Regulatory Implications of the Ride—sharing Industry

沈昊斯 李欣然

Abstract

As a model in the peer-to-peer market， Ridesharing is becoming more prevailing by providing convenience and trustworthy transactions. Nevertheless， our observationsindicate inadequacy of regulations in public interests.This paper investigates governments role in exploiting rideshare as a public good to maximize its feasibility. Governments， companies and passengers are the major objects of study， and there is no exclusion on ages， religions， genders and races. Our research aims to identify an optimal level of ruling to exploitgreatestsocial benefits.

Introduction

Ride-sharing， an on-demand digital mobility service， is globally adopted. This branch of “sharing economy” maximizes efficiency of underutilized private assetsvia information technology. Capitalism is reduced since low entries are required to participate. （Hahn， 2017） Hence，P2Ptransactions occur where mutual trusts are fostered.

On Sept. 19， 2013， California became the first state to regulate the industry， and 48 states and Washington， D.C.followed to enact legislations as of August 2017. （Moran， 2017） Issues regarding inspection， licensing， reporting and privacy are addressed.However， since ride-share is not a conventional model，disruptions form inlegal grey areas， andchallenges in safety， equity and legality are continuously faced by the TNCs. （Crespo， 2016）

Social Contract is driven by the Rule of Law when it comes to governance. Driven by self-interests， societies need third-party interventiondue to lack of spontaneous investment into common good. （White， 2014） Yet the optimal control has always been unclear， thus there is necessity for thegovernment to maintain public safety， promoting rule abidance over defection. Our study is tasked with the identification of an ideal extent of regulation to diminish detrimentsto social cooperation and advocacy.

In the paper， government archives as precedents of powerallows better comprehension on controlling means；lawsuitsare particularly concerned as representative verdicts；prior incidents are also a chief source. These assist our research by revealing harmed interests foreach entity， and it is uncovered whether TNCs meet their commitments. Strong needs for reforms are demonstrated， and we aim to testify our hypothesis of regulatory deficiencies in guaranteeing public goods.

Findings

Current regulations

We find that most public safetyissues can be ascribed to a lack of screening process.Currently， submitting the name and identification to the company for a background check would be the mere requirement of becoming a driver.

Other issues can be traced to the lack of vehicle inspection and maintenance.Riders privacy is also in danger. In 2017，Uber is said to be divulging 50，000 passengers data to a hacker.

Over-regulation

People criticized that if ride-sharing is excessivelyregulated， negative effects will be generated. By banning inspirations and innovations， development of the whole industry might be harmed. It is also said that innovation and regulation simply dont work together.

Government and companies action

Both the government and transportation network companies have made efforts （regulatory reforms）to improve the situation.Some governments implemented regulations to require the companies to conduct backgrounds checks on their drivers and vehicles that are subject to annual inspections.

The TNCs also make changes to their regulations frequently. Take Uber for example. Its Safety Center had carried out new rules concerning passenger safety which can mainly be put into three categories. Firstly， the app will have a place where riders can learn about key safety information.Secondly， an app named “Trusted Contacts” is instructed， allowing riders to designate up to five connections. The last server to solve problem discussed early in the paper about the screening process. The “Annual Background Check” reruns annually no matter it is required legally.

Methodology

In addition to existing pieces， a survey is conducted among customers. Subjects are chosen in Beijing， a metropolis where ride-sharing occupies substantialposition in the city operation for its convenience. By May 2018， consumer scale in China reached 185 million， and the market penetration rate was up to 16.9%. （JiGuang， 2018）Thus， representative data would be concluded.

The study comprises 22 multiple-choice questions and is sectioned into categories- the first on user experience and the second on attitudes and anticipations. Demographical questions on frequency of use， gender and age are instrumental in identifying correlations. Deeper inspection into public attitudes are enabled through the survey.

Results are presented in percentage from 112 responses. 29.5% havediscoveredasymmetrical or inconsistent information；84.82% consider regulations immature； 76.8% hold privacy concerns； 71.43% claimed inadequate responsibility from TNCs； and 70.54% consider current supervision insufficient. The materials prove our hypothesis and help acquire multifaceted viewpoints on therole of ride-sharing， thus there would be betteradvocacies for reforms.

Conclusion

We identified mainly three loopholes in ride-share regulations， the lack of inspection as well as the maintenance of the vehicles used， and private information of the passengers being threatened. Additionally， the reason why regulations cannot be undue and its relationship with inspiration are illustrated. Subsequently， we discovered that both the government and the TNCs have make changes. For the government， they made adaptations mainly requiring background check in drivers. For the companies， they allow the riders to share their location with both their families and police while highlighting safety keys.

From our questionnaires， we conclude that most of the passengers find that current regulations need to be changed in order to ensure their safety and that they are not feeling safe while taking the service.

All these results as well as the “grey areas” we recognize reflect that reformation should be on its way.

References

1.M. Moran， “Policy Implications of Transportation Network Companies”. Texas A&M Transportation Institute. Oct， 2017

https：//static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/PRC-17-70-F.pdf

2.B. T. White； S. M. Sepe； S. Masconale. “Urban Decay， Austerity， and the Rule of Law”. Emory Law Journal. Sep 18， 2014

http：//law.emory.edu/elj/_documents/volumes/64/1/articles/white-sepe-masconale.pdf

3.R. Hahn & R. Metcalfe， “The Ridesharing Revolution： Economic Survey and Synthesis”. Brookings.edu. Jan 10， 2017

https：//www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ridesharing-oup-1117-v6-brookings1.pdf

4.Y. Crespo， “Uber v. Regulation： ‘Ride-sharing Creates a Legal Grey Area”. University of Miami Law School. Dec 1， 2016

https：//repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi？article=1285&context=umblr

沈昊斯

年齡：16歲

城市：北京

就讀學(xué)校：北京市海淀外國(guó)語(yǔ)實(shí)驗(yàn)學(xué)校國(guó)際部 12年級(jí)，

目標(biāo)專業(yè)：經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)

這個(gè)假期我非常榮幸地在NYUStern的Prof. Lyon的指導(dǎo)下對(duì)共享經(jīng)濟(jì)這一現(xiàn)象對(duì)社會(huì)中各個(gè)群體的影響進(jìn)行了深入地調(diào)查研究。在現(xiàn)有數(shù)據(jù)短缺的情況下，我自行設(shè)計(jì)了一張調(diào)查問卷，以幫助我們的研究進(jìn)一步了解用戶體驗(yàn)和政策改革的展望。在執(zhí)行這次實(shí)驗(yàn)時(shí)，我體驗(yàn)到了前所未有的挑戰(zhàn)（比如樣本采集數(shù)量不夠無法具有代表性、開放性問題的信息處理等），也收獲了意想不到的知識(shí)。給我留下深刻印象的是教授在實(shí)驗(yàn)中給我提的意見—使用基本信息filter并分析出各個(gè)群體之間的correlations。通過近一個(gè)月里教授的手把手指導(dǎo)，我切身體會(huì)到了科學(xué)研究所謂的嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)，也對(duì)于經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)這個(gè)領(lǐng)域有了更加透徹的理解。

李欣然

年齡：17歲

城市：北京

就讀學(xué)校：北師大附屬實(shí)驗(yàn)學(xué)校國(guó)際部，12年級(jí)，

目標(biāo)專業(yè)：經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)

首先，決定題目和研究思路的困難程度遠(yuǎn)大于其他，這是原來未曾想到的。這次之后我明白了要在一開始限定一個(gè)范圍，例如某個(gè)產(chǎn)業(yè)，然后與現(xiàn)實(shí)相結(jié)合，比如此產(chǎn)業(yè)中存在的爭(zhēng)議最大的問題是什么，綜合這兩方面進(jìn)行考慮。其次，參考資料可信度的衡量方法也得到了進(jìn)一步地認(rèn)識(shí)，哪些是事實(shí)，哪些是主觀的，哪些是建立在事實(shí)上的主觀，通過這樣的判斷最后找到那些有著切實(shí)依據(jù)的文獻(xiàn)。最后，我以前一直以為一個(gè)結(jié)構(gòu)是在具體的研究開始之前就已經(jīng)規(guī)劃好的，但是如今發(fā)現(xiàn)在閱讀大量參考資料的過程中，大腦會(huì)自動(dòng)篩選出那些最后會(huì)作為論文重點(diǎn)的部分，呈現(xiàn)出一個(gè)結(jié)構(gòu)，這樣的話不用一開始在毫無頭緒的時(shí)候決定結(jié)構(gòu)，而是在最后進(jìn)行整合，實(shí)際用在寫論文上的時(shí)間其實(shí)很短。