Charleston, SC police plan to sting UberX drivers
postandcourier.com
postandcourier.com
From the article:
> "I think when you look at Uber's ads on Facebook
> saying you can make $52,000 a year driving for them,
> it's very appealing in this town of kids that
> wait tables," said Clayton Dennard of Going Coastal
> Transportation.
Uber has a few luxuries that taxis are not afforded (due to regulation), including significant surge pricing and the general ability to turn down fares. To compare, Uber is allowed to charge 3x the normal price during peak hours, whereas NYC cabs have a fixed 50 cent surcharge at night and $1 during evening commuting hours.
Personal anecdote: requested an Uber at the ferry terminal on the embarcadero 20 minutes before a surge. Driver was a block away and suddenly canceled, forcing me to request again. The second request occurred during a surge, so I had to pay 2.5x for that trip! Fortunately Uber refunded me but that type of stunt is what the laws exist to prevent.
As I understand UberX, since the drivers are not required to take on commercial insurance, their insurance costs are also significantly limited. The biggest botheration, though, is the fact that the insurance policies technically don't allow driving for hire.
It seems we all want a situation with the regulations, guarantees and protections that are currently provided by the laws AND the convenience and benefits of Uber. Unfortunately they are mutually exclusive. If we allowed taxis to charge more for fares and to skirt the other regulations that they are currently bound to, I'd expect that the taxi landscape would improve immensely
The problem isn't with insurance or vehicle standards, all of which will be addressed in time. Uber fixed a fundamental structural problem with an antiquated system that favors medallion owners at the expense of both drivers and riders.
I had 3 Uber drivers cancel on me in a row as a rain storm in New York got rapidly worse over the course of about 20 minutes. Each time I rebooked, the surge multiple had increased. I complained to Uber and they basically shrugged it off.
Personally, I don't want that, but that's just me. However, I don't see how they are mutually exclusive. If you want to take a ride from a regulated, "safe" taxi, then you still have the option if Uber is around. The only problem is that people don't care about regulation that much, which is why taxis are hurting from the advent of Uber.
Why did you request a second uber during the price surge (if you didn't realize that Uber was going to pay you back)? Why not just call a taxi?
Until Uber muscles out taxis in certain localities, which will happen if they continue to offer (on average) lower prices and (on average) better service, thanks in part to not having to comply with regulations or obey the law.
This isn't a hypothetical scenario either; this is the business model for this kidn of VC-backed growth startup: Grow your market, hopefully without losing too much money, and then eventually transition into charging reasonable prices and monetizing the shit out of your large audience. If they can muscle most of their competitors out of the market in the process, they'll have an easier time retaining their customer base and be able to charge higher prices.
There are lots of other companies applying the same strategy, some even in the same market.
The whole point of regulation is to make up for things the market doesn't handle very well. Sadly, the realities don't always live up to that ideal. I do care that my driver is insured properly (I'm paranoid like that), but in my experience generally taxi service has been terrible. Paying via credit card, summoning via gps, and live eta for taxi arrival all address the biggest frustrations I've had with taxi service. I just want to make sure they have the same level of vetting, training, safety equipment, and insurance that everyone has already decided for that kind of service.
Nope, we don't all want it. Surge pricing is fine by me, if rather get an expensive ride that actually happens, than a cheap ride I can't have. What happened to you was obvious abuse of surge pricing and I think Uber can deal with by adding gradual ramp up for prices and punishing cancellations.
The insurance inadequacy obviously has to be dealt with.
Do you know what that is called in economics? Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_ceiling
It's a specific type of price-control, and it's the reason you have a shortage of taxis during peak-hours. The fact that pricing can "surge" in Uber during peak hours is a feature! It links in to what the other poster told you, that some Uber drivers like the flexibility of being able to clock in/out whenever they please. Increasing the price at peak hours means that there is more incentive for them to clock in, and thus eliminate the shortage.
Sure, there will be abuse, like you mentioned. But that's trivial to solve without having to resort to out-right banning Uber, as per one of the other responder to your comment.
If I were Charleston, my next order of business would be to enact an ordinance providing for exponentially increasing fines for businesses that materially encourage the violation of local laws.
To make an analogy, it's clear that civil disobedience should not be practiced against laws forbidding murder or theft, but in the case of jim crow laws or similarly unjust laws I would fully support acts of civil disobedience.
Also, does it not bother you that this particular form of civil disobedience is only available with extremely deep pockets?
One could argue the Uber should be punished, but that they should do it anyway.
Broadly speaking, there are rule-followers and rule-breakers. (If you subscribe to Kohlberg's theory of moral development, these are stage 4 vs. stage 6 arguments, though I don't want to make any implications here on which group is "more moral".)
The rule-followers hold laws as the highest moral authority, and if the laws are wrong, then what you're supposed to do is follow the rules to change the laws.
The rule-breakers hold their personal ideals as the highest moral authority, and if the laws are wrong, then what you're supposed to do is circumvent, subvert, or break them.
And these two groups are driving eachother nuts, and it happens in almost every single discussion because Uber is possibly one of the most distilled examples of a company of rule-breakers in recent history. Their response to Charleston is a classic example: "sure, OK, fine our drivers, we'll just keep breaking the laws anyway, because we disagree with them."
To respond directly to your comment, you're right that Charleston's laws might exist for a good reason. But, unless Charleston can explain that reason, Uber's supporters will continue to argue that the law is irrelevant. And, if Charleston were to follow something like your suggestion, and say, "no, really, our law is actually very important, we're going to break you if you don't follow it", then Uber's supporters would only become even more vocal.
By any normal definition of the term, ordinances imposed by the City of Charleston are imposed by a democratically elected government. Moreover, it is a municipal government which, at least in theory, is the most democratically responsive unit of government there is.
If Uber were operating in an oppressive dictatorship, I would be a lot more sympathetic to Uber's plight. But at least in theory, the laws they are ignoring in Charleston are laws enacted by representatives of the people of Charleston!
I suspect that Uber's supporters here will argue that this is really only a fiction and that the residents of Charleston agree with Uber, and not their own government. This is possible -- though I doubt anyone here actually knows if this is true, and it ignores the fact that, in a representative democracy, representatives are not expected to do only what their constituents want.
In any case, it's interesting to think about how commenters' attitudes about Uber relate to their views about democratic government.
And you completely disregard the disconnect between "people of Charleston" and their representatives. Two separate and distinct groups. And the connection between them does not necessarily imply that the actions of the representatives is representative of the will of the people of Charleston.
"it ignores the fact that, in a representative democracy, representatives are not expected to do only what their constituents want."
Ah yes, I just got to this part and you did mention it. Bravo, you've successfully dismantled Democracy without meaning to. Now if you could just take the next moral and logical leap, I've got some good literature regarding this topic:
Because, as you know, there is not a single bit of interference from money in politics or bullshit party politics, or cronyism. No sir! We'll have none of that in good 'ol Chucktown.
This, by the way, is probably not true. It is just the first internet-popular rule breaker in recent history. It is pretty easy to imagine an alternate universe where commenters on a popular internet forum supported, e.g., large power companies' treating environmental fines as simply a cost of doing business, instead of attempting to comply with them, because they see cheap power for industry and progress as more important than environmental concerns.
On the other hand, I can only see positive externalities from Uber.
And if you literally can't think of any negative externalities that Uber generates, I submit that you haven't approached the problem dispassionately. As people have repeatedly pointed out, there are concerns about Uber's liability insurance (even now that it offers its own limited coverage -- externality: uncompensated, injured people), policy concerns about surge pricing (externality: people can't afford to get where they're going at peak usage times), policy concerns that Uber drivers are free to turn down passengers (externality: possible discrimination), concerns that decrentalization makes it more difficult to ensure that vehicles are safe for passengers (externality: possible injuries), concerns that decentralization makes it more difficult to ensure that drivers have safe driving records and clean criminal histories (externality: possible crime against passengers more possible injuries), difficulty verifying that drivers are actually covered by the insurance that they (and Uber) claim covers them in the absence of formal licensing (externality: uncompensated injuries). These are just off the top of my head. Maybe you don't find all of these these persuasive, and maybe you think that the benefits of Uber outweigh all of these (I happen to agree!).
And, to be clear, I think that Uber is doing much (MUCH) less harm than most serial polluters by ignoring the relevant regulations. The point, though, is just that Uber isn't the first company to take the attitude that it is free to ignore the law. It's just the first one I can think of that is also popular.
Not at all, it's an economic issue. Pollution imposes clear, observable, quantifiable costs. That's the externality; no moralizing necessary.
You seem to be very confused about the rest of the stuff so I'm not going to bother addressing it.
I really wish you would, since that's the substance of the comment, and I'm pretty sure I'm not actually confused -- though perhaps you disagree. (Note that your disagreeing, and my being "very confused" are not actually the same thing.) And you should do a little more thinking about what constitutes a "negative" externality -- sometimes it is clear that it constitutes a cognizable economic "cost," but other cases are no so clear cut.
Here is some recommended reading: http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=... Especially page 911. The point is not just that a value judgment is necessary to determine whether something is a cost or benefit (though sometimes it is) but also that a value judgment is needed to determine whether a would-be externality is the sort of thing that a person or entity should be expected to internalize.
From what I can see, there doesn't seem to be a moral categorical imperative behind the choices that the 'rule-breakers' here are making. They are doing so because it is expedient. They make more money in an easier way by breaking the rule and so they do it. If we applied the universality required here to that, this must mean that anyone who can make money in an easier way by breaking it, should.
Of course we could describe the Uber-side here as relentless warriors for freedom, but that is unlikely to be accurate. Uber drivers I have spoken to do not have that as a prime motivation. I take Uber every day, and love it, but I feel you're not describing the situation accurately.
The drivers themselves may well only do it for the money, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if Uber's actual sole purpose is making money, but the overwhelming commentary from Uber's spokerspersons has been centered around providing a service that people want, which keeps the debate framed on the ethics of rule-following vs. rule-breaking.
Law always gets the last word though. The thing that's interesting is that the US seems to let things go for a while before clamping down. The whole "present a warning about browser cookies" thing in the EU is a bit of a disaster.
According to whom / by what creed? I certainly do not believe that, and it is clear that a large chunk of the country does not either, if you look at the routine flouting, of, for instance, jaywalking laws, underage drinking laws, gambling laws, marijuana laws, and so on.
At least local lawyers have stated that they're willing to take the case of any uber driver caught by this for free.
I'm not a lawyer, but the police can ask you to perform a crime and bust you for it if "you were inclined to commit the crime anyway" or something like that. The rule of thumb is like if a tourist walked up and asked for a tour, would the suspect do it then? If so a cop can nab you for it.
The sting revolves around Charleston licensing tour guides who must pass a pretty hard test and the rickshaw/bike-taxi operator not having taken/passed that test. Of course there was a recent case in Washington D.C. where the same law regarding tour guides was recently struck down[1], so who knows if he could have fought it. Last I heard the guy who got busted was paying his fine in installments.
[0] - http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140122/PC16/14012982... [1] - http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-freespeech-t...
The actual area that would be restricted by this is mostly shops, restaurants, and tourist areas. It's largely seen as a push by the blue bloods to force their will on the rest of us.
Explain how so ? How checking safety on public transportation, insurance requirements, fines is backward ? I have seen other comments on windows requirement, tourer fines but I think city government is fully justified while imposing fines on Uber drivers.
I wasn't aware that average citizens becoming taxi drivers was particularly controversial. There must be some minimum level of oddness normally required I guess. Which would explain a lot.
> That may not be an empty promise. The San Francisco-based technology company is backed by Google Ventures, which recently estimated that the company is worth more than $200 billion, according to Bloomberg
I'm a bit surprised this works. My big concern if I were paying someone's fines for breaking the law would be RICO laws. I guess this is not a problem because nobody (yet) includes operation of unlicensed taxi services as a predicate offense in their RICO statute?
Ok, Uber is great, but $200B? A third as valuable as Apple? Errr, no.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-15/worth-more-than-toy...
What an absolute cop-out this is, no pun intended.
I don't doubt that there is an element of protectionism here as well. But that doesn't mean that there isn't also a public safety issue, or, regardless, that Uber is free to flout local law so long as it can pay the fines.
How so?
I can think of two example of near unanimous modern agreement where lower governmental levels are not allowed to impose additional randomly purchased rules on subjects regulated at a higher level, its a thought crime to even suggest the rationale behind these historical issues:
1) Poll taxes and election tests
2) Enforcement of immigration law
Uber is the exact opposite each case.
1. Uber is directly competing against taxi drivers in each city. These are low-wage workers having strong unions in each city.
2. Traffic laws are controlled by city or town. Because there is no single govt. in every city/town , local mandates vary.
3. Uber might project that it is helping local economy. What are taxi drivers ? Are they not part of economy ? There are 233,000 taxi drivers according to BLS. If every common man tries to take share of these drivers , who by the way part of same city/town and local economy Uber is claiming to help, it will result in voilence ultimately.
4. Uber is tanking dollars in VC and select-few founders pockets with false pretension of giving back to local economy. What about taxes on drivers' earning ? That is great loss for city/town in terms of revenue. Individuals are not necessarily honest about their earnings from Uber.
5. Uber has also entered Indian market. India is all together different country and there is very very strong support for taxi drivers in mumbai , banglore etc. Wait until these uneducated people learn about Uber and start smashing every Uber car.
edit - Now shills are down voting truth.
#1: Yes, but they can win. For example, here we have Uber with the advantage against heavy opposition from one of the most entrenched taxi markets in the world: http://www.brw.com.au/p/business/uber_gets_london_green_ligh...
#2 Sure, and Uber has been dealing with this surprisingly well considering the challenges involved.
#3, #4, these are more of a moral attack on Uber as being bad for the populace they serve. Correct or not, it doesn't necessarily mean they will fail.
Finally, in #3-#5 there is a big element of the idea that there will be mass vigilante violence against Uber which will shut it down. This is certainly possible (as with the anti-tech protests in the Bay), but its implications reach far beyond Uber. Violence here represents a data point in a larger war between communities with declining opportunities and declining income and the tech sector. I do not think the mobs will win.