Uber to Portland: We’re Here. Deal with It

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/uber-to-portland-were-here-deal-with-it

by santaclaus • 12 years ago

30 59 12 years ago

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

God save us.

pbreit2• 12 years ago

Could someone please explain to me why ride sharing is illegal and why regulation is necessary? I'm prepared to understand but so far have not heard such a thing articulated.

faitswulff• 12 years ago

Oregon Taxi complained in July when Uber started doing business in Eugene. City lawyers concluded last month that Uber, although not a traditional taxi service, is required to obtain a license under the city's "public passenger vehicle" regulations.
A city press release issued Thursday said staff members told the company on Sept. 16 that it must get a license. Uber has yet to apply.

http://www.katu.com/news/local/Eugene-says-Uber-ride-sharing...

stonogo• 12 years ago

Describing Uber as "ride sharing" is fantastically disingenuous. Have you ever lived in a place that did not have taxi regulations? Life gets fairly hellish that way. Drivers will pick you up and then pick other people up on the way to your destination... often until the van is full. There's no recourse for getting overcharged, assaulted, kicked out in the wrong place because a more profitable fare turned up, being totally SOL because the guy got a flat tire and does not have a support structure in place... this list goes on, and if you think it won't happen in America, good luck in your future endeavors.

NhanH• 12 years ago

The question might sounds sarcastic,but it's not meant to be: so why haven't any of those instances happen to Uber's user? Does it mean that the regulation already applies to Uber (to a certain extend). Or is there any other reason?

cloakandswagger• 12 years ago

The familiar statist's mantra: That red tape is preventing all hell from breaking loose!

I suppose if it weren't for government regulations we'd still be living in caves and dying at age 30.

lvh• 12 years ago

Those things do happen in America, and have happened to me in America, in a "regulated" taxicab. The process for complaining takes forever, and is basically designed to get you to quit.

pbreit2• 12 years ago

I think your entire argument breaks down because the Uber/Lyft experience is clearly substantially better than the offering you would apparently prefer (the current taxi scheme?).

ChuckFrank9• 12 years ago

These PEER-TO-PEER TAXI SERVICES (as opposed to genuine ridesharing services) are illegal because privately insured vehicles cannot be used for commercial purposes. The insurance becomes invalidated and so neither the driver nor the passenger are covered. Commercial use is a distinct classification, and Lyft and Uber technically fit under that classification.

Lyft and Uber try to get around this by describing passenger payments for these commercially offered rides as 'donations.' However drivers of these services are not being paid for their volunteer work, they are working for these services. They are working for the money, and in this way it's not a donation.

Finally ridesharing is a specific gov't defined catagory. Only when the costs are ridesharing costs ($0.565/mile or less) can they be viewed as non-commercial.

Ridesharing is defined by the US Government (MAP-21 bill) as offering the use of seats in privately owned vehicles to other passengers on a cost-reimbursement basis only. H.R. 4348 (112th): MAP-21

So any fee the exceeds costs-reimbursement is income, and these drivers are working, and they are doing so commercially. So they are commercial drivers, getting paid to drive people around. Ergo they are taxis, and they are required by law to be regulated like taxis.

And why legislate taxis? Because of the commercial abuse of the common carrier, in this case the roads. All commercial use of common carriers - roads, canals, highways, etc - they are all regulated to prevent abuse.

What does this abuse look like? Too many users.

What does Uber and Lyft allow? More users of the common carrier.

This is not a new battle, truckers, couriers, ship companies, all fight this - what's new is the social distribution that new technology has empowered.

For more discussion see -- Hill Brothers Chemical Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2004) DJDAR 13414

http://www.bledsoelaw.com/articles/treppa_michigan_trucking....

In part, from Quora discussion.

http://www.quora.com/Ride-Sharing/How-are-Lyft-and-Sidecar-l...

fru2013• 12 years ago

The insurance becomes invalidated and so neither the driver nor the passenger are covered.

It seems like this is the true crux of the problem. Would the costs of commercial auto insurance be prohibitively expensive?

Perhaps Uber could get into the business of cheap commercial auto insurance as well...

rahimnathwani6• 12 years ago

These PEER-TO-PEER TAXI SERVICES (as opposed to genuine ridesharing services) are illegal because privately insured vehicles cannot be used for commercial purposes.

The insurance thing is a red herring. Even if Uber were to demonstrate that the commercial insurance they purchase is in effect at all times when the vehicle is being used for commercial purposes, Uber drivers still wouldn't enjoy the same rights and privileges as taxi drivers do.

Lyft and Uber try to get around this by describing passenger payments for these commercially offered rides as 'donations.'

I don't think Uber describes passenger payments as donations. Where did you read/hear this?

And why legislate taxis? Because of the commercial abuse of the common carrier, in this case the roads. What does this abuse look like? Too many users.

I have not heard this argument in favour of taxi regulation before. Can you tell us more? (Intuitively, fewer taxis means more incentive to own a car, which means more cars on the road, and more car journeys overall as, if I have a car, then getting on my bicycle for a short journey is that much less likely.)

ArtDev2• 12 years ago

Know I know why the regulations are worthless. All they do is protect certain businesses. In this case, taxi companies.

As a resident of Portland, I would love to use Uber. Last time I took a taxi, it was overpriced hassle to get one.

rahimnathwani6• 12 years ago

Both sides of the argument have been articulated in previous threads, multiple times. A few posts about why regulation exists:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8230413

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8229867

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7340371

tl;dr - taxi regulation was created in order to (i) guarantee standards, back when the free market didn't do a good job of it, and (ii) ensure drivers could earn 'enough' by preventing a race to the bottom on prices. Taxi regulation _continues_ to exist due to lobbying by those who benefit from the current system, inertia and, perhaps, no one yet proving that the world would be better without this regulation.

chasing2• 12 years ago

Regulation is how we, the people (via our government), get to have a say in how companies' that provide us critical services like food, healthcare, housing, finances, and (yes) transportation are run. It's a check on exploitation. Regulations are often not perfect, but they are important.

wyager• 12 years ago

Although I dislike some of Uber's business practices, I really admire their "fuck you" attitude when it comes to ignoring taxi regulations. Taxi regulations are some of the most bullshit, customer-hurting, corrupt laws people are exposed to on a daily basis. They're a clear example of how overregulation can cause a precipitous drop in quality of service without tangible benefit.

Uber, Lyft, and co. managed to realize huge gains in productivity and quality with no significant negative side effects.

ChuckFrank9• 12 years ago

The opposite is however true - completely unregulated carrier countries - places like India -- the result is barely function death traps driven by terrible drivers, resulting in the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands of passengers every year.

Taxi regulations, bus regulations, charter van regulations are all there to save lives and prevent a race towards the bottom economy of transportation. And when a mother and child's only chance of getting into town in on the back of a death machine - these regulations start to look very good indeed.

forrestthewoods2• 12 years ago

Uber seems to be doing a pretty good job of providing a quality, safe service not just without regulations but despite them.

The regulations as they stand seem to primarily protect the entrenched businesses, not consumers. And our current legislative does not appear to provide any sort of reasonable mechanism to modify said regulations without first flipping the bird and demonstrating clear, intense consumer demand.

Dylan168073• 12 years ago

The fact that death traps should be kept off of roads is entirely independent of regulations specific to taxis.

I'm perfectly happy with a race to the bottom in generic 'get me there cheap' service. The alternative is being forced to pay for a more luxurious transportation whether I want it or not.

Just about the only thing I see as a valid use of taxi regulations is a requirement to pick people up independent of destination. But it's a really inefficient way of handling the situation.

yogo2• 12 years ago

Uber has balls. No matter where you stand you've gotta love that.

yogo2• 12 years ago

And for you downvoting fucks, wake up and smell what real world competition is like.

chroem-• 12 years ago

If "real world competition" smells like harassment of journalists and generally questionable business practices, then it sure smells awful.

oconnor663• 12 years ago

"In Portland, the commissioner in charge of the city’s Bureau of Transportation was furious enough at Uber that he suggested Portland should amend its regulations to allow Lyft — one of Uber’s biggest competitors — instead of Uber, to operate in the city."

This is basically admitting that the whole "for the safety of the consumer" thing is an act. This is not the reaction of a man who actually thinks taxi regulations are needed.

ChuckFrank9• 12 years ago

That's not his point. His point was a) Uber and Lyft are illegal and b) if we were to let this happen, he would personally want the team that was good negotiating partners, as opposed to the thugs and a*holes on the other team.

(edited for proper pronoun use.)

carsongross• 12 years ago

What does that mean, "thugs and a##holes"? Is Uber depriving people of their property or forcing them to do something against their will? Are they driving around blaring unpopular music and loudly pointing out poor fashion choices?

I'm no huge fan of Uber, but when I read this story it isn't Uber that strikes me as acting like thuggish a##holes.

ChuckFrank9• 12 years ago

I think the best-practices that can be learned here is that if you are going into emerging territory with a technology that is challenging the regulator limits, it's better to be the Lyft than it is to be the Uber.

In fact, I think this is one of Lyfts strategic advantage - that they aren't Uber, and they let Uber take all the hits. The costs of those hits must be realized somewhere in Uber (as in hiring David P.). Whereas Lyft can essentially sit back, garner goodwill, and enter a the market as a full competitor without expending the same resources. Now realize, that they can only do that because Uber also exist, and Uber does some of the dirtier work. If Lyft on it's own was trying to open new territories, they'd probably be a bit more like Uber. But it's a good lesson in creating a competitive advantage from unwanted competition. Kudos to Lyft for seizing that.

gooserock• 12 years ago

Sorry, I don't buy this. You're proposing that if Uber weren't around, that Lyft would need to act like Uber and "take all the hits." That's absolutely not the case. Uber does not have to act the way it acts. Sure, the first company in this space is bound to run up against regulatory hurdles, but they don't need to openly and brazenly break the law to make their point, to the point that city officials are publicly calling them "thugs."

Sure, Uber has been talking to Portland city officials for a year, as the article says, but what's the rush? They're in 250 other cities already, cities a whole lot bigger than Portland. What possible motivation do they have to act the way they do, going behind the backs of the very people they're trying to negotiate with, operating illegally, and daring anyone to stop them?

No, that's just immaturity, arrogance, and greed.

Dylan168073• 12 years ago

Sorry, I don't buy this. You're proposing that if Uber weren't around, that Lyft would need to act like Uber and "take all the hits."

Nope, that's not what the post says. It says that Lyft would probably be a bit more like Uber. That doesn't mean they'd have to flaunt the law, just that they would have to do more negotiation themselves.

Also that they currently get the benefits of rabid regulation-fighting without being the bad guy.

eddieplan9• 12 years ago

You said it as if Windows Phone or Windows RT has been a good strategy since it entered the market when it was ripe thanks to Apple and Google who had been cultivating it for years. Imagine applying that "strategic advantage" to electrical car: one would sit back and wait for Tesla to do all the hard work and then enter as a full competitor. This does not sound right to me, and hugely discounts the immense value of the "dirtier works", such as actual goodwill from appreciative consumers and businesses and invaluable partners (rather than tech bloggers), not to mention first mover advantage.

And it's hard to praise someone for "seizing" it when they just "sit back".

hadees• 12 years ago

The truth is these companies are selling a commodity now and all anyone is going to care about is which one can give me a ride the fastest and cheapest. I have zero loyalty to Uber or Lyft. If there was another player in the market that gave me cheaper rides quicker I'd never use Uber or Lyft again.

bradleyjg• 12 years ago

Portland should seek an injunction. Let uber try that 'laws don't apply to us, we move fast and break things' attitude with a judge. They'll quickly learn how broad judicial contempt powers are.

stock_toaster• 12 years ago

I am quite surprised that nothing has been brought to bear against the company, or the management, already.

ignoramous• 12 years ago

The transport industry is not well regulated in India. As a result, every other month prices go up. So much so that the cost has doubled for some routes. And Uber is poised to make a killing here. One example is how they charge 100 Rupees (about $2) as 'toll fee' for rides to the Airport. The interesting part is there is NO TOLL whatsoever if the cab is in and out within 10mins. Even if you exceed 10 mins, the actual charge is 65 rupees (around $1). Flat 100 Rupee charge is actually too steep when you consider that the entire ride cost you a mere 250 Rupees excluding the toll fee.

Repeated contact with customer support at Uber is like talking to a wall. Out of the 4 contacts I had with them, I got a response only once. They didn't respond even when I literally BEGGED them to. In a sense you feel helpless with these corporates with no-face and corportes that take their customers for granted. Even though I have 1200 Rupees ($20) worth of free rides with Uber, I have since switched to local competitors. I simply don't trust them. Esp in a country like India where they aren't and won't be held accountable for liabilities.

Free market / unregulated market won't do consumers any good. Uber solves a lot of pain points and is an excellent product-- but the Government needs to step in with newer but accommodating regulations-- perhaps an open API for ride sharing, and a standard ride-fare API, and such. I don't see that ever happening in India to be honest.

ChuckFrank9• 12 years ago

I agree completely. I've argued vehemently that the largest single most visible change that we are going to see in the next 10 - 20 years is our transportation structure. Private cars, ride sharing, valet parking, privatized parking, elimination of public parking, driver-less cars, city cores reoriented around public transportation hubs and cycling infrastructures - the transportation cities of the future are going to look as different to them, as horse and carriage cities, and manual stop lights look to us.

rahimnathwani6• 12 years ago

I visited India recently. In Mumbai, I found 'Meru Cabs' (www.merucabs.com) offered a great service, similar to Uber. Their app isn't as amazing as Uber's but the cars were clean, and the drivers were courteous.

kylec• 12 years ago

Fines are one thing, but I bet that Uber would quickly find themselves with a manpower shortage if drivers started getting arrested. It's probably only a matter of time before Uber provokes a city into doing just that.

craigvn• 12 years ago

That's what the cities should be doing. They can talk tough but unless they take action the laws will continue to be flouted.

ArtDev2• 12 years ago

I wonder if higher Uber/taxi/Lyft usage is attributed with less drunken drivers on the road. Probably.

Uber to Portland: We’re Here. Deal with It

Related Stories