Ridesharing startups hit with cease-and-desist by California regulator

I think the idea of ride sharing is pretty cool. But to be fair when I read about some of the ride services, they kinda are just unregulated taxi services.<p>If somebody's heading to the airport and I get to hitch a ride with them - that's a ride share. Having drivers waiting for ride requests and then taking them wherever they want to go - call me crazy but that doesn't seem like ride sharing to me.

If I were the rental car lobby, I would be putting pressure on regulators to make things as hard as possible for these companies. They are startups, so it's hard for them to put up much of a fight.<p>It would be very different if Google was behind ride sharing. It took someone the size of Apple to work with the music industry to sell mainstream music legally to the masses.

Prostitutes attempt to skirt the law in the same way by accepting "donations" for time instead of payment for services. You know how well that works for them.

I wonder if some of these startups knowingly run afoul of the law, thinking that if they build sufficient ridership it will give them the sway to have the laws changed.

I agree with the state in that these companies fall under the law as written. The real question is whether the law is really designed to benefit the public or whether it's a rent-seeking arrangement with the taxi companies.

I can agree with side.cr, and lyft.. That they are simply a platform by which drivers, and those wanting to be driven are able to reach other. However... Even though payment is voluntary the drivers are participating in a transportation service, and are subject to being regulated as one; non-profit or not.<p>Not a perfect example of this but similar is that craigslist might be a communication tool for those dealing in prostitution, but they are not the ones committing the crime.

Would this apply to Zimride, Riderbee, Ridejoy, etc. ?

I know people in the echo chamber don't like to hear this, but ridesharing is not an innovation. Los Angeles and Chicago have had ridesharing programs for at least a decade. Hell, even Cleveland had a ridesharing program years before Uber or Lyft were founded (and that was how I got around Cleveland in law school).<p>Uber and Lyft call themselves "ridesharing" programs where passengers "donate" money to a driver who "just happens" to be going to the same destination as his passengers but who will not remain at that destination and who will probably pick up more passengers shortly thereafter and "coincidentally" drive them to their desired location in exchange for a "donation." Uber and Lyft can use all the euphemisms they want, but they what they are is the very definition of a for-hire car service.<p>The fact that they straddle the line between two types of regulated car services (cabs and limos/"charter car") does not change the essence of the commercial transaction that takes place. The fact that a mobile app or website is used to arrange the transaction instead of a phone call does not change the essence of the commercial transaction that takes place.<p>Regulations on cars-for-hire exist for a reason: to protect the safety of passengers by ensuring a minimal level of competence <i>and to ensure recompense</i> via adequate capital or insurance in the event of an accident. These regulations work remarkably well, which is why so many people think they are unnecessary.