Uber and the Flimsy Case for Regulation

Townhall.com ^ | January 4, 2015 | Steve Chapman

[kingu]

From what I understand, you don’t really know what the fare is until after the fact.

Having looked at the Uber app, it gives the fare within a couple dollars when you request the trip. During impacted times when surge pricing is in effect, you are notified that surge pricing is in effect, what the fare multiple is, and when they anticipate those fares reducing. Again, when you investigate booking the trip, it tells you the anticipated fare, including the surge rates.

So, really, any claims of 'we didn't know' is a lie. They could call a cab instead, take a bus, call a friend, etc.

[a fool in paradise]

Houston’s “safe-tow” program (implemented by Mayor White) forced people to get into tow trucks when their car had a flat tire or other minor roadside emergency, even if you have your own tow service) and the program with rife with problems (including violent offenders driving the tow trucks).

So much for “background checks” in city programs.

[a fool in paradise]

Some cities are looking to making existing highways into tollways (it is happening more and more) and using “surge pricing” during the morning and evening commute hours.

[ChicagahAl]

Not all problems need govt regulations, at least that is the way conservatives used to look at things.

That was before the GOPe invented "Big Government Conservatism".

[logi_cal869]

Yes, a Profiteering syndicate. Fact is, Uber has NO legal ground on which to stand now if it decides to take the high road and challenge the status quo in innumerable cities across the world. It really was a totally reckless way to start a business. Time will tell how much of this will end up falling on the taxpayers' backs. THEN we'll have a new discussion about conservatives defending the likes of Uber, Lyft, et al.

The conservative argument should be to roll back the regulation of taxis - that's what created Uber and other ridesharing programs. Cutting back government should restore the marketplace to being fully market driven.

And yet no one has tried, trumpeting a lawless corporation victimizing both drivers, passengers and pedestrians alike.

At least you OWN insurance covers YOUR a$$ in your friend's car; that's not true of EVERYTHING else.

[kingu]

A free people have the right of free movement. When such movement is controlled through taxes, they are no longer free.

Without breaking these laws, and forcing them to enforce them, there is no standing to roll them back. Lyft and the rest are creating that standing that I believe will eliminate many of the medallion and hail bus regulations that exist across the United States and restore a free market and restore free movement of people without taxation.

[logi_cal869]

When such movement is controlled through taxes, they are no longer free.

ROFLMAO.

You've obviously never read Uber's TOU.

To be clear, you are supporting the lawless usurpation of existing law by a syndicate of corporate suits and investors, not private citizenry, using drivers seeking an income as pawns and victimizing drivers, passengers and pedestrians with their irresponsible actions. You defend this with the emotional argument akin to some sort of 'tea party'. The argument is far from Conservative. To the contrary, it's to the benefit of libs/progs everywhere to draw this out. Standing? The lawless Uber & Lyft have destroyed their standing by not trying to change the laws. Rather, they broke them in the pursuit of profits.

I would never argue that the unique taxi services & municipal agreements in every city are a good thing. Ironically, they were born of liberal greed & control. But the fact is that NO ONE has tried to change even ONE city and now everyone defending Uber is promoting them as some 'lightning rod' for the people.

Fascinating how advertising roots in people's emotions, takes root, and pushes aside all logic & reasoning...

[DarkSavant]

To be clear, you are supporting the lawless usurpation of existing law by a syndicate of corporate suits and investors, not private citizenry, using drivers seeking an income as pawns and victimizing drivers, passengers and pedestrians with their irresponsible actions. You defend this with the emotional argument akin to some sort of 'tea party'. The argument is far from Conservative. To the contrary, it's to the benefit of libs/progs everywhere to draw this out. Standing? The lawless Uber & Lyft have destroyed their standing by not trying to change the laws. Rather, they broke them in the pursuit of profits.

The laws are stupid, and protect no one. I support any corporation that breaks stupid laws to give the consumers a better product.

Given their popularity, it sounds like they have a better product that the city cab system.

Fact is, politicians don't give a whit about the 'safety' or 'quality' of taxi cab drivers. The cab system is a revenue model for the powers-that-be, nothing more. Why should they put resources into changing something that is useless, and will fall into irrelevancy son enough? If a law is not enforced anymore, is it really still a law? The people are clamoring for these services, regardless of whether or not it's legal.

[logi_cal869]

...better product...

Hmmm...

Would YOU purchase a product that had no warranty? No product liability? Even IF that product had the potential to cause injury or death out of no fault of your own?

Would YOU hop on a bus or a train ONLY after signing a waiver and accept ALL risk for the trip?

Would YOU hop in a friend's car having done the same for a trip to the bank or what-not?

No sane person would answer yes to those.

From Uber TOU:

“The company…does not intend to provide transportation services or act in any way as a transportation carrier, and has no responsibility or liability for any transportation services provided to you…”

“…you agree that you shall defend, indemnify and hold the Company, its licensors and each such party’s parent organizations, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, Users, employees, attorneys and agents harmless from and against any and all claims, costs, damages, losses, liabilities and expenses”

“You acknowledge and agree that you and Company are each waiving the right to a trial by jury or to participate as a plaintiff…in any purported class action or representative proceeding.”

“You may be exposed to transportation that is potentially dangerous, offensive, harmful to minors, unsafe or otherwise objectionable, and…you use the application and the service at your own risk.”

It is reckless & irresponsible of so-called 'customers' of the Uber App to endeavor activity under which they have questionable legal protection. My big problem with this is that, so far, the ONLY people being enriched by 'ride-sharing' are the investors & lawyers...and taxpayers will ultimately end up picking up the tab (the 'reckless' part) and it will be sold to us with a liberal/emotional argument about taking care of 'the (irresponsible) little people'.

My other BIG problem with this, particularly your comment,

I support any corporation that breaks stupid laws to give the consumers a better product.

...is that that is

EXACTLY what the corporation called Dept. of Health & Human Services, in conjunction with the other corporation called the Internal Revenue Service, under the aegis of corporate 'officers' Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Jonathan Gruber (to name a few) did with HEALTHCARE!!!!!

...at least that was the bold print on the candy wrapper...to get everyone involved emotionally in 'changing the status quo', 'save $$' and 'provide better services'. Sounds familiar, right? (that last was 'rhetorical').

[trisham]

Uber has been in the news in Boston lately, and not in a good way.

http://www.cnet.com/news/boston-uber-driver-charged-with-sexual-assault/

I would never go out in Boston at night alone, so it’s not a service that I will ever use.

[SamAdams76]

Might need a wee bit of regulation....

So you would put trust in the government to make it right?

The "surge pricing" that Uber uses is actually a very innovative and capitalist way of ensuring supply for all the people who need rides. It gets more Uber drivers out on the road when they otherwise might have gone or stayed home.

A good analogy is the toilet paper situation in the Soviet Union. The price of toilet paper was "regulated" by the communists so that it would be cheap for everybody. This is the "wee bit of regulation" you call for.

Yet the Soviet Union was notoriously always short on toilet paper. Why was that? Because the price was kept so artificially low, makers of toilet paper were not motivated to ensure adequate supply. In a capitalist system, peak demand causes prices to rise which in turn causes suppliers to increase their output. This is the "invisible hand" that is often talked about in a capitalist system.