California Lawmaker Votes To Kill Uber… Then Caught Driving Drunk Just Hours Later
from the karma dept
It’s a little early in the data to tell for sure, but there are some early indications that ride services like Uber and Lyft decrease cases of drunk driving by making it that much easier for intoxicated people to get somewhere without getting behind the wheel themselves. So it seems notable, if somewhat ridiculous, that California State Senator Ben Hueso was arrested for drunk driving just hours after voting in favor of a taxi-lobby supported bill that would profoundly limit services like Uber and Lyft. The bill was designed to dump a bunch of unnecessary and burdensome regulations on those companies to make it difficult for them to compete or survive in California.
Hueso voted in favor of it, and then a few hours later was spotted driving the wrong way down a one way street at 2:24 in the morning.
Powell said officers identified the driver as Hueso and said he was alone in the car. Hueso showed ?objective signs and symptoms? of being under the influence of alcohol and was given a field sobriety test.
He was arrested shortly after, taken in without incident and booked into Sacramento County jail at 3:27 a.m, she said. Jail records show he was booked with a blood alcohol content of .08 or higher at 3:27 a.m. Powell said the CHP would not release the precise blood alcohol reading. He was released from jail late Friday morning.
Hueso has apologized for the drunk driving, but perhaps he should apologize for his vote… and for not calling an Uber to take him home (or wherever he was headed) that night…
Filed Under: ben hueso, california, drunk driving, dui, innovation, politics, regulations
Companies: lyft, uber
Comments on “California Lawmaker Votes To Kill Uber… Then Caught Driving Drunk Just Hours Later”
Caught you politics
Nice one Mike! Congrats. Of course, you are assuming that his phone was incapable of calling a regular taxi company too, right?
Careful down there, you could get splinters from the bottom of the political barrel. Say hi to Sarah Palin while you are down there.
Re: Caught you politics
Where did he make such an assumption?
Re: Caught you politics
See? This is why I keep coming here: commentary that refuses to substitute straw-man and ad hominem drive-by attacks for cogent, considered, calm arguments.
Keep it up, Whatever… You’ll surely win this audience to your side.
Re: Re: Caught you politics
What calm argument do you want? Mike posted up an opportunistic smear on a politician, who’s drunk driving likely wouldn’t have gotten a mention here if he had voted FOR Uber. It’s about making fun of and trying to find benefit in the mistakes of others.
The republicans are pretty good at it, especially the baggers.
Re: Re: Re: Caught you politics
“Mike posted up an opportunistic smear on a politician, who’s drunk driving likely wouldn’t have gotten a mention here if he had voted FOR Uber.”
Because he’s noting how the two are possibly related. Politicians are responsible for setting the laws, for them to then break the very laws they are responsible for creating and maintaining is hypocritical and deserves mention.
“It’s about making fun of and trying to find benefit in the mistakes of others.”
So when a politician does something wrong it should just go unmentioned? The people shouldn’t be informed about who they are voting for?
Re: Re: Re: Caught you politics
“What calm argument do you want?”
One that addresses the issue instead of merely changes the subject and attacks Mike for merely informing us about issues that interest us. If you don’t like what Mike posts about you can either
A: Find another blog to visit
B: Start your own blog.
We visit this blog because we are interested in what Mike posts about. You may have other interests. There are other blogs out there that cover other interests. Or you can start your own blog. But don’t try to force a blog that covers subjects you may not be interested in to not cover them. You are free to exercise one of the other options listed above like starting your own blog.
Oh, that’s right, no one cares about your dumb and very often uninformed and wrong opinion so your blog will have almost no audience. No, if you want to be heard you must go elsewhere and start trying to dictate to others what they should post about because trying to start your own blog and posting what you think would gain almost zero audience.
Mike has a successful blog. People listen to him because he posts about subjects his community cares about. You’re jealous because no one cares about your dumb opinion. I get that. But don’t come here and take out your anger on others and expect to be taken seriously.
Re: Re: Re:2 Caught you politics
Hey, back off.
Even the best sites and the best writers sometimes stoop low to play dirty politics, and yes, I am calling out Mike for it.
It doesn’t matter how successful he is, it’s still a cheap shot. Moreover, if they guy is in fact related to someone in the taxi industry, he could have called them for a ride if he was smart enough to do it instead of driving drunk.
His vote for or again Uber doesn’t mean anything, and Uber is not the only way to avoid driving drunk.
It adds up to a cheap shot, nothing more.
You’re jealous because no one cares about your dumb opinion.
you don’t get it. If I wanted people to like my opinion, I would bend over and lick Mike’s boots like so many here do. If you think that’s the idea, then you missed out totally.
Re: Re: Re:3 Caught you politics
Even the best sites and the best writers sometimes stoop low to play dirty politics, and yes, I am calling out Mike for it.
You are spewing your usual bullshit and being called off for it. Not the most polite way for sure but you reap what you sow.
His vote for or again Uber doesn’t mean anything, and Uber is not the only way to avoid driving drunk.
You should learn the meaning of irony. Really.
If I wanted people to like my opinion…
… you’d present facts and comment on the point of the article, not on strawmen on your head or some lame, unimportant thing you had to spin out of your ass.
Re: Re: Re:3 Caught you politics
“It adds up to a cheap shot, nothing more.”
Bought-and-paid-for legacy taxi industry supporter doesn’t support the industry by actually using them in such an obvious situation, OR politician too stupid to realize he should call a taxi instead of driving. Probably both. You call it a cheap shot, I call it voter education. The guy deserves a very public shaming.
Re: Re: Re:4 Caught you politics
Yes, and the story could have been presented like that. Instead, it was presented as a cheap shot. Sometimes it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it. If you wrote the story that way, I would give it a big thumbs up 🙂
Re: Re: Re:5 Caught you politics
I really don’t see your point. Do you have anything substantive to say or are you going to just give us your personal and arbitrary definition of a ‘cheap shot’ as if anyone else cares. As if the world should just comply with what you want and post what you want how you want it. If you don’t like the way Mike posts why not start your own blog? Oh yeah, I already answered that question, because no one cares about what you have to say. You’re right and everyone else is wrong.
Re: Re: Re:3 Caught you politics
Let’s see…
“Actively refuses to comply with majority’s requests or consensus-supported rules.
Check.
“Performs actions deliberately to annoy others.”
Check.
“Angry and resentful of others.”
Check.
“Argues often.”
Check.
“Blames others for his or her own mistakes.”
Check.
“Frequently loses temper.”
Check.
“Spiteful or seeks revenge.”
Check.
“Touchy or easily annoyed.”
Check.
That seems to settle it. You are apparently a child who suffers from Oppositional Defiant Disorder.
Re: Re: Re:4 Caught you politics
See Ninja, you have been diagnosed!
Oh, and remember, what you say in the chat area appears here. So when you insult me and call me names, it does show up. Shows some real issues, hopefully this diagnosis will help you out!
Re: Re: Re:5 Caught you politics
Projecting much? That diagnosis was for you, Whatever. Apparently you can’t follow the conversation thread lines very well either.
Re: Re: Re:6 Caught you politics
Gee, I dunno, it seems to sum up Ninja’s entire speil pretty good.
I do have to say though, are you suggesting that I should limit my freedom of speech to make you happy?
“Actively refuses to comply with majority’s requests or consensus-supported rules.”
Which rules would those be? I use punctuation, I write in sentences, and I express my personal opinion.
Notice that we only end up in this discussion after someone starts to attack me personally (rather than discussing the story). Perhaps you should ask them to stay on topic.
Re: Re: Re:7 Caught you politics
Let’s see…
“Angry and resentful of others.”
“Argues often.”
“Blames others for his or her own mistakes.”
“Spiteful or seeks revenge.”
“Touchy or easily annoyed.”
This is getting to be a great drinking game.
You should add persecution complex to your list of personality quirks.
The fact that you don’t recognize that “the majority’s requests or consensus-supported rules” that you’re refusing to comply with are the general rules of internet civility is the problem:
Don’t troll. Don’t post just to be oppositional. Contribute to the conversation rather than detract from it. Even if you disagree with someone, you don’t have to attack them. If your opinion seems too off-topic, direct readers to your own blog where you can write as much as you like on your particular tangent. If you don’t like the site you’re visiting, you are neither required to read the articles or comment on them. There’s a whole world wide web out there for you to explore and find something you like instead.
You shouldn’t limit your freedom of speech to make others happy. You should find a way to express yourself that makes you happy. You don’t seem very happy when you comment here. If you are happy when you comment here, then you seem to have some immaturity issues because you would then only seem to take pleasure in annoying others.
Go take up painting. Learn to play an instrument. Join an ultimate frisbee team. Take your wife to a nice dinner and don’t stare at your mobile device instead of pay attention to her. Find a way to self-actualize that isn’t dependent on annoying others, because that isn’t psychologically or emotionally healthy and it isn’t productive for anyone.
Re: Re: Re:5 Caught you politics
See Ninja, you have been diagnosed!
I’m rubber and you’re glue!
Re: Re: Re:3 Caught you politics
“and Uber is not the only way to avoid driving drunk.”
Except no one argued that this was the case. The argument is that more competition makes transportation more ubiquitous, convenient, and cheaper. So instead of taking a car to a place someone might get drunk at and then having to drive the car back home (instead of leaving it there and coming back for it later), with competition, it could become a lot more convenient to take another form of transportation to where you want to go to plan for the possibility of being drunk on your way back home. The sad reality is that many people will unfortunately put expedience above safety in many situations and making transportation cheaper and more convenient, through competition, might help improve safety.
So instead of addressing your own version of the argument why not address the actual argument being made.
Re: Re: Re: Caught you politics
Politician votes to make it hard for a non-taxi company to survive in California.
Politician gets arrested for Drunk Driving later that night.
I’d make a blog post comment about that as well.
Re: Caught you politics
LoL, you seriously need a psychiatrist. What was it called again? Projection or something?
Re: Re: Caught you politics
Hi troll. Keep the personal attacks for yourself.
Re: Re: Re: Caught you politics
It was not an attack, I’m serious. You lack self-awareness.
Taxi monopoly
The taxi monopoly kills people. Municipal governments that keep this protectionist crap in place while companies like Uber are available are contributing to drunk driving and its deaths. They need to be held accountable for it.
Re: Taxi monopoly
Look. I actually work for a cab service in California. Although I am not a driver.
You want to let Uber, Lyft and Ride run around picking people up. I am all for it. But while you bitch about cab companies wanting to put a pile of regulations on them and how unfair it is … How about you attack your city and county officials about all the crap they make cab companies comply with?
If you do not want to regulate ride sharing companies make it fair and deregulate cabs as well.
Re: Re: Taxi monopoly
My uncle drove a cab for decades. I sympathize. Which is why I think government officials should be held responsible for the state of affairs, not cab companies or driver.
Re: Taxi monopoly
A taxi is not a monopoly any more than the city government that regulates it is a monopoly. A liquor license is not a monopoly… Or would you complain that it is if it prevents people from selling rubbing alcohol on street corners? The unlicensed and uninsured taxi alternatives enrich corporations while attempting to destroy small independent businesses. Drivers for Uber & Lyft won’t be able to make a living themselves eventually, and those who try to, out of desperation will pose a risk to public safety.
Re: Re: Taxi monopoly
The number of taxi licences here is strictly limited to protect the taxi industry, and the price is fixed (and high) across all the dispatch companies. It hovers between an oligopoly and a cartel, but is legally sanctioned and even encouraged.
Unfortunately, here they are weak geographic monopolies (well, strictly speaking it is planning consent for a business selling alcohol which is monopolistic, which is separate from the licence) – local councils can prevent a new bar or nightclub opening if there are already some in the area, or if there are churches, schools, or some other facilities present.
Actually, here you can sell rubbing alcohol on street corners without any licence provided you meet the rules for a street vendor (i.e. not causing an obstruction), you correctly label the rubbing alcohol in accordance with dangerous goods labelling and trades practices law,
Re: Re: Taxi monopoly
A taxi is not a monopoly any more than the city government that regulates it is a monopoly.
The city government is a monopoly. Unless your city has multiple competing governments…
Re: Re: Taxi monopoly
“A liquor license is not a monopoly.”
Depends on the state. In my state, the sale of liquor is officially a state monopoly. Liquor “licenses” authorize the holders to act as a state agent.
The thing that will sell this story is it coming out he called for a cab to be responsible, and they never bothered to show up so he decided to drive.
Re: Re:
That would be bad to the bone.
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/17/5269302/taxi-drivers-tap-a-friend-in-the.html
Re: Re:
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/17/5269302/taxi-drivers-tap-a-friend-in-the.html
If you haven’t read that yet, it notes that Hueso’s brother owns a cab company, suggesting a motive for voting to kill Uber and Lyft…
Re: Re: Re:
So couldn’t even call his brother to get a ride…
At best he is an idiot.
At worst he is a corrupt offical who put his brother ahead of progress.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
His very own brother would have charged him too much.
Re: Re: Hueso Ride-Sharing
Great piece. Would you mind including a link to the original story that Reason cited from CalNewsroom.com?
http://www.calnewsroom.com/2014/08/22/hours-after-voting-to-end-ride-sharing-industry-senator-ben-hueso-arrested-for-dui/
This is bare bones corruption
Legistlating under the influence
Legislating under the influence should be a crime, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it would incarcerate a rather large swath of legislators if successfully prosecuted.
Re: Legistlating under the influence
I agree. Legislation under the influence of corruption should be illegal. When laws are passed because corporations buy them that should be illegal.
Re: Legistlating under the influence
Well, better behind bars where we can keep an eye on them than out making shady deals or VUI (Voting while Under Influence, whether of alcohol or campaign contributions)
Isn't it Ironic?
http://youtu.be/Jne9t8sHpUc
Time for a recall
Any politician found to be driving drunk should be immediately stripped of their position, fined(if not jailed), and then blacklisted such that they can only run for public office again after a period of at least a decade, if ever.
There are numerous levels of stupid actions out there, but knowingly getting behind the wheel of a vehicle while impaired both physically and mentally is right up there near the top, and shows an absolutely abysmal level of common sense, intelligence, and care for the lives around you, and someone that stupid and reckless has no business in an important position like politics/public service.
Re: Time for a recall
I’m on the side of Uber and Lyft, too, but this is going too far.
Every time we say “nobody who ever did X should be in politics”, we exclude another segment of the population. Now it’s drunk driving, but it can be “said something racist”, “paid their taxes late”, “posted embarrassing pictures on Facebook”, etc…
Either we all learn some tolerance of human frailty, or we’ll end up with a political class of bland, risk-averse cowards terrified of their own shadows.
.
.
….oh
Re: Re: Time for a recall
Saying something racist is mock worthy, but unless they are following through by proposing racist laws, or similar stuff, that’s bad, but not recall worthy I’d say. Vote them out next election sure, but not much needed beyond that.
With drunk driving on the other hand, you are pretty much literally putting the lives of everyone around you on the road at risk due to your stupidity and lousy decision making skills, and someone so terrible at decision making, someone who holds the lives of others as less important than their ‘need’ to get someone now, rather than later, needs to be kicked right out of office, as they are showing a complete lack of traits needed to properly serve the public.
Re: Re: Time for a recall
IMO the one thing that should absolutely and totally kill a politician’s career (other than corruption) is violating a law he himself supported, unless he has since then attempted to repeal the law.
I’d also like to do something horrible to politicians who don’t pay back any benefits they received and then abolish once they stop getting them – all those politicians who received free tertiary education and living grants and then voted to introduce fees, I’m looking at you. Unfortunately, I can’t think of a way to enforce that.
Re: Re: Time for a recall
Perhaps to have to low expectations of our over paid over benefited politicians. Who preach to us about how great they are, We do not do this, they do and when we expect them to live up to Their promises, someone excuses them as good old boys. If this was a women you would have crucified her!!!
Re: Time for a recall
Should apply to cops, as well.
What Connection
I don’t see the connection. Now if he’d been arrested afterward while driving Uber drunk…
Re: What Connection
It’s a little weak, but I believe the connection is his voting against a service that could help people that would otherwise drive drunk, instead get a safe ride, only to then drive drunk when such a service could have provided a safe alternative to it shows just how services like Uber could be used to decrease the very crime he himself committed.
He drove drunk, calling up a ride via Uber could have prevented that, yet his actions are aimed at killing off Uber in that area, meaning other people will be faced with the choice of ‘drive drunk or try and find some other way home’, without the possible solution of just calling up a cab from Uber, much like he was.
Re: Re: What Connection
Yet Uber is not the only solution, there are plenty of taxis already. Uber and Lyft’s only real advantage is a snazzy interface that perhaps drunk people can operate better than dialing a 7 digit number.
He could have called a taxi. he didn’t, making him an idiot. Uber or no Uber didn’t change that one iota.
Re: Re: Re: What Connection
Never used Uber or the like, but as I understand it, the main advantage to the services is that you can get a ride quickly (along with the other advantages: nicer cars, you don’t have to pay the driver directly, etc.) I use taxis occasionally, and those 30-60 minute waits for them to show up — if they show up — are a serious problem.
Re: Re: Re: What Connection
“Uber and Lyft’s only real advantage is a snazzy interface that perhaps drunk people can operate better than dialing a 7 digit number.”
I’m going to safely assume you have zero experience with these services and haven’t read up on why they’ve become so popular so fast. It’s a lot more than just a “snazzy interface”, it’s a superior service.
“He could have called a taxi. he didn’t, making him an idiot.”
Agreed, and idiot politicians should be called out as such. It is public office after all.
Re: Re: Re: What Connection
That a politician is an idiot doesn’t worry you?
Or do you need idiots in politics so your favorite policemen can run around shooting people holding Wiimotes?
Re: Re: What Connection
How about the connection that his Brother owns a taxi company!!! That alone is bad enough.
I ran a small jitney service in the north east for about 2 years mostly picking up people from the grocery store and bars , had it not been for the harassment by taxi services that maybe showed up on time or ran late my service wouldn’t have been needed , the problem is the contracts the bigger more corporate services get via money or deals .
In Corporate America Taxi drives you.
Ahem. Uber should use it in their ads: if mr Hueso had our app he could have gotten a ride even in a borderline comma thus making other citizens safer and avoiding jail.
Who thinks they can open up a new food chain and not abide by the laws of the health code like all the rest. Maybe if they order by phone and pay with their phone. Just get legal and quit crying cause your brakes need to be inspected.
Re: Re:
catching a ride or offering a ride to someone isn’t the issue , it’s that a party not involved wants paid and will fine you and run you out of your lively hood , even if you pull up in a newly purchased vehicle already inspected .
Re: Re:
This has already been mentioned but the shills will just keep ignoring it.
The problem isn’t the existence of consumer protection and safety regulations. If it’s just a matter that competitors have to follow those same regulations then I don’t see that as much of a problem. The problem is that the law forbids competition and requires medallions to operate and the number of medallions are artificially and arbitrarily kept limited. The number of taxicab drivers is artificially kept below a certain number period. This has nothing to do with safety and consumer protection or the fact that incumbents need to pass some test (a test that everyone else can also pass and receive a license for passing). There aren’t a set of standards and tests that anyone can meet/pass and receive a license since the number of available licenses is artificially limited.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140709/16572527829/lyft-launches-nyc-taxi-commission-declares-it-illegal-hours-later.shtml#c128
Re: Re: Re:
To make it worse, in many places licensed taxis aren’t allowed to charge below the regulated price, preventing any competition on price.
Re: Re: Re:
requires medallions to operate and the number of medallions are artificially and arbitrarily kept limited.
there are plenty of good reasons to do this. In part, it’s to assure that those people owning / operating a cab can make enough money to actually maintain their vehicle in a safe manner, and so that they don’t have to work insane numbers of hours just to make a basic living. The risks of poorly maintained cars and over tired drivers is truly a big issue.
It’s one of the many issues facing Uber and Lyft. Uncertified and unlicensed drivers will create a legal nightmare at some point, and the taxi commissions and private car operators will be there to pile it on.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In part, it’s to assure that those people owning / operating a cab can make enough money to actually maintain their vehicle in a safe manner, and so that they don’t have to work insane numbers of hours just to make a basic living. The risks of poorly maintained cars and over tired drivers is truly a big issue.
In the absence of other effectively enforced regulations specifically targeted at those issues, restricting supply will not necessarily accomplish those goals, and in the presence of such regulations restricting supply will not be necessary to accomplish them. So no, those are not legitimate reasons to restrict supply.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny how every other industry survives without enforced minimum pricing and artificially limited competitors. Oh wait, I forgot the content peddling industry… who don’t even have the excuse of public safety.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“there are plenty of good reasons to do this”
What are they? The only one I can think of is to protect the established cab companies — which doesn’t actually count as a “good” reason.
“In part, it’s to assure that those people owning / operating a cab can make enough money to actually maintain their vehicle in a safe manner”
Also not a good reason. The law shouldn’t protect profitability. If the concern is safety, you address that by requiring regular inspections, rather like Uber does.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is nonsense. Less competition means that drivers must work more hours to serve the same number of customers. More competition means drivers work less hours to serve those same customers.
Your competition harms safety argument can be applied to any industry. Electronics can fail and cause fires. Fans and heaters can fail and cause fires. So lets restrict competition to ensure the fans and heaters cost more so that they’re built safe. Those issues can better be served by passing safety regulations that the equipment must meet. No one is against this.
As far as the number of hours worked the law already has provisions, in various states, for things like the maximum number of hours a trucker is allowed to drive before taking a break.
Your argument also ignores basic economic principles (not that you know anything about that). The laws of supply and demand would naturally ensure that everyone in the industry makes a normal profit. If they must work harder and more hours to make an equal profit with that of another industry some will naturally migrate to that other industry until everyone in all industries make a normal profit. In your argument you make up your own personal, unorthodox, economic principles that go against conventional economic principles and are unsupported by economic theory or evidence.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Also someone who drives as a profession has a stronger incentive to drive safely. If he gets his license revoked for doing something wrong or gets something against his record that’s potentially his job. He will find a harder time getting a job because no one is going to want to hire him if he has a driving record and if he has no license then he surely can’t find a job in the industry. Transportation employers have incentive to hire safe drivers with good records to reduce liability. So driving safely and ensuring he has enough sleep and is sober is part of her job. A person that drives as a profession would also have a lot more driving experience and so would naturally be a better and safer driver.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
So driving safely and ensuring he has enough sleep and is sober is part of her job.
True, but we have seen, for example in the trucking industry, that market forces will not necessarily lead to drivers getting enough sleep. In the taxi/car industry that concern is probably not as important since not many people need a car in the middle of the night.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
One of the problems with requiring medallions is that those holding the medallions are usually not the drivers. So those holding the medallions are going to ask for the majority of the profit made by the driver and so the driver now must work even more hours to make the same amount of money and hence to make a living. The medallion holder is going to try to overwork their employees and hire employees willing to work even more hours for less money.
In a capitalistic market an overworked and underpaid cab driver that must work too many hours for too little pay can simply go independent if they see it as more profitable. This creates pressure for cab employers to give better hours and better pay to drivers because if they overwork and underpay them too much at some point it will become more profitable for drivers to go independent (and become competitors).
Re: Re:
But Uber etc. isn’t a taxi company, it is a pooling service for minicab operators. It just eliminates the three disadvantages minicabs have over taxis, that minicab operators generally have fewer vehicles (so potentially a much longer wait), that you can’t tout for trade as a taxi can (so potential passengers have to call your central office), and that they don’t generally have good brand penetration.
Uber drivers should be covered by the same regulations as other minicab operators.
Uber is being kicked out of India too. 🙁
http://qz.com/254495/why-shutting-uber-down-is-poor-regulation-by-indias-central-bank/
No party affiliation mentioned.
Must be a Democrat.
Yep. He sure is.
Re: No party affiliation mentioned.
It wasn’t mentioned, because it doesn’t matter.
Demand mandatory 3x punishment for legislators!
All law enforcement should have mandatory double punishment because it’s their job to enforce the laws.
All legislators should have mandatory triple punishment because they are the ones that make the laws.
Instead, we have just the reverse where law enforcement is often excused and legislators are specifically immune from prosecution for the laws that they write.
uber
Uber doesn’t check driving revords accurately. I know of one driver who was fired from a cab company for falling asleep at the wheel, and rearended another vehicle, but Uber hired him.
Hueso Cab Company
Has anybody looked into why Ben Hueso opposes Lyft and Uber? He and his brother own a cab company in San Diego and will directly benefit from less competition. They also treat their mostly immigrant East African drivers like indentured servants.
Uber is acting like cab company. Than why they dont have liability insurance like cabs, buses, trucks etc.
Re: Re:
They do. Also, they require all their drivers to carry liability insurance.
Re: Re:
No, they’re acting like a minicab company, which is a pre-existing type of business also attempting to work around the protectionistic policies which allow the taxi industry to charge excessive fares. The only difference is that they use a smartphone app and a server rather than a phone line and a man with a radio.