By on May 19, 2015

Uber Texas BBQ Pedicab

Tesla and Uber are among those whose efforts were for nothing as a crucial deadline to win approval on the Texas House floor passed last week.

The deadline was the last chance for House bills to win initial approval from the entire chamber, The Star-Telegram reports. Though said bills could be added onto other bills through the end of the legislative session June 1, “the funnel is only so large” to commit the necessary action, according to House Republican Caucus chair Rep. Tan Parker of Flower Mound.

One of the bills shut out by the deadline would have granted transportation network companies like Lyft and Uber statewide licenses to operate while stripping individual cities of their right to regulate their services. House Bill 2440, sponsored by Rep. Chris Paddie of Marshall, failed to receive a floor vote due to issues surrounding safety, wheelchair-access, and insurance.

Meanwhile, Tesla’s efforts to overturn the state’s ban on direct sales were thwarted for a second time since 2013. House Bill 1653 and Senate Bill 639 would have allowed automakers who’ve never sold their wares through a franchise dealership network to open and operated up to 12 stores in Texas. Neither bill drew a committee vote on their respective floors, with the blame directed at Tesla itself, according to Rep. Senfronia Thompson of Houston:

I can appreciate Tesla wanting to sell cars, but I think it would have been wiser if Mr. Tesla had sat down with the car dealers first.

[Photo credit: William Beutler/Flickr/CC BY 2.0]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

11 Comments on “Direct Sales, Ride-Hailing Bills Among Those DOA In Texas House...”


  • avatar
    pbr

    Mr. Tesla. Nice.

    • 0 avatar
      sproc

      From her official biography: “Rep. Thompson has a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology and a Master’s degree in Education from Texas Southern University; a law degree from Thurgood Marshall School of Law and a Master’s of Law in International Law from the University of Houston.”

      All the facepalms.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      She’d better get cracking on that time machine if she wants Mr. Tesla to meet with dealers.

    • 0 avatar
      ClutchCarGo

      It is possible that she was using Mr. Tesla sardonically. Do they have irony in Texas?

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        Of course they do. All those state legislators in favor of unrestricted capitalism and competition most likely shot the bill down, probably also the same guys that bitch endlessly about entitlements for poor peole but think nothing of giving large businesses plenty of free handouts.

        • 0 avatar
          redav

          Don’t assume it’s ideology when campaign contributions adequately explain it.

          “Free markets” and the size of one’s business means little compared to filling your own coffers.

        • 0 avatar
          George B

          Neither bills were serious legislative efforts. They’re just a political stunt or a half-hearted gesture. Serious bills in Texas get introduced early in January of odd numbered years and have a low number. Supporters of a serious bill already have enough support on the relevant committees to clear that hurdle.

  • avatar
    50merc

    The legislative process is an egregiously unattractive type of sausage-making.

  • avatar
    sirwired

    I don’t get what’s so difficult about Uber/Lyft and regulation. They are pre-arranged-ride car services, no different from any other, except you use an app instead of calling a dispatch center or using a website to book your car. They should be regulated with whatever rules a state or local government sees fit for any such services.

    Now, are said services over-regulated, or regulated in such a way as to artificially limit competition and raise prices? Maybe. But that’s another discussion entirely, and any changes to said rules should apply to the entire industry, not give special treatment to “tradtional” for-hire services or the new ones.

    (Random side-note: Congrats to this article for not calling them “Ride-Sharing” there’s no “sharing” about them at all, and I remain baffled as to how they ever got that name.)

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      I think you are correct, but don’t underestimate the self-preservation intentions of existing companies who want to keep competition at bay.

      Regulation isn’t hard. It isn’t that their system is different, it’s that they are the new company to get in the game. Increasing the complexity and difficulty of Uber/Lift drivers to be able to provide a service limits their ability to compete, which is exactly the intent of the existing companies when they ‘contribute,’ i.e., interfere, with the law-making process and/or contribute to politicians’ campaigns.

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      The problem is that all taxi services are over-regulated to keep out competition. It’s better to fix that issue than to create special rules for Uber and Lyft.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • RHD: The original post in this thread had the analysis of its content in the very last line: “All BS.”...
  • Inside Looking Out: Grishka Rasputin is a brand of vodka.
  • redgolf: “The rule of thumb is never buy first year production cars” I disagree, I bought a 97 Pontiac GP...
  • SD 328I: Isn’t the current Ranger outselling everyone but the Tacoma? The current Ranger is nowhere near the...
  • SD 328I: You can blame VW for the larger Ranger, the next Amarok is going to be based on the Ranger, and they needed...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber