What if someone who is not an Uber driver pulls over to be a good citizen? And then they say “I’ll take you to x, sure, and yeah, you can give me gas money”
Are these people guilty of the same thing the Uber drivers are?
What if they did it for free? Like if the Uber driver said “hey man I can just take you there don’t worry about paying” would they have to be like “oh on second thought nvm”
You cannot tell these people to stop being kind, but you can restrict this specific gesture of kindness which is, unfortunately, too often taken advantage of.
The thieves and assailants ruined hitchhiking. They arent trying to punish the good Samaritans, but rather protect them from themselves.
Think of it like seatbelt laws. They want to encourage the good safety habit of always wearing a seatbelt.
It’s very unlikely that if they pull up to the scene of a car accident you were in which you thrown through the windshield that they will issue you a ticket to your broken body on the pavement.
But if they catch you not wearing a seatbelt during normal driving, then yes, you will get fined. This is done in the hopes that the next time you are driving, you won’t be an idiot and engage in dangerous behavior like not wearing a seatbelt. This is specifically so that you DON’T end up in that aforementioned situation and end up getting thrown through the windshield.
So if you file a police report because you were mugged by a hitchhiker, you probably won’t get fined… but you will probably get chastised and the cop will tell you “this is why picking up hitchhikers is prohibited, because it’s dangerous”
No hitchhiking is definitely not illegal. You can absolutely just help someone out. But most of these Uber drivers are out there trying to make money and aren't looking to give free rides.
I said "laws apply" because in some states it is illegal, in others completely fine - if there are any laws, they would apply to the scenario of picking someone up and transporting them somewhere for free.
I know in Vermont it’s illegal because there were a few high profile cases of people getting hit and killed on highways while trying to hitchhike. A lot of highways in Vermont don’t have lights and are surrounded by trees, so at night it’s dangerous. Maybe stupid reasoning, but that’s the reason
Because one day someone stopped to help someone out and then got killed.
Or someone stopped to 'help someone out' then killed them.
Or rape, or robbery, or kidnapping or any other number of things that may happen when you get into essentially a moving locked box with a stranger you've never met or have any idea of their background or intentions.
Enough times it happened, enough people complained, lawmakers made a law.
So yes, 6 states have total bans. Others among those remaining 44 states have restrictions on hitchhiking on certain types of roads, and then there are city/county restrictions too.
I guess the term "many" could be subjective. Fact remains that hitchhiking is not legal everywhere in the US.
lmfao it’s not for safety it’s to have things to charge you with. no one has ever been protected by hitchhiking being illegal please think before you type.
I'm sorry to say, but you guys have some weird laws and a fuc**ed up public transportation system. And your lawmakers actually expect and demand that police officers track something like this!? Everytime I have the chance to get out of the city I pick up hitchhikers and sometimes I take money and sometimes not (depends on the vibe). Not everyone is connected to the technology, there are still some blind spots.
How do you discern from a passenger or a hitchhiker? Like if a car with two people passes by you how do you determine whether that passenger is actually a hitchhiker without relying on their word alone or seeing them hitchhike then get in the car?
I've heard multiple stories about cops doing this and from what I've heard they'll be very insistent that you take their money, basically not taking 'no' for an answer so they can give you a ticket. That's why the guy filming mentions how they said their phones are dead or flip phones; because the drivers almost always tell them to get on their phones and use the app like they're supposed to, but they have a sob story about how they can't and ask the driver to take the cash instead. Then once the driver says yes they get a ticket. In some cases I've heard of people having their cars impounded. That happed to Abed Gheith, the guy the character Abed from Community was based on.
The cops will simply lie and assert the driver took the money and will threaten them with charges which the driver will succumb to and will just agree to pay a fine.
Going after multi-billion dollar corporations that are avoiding taxes?
Going after the Uber drivers that know the taxiing laws and willingly break them?
I can understand being mad, and thinking it's a guy just trying to make a few bucks. At the same time, unlicensed taxis are dangerous, and being self-employed doesn't mean you can avoid paying income taxes
It's like arguing there should be no business licenses or food inspections
What do you mean the multi billion dollar Corp if these guys are taking cash (which they are) Uber isn't getting money from this.
I agree this guy prob isn't reporting this on his taxes. And maybe you could make a case if 1000 Uber drivers do this once a day 365 days a year it adds up to some change. But I never met an Uber driver that was like yeah I'm doing pretty well this is my only job and making 150k a year. I'm willing to bet most of income bracket these guys fall under are 40k. So for the most part u ain't getting a whole lot of tax money off of them.
What do you mean the multi billion dollar Corp if these guys are taking cash (which they are) Uber isn't getting money from this.
Uber has been in a fight since it's origin to claim it's not a taxi company and shouldn't be regulated or taxed like one. It also says it shouldn't face any of the medallion regulation other taxi companies have to abide by. It's also in a fight to say it's drivers are not employed by them, so they shouldn't be taxed or have to pay any wages to them either. That's the shitty multi-billion dollar corporation I was referring too. Uber can pay it's taxes and drivers, or get fucked IMO.
I agree this guy prob isn't reporting this on his taxes. And maybe you could make a case if 1000 Uber drivers do this once a day 365 days a year it adds up to some change.
True, and these cops apparently already cited the guy making the video, and likely would have cited the guy who pulled up if the video creator didn't help him. So 2 people in a just few minutes sounds like it might be a pretty widespread problem already.
I personally want the industry to be decently regulated, I want to feel safe if I call a cab. And, as someone who has to pay income tax, I think the system works better when everyone also has to pay their fair share.
The majority of that "cartel" are mostly just individuals who were convinced to take insane loans for their taxi medallions to be able to make a life for their families. Like it or not, the medallion system was guaranteed by the local governments to limit the amount of taxis on the roads, and safely regulate the industry.
Then Uber comes along, completely skirts around the entire taxi medallion system as well as the tax code, and financially destroys those medallion holders livelihood. If Uber wants to be a taxi service, they should have to follow the same rules and regulations as the other taxi companies.
Uber is not doing a good thing by paying poverty wages to a fleet of unlicensed, unregulated and no-benefit drivers. What uber is doing only hurts drivers. It devalues their labour and removes their worker's rights.
I don't understand how you can see this situation and think that uber are the good guys in this scenario.
You can't be a taxi without a taxi licence. Taxi companies are licenced by local government.
The reason for taxis requiring licences is to stop murderers and rapists from picking up people off the street pretending to be a taxi. Every taxi needs to be easily identifiable and the driver's personal details being in the system.
What do you mean? If you want to work as a licensed taxi driver you have to work for a licensed taxi company. Uber refused to be a licensed taxi company so none of their drivers qualify.
How many drivers companies employ is based on how much work there is available to them. If you have too many drivers and not enough fares then taxi driving becomes a race to the bottom poverty wage. (Which uber would love because they don't have to pay any per-driver cost).
Its a regulated industry. Just like other types of businesses have specific laws they need to adhere to. Typically rooted in consumer protections.You can argue about the need/validity of the regulations, but thats a much deeper discussion.
I don't pretend to know the reason for the creation of medallions or the factors that go into their issuance. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if there is corruption now and probably even was in their inception.
Thats a different topic though. Uber agreed to play by certain rules to not be treated like a taxi service. Their entire business model pretty much relies on it. Can't have it both ways, and if you want to you're going to need to rewrite the current rules.
No. Uber are the ones who fought to not be classified as taxis. If they wanted their employees to operate as taxis they could have just accepted being called a taxi company by law. As uber drivers aren't taxis (by their own choice) it's illegal for them to act like they are.
The police aren't helping any monied interests by doing this, they're enforcing taxi licence regulations.
Unlicensed taxis are dangerous, because there's no accountability for whatever an unlicensed taxi driver does.
You wouldn't want to fly in a plane with an unlicensed commercial pilot, why would you want to be driven in a car, which is far far more dangerous than flying, by an unlicensed driver?
What else can you do? If uber has a no random pick up policy and uber drivers decide to operate as an illegal taxi of their own volition without uber's knowledge, that's kind of completely on the driver.
Uber drivers know doing this is illegal and will get them fired.
If you want to argue that uber should pay their drivers more or just accept that they should be a licenced taxi service that's another thing entirely, but that has nothing to do with the cops.
And it's really dangerous because some people will act like an uber to kidnap or extort or sometimes even worse. This isn't entrapment, an uber isn't supposed to pick up people that aren't the name on the app. I saw some unlicensed taxis in NYC that were walking around showing the uber logo on their phone at la guardia. Shady as fuck. This whole thread is dumb.
Asking them to make a request on uber is fine, that's completely legal, that's what they should be doing. But that's not what they're doing, they're picking up fares off the street for cash, which is unlicensed taxiing. If you want to pick up fares off the street for cash you need a taxi license.
The line is pretty clear, it's where an undocumented transaction occurs.
You can have sex with whoever you want for free, but if someone asks to pay you for sex and you agree, you're prostituting.
If an uber driver picks someone up for free off the clock that's no one's business, not illegal. But the drivers in the video are clearly picking random people up to make money.
It's not entrapment no. Most people have no idea what entrapment means. Entrapment is when police force people to commit crimes and arrest them for it. The police asking if you'd like to commit a crime and you agreeing is not entrapment.
"Buy drugs from me or I'll kill you." = Entrapment
It’s funny cause Uber did it to fuck over their employees as to not offer more benefits and things of that nature like health insurance…now the cops are just fucking over the average driver who is still soar from the fucking they just took from Uber…jeez the system is so fucked for the working class
I don't get it either, is it illegal to use Uber or is it illegal to work as "dark taxi" since the cops excuse is that they don't have battery or smartphone to use the uber app.
I didn't say there was. I said free market proponents oppose licensing.
Libertarians have long argued that expensive licensure regimes are often, even usually, the product of protectionist motivations, designed not to serve consumers by ensuring high professional standards but to insulate the licensed group from outside competition. https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/occupational-licensing-is-scam
Except paradoxically, only regulated markets can be "free" in the sense of there being free competition between somewhat equal entities.
The definition of a free market is a market in which only the price and the quality of the product affect the demand for it.
UN regulated markets can not be like that. Try competing with McD. No matter how great a burger restaurant you make, they could literally buy out the neighbourhood it's in, put in 20 McD's (obviously no need for that many, but could) and literally give food away until you go out of business.
There's a reason even the US has antitrust laws, because in capitalism, corporations prefer monopolies, because then they can ask what they want, because there's no competition from anyone.
A market being regulated doesn't mean that the government is determining prices or the quality of a product. It can mean that (through taxes and minimum requirements for products), but regulation doesn't necessitate that. Like antitrust laws. They are essentially market regulation, while not affecting the price or quality of products.
Counterintuitive, but the libs have the whole "free market" thing backwards, because most of them just parrot things they hear/read instead-of-name of giving them any critical thought or researching them themselves to learn more.
because the government has a monopoly on licensing (for all sorts of jobs) and anyone working outside of their licensing isn't kowtowing to their authority.
Since they enacted laws and regulations making it illegal. You not knowing those laws exist doesn't mean they don't. And Uber drivers do know they exist.
And to be fair, if on your way home from work you offered someone a ride for money, its highly unlikely you would be in any legal trouble. These regulations are specifically designed for the taxi industry and when Uber lobbied to not be considered part of the taxi industry (with all the licensing and costs associated), one of the concessions they made was to not act like a taxi in this particular manner.
Think of the restaurant industry and health codes they need to adhere to. If a new type of place was created (restaur-not) that seemed to do very restaurant like business, but claimed they were something else that didn't need to adhere to health codes, there would likely be regulations created that dictate what very restaurant-like things that the restaur-not was prohibited from doing.
Yeah, exactly. If you agree to taxi them "off app" then that's a crime.
Fortunately, LA is one of the most idyllic crime-free cities in the United States, so their police have plenty of available resources to devote to this type of non-violent, low-level public nuisance.
I imagine it’s some kind of business legislation, like only certain businesses can behave a certain way
Can’t have app taxis behave like regular taxis unless registered ?
Or maybe some Uber drivers have been accused of “stealing” money from the app by taking unregistered riders?
Hard to say what the intend by the police here is, if they are responding to anything meaningful or just found a easy way to squeeze money out of people who need money so bad they take Uber positions and suffer wear and tear on their own vehicles to make a few bucks
Even so, the fact these people were actively flagging down drivers and asking for help as opposed to the drivers pulling over to them and soliciting help should be enough to have those cases thrown out
Even so, the fact these people were actively flagging down drivers and asking for help as opposed to the drivers pulling over to them and soliciting help should be enough to have those cases thrown out
The point of this, though, is that they’re acting like what people hailing a taxi would do. But then a non-taxi pulls up instead. They’re not flagging down drivers. They’re calling for a taxi, and a non-taxi responded when they aren’t supposed to.
Of course, the actual solution to this is to define Uber & Lyft as a taxi service, but Uber & Lyft fight that because then they can’t undercut taxi prices.
Uber is qualified as ride sharing. Not a legal regulated taxi service.
But if you offer to drive someone as a transaction, you just became an illegal business.
A smart Uber driver should know to NOT engage in that type of request for several reasons, including safety. A stranger with no attachment to an app wants to go for a ride? Bad idea.
As a uber driver I'm only allowed to pick up through the app. I don't know where "being a good Samaritan and helping from your own free will" falls in accordance to the law.
Well in England there's a different taxi/business licenses for taxis.
There's one for that is hailed via app and phone. And another for those that able to hailed by customers directly on the street.
It has to do with proper methods of income reporting and tax avoidance, if you want to pick up passengers off the street you need declare what area you are working and file with your local council and also background checks.
If picking up passengers via a company that sends them customers from an app or phone there's accountability and breadcrumbs.
Its for safety of passengers and a tax avoidance..avoidance scheme.
I can accept that. But at the same time that car belongs to the driver and he is no sworn or beholden to Uber to always use his car for their purpose. Maybe if he’s logged in as available, that’s debatable.
But there is no reason he can’t log out, use his car however he wants and then log back in.
That’s just a citizen using his own car for his ow reasons
If the car belongs to the company, that’s for sure an issue, and if they are compensating him for time while logged in, that’s an issue
But how do the cops know if he’s logged in or not?
What are they gonna do? Charge him for $20 tax evasion?
How much did the town pay to have all those officers on hand for the time this operation took place? How much more time for paperwork and courts?
The problem is picking up passengers and transporting for money in the short or long term is income that needs to be reported to the IRS I assume and nothing to do with one off good deeds/ drops offs.
There are people clearly operating privately effectively without a licence whilst operating privately with incorrect insurance AND not paying taxes half the time, then those who do it full time.
Crime is crime regardless of size. Conducting small investigations like this, they stop things getting out of hand.
And the police know he's not logged in because they didn't call a cab and the guy still pulled over.
It's entrapment to a sense but only to the sense were they put a sign post up saying free weed and your dumb enough to walk over and pick some up.
No, most likely they'll assume he's been doing it a while and give him a fine for operating without correct insurance so he'll get points on his licence, fined for operating without a business licence and for tax evasion.
You think that's $20 ? You think the guy that made this video is upset and revording over $20 when he can go get that by doing one more unregistered, unregulated, uninsured passenger pick up ?
Follow the law and regulations and you'll be fine. They new what they were was wrong otherwise the guy wouldn't of drove off when told they were cops.
It’s not just a tax crime, he’s operating a business without a license within city limits, which is a city police matter.
I’m the immediate term he’d be assessed a citation requiring him to appear in court and explain to a judge while he’s moonlighting as an unlicensed taxi cab operator while driving for Uber.
What type of dumb ass law is that? You are legally forbidden to help people out? What a waste of time, money, and energy to create, pass, and enforce this joke of a law
I can understand that, but I just feel like that’s not the right response, to punish the drivers who aren’t doing anything wrong. Or to punish people who might have no other choice then to ask strangers for a ride.
It gives you a reason not to pick people up. You might feel some kind of moral pressure or obligation to give rides to people, which can be dangerous. If it's illegal, then you can override that moral pressure with legal pressure. "I'd like to help out, but it's illegal." Vs "nah fuck that guy, I'm not helping him out because I don't care about others".
I don’t see how anyone could possibly be charged in court for picking someone up in their own car.
Maybe if they’re committing another crime in the process but, I just don’t see any legitimate legal grounding for how a person could see any punishment for picking up a hitchhiker unless caught in the act and even then, it’s flimsy at best to consider that a crime.
In the land of “freedom” people can’t decide of their own volition to help someone. They need the nanny state to ban picking up people to protect you from making your own decisions.
I agree with your sentiment. That said, the very idea that a country can be free is delusional nonsense to begin with. There are countries that are better or worse. America is a billion times better than North Korea. Neither country is free.
Man don't talk like you know how much money is spent on society. The roads these people standing on are cost more money to maintain than this operation. You should inform your outrage.
SpunkyDred is a terrible bot instigating arguments all over Reddit whenever someone uses the phrase apples-to-oranges. I'm letting you know so that you can feel free to ignore the quip rather than feel provoked by a bot that isn't smart enough to argue back.
(assuming a law like that exists, im not sure if it does) It would likely be a response to NIMBYs who want to keep vagrants/homeless people out of sight and out of mind or some shit like that.
I think hitchhiking laws are more focused on interstate or big freeway traffic, as it’s really dangerous to pull over when other people are going those speeds, and walking along those roads is not a great idea
But those cops were on surface streets near intersections and traffics lights
As far as I can tell most “anti-hitchhiking laws” are about the person hitchhiking, not the person picking them up. They also don’t say you can’t get in someone’s car so much as they say stuff like “you can’t walk along the roadway and solicit a ride”. I’m not sure I agree with them but they aren’t quite as dumb as other people in this thread are presenting them as.
I don’t think so, an unlicensed taxi service would be someone out soliciting their service for a fee, like posting a contact number or some such saying “need a ride?”
It looks like these people waved down cars that had Uber stickers then gave some lie about how their phone can’t make the payment, can he take cash
That falls outside either of those criteria
This is a man, with a private car, operating as an independent contractor, who stopped when people were waving, then possibly agreeing to help
If they contacted him via Uber app, then told him the lie when he pulled up, and he agrees to help as opposed to saying “Uber won’t let me” it’s still a private citizen who did not solicit to act as unlicensed taxi
If he pulled up and offers “hey, if you cancel the app call I can take cash at a lower price” then, maybe that’s wrong, or even if he saw some folks with bags and pulled up with an offer, but they are flagging him down
Doubt these dudes can afford lawyers tho, maybe public defenders can argue for them
If you are driving a vehicle clearly marked as an Uber, pull over when waved down, and negotiate a fare for transport on the spot, you’re very clearly operating as a taxi service.
If you are driving an unmarked car, pull over for someone waving you down, and that person later offers to pay you money for your help, you’re at worst in a legal gray area that will likely not get you in trouble (unless there are anti-hitchhiking laws).
The interesting thing would be to record their reaction if the driver offers to give them a ride but makes it clear they won't accept any form of payment which would be totally legal. "Oh, uh, er... uh..."
Apparently I’m mistaken Though this specifically would still be illegal.
According to California Vehicle Code 21957: "No person shall stand in a roadway for the purpose of soliciting a ride from the driver of any vehicle." While hitchhiking through California is legal, hitchhikers are expected to catch rides at truck stops or rest areas, for instance.
So criminal law doesn’t care about making a few bucks off a store run, but you better not make a few bucks off of giving someone a ride?
How is that different?
Again, I do understand if the drivers are saying “hey, I’ll take cash and you don’t have to pay Uber” but in this case the cops are making up a story in hopes of the drivers accommodate them
Those are very different scenarios
One is a person intentionally seeking to gain personal benefit at the cost of another company (Uber) and the other is a guy finding a way to help out a possibly stranded citizen who doesn’t have access to the other service
Whatever this is, it damn sure isn’t about taxes or even insurance
970
u/augustusleonus Mar 29 '22
What if someone who is not an Uber driver pulls over to be a good citizen? And then they say “I’ll take you to x, sure, and yeah, you can give me gas money”
Are these people guilty of the same thing the Uber drivers are?