Lifting a cap would be absurd. The whole ride-sharing business model is a power grab played out in slow motion on local government authority and local government revenue. Note that there are (still) no smartphone-hail / e-hail / ride-sharing permits and law-breaking ride-sharers conveniently abuse this regulatory loophole to the fullest. When confronted, these violators deny being in a taxi business yet “forget” the fact that when founded, many even named their companies to include words like “taxi” or “cab”. For example, Uber’s original name is “Uber Cab”. Ride-sharing companies are absolutely in a taxi business, and denying it is laughable. This status quo cannot continue. It lasted far too long. The golden days of Wild West regulatory abuse may soon be over for ride-sharing law-breakers. Regulators all over the world are beginning to grasp that this flawed business model exists only the expense of reduced local revenues to our cities and our local businesses. Some US cities have outlawed ride-sharing companies completely (for non-compliance, bad business ethics, and etc.) or are in the process of outlawing them. On international stage, China has outlawed Uber recently in a few major cities. Others are beginning to sell smartphone-hail permits to put some regulatory cap over ride-sharer’s aggressive uncontrolled and frequently manipulative tactics. The fact that we are comparing legitimate small businesses owned by local taxi drivers and local fleets, to few oligarchic multi-billion dollar companies that act as a ride-sharing cartel and that operate all over the world and use technology as an excuse to break laws and regulations is utterly unfair (to say the least).
There is a reason all legitimate livery companies are regulated, to ensure they are financially responsible to the public; to ensure their drivers are qualified; and to ensure their vehicles are properly maintained and appropriate for the services to be performed.
Unless the personal automobile policies issued to the ride share vehicle operators have changed, those policies exclude coverage when the vehicle is being used for hire or commercially. Also, Livery Companies Insurance Policies are endorsed to provide notification to the regulating body, if the insurance policy is subject to cancelation or non-renewal. I doubt that these Ride Share operations have anything similar.
Unfortunately, it will most likely require a large accident with multiple fatalities and injuries requiring extensive hospitalization, for which the Ride Share vehicle owner will not have coverage, before this matter is addressed seriously. Sadly, the community will likely be the recipient of litigation on behalf of the injured parties, for allowing the Ride Share service to operate.
Lifting a cap would be absurd. The whole ride-sharing business model is a power grab played out in slow motion on local government authority and local government revenue. Note that there are (still) no smartphone-hail / e-hail / ride-sharing permits and law-breaking ride-sharers conveniently abuse this regulatory loophole to the fullest. When confronted, these violators deny being in a taxi business yet “forget” the fact that when founded, many even named their companies to include words like “taxi” or “cab”. For example, Uber’s original name is “Uber Cab”. Ride-sharing companies are absolutely in a taxi business, and denying it is laughable. This status quo cannot continue. It lasted far too long. The golden days of Wild West regulatory abuse may soon be over for ride-sharing law-breakers. Regulators all over the world are beginning to grasp that this flawed business model exists only the expense of reduced local revenues to our cities and our local businesses. Some US cities have outlawed ride-sharing companies completely (for non-compliance, bad business ethics, and etc.) or are in the process of outlawing them. On international stage, China has outlawed Uber recently in a few major cities. Others are beginning to sell smartphone-hail permits to put some regulatory cap over ride-sharer’s aggressive uncontrolled and frequently manipulative tactics. The fact that we are comparing legitimate small businesses owned by local taxi drivers and local fleets, to few oligarchic multi-billion dollar companies that act as a ride-sharing cartel and that operate all over the world and use technology as an excuse to break laws and regulations is utterly unfair (to say the least).
There is a reason all legitimate livery companies are regulated, to ensure they are financially responsible to the public; to ensure their drivers are qualified; and to ensure their vehicles are properly maintained and appropriate for the services to be performed.
Unless the personal automobile policies issued to the ride share vehicle operators have changed, those policies exclude coverage when the vehicle is being used for hire or commercially. Also, Livery Companies Insurance Policies are endorsed to provide notification to the regulating body, if the insurance policy is subject to cancelation or non-renewal. I doubt that these Ride Share operations have anything similar.
Unfortunately, it will most likely require a large accident with multiple fatalities and injuries requiring extensive hospitalization, for which the Ride Share vehicle owner will not have coverage, before this matter is addressed seriously. Sadly, the community will likely be the recipient of litigation on behalf of the injured parties, for allowing the Ride Share service to operate.