Uber, Other Rideshare Services Caught In Regulatory Backup


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.
Latest Car Reviews
Read moreLatest Product Reviews
Read moreRecent Comments
- Golden2husky You'd be way better off in a base Vette for that money.
- Gene Sedans and coupes don't sell in the quantity that they used to but they still make up a significant market. Why Ford abandoned this segment still baffles me. Again, just look at Toyota, Dodge, Mercedes, BMW, Hyundai, etc who have not abandoned this segment.
- JMII Cracker Barrel - there is one off every major interstate interchange east of the Mississippi.I don't drink coffee - and based on the constant debate / worry of others just drinking water or tea has greatly simplified my life.Regardless of your choice in snacks and drinks I recommend the iExit app: https://www.iexitapp.com/ it shows what hotels, restaurants and gas stations are coming up so you can decide if its worth pulling off.
- Redapple2 My dad s buddy got a tire thru the windshield. DRT -dead right there.
- Redapple2 Hope they fix the:1 ride. worse than a corvette2 seating position. ankles at the height of my butt is UNCOMFORTABLE .As is. Horrible truck
Comments
Join the conversation
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.
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.