
Charleston, SC police plan to sting UberX drivers - ryandvm
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140718/PC05/140719299/1177/charleston-police-plan-to-sting-uberx-drivers-uber-says-it-will-pay-fines
======
ChuckMcM
This is what I perceive to be the problem:

From the article:

    
    
       > "I think when you look at Uber's ads on Facebook 
       > saying you can make $52,000 a year driving for them,
       > it's very appealing in this town of kids that 
       > wait tables," said Clayton Dennard of Going Coastal
       > Transportation.
    

I think it is appealing, and because it is _possible_ to make money driving
for UberX in a town with taxis tells you not that Uber is borked but that the
taxi system is. That the municipalities don't see this (or perhaps they do if
they are complicit in the existing status quo) is somewhat infuriating. It
seems to me that if taxis were great then Uber wouldn't get any traction.

~~~
sheetjs
> if taxis were great then Uber wouldn't get any traction.

Uber has a few luxuries that taxis are not afforded (due to regulation),
including significant surge pricing and the general ability to turn down
fares. To compare, Uber is allowed to charge 3x the normal price during peak
hours, whereas NYC cabs have a fixed 50 cent surcharge at night and $1 during
evening commuting hours.

Personal anecdote: requested an Uber at the ferry terminal on the embarcadero
20 minutes before a surge. Driver was a block away and suddenly canceled,
forcing me to request again. The second request occurred during a surge, so I
had to pay 2.5x for that trip! Fortunately Uber refunded me but that type of
stunt is what the laws exist to prevent.

As I understand UberX, since the drivers are not required to take on
commercial insurance, their insurance costs are also significantly limited.
The biggest botheration, though, is the fact that the insurance policies
technically don't allow driving for hire.

It seems we all want a situation with the regulations, guarantees and
protections that are currently provided by the laws AND the convenience and
benefits of Uber. Unfortunately they are mutually exclusive. If we allowed
taxis to charge more for fares and to skirt the other regulations that they
are currently bound to, I'd expect that the taxi landscape would improve
immensely

~~~
x1798DE
> _It seems we all want a situation with the regulations, guarantees and
> protections that are currently provided by the laws AND the convenience and
> benefits of Uber. Unfortunately they are mutually exclusive. If we allowed
> taxis to charge more for fares and to skirt the other regulations that they
> are currently bound to, I 'd expect that the taxi landscape would improve
> immensely_

Personally, I don't want that, but that's just me. However, I don't see how
they are mutually exclusive. If you want to take a ride from a regulated,
"safe" taxi, then you still have the option if Uber is around. The only
problem is that people _don 't_ care about regulation that much, which is why
taxis are hurting from the advent of Uber.

Why did you request a second uber during the price surge (if you didn't
realize that Uber was going to pay you back)? Why not just call a taxi?

~~~
kevingadd
> If you want to take a ride from a regulated, "safe" taxi, then you still
> have the option if Uber is around.

Until Uber muscles out taxis in certain localities, which will happen if they
continue to offer (on average) lower prices and (on average) better service,
thanks in part to not having to comply with regulations or obey the law.

This isn't a hypothetical scenario either; this is the business model for this
kidn of VC-backed growth startup: Grow your market, hopefully without losing
_too much_ money, and then eventually transition into charging reasonable
prices and monetizing the shit out of your large audience. If they can muscle
most of their competitors out of the market in the process, they'll have an
easier time retaining their customer base and be able to charge higher prices.

There are lots of other companies applying the same strategy, some even in the
same market.

------
pdabbadabba
I find this totally infuriating. Yes, Uber offers a valuable service that I
wish more localities would accommodate. But we are bound even by laws that we
think are stupid, and Uber shouldn't be allowed to operate in flagrant
violation of local laws simply because they have enough money to pay the fines
they rack up. And this is to say nothing of the fact that Charleston may well
have legitimate policy reasons for wanting to regulate taxi drivers, reasons
that Uber is now actively undermining.

If I were Charleston, my next order of business would be to enact an ordinance
providing for exponentially increasing fines for businesses that materially
encourage the violation of local laws.

~~~
thaumaturgy
I'm entirely disinterested in the whole Uber vs. the cities show, but every
comment thread on it is sort of neat as a study in personalities.

Broadly speaking, there are rule-followers and rule-breakers. (If you
subscribe to Kohlberg's theory of moral development, these are stage 4 vs.
stage 6 arguments, though I don't want to make any implications here on which
group is "more moral".)

The rule-followers hold laws as the highest moral authority, and if the laws
are wrong, then what you're supposed to do is follow the rules to change the
laws.

The rule-breakers hold their personal ideals as the highest moral authority,
and if the laws are wrong, then what you're supposed to do is circumvent,
subvert, or break them.

And these two groups are driving eachother _nuts_ , and it happens in almost
every single discussion because Uber is possibly one of the most distilled
examples of a company of rule-breakers in recent history. Their response to
Charleston is a classic example: "sure, OK, fine our drivers, we'll just keep
breaking the laws anyway, because we disagree with them."

To respond directly to your comment, you're right that Charleston's laws might
exist for a good reason. But, unless Charleston can explain that reason,
Uber's supporters will continue to argue that the law is irrelevant. And, if
Charleston were to follow something like your suggestion, and say, "no,
really, our law is actually very important, we're going to break you if you
don't follow it", then Uber's supporters would only become even more vocal.

~~~
pdabbadabba
This is an interesting observation and, generally speaking, I agree with it.
But there is something else at issue as well: democratic legitimacy.

By any normal definition of the term, ordinances imposed by the City of
Charleston are imposed by a democratically elected government. Moreover, it is
a municipal government which, at least in theory, is the most democratically
responsive unit of government there is.

If Uber were operating in an oppressive dictatorship, I would be a lot more
sympathetic to Uber's plight. But at least in theory, the laws they are
ignoring in Charleston are laws enacted by representatives of the people of
Charleston!

I suspect that Uber's supporters here will argue that this is really only a
fiction and that the residents of Charleston agree with Uber, and not their
own government. This is possible -- though I doubt anyone here actually knows
if this is true, and it ignores the fact that, in a representative democracy,
representatives are not expected to do only what their constituents want.

In any case, it's interesting to think about how commenters' attitudes about
Uber relate to their views about democratic government.

~~~
zo1
" _are laws enacted by representatives of the people of Charleston!_ "
Obviously not _all_ of the people of Charleston, but that's a big discussion
on _mob-rule_.

And you completely disregard the disconnect between "people of Charleston" and
their representatives. Two separate and distinct groups. And the connection
between them does not necessarily imply that the actions of the
representatives is representative of the will of the people of Charleston.

" _it ignores the fact that, in a representative democracy, representatives
are not expected to do only what their constituents want._ "

Ah yes, I just got to this part and you did mention it. Bravo, you've
successfully dismantled Democracy without meaning to. Now if you could just
take the next moral and logical leap, I've got some good literature regarding
this topic:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-
capitalism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism)

------
funkiee
Charleston resident here, our politics are so backwards in this regard. We're
also considering making new bars close at midnight to make downtown 'more
attractive to tech companies'.

At least local lawyers have stated that they're willing to take the case of
any uber driver caught by this for free.

~~~
67726e
Don't forget the "War on Touror" wherein undercover police officers hand out
$1000 fines to college kids after they've asked them to give an impromptu
history tour of the peninsula.

~~~
simcop2387
Any sources for that, it's hard to find anything googling that, and it sounds
like a pretty open and shut case of entrapment on the surface.

~~~
67726e
Source[0]

I'm not a lawyer, but the police can ask you to perform a crime and bust you
for it if "you were inclined to commit the crime anyway" or something like
that. The rule of thumb is like if a tourist walked up and asked for a tour,
would the suspect do it then? If so a cop can nab you for it.

The sting revolves around Charleston licensing tour guides who must pass a
pretty hard test and the rickshaw/bike-taxi operator not having taken/passed
that test. Of course there was a recent case in Washington D.C. where the same
law regarding tour guides was recently struck down[1], so who knows if he
could have fought it. Last I heard the guy who got busted was paying his fine
in installments.

[0] -
[http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140122/PC16/14012982...](http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140122/PC16/140129828)
[1] - [http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-
freespeech-t...](http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-freespeech-
tourguides-court-20140711-story.html)

------
lotsofmangos
_Uber 's controversial method of recruiting average citizens to drive for the
service_

I wasn't aware that average citizens becoming taxi drivers was particularly
controversial. There must be some minimum level of oddness normally required I
guess. Which would explain a lot.

------
tzs
> However, the city's strategy of penalizng UberX drivers may be futile.
> Taylor Bennett, a spokesman for Uber, said the company will pay for all the
> fines that its drivers in Charleston are issued by law enforcement officers,
> even if the drivers are cited more than once for the same violation.

> That may not be an empty promise. The San Francisco-based technology company
> is backed by Google Ventures, which recently estimated that the company is
> worth more than $200 billion, according to Bloomberg

I'm a bit surprised this works. My big concern if I were paying someone's
fines for breaking the law would be RICO laws. I guess this is not a problem
because nobody (yet) includes operation of unlicensed taxi services as a
predicate offense in their RICO statute?

------
outside1234
"The San Francisco-based technology company is backed by Google Ventures,
which recently estimated that the company is worth more than $200 billion,
according to Bloomberg."

Ok, Uber is great, but $200B? A third as valuable as Apple? Errr, no.

~~~
ConnorBoyd
Sort of a misquote. The Bloomberg article quotes the Google Ventures managing
partner, who says the long-term market value could be $200 billion or more.
This article makes it sound like that's their current valuation. Still sounds
too high, but it's not quite as ridiculous.

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-15/worth-more-than-
toy...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-15/worth-more-than-toyota-
google-ventures-head-says-uber-value-could-exceed-200b.html)

------
rvanniekerk
"We have a big public safety issue here, and we need to get them to understand
that this a problem ... and that we do not intend to ignore it."

What an absolute cop-out this is, no pun intended.

~~~
pdabbadabba
How so? It seems to me that the City of Charleston is perfectly within its
rights to impose a licensing requirement on taxi drivers as a way of ensuring
that drivers, among other things, have the proper insurance. And it shouldn't
be expected to simply waive this requirement because Uber is a big company
that that says it offers insurance coverage for its drivers. Maybe Charleston
would like to make Uber and its drivers demonstrate that they actually have
that insurance, in a particular way and to a particular level of proof. Or
maybe Charleston requires more or different insurance than Uber provides.

I don't doubt that there is an element of protectionism here as well. But that
doesn't mean that there isn't also a public safety issue, or, regardless, that
Uber is free to flout local law so long as it can pay the fines.

~~~
VLM
"perfectly within its rights to impose a licensing requirement"

How so?

I can think of two example of near unanimous modern agreement where lower
governmental levels are not allowed to impose additional randomly purchased
rules on subjects regulated at a higher level, its a thought crime to even
suggest the rationale behind these historical issues:

1) Poll taxes and election tests

2) Enforcement of immigration law

~~~
pdabbadabba
Well of course there are certain licensing requirements that a municipality
cannot impose. But you remain very far from showing that a license to operate
a taxi -- an area that is subject to strict regulation in virtually every
municipality in the U.S. -- is one of them.

------
reuwsaat
Why do taxi organizations spend all their effort trying to make life difficult
for Uber. It's not as if Uber has some sort of top-secret tech they refuse to
share with the world. Perhaps some of their efforts should be spent on
improving their own product. As someone that spent 5 years living in
Manhattan, I feel qualified to comment on the state of taxi rides. I now take
Uber almost exclusively. And several Uber drivers I've had the pleasure of
riding with were previously taxi drivers. They've told me the experience is
much better for them with Uber as well. Stop trying to kill Uber. Make taxis
better for your drivers and passengers and the rest will follow.

~~~
hkmurakami
I was in Manhattan the other day, and as a non'New Yorker, I spent 10 minutes
trying and failing to catch a cab. Gave up and used uberx. Never going to even
attempt to catch a cab again in the city :(

~~~
reuwsaat
Any chance you're "the" Haruki Murakami?! Big, big fan here.

~~~
vinceguidry
Just check his profile. You can get there by clicking on his name.

~~~
reuwsaat
Ah. Sorry. Should have been able to figure that out. Thank you.

~~~
hkmurakami
No worries, I get that a lot ;)

------
tomblomfield
My limited experience with the taxi service in Charleston has been very poor -
run-down vehicles, openly racist drivers and general reluctance to use the
fare meters.

Uber is the exact opposite each case.

------
oiw78
Uber will never work out. Following are few reasons :

1\. Uber is directly competing against taxi drivers in each city. These are
low-wage workers having strong unions in each city.

2\. Traffic laws are controlled by city or town. Because there is no single
govt. in every city/town , local mandates vary.

3\. Uber might project that it is helping local economy. What are taxi drivers
? Are they not part of economy ? There are 233,000 taxi drivers according to
BLS. If every common man tries to take share of these drivers , who by the way
part of same city/town and local economy Uber is claiming to help, it will
result in voilence ultimately.

4\. Uber is tanking dollars in VC and select-few founders pockets with false
pretension of giving back to local economy. What about taxes on drivers'
earning ? That is great loss for city/town in terms of revenue. Individuals
are not necessarily honest about their earnings from Uber.

5\. Uber has also entered Indian market. India is all together different
country and there is very very strong support for taxi drivers in mumbai ,
banglore etc. Wait until these uneducated people learn about Uber and start
smashing every Uber car.

edit - Now shills are down voting truth.

~~~
Malician
Your reasons are relevant and important as a list of threats to Uber, but just
listing them out doesn't prove that Uber cannot overcome them.

#1: Yes, but they can win. For example, here we have Uber with the advantage
against heavy opposition from one of the most entrenched taxi markets in the
world:
[http://www.brw.com.au/p/business/uber_gets_london_green_ligh...](http://www.brw.com.au/p/business/uber_gets_london_green_light_black_XNUC7XI8mIZEovAMpNlhxK)

#2 Sure, and Uber has been dealing with this surprisingly well considering the
challenges involved.

#3, #4, these are more of a moral attack on Uber as being bad for the populace
they serve. Correct or not, it doesn't necessarily mean they will fail.

Finally, in #3-#5 there is a big element of the idea that there will be mass
vigilante violence against Uber which will shut it down. This is certainly
possible (as with the anti-tech protests in the Bay), but its implications
reach far beyond Uber. Violence here represents a data point in a larger war
between communities with declining opportunities and declining income and the
tech sector. I do not think the mobs will win.

