Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

California Regulators Tell Ride-Shares No Airport Runs

samzenpus posted about 5 months ago | from the no-airport-for-you dept.

Government 314

An anonymous reader writes in with news about ride-share crackdowns in California. California regulators are threatening to revoke permits for on-demand ride companies UberX, Lyft, Sidecar, Summon and Wingz unless they stop giving rides to and from airports within two weeks. The move could lead to the state shutting down the companies' operations. Flouting the airport rules also flouts regulations that the CPUC set up for the new generation of ride companies to operate in California. In a clear rebuttal to an argument often made by the ride companies, Peevey wrote: "These safety requirements should not hinder your creativity nor should they impede your innovation."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"Safety Requirements"? (5, Funny)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 5 months ago | (#47226179)

Why is it not safe for them to drive to the airports, but it's safe for them to drive elsewhere? Are they going to hit a plane or something?

Re:"Safety Requirements"? (5, Funny)

hermitdev (2792385) | about 5 months ago | (#47226257)

Its because these non-cabbies tend to drive in a safe and predictable manner, rather the the cabbies that drive erratically, changing lanes without signalling, running lights & stop signs, generally being a nuisance. Obviously not safe to mix the two. (This based on Chicago experiences, I assume CA cabbies are likewise assholes).

Re:"Safety Requirements"? (4, Funny)

Adriax (746043) | about 5 months ago | (#47226345)

I'm pretty sure the LA cab drivers are on some secret contract to thin the general populace.

Re:"Safety Requirements"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226507)

one question, why dont this UberX company simply open Uber 2.0 on Cayman Islands than ride sharing would not be in any way limited by american law, and in addition no tax to pay either

Re:"Safety Requirements"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226731)

Maybe there isn't as much need for taxis in the Cayman Islands.

Think about it - they have to follow the laws where they operate.

Re:"Safety Requirements"? (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | about 5 months ago | (#47226665)

I'm pretty sure the LA cab drivers are on some secret contract to thin the general populace.

OK, I'm looking for a down side... nope, don't see it...
That does bring to mind the short story "The Carnival" by Michael Fedo [wikipedia.org]
Damn Fine Read if you can find it...

Re:"Safety Requirements"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226411)

I have only been in one CA cab, but the driver was very relaxed and not at all assholish. Could be we got lucky.

Taxi drivers in Auckland (New Zealand) and New York are largely assholes. I have bigger sample sizes for those places.

Re:"Safety Requirements"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226505)

Taxi drivers in Dunedin (NZ) aren't bound by the law, for some reason. Red lights mean "sneak through," yellow and green mean the same. Traffic coming? Just turn across the lane, they'll stop, and if they don't you're a bloody taxi so what were you supposed to do?

Re: "Safety Requirements"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226639)

Did the license plate say fresh and was there dice in the mirror?

Re:"Safety Requirements"? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226609)

This sounds like the typical CA driver (at least in the Bay Area).

Re:"Safety Requirements"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226715)

You don't know how right you are.... http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/taxi-crushes-tourist-at-melbourne-airport-20140611-zs3kb.html
No doubt the ensuing review will conclude that drop-off areas are dangerous and should be closed in favour of short term parking (and more $$$).

Re:"Safety Requirements"? (4, Funny)

shikaisi (1816846) | about 5 months ago | (#47226747)

As Michael Flanders once said, "It's actually been calculated it is safer to fly than it is to cross the road. Mind you, I gave that up years ago where I live, in Kensington near the air terminal. They have these airline buses whizzing about, you know. I think the drivers have instructions to keep the statistics favourable!"

Re:"Safety Requirements"? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226263)

Why is it not safe for them to drive to the airports, but it's safe for them to drive elsewhere? Are they going to hit a plane or something?

They might hit a cabbie or airport shuttle operator's profit margin.

Fine. I won't take UberX to the airport, I'm taking it to the airport parking garage, from which I'll walk the extra ten feet to the airport.

Re: "Safety Requirements"? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226579)

Do you have a valid walking permit?

Re:"Safety Requirements"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226279)

Terrorism.

Re:"Safety Requirements"? (5, Informative)

v1 (525388) | about 5 months ago | (#47226283)

Why is it not safe for them to drive to the airports,

It's not safe, ya sees, because Luigi here will have to come over and accidentally adjust your kneecaps if you interfere with this bizness opportunities in the Yellow Cab.

Re:"Safety Requirements"? (5, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about 5 months ago | (#47226393)

Why is it not safe for them to drive to the airports, but it's safe for them to drive elsewhere?

Because states get huge amounts of money tacked on to cab fares to and from airports, it would clearly count as much, much less safe to the state's coffers.

Can't have any of those dirty ridesharing hippies putting a sweet revenue stream at risk!

Re:"Safety Requirements"? (4, Insightful)

Imrik (148191) | about 5 months ago | (#47226415)

Because if they drive to the airports they'll upset the cabbies' union, which is unsafe for them.

Re: "Safety Requirements"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226605)

Nice one

Re:"Safety Requirements"? (4, Insightful)

pepty (1976012) | about 5 months ago | (#47226451)

It's not clear that it's safe for UberX drivers in either situation. If the driver causes an accident UberX will cover their liability costs only. Their own costs they will have to pay out of pocket unless they get commercial insurance, since their personal insurance won't cover them.

Re:"Safety Requirements"? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226459)

It's mostly money. Taxis and limousines that go to SFO have to have passed an airport vehicle inspection first and then get a transponder stuck to the car that automatically pays a toll each time the vehicle enters the airport. There are inspectors that randomly check cars to see if they have current permits and issue tickets to drivers picking up passengers that don't hve them. All taxis and limos can drop of passengers, but only those with permits are allowed to pick them up.

Re:"Safety Requirements"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226591)

The title seems misleading. According to the article:

Taxi and limo services are required to pay for permits to operate at airports. Peevey cited an SFO report about TNC drivers, mainly affiliated with UberX, lacking airport permits, as well as lacking proper "trade dress" on their vehicles and lacking proof of insurance.

So it seems fair to me that they should follow the rules of other private companies.

Re:"Safety Requirements"? (4, Informative)

knightghost (861069) | about 5 months ago | (#47226705)

It's about money as always. Airports typically charge $5 to the cab whenever it does a run to or from the airport.

Re:"Safety Requirements"? (5, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 5 months ago | (#47226709)

its a lie.

you and I can drive to the airport. and we can drop people off and pick them up!

so its a total bullshit lie.

can you say 'protectionism'? sure, I knew you could.

Of course (4, Insightful)

istartedi (132515) | about 5 months ago | (#47226181)

Everybody knows that only your closest cronies will do the airport pickup. It's the sign of a true crony.

let's just kill all these busybody fucks (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226199)

who tell everyone what to do. problem solved.

next it will be illegal (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226213)

to drive your friend to the airport without a permit.

Re:next it will be illegal (1)

Adriax (746043) | about 5 months ago | (#47226309)

How do they know you're not driving your family to the airport for a fee? Or yourself for that matter.
Obviously they can't take your word for it, you could be in collusion with yourself in a conspiracy to defraud the airport and cab drivers.

No, best thing to do is make it completely illegal for someone to drive to the airport or anywhere within a 4 hour walking distance without a commercial license.

Re: next it will be illegal (1)

Tsiangkun (746511) | about 5 months ago | (#47226649)

These are not car pools. That same car comes and goes *just* like the commercial drivers. All day long. Day after day. Week after week. One airport run after another. Not hard to spot.

Re: next it will be illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226783)

who gives a shit? just because some fuck with too much power doesn't like it shouldn't mean the rest of society should have to change. lets just euthanize that guy and go on living our lives in freedom.

Re:next it will be illegal (2)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 5 months ago | (#47226323)

It is already illegal to drive your friend to the airport without a permit. You need a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle.

Re:next it will be illegal (1, Insightful)

mi (197448) | about 5 months ago | (#47226401)

It is already illegal to drive your friend to the airport without a permit. You need a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle.

I don't know, if you meant it, but this is a very good point. At some point decades ago, the government declared driving on public roads to be a privilege to be granted to the good by the Executive, rather than a right to be withdrawn from naughty by the Judiciary (as walking is). We, the populace, accepted it and it has been downhill from there...

Re:next it will be illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226735)

At some point decades ago, the government declared driving on public roads to be a privilege to be granted to the good by the Executive, rather than a right to be withdrawn from naughty by the Judiciary (as walking is). We, the populace, accepted it and it has been downhill from there...

Ya still got 'cher guns. Go git 'em!! Show 'em durty libruls ya don't need no license but yer Gadsden flag plate!!! Cooo!

Re:next it will be illegal (5, Interesting)

mi (197448) | about 5 months ago | (#47226387)

Or even your wife [dnainfo.com] .

A remember in the early 90 when I lived in the bay (4, Interesting)

mark_reh (2015546) | about 5 months ago | (#47226229)

area. There were three airports and four train systems (or was it four airports and three train systems?). None of the trains went to any of the airports. I always figured the taxi union lobbied hard when it was time to decided the train line terminations. I think it has improved a little since the early 90s, but probably not much.

Re:A remember in the early 90 when I lived in the (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 5 months ago | (#47226303)

Yeah, uh, just a little...

Re: A remember in the early 90 when I lived in the (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226481)

The same thing happened in San Diego. The trolley could easily go to the airport but it doesn't as far as I know due to the pressure of certain interests.

Re:A remember in the early 90 when I lived in the (1)

CanadianMacFan (1900244) | about 5 months ago | (#47226573)

They are looking to expand the train here and they won't put the airport on the main line. Maybe in the future they will decide to make an extension and passengers will have to switch. Everyone knows it's the taxi lobby that doesn't want the train even though it would be replacing the bus line that already goes there.

Dafuq? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226231)

What makes airports so dangerous?

Re:Dafuq? (1)

Bodhammer (559311) | about 5 months ago | (#47226277)

http://tpac-ca.org/ [tpac-ca.org]
http://www.tlpa.org/ [tlpa.org]
http://www.medallionholders.co... [medallionholders.com]

Re:Dafuq? (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 5 months ago | (#47226349)

http://www.medallionholders.com/

Wow. Am I the only one who finds uncanny similarity between the NY taxi licensing and 17th-18th century European officer commissions? The fancy uniform seems to be the only thing missing!

Cabbies. (4, Insightful)

grub (11606) | about 5 months ago | (#47226237)


"We have heard numerous complaints that (our) safety rules are being ignored,"

Yeah, the cabbies are complaining. I would guess non-cabbies love the service.

Re: Cabbies. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226325)

Hardcore blue state sides with heavily-unionzed industry over common sense! News at 11!

Re: Cabbies. (4, Insightful)

pepty (1976012) | about 5 months ago | (#47226503)

Unions aren't the problem, it's the capitalists who invested upwards of $1M per taxi medallion. Specifically the lawsuits they will file against the cities/states if they change laws so as to devalue those medallions.

Re: Cabbies. (0, Flamebait)

prof_robinson (2632705) | about 5 months ago | (#47226623)

Those aren't capitalists; those are cronie capitalists protecting their racket by using the power of govt to squash individual freedom to protect their business model. When you have socialism; these are the people who end up in charge.

Re: Cabbies. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226627)

Actually, sounds like the LA taxi drivers need a union. Get a load of this crap:

In a study of Los Angeles taxi drivers, UCLA professors Gary Blasi and Jacqueline Leavitt found that taxi drivers work on average 72 hours a week for a median take home wage of $8.39 per hour. Not only do they have to pay $2000 in “leasing fees” per month to taxi companies, but the city regulates things like what color socks they can wear (black) and how many days a week they can go to the airport (once). None of the drivers in the survey had health insurance provided by their companies and 61% of them were completely without health insurance.

-- Pricenomics -- The Tyranny of the Taxi Medallions [priceonomics.com]

Re: Cabbies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226695)

Unions aren't the problem, it's the capitalists who invested upwards of $1M per taxi medallion. Specifically the lawsuits they will file against the cities/states if they change laws so as to devalue those medallions.

I'm sorry but the Unions have proven themselves neo-communists time and time again, and this stuff is happening in every state because while Democrats have always kissed and bent over for Unions it appears Republicans are starting to do the same, all for an extra vote, or extra bribe/lobbyist/campaign money.

Only a small part of it is because of fees. If you asked citizens that use on demand rides, compared to cabbies, which one they liked better and why you would see it isn't over money.

Re:Cabbies. (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 5 months ago | (#47226433)

Does it matter who's complaining?

If they are violating safety regulations, its a problem. Of course cabbies who are in competition are going to report it, but thats a good things.

Customers don't always know whats unsafe since they aren't in the business so its not surprising they would think the cheaper but unsafe ride is great, doesn't make them right.

You've been on slashdot for ever, you're normally a very intelligent poster, do you really mean to imply this is a bad thing or am I just reading you wrong?

Re:Cabbies. (5, Interesting)

grub (11606) | about 5 months ago | (#47226495)

I was suggesting that the bulk of the complaints are likely coming from cabbies.

Michael Peevey mentions "safey rules" but then goes on to 'lacking airport permits, as well as lacking proper "trade dress" on their vehicles and lacking proof of insurance.' Ok, lacking proof of insurance I can understand. So carry papers in the glovebox and all is well.
Airport permits? That's just money denied to the airports. I'd wager the complaints that are not from cabbies are from the airport authorities for this very reason.
Trade dress? Fine, slap on a cheap magnetic sign. That is not a safety issue.

They dress is up as "safety rules" but the real motives are financial.

Re:Cabbies. (2)

sabri (584428) | about 5 months ago | (#47226765)

They dress is up as "safety rules" but the real motives are financial.

Hammer, nail.

Their next argument will probably use child pornography or terrorism as well.

this is why the scope of government was supposed (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226249)

to be limited.

Re:this is why the scope of government was suppose (1)

x0ra (1249540) | about 5 months ago | (#47226261)

But... think of the children !

Ride sharing is a solution to a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226255)

How about California regulators help fix the transportation problem? Population is increasing far more than what the roads can handle and if there is a public transpiration route to your destination it is never reliable due to strikes, equipment failure, and numerous "incidents". If you do manage to hail a taxi cab^H^H^H Prius, it lacks convenient payment methods (New York taxis has card readers built into the front seat). The ride sharing services and google/apple/facebook buses are solutions that popped up due to broken infrastructure.

All Uber in endangering... (4, Insightful)

Sean (422) | about 5 months ago | (#47226267)

is the revenue of competing services.

Translation : (4, Insightful)

Darth Turbogeek (142348) | about 5 months ago | (#47226275)

These rules are here to defend taxi companies at their most lucrative source of income. There is not a single reason else.

And frankly, airports are exactly where I would WANT a ride sharing service over the entrenched taxi industry. After dealign with flying, the last thing I want is to deal with a taxi driver not interested for a second where or how far I want to go - and in fact is forced by law to pick up my patronage here because before that law... they would reject my destination for a "better" fare. Let alone the other issues taxis have like the queues and half the time there isnt one availible for too long.

No, fuck em. If I can have a service that is waiting to pick me up, go where I want to go, more often than not in a clean and comfortable car, with a driver who (and I apologise for the next comment but you know this happens too often) understand what you are saying and is interested more in customer service.... I'll take it.

We do have a premium taxi service here that works more like Uber and in general it's a mile better than the regular taxi services. Unfortuantly it's too small to be truly able to handle capacity. You know, if taxis worked more like the premium serives I'd be less sympathic to Uber and Co, but they arent so.... fuck em. Bring the ride sharign services on.

Re:Translation : (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 5 months ago | (#47226311)

Hotel and Airport taxis must do short hauls. Uber drivers can cherry pick and skip short hauls.

Re:Translation : (2)

Darth Turbogeek (142348) | about 5 months ago | (#47226363)

Did you miss the part where I address the fact they by law MUST take short hauls? Until that was forced onto them, taxis would regularly refuse.

Re:Translation : (0)

BitZtream (692029) | about 5 months ago | (#47226463)

You seem to be proud of the fact that you're being an idiot? You'd rather not have a ride than have one because its not far enough?

Re:Translation : (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226531)

You are a perfect candidate to drive a taxi with that kind of minimal reading ability. Hey look at this moron over here who cant grok the simplest conversation!

Re:Translation : (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226687)

Darth Turbogeek: Take me to 123 Choad Street!

Taxi Driver: Yes sir, we'll be there in just a few minutes.

Darth Turbogeek: DROP YOUR CONDESCENDING ATTITUDE, YOU'RE ONLY DOING THIS BECAUSE THE LAW SAYS YOU HAVE TO!

Taxi Driver: Wut?

Re:Translation : (2)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | about 5 months ago | (#47226419)

Uber drivers and cherry pick and skip any job that doesn't seem worth it for them. One of the advantages of the Uber system is that they try to set prices so that there will always be *some* drivers willing to take the job for that price.

This in my opinion is a much better solution. It is more elegant. It doesn't force anyone to do anything they don't want to do. Rather than forcing taxis to take small jobs, why not allow them to be compensated enough to make them want to do those jobs?

Laws are just not versatile enough to adapt to these sorts of changing conditions. Maybe there was a time when we needed these sorts of laws to have the society we want. Now it appears we don't.

Re:Translation : (2)

vux984 (928602) | about 5 months ago | (#47226767)

Maybe, or is it the just the case that uber drivers are just cherry picking the best fares. Living the dregs to cabbies, who are mandated to take them.

Eliminating the regulations would allow both the uber and taxis to skip them. Not sure how that makes life better for people who need a ride nobody wants to take them on?

Or is this a market will fix the problem situation? And anyone who wants a ride somewhere off the beaten path, so there is no chance of a return fare, or a short haul which is less profitable will have pay a premium to get service?

But that hearkens to the old days where cabbies simply refused fares outright, or would demand you pay double (ie pay a 'return fare') to make it worth their while.

I guess that would "solve" the problem. Not sure that's a good solution though.

Re:Translation : (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 5 months ago | (#47226313)

I have a question about how you phrase this. Specifically "ride sharing".

I own a car, and don't fly very often, so don't need taxis very often. But did these services start out an an actual "ride sharing" service? In other words, were they for people who were going to the airport for their own flight, agreeing to help someone else get to the airport? And the same coming back home, sharing your return trip from the parking garage with a stranger that you dropped off on your way home?

Or did they just start as non-licensed taxi services? Did some start as ride sharing, and later ones start just as taxis?

Re:Translation : (1)

Imrik (148191) | about 5 months ago | (#47226441)

I believe it went pure ride sharing > ride sharing with built in ability to tip > taxi service, but the ones that are popular/still around are the ones that started later as taxi services.

Re:Translation : (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about 5 months ago | (#47226443)

I take it you don't fly in or out of LAX very much? Traffic is a nightmare. It can take 30-45 minutes to simply loop through the terminals a single time when it's busy, which is damn near every night. I'm not saying that these rules don't defend taxi's turf, but there is more reason to it than just that.

Re:Translation : (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 5 months ago | (#47226631)

No, fuck em. If I can have a service that is waiting to pick me up, go where I want to go, more often than not in a clean and comfortable car, with a driver who (and I apologise for the next comment but you know this happens too often) understand what you are saying and is interested more in customer service.... I'll take it.

There is. It's called a car service; who has the requisite insurance and permits. You can even book in advance and if your plane is late they will adjust their schedule to meet you when you get in. Cabbies hate them as well but they play by the city rules and thus can operate. Uber appears to be trying to meet the city ordinances, which IMHO is as much about permit revenue as safety, so the may yet be able to take airport fares.

So wait... what? (4, Interesting)

mark-t (151149) | about 5 months ago | (#47226285)

If I call my friend and ask him to give me a lift to the airport and I give him, say, $20 in exchange which is considerably more than what it would cost in gasoline (almost an order of magnitude more, in fact), is he breaking the law by accepting the transaction? Am I breaking the law by soliciting such assistance? If not, then why is it somehow different if the driver is not somebody personally known to me?

Re:So wait... what? (2)

mi (197448) | about 5 months ago | (#47226421)

Yes, he would be breaking the law. And you, probably, would be breaking it too.

A lot of things become flat-out illegal — or subject to heavy regulations — when somebody is getting paid. It is a rather unfortunate state of affairs...

It is almost as if our rulers would rather we sat idle depending on their benevolence to provide us with the necessities we need — in their omniscient opinion. Oh, wait...

Re:So wait... what? (1)

rev0lt (1950662) | about 5 months ago | (#47226597)

Yes, he would be breaking the law. And you, probably, would be breaking it too.

He would not. The friend would not engage on the activity motivated by monetary compensation, and the $20 isn't payment, its a tip. And this is legal in most countries. You are liable for services you've been paid for, not tipped for. As an extreme example, there is a huge difference between a commercial agreement regarding sexual intercourse (soliciting, as you're *bidding* for the service) and giving a tip - either in money or goods. The first one is a prostitute, the second one is a fuckfriend/girlfriend.

Just videotape it and you'll be fine. ;) (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about 5 months ago | (#47226719)

The first one is a prostitute

Family Guy reference:

1. Paying someone to have sex with you: Prostitution. Illegal.
2. Paying someone to have sex with you while you run a camera: Production of pornography. Legal.

Re:So wait... what? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 5 months ago | (#47226437)

If I call my friend [...] is he breaking the law by accepting the transaction? Am I breaking the law by soliciting such assistance? If not, then why is it somehow different if the driver is not somebody personally known to me?

There's no difference.
Not even if you solicit such assistance from a stranger.

The difference is when the stranger is part of a commercial enterprise.

Re:So wait... what? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 5 months ago | (#47226487)

Thats not what this is about. This is about companies running unlicensed taxi services and calling it ride sharing, and skirting the rules everyone else has to play by.

Re:So wait... what? (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 5 months ago | (#47226543)

You're missing my point... what Uber is doing is essentially not any different from what I mentioned above... in both cases, there is profit being made, so I'm just not seeing why they should be treated any differently.

Re:So wait... what? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226533)

An order of magnitude more? 200 dollars? Really? I don't know where you live but in the US that's at least 40 gallons of gasoline. Even with total shit milage that can get most vehicles AT LEAST a quarter way across the country. Where the fuck do you live that you don't have an airport within 800 miles of your home?
 
You people are royal bullshit liars and dumbfucks.

Re:So wait... what? (1)

Omega Hacker (6676) | about 5 months ago | (#47226777)

I try not to feed the trolls, but I just can't pass this one up:

"An order of magnitude more? 200 dollars? Really?"

Apparently you're too dumb to comprehend that he very clearly stated that $20 is *more* than the gas cost by an order of magnitude. That means he's spending $2 in gas for the trip. At the current ~$4/gal with what passes for an "efficient" vehicle in the US, that puts his round trip at ~12.5mi, or roughly 6 miles from the airport.

The depth of your illiteracy truly astounds me.

Re:So wait... what? (1)

pepty (1976012) | about 5 months ago | (#47226545)

Some states limit the ride sharing designation to non-profits. The difference in the case you pose is 1, frequency - how often does your friend get paid to transport people? Should the municipality spend time and money enforcing statutes against one offs or instead prioritize habitual offenders? 2, insurance: if you and your friend got in an accident and he told his insurance company he was actually being paid to transport you they wouldn't pay the claim.

Re:So wait... what? (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 5 months ago | (#47226693)

You're probably not in violation of any law unless there's some bat shit crazy laws about conspiracy to commit tax fraud. Your friend though might be in trouble, depending on how often he provides a "taxi" service to other people. In our tax system the condition (translated) is:

"A sustained activity which is likely to provide net income and operated by the taxpayer at its own expense and risk."

The key points here is
a) Sustained, one-offs or highly irregular activities don't count
b) Provide net income, activities that are mostly a loss are generally not deductible
c) You're not in an employment relationship, you make your own business

This has been applied broadly, if you're a prostitute and make a living from it you're committing tax fraud by not reporting it. Professional poker players have been hit with back taxes. You might say it's crude and after-the-fact but if you lose money it's a hobby, if you make money it's a business. Just like Al Capone they don't need to prove you did anything illegal, only that you failed to pay your income taxes.

Fuck taxis (4, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#47226291)

I want to be able to call an Amazon quadcopter to carry me to my destination.

Re:Fuck taxis (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 5 months ago | (#47226329)

Or you could be like Google, and buy a nearby Federal Airport (with fuel discounts!!)

Re:Fuck taxis (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226359)

A quadcopter would be kind of dangerous for that purpose. I recommend a hexacopter, octocopter, or quadx8 (a quad with two motors on each arm) that has redundancy.

Re:Fuck taxis (2)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 5 months ago | (#47226641)

I'll just put on my Google Glasses, and tune in to my destination, and fool myself that I'm already there!

Re:Fuck taxis (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226671)

and fuck airports

Re:Fuck taxis (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226745)

Careful that your destination isn't a jet engine.

Only one thing to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226297)

Fucking assholes.

Friends? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226307)

I had better not ask a friend to pick me up at the airport and hand over some cash for the gas. I'm so glad the government is protecting me from myself and making me take a taxi that smells like cum and sugar driven by a terrorist. Yeah, that's much better.

really? logic incoming (1)

drdeiphage (3669641) | about 5 months ago | (#47226331)

oh okay so i cant get a ride to the airport but how about the arbys down the street. it wouldnt be anything for someone to get a ride nearby and just walk to the airport the rest of the way

Re:really? logic incoming (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 5 months ago | (#47226371)

In my experience at international airports, being dropped off "near" an airport without acttually going on their property would entail at least a 20 minute walk just to get from where you were dropped off to the terminal. Their parking lots are huge. Not particularly fun if you are also trying to manage luggage

Re:really? logic incoming (1)

CRCulver (715279) | about 5 months ago | (#47226427)

oh okay so i cant get a ride to the airport but how about the arbys down the street.

Many airports are designed so that the only access is via a road classed as motorway, i.e. off-limits to pedestrians. The only way in is via a car, bus or train.

Protectionism (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226353)

It's nothing more than protectionism. Up here in soviet Canuckistan, if you'd like to stop your cab at the Pearson Airport, you'll need to make sure you're paying them their dues. I stopped there to pick up a friend's dad at the airport and had a ticket written, despite being stopped in a zone marked for passenger pickup. Only once I opened my window and asked why I was being written a ticket (I was waiting in the seat) did I learn that it was because I'm not a cab. The ticket was cancelled only because my friend rushed back to the car and proved to the officer he was family.

It comes as no surprise that a group of crony thugs like those that run an airport would be amongst the first to complain!

Re:Protectionism (3, Informative)

mark-t (151149) | about 5 months ago | (#47226405)

Yeah.... they can be pretty strict on those zones in front of the terminal. In a nutshell, you really can't actually wait for anybody there. You have to arrange with whoever you are picking up where you will meet them, and then you can stop there In those zones in front of the terminal you basically have to be either loading or unloading, and clearly in the process of picking up or dropping off someone, or else you can be ticketed. In my experience, cabs don't so much have an exemption to this as much as they have a designated area in front of the terminal where cabs are allowed to be which is generally quite clearly marked, and regular passenger pickup isn't supposed to occur there anyways.

Free Market (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226369)

I find it odd how many people here who are normally anti-free market/capitolism are against government control of an industry. Normally /. is full of people saying small business has no right to exist and if the government can't be allowed to do it, it should be illegal.

Funny how once it affects you the tune changes. All I can guess is you all just hate everyone else and want to keep them as oppressed as possible.

Lyft will have it worse than Uber (1)

John Jorsett (171560) | about 5 months ago | (#47226429)

This kind of crap is where the Lyft cars, with their visible mustaches, are more vulnerable to enforcement. The airport cops will be able to spot them easily and bust the drivers.

Impossible to enforce (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226461)

"Just dropping off my friend at the airport."

This is why republicans still exist. (0)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | about 5 months ago | (#47226473)

For all the problems that are best solved by government intervention, there is some shit like this happening. I don't know that much about taxi regulations, but I do know that hiring a guy off the internet to drive me to the airport can't be any more harmful than having a friend drop me off at the airport, so what the fuck is the problem?

In fact this is the only time I used Uber. The guy parked at the place where everyone else parks, I get my shit out of the trunk, I tried to tip him, he refused to take it, and he left. Does their really need to be a fucking regulation to prevent this from happening?

Dear California government, please don't make these tea party idiots right more often than they have to be.

Unions vote for politicians... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226501)

Politicians make the laws... Votes require Money...

It's a vicious circle.

Freedom of Movement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226515)

Just gonna leave this here:

Freedom of Movement under United States Law [wikipedia.org]

Fuck beta! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47226565)

Fuck beta!

Airports are expensive to run. (1)

mjwx (966435) | about 5 months ago | (#47226601)

In my city, Perth, Western Australia taxi's picking up passengers have to pay $2 to open the boomgate to get out, make the Uber drivers go there. That way the airport still gets it's revenue.

My personal feelings with "ride sharing" is that it needs to be governed under the same laws as other taxi/private car services. Drivers need to have a taxi license and insurance (private insurance does not cover you if you're using your car for a business).

The problem is, Uber cant operate under these conditions. They're already floundering in Australia because they dont have many drivers (drivers are barely breaking even in Oz, let alone making money) they aren't much cheaper than a taxi and there are a lot of horror stories about people waiting 45 minutes for a Uber car before just calling a regular taxi.

Re:Airports are expensive to run. (2)

Shakrai (717556) | about 5 months ago | (#47226737)

(private insurance does not cover you if you're using your car for a business).

Yes it does. It's just rated differently. Where do you think for-hire cars get their insurance from? The private sector or Uncle Sam?

I had my policy rated for business when I was working for a cheap ass consulting firm that made us use our own cars. It raised my premium less than 20%, a comparative bargain when compared to the prospect of paying a six digit bodily injury judgment. For-hire rates are a bit higher than this, but not particularly onerous, unless you live somewhere (New York City) that already has insanely high automotive insurance premiums.

Innovation? (4, Insightful)

rsilvergun (571051) | about 5 months ago | (#47226659)

At the risk of being modded troll, what innovation? All of the tech that powers these sites was built by other people. The only thing these guys did is get enough capital to fend off lawsuits.

I guess what really bugs me about these ride share guys is the real reason they're so big: massive unemployment and 40 years of declining wages. People don't participate in ride share sites for fun. I know taxi and limo drivers. They're some of the most abused people in the world. They're 'independent contractors' only in so long as it involves not getting the benefits of being employees (unemployment insurance, heath care, etc).

Fix the broke ass economy and all this 'innovation' would go away tomorrow. Christ, $16 billion in ipo value build on the corpse of the American Middle Class.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?