# 3 days until California adopts all new regulations on TNC's | Mar '16



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)




----------



## oneubersheep (Nov 27, 2014)

So where can you find the details of the new regs exactly?


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

oneubersheep said:


> So where can you find the details of the new regs exactly?


right


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

oneubersheep said:


> So where can you find the details of the new regs exactly?


http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M157/K902/157902666.PDF


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

You do see the big bold *PROPOSED DECISION *in the upper right corner, right? There's nothing in that document that says the items are in effect or when they go into effect.

In fact the very first paragraph states the earliest this item may be heard is February 25, 2016, I guarantee you nothing moves through the political process this quickly.


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

KevinH said:


> http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M157/K902/157902666.PDF


That is correct, the 17th hearing is a public comments and discussion hearing. The vote itself will be held later in a private session. Check the CPUC schedule on their web for that date. Then, the implementation date is after that and would be at least 90 days after the vote.

What I am interested in is Phase III that will look at broader issues like changing Uber Black and other varieties of Uber from a TNC designation to a TCP designation. Trying to find out when the CPUC thinks it might begin that phase. Some CPUC staffers have said some of the new rules will have to wait to 2018.


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

KevinH said:


> That is correct, the 17th hearing is a public comments and discussion hearing. The vote itself will be held later in a private session. Check the CPUC schedule on their web for that date. Then, the implementation date is after that and would be at least 90 days after the vote.
> 
> What I am interested in is Phase III that will look at broader issues like changing Uber Black and other varieties of Uber from a TNC designation to a TCP designation. Trying to find out when the CPUC thinks it might begin that phase. Some CPUC staffers have said some of the new rules will have to wait to 2018.


It will be interesting to see what happens to the driver ranks if every variety is required to go TCP. My gut says the ranks will dwindle.


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

2.3.4. Status of Uber This Commission is still considering whether to require Uber, or any of its subsidiaries, to seek operating authority as a TCP. Uber’s July 1, 2015 responses to the Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling has raised a number of additional questions to which we will initiate follow-up inquiries. We will address this question in Phase III of this proceeding.


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

summary of what's coming on Mar 17 '16.... ( 1 of 3)


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

summary of what's coming on Mar 17 '16.... ( 2 of 3)


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

summary of what's coming on Mar 17 '16.... ( 3 of 3)


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

riChElwAy said:


> View attachment 32024
> summary of what's coming on Mar 17 '16.... ( 3 of 3)


It's not been decided, it's a *proposed* *decision* to be discussed at their next meeting.


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

Beur said:


> You do see the big bold *PROPOSED DECISION *in the upper right corner, right? There's nothing in that document that says the items are in effect or when they go into effect.
> 
> In fact the very first paragraph states the earliest this item may be heard is February 25, 2016, I guarantee you nothing moves through the political process this quickly.


this is how Uber has managed to stick around for so long, by ignoring, stretching, appealing, delaying, extending


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

Beur said:


> It's not been decided, it's a *proposed* *decision* to be discussed at their next meeting.


if you look at the items on the PUC's agenda for this Business Meeting on Thursday, it is a list of about 60 different items ranging from gas companies to telecom companies to water companies

TNC's take up one single slot of the 50+ slots

i doubt there will be any lengthy "discussion" on Thursday regarding TNC's

i would think everything has already been hammered out behind the scenes

i imagine Thursday will be a quick formal vote by the commissioners on this Phase 2 of TNC's

and every indication shows that it's all going to pass

the catch ... implementation date!


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

riChElwAy said:


> if you look at the items on the PUC's agenda for this Business Meeting on Thursday, it is a list of about 60 different items ranging from gas companies to telecom companies to water companies
> 
> TNC's take up one single slot of the 50+ slots
> 
> ...


First off the first time the "board" could even bring forward for discussion was February 25, 2016.

Second, there will be a discussion about a date that that the TNC's must have everything in order and then an implementation date.

Do you truly believe that government moves that quickly, surely you aren't that naive?


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

Beur said:


> First off the first time the "board" could even bring forward for discussion was February 25, 2016.
> 
> Second, there will be a discussion about a date that that the TNC's must have everything in order and then an implementation date.
> 
> Do you truly believe that government moves that quickly, surely you aren't that naive?


<<Do you truly believe that government moves that quickly, surely you aren't that naive?>>

at one time i was a rational logical-minded person, then Uber came and dropped a nuclear holocaust on my brain, i no longer think straight, it's now just all emotions and desperate hope


----------



## UberPartnerDennis (Jun 21, 2015)

Other than the additional trade dress in the rear window I see nothing new that affects drivers


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

UberPartnerDennis said:


> Other than the additional trade dress in the rear window I see nothing new that affects drivers


my biggest question is the mandatory vehicle inspection at state-approved facilities.. does this happen UPON HIRE or only after the 50k / 1 year mark


----------



## forqalso (Jun 1, 2015)

UberPartnerDennis said:


> Other than the additional trade dress in the rear window I see nothing new that affects drivers


That, and the 19 point vehicle inspection every twelve months or 50,000 miles.


----------



## UberPartnerDennis (Jun 21, 2015)

forqalso said:


> That, and the 19 point vehicle inspection every twelve months or 50,000 miles.


there has always been an annual inspection....I need to do mine next week or be deactivated...I am seriously thinking about let it fly by



riChElwAy said:


> my biggest question is the mandatory vehicle inspection at state-approved facilities.. does this happen UPON HIRE or only after the 50k / 1 year mark


that is a good question, the way its written it only provides for 1 after a year huh? lol...stupid politicians


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Beur said:


> First off the first time the "board" could even bring forward for discussion was February 25, 2016.
> 
> Second, there will be a discussion about a date that that the TNC's must have everything in order and then an implementation date.
> 
> Do you truly believe that government moves that quickly, surely you aren't that naive?


That's if the PUC is even around, I heard on the news last week that one of the legislators has proposed breaking up the PUC.


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

I found this interesting and probably one for the items Uber is upset about. Based on this UberPool is illegal.


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

observer said:


> That's if the PUC is even around, I heard on the news last week that one of the legislators has proposed breaking up the PUC.


That's been tried before, don't think it will happen.


----------



## forqalso (Jun 1, 2015)

UberPartnerDennis said:


> there has always been an annual inspection....I need to do mine next week or be deactivated...I am seriously thinking about let it fly by
> 
> that is a good question, the way its written it only provides for 1 after a year huh? lol...stupid politicians


It could now be a semi-annual inspection for some now with the 50,000 mile requirement and maybe with a state entity and a fee to be paid, you know they'll want their cut.


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

riChElwAy said:


> my biggest question is the mandatory vehicle inspection at state-approved facilities.. does this happen UPON HIRE or only after the 50k / 1 year mark


In CA you have to go to a BAR certified mechanic every year for the 19 point inspection, not that it means much. Most barely look at the car.


----------



## Walkersm (Apr 15, 2014)

Beur said:


> In CA you have to go to a BAR certified mechanic every year for the 19 point inspection, not that it means much. Most barely look at the car.


That is actually not true under the existing laws. Lyft got by it by having their "mentors" do the inspections and Ubler asked for a clarification from the PUC if that was allowed. They said according to the way it is written now it does not specify who does the inspection just that it is done. That is one of the rules being considered is adding language that it has to be done by a BAR facility. Last pleadings I read on it seems all parties Except TNC's are saying simple common sense dictates they should be done at BAR facilities.


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

Walkersm said:


> That is actually not true under the existing laws. Lyft got by it by having their "mentors" do the inspections and Ubler asked for a clarification from the PUC if that was allowed. They said according to the way it is written now it does not specify who does the inspection just that it is done. That is one of the rules being considered is adding language that it has to be done by a BAR facility. Last pleadings I read on it seems all parties Except TNC's are saying simple common sense dictates they should be done at BAR facilities.


I have been driving for 3 years, every year I get a notice from Uber that my annual 19 point inspection is due and must be completed at a BAR certified mechanic. So as far as Ca and Uber it's always been required, I can't speak for or about Lyft.


----------



## Walkersm (Apr 15, 2014)

Beur said:


> I have been driving for 3 years, every year I get a notice from Uber that my annual 19 point inspection is due and must be completed at a BAR certified mechanic. So as far as Ca and Uber it's always been required, I can't speak for or about Lyft.


Oh for sure Uber has always required it but it's not the law. I guess I can give them a bit more credit on that. Although at their hiring events they got 20 year old liberal arts majors inspecting cars. So theirs that.


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

Walkersm said:


> Oh for sure Uber has always required it but it's not the law. I guess I can give them a bit more credit on that. Although at their hiring events they got 20 year old liberal arts majors inspecting cars. So theirs that.


I get to go spend my $19 in the next few weeks for an inspection. Last year the guy said "oh a new car, you passed." Never once looked at the car. Year before that he asked how many miles on the car, "oh you passed," again never looked at the car. Expecting the same this year.


----------



## Walkersm (Apr 15, 2014)

Beur said:


> I get to go spend my $19 in the next few weeks for an inspection. Last year the guy said "oh a new car, you passed." Never once looked at the car. Year before that he asked how many miles on the car, "oh you passed," again never looked at the car. Expecting the same this year.


Well I sure hope they are not treating the 100K mile 8 year old cars the same way. But all things being equal I would rather have someone look at it that looks at cars every day. I would venture to say though that for every 1 newer car like yours there are 4 old ones that really need a good inspection.


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

Walkersm said:


> Well I sure hope they are not treating the 100K mile 8 year old cars the same way. But all things being equal I would rather have someone look at it that looks at cars every day. I would venture to say though that for every 1 newer car like yours there are 4 old ones that really need a good inspection.


I've been afraid for pax getting into some of the cars I've seen. I often wonder how they pass inspection.


----------



## forqalso (Jun 1, 2015)

Beur said:


> I found this interesting and probably one for the items Uber is upset about. Based on this UberPool is illegal.
> 
> View attachment 32033


I wish it were; but, doesn't the part about transporting all passengers to a common destination describe something other than UberPool?


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

forqalso said:


> I wish it were; but, doesn't the part about transporting all passengers to a common destination describe something other than UberPool?


Look at number 17 as well. Now that I've read it several times it's confusing.

I believe 15 is saying I can't pick you up and then pick up another party going to the same address and charge you both the fare. So, with the same address requirement I guess that's how Uber is getting around this section because pool rides are generally to different locations from what I read. We don't have pool here.

The way I read and understand 17 is that fare splitting must be based on mileage and/or time used.


----------



## Walkersm (Apr 15, 2014)

I think it was pretty well established that Uber Pool and lyft line were illegal under PUC regs. At one point though they did allow Lyft to continue with it as an experiment. But to my knowledge they never gave Uber authorization to do it.
See the letters from SSept 8th:

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=4317

Also one there about the inspections


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

Walkersm said:


> I think it was pretty well established that Uber Pool and lyft line were illegal under PUC regs. At one point though they did allow Lyft to continue with it as an experiment. But to my knowledge they never gave Uber authorization to do it.
> See the letters from SSept 8th:
> 
> http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=4317
> ...


Well, both letters to Camp and Kalanick clearly point out UberPool is illegal and in violation of PU Code 5401.


----------



## Walkersm (Apr 15, 2014)

Beur said:


> Well, both letters to Camp and Kalanick clearly point out UberPool is illegal and in violation of PU Code 5401.


Yea but I think a few weeks later they gave Lyft a pass to do it because they came to them and asked if it was OK. Uber Never asked. Or maybe it was because Lyft got all their yearly reports in on time. EIther way no teeth behind it as Uber just kept doing Pool without interruption.


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

Walkersm said:


> Yea but I think a few weeks later they gave Lyft a pass to do it because they came to them and asked if it was OK. Uber Never asked. Or maybe it was because Lyft got all their yearly reports in on time. EIther way no teeth behind it as Uber just kept doing Pool without interruption.


I'm happy we don't have pool here, likely because there's not enough demand.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

If I remember correctly they were both allowed to continue for time being.


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

they need to consider the unsafe aspects of uber pool. we get pinged while we are driving. it is dangerous to interact with your phone while driving. uber wants us to accept a call while driving and while passengers are in the car.


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

uber strike said:


> they need to consider the unsafe aspects of uber pool. we get pinged while we are driving. it is dangerous to interact with your phone while driving. uber wants us to accept a call while driving and while passengers are in the car.


I'll bet a bunch of letters from drivers to the PUC speaking about the dangers of driving and accepting calls would do wonders.


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

Beur said:


> I'll be a bunch of letters from drivers to the PUC speaking about the dangers of driving and accepting calls would do wonders.


getting rid of this unsafe practice that is uber pool would mean more money for drivers. uber would no longer be able to stack rides. which would mean that there would be less cars available which in return would call for surge due to demand.


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

uber strike said:


> getting rid of this unsafe practice that is uber pool would mean more money for drivers. uber would no longer be able to stack rides. which would mean that there would be less cars available which in return would call for surge due to demand.


Might be time to craft a letter to the PUC.


----------



## jaydeedub85 (Oct 16, 2015)

Beur said:


> I have been driving for 3 years, every year I get a notice from Uber that my annual 19 point inspection is due and must be completed at a BAR certified mechanic. So as far as Ca and Uber it's always been required, I can't speak for or about Lyft.


Nope, uber has several inspection stations in LA, takes 2-3 minutes for their so called inspection. The guy last time didn't even get in my car to test the brakes or look at them in any detail. And i'm sure this mock up uber tent-station is not a BAR-certified facility.


----------



## UberPartnerDennis (Jun 21, 2015)

jaydeedub85 said:


> Nope, uber has several inspection stations in LA, takes 2-3 minutes for their so called inspection. The guy last time didn't even get in my car to test the brakes or look at them in any detail. And i'm sure this mock up uber tent-station is not a BAR-certified facility.


The guy who did my original cert was an employee of one those mobile repair companies ... He tested all my lights, horn etc and looked at my brakes through the wheel (I have gaps in my rim where you can easily see the pads. He also got under the car and looked at this inside pads as well


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

riChElwAy said:


> View attachment 31854
> 
> 
> View attachment 31855


Another grain of sand coming 
Bart Mcoy will not be happy


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

Beur said:


> It will be interesting to see what happens to the driver ranks if every variety is required to go TCP. My gut says the ranks will dwindle.


If this would to happen it will severely cripple uber
If you hold a TCP you can poach riders build a client base & leave uber 
The defectors know all the uber ropes , will easily take a large chunk of uber bussiness


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

Here's what I sent to the PUC about the dangers of UberPool and LyftLine:

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Agenda ID 14615

TO PARTIES OF RECORD IN RULEMAKING 12-12-011,

*Multiple Party Ride Requests*

Both Uber (UberPool) and Lyft (LyftLine) offer a service that allows passengers to request carpool type rides which is in violation of PU Code Section 5401. Not only are these services in violation of section 5401, but they also contribute to the problem of distracted driving.

In 2014, 3,179 people were killed, and 431,000 were injured in motor vehicle crashes involving distracted drivers (http://www.distraction.gov/stats-research-laws/facts-and-statistics.html). Didyou know according to research it's takes 17 seconds for the brain to refocus on the task at hand after being distracted?

Uber has also introduced "ping stacking," this service gives an Uber Driver another ride request that is allegedly close to the drop off location of their current ride while they're driving. While this is great for the driver it puts public safety at risk as the driver must now avert their eyes from the road to look at the incoming request.

It's not uncommon for drivers to receive ride requests while traveling the freeway at freeway speeds. If GPS applications like Waze can prevent access to certain functions while the car is traveling above 5mph surely, Uber a "technology" company has the capability to program a similar safety feature into the drivers application.

For the safety of the California Public I urge you to order Uber and Lyft to discontinue their respective "carpooling" products and require them to program a safety feature into the drivers application that prevents ride request from being sent to a driver while the vehicle is in motion.

Sincerely,

Xxxxxx Xxxxxx


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

20yearsdriving said:


> If this would to happen it will severely cripple uber
> If you hold a TCP you can poach riders build a client base & leave uber
> The defectors know all the uber ropes , will easily take a large chunk of uber bussiness


This is exactly why Uber doesn't allow pax to request specific drivers.


----------



## UberPartnerDennis (Jun 21, 2015)

Beur said:


> Here's what I sent to the PUC about the dangers of UberPool and LyftLine:
> 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Agenda ID 14615
> ...


Love it. Very well written


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

UberPartnerDennis said:


> Love it. Very well written


Thanks feel free to copy and send as well, maybe add some of your own thoughts.


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

Beur said:


> Here's what I sent to the PUC about the dangers of UberPool and LyftLine:
> 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Agenda ID 14615
> ...


this is a great decision! and if you want to do some real damage you'll send a copy of this to Cal OSHA (Occupational Safety) i hear it's one powerful agency


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

riChElwAy said:


> this is a great decision! and if you want to make a real big deal out of it you'll send a copy of this to Cal OSHA (Occupational Safety Hazard) i hear it's one powerful agency


Feel free to copy and send the PUC and to the organizations you feel need to see this information. One email won't make a difference, but 100's might.


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)




----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)




----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

riChElwAy said:


> View attachment 32221


Ok, I've given you a starting point riChElwAy nowmtske the ball and file a complaint.


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)




----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

I recommend copy and pasting your email and emailing it to at least one of these email addresses.. this is Cal OSHA a very powerful state agency


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

riChElwAy said:


> I recommend simply copy and pasting your email and emailing that same exact thing to at least one of these email addresses


riChElwAy as I said feel free to copy and paste and send it to who you'd like. It's going to take more than one person sending emails to make a difference.


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

Beur said:


> riChElwAy as I said feel free to copy and paste and send it to who you'd like. It's going to take more than one person sending emails to make a difference.


ok... doing it now.....


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

email sent!


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)




----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

California is so predictable. Regulate everything without reason or logic.


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> California is so predictable. Regulate everything without reason or logic.


Public safety is the reason, you're just too ignorant to see it.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Beur said:


> Public safety is the reason, you're just too ignorant to see it.


Yes, I know the fabricated reasons they use to take rights away and stifle markets while justifying their own jobs.


----------



## LA Dispatcher (Feb 26, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> Yes, I know the fabricated reasons they use to take rights away and stifle markets while justifying their own jobs.


Only regulation we need is to officially be declared IC drivers with the option to say no to a job. Everything else will prevent competition and keep Uber and Lyft as the only options.


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

UberPartnerDennis said:


> there has always been an annual inspection


There used to be an annual safety inspection for all cars in California ... circa 1980's, if memory serves me. But now anything that runs can roll down the road; unless a CHP deems the car unsafe and issues "fix it" tickets


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

*CPUC delays vote on ride-hail regulations until next month*








A woman opens the door to an Uber/Lyft car on Market Street in San Francisco. (Jessica Christian/S.F. Examiner)
By Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez on March 17, 2016 1:00 am

State regulators announced late Wednesday they will delay a controversial vote on sweeping new regulations for ride-hail companies like Uber and Lyft.

The California Public Utilities Commission was poised to approve a major overhaul of its regulations for ride-hail companies statewide that would impact thousands of such vehicles on San Francisco's streets. The vote, scheduled for Thursday morning, was delayed to April 7 amid disagreements over the regulations, including whether such companies can use rental cars to offer rides.

Such contentious issues include whether Lyft drivers can lease vehicles purely for ride-hail use, if Uber drivers should be fingerprinted for criminal checks, and whether unaccompanied children can legally travel in ride-hails.

New high-stakes financial deals, like a partnership for Lyft drivers to lease vehicles from General Motors, Inc. that was announced this week, added fuel to missives between the legal teams of the multibillion ride-hail dollar companies, their critics and the CPUC.

Now Uber, Lyft and others will have more time to hash out the legal ramifications.

The CPUC still plans to discuss the Phase II regulations Thursday but will not vote on them.

Though Uber and Lyft historically have not shared the number of vehicles they operate on local roads, the decision could impact what taxi regulators estimate to be as many as 20,000 rideshare vehicles in San Francisco.

Ride-hails are legally known as Transportation Network Companies in the state, or TNCs.

Some say the 15 new "Phase II" regulations for Uber, Lyft and other TNCs proposed by commissioner Liane M. Randolph and CPUC administrative law Judge Robert R. Mason bring rideshare companies more in line with the taxi industry, though others argue that even if the new regulations are approved, ride-hail companies will still be less regulated than taxis.










Since the new proposed rules were announced in late January, Uber and Lyft each lobbied grievances about requiring trade dress (like Uber placards, or Lyft mustaches) in the backs of vehicles. The companies also said requiring more data from driver inspections was unduly burdensome.

According to Bloomberg News, Uber last had an investment valuation of $62.5 billion, and Lyft rose to $5.5 billion.

Separately, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency and San Francisco International Airport both took issue with the CPUC's potential redefinition of the term "personal vehicle," which would include leased vehicles. Critics of that practice contend drivers are no longer "sharing" if instead of using their own vehicles, they use leased vehicles specifically for driving for Lyft or Uber.

If a leased vehicle was defined as a "personal vehicle," it would be legal for drivers to use on the Lyft and Uber apps, a practice that is appearing to become more common.

Kate Toran, head of the SFMTA's taxi division, said leasing vehicles changes the very definition of "ridesharing," and opposes leased cars being defined as personal vehicles.

"[The companies] started by calling themselves ridesharing. You as a driver just happened to have an empty seat. That was the sharing," Toran told the San Francisco Examiner.

Now, she said, "when you start leasing vehicles, to me, that's a commercial transaction. That's getting more and more like a taxi service, and less like, 'sharing.'"

Uber, which wrote to the CPUC under the auspices of its subsidiary, Raiser, said it supports calling leased vehicles "personal vehicles."

"It is well established under California law that the term 'personal vehicle' includes all arrangements in which drivers are authorized to use the vehicle," Uber's attorneys wrote to the CPUC, "including under a lease, lease-sale, or rental-purchase agreements, as long as the driver has personal use of the vehicle."

The SFMTA requested the CPUC move new regulations concerning the definition of personal vehicles to the Phase III regulation debate, which will unfold over the next year.

Those who wish to view the CPUC meeting or publicly comment may visit its offices at 505 Van Ness Ave., in San Francisco.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Garcetti pushes fingerprint-based background checks for Uber and Lyft drivers
http://www.latimes.com/local/califo...ingerprinting-los-angeles-20160317-story.html*


----------



## Reversoul (Feb 8, 2016)

Would be surprised if it goes through, but who knows.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *Garcetti pushes fingerprint-based background checks for Uber and Lyft drivers
> http://www.latimes.com/local/califo...ingerprinting-los-angeles-20160317-story.html*


City of LA letter to CPUC on Fingerprinting Pilot Program: *https://www.scribd.com/doc/305119721*
*















*


----------



## JaredJ (Aug 7, 2015)

It has been held until 4/7/2016 pending further review. Results of the hearing are posted on the CPUC's website. The resolution # is R12-12-011 if you want to search for it.


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> City of LA letter to CPUC on Fingerprinting Pilot Program: *https://www.scribd.com/doc/305119721
> View attachment 32431
> 
> View attachment 32432
> *


i believe San Francisco International Airport has repeatedly sent identical-type letters to the PUC demanding LiveScan fingerprinting on TNC drivers


----------



## Cou-ber (Jul 23, 2015)

Beur said:


> First off the first time the "board" could even bring forward for discussion was February 25, 2016.
> 
> Second, there will be a discussion about a date that that the TNC's must have everything in order and then an implementation date.
> 
> Do you truly believe that government moves that quickly, surely you aren't that naive?


Houston moved super quick with this and had it all going in under 90 days. These agencies have the capacity to rush legislation and as Uber is not a company people feel neutral about decisions about its continued operation will occur very quickly. Most politicians want to see Uber dance unless, of course, it is an election year. Is it?? Because if it is look for some of the shady shit Uber has fan-dangled in certain cities. I smoke too much so please don't ask me to recall which cities have key politicians in Uber's pockets but they are there. Think it was a Forbes article...but don't think this will ooze slowly thru. It won't. Shite will happen quickly.

Seems like very little though will fall on the driver but might be worth the effort now to have all that paper work they reference ready to rock and roll....what I don't get is the chunk of space dedicated to fare-splitting. What's the big hooplah with this?

And what do they mean by driving records? I know truckers have to keep written logs of their movements and stuff but what will you give when asked to produce driving records? Trip summaries? Is this sufficient? And doesn't California do finger printing via the DMV? It says they aren't requiring this at this time...but then reference that an additional screening may be adopted...wouldn't a deeper check want fingerprints?


----------



## kideyse (Oct 22, 2015)

Yo Uber and Lyft,
Self regulation or government regulation?
I think the choice is clear. Stop abusing and deceiving drivers and providing almost free rides to pax.
Ride sharing with personal vehicle is non-profit, and has to be "incidental to the destination of the driver" ie sharing ride to/from work.
Anything else is a commercial ride and the driver and vehicle must be licensed, registered, and insured as such.
At least follow the laws already on the books.


----------



## Cocobird (Dec 9, 2015)

Beur said:


> Public safety is the reason, you're just too ignorant to see it.


No, seriously, I can't stand Uber the company but unlike you folks out in California, I don't need government to be my mommy for everything.


----------



## kideyse (Oct 22, 2015)

The reason we have government regulations is that these robber baron corporations failed to regulate themselves.


----------



## Cocobird (Dec 9, 2015)

kideyse said:


> The reason we have government regulations is that these robber baron corporations failed to regulate themselves.


and they won't regulate theirselves because you think you HAVE to work for them. Sorry, I don't like Uber, but because they pissed me off, I refuse to drive for them. Because they have people like you who think you have to turn to government and that you have to drive for them, they continue to do what they do.

Because of people like me, who simply say, screw Uber and find something else to do, they are less likely to reduce rates.

But it's because there's enough people like you and not enough people like me, Uber will continue to lower the rates and abuse their drivers.

You're part of the problem and the government, who is in bed with Uber, is not the solution.]

Sadly, you won't understand.


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M159/K743/159743578.PDF


----------

