Heavy Meddle: California Regulators Try To Kill Ride-Sharing
Matthew Yglesias writes on Slate:
Sidecar, a Bay Area "ride sharing" service that connects people who'd like to go somewhere with people who'd like to get some gas money from passengers, has raised $10 million in VC funding despite getting hit with a cease-and-desist order. At the moment the legal dispute is (inevitable) over whether Sidecar is illegal because it "did not have the proper permits and authority to operate a car service" or whether "because the company merely provides the communication tools to connect drivers and riders, it is legal."As with Uber and its various legal issues, the real question is whether it should be illegal.
For a long time now, basically every jurisdiction in the United States has had a policy of promoting car ownership via subjecting personal vehicles to a much lower regulatory standard than alternative means of getting around. You can buy a van if you want to. And getting a license to drive a van is pretty easy. But getting a permit to drive a van around town giving rides to people in exchange for money is extremely difficult, if not impossible. Then alongside this thicket of artificial scarcity of cabs and bans on fixed-route intracity bus and van operation, most American cities offer some desultory publicly owned mass transit operations. But the overall idea is pretty clear--everyone should own a car and drive it around almost all the time, while rich tourists or visiting businessmen grab the occasional cab from the airport.
From the NYT, how state regulators are trying to shut ridesharing down:
Despite the new money, which will help the company expand beyond its home base in the Bay Area and double its staff from 20 to 40, the company still has to contend with state regulators in California who are trying to shut it down.Mr. Paul said that the California Public Utilities Commission, which handles public transportation issues, was mischaracterizing the way the company operates. The commission maintainedin its order in August that Sidecar did not have the proper permits and authority to operate a car service. Mr. Paul says that because the company merely provides the communication tools to connect drivers and riders, it is legal. In addition, he said, payment is optional and donation-based.
"We're simply letting the community organize its own transportation," Mr. Paul said.
In a blog post, Sidecar said it was talking to the commission and would continue to operate as it did so.
Sidecar isn't the only start-up wrestling with regulators over the legality of its services. Other ride-sharing companies, including Lyft and Tickengo, recently received cease-and-desist orders from the state of California. In addition, Uber, a start-up that lets people summon a car service or taxi through a mobile application, has been grappling with taxi lobbyists and officials pushing back against the company and its expansion across the country.
If I choose to ride with you, it's the government's business why?
"If I choose to ride with you, it's the government's business why?"
That's easy to answer! It's the government's business, because they need to raise more money! If not from you, then from the rent-seeking businesses that pay them to shut you down.
Anything you do is the government's business, and they'll find a way to tax you or charge you a fee for doing it. This crap is everywhere, but California seems particularly gifted. Or particularly desperate.
a_random_guy at October 11, 2012 12:10 AM
The government wants us all to take public transport as it's a lot easier to herd us into boxcars that way.
KateC at October 11, 2012 8:55 AM
"If I choose to ride with you, it's the government's business why?"
Well, if someone uses the sidecar service and gets kidnapped and murdered, then there would be cries asking the government to step in and regulate the whole thing and that would result in the same overheads and taxi cabs and push prices to the same level. But rather than wait for some incident to happen, it makes sense to proactively act and force people to follow what has been followed for a long time. Not that taxi cabs are perfectly safe, but at least they give the feeling of being safer(fingers crossed) than something which supposedly has not passed any background check. If sidecar is doing the same background check as the people who issue taxi permits(since data is probably easily available anyway), then of course, the government has no business stepping in except of course to make money for itself which it does with taxi cabs.
Redrajesh at October 11, 2012 10:46 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/10/heavy-meddle-ca.html#comment-3377257">comment from KateCKateC, as always, gets it: "The government wants us all to take public transport as it's a lot easier to herd us into boxcars that way."
Amy Alkon
at October 11, 2012 10:52 AM
If I write an app called, "Sluggo" - based on the commuter's practice of "slugging", and I live in Florida, how would CA stop people from using the app?
Radwaste at October 11, 2012 10:57 AM
> KateC, as always, gets it: "The government wants
> us all to take public transport as it's a lot easier to
> herd us into boxcars that way."
See also Balaker with P.J.
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at October 11, 2012 11:10 AM
Who is so naive as to think taxi drivers undergo any background check? If that's so, why are so many of them unable to speak English? Is the government going to regulate hitch-hiking?
KateC at October 11, 2012 11:35 AM
Rajesh, how many hitch hikers do you pick up? I pick up a lot, so long as I don't have my son in the car I am comfortable with the exchange. You apparently are not. That's fine, just stay out of my way 'cause I enjoy meeting free spirits for a half hour of conversation on the way home.
"Letting the community organize," "choosing to ride with," Sounds pretty bottom-up to me. Naturally it's going to class with top-down thinking.
smurfy at October 11, 2012 2:46 PM
"...if someone uses the sidecar service and gets kidnapped and murdered, then there would be cries asking the government to step in and regulate the whole thing..."
Yes, there are those, especially in government, who think such a crime would make it the government's business to take control. Such thinking and action would be wrong and should be resisted. The legitimate role of government would be to capture and prosecute the murderer, not oppress, regulate and loot everyone else.
"If sidecar is doing the same background check as the people who issue taxi permits... then of course, the government has no business stepping in..."
The government has no business stepping in. Period.
Ken R at October 11, 2012 3:21 PM
"Well, if someone uses the sidecar service and gets kidnapped and murdered, then there would be cries asking the government to step in and regulate the whole thing and that would result in the same overheads and taxi cabs and push prices to the same level. But rather than wait for some incident to happen, it makes sense to proactively act and force people to follow what has been followed for a long time."
You are joking right? I mean, you are, surely, just presenting a mock-parody of the other side's viewpoint? Firstly, if someone gets kidnapped or murdered, then no, I wouldn't cry out for broad job-crushing totalitarian fascism (not everyone thinks irrational hysteria justifies any amount of initiation of force), and claiming that a lot of people would cry out for totalitarian fascism is not a justification for totalitarian fascism. Secondly, it is just morally wrong to initiate force just because someone 'might' do something, and makes no sense whatsoever. If you have some absurd hysterical phobia that ride-sharing represents significant danger, then you need to go to your psychologist and deal with your irrational phobia medically as with any other irrational phobia.
Lobster at October 11, 2012 4:50 PM
Seriously, if you look at 'ride-sharing' and your first thoughts are fears of murder, then you are mentally ill and need help .. that is not normal, and certainly not a basis for public policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia
Lobster at October 11, 2012 4:54 PM
It's just another example of the psychopathic control freaks which run "Amerika". Much like bringing the TSA into existence to cow airline customers into "submission" to the government.
Or, the lie called "the war on terror" which is used to frighten U.S. citizens into accepting incremental steps into open martial law. Why did I refer to it as "open"? The media does. That congressman discussing TARP did. Just think of what FDR was signing back in 1933..............
Anyway, the LP candidate is Gary Johnson. Please give him your support............
SM777 at October 11, 2012 5:33 PM
Leave a comment