Uber, Other Rideshare Services Caught In Regulatory Backup

Cameron Aubernon
by Cameron Aubernon

Ridesharing services such as Uber, Lyft and Sidecar have gained traction among those who prefer using their smartphones to hail a ride to the airport over traditional black car or taxi service. However, in locales such as Detroit, Atlanta and Seattle, such services are rolling up upon a regulatory traffic jam over how best to handle the disruption in the livery industry.

The issues at hand, as noted by Detroit Free Press, GeekWire and The Daily Caller, include surge-pricing (taxi and limo operators can only charge a constant fare at all times), Uber’s introduction of UberX, where customers can hail a lift from a driver using their personal vehicle (Uber’s standard service utilizes those with hack licenses), mandating commercial insurance for UberX drivers, who only have personal-grade policies for their vehicles, and whether or not Uber and companies like it are solely tech companies or transportation providers in determining what regulations apply.

In Detroit, state and city officials have demanded Uber to register with MDOT as a limo carrier while requiring UberX drivers to obtain a $300 Certificate of Authority and $110 limo operator’s license to be in compliance with current law, neither of which has happened thus far. Officials in Georgia, however, aim to take regulation of the nascent reinvention further with Georgia House Bill 907. The bill not only brings Uber et al in line with everyone else, but as far as using apps to request rides are concerned:

The use of Internet or cellular telephone software to calculate rates shall not be permitted unless such software companies complies with and conforms to the weights and measures standards of the local government that licenses such taxi service.

Washington State’s House Bill 2782, on the other hand, aims to help level the playing field through a more sane approach:

The legislature finds that Washingtonians are early adopters of technology and have come to rely on services provided by mobile application-based personal transportation services. The legislature further finds that a piecemeal approach to regulating such services could result in a patchwork of conflicting standards, stifle innovation, and reduce consumer choice.

The enacted bill would allow for a study to be conducted by the end of 2014, with a framework established the following year. The framework, according to Washington Policy Center director Bob Pishue, would supercede local regulations such as those the Seattle City Council would like to impose upon Uber et al, and that HB2782 is focused on the consumer than on the taxi companies.

Cameron Aubernon
Cameron Aubernon

Seattle-based writer, blogger, and photographer for many a publication. Born in Louisville. Raised in Kansas. Where I lay my head is home.

More by Cameron Aubernon

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 16 comments
  • Chug Chug on Feb 17, 2014

    Rent seeking or not, this is an important point about UberX: "mandating commercial insurance for UberX drivers, who only have personal-grade policies for their vehicles," As soon as an UberX driver with only a personal auto policy is in a crash or is sued, what do you believe the insurer is going to do? Cancel, as most "personal policies" do not cover commercial use such as UberX. Contrast to Lyft, which appears to provide its drivers with some kind of coverage. UberX drivers seem to be skating on thin ice, insurance wise. YMMV. PS. I do not have a dog in this fight.

  • Mopar4wd Mopar4wd on Feb 17, 2014

    It would seem that requiring insurance and a business license to operate a livery vehicle should be mandatory. I wouldn't view that as protectionism more or less just common sense. Really it's just everyone playing by the same rules. Now you ban obviously take that too far.

  • ToolGuy First picture: I realize that opinions vary on the height of modern trucks, but that entry door on the building is 80 inches tall and hits just below the headlights. Does anyone really believe this is reasonable?Second picture: I do not believe that is a good parking spot to be able to access the bed storage. More specifically, how do you plan to unload topsoil with the truck parked like that? Maybe you kids are taller than me.
  • ToolGuy The other day I attempted to check the engine oil in one of my old embarrassing vehicles and I guess the red shop towel I used wasn't genuine Snap-on (lots of counterfeits floating around) plus my driveway isn't completely level and long story short, the engine seized 3 minutes later.No more used cars for me, and nothing but dealer service from here on in (the journalists were right).
  • Doughboy Wow, Merc knocks it out of the park with their naming convention… again. /s
  • Doughboy I’ve seen car bras before, but never car beards. ZZ Top would be proud.
  • Bkojote Allright, actual person who knows trucks here, the article gets it a bit wrong.First off, the Maverick is not at all comparable to a Tacoma just because they're both Hybrids. Or lemme be blunt, the butch-est non-hybrid Maverick Tremor is suitable for 2/10 difficulty trails, a Trailhunter is for about 5/10 or maybe 6/10, just about the upper end of any stock vehicle you're buying from the factory. Aside from a Sasquatch Bronco or Rubicon Jeep Wrangler you're looking at something you're towing back if you want more capability (or perhaps something you /wish/ you were towing back.)Now, where the real world difference should play out is on the trail, where a lot of low speed crawling usually saps efficiency, especially when loaded to the gills. Real world MPG from a 4Runner is about 12-13mpg, So if this loaded-with-overlander-catalog Trailhunter is still pulling in the 20's - or even 18-19, that's a massive improvement.
Next