Promote legalization of carpooling

Whether it is the encouragement and support for charity benefit sharing, or the sharing of shared expenses, and non-simple consideration of illegal operations, they are all declaring war on "urban diseases." Following the release of the taxi ride-in policy, Beijing plans to issue guidance on the “carpooling” of private minibuses during the year.

Large cities are overcrowded, overcrowded, difficult to get a taxi and difficult traffic jam has become a complementary disease. Some studies have pointed out that typhoons can reduce vehicles by 10% to 25% per day. Take Beijing’s 5 million vehicles as an example, it can effectively reduce 400,000 vehicles daily. However, over the years, paid carpooling has always been a "sensitive vocabulary" in traffic management.

As early as 13 years ago, the domestic “running” micro-public welfare project had already emerged. However, despite the popularity of the “Spring Festival Homecoming” campaign for two consecutive years, the “rising” risk and legitimacy issues have also surfaced. On the one hand, although "carpooling" is not operational, it still faces the same rights and interests disputes as operating vehicles. In the event of an accident, how to compensate and take into account the interests of all parties, I am afraid that the boundaries need to be clarified; on the other hand, "carpooling" also involves trust. With regard to the issue of supervision, some people who are willing to open the “good wind” made by “carpooling” will have to be willing to take a ride. They need to use “transparent” methods to distinguish “carpooling” from illegally-operated vehicles, and also need to formulate “carpooling” cost sharing. Standards and principles are reasonable for people to accept.

The legalization of “carpooling” is a win-win move. Its legalization, first of all, is to distinguish “carpooling” from illegal operations. It is a recognition of the cost-sharing nature of public welfare, and will allow more private cars to join the ranks of free riders. Secondly, illegal operations exist because of demand. "Carpooling" increases the supply and gives passengers more choice, and it will also create a squeeze on the illegal operating market.

The implementation of the "carpooling" new regulations will bring about a lot of management costs. For managers, if you think of the sharing of costs as a profit, it is undoubtedly the most convenient to identify “carpooling” as illegal operations. However, even the positive effect of “carpooling” has also been negated. It is because of defamation. At the same time, the vague areas in the regulations also left too much room for discretion for managers, and the “crimes” of “illegal operations” are likely to become the tools of individual departments. The release of “carpooling” will indeed bring about some new problems, but the room for improvement in urban management is just that. If we do nothing because we are afraid of trouble, or if we hold onto the “grey” power, it is not the attitude that managers should have.

In the past period of time, whenever there were incidents of being “good-hearted people” but being punished, there would be a burst of public discussion. The gaps in the legal provisions also made the credibility of the management departments themselves questionable. We are looking forward to the introduction of new regulations in Beijing this year. We will be able to manage the "carpooling" and we also hope to actively solve the problem of management ideas and integrate into more cities.