or not, uber has repeatedly defied laws especially in California where they specifically are told your ride share is illegal shut it down, and they don't. Sad for the drivers but they themselves should also be more aware of the laws that apply. Bad on uber for not even explaining the possibility which of course they know about.

GigabyteCoin4• 12 years ago

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. -Thomas Jefferson

This has never been more true when it comes to ride sharing companies.

Monopolies benefit next to nobody, while Uber benefits a lot of people.

waterlesscloud3• 12 years ago

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. -Thomas Jefferson This has never been more true when it comes to ride sharing companies."

Seriously? Never been more true?

Prohibiting unlicensed rides-for-hire (it's not 'ride sharing') is more unjust than say...Jim Crow laws?

tedunangst8• 12 years ago

Today I learned that I am obligated to sign up as an UberX driver. I don't really need the money and I'd rather do other things in my spare time, but if TJ says I've got to, then I've got to.

sgustard• 12 years ago

Not a real Jefferson quote.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/spurious-quotations

shin_lao• 12 years ago

On one hand the taxi monopoly is certainly something which has to be reconsidered, on the other hand I'm not sure UberX screening and insurance is sufficient.

adampassword• 12 years ago

Agree

smsm428• 12 years ago

Are you sure taxi screening and insurance is sufficient? When was the last time you checked how taxi drivers are screened?

wpietri6• 12 years ago

One of the things I like about taxi drivers is that they are accountable. If I see one behaving badly, I call up the city taxi commission and let 'em know. If the commission decides they shouldn't be driving a taxi, they will no longer be driving a taxi at all in this town. Good luck doing that with some rando driving for Uber, though.

For similar reasons, I'm also pretty sure the insurance situation is solid. In direct contrast to Uber, where they actively disclaim any responsibility for their cars and drivers.

There are a lot of problems with the taxi industry. It's in deep need of reform. But in my view, Uber's cure is worse than the disease.

dpweb2• 12 years ago

Uber providing the insurance would give them clear stats you could compare accidents, robberies, etc.. Uber vs taxis. Suspect Uber is going to compare favorably if we get to see the data. Then what is the need for current state regulation?

Govts are going to have to deal - there is huge demand for ride-sharing. Bash Uber if you want - they are right this time. Just declaring it illegal is the wrong approach - Govt and ride services need to be in negotiations to safely give people what they want for taxi services.

akerl_8• 12 years ago

The government didn't just wake up this morning and declare Uber illegal. Their ridesharing service was illegal and they set up shop anyways. There are massive downsides to the current monopolistic state of taxis in areas like Philly, and I believe the laws need to be changed to accommodate the new state of transportation. But Uber ought to be working to change the law, not breaking it in the hopes that the government eventually just gives up.

What they're doing puts drivers in the position mentioned in the article: Uber has told them they're operating legally when they are not. Whether or not the law is valid doesn't change the fact that Uber knowingly put the drivers in this position.

dpweb2• 12 years ago

A driver shouldn't be checking with Uber for their legality to operate, they need to check their local laws. As an independent contractor, you run your own business. If I set up an unregulated food cart they're going to shut me down, without regard to who my suppliers or partners are.

Could make the case Uber should be blacking out the app in illegal areas, they can modify the app down to very specific areas - try Ohare airport for instance.. Not shocked whats happening in Philly. They are in an uphill battle with governments for sure, not shocked their aggressiveness. But judge them on if they pay the driver fines - that would be an important gesture on their part.

ripb6• 12 years ago

But Uber ought to be working to change the law, not breaking it in the hopes that the government eventually just gives up.

Very good point and well made.

Although, could one say this model has worked with regards to the legalisation of marijuana in Colorado and elsewhere? I.e. it's illegal, but we're going to do it anyway, so we may as well legalise it and regulate it?

baddox6• 12 years ago

But Uber ought to be working to change the law, not breaking it in the hopes that the government eventually just gives up.

You're missing the very real possibility that deliberately disobeying the laws is the most effective way to get the laws changed.

hueving2• 12 years ago

But Uber ought to be working to change the law, not breaking it in the hopes that the government eventually just gives up.

Abiding by the law is not how any significant social movement has worked - ever.

phillmv• 12 years ago

There is huge demand for cheap ad-hoc transit.

The problem then is changing the regulatory framework - reduce barriers to entry and the need for Uber per se vanishes. That said, industrial-scale corporate civil disobedience is extremely unlikely to be the most socially-optimal way to achieve this.

mullingitover• 12 years ago

That said, industrial-scale corporate civil disobedience is extremely unlikely to be the most socially-optimal way to achieve this.

Might not be the most optimal way, but on the other hand, it might be the only way to change things. The traditional approach would be to go to regulators, hat in hand, and say "Please sir, can I disrupt the system?," and get the answer, "No, of course not. Now sod off." By demonstrating a working, superior system to consumers, you now have regulators in the position not of giving permission, but of taking away a preferred option.

imroot• 12 years ago

From a licensing point of view, Philadelphia is interesting. The PPA manages the licensing of Taxi and Limo services in Philadelphia, but, outside of the county, it's all the PA Department of Transportation. Pennsylvania constables can work in any area of Pennsylvania once certified, but not in Philadelphia.

Am I surprised by this? Not in the least. It's possible that Uber got an ok by PennDOT and thought that it would be good throughout the state...or, this might be the PPA throwing their weight behind their revenue protection. Regardless by which one it is, I would hope that Uber will protect the drivers who took their advice (then again, independent contractors and the like) and drove.

*edit: grammar/spelling.

malandrew3• 12 years ago

I'm really starting to think that we generally need some sort of organization at city, county, state and county level whose sole purpose of existing is to identify governmental organizations/agencies to which Kevin Kelly's "Shirky Principle" apply

    “Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which 
    they are the solution.” — Clay Shirky

http://kk.org/thetechnium/2010/04/the-shirky-prin/

This isn't about agencies regulating transportation and ridesharing, but about many governmental agencies set up during the 19th and 20th century. There are a lot of useful organizations/agencies, but just as many if not more which have become zombies feeding off society to keep receiving paychecks while burdening us with unnecessary bureaucracy.

Such an agency would be the governmental equivalent of the consultants that come in and identify the dead weight in a company, which need to be let go for the company to stay relevant.

PS I suspect someone will point out the irony in creating organizations/agencies, whose sole purpose is identifying unnecessary agencies and proposing how to wind them down and eliminate them altogether, but I can't see how such an agency could ever reach the point where it would prefer the problem to which it is the solution. Furthermore, if that were the only agency left preserving itself, I could live with that.

tedunangst8• 12 years ago

I don't think all the blame belongs with the agencies. Certainly some, or most. But the legislative branch also tends to force agencies to regulate things they'd rather ignore. See also: the military declining orders for new tanks, but being forced to accept them because they're made in an important senator's state.

quanticle• 12 years ago

The Government Accountability Office (for the federal government, at least) does exactly what you describe. Too bad GAO studies are, at best, used as political footballs to make sitting politicians look bad at election time and at worst, are ignored completely.

tedunangst8• 12 years ago

Philadelphia is the only "first class" city in PA, which has a few regulatory consequences.

LancerSykera• 12 years ago

Another being that it's the only place in the state where you need a license to openly carry a firearm.

coolgeek• 12 years ago

It's even more "interesting" than that...

"Originally, the Authority's Board of Directors was controlled by city officials, but the legislature, acting at the initiative of Representative John Perzel,[4] has shifted control to state officials, including the Governor and officers of the legislature."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Parking_Authority

AlexMuir2• 12 years ago

Just so I'm clear is the current narrative that Uber, a multi-billion dollar private enterprise seeking to maximize its returns to a handful of shareholders, is single-handedly battling on our behalf against every democratically elected local authority, all of whom (despite regulating taxis through the advent of the engine, the radio, the telephone, the mobile phone and the internet) are running a corrupt, outdated licensing regime at the behest of the taxi industry and/or to preserve their own jobs. Is that the story here?

Or is the story that Uber wants to lock up the taxi market and build a two tier business: 0.1% of their operation earning multi-million dollar payouts, and the remaining 99.9% earning $COMMODITIZED_RATE [0] per hour driving passengers around with zero opportunity to manage drivers, open their own taxi firm, or form a collective.

The honest truth is I don't actually know. The times I've used Uber I've loved it, but I'm not sure, overall, how I feel about well-funded startups using VC money to basically buy their way around local regulation.

[0] We're seeing artificially low fares and high wages at the moment in this landgrab. Just look at eBay with fees that come to a good 10% of sales prices to see what a few more rounds of investment and a flotation will do.

forrestthewoods• 12 years ago

I can safely say that the situation is complicated enough that neither you described is true.

Taxi regulation is corrupt and broken. I can't find a link but Seattle basically hasn't issued any new taxi medallions in 20 years. Suffice to say the area has grown significantly in that time.

Uber's business strategy is also derived from those medallions. I think they could offer a better service that is more efficient and higher margins if the drivers were Uber employees. Right now each drivers needs to be profitable by themselves. There's no room for loss leaders or any other kind of driver distribution strategy.

That's just two points. There are dozens more that could be made I'm sure.

AlexMuir2• 12 years ago

I agree absolutely. I've no experience of medallion systems but they seem clearly ridiculous. I do see the argument for quota systems that enable limit licence numbers to keep wages at a level where drivers are incentivised to maintain their cars and work a 40-hour week.

I suppose my complaint is that every dispute seems to be unquestioningly painted as Good (Uber) vs Evil (Council, State, Government, Police).

chimeracoder2• 12 years ago

I can't find a link but Seattle basically hasn't issued any new taxi medallions in 20 years. Suffice to say the area has grown significantly in that time.

Medallions are largely a red herring. Municipalities vary, and I can't speak to Seattle, but for example, New York also is in a similar situation (the number of medallions has not increased commensurately with the increase in population since 1970).

However, you do not need to own a medallion in order to drive a car, just as you do not need to own storefront real estate in order to operate a retail business. You can rent medallions, and many (most?) drivers do this[1].

In addition, you don't need to either rent or own a medallion in order to drive a cab - you just can't take street hails. (These cabs are regulated as well, but differently from yellow[0] medallion cabs)

The medallions are a very common talking point, and it always irritates me because it's such a misleading statement. Medallions are not the barrier to entry for individuals who want to start driving professionally.

[0] Or green medallion cabs, which were introduced last year.

[1] They also often aren't driving their own cars, which is something that Uber/Lyft/etc. ignore - if you don't already have a car to drive (or in Uber's case, the right kind of car), you're out of luck.

rayiner2• 12 years ago

Taxi regulation is corrupt and broken.

Maybe, but I think taxi regulation is harder than it seems at first blush. My experience with Uber, in D.C., has been abysmal. The drivers just don't know what they're doing or where they're going. I'll punch in my location, the app will tell me a driver will pick me up in 4 minutes, and 15 minutes later after circling the block, I might be on my way. Yeah yeah, reputation economy or whatever, but it doesn't actually work. The Uber driver I get is whichever one accepts my hail. When the ETA immediately jumps 5 minutes longer after my hail is accepted, from what the app estimated, what am I supposed to do, cancel and find a better one and waste more time? After all, if I weren't in a hurry, I wouldn't be calling a cab!

The existing regulatory infrastructure isn't perfect, but I'm very skeptical of the ability of technology to ensure quality and safety in the taxi industry. The technology doesn't offer a good replacement for an old fashioned line of sight hail, and those drivers although rude at least know where the hell they're going.

smokeyj• 12 years ago

Is that the story here?

As opposed to your mental narrative where the taxi industry represents democracy. Because the public collectively decided they can't handle the freedom of choosing their transportation. Why thank you wise regulators, for my brain is too little to understand the dangers of choice.

forgotpasswd3x• 12 years ago

As opposed to your mental narrative where the taxi industry represents democracy.

That's not what he said.

zavi• 12 years ago

According to Uber website their service is available in Philadelphia.

https://www.uber.com/en-US/cities/philadelphia

revelation• 12 years ago

Killing someone with your car is cheaper than a $1000 fine and you get to keep your car, too.

But god beware you transport people to their destination and take money for it.

habosa4• 12 years ago

I just moved from Philadelphia (lived there for 4 years and nearby for my entire life). I always wanted UberX in the city from a convenience perspective, but I do feel bad for the Philly cab drivers here.

In my 4 years there I talked to probably 100+ cab drivers, most of the time talking about their job. I found ~95% of them to be hard-working and nice, definitely not 'corrupt' people or part of some larger scheme that needed to be disrupted. They also have it tough in a lot of ways. First of all, the medallions are very expensive and many go into debt getting them. Second of all, I've been told (can't confirm) by the cab drivers that they are forced to accept credit cards but then get hit with ~10% fees on those transactions by the processor. My only complaint with Philly cabs is that the dispatchers were generally rude and unhelpful if you were in a strange location.

So for the consumer it is great to have UberX, but I do feel bad for those cab drivers who invested in a legal system and are just trying to make a living. I guess this is just how markets work, but it seems like Uber is setting a dangerous precedent by using VC money to subvert local legislation at every turn. Sure they may be vindicated in the end, but it doesn't strike me as fair play.

DanBC2• 12 years ago

Second of all, I've been told (can't confirm) by the cab drivers that they are forced to accept credit cards but then get hit with ~10% fees on those transactions by the processor. My only complaint with Philly cabs is that the dispatchers were generally rude and unhelpful if you were in a strange location.

There are newsreports about drivers having to accept credit cards.

Here's an unpleasant one about two drivers losing their jobs: http://www.phillymag.com/news/2013/05/30/philadelphia-parkin...

In case you’re unaware, Philly cab drivers despise credit card payment, because they have to pay a service charge–like any business that accepts credit cards–and because they don’t get their money immediately

habosa4• 12 years ago

Thanks for the links. My sentence was poorly written, I mean't I couldn't confirm the 10% fees. I did know that cc acceptance is mandatory.

jostmey• 12 years ago

It sounds to me like the Philly cab drivers would be better of as Uber drivers. You said they go into debt to pay for the medallions. Where does that money go? Do these fees collected by the city provide a service for the community or does it disappear into a corrupt government?

If you want to help the drivers don't support a system that forces them into debt. Support an alternative.

habosa4• 12 years ago

I totally agree, however in the meantime they invested in the medallion and Uber is trying to make it worth nothing.

It would be nice if we could find a way to somehow compensate the drivers for that investment instead of saying "you're dumb and should not have bought into that system, now your medallion is worthless".

hueving2• 12 years ago

You just made a perfect argument for using Uber/Lyft. As far as I understand it. Neither of them requires their drivers to go into thousands of dollars of debt to become part of the system.

habosa4• 12 years ago

I totally agree, I am just saying that I feel bad for the drivers who already bought into that system and will lose rides to new drivers who didn't have to. It would be nice if the cities could work out something with Uber and Lyft to help the old taxi drivers get something out of their large investment.

retrogradeorbit• 12 years ago

It will be interesting seeing Uber like services go up against the Australian Taxi cartel. I would expect similar antics...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7WdSFS3SFI

PhasmaFelis• 12 years ago

Some people want to paint Uber as the heroes. Others want to put the the regulators and the taxi monopolies in that seat. I'm really getting the impression that both of them are assholes.

Uber may (sometimes) provide better service, but they certainly haven't shown any inclination towards responsibility. E.g., as we see here, when a municipality promises to impound Uber vehicles, Uber happily lies to their drivers that everything is sorted out, because manufacturing involuntary martyrs does a much better job of making Uber look victimized than proceeding through normal channels would.

PPA Impounds UberX Vehicles in Undercover Sting Operation

Related Stories