Seattle council votes to limit rideshare firms UberX, Lyft, Sidecar
Source: Reuters
Seattle lawmakers on Monday voted to cap the number of rideshare company drivers in a hotly contested move to limit a nascent industry that has emerged in dozens of cities to compete with traditional taxis.
The rules, approved unanimously by the Seattle City Council, will limit each of the three ridesharing companies - UberX, Lyft, and Sidecar - operating in the Pacific Northwest city of about 630,000 people to 150 drivers on the road at any time.
Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said he would sign the measure into law, despite concerns the limits were too strict.
The companies, which allow members of the public to hail rides at the touch of a smartphone app from drivers using their own cars, have said the rules will make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to continue operating in Seattle.
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/seattle-council-votes-limit-rideshare-firms-uberx-lyft-061641062--sector.html?.tsrc=attmp
rafeh1
(385 posts)Free enterprise is opposed by everyone right and left. Uber and lyft are actually providing nice side income to many poor or middle class people under straightened circumstances.
7962
(11,841 posts)I dont see what the problem is. I'd never heard of them and probably wouldnt have used them if it hadnt been suggested by a friend.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I'd imagine the opposition to ride-sharing developments comes from the taxi company trade associations than any one political philosophy... much as happened in Washington D.C. when UberX appeared there and immediately faced opposition from the District of Columbia Taxicab Commission.
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)They paid for the privilege to do what they do and these new guys just comes in and undercut them. I support the new age taxis but as long as they are not required to pay these expensive licensing fees, they will continue to face opposition from traditional taxi companies
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)It's closer to amateur taxi drivers. That said, I'm totally ok with it, and think limiting it is wrong.
Retrograde
(10,070 posts)This is the cool, modern age where everything is social media and all that, so we can't be using the same old=fogey names for it. And this way they can get around local limits on who can have taxi medallions. Because they're totally different, like taxis pick up strangers and take them where they're going and ride-shares, um, pick up strangers and take them where they're going.
Yeah, it's semantics. Uber et all have a great business model, though: they collect the money, take a cut, and the drivers have to cover their own maintenance, insurance (how many of them carry commercial insurance), etc., and if they have problems, the company will disavow any knowledge. There's a case in San Francisco of a Uber driver hitting a family in a crosswalk (they had the light), killing a child and injuring two adults. Uber claims since he was between fares (or between clients, as they say), he technically wasn't working for them so it's all his problem.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)If they're going to act as dispatchers, they should be forced to carry liability insurance. Which won't come cheap.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)one of those rideshare dealies.
Sounds dangerous.