[Lobogris]

Originally Posted by binand

Why not? That is how free markets need to work. Ceteris paribus if some people find your cheaper food worthwhile, they will come to you. Some others will find the fancier restaurant more appealing. What we can't have is a situation where there cannot be another restaurant in a 1-km radius of my fancy one. And if my business plan requires a system where no other restaurant is allowed to operate in the neighbourhood, then I am
.

You are overlooking one important point. The first is an established buisness with all legal permits, fees, rent and regulations. The second is an illegal vendor on the footpath but he uses an app to attract customers. That is the difference between a proper taxi service and what the person in the i20 did.

[whitewing]

Originally Posted by Lobogris

You are overlooking one important point. The first is an established buisness with all legal permits, fees, rent and regulations. The second is an illegal vendor on the footpath but he uses an app to attract customers. That is the difference between a proper taxi service and what the person in the i20 did.

Completely agree with you in that when some one does a 'commercial' transaction the business obligations have to be med (tax, permits et. al)
But in this case, it is a car-pool with a minor incentive - where part of the fuel expense is covered.


Coming to ride sharing on operators like Ola - the less said the better on their route selection algorithms. I quit that after I wasted 30 minutes picking up people for a 30 minute ride.



To give a few examples where I should be prosecuted

a) if me and a bunch of friends/(and some others who I personally do not know) go on a trip (assume I do the all travel arrangements) and use an app for sharing the costs - do I then need to take the permits for a travel agency?
b) I use a sport app where I can setup matches for badminton. I set up badminton matches where most of the people are individuals I do not know. And we split the costs later - does that mean I'm a sporting agency?



I guess common sense has to transform into law, but the rate of change is not in keeping with the rate of change in business models.

[binand]

Originally Posted by Lobogris

You are overlooking one important point. The first is an established buisness with all legal permits, fees, rent and regulations. The second is an illegal vendor on the footpath but he uses an app to attract customers. That is the difference between a proper taxi service and what the person in the i20 did.

No, I didn't. I specifically mentioned ceteris paribus.

In any case, the analogy is not exactly right. A better analogy is this:

The government restricts the cumulative number of restaurant seats available in the city. Each seat can be used by say 10 people per hour during lunch time, so by limiting the number of seats the result is that the number of people who can have lunch is limited. But lunch seekers are more than that number, so the local househusbands/housewives decide on a system where they will cook a bit extra and lunch seekers can join them and pay for the food. This scenario must not be regulated like the hotel industry, because it isn't.

[Lobogris]

Originally Posted by whitewing

To give a few examples where I should be prosecuted

a) if me and a bunch of friends/(and some others who I personally do not know) go on a trip (assume I do the all travel arrangements) and use an app for sharing the costs - do I then need to take the permits for a travel agency?
b) I use a sport app where I can setup matches for badminton. I set up badminton matches where most of the people are individuals I do not know. And we split the costs later - does that mean I'm a sporting agency?

I guess common sense has to transform into law, but the rate of change is not in keeping with the rate of change in business models.

Forget about the app part. Just ask yourself if your actions are legal. We all do things that might be technically illegal but if we need to do them more and more often and on a larger scale then we might need to legalise such actions. If you organise one or two matches a year you might get away with it. If you start organising them each weekend, you might have to look in to the legality of the matter.This is how businesses start. Initially it is a small impromptu operation but when it grows you have the law come calling and you decide to either get permits or shut it down. Like the examples of people starting a business in their garage which then grew in to a large company.

Originally Posted by binand

No, I didn't. I specifically mentioned ceteris paribus.

In any case, the analogy is not exactly right. A better analogy is this:

The government restricts the cumulative number of restaurant seats available in the city. Each seat can be used by say 10 people per hour during lunch time, so by limiting the number of seats the result is that the number of people who can have lunch is limited. But lunch seekers are more than that number, so the local househusbands/housewives decide on a system where they will cook a bit extra and lunch seekers can join them and pay for the food. This scenario must not be regulated like the hotel industry, because it isn't.

You are debating a separate issue which is whether there should be a cap on the number of licences to operate taxis and if so what is the optimum number. That is not the point in contention here. Even if there is an artificial cap on restaurant seats or the number of taxis and it is unfair in your view that is the existing law which must be followed by all. You can campaign to change the law but until it is changed, everyone must follow it. You can't pick and choose which laws to follow based on their fairness in your mind. If you do so then you have to face the consequences just like the i20 fellow did.

In your example, people are turning their homes in to restaurants. They could and should be prosecuted for failing to get the requisite permits and for running a business from a residential location. Just because you see some demand doesn't justify flouting of all regulations. Otherwise all illegal vendors are justified. Here is another example for you to consider: there are extra passengers waiting for a flight and I launch an app where they can connect to a private person who will bring a small aircraft to transport them. The pilot has no commercial license, he / she is not registered with any airport (meaning has no rights to fly in and out), the aircraft has undergone no inspection and has no certification. There is no insurance for passengers. No tickets, no facilities. But the system uses an app. That should make it alright no? It it fine if a smaller company wants to compete with bigger airlines and charge lower fares but they have to follow the same guidelines.

[whitewing]

Originally Posted by Lobogris

Forget about the app part. Just ask yourself if your actions are legal. We all do things that might be technically illegal but if we need to do them more and more often and on a larger scale then we might need to legalise such actions. If you organise one or two matches a year you might get away with it. If you start organising them each weekend, you might have to look in to the legality of the matter.This is how businesses start.

Completely agree with you and as mentioned earlier, in that when some one does a 'commercial' transaction the business obligations have to be met (tax, permits et. al).
But in this case, it is a car-pool with a minor incentive - where only a part of the travel cost is covered.

I guess it is that some of us choose to be in Mildendo and some of us choose to be in Blefuscu.

[jpcoolguy]

One more car used for car pooling have been impounded, this time near Poonamallee in Chennai. The car owner has planned to give ride to two people from Chennai to Bangalore for INR 700 per head using a app (most probably BlaBlaCar, however no mention of the same in the news article).

News article in Tamil, couldn't find a English version.
http://www.puthiyathalaimurai.com/ne...increased.html

[locusjag]

I received a mail from Quickride where they quoted the law saying "as per Indian Motorvehicles Act, private vehicles cannot carry passengers for commercial gains.

The act does not restrict carpooling among professionals..."

The mail goes on to labor a point about its fuel point system.

They then quote an Additional Commissioner of Traffic, Mr.R.Hitendra (of Bangalore, I presume): "The city is already very congested. If everyone drives to work, it will only get worse...we don't want to fine anyone who gives a lift to someone in need or shares a vehicle. I do not think this could be a commercial activity here. In fact, we want to support carpooling in Bengaluru."

[X-Factor]

Full text of the email from Quick Ride Team to users.

Hope you have been having a fabulous carpooling experience. Your effort has continuously helped us reduce thousands of cars on city roads every day.

We have received queries from some of you about the legality of carpooling and how the regulations affect you as either a ride taker or ride giver.

Constraint: As per Indian Motor Vehicles Act, private vehicles cannot carry passengers for commercial gains.

The act does not restrict Carpooling among professionals. Carpooling among a set of colleagues/neighbors and sharing of fuel costs associated is usual practice. This doesn’t come under commercial activity definition (Please find the link to the legal opinion below). Carpooling, therefore, cannot be termed as “Hire” as it is on a pre-published pre-defined route with no deviation.

Quick Ride Fuel Point System: In view of the need, and keeping the constraints into consideration, Quick Ride has devised fuel point solution. When a member (user of the Quick Ride platform) offers carpool, she/he gets Quick Ride ‘fuel points’ that can be used to avail a ride from someone else who is also part of this network. These points are strictly restricted for use - either for availing shared rides from others or (as of now) for exchanging for fuel as if cost-shared by co-traveler. The upper limit of the points has been currently capped at 6 points per kilometer.

Therefore, Quick Ride’s unique fuel point system ensures the fuel points are used to rotate carpooling.

The fuel point system ensures the points are used to share the cost of the fuel among the riders.

Here is what our Additional Commissioner of Traffic Mr. R Hitendra says:

“The city is already very congested. If everyone drives to work, it will only get worse. Carpooling helps reduce the number of cars on the road; instead of four people driving four cars to the same place, they can travel in one car. There is nothing wrong with it unless the person giving a lift to a stranger is charging money for it,” he said.

"We don’t want to fine anyone who gives a lift to someone in need or shares a vehicle. I do not think this could be a commercial activity [here]. In fact, we want to support carpooling in Bengaluru."

Click here to know more...

Guidelines for carpooling on Quick Ride:

1. Share carpools with verified colleagues or already known carpool partners and neighbours only
2. Don’t pick strangers / Avoid picking directly from Bus stop / other public transport areas
3. Share fuel costs only through the Quick Ride fuel point system. Avoid Cash/Direct PayTM transactions
4. Redeem fuel points for Car maintenance activities.

Quick Ride mechanism is reviewed by various government authorities in Karnataka, Telangana, and Kerala, for promoting carpool.

We, therefore, want to allay any concerns and fear that you might have about the legality of your favorite commute solution Quick ride.

Despite this for your convenience, we are uploading the following documents on our website under the legal section of Help tab :

1. Quick ride’s ride point system explanation
2. A legal opinion for carpooling
3. Some snippets of our partnership with government agencies and opinion of public servants

You may refer to the following section at your convenience.

Despite this, if you are faced with issues from the government authorities, please reach out to Mr. Prasad Reddy on 9972306666 with the detail of the incident.

The carpooling solution has been decongesting the city roads and has been cutting down the carbon emissions, thereby making our cities more liveable. This is the only solution that has been adding seats for commuters without adding any new vehicles. With your support, we will continue making our cities greener for the future too.

Wish you a happy carpooling.


Thanks,
Team Quick Ride
Share . Save . Smile
www.quickride.in

[GrandTourer]

Having read the previous posts in the thread, I think we are jumping to conclusions that this campaign is targeted at specific carpooling apps and is backed by cab aggregators (which it might be in all possibilities). But I think we need to look at both sides of the coin. So far we have been looking at the carpooling community's side, however, the authorities are not entirely wrong in implementing this rule (or unwritten rule maybe) for the following reasons:

1. How do you ensure that no cash exchanges hands, which is over and above the fuel cost sharing. As we have established in the thread, carpooling apps are way cheaper than Uber/Ola, especially during peak hours, what stops a ride provider to negotiate and agree with ride takers for an extra 50 bucks? This could very well turn into a small side income for the ride provider (especially on long inter-city journeys).

2. Safety concerns, where anyone can pick a ride with strangers.

3. Hire services that run without licenses using private cars. This I have experienced a lot in and around Mumbai. In my hometown which is about 200 Kms from Mumbai, there are several folks who run a rental car service to Mumbai/Pune, but without proper license. Since it is a small town and everyone know ls everyone, it's never been a problem with cops as I can always say that the driver is a friend and we are carpooling. These folks charge a hefty 4-5k for one journey. Taking into account fuel for 400 kms round trip, FE of 15kmpl and diesel rate assumed at 80 bucks comes to around Rs. 2100, plus putting aside a percentage for maintenance at 400 bucks per trip, comes to 2500 bucks. This is a profit of 2-2.5k per trip using a white plate private car for commercial use. I wouldn't say the authorities are entirely wrong.

What if an accident were to occur while you are traveling with them?

This is a full time business for a lot of folks in my hometown.

Having said that, folks who genuinely use carpooling to cut down on cars on the road are the ones who will feel the heat from the cops and see a hole drilling in their pockets, if and when these carpooling apps are banned.

[Nalin1]

Originally Posted by GrandTourer

Having read the previous posts in the thread, I think we are jumping to conclusions that this campaign is targeted at specific carpooling apps and is backed by cab aggregators (which it might be in all possibilities).

Having said that, folks who genuinely use carpooling to cut down on cars on the road are the ones who will feel the heat from the cops and see a hole drilling in their pockets, if and when these carpooling apps are banned.

You have some very good points.

Here is my take on Quickride that I use occasionally when I bring car to office. I use it only because it is beneficial to me and helps in reducing fuel bills. If there were no benefits and someone were to ask me to carpool to reduce carbon footprint/reduce number of cars on the road, I wont care!

Assuming quickride will reduce cars on the road is like taking out a few buckets of water from the ocean and saying the water level has reduced.

The authorities cannot have their cake and eat it too. One one hand they cannot say carpooling should be encouraged and then say that the riders should not make anything out of it!

[GrandTourer]

Originally Posted by Nalin1

On one hand they cannot say carpooling should be encouraged and then say that the riders should not make anything out of it!

It's the BTP that encourages carpooling (for their own selfish reasons, (like one of the members pointer out earlier) and the Transport department that is not supporting it for their own reasons (maybe aligned with what I wrote before or maybe some other).

As far as making something on the side goes, there are laws, however archaic they might be, that prevent private car owners to make money out of them. Even though I might not agree with all of them, the laws are there for a reason.

Consider this for the existence of the law:
If one was allowed to make something out of carpooling, all transactions would be cash based. There will be no paper trail of it apart from the fuel sharing points that Quick Ride came up with. If this becomes a major source of income & there is no documentation around these transactions, which in essence becomes black money. Now I would have been hypothesising this situation, but then there are folks in my hometown(and I'm sure elsewhere too) who are doing pretty well and all their income is cash based.

So overall, your car is personal (no tax apart from LTT), income is cash based, no IT returns, no GST... You are pretty much a tax invader.

How's that for a reason to have such a law.

So, should one be allowed to make money off carpooling... NO.

Should one be allowed to carpool. HELL YES... It's a great way to reduce carbon footprint (even if one doesn't care) and an even better way for networking.
And how about having someone to chit chat with at the infamous Silk Board junction.

I may have gone a bit off topic in between. Mods - collapse the post if found irrelevant.

[SCORPION]

Apparently, as per a report in today's The Hindu, Chennai cops (and RTO) too are seizing cars which are being used for ride sharing. Owners are being fined Rs.5000. As per the report, cops are posing as prospective customers and booking rides using a ride sharing app. The app has not been named. They then nab the unsuspecting owner when he comes to pick them up.

Apart from saying private cars are not allowed to charge passengers, Chennai RTO has tried to justify their actions stating that these private cars do not have third party insurance for the passengers unlike that available for yellow board vehicles. They believe, making emotional statements like lack of insurance to passengers in an accident, could prevent Indians from using such apps. .

This is India friends, people do not care for insurance until they need them. Hell, they dont even need seat belts or helmets! Besides, pray, please tell us how many poor passengers who have died/or been injured in an accident in an authorized 'taxi' have received compensation from insurance companies. How many taxis have a valid, usable insurance for its passengers.

IMHO, there are far more serious violations of motor vehicle laws that require the RTOs attention instead of going after ride sharing apps, which, in my opinion, could at least reduce the number of cars on the road to some extent.

I think, the real reason is because the RTOs are concerned they will eventually lose their ability to milk taxi operators once ride sharing becomes popular.

Link below:
https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/www.t...00328.ece/amp/

[hserus]

Originally Posted by SCORPION

This is India friends, people do not care for insurance until they need them. Hell, they dont even need seat belts or helmets! Besides, pray, please tell us how many poor passengers who have died/or been injured in an accident in an authorized 'taxi' have received compensation from insurance companies. How many taxis have a valid, usable insurance for its passengers.

The motor vehicles act has always caught unlicensed cabs - that is, people using white board vehicles to take passengers for money. Just because someone uses an app and gets to ride in a Skoda rather than an Indica doesn't mean he gets to go scot free "because far bigger crimes are being committed out there".

Also I'm not sure you're aware that the major app based cab services insist on vehicle insurance and even provide additional trip insurance to passengers. So the random uncleji with an ambassador that you book on your next trip to your hometown might not be properly insured but an Ola / Uber will be.

There is zero way that insurance cover for passengers taken on for hire can be covered on a white board insurance policy. And it is a valid ground for denial of the insurance claim, if the survey shows you took passengers.

[SCORPION]

Originally Posted by hserus

There is zero way that insurance cover for passengers taken on for hire can be covered on a white board insurance policy. And it is a valid ground for denial of the insurance claim, if the survey shows you took passengers.

Agree 100% to what you have said. But you probably did not get the sarcasm in my post as far as the insurance part is concerned.

If 2 people share a ride, there is 1 lesser car on the road. If 5 people share a ride, there are 4 lesser cars on the road. If used correctly, it could be equivalent to sharing the fuel expense, a variant of car pooling.

They need not be 'unclejis in Ambassadors'. You get to check their FB profile, see what car they drive and then decide if you want to take the ride or not. Better than random Ola/Uber drivers don't you think? Of course, as with any social networking site, the risk of him turning out to be a psycho remains - an alter ego to his FB profile.

Let us see a typical Indian scenario - car arrives to pick up the "customer '. Driver says, "Acha, suno, if the cops wave us down na, tell them we are friends. Don't say anything about the money. Because ride sharing is illegal and besides you are not covered by my cars insurance if we meet with an accident". The customer weighs his pros and cons:

1. What are the chances that this car will meet with an accident with me (ME) inside - Never - good.

2. This car is better and more comfortable than a taxi - good.

3. This ride is much cheaper than a taxi ride - good.

4. This guy seems to be a nice guy - good.

He sees no cons. He could say the same to the insurance companies too.

If ride sharing is illegal, the apps that promote them should first be banned. These things are new in India and not many people are aware of the legalities involved. People should first be warned that it is illegal to share a ride before seizing their vehicles.

[hserus]

Originally Posted by SCORPION

1. What are the chances that this car will meet with an accident with me (ME) inside - Never - good.

On a long highway ride? I have seen enough maniacs in all kinds of cars, junked old M800s with that cracker of an F8D all the way to Audi / BMW types, zoom at dangerously (for the car) high speeds, change lanes with no idea of using indicators, cut between two buses in an overtake etc. With such idiots it is a matter of time.