|
|
|
|
|
by themagician
3992 days ago
|
|
They pay for some additional insurance. They don't require drivers to carry commercial insurance. They don't require drivers to get passenger carrier permits. They don't really have to follow or comply with any of the other regulations imposed by the CPUC or things that plague the taxi and limo industry. All of these things have costs. Uber didn't remove the inefficiencies from the system, they just ignored the laws that cause them. I too can remove "inefficiencies" from my bottom line by not paying my taxes, right? I love Uber. I love that's it's on demand. I love that it's cheaper. But if you recall the time before UberX—when their was only black car service and all drivers had to have Passenger Carrier Permits, commercial insurance, and comply with CPUC rules and regulations—it WASN'T cheaper. The minimum was $15 a ride. SF to Sausalito was $80. Uber started with a great premium service that was compliant with the law and fixed a real problem. Uber expanded by saying, "We need to grow. Fast. The law no longer applies to us." |
|
Uber enforces the paperwork requirements of each (product type, geofence) permutation. Why would it require something like a Passenger Carrier Permit, if local law does not require it?
If you RTFA, you'll notice that the issue is failure to hand over trip data and GPS logs. Regualators allegedly want them to make sure disabled people and people with service animals are not discriminated against, but I'd be stunned if that's all the data was used for once it fell into government hands.