# Lyft says goodbye, Uber’s future unknown



## Taxi Driver in Arizona (Mar 18, 2015)

Lyft leaving

The email from Lyft to drivers specifically cited increased regulation in New Mexico as the reason for the company's exit.

"State officials have moved forward with onerous ride sharing requirements that make it nearly impossible for drivers like you to thrive on a peer-to-peer platform," the email stated.

In a statement, a Lyft spokeswoman confirmed to New Mexico Political Report that the company will halt operations in the area specifically because of increased regulation.

As New Mexico Political Report previously reported, the regulations would include drug tests for drivers as well as a mandatory car inspection by a licensed mechanic.

"While we appreciate the work done by the PRC, the new rules do not allow true ridesharing to operate in New Mexico. We are now forced to choose between supporting regulations that we know will make it exceedingly difficult for our peer-to-peer driver community to thrive, or taking a stand for the right long-term path forward. Because of this, we have made the difficult decision to pause operations in Albuquerque on May 14th."

http://nmpoliticalreport.com/3456/lyft-says-goodbye-ubers-future-unkown/


----------



## Lidman (Nov 13, 2014)

oh well


----------



## unter ling (Sep 29, 2014)

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> the new rules do not allow true ridesharing to operate in New Mexico.


thats an interesting claim.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

In other words... "We didn't expect to have to pay anybody"


----------



## Just_in (Jun 29, 2014)

May 14th? Why don't they just leave today?


----------



## Boopboopadoop (Apr 3, 2015)

Good riddance.


----------



## cybertec69 (Jul 23, 2014)

Because you are NOT a Rideshare service, but a Taxi/FHV service.


----------



## Showa50 (Nov 30, 2014)

Again, these companies picking thier toys and leaving is very immature and childish. **** these tantrums they throw.


----------



## Million Miler (May 2, 2015)

Many cities and towns banned the automobile in the early 1900's…. but it has seemed to work out in the long run.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona (Mar 18, 2015)

Million Miler said:


> Many cities and towns banned the automobile in the early 1900's&#8230;. but it has seemed to work out n the long run.


They were scaring the horses, man.


----------



## Million Miler (May 2, 2015)

Uber must be scaring somebody...


----------



## RockinEZ (Apr 29, 2015)

Lyft passengers are a pain. Lyft pings are too far away because not many folks will drive for Lyft due to lame passengers and fare away pings. Lyft is in the self destruct mode.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona (Mar 18, 2015)

RockinEZ said:


> Lyft passengers are a pain. Lyft pings are too far away because not many folks will drive for Lyft due to lame passengers and fare away pings. Lyft is in the self destruct mode.


So is Uber.


----------



## RockinEZ (Apr 29, 2015)

Well Uber is eating it's young.....


----------



## oneubersheep (Nov 27, 2014)

All they have to do is raise the rates to make it ALL do able by the driver but HHHHHHHEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL NNNNOOOOOOOOOOO! They cant do that! What? And allow the drivers to make a living? Goodness Gracious! What would people say!?


----------



## johnywinslow (Oct 30, 2014)

Its NM those people are not right in the head. I worked out of belen NM for 13 years...that whole state is just weird!


----------



## Tim In Cleveland (Jul 28, 2014)

and they've already pulled out of Kansas.


----------



## DrJeecheroo (Feb 12, 2015)

Boopboopadoop said:


> Good riddance.


to bad rubbish


----------



## DrJeecheroo (Feb 12, 2015)

Tim In Cleveland said:


> and they've already pulled out of Kansas.


Yup. All they are is dust in the wind.


----------



## RockinEZ (Apr 29, 2015)

Gas went up $0.45/gal in San Diego in the last month. Uber needs to adjust rates when we have to pay more operating expenses. 
Will that happen, fat chance.


----------



## Yarddude11 (May 12, 2015)

Guess there's not enough money too stay and fight


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

For a company so infatuated with "innovation bro"... It's funny how the split second they can't turn a profit in a place they chose to take over they back up their bags and leave... There goes the whole "we want to help people make money" and "bring innovation broski" out the window.


----------



## troubleinrivercity (Jul 27, 2014)

Showa50 said:


> Again, these companies picking thier toys and leaving is very immature and childish. **** these tantrums they throw.


They are run by Stanford/Harvard tech babies whose minds are at least 1,000 times powerful as our own. We can't penetrate their infinite wisdom.

And yeah techbros lose their ****ing shit the moment the world stops giving them everything they want when they want. They're all textbook anti-social, but so are most libertarian evangelists.


----------



## RockinEZ (Apr 29, 2015)

The "service on demand" concept for transportation is a great business model. The way Kalanick is running it with his disturbed brain is problematic unless you consider he is using money to keep score. Once a man is personally worth 2.6 to 2.8 billion dollars, he really has no further need for more money. He is just keeping score by depriving drivers of a decent living. 
He could do it by raising the minimum charge to $5 and the mile rate to $1.85. The market would support that. Uber might make more money in the long run. 
Instead he has a constant cycle of drivers coming into Uber, figuring out they are getting screwed, and being replaced by new desperate folks. 
He could have a consistent force of experienced drivers with employee benefits, but he chooses to take advantage of the folks that work for him.
Full Goose Bozo....


----------



## LolX (May 11, 2015)

It seems as though a large part of the Uber "strategy" is just to keep on tying stuff up in courts and letting things string out as much as possible. I keep on seeing posts on here or news that "this state is about to outlaw Uber" or "decision coming soon" yet nothing happens. It's a really smart plan: you just continue to challenge things, appeal rulings and these processes take years and years to settle. 

That's probably where most of the investment/cash infusions for Uber go to: Lawyer fees and paying off politicians. 

I know lots of people on here hate them but the people running this company are absolutely brilliant. They have no product, basically assume very little risk (from what it appears in regards to how people are dealt with with accidents... which is their only risk or maybe someone takes a $250 two sided reference thing and does nothing after), are doing something borderline illegal... and are one of the most successful companies in the world. They're going to be worth around $100 billion by the end of the year barring some major changes. 

All that said - I have a feeling that this company isn't going to be on top forever. Without a great product (and one that can be copied incredibly easily) and the ill will they have on this board and around the world, I don't see them long term being successful.


----------



## xr650r (Dec 22, 2014)

Uber -software that lives on rented rented server space that makes mr travis money 24/7 while he is out doing hookers & blow.Lyft in NM-maybe they would have done better with a meth lab under a laundry service.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Million Miler said:


> Many cities and towns banned the automobile in the early 1900's&#8230;. but it has seemed to work out in the long run.


New Mexico didn't ban Lyft, they just wanted to regulate them to make use they were safe. Just like cars are regulated to make sure they're safe.


----------



## Ms.Doe (Apr 15, 2016)

troubleinrivercity said:


> They are run by Stanford/Harvard tech babies whose minds are at least 1,000 times powerful as our own. We can't penetrate their infinite wisdom.
> 
> And yeah techbros lose their &%[email protected]!*ing shit the moment the world stops giving them everything they want when they want. They're all textbook anti-social, but so are most libertarian evangelists.


Sociopaths


----------



## SafeT (Nov 23, 2015)

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> We are now forced to choose between supporting regulations that we know will make it exceedingly difficult for our peer-to-peer driver community to thrive


Thrive? Like how Uber and Lyft flood the markets with too many drivers and continually lower rates? That kinda thrive?


----------



## Jermin8r89 (Mar 10, 2016)

Tesla is already in trouble for bad quality parts. Uber doing boob things its gonna be much harder doing this rideshare thing after all its uber who's trying to make it happen now lyft might move into first place for autonomous. This is gonna be a disaster pretty soon Google is only one who I think knows what they doing. (Gets popcorn)


----------



## EpicBeard (Oct 11, 2015)

Tim In Cleveland said:


> and they've already pulled out of Kansas.


Travis K's dad should have pulled out.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

ENGLISH TRANSLATION: "We can not compete in a Fair Marketplace where every player must follow the same rules. Our competition must be hobbled while we are totally unfettered in order for us to compete."


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

SafeT said:


> Thrive? Like how Uber and Lyft flood the markets with too many drivers and continually lower rates? That kinda thrive?


When Uber first invaded Portland (Oregon) we suggested they demand the city place a cap on the number of cars, like they do with cabs.

We were told ( by Uber fanboys) cab drivers are just afraid of competition. Well, now that 10,000 Uber/Lyft drivers are available, they've finally realized we were trying to help. What we have is 10,000 drivers making squat rather than a 1000 drivers doing "OK." Hell, we only have about 1500 legal cabs in a pretty small market.

So now we get to listen to these people cry about how they can't make any money. I wonder why? ;-)


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> Lyft leaving
> 
> The email from Lyft to drivers specifically cited increased regulation in New Mexico as the reason for the company's exit.
> 
> ...


This is such nonsense, if Uber and Lyft had rates comparable to that of Taxis, they could afford the burden of the regulation, and the regulation is just because it is their to protect the public ( to the best that it can, of course ).
What Lyft is really saying ( and Uber ) is they dont want to operate on a level playing field with Taxis, and because hey don't, they are willing to put the shaft to driver jobs in that city.

As a livery driver, we have similar strict regulations governing us, but Uber has no problem with it. Why? our rates are even higher than that of taxis, Uber can afford the burden of regulation in the livery ranks. See, it's the price that is the problem.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Brooklyn said:


> In other words... "We didn't expect to have to pay anybody"


Actually, they planned on paying...Just not those people. They are busy paying lobbyists and politicians.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

stuber said:


> Actually, they planned on paying...Just not those people. They are busy paying lobbyists and politicians.


In other words... "We want to milk your city of tax money and send it to our off-shore accounts.. your stupid officials won't let us... so let us let you work for .85 cents a mile so we can send your money overseas"


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> the new rules do not allow true ridesharing to operate in New Mexico./


Yes they do, carpooling is actually encouraged. Fare for hire on the other hand is a different story. They just want a business to be regulated like the millions of other businesses in this country. Got to love the word "ridesharing".


----------



## FAC (Mar 27, 2016)

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> New Mexico Political Report previously reported, the regulations would include drug tests for drivers as well as a mandatory car inspection by a licensed mechanic.


Loved the part about drug testing. That sure wouldn't fly here in Colorado. We like our pot too much. Let's just hope the next administration will allow us to keep our pot legal. (The funny thing is I'm pro legalization but don't partake at all in the stuff...the taxes collected on the stuff is awesome for our state).


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

FAC said:


> Loved the part about drug testing. That sure wouldn't fly here in Colorado. We like our pot too much. Let's just hope the next administration will allow us to keep our pot legal. (The funny thing is I'm pro legalization but don't partake at all in the stuff...the taxes collected on the stuff is awesome for our state).


What happens in Colorado when there's a bad accident and the driver is hospitalized and when they draw blood they find out the driver has weed in his system. Here in AZ they have the medical marijuana, but you will definitely get cited for DUI Drug. A cop told me that the worst thing you can do during a traffic stop is to show the officer your Medical Marijuana Card. That gives the officer probable cause to have blood drawn from you, and if you refuse they can get a court order within half an hour. Our State Workmans Comp requires all claim victims to a mandatory drug test. They can deny a claim based on a positive test.


----------



## FAC (Mar 27, 2016)

SEAL Team 5 said:


> What happens in Colorado when there's a bad accident and the driver is hospitalized and when they draw blood they find out the driver has weed in his system. Here in AZ they have the medical marijuana, but you will definitely get cited for DUI Drug. A cop told me that the worst thing you can do during a traffic stop is to show the officer your Medical Marijuana Card. That gives the officer probable cause to have blood drawn from you, and if you refuse they can get a court order within half an hour. Our State Workmans Comp requires all claim victims to a mandatory drug test. They can deny a claim based on a positive test.


No different than if a driver was in a serious accident after finding liquor in his system. Driving under the influence in Colorado is no joking matter. Indeed, it's a very serious issue, with strict penalties even for first time offenders. Even though we were the last state to lower the DUI standard. Especially now with the legalization of marijuana. From day one, cops were being specially trained to recognize the signs of someone driving under the influence of marijuana. But since medical marijuana has been around for so long before recreational use became legal, the cops are pretty in tune to what to look for.

I know they, whoever they are, have been working on creating a roadside test for marijuana usage similar to alcohol breathalyzer test. Either they have the test created or very close. Regardless, if a cop has a valid suspicion a driver is intoxicated they will be arrested and tested.

Colorado has invested significant resources since the legalization of marijuana into several programs. From day one it was a top priority for Colorado to do it right for lack of a better term. Colorado knows we are under the national microscope to see how it's working out before other states are willing to vote on legalization. I realize there are other states and D.C who also have legalized marijuana but they are more restrictive than Colorado. Colorado wanted to prove to the country legalization of marijuana is possible, can be regulated, profitable for the state, and effectively managed. Really the main issue with the legalization is the fact it remains a cash business and none of the dispensaries can have bank accounts. having that much cash around is just inviting trouble.

But my point about drug testing not flying here, is we all know marijuana stays in the system longer than alcohol. Personally I think it would be unfair to require drug testing of drivers when our state constitution makes using marijuana legal. Unfortunately, our state Supreme Court had to rule against a quadriplegic man who lost his job at dish network because he tested positive for marijuana. He used it for medical use, but smoking pot was against the company policy. The case made it to state Supreme Court and ultimately the court ruled that marijuana is still considered illegal on a federal level, so Dish Network was within their rights to terminate his employment.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

FAC said:


> Driving under the influence in Colorado is strict penalties even for first time offenders.
> 
> we were the last state to lower the DUI standard.


Do they give restricted licences in Colorado? How many DWI convictions does State Law require before the drunk driver is on the bus for life? Is there any point at which the law mandates on the bus for life?


----------



## FAC (Mar 27, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Do they give restricted licences in Colorado? How many DWI convictions does State Law require before the drunk driver is on the bus for life? Is there any point at which the law mandates on the bus for life?


 I know the law is 3 strikes your out (for good). But like any criminal case doesn't always play out that way.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

The scientist who figures out a test for UI of pot will make a fortune. Having THC in your system (the current capability of testing) is basically useless information.


----------

