State legislators to look at regulating Uber, Lyft and their ilk

an industry to the extent necessary to protect the public, while not excluding competition or innovation, and while not allowing the regulatory body to get owned by the industry it was intended to regulate, is a tricky balancing act.

Decades ago, when the medallion system was implemented in many cities, the rationale was that there was a fixed amount of taxi business to be had. Limiting the number of players kept rates high and therefore prevented a "race to the bottom" under which an oversupply of cabs would force fares ever lower, to the point where taxi companies would have to skimp on vehicle maintenance and driver quality (via low pay) to make a profit. It is obvious what that system has led to: rent-seeking, higher prices, and poorer service.

Airlines were once regulated under a similar scheme; the Civil Aeronautics Board divvied up the routes among carriers and regulated fares. Some have argued that the "race to the bottom" scenario is exactly what's happened in that industry since deregulation in the late 1970s. Fares have certainly gotten much cheaper, at least for leisure travelers, but at the expense of passenger comfort, and add-on charges for all kinds of stuff. I've seen claims that aircraft maintenance has suffered, but the truth remains that it's still one of the safest modes of travel out there.

I think a good, common-sense way to do it would be, "If you want to carry passengers for a fee, you need to background-check your drivers, file a rate plan with the city, carry a million dollars in liability insurance, and subject your vehicle to safety inspections. Anyone who can submit to that, can get licensed, and good luck."

Which is what people seem to be talking about now when they refer to "Uber" (as opposed to the black car/SUV service).

picking up at Logan with no permits.

I had this discussion with myself on a long drive recently...since I talk to myself on long drives when I'm the only one in the car.

Labeling UberX "ride sharing" was rather shrewd on Uber's part. Not very many people questioned it. But I was always scratching my head. Sidecar, a San Francisco based company, is a ridesharing service. You're literally sharing your "ride". I've had enough of Uber (never used lift). I've given them plenty of my money, but at the end of the day, they've skirted oversight for way too long.

Does it really matter? The additional coverage won't come cheap, I'm sure, and the whole "sharing economy" selling point is that you are simply using something you already have -- not incurring an additional expense in the hopes that you might get something back on it.

if you work for Lyft or UberX and you get in an accident while transporting passengers for pay, you and your passenger will not be covered by your insurance company.Period.

California is actually rolling out hybrid insurance, where you pay a slightly higher rate than standard insurance,but it covers you and the passenger while employed by UberX or Lyft.

If the more direct orange line buses ran later to my neighborhood I would be less likely to use Uber.

If you have your choice between a cab, Uber, or the T to get home in a reasonable amount of time, what is your pick?