Like send the Colorado congressional delegation to attack SpaceX for no particularly good reason. ULA has a large operation in Denver and they pay Colorado Republicans handsomely.
If somehow the cost of driving went steeply up, you (and your competitors) can switch to an alternative means of transportation and still keep doing whatever you do for a living.
If the cost of driving went substantially up, then taxis and public transport would also increase in cost. At some level of increase, no I could not do what I do.
That's not the case of uber
Why not? New service, UberRickshaw. Many Uber rides are short enough that would work.
It'a no more ridiculous a thought than you trying to create an arbitrary separation between me driving a friend across town and someone I don't know.
since their for-profit use of publicly-funded infrastructure
Which I and my rider pay for regardless of us knowing each other or not.
Because it "stifles innovation" - you certainly can't expect start-ups to play by the same rules as the companies they are competing with, can you?
Reminds me of one version of the "pro net neutrality" argument - if you allow existing companies (with their massive resources) to pay for improved bandwidth to customers, then how will the under-funded start-up ever compete? You must tie the hands of the entrenched companies to give their competitors a chance...
It's not like they are running a business out of their car... Oh wait.
We have restrictions on running businesses out of the house, there should be similar restrictions for running a business in your auto.
The real issue will be when a "personal use" driver damages his car (and potentially a paying passenger) when involved in a traffic accident AND the driver's private insurance refuses to cover the damage and any ensuing lawsuits.
âoeOf all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. Lewis
You could potentially walk, bike, take public transport or a cab to get to your clients.
No, I really can't - mostly I'm driving about 30 minutes at 50-60MPH average to reach them. Considering the fact that as a consultant I get paid by the hour it would cost me vast sums of money to bike to them, and probably an hour longer each way taking any public transport (I've looked into that). A cab is not a bad idea if you live in a city but I'm working between multiple areas and also take very long road trips all the time (partly for business) so it would be stupid to also spend money on a cab when the marginal extra cost of using my car is vastly less.
it's not an absolute requirement for your business
My clients disagree which is why I drive to them. If I don't have a job because I do not drive, it's a requirement.
Your argument is way, way weak. There is no "key difference". The fact is that driving for Uber and driving friends around has zero actual difference in terms of external risk or ability. That's the core argument where you simply cannot distinguish, thus either everyone needs a commercial license or no-one does.
Even as a contractor you may not deduct mileage driving to and from clients as that is considered non-commercial commuting by the IRS
Good thing I listen to my accountant and not idiot AC posters on Slashdot:
One way to avoid the harsh commuting rule is to have a home office that qualifies as your principal place of business. In this event, you can deduct the cost of any trips you make from your home office to another business location.
I mean, what consultant these days is not going to have a home office? Sheesh.
Most states, for example, have a taxi drivers endorsement for their regular drivers license.
Yes they do. The point is that is as stupid as it is unnecessary; it's just a revenue collection scheme and has zero to do with keeping people safe (the supposed intent).
Haha, yeah, I remember back when all that was on fark.com was a picture of that squirrel with the oversized genitals. Heck, I knew him before Fark.com, when he was the wizard Cletus on the mud Three Kingdoms.
God I feel old...
Because then people don't have any assurance that they won't get sued for using it.
You are not being paid to drive to work. You are being paid for the work you do there.
I am a contractor. I drive to clients, all of my driving to clients is directly related to the job.
I also write iOS applications, sometimes I drive around testing the GPS aspects of the apps. In those cases I am billing while driving.
Why do I need a commercial license tags for that again? How is that in any was reasonable except you simply want more money from me and that seems like a fine angle to use to extract it? It wouldn't make me any safer to have a license where I answer questions about driving tractor trailers. Insurance wise I had damn well better be covered for anyone else getting injured in my car anyway, and insurance is already calculated based in part on miles you drive per year (not to mention Lyft/Uber provide extra insurance on top of what you have).
Why would I need commercial license/tags to drive a few people around few days a week? I already do that with family and friends. Why is is so different when it's someone I don't know at the start?
Looked at from another direction, justice requires that if government shields the manufacturer from liability, it must stand in and accept the liability itself.
Yes, I agree.
Maybe the DMV should streamline the process instead of lowering the requirements?
Part of the Commercial Drivers License Test includes questions like "The phrase gross combination weight is figured by adding together what?". Is it reasonable to require you know the answer when you are just driving a person around in a passenger car?
The reason why the commercial drivers license test is way too onerous is that it's really meant for people driving trucks or other specialized vehicles. What aspect of the existing drivers license test does not cover what a person just driving a few other people around in their own car would not cover? After all, that's exactly the same as if they were simply driving friends and family around... if the test can't help you be a decent driver doing that, then improve the basic test instead of requiring you to know a truck swinging wide is called Offtracking...
Why, exactly, should Uber drivers get to drive passengers using regular non-commercial drivers' insurance?
They don't really, this is why Uber and Lyft both provide supplemental insurance for drivers.
Commercial insurance costs more because people who drive people around for a living are much more likely to cost the insurance companies more money
That's bullshit because the cost of personal insurance is partly factored in by miles driver per year, so that risk is ALREADY INCLUDED.
If you're letting them drive on non-commercial licenses than that means that regular drivers are subsidizing Uber-drivers.
No more than people who drive a lot for drives or commute already are.
QEMM's optimize was awesome back in the day. It'd get me 95% of the way there.