Companies signing a list of “shared principles” is not a new development, and in most cases not newsworthy. However, the recent document “Shared Mobility Principles for Livable Cities,” which counts leading ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft among its signatories, is the exception that proves the rule, and not for a positive reason.
The tenth shared principle should raise alarms: “We support that autonomous vehicles (AVs) in dense urban areas should be operated only in shared fleets.”
The pledge claims that it is “critical” that all AVs are part of shared fleets, which would mean that personal ownership would have no role.
The companies claim that shared fleets offer comparative advantages in terms of public safety, emissions, and allowing for affordable access to people, among other considerations.
In order to ensure that all of the AVs were part of a shared fleet, ownership would presumably have to be prohibited, at least in the dense urban areas mentioned.
The ride-hailing signatories already have experience and substantial resources invested in operating large fleets of cars and experience operating a platform connecting people to them. As they sign the pledge, they are likely keeping one wary eye on new sources of competition in the autonomous vehicle sphere, as companies from Waymo to Ford and BMW make forays into the field.
By signaling their support for the principle that self-driving cars should only be part of fleets, ride-hailing companies could be trying to head of competition at the pass.
Companies operating in their own interest are not a new phenomenon, and it is by no means necessarily concerning or wrong that they do so. When companies seek to increase their revenue or market share by developing better products or more affordable options, their interests and those of consumers are aligned. However, when the companies turn their attention to attempting to influence regulations to raise barriers to potential competitors, that can harm consumers.
As this recent example underscores, supporters of free markets and competition should not assume that individual companies have free-market principles.
While Uber, Lyft, and other ride-hailing companies have often been opposed to restrictive rules on incumbent taxi firms in recent regulatory showdowns, that does not mean these companies would eschew the same practices themselves in an effort to limit competition. These companies are not unique in their shifting priorities as they evolve from disruptor to incumbent, and this pledge is just the most recent, starkest example.
The echoes of the same arguments made by incumbent taxi firms just a few short years ago can be clearly heard in the language of the principle that would preclude private ownership of AVs.
In the past, when these ride-hailing companies were attacked as disruptors, their potential value was based on the development of new technologies or methods and bringing them to bear in the marketplace. In signing this pledge, and specifically supporting the tenth principle, these ride-hailing companies seek to cement themselves as the only game in town, literally.
These companies shift from scrappy upstarts looking to compete into vested incumbents looking to pull up the ladder after them.
Regulators need humility. They need to understand that it is not possible to discern what will be the best practice many years from now, due to the significant degree of uncertainty and many factors that could influence outcomes. Improvements in ride-hailing technologies, in conjunction with other dynamics, may very well lead to a future scenario where some choose to forego personal vehicle ownership and instead rely exclusively on a fleet of shared vehicles.
However, this outcome is far from a certainty, people may continue to value owning their own vehicle for a number of different reasons. Some of these reasons, such as the emergence of an entirely new technology or platform, cannot be anticipated by today’s regulators. For an example of the adverse effects that would result from imposing prohibitions or restrictions on new platforms or technologies, one need look no further back than the efforts from taxi companies and driver groups a few short years ago to block competition from ride-hailing companies. Consumers and drivers alike have benefited from allowing those companies to enter.
It is absurd for ride-hailing companies to pursue prohibitions on personal ownership of autonomous vehicles. Competition and low barriers to entry allow for new ideas and better products or methods to make their way to the economy. Today’s regulatory framework should protect these principles, not stifle them.
Charles Hughes is a policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute. Follow him on Twitter @CharlesHHughes.
Interested in real economic insights? Want to stay ahead of the competition? Each weekday morning, E21 delivers a short email that includes E21 exclusive commentaries and the latest market news and updates from Washington. Sign up for the E21 Morning Ebrief.