I’m sure the creators of Lyft, Uber and other such ride sharing services had great intentions of helping others, the environment and making some money when they started. The idea is nice, but from an underwriting standpoint, this is a public auto exposure and should be treated as such. The drivers are delivering passengers, not pizza, and should be regulated in the same way as taxi companies.
It’s glaringly obvious that ride-sharing is a taxi operation.
iPhone app or noy – hailing a cab is hailing a cab.
Ride-sharing is a taxi operation.
So why support dual-standards for small business taxicab
owners and multi-billion California corporations ?
Just regulate ride-sharing like you already regulating taxicab,
Kinder. The rules should be IDENTICAL.
What’s next – a bank with an iPhone bank is not longer a bank
and does not need to comply to banking regulation?
This law-making pattern is absurd.
What ridesharing services do is open the market to an innovative source of transport with the same insurance protections afforded to passengers as taxis (greater in some states) and give the public away to avoid paying monoply profits to cab companies owners (not the drivers). There is no hailing of a rideshare, you must go through the app. No cash changes hands and the gratuity is included in the fare. Try it, you will like it.
I’ll try Lyft when I know that the drivers are adequately insured. “On Demand Ridesharing” is currently nothing more than a regulatory dodge hiding behind a false front of technology and resource conservation.
As far as “There is no hailing of a rideshare”, that’s the way it’s supposed to be, but that’s not happening in practice. In CA, PUC investigators are hailing cars with pink mustaches, and they’re pulling over, only to be ticketed for operating as a taxi without a license. I guess they like the idea of charging a fare and not having to share it with Lyft. Gypsy cab, anyone?
@Wild Bill:
Really? Please tell me which insurance companies provide personal auto coverage without the commercial use exclusion, or public livery exposure at no additional cost.
They are trying to get this done, so that their insurance is “excess” over a personal policy.
And also – Kinder, if you don’t know the specifics why are you advocating either way? While I also applaud new, innovative ideas and business, I also believe in a fair/equitable marketplace to conduct that business.
Hey – maybe Chick-fil-a can file for tax exempt status, the owners are “religious”. I’m sure that wouldn’t affect the 20 burger joints in the 2-mile radius on the new chicken sandwich price point! ;)
I’m sure the creators of Lyft, Uber and other such ride sharing services had great intentions of helping others, the environment and making some money when they started. The idea is nice, but from an underwriting standpoint, this is a public auto exposure and should be treated as such. The drivers are delivering passengers, not pizza, and should be regulated in the same way as taxi companies.
It’s glaringly obvious that ride-sharing is a taxi operation.
iPhone app or noy – hailing a cab is hailing a cab.
Ride-sharing is a taxi operation.
So why support dual-standards for small business taxicab
owners and multi-billion California corporations ?
Just regulate ride-sharing like you already regulating taxicab,
Kinder. The rules should be IDENTICAL.
What’s next – a bank with an iPhone bank is not longer a bank
and does not need to comply to banking regulation?
This law-making pattern is absurd.
What ridesharing services do is open the market to an innovative source of transport with the same insurance protections afforded to passengers as taxis (greater in some states) and give the public away to avoid paying monoply profits to cab companies owners (not the drivers). There is no hailing of a rideshare, you must go through the app. No cash changes hands and the gratuity is included in the fare. Try it, you will like it.
I’ll try Lyft when I know that the drivers are adequately insured. “On Demand Ridesharing” is currently nothing more than a regulatory dodge hiding behind a false front of technology and resource conservation.
As far as “There is no hailing of a rideshare”, that’s the way it’s supposed to be, but that’s not happening in practice. In CA, PUC investigators are hailing cars with pink mustaches, and they’re pulling over, only to be ticketed for operating as a taxi without a license. I guess they like the idea of charging a fare and not having to share it with Lyft. Gypsy cab, anyone?
@Wild Bill:
Really? Please tell me which insurance companies provide personal auto coverage without the commercial use exclusion, or public livery exposure at no additional cost.
They are trying to get this done, so that their insurance is “excess” over a personal policy.
And also – Kinder, if you don’t know the specifics why are you advocating either way? While I also applaud new, innovative ideas and business, I also believe in a fair/equitable marketplace to conduct that business.
Hey – maybe Chick-fil-a can file for tax exempt status, the owners are “religious”. I’m sure that wouldn’t affect the 20 burger joints in the 2-mile radius on the new chicken sandwich price point! ;)