TNCs accountable for safety. We also agree with Lyft that ridesharing is nothing new and has been occurring on a relatively large scale for many decades – from casual carpools and bulletin boards to more recent on-line forums. We note, however, that there is a specific exemption for the true form of ridesharing in the PU Code. PU Code § 5353(h) exempts: Transportation of persons between home and work locations or of persons having a common work-related trip in a vehicle having a seating capacity of 15 passengers or less, including the driver, which are used for the purpose of ridesharing, as defined in Section 522 of the Vehicle Code, when the ridesharing is incidental to another purpose of the driver. The section also states: This exemption does not apply if the primary purpose for the transportation of those persons is to make a profit. “Profit,” as used in this subdivision does not include the recovery of actual costs incurred in owning and operating a vanpool vehicle, as defined in Section 668 of the Vehicle Code. In our view the Commission firmly believes that TNCs do not meet the rideshare exemption and actually are providing transportation services for compensation. Lyft and SideCar have both entered into settlement agreements with the Commission’s Safety and Enforcement Division as stated above and have complied with the safety requirements in those agreements. Therefore, it is not entirely correct to state (as some parties have in their comments) that the public must only rely on the company’s word. These agreements, however, are interim arrangements pending the conclusion of this Rulemaking. Therefore, in this decision we adopt strict safety regulations and guidelines that are similar in nature and in some cases more stringent than current and past practice in the
TNCs accountable for safety. We also agree with Lyft that ridesharing is nothing new and has been occurring on a relatively large scale for many decades – from casual carpools and bulletin boards to more recent on-line forums. We note, however, that there is a specific exemption for the true form of ridesharing in the PU Code. PU Code § 5353(h) exempts: Transportation of persons between home and work locations or of persons having a common work-related trip in a vehicle having a seating capacity of 15 passengers or less, including the driver, which are used for the purpose of ridesharing, as defined in Section 522 of the Vehicle Code, when the ridesharing is incidental to another purpose of the driver. The section also states: This exemption does not apply if the primary purpose for the transportation of those persons is to make a profit. “Profit,” as used in this subdivision does not include the recovery of actual costs incurred in owning and operating a vanpool vehicle, as defined in Section 668 of the Vehicle Code. In our view the Commission firmly believes that TNCs do not meet the rideshare exemption and actually are providing transportation services for compensation. Lyft and SideCar have both entered into settlement agreements with the Commission’s Safety and Enforcement Division as stated above and have complied with the safety requirements in those agreements. Therefore, it is not entirely correct to state (as some parties have in their comments) that the public must only rely on the company’s word. These agreements, however, are interim arrangements pending the conclusion of this Rulemaking. Therefore, in this decision we adopt strict safety regulations and guidelines that are similar in nature and in some cases more stringent than current and past practice in the
77192335.docx