Mixed feelings about this, but ultimately I'm angrier at the government than any of these companies.

I used sidecar a couple of times in SF and the experience was pretty mixed. It definitely feels sketchy when someone swings by in a Corolla, and it does very much feel like "ride sharing" in the truest sense of the word, with the unmistakable feel of a taxi also. Bizarre.

I much prefer Uber, but the pricing speaks for itself.

I'm not going to complain about the specifics of the enforcement action - no matter which way you slice it SideCar and Lyft most certainly were diving through loopholes. They are meant as a taxi service, no matter how hard they avert their eyes and insist the opposite.

But, and this is a huge but. The taxi experience in San Francisco is horrific - easily the worst out of any city I've ever lived in, and by a wide margin to boot. MUNI is also a perennial joke of a transit system. In a city as dense as San Francisco, dear government, with no functioning taxicab service and no functioning public transit system, how do you expect people to get around?

Uber, Lyft, and SideCar are born from the supremely fucked-upery of SF's transportation situation. Liability, driver training, and all of that are all legitimate questions, but IMO are separate from the question of whether or not these services should exist in the first place.

  In a city as dense as San Francisco, dear government, 
  with no functioning taxicab service and no functioning
  public transit system, how do you expect people to get 
  around?

Bicycles. And no, I'm not trying to be facetious. SF is an good city for bicycling and could be an excellent city for bicycling. One of the main things holding it back is Rob Anderson, author of the District 5 Blog, who has filed several lawsuits derailing efforts to modernize the biking infrastructure.

You can get just about anywhere in the city easily by bicycle. I live at the top of Nob Hill and from just about anywhere in the city I can get home as quickly as a cab. I've beaten my girlfriend on scooter or in a cab several times. The times I've lost have only been by a small margin. People really underestimate how quickly you can get from point A to point B by bicycle.

I used to live in São Paulo and there they do a test every year comparing several transportation options, car, bicycle, motorcycle, bus, subway, helicopter, etc, and bicycles win every single year.

I agree with this comment: "But, and this is a huge but. The taxi experience in San Francisco is horrific - easily the worst out of any city I've ever lived in, and by a wide margin to boot."

So how would you envision ripping apart such a system and replacing it with something better? If you are like many people you might say "Oh its freakin' impossible, we've got regulatory capture, crooked politicians, back channel relationships, this will never change." But if you don't just lay down and give up, you do cause changes. That is what Uber started.

But what is interesting is that you start by 'drawing fire' and that exposes these relationships and it forces some of the people in dubious positions to go full criminal or not. One of the weirder things I've learned about large organizations is that there can be 'unwritten rules' which are maintained by people who would rather not be seen as being in control, and so when you start pushing up against them you get this sort of anonymous push back kind of thing. If you do the 'right' thing and ignore the push back then these same people start exhorting their control points to "do something" and that is when the 'drawing fire' part starts.

These companies are handling this exactly right so far, call their bluff. Tell the CPUC "Hey, either give me a rule that I'm violating or go away." and since there aren't any rules really, just people with influence who wish there were rules, the ones that they try to use against these guys don't work well. Time to start watching the bills in congress for some small amendment to some random bill that says "Oh, and if you offer a ridesharing service you are a transportation services company." tacked on to something which gives money to farmers or something. Then suddenly (if you weren't watching for it) you'll get hit with "Well you are violating this Federal Law which just so happens to have been written earlier this week/month/year." But that exposes the congressional rep who is on the playing board, so you go talk to them and figure out how to make supporting this stuff be more useful than opposing it. And then there will be a newspaper report about how some guy offering rides actually has a criminal record about a mile on long and oh my god if you used one of these services instead of a "real" taxi you might be delivering yourself into the arms of a psychopath! And then there will be attempts and DMV regulations that say you can't offer rides in cars that are older than 7 years old. It goes on of course.

It is a symphony of sorts, all the various folks trying to keep the status quo, protect their turf, etc. And this is what it sounds like.

FWIW the noise level indicates success on the part of SideCar, Lyft, and Uber.

I'm not surprised they're going after Lyft and SideCar. These services scare me. Drivers are usually friendly, but far from the professionals I get with Uber. Some of these services don't even provide proper insurance. It will be interesting to see what happens when one of these drivers gets in an accident.

Uber, on the other hand, looks completely legitimate to me. They partner with licensed and insured companies and provide an awesome experience.

I've been using Lyft for the last month and it has been a great product. Though it's not as flashy as Uber, it is also considerably cheaper, even cheaper then a taxi. I'd rather the friendly Lyft drivers over the unprofessional taxi drivers of SF.

Lyft also has 1MM liability on each driver so nothing about them feels sketchy. [1]

My only complaint is they don't have enough drivers and so I can't always get a lift.

[1] - http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/06/lyft-1m-insurance/

Maybe I've just had back luck. I had one guy who was swearing up a storm, which is usually fine with me, but for some reason didn't give me confidence in him. Then there was the woman who drove like a maniac and complained about how much her life sucked.

I agree SF's taxi drivers are usually terrible, but I've had good luck with Uber Taxi. I'm not sure how much extra vetting Uber does but it seems to work. Uber Taxi charges regular taxi fares + 20% gratuity + $1, which is well worth it to me if you can get one.

The problem with Lyft and SideCar is the liability. It's essentially hitchhiking, which is fun, but rightfully scary.

Both are one lawsuit away from oblivion.

Quite disappointing if they manage to enforce the fines; in my opinion it's these services which make transport options around San Francisco bearable! I'm not sure how many times I've called a taxi to come get me and never showing up...

Sad to see Uber lumped together with Lyft and SideCar.

Can I fine the CPUC for being hopelessly out-of-date in its strategies for protecting customers?

Why do you think that the CPUC's mission is to protect customers?

I read somewhere recently that 80% of all stranger rapes against women are perpetrated by unlicensed taxi drivers.

So I am glad that these services are under a somewhat watchful eye.

I can only find a bunch of sites passing around an unsourced quote about London. Please don't gossip, can you remember at all where you saw this idea or how reputable the author was?

This "somewhere" sounds like a highly reliable source.

So is the problem Uber / Lyft / whatever, or is problem a lack of licensed taxis? If there were more licensed taxis available, women wouldn't have to take a shady unlicensed cab.