[iselkow]

What are the arguments in favor of this regulation? I'm sure that anti-competition lobbies from limos, cabs, etc. play a role, but is there something safety-related as well? And if so, why would 150 Lyft drivers be safer than 400 Lyft drivers?

[patio11]

I don't subscribe to it, but:

Taxis negotiated their monopoly by giving us concessions for e.g. universal service (a taxi, unlike most businesses, is obligated to serve any customer regardless of whether their custom is the most profitable use of the taxi's time). This allows us to depend on taxis as an outsourced component of our public transportation infrastructure. If competition creams the really desirable fairs away from taxis, that might kill taxis. DSX has no desire to implement universal service and never will. This will adversely affect our most vulnerable citizens, like little old ladies who depend on the $3.50 fare to the local supermarket (whose custom taxi drivers hate) due to limited mobility.

How can we be sure drivers at DSX have adequate insurance, safe driving records, and obey the traffic laws? DSX says that they have adequate procedures in place, but DSX has basically designed those procedures itself, and on the face of it DSX seems to operate under accept-everyone-and-weed-out-underperformers, which still means that at any given time there are dozens of commercial drivers who we know nothing about operating on the streets of our fair city.

We depend on "if you screw up, you lose your medallion" to discipline taxi owners (as opposed to operators) in this city. "If you screw up, your account gets deleted and you have to move to a competing provider" doesn't apply the same level of incentive.

If Disruptive Service X (DSX) will let literally anybody with a car start working for them, how can we be sure that DSX isn't a summon-a-rapist app? Cars present a higher risk of rape/kidnapping than e.g. barber salons (n.b. which we also regulate), since a) they move and b) the passenger generally doesn't have a convenient escape out of the door.

[tptacek]

There's also a pernicious fallacy that accompanies all these discussions, which is that DSX is either Uber or Lyft. In reality, if regulations are rolled back, DSX is going to be 100 random companies operated by some of the same yutzes that run crappy cab and limo companies.

[twoodfin]

The universal service concession is the most convincing argument to me; rape and kidnapping the least. After all, each DSX user by necessity has a mobile phone in their hand, and the entire trip from initiation to arrival is scrupulously monitored and recorded by DSX. Not much possibility of crime, at least without being quickly caught.

[joeblau]

The arguments in favor are that the taxi cab companies and the local governments have a deal going on. A regular cab pays taxes and fees to the government and if people stop taking regular cabs, all of a sudden a stream of revenue stops coming in. Also, cab companies are losing a lot of drivers and business to services like UberX, Lyft and Sidecar. I've been in many UberX cars in San Francisco where the driver is actually a cab driver, but just hates the way the cab business is run.

The cab companies have an inferior business model and lobbying is the way they compete. Welcome to the political game.

[eli]

There is no monolithic thing called "regulation" that can be turned on or off. All cars and all businesses are regulated in various ways. Here in DC, cab drivers need to get their cars inspected more often than regular drivers, need to carry additional car insurance beyond the normal minimum, and need to prove they have a license in good standing. These rules seem reasonable and it seems fair to apply them to Uber.