|
axeil posted:This is very true. Look at what happened in VA. McAuliffe gets elected partially due to the backing of cab drivers and the VA DMV sends Uber a cease and desist. Not because they were breaking the law, but because they fell into an ambiguous regulatory area. You didn't see other disruptive companies like Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc getting banned from operating in states. It's the cab drivers who have successfully completed the regulatory capture and made their regulators do their bidding. The issue is in VA is actually that Uber refuses to even apply for licenses as a "for-hire carrier". Also Uber had been notified they needed a permit 6 months before the C&D order. How is uber not a "for-hire carrier"? You can read the rather reasonable C&D here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/228346599/Uber-Cease-and-Desist http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/competition-from-uberx-lyft-has-dc-taxis-crying-foul/2014/05/11/5920c866-d60a-11e3-8a78-8fe50322a72c_story.html posted:Maryland and Virginia also are moving to regulate the services. In Maryland, after nearly a year of study, the state’s chief public utility law judge said Uber should file an application to operate as a for-hire carrier. A final decision on that order is pending. In Virginia, officials have levied more than $35,000 in civil penalties against Uber and Lyft for operating in Northern Virginia without proper permits. Portland, Ore., New Orleans and Miami are among the cities that have blocked Uber from operating in their jurisdictions altogether. This isn't even like Uber applied for a license and was rejected because of big bad taxis, Uber hasn't even applied for a license when clearly they are a "for-hire carrier". Edit: Looks like McAuliffe received donations from the following transportation sectors: $164,500 Ports/Shippping $100,350 Railroads $77,825 Auto Dealers $27,193 Private Highway Companies $19,520 Miscellaneous Transportation $15,724 Trucking Companies $14,880 Air Transport $11,250 Boat Dealers/Marinas/Repairs $9,167 Auto Manufacturers $7,105 Taxi/Limo $2,750 Warehouse/Moving Companies $2,000 Rental Cars $1,100 Auto Supplies/Repair really in the pocket of big taxi 
Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Jul 24, 2014 |
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:25 |
|
|
I've been using Lyft for the past year in SF and have found the service extremely well-run and even personable. Most drivers are friendly enough to strike up a conversation and establish rapport when we find out we live in the same area or have been to the sample places in the city. I think this adds a lot of value to the experience and turns it into a community-driven service instead of just a service, which, for the most part, I can't really say has been the case for my rides with taxis. I don't know WHY that's the case - maybe taxi drivers work longer hours, are treated worse by their company, or have to put up with more poo poo when it comes to their niche within the industry (and in turn treat their customers like poo poo). Whatever the case, I think that kind of personable experience is a very good thing to have in a community and should be considered before deciding to legislate it into just another cab service. I think there's definitely something to be said about Lyft's business model: working your own hours, when you want and wherever you want, in your own vehicle, probably makes for happier drivers. Better yet if they're part-timers who put in a couple hours in between errands or whatever, which has often been the case with drivers I've talked to. I sure as hell wouldn't be happy driving a car around full time (often out of necessity).
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
axeil posted:This is very true. Look at what happened in VA. McAuliffe gets elected partially due to the backing of cab drivers and the VA DMV sends Uber a cease and desist. Not because they were breaking the law, but because they fell into an ambiguous regulatory area. You didn't see other disruptive companies like Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc getting banned from operating in states. It's the cab drivers who have successfully completed the regulatory capture and made their regulators do their bidding. Uber was already breaking laws the Virginia DMV enforces though. There was no special anti-Uber law. PS: regulatory capture would mean that all the existing companies in Virginia would be subject to lesser laws, not strict ones. Fun fact, none of the companies you mentioned broke major long standing laws to run their service! That's why they never got banned!
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
phone apps are really gonna be what make millenials start spouting right wing talking points, arent they?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:phone apps are really gonna be what make millenials start spouting right wing talking points, arent they? The best part is comparing the craven attempt to avoid accountability and liability in an ill-conceived effort to subsidize white flight taxi edition ... to Civil Rights era demonstrations. In reality, Uber is burning through cash at a rate that exceeds $25 million a month ... doing what? Certainly not any of the actual work that goes into operating and maintaining a fleet of vehicles and paid drivers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
api call girl posted:In reality, Uber is burning through cash at a rate that exceeds $25 million a month ... doing what? Certainly not any of the actual work that goes into operating and maintaining a fleet of vehicles and paid drivers. Oh yeah? Do tell us where that money goes. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Oh yeah? Do tell us where that money goes. At this point? Hookers and blow, most likely. e: I mean, yeah, UberX vs. Uber, but that's even more comedic. VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
api call girl posted:The best part is comparing the craven attempt to avoid accountability and liability in an ill-conceived effort to subsidize white flight taxi edition ... to Civil Rights era demonstrations. And yet, I've noticed every pro law and regulation poster in this thread hasn't ever talked to a black person in their life about this issue. It's incredibly incredibly easy to be to dismissive about an issue when you'll never be subjected to the indigniies of the status quo. The mods should really change the title of this thread to whiteprivilege.txt
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:And yet, I've noticed every pro law and regulation poster in this thread hasn't ever talked to a black person in their life about this issue. It's incredibly incredibly easy to be to dismissive about an issue when you'll never be subjected to the indigniies of the status quo. You keep bringing up this irrelevant stuff to defend a bunch of white people breaking the law in a way that does nothing to help black people. Why is that? Surely you aren't stupid enough to think black people can't be in an insured car driven by someone who isn't a sex offender? I mean that would have to be the conclusion to "breaking all car laws is necessary so black people can get rides", right? Or maybe you're arguing for separate but equal, because black people don't need to have safe rides? Why is it important to price gouge for black people to get a ride? Why is it important to not pay taxes so black people get a ride? Is there any reason you can come up with that actually justifies defending a flash in the pan startup providing a service erratically and illegally instead of the creation of something that can actually work? Please consider http://www.quora.com/Uber-1/How-big-of-a-deal-is-Uber/answer/Justin-Singer Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Actually, I'd rather everyone have unsafe rides than black people be denied rides. It might or might not be a flash in the pan, but it's bizarre and galling to see white people who've throw black people under the bus (cab?) to defend regulatory capture in favor of rent seeking cartels of all things. It feels like I'm in bizzaro SA where even if a solution addresses a historic injustice, somehow that's worse than not following the rules. Edit: also, seriously do none of you have like a single black friend?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:Actually, I'd rather everyone have unsafe rides than black people be denied rides. It might or might not be a flash in the pan, but it's bizarre and galling to see white people who've throw black people under the bus (cab?) to defend regulatory capture in favor of rent seeking cartels of all things. This "solution" does not address historic injustice. Also funny how once again you shriek about regulatory capture requiring people to have safe cars and know how to drive commercially and have actual insurance. That isn't regulatory capture, genius. And the only rent seeking cartel here is Uber (and well, Lyft et al). Literally seeking rents on people they provide just about no support to at that. Thundercracker posted:Edit: also, seriously do none of you have like a single black friend? I have several dozen black friends because I grew up in a non segregated poo poo town, many of them have tried Uber in the various places they've moved to and been driven right by when they put in a call. Some of them can't get any calls dispatched to where they live through Uber, but they can with existing licensed and regulated car services. Wow, almost like Uber isn't some sort of magic anti-racism service! And putting you in a car about to break down doesn't make the driver less racist. Weird. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
The solution is simple, just create a tax on the number of hours spent on the road, similar to the toll system, but for cities. Require all those who want to operate a taxi to register and install some kind of GPS system so the number of hours on the roads can be tracked. In fact, do this for all companies that use the public road system as part of their business. Actually, just require that all road vehicles come pre-installed with a GPS that tracks hours on public roads, lower the tax rate by the amount spent on maintaining/creating roads, and fund it solely from the new road-use-per-hour tax. This is my futuristic tax utopia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:Actually, I'd rather everyone have unsafe rides than black people be denied rides. It might or might not be a flash in the pan, but it's bizarre and galling to see white people who've throw black people under the bus (cab?) to defend regulatory capture in favor of rent seeking cartels of all things. It's not about historic injustice or following the rules, or anything like that. SA just has a strong dislike for Silicon Valley and techies. Uber is a shining example of a very successful SV company that actually did manage to disrupt (or at the very least scare the crap out of) a lovely, outdated, corrupt and barely functional industry. Therefore, Uber must be hated, and the easiest way of attacking them is by pointing out how they are not following regulations and therefore should be illegal and stuff. Seriously, the arguments presented in this thread almost don't matter in and of themselves, because they are rooted in identity politics, i.e. SA's identity as a crowd of mostly middle or lower-middle class folks who despise the wealthy. When you view them from that angle, everything just makes a lot more sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Uber is a shining example of a very successful SV company that actually did manage to disrupt a lovely, outdated, corrupt and barely functional industry. This is incorrect. They haven't even dented the industry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:This is incorrect. They haven't even dented the industry. That must be why taxi commissions in most cities are making GBS threads their pants and trying to figure out a way to block Uber's expansion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:That must be why taxi commissions in most cities are making GBS threads their pants and trying to figure out a way to block Uber's expansion. Can you present evidence of that beyond Uber/Lyft's own press releases?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:That must be why taxi commissions in most cities are making GBS threads their pants and trying to figure out a way to block Uber's expansion. I suppose enforcing current laws is one interpretation of "trying to figure out a way to block Uber's expansion".
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:That must be why taxi commissions in most cities are making GBS threads their pants and trying to figure out a way to block Uber's expansion. They aren't doing that, and those things are called "the law". Like this is super easy for anyone to see, they operate in a criminal manner flagrantly violating laws in many of their services. Yet the services they offer that do obey the laws get to go in just fine. Let me refresh your lack of memory: http://www.quora.com/Uber-1/How-big-of-a-deal-is-Uber/answer/Justin-Singer computer parts posted:I suppose enforcing current laws is one interpretation of "trying to figure out a way to block Uber's expansion". These drat cops keep desperately trying to find ways to block my organ liberations! Keep trying to claim it's "murder" and "you're not even doing it right".
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:This is incorrect. They haven't even dented the industry. Hah, its almost like classic facist double-speak. "The jew is depraved and crave. But we must destroy the jewish cabal because they are dangerous and cunning"
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:Hah, its almost like classic facist double-speak. Haha what the gently caress? You're a straight up moron here or a reasonable facsimile. No one has ever, EVER accused Uber of being all powerful. It's amazing someone can look at a thread full of the sane people pointing out Uber sucks and here's all the reasons why and read that as "everybody's saying it's all powerful!!!".
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
axeil posted:This is very true. Look at what happened in VA. McAuliffe gets elected partially due to the backing of cab drivers and the VA DMV sends Uber a cease and desist. Not because they were breaking the law, but because they fell into an ambiguous regulatory area. You didn't see other disruptive companies like Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc getting banned from operating in states. It's the cab drivers who have successfully completed the regulatory capture and made their regulators do their bidding. Uber is not an advertising company (Google), a retailer (Amazon), or a movie delivery service (Netflix). Uber is a cab company. They're a cab company acting in direct defiance of laws that apply to cab companies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
See the neat thing is Uber has no ability to survive long term. The service such as it is has no way to protect itself against competitors viz the people already openly admitting to running for Uber, Lyft, and various other services all at the same time in the same car. And they're decades too late to attempt to patent their system. And always remember that 99% of the time "disruptive" means "poorly thought out and fragile business desperately hopign to get bought by a real company before the VC runs out".
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Seriously, the arguments presented in this thread almost don't matter in and of themselves, because they are rooted in identity politics, i.e. SA's identity as a crowd of mostly middle or lower-middle class folks who despise the wealthy. When you view them from that angle, everything just makes a lot more sense. Could you explain the line of thought you took to go from "some people on SA dislike Uber because they flout the law" to "this is because people on SA are middle class and lower middle class and despise the wealthy?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Citizen Tayne posted:Uber is not an advertising company (Google), a retailer (Amazon), or a movie delivery service (Netflix). They are at least a "for-hire carrier", something they've actively chosen to not get permits for in multiple states.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Is there any room for nuance? As a general rule, it is very bad for corporations to be allowed to ignore laws they don't like in order to further their profits. This is sufficiently obvious that it should go without saying. TNCs positioning themselves outside transportation regulation entirely is obvious bullshit that needs to be dealt with. However, while I have a problem with Uber breaking laws regarding safety (licensing, insurance, etc.) and that ought to be resolved, I'm not so sympathetic when the laws they're breaking are outdated and/or protectionist bullshit like "minimum fare of $50", "no on-demand rides without a permit that isn't actually available", "can't use an app to calculate fares," and so on. I do not believe it logically follows that breaking a select number of laws that have not been updated to deal with new technologies and innovations means that we have opened a Pandora's Box of corporate lawbreaking for profit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
disheveled posted:
Cool. Even if we only focus on the laws relating to safety Uber has shown that they want to flaunt them and believe that following them "restricts disruption". In other words, they're a scum company and no equivocating with loving Rosa Parks is going to change that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
I have to laugh at the people who think taxi regulations actually ensure taxis are well-maintained and drivers safe. Maybe in some jurisdictions but not most of them. In DC pre-Uber it was not unusual to see taxis with failing suspensions and 500,000+ miles on the clock. Sexual harassment by taxi drivers was frequent, to the degree that every single woman I know switched to Uber almost immediately after its introduction. Want to hail a cab if you're black or in a neighborhood even remotely associated with crime? Good luck. Getting a taxi on call was virtually impossible unless you were personal friends with a cab driver or used a VA taxi company - only feasible for airport runs. Also, a lot of taxi regulations are legally questionable, but until Uber moves into a market it doesn't have standing to challenge them in court. In DC the taxicab commission was ready to go to war with Uber but they backed down drat quickly once the feds suggested there might be antitrust concerns. Soy Division fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Oh yeah? Do tell us where that money goes. They were running a promotion where just by becoming a driver, if you also were a current Lyft driver, they would give you $500 just for doing a ride. They got a lot of new drivers to try the platform and at the same time can now say they have X more drivers than before. I'm sure each additional driver increases their value a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The issue is in VA is actually that Uber refuses to even apply for licenses as a "for-hire carrier". Also Uber had been notified they needed a permit 6 months before the C&D order. How is uber not a "for-hire carrier"? You can read the rather reasonable C&D here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/228346599/Uber-Cease-and-Desist
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
Since I moved to the USA, I've ridden in cabs maybe 40ish times, and maybe had 4 white taxi drivers. What race are these taxi drivers who don't pick up African-Americans? Are all DC cab drivers white?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
Citizen Tayne posted:Could you explain the line of thought you took to go from "some people on SA dislike Uber because they flout the law" to "this is because people on SA are middle class and lower middle class and despise the wealthy?" People dislike Uber because from the outside it looks like just another cab company who happens to be powered by what looks to be a simple app. The stunning level of ignorance required to make such observations aside*, what gets people worked up about Uber is that it seems to be successful because it flouts laws, as opposed to because it's a clean, refreshing, and professional new player in an industry that's hopelessly plagued by ridiculous amounts of corruption, regulatory capture, racism and blatantly poor service. *Here's a hint: being able to hide the sheer complexity of the operation and its supporting subsystems behind a simple-looking user interface, and doing it well enough to give casual observers the impression that the operation itself can't be that complicated, is what makes them successful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Obviously, Uber has a different opinion to the DMV. If the DMV really wants Uber to cease operations, they can go to court. It's almost like courts exist to settle disputes over the applicability or validity of various laws! The DMV doesn't want them to cease operations. The DMV wants them to follow the goddamn law like everyone else has to. Gail Wynand posted:I have to laugh at the people who think taxi regulations actually ensure taxis are well-maintained and drivers safe. Maybe in some jurisdictions but not most of them. DC's cab system is poo poo and under regulated, this does not mean that Uber is the answer. Just about no taxi regulations are legally questionable. enraged_camel posted:People dislike Uber because from the outside it looks like just another cab company who happens to be powered by what looks to be a simple app. The stunning level of ignorance required to make such observations aside*, what gets people worked up about Uber is that it seems to be successful because it flouts laws, as opposed to because it's a clean, refreshing, and professional new player in an industry that's hopelessly plagued by ridiculous amounts of corruption, regulatory capture, racism and blatantly poor service. Uber is a piece of poo poo that doesn't really work in the long term, that's why people dislike it. It's hillarious that oyu pretend that Uber does not have racism, corruption, or blatantly poor service, and they're only avoiding comitting "regulatory capture" by refusing to follow any laws.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Obviously, Uber has a different opinion to the DMV. If the DMV really wants Uber to cease operations, they can go to court. It's almost like courts exist to settle disputes over the applicability or validity of various laws! Yes, and if Uber keeps violating the laws and rules of their regulators more and more court cases will be filed against them. Are you arguing that Uber isn't a "for-hire carrier"? Or just be stubborn that a company should be able to do what it wants until a court forces it to follow the law?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Are you arguing that Uber isn't a "for-hire carrier"? Or just be stubborn that a company should be able to do what it wants until a court forces it to follow the law? Let's recall, for example, that DC's tour guide licensing law was recently struck down by the DC Court of Appeals. Until a tour company decided not to license their guides, there was no-one with standing to challenge the law. I'm sure we can all agree that tour guide licensing is an utterly ridiculous form of regulation. Also here's what the FTC, which is the main federal antitrust and consumer protection regulator, had to say to the DC Taxicab Commission when they were considering an explicit ban on Uber: http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/06/ftc-staff-submits-comments-dc-taxicab-commission-proposed quote:Federal Trade Commission staff submitted written comments to the District of Columbia Taxicab Commission (DCTC) on proposed rulemakings regarding passenger motor vehicle transportation services, including rules that would apply to new smartphone software applications for arranging and paying for such services. The staff comments note that recent DC legislation appears designed to facilitate new and beneficial forms of competition for the services, but express concern that some of the subsequent rules proposed by DCTC may unnecessarily impede competition. Soy Division fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:I'm not familiar with the vagaries of transport regulations in various states, There's nothing vague, in Virginia, if you run a business where the business is to hire out cars and drivers to people who want to go somewhere, you are a for-hire carrier and must submit to the rules or else you can lose your license and get fined. And there is 0 way that an Uber driver isn't participating in a for-hire carrier business. There also aren't all powerful taxi cab cartels out in coal country, mind you. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
These services are powered by clueless twenty-somethings who are driving cars most likely subsidized by daddy. Wear and tear? Self employment tax? Risk? What's that? I bet some people don't even break min wage in some states once all the expenses are dealt with. Gail Wynand posted:Obviously, Uber has a different opinion to the DMV. If the DMV really wants Uber to cease operations, they can go to court. It's almost like courts exist to settle disputes over the applicability or validity of various laws! This is what will happen but uber and co will try to drag it out as long as possible because they are very aware there's not a chance in hell they win. Not sure what it is about this topic that gets the libertardians out of the woodwork.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Uber is essentially a really good example of narrative-shaping. It's like the opposite of OK Soda. It's not some lovely poorly-managed company that gets people to use their private cars to drive around strangers for poverty wages, it's an innovator, it's disruptive, all that stuff. Someone was talking about how Uber/Lyft cause normally liberal 20-somethings to act like born and raised denizens of Galt's Gulch, and it's true, they do. It's putting a shiny technology icing on a cake that's made out of goat feces and iron shavings. And Millennials want to eat that cake. They want to order slices with their smartphones. Imagine there was a service where you had bulk meat dropped off at your house, and you packaged and sliced that meat, and a huge corporation used a smartphone app to sell the meat at bargain basement prices directly to consumers. No USDA, no inspections, no regulations. Actually, don't imagine that, because it's my idea and I thought of it first. It's disruptive you see. It's innovative. Traditional structures of meat distribution will hate my meat-sharing service.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:There's nothing vague, in Virginia, if you run a business where the business is to hire out cars and drivers to people who want to go somewhere, you are a for-hire carrier and must submit to the rules or else you can lose your license and get fined. tsa posted:These services are powered by clueless twenty-somethings who are driving cars most likely subsidized by daddy. Wear and tear? Self employment tax? Risk? What's that? I bet some people don't even break min wage in some states once all the expenses are dealt with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
^ Right that's the beauty of Uber, try and shift the legal and economic liability on to the driver and the customer while maintaining an aggressive profit margin. Gail Wynand posted:I'm not familiar with the vagaries of transport regulations in various states, but the fact that most of these regulators haven't yet gone to court suggests that they are less than 100% confident that their systems would withstand close legal scrutiny. That's my exact point. I'm not familiar with the nuances of the regulation, but I'm pretty drat sure that the California Public Utilities Commission or the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles has a pretty good idea of what the regulations and laws are. Let Uber sue if they feel harmed by these regulations as they exist or use the democratic process to change them if their suit has no merit. I'm not talking about some theoretical new regulation, like your examples, I'm talking about the existing laws of the land and the rulings of the legally empowered regulators. Where in multiple states Uber refuses to even apply for permits that regulators for their industry demand. I just don't think a drilling company with a new innovation that decided to skip the "unfair" state environmental permits would get such support from this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:25 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That's my exact point. I'm not familiar with the nuances of the regulation, but I'm pretty drat sure that the California Public Utilities Commission or the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles has a pretty good idea of what the regulations and laws are. Let Uber sue if they feel harmed by these regulations as they exist or use the democratic process to change them if their suit has no merit. Also, Uber doesn't have standing to sue until they start operating and they are told to stop. Is this concept that hard to understand?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 07:53
|
|