California gives in to taxi unions, delivers death blow to UBER

[Alyosha]

I knew this was coming. We cannot freely choose to take chances with our own bodies--even if we're cool with it.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/10/2...nto-the-future

Part of the new CPUC regulations require companies to maintain a million dollar per incident insurance on each vehicle in this new “TNC’ classification (for "Transportation Network Company"). The CPUC says that Lyft and Uber have already been doing so under an agreement that has kept them operating pending these new regulations, though neither driver I talked to felt confident about that and knew their personal insurance would not cover any incident occurring while they were driving professionally.
Jess personally says she gets “flipped off by cab drivers. I just smile at them. I kind of empathize with their position but the stories I hear of bad experiences with SF cabbies—they are not nice, demand cash, don’t show up—honestly I feel they created this situation themselves, they created a need for a new system.”


The cruel market forces of the apps make drivers obsessed with perfection. Both services have public passenger ratings of drivers and anything even slightly less than a perfect five can harm their ability to get riders. Tim and Jess both say that the fact that they don’t have visible running meters—which would make them taxis—means there can sometimes be real sticker shock for Uber riders, or a recommended price that strikes the rider as too large, for Lyft. In the information-rich world of Lyft, if you have a record of paying less than 80 percent or so of the recommended donation, drivers may decide to not bother picking you up. Jess says “that little tidbit needs to be out there. Passengers should know that if they pay much less than recommended, they do hurt themselves.”


CPUC’s regulations are not designed to make these services impossible. They will, to quote the regulations, “require a criminal background checks for each driver, establish a driver training program, implement a zero-tolerance policy on drugs and alcohol, and require insurance coverage” and make drivers “register in the Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) Pull Notice program, conduct a 19-point car inspection, and require a one-year driving history from the driver.” Many words in the regulations are concerned with making sure the app-driven driving services are sufficiently accessible to the disabled. The TNCs must pick up only prearranged fares via apps, never street hails.


The new regulations requirement for registering as a TNC will not go into effect for 60 days after their September 19^th issuance, so both drivers say they haven’t yet been affected by them. The regulations and the medallion system for regular cab drivers discouraged Tim from entering that system. But even getting his state charter party carrier license to be an official limo driver for the UberBlack service, “you couldn’t get any more anti-big government after trying to go through all that bureaucratic red tape” —cost many months and many thousands of dollars, he says.


“I’ve had this conversation with a few passengers,” Tim says. “I used to be a lifelong Democrat, but I’m probably voting Libertarian now, to be honest. I’m starting to feel the pains of Joe the Plumber—it’s like I’m Tim the Driver.” But even after they are fully regulated, forget about one of the most lucrative services for hired drivers in urban areas, airport drop offs and pickups. Those are still illegal unless you go through another time-consuming wait to get approved by the airport authorities, and give them their substantial cut.

In Europe everyone can be a taxi. I got all around Rome that way and in Moscow. Government regulations exist to help one set of businesses, in this case taxi services, over another.

If I am willing to take my chance with a non-taxi service and the government wants to remove my right to do so...they are limiting my freedom.



Tell me...how is this any different than telling people they can't have sex with someone they met up with in a bar because they might have an STD?

[nathanbforrest45]

All government regulations are designed to benefit one group at the expense of another. This is not to protect the public, we have been getting along with taxi cabs for a century or more with them, this is pure and simple to benefit the unions and the larger cab companies who want to stifle their competition.

[waltky]

Uber employee vs. independent contractor dispute...

Uber drivers, if employees, owed $730 million more: U.S. court papers
May 09 2016 - Drivers who worked for ride-hailing service Uber [UBER.UL] in California and Massachusetts over the past seven years would have been entitled to an estimated $730 million in expense reimbursements had they been employees rather than contractors, according to court documents made public on Monday.

Uber and smaller rival Lyft are attempting to settle lawsuits by drivers who contend they should be classified as employees and therefore entitled to reimbursement for expenses, including gasoline and vehicle maintenance. Drivers currently pay those costs themselves. According to attorneys for Uber drivers, the total potential damages in the case are $852 million, when including a claim to recover tips. The figure is based on rates for mileage reimbursement set by the U.S. government and on data provided by Uber Technologies Inc. The company, meanwhile, calculates damages at $429 million, mainly due to a lower mileage rate.

An Uber car is seen parked with the driver's lunch left on the dashboard in Venice, Los Angeles, California

The figures had been redacted in the original settlement deal proposed last month, but a San Francisco federal judge ordered them unsealed. The new data reveals how much of a risk employee classification is for on-demand tech companies like Uber. The proposed $100 million settlement keeps Uber drivers classified as contractors, though U.S. regulators are still reviewing the issue. Uber drivers in California and Massachusetts were entitled to about $122 million in tips, the filings show. That means Uber made about $732 million in commissions in those two states since 2009, based on an assumed 20 percent tip rate - more than $100 million less than it would have cost to reimburse drivers for expenses and tips. An Uber representative declined to comment.

The judge must decide whether the $100 million Uber settlement is fair, and the total potential damages at play will likely bear on his analysis. The deal represents about 12 percent of the potential $852 million in damages. Lyft had agreed to settle its class action for $12.25 million, but a separate federal judge rejected the deal because it represented only about 9 percent of the value of drivers' claims. While the deal does not elevate drivers to employees, attorneys for drivers have defended it, saying they faced significant risks had the case gone to trial. They also say drivers who have worked several months could be entitled to thousands of dollars each under the settlement. Beyond the money, Uber also agreed to new policies including an appeals process for drivers terminated by Uber.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ub...-idUSKCN0Y02E8

[waltky]

Ride a Uber, get a ticket...

Uber’s Driverless Cars Hit San Francisco Streets
December 14, 2016 | Ride-hailing service Uber has rolled out driverless cars in San Francisco, the second American city the company has targeted.

Uber tested autonomous cars earlier this year in Pittsburgh, but on a limited scale. The San Francisco rollout is expected to be larger. Uber users in San Francisco will be the first to have a chance to ride in the company’s self-driving vehicle, which is a Volvo XC90 SUV equipped with LIDAR, a radar-type system that uses lasers as well as cameras and computers to navigate. “The promise of self-driving is core to our mission of reliable transportation everywhere for everyone,” Anthony Levandowski, Uber’s vice president of self-driving technology, said in a blog post. Several tech companies have been or are exploring driverless cars, but Uber appears to have the advantage now.

Earlier this week, Alphabet, the parent company of Google, said it was spinning off its effort into a company called Waymo, a possible indication the cars are nearly ready to be tested in the real world. Tesla, Lyft and others are also working on autonomous cars. While the Pittsburgh launch was limited to a few frequent users within a small area, Uber says in San Francisco any passenger choosing an UberX ride, one of the cheaper options, could be picked up by a driverless car. The customer will have a choice to accept a driverless car or a regular driver. As in Pittsburgh, an Uber employee will still be in the car in case of malfunction.

According to The New York Times, it was not clear if Uber legally could test driverless cars in San Francisco as it was not listed as a company holding a permit from the California Department of Motor Vehicles. An Uber spokeswoman told the paper the company was “compliant with applicable federal and state laws.” “We are not planning to operate any differently than in Pittsburgh, where our pilot has been running successfully for several months,” wrote Levandowski. “Second, the rules apply to cars that can drive without someone controlling or monitoring them. For us, it’s still early days and our cars are not yet ready to drive without a person monitoring them.”

http://www.voanews.com/a/uber-self-d...o/3635879.html

See also:
Uber Driverless Cars Reportedly Run Red Lights in San Francisco
December 15, 2016 | Ride-hailing service Uber reportedly encountered a snag Wednesday after two autonomous vehicles appeared to run red lights during the company's rollout of its driverless car.

Video of one of the company’s self-driving Volvo SUV's running a light was recorded by a camera mounted on the dashboard of a nearby car, according to a report from the local CBS station. The incident occurred just hours after Uber launched the driverless service in San Francisco, the second city in which the new technology is being tested. The company first tested driverless cars on a very limited scale, in Pittsburgh, earlier this year. Another incident was reported later in the day when Twitter user Annie Gaus said she witnessed a driverless car run a red light and snapped a photo.

Uber's self-driving cars hit a snag in San Francisco.

As in Pittsburgh, Uber’s driverless cars still have a human on board should anything go wrong, and in a statement about the incidents, Uber said the issue was with the driver. “This incident was due to human error,” the statement read. “This is why we believe so much in making the roads safer by building self-driving Ubers. This vehicle was not part of the pilot and was not carrying customers. The driver involved has been suspended while we continue to investigate.”

Uber’s ability to test the autonomous cars in California was controversial as it was unclear if the company needed a permit. According to The New York Times, it was not clear if Uber legally could test driverless cars in San Francisco as it was not listed as a company holding a permit from the California Department of Motor Vehicles. An Uber spokeswoman told the paper the company was “compliant with applicable federal and state laws.” On Wednesday, state regulators said Uber should suspend driverless service until it has the proper paperwork.

http://www.voanews.com/a/mht-uber-dr...o/3637588.html

[Don]

[gamewell45]

All government regulations are designed to benefit one group at the expense of another. This is not to protect the public, we have been getting along with taxi cabs for a century or more with them, this is pure and simple to benefit the unions and the larger cab companies who want to stifle their competition.

This is really about safety for the passengers who use Uber and not a direct benefit to unions representing cab drivers and/or larger cab companies.

http://www.peoplesworld.org/article/...-against-uber/

The article makes a very compelling case against Uber, citing among other concerns, the safety of the passengers, especially since the unfortunate incident in Kalamazoo, Michigan where an Uber driver admitted to killing 6 passengers.

[waltky]

Uber stops California self-driving cars test...

Uber halts California self-driving cars test
Thu, 22 Dec 2016 | Ride-sharing firm Uber suspends its self-driving cars pilot in San Francisco after regulators say it needs a special permit.

Ride-sharing firm Uber has suspended its test of self-driving cars in San Francisco after regulators revoked the registration of the vehicles. Passengers had recently been given the option of a booking a self-driving vehicle. But authorities had threatened legal action if Uber did not obtain a special permit to test the cars.

Uber Volvo

Uber argues that because they came with a safety driver and are not fully autonomous, the permit was not needed. "We're now looking at where we can redeploy these cars, but remain 100% committed to California and will be redoubling our efforts to develop workable statewide rules," Uber said. San Francisco is Uber's second trial city for the new technology. In Pittsburgh, the company has been running its driverless trial since September and has not required special permits.

Not yet fully autonomous

Although the cars are promoted as "self-driving", they must constantly be monitored by an actual driver who can take control any time the software should fail. Uber says its technology is not sophisticated enough to have cars continuously drive by themselves - and therefore the permit demanded in San Francisco is not needed. According to the regulators though, 20 other companies testing self-driving technology in California - including Google, Tesla and Ford - do so with the special permit which requires the firms to report any accidents to the authorities. This potentially undermines the company's reputation, as the reports are available to the public.

Just before the city's Department of Motor Vehicles threatened Uber with legal action over the missing permit, a video of an Uber self-driving vehicle running a red light in San Francisco had been uploaded to YouTube. The trials are designed for the firm to identify flaws and glitches in the technology behind the autonomous driving.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38400224

[Captain Obvious]

I was wondering if this was going to go through.

Leave it to Cali to be regressive.

We really should cede them to Mexico.

[resister]

Uber driver in ft Lauderdale fl. shot a would be car jacker recently.Hooray for defensive gun use.

[waltky]

Uber Self-Driving Car Test Moves From California to Arizona...

Uber Moves Self-Driving Cars From California to Arizona
December 22, 2016 — A fleet of self-driving Uber cars left for Arizona on Thursday after they were banned from California roads over safety concerns.

The announcement came after Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey took to social media Wednesday and Thursday touting Arizona as an alternative to California for the ride-hailing company to test out its self-driving cars. Ducey, a Republican, sent tweets advertising Arizona's friendly business environment, saying Uber should ditch California for the Grand Canyon state. Uber said in a statement that it had shipped its cars to Arizona and will be expanding its self-driving pilot program in the next few weeks.

The company hasn't announced a date when the cars will be tested, nor did it provide details about how many cars were included. Uber previously had 16 self-driving cars registered in California. “Arizona welcomes Uber self-driving cars with open arms and wide open roads. While California puts the brakes on innovation and change with more bureaucracy and more regulation, Arizona is paving the way for new technology and new businesses,” Ducey said in a written statement. Ducey spokesman Daniel Scarpinato said the governor has been a strong supporter of driverless car technology and new business models, signing an executive order in August 2015 supporting the testing of such cars in Arizona. Uber faced immediate backlash after it launched its California testing in San Francisco last week.

An Uber driverless car is displayed in a garage in San Francisco, Dec. 13, 2016. Uber announced Dec. 22, 2016, it is moving its self-driving cars to Arizona.

The California Department of Motor Vehicles had threatened legal action if Uber kept the cars on the road, saying they needed the same special permit as the 20 other companies testing self-driving technology in California. Uber said it doesn't need that permit because the cars are not sophisticated enough to continuously drive themselves. Still, the company promotes the cars as “self-driving.” The ride-hailing company and state regulators negotiated for a week, but Uber pulled its cars off California roads Wednesday after state officials announced they would revoke the vehicle registrations of all 16 self-driving cars. The DMV said the registrations for the vehicles were wrongly issued because they were not properly marked as test vehicles. It invited Uber to seek a permit so their vehicles could operate legally in California — an offer the company said it did not plan to accept.

Uber said on Wednesday it was looking for other places to test out the cars but remained 100 percent committed to California and would redouble its efforts “to develop workable statewide rules.” Ducey called California's rules “over-regulation.” It's unclear which if any regulations exist in Arizona that would apply to the testing of self-driving cars. The executive order Ducey signed last year calls for the state's public safety and transportation departments to take steps toward allowing for the testing of self-driving cars. “This is about economic development, but it's also about changing the way we live and work. Arizona is proud to be open for business. California may not want you, but we do,” he said in a statement.

http://www.voanews.com/a/uber-self-d...a/3647370.html