OpinionEditorial
Editorial

Don't let Sacramento stifle innovative new businesses like Uber and Lyft

OpinionEditorialsBusinessInsuranceUber
Proposed regulations on ride-sharing companies could snuff innovation across the sharing economy
Ride-sharing measures risk driving away innovation

Just as Silicon Valley is a hotbed for innovation, Sacramento is a hotbed for regulation. Those two impulses are clashing now over a new generation of tech companies that uses smartphone apps to connect ride-seekers with drivers. If lawmakers aren't careful, the regulations they're poised to impose could snuff innovation across the sharing economy.

At issue is whether the Legislature will impose a second layer of rules on companies such as Uber, Lyft and Sidecar in addition to the ones the state Public Utilities Commission has been setting over the past year. To its credit, the commission recognized that these "transportation network companies" are fundamentally different from taxi companies, despite similarities in the services offered. The commission's rules for driver and vehicle safety recognized the risks to passengers, but also that the drivers were freelancers using their own vehicles on a part-time basis, not full-time employees using cars dedicated to carrying passengers.

Nevertheless, some lawmakers allied with the taxi industry are now arguing that what's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. With little or no evidence to show that the ride-sharing services are as risky as traditional taxis, they nevertheless are pushing to make the former comply with several of the regulations that apply to the latter — or even more stringent ones.

The current version of one bill, AB 2293, proposes that ride-sharing companies carry more insurance coverage when their drivers have no passengers than cab companies in L.A. are required to carry when their taxis are full. The amount is also many times larger than what the commission is moving to require. Another bill, AB 612, would require Uber and its ilk to use the same drug-testing procedures and background checks that taxi companies do, on top of the zero-tolerance policy and background checks mandated by the commission. The relative merits of the two approaches are debatable, but there's no sense in demanding both. Still, it's better than an earlier version of the measure, which would have required drivers for the new companies to carry, full-time, the same commercial insurance policies as cabbies, rendering the whole idea of providing the occasional ride to generate extra income economically unfeasible.

Advocates of the state's entrepreneurial high-tech industry warn that the flawed logic behind these measures could just as easily be used to choke off other emerging businesses that enable people to make occasional commercial use of their personal property or skills. That's a scary thought in a state whose reputation for nurturing technological innovation is one of its most powerful magnets for investment and employment. Rather than trying to force more rules onto ride-sharing companies because their service looks like a cab company's, lawmakers should let the utilities commission enforce its new rules unless and until there's real evidence that they don't work.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
OpinionEditorialsBusinessInsuranceUber
  • If you like Uber, you would've loved the jitney
    If you like Uber, you would've loved the jitney

    Car services like Uber, Lyft and Sidecar are thriving because they've embraced an obvious, good idea: connecting those who have spare time and wheels with people who need rides. Founded just five years ago, Uber now operates in 128 cities and on every continent but Antarctica. The...

  • New Afghan government; same old problems
    New Afghan government; same old problems

    President Obama called Kabul on Sunday to congratulate Afghan presidential contenders Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah for finally accepting a power-sharing deal to resolve a months-long dispute over who won in an election deeply marred by fraud. "Signing this political...

  • What 'war on women'?
    What 'war on women'?

    On Friday, the White House announced its “It's On Us” initiative aimed at combating sexual assaults on college campuses. I'm all in favor of combating sexual assault, but the first priority in combating a problem is understanding it.

  • Ashley Swearengin for state controller
    Ashley Swearengin for state controller

    Californians have been breathing a bit easier in recent months as the state government's finances have turned — slowly, like an ocean freighter — from disaster to solvency. But the work is hardly done, and diligence is called for to ensure the budget doesn't drift off...

  • Let's make a climate deal, California
    Let's make a climate deal, California

    It has been almost 25 years since the United States joined much of the world in Rio de Janeiro and tentatively agreed to do something to reduce the pollutants associated with global warming and other climate disruption. Since then, though, the U.S. has been a laggard in taking major action....

  • Why single out L.A. hotel workers for a wage boost?
    Why single out L.A. hotel workers for a wage boost?

    The Los Angeles City Council is, again, trying to rush through a proposal to establish a special $15.37-an-hour minimum wage just for hotel workers. A committee hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday and a full council vote is expected the following day, even though three reports from...

  • What about those other greenhouse gases?
    What about those other greenhouse gases?

    The U.N. Climate Summit that starts Tuesday is a precursor to the Paris climate conference scheduled for next year. No treaty will come out of the summit in New York, which is more of a brainstorming and cheerleading session.

  • The ugly surprise of out-of-network doctors and 'balance billing'
    The ugly surprise of out-of-network doctors and 'balance billing'

    The New York Times' Elisabeth Rosenthal offered an important lesson in healthcare economics over the weekend that's a must-read for anyone about to undergo a major medical procedure.

Comments
Loading