The deceptive ‘Who’s driving you?’ campaign against Uber, Sidecar & Lyft |
Featured Commentary

The deceptive ‘Who’s driving you?’ campaign against Uber, Sidecar & Lyft

In the midst of election season, it’s commonplace to see negative campaign ads everywhere. The “Who’s Driving You?” videos on YouTube and social media are no different, except for the source and the target. Instead of coming from a politician, “Who’s driving you?” is meant to scare the public away from using ride-sharing services like Uber, Sidecar and Lyft.

A project of the national umbrella organization of more than 1,000 taxi and limousine companies — the Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Association — “Who’s Driving You?” videos and tweets aim to look like some kind of myth-busting, rigorously researched, fact-checking effort about the “dangers” of using your smartphone to arrange a ride and paying for the service via credit card.

The problem, according to TLPA, is that Uber is lying when it portrays itself as a technology company, that ride-sharing drivers don’t have proper insurance and don’t undergo the same background checks as traditional taxi and limousine drivers. “Ride-sharing companies,” says the TLPA, are using “amateur drivers” who are “not adequately covered by insurance” or fingerprinted by the FBI or local law enforcement.

Sounds pretty bad, especially accompanied by ominous headlines about how unsafe and treacherous it may be to hire an Uber or Lyft driver.

Some of the problems with these ride-sharing services actually plague traditional transportation companies, though. Dave Sutton, spokesman for the anti-Uber campaign, admitted in a phone interview that there isn’t a universal national standard for background checks for traditional taxi drivers and traditional taxi companies might have drivers with records that include DUIs or other run-ins with the law.

Whatever dangers apply to trusting Uber drivers with your life are the same as trusting taxi drivers. Indeed, this whole effort has nothing to do with safety; it’s about competition eating into local monopolies.

When I asked Sutton about the traditional taxi companies’ fear of competition from Uber, he argued that it was unfair conditions that bother the TLPA. “Competition involves having a set of rules and may the best competitor win,” Sutton explained. And he’s correct that the rules should be for every player. But when referring to the “rules,” what we mean are the regulations and the regulators who govern the industry. And those regulations, which differ in every location, and those regulators, made up largely of whoever was part of the industry when the rules were devised, haven’t changed for decades.

What both the taxi companies and Uber should realize is that changing outdated rules would be the best answer for the companies and for consumers. But when I suggested as much to Sutton, he balked. Why not lower the regulatory burden so it is cheaper and more efficient, so everyone can compete fairly? “That’s not something that we’ve spoken to,” he replied.

Abby W. Schachter, a senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum, lives in Regent Square and blogs about the intersection of government policy and parenting at

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.