Responding to Virginia’s all-out ban, Uber sent this letter out to their Virginia customers yesterday.
You may have heard that Uber received a cease and desist letter from the Virginia DMV yesterday. We wanted to write to let you know that Uber will operate as usual, and we plan to continue full-speed ahead with our commitment to providing Virginians access to safe, affordable and reliable rides. We are surprised and disappointed by the DMV’s actions, given that Uber has been working with the Virginia government for months to modernize regulations that will put consumer safety first. Virginia should be standing for innovation, consumer choice and job growth.
Uber has set the standard for consumer safety in the Commonwealth. All uberX rides in Virginia are insured up to $1,000,000, nearly 300% more than the $350,000 required of for-hire drivers by the Virginia DMV. While the Virginia DMV does not require that all for-hire drivers pass background checks, all drivers on the Uber platform pass rigorous background checks at the county, state and federal level before they are ever allowed access to the technology. Our commitment to safety far exceeds the requirements set by the Virginia DMV – making their actions puzzling.
If you want continued access to the safest and most affordable rides on the road, we need you to email, call and tweet your policymakers and tell them #VAneedsUber. Let Virginia policymakers know that banning ridesharing not only harms the countless riders who use the platform to connect with safe, affordable and reliable rides, but it also hurts thousands of small business entrepreneurs who rely on the platform to make a living, create new jobs and contribute to the economy.
Disruption always rankles the incumbents. Makes sense. The incumbents are fighting for their livelihood.
Disruption doesn’t mean you get to ignore the law. I certainly appreciate the things that companies like Uber and AirBnB do to shake up stale industries, but they should work to change the law, not just simply ignore it. Business would be extremely easy and extremely cheap if we could just ignore regulation. Just imagine how cheap chemical companies could get by if they ignored all those pesky environmental regs
You put in a request for a ride in a vehicle. Within a few minutes a vehicle arrives at your location. You get in, are driven to your destination and you pay for the ride/service.
That perfectly describes both standard Taxi and Uber/Lyft. Difference is that Taxi drivers usually have to pass a class and the company has to pay taxes and possess special licenses. The metering equipment must be registered and tested by weights and measures.
IF they both provide the same service then they should both be bound by the same laws. Just because Uber calls it “ride sharing” doesn’t mean its not a taxi; the driver didn’t just happen to be going your way, you hired them to go there.
Unless the law specifically prohibits ride sharing then it should be ignored. Courts usually constrain statute based laws to be the minimum that can be construed by the text of the law.
In most cases regulation of taxis today is simply to allow entrenched incumbents to retain their monopolies providing a specific service.
How does this “ride sharing” differ from a taxi service? The driver wasn’t just going your way, you hire them to drive you.
…except it is the government saying that it is a problem.
This matter of fact “hey, they should just break the law because they are disrupting” attitude is very strange. Uber doesn’t get the permits that other business are required to get – because they don’t want to pay those fees) – why should they be allowed to do that?
Funny that Uber lists all they ways they meet or exceed requirements – so why not get the needed permits? Should be easy for them if they are so great.
I’m sorry, this is Uber BS. VA DMV doesn’t like commercial vehicles getting the property tax subsidy thats meant only for non-commercial vehicles. UberX vehicles are registered as “personal use” vehicles.
Being an instrument for “Tax Evasion” is not disruption.
This is on top of the usual gray area of insurance. Uber and all other disruptive “ridesharing” companies should come up with clear insurance policies, likes that of Flight Car (one of the few collective consumption startups I adore).
“We wanted to write to let you know that Uber will operate as usual”
While, you know, I hate taxi monopolies, and wish Uber the best of luck, I think this is suicidally stupid of them.
It’s plainly and simply illegal for them to operate in Virginia. It was before the C+D letter – but now they have no excuse before the law of not knowing it.
Virgina, no matter Uber’s complaints about background checks and insurance and “safety”, requires licensing for common carriers. Uber does not have that licensing.
And I am, further, disgusted by their attempt to call it “ridesharing” – as much as I approve their call for people to ask the State to remove the licensing requirement.
Sharing, Uber, does not involve cash payments or “affordable”. That’s why it’s called “sharing”, not “hiring”.
Did nobody proof-read this release? Or do they think nobody’s going to notice the evasions?
Uber (in the form of its drivers) takes money in exchange for carrying passengers, does it not? That’s the whole point, right?
In VA this is specifically prohibited without licenses from the State.
The word “ride sharing” means nothing, when it’s “ride sharing” in exchange for payment. Everywhere else “sharing” doesn’t include payment.
I agree that the Taxi Monopolies should be crushed – but “should be” isn’t the law.
Tax evasion? It’s more about the taxi monopolies and licensing than car registration, as far as I can tell.
This is the first mention of a property tax angle I’ve heard of – though I agree this release reeks of BS*.
(What property tax subsidy?
I don’t know VA tax law – do you mean a lower tax on cars? Registration, or a property tax per se?
Or is there some wierd subsidy where real estate taxes are lower if you have a non-commercial vehicle?
Please clarify?)
But this press-release, like Netflix’s recent “net neutrality” one, is purest self-serving garbage.
Many VA residents pay annual property tax on the current value of the car. If you declare your vehicle as non-commercial use (i think more than 50% of mileage is for personal use), then you are eligible for a subsidy on the annual property tax you owe for the car.
But now, UberX drivers, while being recipients of this subsidy, are also using their cars for commercial purposes
more details here http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dta/cartax_pptaxrelief.htm
I think, this is the reason why DMV is pissed off because Uber is “disruptive”.
And I don’t like it, because the total subsidy given by the state is fixed amount, and more beneficiaries means less subsidy for those who follow the law.
I haven’t been 100% pro “ride share” companies since the day I didn’t get clear cut answers from them about Insurance (I wanted to become a part time driver).
But, as a rider, I still like the efficiency of these services, and would like to see Uber/Lyft follow some rules and regulations, in the best interests of those companies.
Its like they (Uber/Lyft/Sidecar) are swinging their axe of arrogance at the Goose that lays golden eggs. (“Goose” here are the regulators that haven’t yet banned the ride sharing companies completely).
as a long time regular Slug Line rider, I hate it too that Uber/Lyft/SideCar are clubbed under “Ride Sharing”.
Blokes from Silicon Valley have no idea what real “Ride Sharing” is.
look up ride sharing laws of VA. Those laws existed even before first iPhone was released. Even now, the same laws are being enforced against Uber. If a “ride share” involves money, it is a commercial transaction. Not a ride share.
It’s not just about incumbents and disruptors.
If you are out walking in your neighborhood and get hit by an Uber car that is speeding around trying to make the most fares in a day, good luck getting any kind of compensation. You can only sue the driver and he likely doesn’t have much money. If you are hit by a licensed cab that is also speeding around trying to make the most fares in a day, you can sue the cab company, and that cab company not only has more assets, it also has to have a lot of insurance so that it can pay compensation to the people it maims and murders in the course of business.
The worst kind of business idea is one that enables the business person to avoid their own responsibilities. Unfortunately, avoiding responsibility can be profitable, that is why we have to have a lot of laws that limit what businesses can do. Calling the avoidance of those laws “disruption” is a classic 21st century scam.
Also, licensed cabs have to have insurance to compensate the people they hit with their cars.
No, that is absurd.
One thing that makes cabs very different from a regular car is that cab time is money. There is a profit incentive on a cab driver (or Uber driver, or Lyft driver) to drive fast, weave in and out of traffic, and use other tactics to get as many fares done in one day. This leads to cabs (and Uber cars, and Lyft cars) having much more accidents. They hit more other cars, they hit more bicyclists, they hit more pedestrians, than a typical private car being driven around by one driver as he goes place to place. Therefore, the primary regulation on cabs is to carry a giant insurance policy, much, much bigger than a typical private car.
Secondly, the cab driver (or Uber driver, or Lyft driver) is picking up people that he or she does not personally know. They are picking up the public. The public has a right to expect that the driver has passed some kind of background check (for example, they are not a rapist) and the public has a right to expect that driver not to discriminate against them because of their skin tone or religious garb like Yarmulkes or because they are a same-sex couple, and so on.
Your logic about “ride sharing” is the same kind of bad logic that destroyed the music industry by calling it “sharing” when you publish someone else’s song. It’s not sharing — it’s publishing. Sharing music is playing a song for a visitor to your home, or telling a friend, “the new Lady Gaga album is great!” Putting a song file online for strangers to hear is publishing it. You should only publish your own songs, that you yourself made.
And the funny thing is, in both the cases of “ride sharing” and “music sharing,” it is somehow Silicon Valley startup millionaires who benefit financially. It’s never a tide that lifts all boats, it’s always a way to devalue the real work of cab driving or music making and put the money into the pockets of startup business people and teams of programmers.