In a sign that China’s war on tech is finally over, ride-sharing service Didi is once again free to accept new signups.
China has been waging war on tech companies in an effort to reign them in. As part of the crackdown, Beijing banned Didi from app stores and investigated its handling of customer data, according to CNN. The investigation was launched just days after Didi went public, wiping out tens of billions from the company’s value.
Roughly a week after a Chinese official declared the tech crackdown “basically” over, Didi is once again free to conduct its business.
“For more than a year, our company has cooperated with the government’s cybersecurity review, seriously dealt with the security issues found in the review, and carried out a comprehensive rectification,” Didi said in a statement posted on its Weibo account, via CNN.
Researchers at Uber are proposing a new artificial intelligence (AI) language model that emphasizes positive, social interaction.
AI is one of the most important developments in the tech industry. Increasingly, is is being used in a wide array of fields, often with the goal to assist individuals in mundane tasks. Chat bots, support agents and conversational AIs are just a few examples. One challenge, however, is making AIs that people will engage with.
Researchers at Uber believe they have the solution, and have written a paper emphasizing the importance of developing an AI language model around positive, social interaction.
Goal-oriented conversational agents are becoming prevalent in our daily lives. For these systems to engage users and achieve their goals, they need to exhibit appropriate social behavior as well as provide informative replies that guide users through tasks.
The researchers hypothesized that an AI using positive interaction would encourage more engagement.
We, therefore, hypothesize that users would prefer a conversaional agent with more polite or more positive language and be more willing to engage with, respond to and persist in the interaction when conversing with an agent using polite and positive language.
Uber’s researchers tested their hypothesis in a ride-sharing environment, where new drivers’ on-boarding was guided by text messages from customer support representatives (CSR).
In this Study 1 we investigated whether and how social language is related to user engagement in task-oriented conversations. We used existing machine learning models to measure politeness and positivity in our analyses. The results show that the politeness level in CSR messages was positively correlated with driver’s responsiveness and completion of their first trip. We also found that positivity positively predicts driver’s first trip, but it has a negative relationship to driver responsiveness even after removing congratulatory milestone messages or messages that do not have any question mark, which usually have positive sentiment and/or do not require responses from drivers.
Uber’s research could be an important stepping stone in the ongoing development of AI, ensuring it best supports human needs.
California Assembly Bill 5, which has been upheld in a recent court ruling, literally bans the right of an individual to work for themself according to California Assemblyman Kevin Kiley (R). The law will ban hundreds of different professions and especially the hundreds of thousands of jobs created by the gig economy over the last decade.
Here is how California Assemblyman Kevin Kiley describes the laws impact:
This law, California Assembly Bill 5, has made it impractical for Uber and Lyft to operate here. Everyone saw this coming. We’ve known this whole year that this law has been devastating for people. It’s actually devastating not just for Uber and Lyft but for hundreds of professions in California.
This law, AB-5, has basically banned being an independent contractor or an independent worker. It says you have to be in the employ of someone else. They are shutting down Uber and Lyft and that will leave 100,000 of their drivers out of work. We have millions of Californians who also rely on their services. It’s going to be yet another blow to our economy which is already doing about as bad as any state in the country.
California Law Kills Uber and Lyft And The Entire Gig Economy
We will have to essentially shut down Uber until the voters decide.
Reclassifying drivers from contractors to employees is unfortunate.
You would just get a much smaller service at much higher prices.
The vast majority of our drivers don’t want to be full-time workers.
Really unfortunate at a historical time of unemployment in California.
It would put vast swaths of our drivers out of work.
It would take away transportation from hundreds of thousands of Californians.
Our labor laws are hopelessly outdated.
It’s essentially how Uber started, kind of a black car service with few cars.
We can’t go out and hire ten of thousands of people directly overnight.
We would focus on the center of cities versus smaller cities or suburbs.
“We think the ruling by a California judge was unfortunate on reclassifying drivers from contractors to employees,” says Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi. “We think we (already) comply with the laws. But if the judge and a court finds that we are not and they don’t give us a stay to get to November then we will have to essentially shut down Uber until the voters decide.”
Dara Khosrowshahi, CEO of Uber, discusses a court ruling requiring Uber to classify Uber drivers as full-time workers. Khosrowshahi says that this will force Uber to become a much small black car service focused on city centers and with much higher prices for rides. Essentially the service would no longer exist in California suburbs and rural areas:
Vast Majority of Uber Drivers Want To Remain As Contractors
We think the ruling (in California) was unfortunate (on reclassifying drivers from contractors to employees). We obviously respect the law and the judge. We do have about eight days now where there is a stay. We are going to go back to the court and appeal the ruling and hope that the court reconsiders. If the court doesn’t reconsider then in California, it’s hard to believe we will be able to switch our model to full-time employment quickly, so I think Uber will shut down for a while. Really, the big question is in November with Prop. 22, we have a proposition out there that puts forward what we believe is the best of both worlds.
The vast majority of our drivers, a 4-1 ratio, want flexibility, and don’t want to be full-time workers. With Prop. 22 drivers can continue to have the flexibility that they have but they can enjoy the protections, benefit fund, an earning standard so that they have the protections that many people associate with full-time work. We are hoping that in November the California voters can speak. We are confident that this better way which is kind of the best of both worlds will be the way going forward for California.
We Will Shut Down Until The Voters Decide In November
In California, we have changed our model substantially. For example, riders in California pay drivers directly. Drivers can set their own price as an independent contractor would. Drivers have all the flexibility to decide whether or not they want to take a ride or not. We think we (already) comply with the laws. But if the judge and a court finds that we are not and they don’t give us a stay to get to November then we will have to essentially shut down Uber until the voters decide.
It would be really unfortunate at a historical time of unemployment in California. It would put vast swaths of our drivers out of work without the opportunity to earn. It would take away transportation from hundreds of thousands of Californians. It would be really really unfortunate. Obviously we would look to comply with the law long-term and we’re hoping the law gives us the best of both worlds. Our labor laws are hopelessly outdated. You’ve got the haves and have-nots and you can have actually a better way.
Smaller Service, Higher Prices, Only Focused On Big City Centers
Hopefully, the courts will reconsider. By no means do we want this to happen. If they don’t we are going to have to work to move to a full-time model. It’s essentially how Uber started, kind of a black car service with very few cars on the road and much higher prices. So we will look to flip to a full-time model but this is a model that we built over ten years. We can’t go out and hire ten of thousands of people directly overnight. It would take a significant amount of time to switch over. We have teams thinking about it and working on it. We don’t think it’s the likely outcome by the way and we would look to get back on the road as quickly as possible.
You would just get a much smaller service, much higher prices, and probably a service that’s focused on the center of cities versus a bunch of the smaller cities or the suburbs that we operate in right now. That’s the reality. It’s not a game of chicken or one way or the other. It’s really up to the courts and we are going to comply with the law. We will look to get going but it will be a very very different service once we get going.
Uber CEO: Will Shut Down In California Until Voters Decide
In a call to investors, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi has said the company is losing significant business because of the coronavirus, but has enough funds on hand.
According to Business Insider, Khosrowshahi told investors the hardest hit areas have seen a 60-70% decline in rides, and that could go as high as 80% for the year. In spite of that, the CEO said the company has $10 billion in unrestricted cash.
“We have plenty of liquidity on the books which positions us to come out of this crisis strong and capable,” Khosrowshahi said.
Another bright spot is Uber Eats, the company’s food delivery service. As people forgo restaurants, Uber Eats is seeing growth in even the worst hit areas. Between the news that Uber has enough cash to survive the crisis, and news its food delivery service is growing, the company’s stock was up as much as 43% Thursday.
Uber should serve as an example for other companies. Between having enough cash to weather a storm, and diversifying into a disruptive business, the company seems well-positioned to survive any temporary hit to its core business.
Uber is taking its battle against the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) over customer data to federal court.
While Uber already shares location data for its electric bike and scooter ride-sharing services with many cities it operates in, the LADOT has required that Uber share real-time, or near real-time, data with the agency. The data would include start and end points, as well as the route taken. Uber has fought the ruling and ultimately had its license for its scooter business pulled.
The company appealed the ruling, which was heard by David B. Shapiro, a lawyer who has handled multiple city departments appeals. Shapiro sided with LADOT, but noted that neither side had made very compelling arguments. Uber had not given evidence that real-time data was being abused, or that customers’ privacy was negatively impacted. At the same time, LADOT did not adequately show why it was so important to receive real-time data.
Now Uber is taking the next step, suing the LADOT in federal court. According to CNET, the company is continuing to claim that customer privacy will be negatively impacted.
“Real-time in-trip geolocation data is not good for planning bike lanes, or figuring out deployment patterns in different neighborhoods, or dealing with complaints about devices that are parked in the wrong place, or monitoring compliance with permit requirements,” states the lawsuit. “What it is good for is surveillance.”
The outcome of this lawsuit will likely have far-reaching repercussions for a variety of industries, and determine the degree to which local governments do or don’t have the right to require real-time location data.
Grab, a Singapore based Uber type service, is so popular that if their IT infrastructure didn’t remain stable during peak usage transportation would literally ground to a halt. Grab is the leading ride sharing service in Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam and the Philippines.
“Grab is the leading ride sharing service in Southeast Asia,” says Ditesh Kumar, Director of Engineering at Grab. “We do 1.5 million bookings (a day). If we are not running basically transportation comes to a standstill.”
Kumar says that Grab has the biggest land fleet in Southeast Asia and that they are very concerned about uptime both for their passengers and their drivers, who he says depend on them for their livelihoods.
“With this comes two challenges, because of the tremendous amount of demand we need to scale, but because so many people depend on us, we need to stay stable.”
Scale and Stability are Two Opposing Forces
Kumar notes the difficulties of keeping your IT infrastructure stable while simultaneously scaling platform usage. “You can scale easily if you don’t have to be stable, and you can be very stable if you don’t have to scale.”
He says that the answer to this huge problem, after a lot of reflection, is addressing their infrastructure fundamentals.
“If we can make sure that our infrastructure is built not just for the needs of today, but also meets the needs of the future, it completely changes the types of conversations we have,” says Kumar.
That’s why Grab decided on the AWS infrastructure from the start. All of the AWS components he says are built to allow infinite scaling and are also extremely reliable.
Grab started out using a basic AWS setup but as they expanded they added the full gamut of AWS services in order to support their scaling needs. “We needed to start thinking about caching layers so we started using Amazon ElastiCache,” said Kumar.
They also started using Amazon Redshift, which is s petabyte-scale data warehouse service based in the cloud.
“It’s huge, it’s massive,” exclaimed Kumar. “Everybody in the company uses it. It’s not just the engineers, the product guys, the marketing team and the ATM team all use it.”
Real-Time Computation Requires Real-Time Data Streams
“In addition to that, we are doing real-time computation, and in order to do real-time demand and supply matching we need to have real-time data streams,” says Kumar.
“The end result is that our drivers will be told the demand is at this place right now, because with this high demand the drivers will be paid more.”
Building Predictive Models
Moving forward the company wants to build predictive models to make their service even more efficient for both passengers and drivers.
“In two hours time this area will have high demand and if you want to take advantage of that move to this area,” explains Kumar. “The way we can do that is by taking into account multiple factors, building data models around it and using the infrastructure to compute those models and come up with an actionable item.”
Why Grab is on AWS
Their are many benefits to being on the cloud,” says Kumar. “Such as not having to deal with physical issues, going down to a data center at 3am to the change a failed hard disk or deal with a server that is overheating because a fan has stopped rotating.”
He noted how companies of his size in the past had to have dedicated operational teams to deal with these sorts of issues. He sees little value in that for the organization and is not a great use for an engineering team. Grab gives every engineer an AWS account to run “full-blown experiments in their sub account” to look for potential problems.
“They would find things that might be a problem 3 months from now or six months from now, and giving engineers that ability is unparalleled,” he says. “I estimate that we have saved 30-40% of our resourcing and manpower that then went to serving our core focus, and our core focus is about serving our customers.”
He says this allowed our team to move significantly faster. “In the startup environment that is make-or-break!”
The CEO of Uber, Travis Kalanick, told The Financial Times that Uber is profitable except for its investments in China and other new markets. Uber is in a fierce battle for market share as the number two ride sharing service in China behind Chinese company Didi Chuxing. China is now Uber’s biggest market in the world when measured by number of rides and amazingly accounts for a third of its business worldwide.
“We have hundreds of cities that are profitable globally,” Kalanick said. “That allows us to invest in new places, and to sustainably invest in a very expensive place like China.” Uber had first-mover advantage in China but was quickly followed by Chinese company Didi Chuxing which was flush with investment capital and has now moved into over 400 cities, while Uber has only launched in 60 plus cities, but that is changing fast. Uber lost over $1 billion last year in China and may lose even more this year in order to launch in new cities and gain market share.
China has 16 cities with metropolitan populations of over 10 million making market launches challenging and expensive. By comparison, the largest city in the United States, New York City, has a population of (only) 8.2 million. “We are number two in China, which means that we still have a ways to go,” Kalanick said. “But we are putting everything on the field.” According to FT, Uber’s CEO spent nearly one in five days in China. “Travis was personally invested in the success of Uber in China to a much greater degree than any other country,” noted Allen Penn, head of Asia operations at Uber.
China was always thought of as a huge challenge for Uber, but with potentially huge rewards. “We like to go after the thing that seems impossible,” Kalanick told San Francisco based FT writer Leslie Hook. “It was pretty far-flung for us to try at that time – but that was also what made it exciting.”
In order to combat difficult Chinese regulations targeting foreign owned businesses the company launched in China different than other Silicon Valley heavyweights like Google and Facebook, they created a separate company called Uber China and brought in Chinese investors. This has allowed Uber to do business in China without being hampered by unfair Chinese regulations that favor Chinese based businesses.
That’s the good news. The bad news is that Uber competitor Didi Chuxing is dominating the market and out-competing Uber and has launched in many more markets. Last year it arranged 1.4 billion rides in China, more than Uber has done worldwide in its history.
On Tuesday, on-demand ride company Uber unveiled UberPool, a new service that allows users to split fares with strangers who are planning on traveling on a similar path. With UberPool, one single Uber ride can stop numerous times in one “trip” and carry multiple people to their destinations.
Not to be outdone, rival Lyft is also unveiling a new carpooling service. It’s called Lyft Line, and it does pretty much the same thing as UberPool.
“Today, we’re excited to announce the launch of Lyft Line — shared rides along shared routes, priced for daily use. Simply set your destination, and we’ll connect you with a ride already going the same way for up to 60% less than an original Lyft ride. Lyft Line will roll out first in San Francisco on iOS, with Android and other cities to follow,” says Lyft.
That 60 percent is quite an eye-popping number. Chances are, it’ll be a bit to a lot less of a discount than that – considering Lyft will calculate the discounted rates based on the likelihood of any given route finding a match for someone who wants to hop on.
Still, the discounted and split fares could make for some cheap rides. Lyft says they’re pioneering what they call “personal transit” – which I assume align the benefits of on-demand rides with the added bonuses of cheaper rates and that sense community you feel when riding the bus with strangers.
“Lyft Line is a system that is flexible, lightweight, and constructs itself in real-time. This is a transit system with infinite routes — and it becomes stronger, more affordable, and more efficient the more it’s used. It will grow as we grow, and change as our cities change,” says Lyft.
I guess at this point we just have to start debating names – UberPool vs. Lyft Line. UberPool kind of sounds like UberCool, but Lyft Line sounds like a “lifeline” and has that sweet alliteration. Plus, UberPool is too heavy-handed on the whole carpool aspect of the service. The winner is Lyft Line.* That’s it – game over. We’re done here.
*The author of this post users Lyft more than Uber, he thinks.
Uber has a super ambitious goal to “provide transportation so inexpensive and reliable, people can actually sell their cars.” And while Uber touts that its service costs 40 percent less than taxis, on average, riding with Uber still feels like a taxi-esque service, at least in terms of cost and method. You call Uber, Uber picks you up, Uber takes you (and only you) to your destination.
Now, it looks like Uber wants to really emphasize the ‘sharing’ part of ride-sharing. The company has announced UberPool, which is basically Uber with the option to stop and pick up other passengers during any route.
Of course, the passengers will split the bill.
UberPool works like regular Uber, except it looks for matches – other people looking for rides that happen to be taking a similar route as the original passenger. Uber says that UberPool could reduce ride costs by another 40 percent.
There’s also the added bonus of the always creepy-sounding “social experiment”:
“This is also a bold social experiment. There’s the interaction between riders in an UberPool—should they talk to each other? When is that cool and when is it, well, annoying? We’re going to find out how this brave new world of UberPooling works—we’ll iterate on this beta product and get it right, because the larger social implications of reducing the number of cars on the road, congestion in cities, pollution, parking challenges… are truly inspiring.”
UberPool launches in private beta in San Francisco today, and will expand as Uber sees fit. UberPool will likely seem a great idea to those looking to save a buck, who have no problem with sharing rides. Other might scoff at the idea of sharing rides with strangers, even though that’s exactly what they’re doing every time they get in an Uber car.
Fresh off its kinda victory on Friday in New York City, Lyft launched in all five boroughs to much fanfare. Unfortunately, high demands coupled with an underwhelming workforce and newly-imposed regulations made getting a Lyft driver a real headache in the Big Apple.
According to an admittedly unscientific experiment by DNAinfo New York, there were “no more than two cars on the road at a time in the five boroughs — and most times, no car could be found at all.”
NY Mag confirmed this shortage, saying that “no drivers were available” in all of Manhattan on multiple app checks.
“We are working hard to grow our community of drivers as quickly as possible to meet this overwhelming demand,” said Lyft in a statement. “Tens of thousands of New York residents across all five boroughs opened the Lyft app to request a ride over the weekend, and we look forward to adding more drivers and giving all New Yorkers access to safe, friendly and reliable rides.”
It could, in fact, be some pretty hard work ahead for Lyft. In order to be able to launch last Friday, Lyft had to make a major concession to the city’s Taxi and Limo Commission. Lyft had to give up a major aspect of what makes Lyft (and Uber and others like it) true peer-to-peer ride-sharing services – Lyft drivers in New York City will have to be licensed by the TLC.
That clearly makes it harder to quickly populate the drivers pool.
And a thin workforce is obviously not what you want in a city the size of New York.
If you can get a ride in NYC, it’s going to be free for a while. All new users have received 50(!) free rides for the first two weeks. And you could have a fun experience…
@tommaxwelll Haha! I treated my @lyft driver to In-N-Out burger on Wednesday night! We spent more than an hour together.
Despite implementing a ‘safe rides fee’ earlier this year, stories about Uber passengers experiencing anything but safe rides continue to pop up.
The latest comes from Washington DC, where a 32-year-old Uber driver has been charged with second degree sexual abuse after a passenger claimed that he molested her in the back of his car this past Sunday.
From Washington City Paper:
In the affadavit, the woman says she passed out in the cab and that when she woke, the driver was rubbing her breasts. She then fell back asleep, according to court documents, and woke up again to the sound of car doors locking. The cab had stopped and the driver was feeling her breasts and pulling down her underwear down to her knees. She says she asked the driver to be let out of the vehicle, but he refused and at one point asked if he could go back to her hotel with her. In a follow-up interview with authorities, she said Chakari briefly penetrated her with his finger or another thin object.
Luckily, the woman somehow managed to send out a couple of texts to a friend (who had called the ride for her on his account). He was able to contact the driver, which appears to have ended the attack.
Uber says the driver has been suspended and they are cooperating fully with the investigation.
This isn’t the first case of driver impropriety that’s hit Uber recently. In July, an Uber driver took riders on a high-speed chase, again in DC. Then in June, an Uber driver reportedly kidnapped a drunk woman and took her to a motel, where he slept with her in the room and “fondled her over her clothes and suggested he wanted to have sex, but didn’t force it.” Another Uber driver was accused of rape in Washington DC, but that case has since been dropped. In February, a woman claimed she was briefly kidnapped by an Uber driver over a fare dispute.
Rides-sharing, on-demand car services – or whatever you want to call them – have a lot of potential and are clearly not going anywhere in the foreseeable future. But safety is a huge concern – especially for the most high-profile company in this field. Every time an Uber passenger is sexually assaulted, taken on a cop-evading joyride, or simply made to feel uncomfortable, we all should ask ourselves – exactly who’s car are we getting into?
Uber, like Lyft and similar services, assure us that safety is of the utmost priority. But things like this keep happening. And for those who have fell victim to a predatory or off-their-rocker driver, best intentions aren’t really enough when it comes to safety.
Then again, it’s not like this kind of thing is limited to Uber. Regular old taxi drivers don’t exactly have a clean sheet in this department. I think the emphasis on companies like Uber springs from the fact that Uber’s whole schtick is that it’s a cut above taking a Taxi. Time to put up or shut up, I’d say.
The battle of Lyft vs. New York City – mainly its Taxi and Limo Commission – has finally produced a resolution. Lyft will launch in all five boroughs of NYC tonight, but only after making some pretty big concessions.
“Tonight, after making positive progress with local and state leaders, Lyft will launch in all five boroughs of New York City. We’ve finalized an agreement to offer immediate access to our friendly, affordable rides through a TLC-licensed model beginning at 7 p.m.,” says Lyft.
TLC-licensed model? Recode reports that Lyft had to give up a major aspect of what make Lyft (and Uber and others like it) true peer-to-peer ride-sharing services. Apparently, Lyft drivers in New York City will have to be licensed by the TLC.
Lyft has also agreed to suspend their current operations in Buffalo and Rochester, while they “work with the Attorney General’s Office and Department of Financial Services to align New York State’s insurance laws and regulations with emerging technologies of the 21st century.”
Lyft had planned to launch earlier this month, despite regulatory pushback. The TLC’s official rationale for opposing Lyft’s business was that the company had “not complied with TLC’s safety requirements and other licensing criteria to verify the integrity and qualifications of the drivers or vehicles used in their service, and Lyft does not hold a license to dispatch cars to pick up passengers.”
Lyft’s response was that they didn’t think the TLC’s licensing and base station rules apply to their ridesharing model.
Then, hours before Lyft’s scheduled launch, they were slapped with multiple restraining orders – from both the TLC and state Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman. That’s where we stood before today.
Here’s what Schneiderman had to say about today’s ‘truce’:
“We are pleased that our offices have reached an agreement today with Lyft. We are firmly committed to the notion that regulators can work constructively with companies so that new ideas can come to the market — and that smart regulation should create an environment where innovators can compete. Lyft’s launch in New York City — in full compliance with laws and regulations — is proof positive of this principle. We will continue to work with Lyft so that any future business it undertakes meets that standard and protects consumer safety. We look forward to exploring solutions that enable companies in the sharing economy to operate and thrive throughout New York State.”
“This agreement is the first big step in finding a home for Lyft’s peer-to-peer model in New York,” says Lyft.
Something tells me this isn’t the end of the battle.
According to a report, both the New York City Taxi and Limo Commission and the state Attorney General have filed temporary restraining orders against on-demand car service Lyft, who is planning on launching in Brooklyn and Queens Friday evening.
Earlier this week, Lyft announced their intentions to begin operations in NYC. That was immediately met with pushback from the city’s Taxi Commission, who said that the company “has not complied with TLC’s safety requirements and other licensing criteria to verify the integrity and qualifications of the drivers or vehicles used in their service, and Lyft does not hold a license to dispatch cars to pick up passengers” and that “unsuspecting drivers who sign-up with Lyft are at risk of losing their vehicles to TLC enforcement action, as well as being subject to fines of up to $2,000 upon conviction for unlicensed activity.”
WNYC reporter Kate Hinds just tweeted this:
Now BOTH the NYS AG and the NYC TLC are filing temporary restraining orders against Lyft.
Lyft confirmed the legal proceedings to The Verge, saying,
“We are in a legal process with local regulators today and will proceed accordingly. We always seek to work collaboratively with leaders in the interests of public safety and the community, as we’ve done successfully in cities and states across the country, and hope to find a path forward for ridesharing in New York.”
And the Taxi and Limo Commission had this to say to Business Insider:
“We are in state supreme court seeking a TRO, as is the AG.”
Lyft responded to the Commission’s protests by saying that they “differ with the TLC is that [they] do not believe its licensing and base station rules apply to the Lyft ridesharing model.”
Lyft is scheduled to throw a launch party in Brooklyn this evening to celebrate their two-borough launch.
Lyft is not backing down in its quest to bring its on-demand car service to the Big Apple, despite warnings from the city’s Taxi and Limo Commission that they will not hesitate to take legal action.
Earlier this week, Lyft announced that it was finally launching in New York City – not all of NYC, but in two boroughs to start. On Friday at 7pm EST, Lyft will begin operation in Brooklyn and Queens. Lyft has offered all new passengers in the city two free weeks worth of rides, saying that “the people of New York deserve more transportation options.”
“Lyft has not complied with TLC’s safety requirements and other licensing criteria to verify the integrity and qualifications of the drivers or vehicles used in their service, and Lyft does not hold a license to dispatch cars to pick up passengers,” said the TLC in a statement. “Unsuspecting drivers who sign-up with Lyft are at risk of losing their vehicles to TLC enforcement action, as well as being subject to fines of up to $2,000 upon conviction for unlicensed activity.”
TLC head Meera Joshi expounded on that statement, warning Lyft and its drivers that the commission will take any and all actions necessary to thwart its efforts.
“Every rider deserves the safety and consumer protections our rules provide, and we have a long track record of working successfully with innovative companies to help them start out the right way,” she said. “We’re still hopeful that Lyft will accept our offer to help them do the right thing for New York City passengers as they should, but New Yorkers can rest assured that the TLC will do its job and take the actions necessary to protect them,” she said.
Lyft, of course, scoffs at any suggestion that safety is an issue.
“As always, safety is our top priority and every driver has undergone a screening process that is more stringent than what’s required for NYC taxis, including a strict background check, vehicle inspection and $1,000,000 insurance that provides more than three times the $300,000 minimum for taxis,” says Lyft.
It isn’t safety, but a simple difference of opinion between it and the TLC, says Lyft. In a statement, Lyft suggested that it will launch as planned, as it doesn’t believe the TLC’s licensing and base station rules apply to the Lyft ride-sharing model:
Lyft will offer a new and much needed transportation option for New Yorkers in the areas of the city where existing options are lacking. This improvement in transportation will provide important opportunities that New Yorkers want and deserve. We’ll continue to work with all stakeholders to create a path forward. Our focus remains on the community, who will be the ultimate beneficiaries.
Where we differ with the TLC is that we do not believe its licensing and base station rules apply to the Lyft ridesharing model. It’s important to clarify that our differences of opinion are not about safety standards, and that’s because we put safety first. In new markets when we begin conversation with local regulators, we always find a way to ensure that communities have Lyft. We’re certainly different from the status quo, but that is our strength.
Today we’re releasing our Safety Commitment. We will never waver in keeping our drivers and passengers safe. This is Lyft’s commitment to our community and yours.
Though it’s not Lyft, stories like this about similar service Uber fail to help the company’s cause. Lyft has fought with regulators in cities all across the country, but it’s likely never seen an entity as massive as the New York Taxi commission.
A New Yorker says he was kidnapped by an Uber driver in Washington DC and taken on a high-speed chase.
The D.C. Taxicab Commission has confirmed an incident did occur and they are investigating. Official details aren’t yet available, but according to frequent Uber user Ryan Simonetti it was one hell of a wild ride.
Was just kidnapped by an @uber driver in DC, held against my will, and involved in a high speed chase across state lines with police #Crazy
According to Simonetti, he and two colleagues called an Uber ride around 1:15. When the car arrived and they made their way to it, he noticed that a DC taxi inspector was talking to the Uber driver. They got in anyway.
Before they knew it, the Uber driver had taken off and the taxi inspector was following close behind, lights on.
According to Simonetti, the driver then began to speed and run red lights. He sideswiped cars. The driver apparently claimed that the taxi inspector “wasn’t a real cop” and that if he stopped, he’d be leveled with a $2,000 fine.
The ride lasted around 10 minutes, until the taxi inspector was somehow able to block the Uber driver’s path on an off-ramp. This gave Simonetti time to jump out of the car before the driver turned around and drove the wrong way down the ramp.
“It was like an episode of ‘Cops,’” Simonetti said.
Uber was quick to respond to Simonetti’s tweet for help, so there’s that.
@rwsimonetti Hey, Ryan. We're here to help. Can you DM us your phone number and let us know you're ok? A manager will call you right away.
The ride-sharing company has also issued a statement:
Uber became aware of a potential incident involving an UberBLACK trip in Washington, DC [Tuesday] afternoon. Rider safety is our #1 priority. We will cooperate with authorities in their investigation and have deactivated the driver pending the outcome.
This isn’t the first case of driver impropriety that’s put Uber on the defensive. In June, an Uber driver reportedly kidnapped a drunk woman and took her to a motel, where he slept with her in the room and “fondled her over her clothes and suggested he wanted to have sex, but didn’t force it.” Another Uber driver was accused of rape in Washington DC, but that case has since been dropped. In February, a woman claimed she was briefly kidnapped by an Uber driver over fare.
And then there’s the wrongful death lawsuit that Uber currently finds itself embroiled in.
All of these incidents, as they pile up, are leading people to ask just who the hell is driving me around when I use Uber or Lyft, or a similar on-demand car service?
Everything turned out ok for Simonetti and crew, as law enforcement is now on the case.
Thanks everyone for the concern. We're safe. @uber and law enforcement are dealing with it now.
The state of Virginia is none too happy at on-demand car services Uber and Lyft operating, in its mind, outside the framework of its passenger carrier laws.
The state’s Department of Motor Vehicles has sent out two ceaseand desist letters, one to Uber and one to Lyft, demanding that both companies stop operating in the commonwealth of Virginia until they “obtain proper authority.”
The DMV is threatening to fine Uber and Lyft drivers. It wouldn’t be the first fines the Virginia DMV has handed Uber or Lyft, as they assessed civil penalties earlier this year. Uber and Lyft, naturally, contend that they are not taxi services, but ride-sharing companies.
“Virginia law requires for-hire passenger carriers to have proper operating authority. Although certain types of passenger carrier arrangements are excluded from this requirement, none of those exclusions applies to Lyft’s operations. For example, Va. Code 46.2-2000.1 contains an exclusion for ride-sharing arrangements; however, a separate statute sets out the requirements for ride-sharing arrangements. This statute defines ride-sharing arrangements as those which do not involve transporting passengers for profit. See Va. Code 46.2-1400, et seq. Lyft’s operations are not ridesharing arrangements as defined in Virginia law because Lyft receives compensation for its services.
The letter sent to Uber says the exact same thing.
A spokesperson for Uber calls the Virginia DMV’s actions “shocking and unexpected.”
“The DMV’s actions today are shocking and unexpected. Uber has been providing Virginians with safe, affordable and reliable transportation options for months and has continued to work in good faith with the DMV to create a regulatory framework for ridesharing. The DMV decision today hurts thousands of small business entrepreneurs who rely on the Uber platform to make a living, create new jobs and contribute to the economy – and it hurts the countless residents who rely on Uber to connect them with affordable, safe and reliable transportation alternatives. We look forward to continuing to work with the Virginia DMV to find a permanent home for ridesharing in the Commonwealth,” says Uber’s Natalia Montalvo.
A Lyft spokesperson echoed Uber’s sentiments on safety.
“The current regulations surrounding taxis and limos were created before something like Lyft was even imagined,” a Lyft spokesperson told WVEC. “Lyft’s peer-to-peer business model does not easily fit into the current framework, but we have made safety a top priority from the beginning by putting forth strict safety measures that go beyond what is required for existing transportation providers.”
At the end of the letters to both Uber and Lyft, the Virginia DMV makes a suggestion to the companies:
“As you know, DMV is actively studying Virginia’s passenger carrier laws and business models such as Uber/Lyft. DMV has invited Uber/Lyft and other stakeholders to participate in this study and will produce a final report before the next legislative session. I strongly suggest that Uber/Lyft focus its resources on participation in this study rather than continue illegal operations in the meantime.
In other words, get your lobbying pants on boys, and head to Richmond.
Here’s the most telling aspect of this story, via Watchdog.org:
Sunni Blevins Brown, spokeswoman for the Virginia DMV, confirmed that a “number of transportation companies, including taxis, have contacted DMV regarding this matter.
Of course they have.
Lord knows ride-sharing companies, especially Uber, have a lot of ‘splainin to do in other areas of their business model, but it’s hard to look at the DMV’s action as anything but a transparent move to protect the old guard.
