Joby Aviation debuted its piloted air taxi with a demo flight from Oakland Airport to the Marin Headlands in minutes, as the company plans to launch trial operations in 10 states with potential plans for a pilotless taxi in the future, but it’s unclear when it will launch in California.

As the Chronicle reports, Santa Cruz-based electric air taxi company, Joby Aviation, presented its new piloted flying taxi with a demo flight at the St. Francis Yacht Club Thursday. The Business Wire reports that Joby’s four-passenger taxi, piloted by Andrea Pingitore, began its trip at Oakland International Airport then zipped across the bay to the Marin Headlands at 100 mph before turning back around by way of Alcatraz, all in about 10 minutes, and the taxi was essentially silent during the flight, per the Chronicle.

Joby says its piloted air taxis will reduce hour-long road trips to 10 minutes or less, as KGO reports. Per the Chronicle, a one-way air taxi flight from SoMa to Wine Country would cost around $100 to $170, about the same price as an Uber Black luxury town car.

The Chronicle reports that Joby’s air taxi, consisting of six propellers and four passenger seats, is a compact 14 meters wide and 7½ meters long, which Didier Papadopoulos, Joby Aviation’s President of Aircraft OEM, called “the sweet spot for the market. Basically the size of a Yukon SUV,” he said, but with a very large wingspan.

Per the Business Wire, the US Department of Transportation recently chose Joby for its new federal Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing Integration Pilot Program (eVTOL), allowing the company to move forward with for-credit testing this year.

Trial operations through the program are scheduled to begin in a few months in 10 states, including Arizona, Florida, Idaho, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, and Utah, as KGO reports, and Joby hopes to expand to California soon after. Per KGO, Joby plans to offer cargo delivery in Florida and medical operations in North Carolina, and the company is considering developing autonomous taxis in the future.

As SFist reported in 2024, Joby has been neck-and-neck with competitor, San Jose-based Archer Aviation, over the past few years in the companies' race to launch a commercial eVTOL, and the companies are currently suing each other. As CNBC reported in November, Joby sued Archer Aviation in late 2025 alleging theft of trade secrets and corporate espionage. Archer filed a countersuit Wednesday alleging Joby Aviation concealed its ties to China and defrauded the US government, as Benzinga reports.

Joby’s headquarters are in Santa Cruz with offices in Marina, California, San Carlos, California, as well as Washington, DC and Munich, Germany. Per KGO, Joby employs more than 2,500 workers — many in Northern California, and the company is boosting manufacturing in both Northern California and Ohio.

“The Bay Area is home to the world’s most innovative companies, including Joby, but it’s also an area with significant traffic and unique geographical barriers,” said JoeBen Bevirt, founder and CEO of Joby, per the Business Wire. “Our technology provides an opportunity to build on the immense potential of this region while protecting it for the next generation.”

“By providing clean, quiet service with minimal infrastructure investment we are making flight an everyday reality for the community,” he said.

The Chronicle reports that Bay Area real estate developers are embracing the technology and have been developing plans for rooftop helipads.

Image: Joby Aviation

Previously: Air Taxi Service Plans 2025 Launch In Bay Area, Offering Rides Between Napa, Livermore, San Jose, and South SF

During a hearing on self-driving vehicles in Washington DC Wednesday, a Waymo executive said that remote workers as far away as the Philippines are guiding the robotaxis when they encounter difficult situations, leading lawmakers to accuse the company of putting the American people at risk.

As CBS News reports, top executives from Waymo and Tesla were questioned on the safety of self-driving cars Wednesday by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, as lawmakers determine how to regulate the industry amid recent high-profile incidents.

As the blog Futurism reports, a Waymo robotaxi struck an elementary-school child in Santa Monica last week, and more than 20 Waymos in Austin and 6 in Atlanta have reportedly been documented flying past stopped school buses that had their extended stop signs out and flashing lights on, which prompted the National Transportation Safety Board to open an investigation.

As the Chronicle reports, Waymo's chief safety officer, Mauricio Peña told the committee Wednesday (as seen in the below video clip), the company hires remote workers, called "fleet response agents," including some who are located in the Philippines. According to Waymo's website, the agents strictly provide contextual input on the environment when vehicles are navigating unpredictable situations — such as San Francisco's mass power outage back in December, but the vehicles maintain control of their operations at all times.

“They provide guidance, they do not remotely drive the vehicles,” Peña said, per the Chronicle. “Waymo asks for guidance in certain situations and gets input, but Waymo is always in charge of the dynamic driving task.”

“Having people overseas influencing American vehicles is a safety issue,” said Democratic Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts, per the Chronicle. “The information the operators receive could be out of date. It could introduce tremendous cyber security vulnerabilities. … And let’s not forget Waymo is trying to replace the jobs of hardworking taxi and ride share drivers.”

In a statement to Futurism, a Waymo spokesperson said its fleet response teams are “required to have a passenger car or van license, and are reviewed for records of traffic violations, infractions, and driving-related convictions.”

“Additionally, they are routinely, randomly screened for drug use, and are put through thorough criminal background checks in addition to evaluations of their driving records,” the spokesperson added, per Futurism.

Additionally, as the Business Insider reports, Republican Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio addressed Waymo’s partnership with Chinese automaker Zeekr on the manufacture of the company’s new minivan-style vehicle, which has been in the testing phase for several years. The lawmaker accused Waymo of bypassing a new federal “connected vehicle” rule that imposes import restrictions on vehicles with certain autonomous or connected software that's tied to China.

Peña said Waymo's vehicles are shipped from China with no connectivity, and the driving systems are installed once they arrive in the US, arguing that its partnership with a Chinese company helps the company scale and meet rapidly growing demands as the US races to keep up with China, per the Business Insider.

"Giving a natural market to a Chinese company to ship us cars is making us better and creating more jobs for Americans? That's completely ridiculous," Moreno said. “You said in your testimony that we're locked in a race with China, but it seems like you're getting in bed with China.”

Per Futurism, Senator Markey released a statement calling for more transparency around how autonomous vehicle companies such as Waymo are utilizing overseas workers.

“Overseas remote assistance operations may be more susceptible to physical takeover by hostile actors, potentially granting them driver-like control of thousands of vehicles transporting passengers on American roads,” he said, per Futurism. “Heavy and fast-moving vehicles could quickly become the weapons of foreign actors seeking to harm innocent Americans.”

Updates have been made to clarify that Waymo's remote workers assist by providing contextual input on the environment, but the vehicles maintain control of their operations at all times.

Image: SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA - DECEMBER 08: A Waymo robotaxi drives along California Street on December 08, 2025 in San Francisco, California. Self-driving taxi company Waymo said it is voluntarily recalling software in its autonomous vehicles after Texas officials documented at least 19 incidents this school year in which the cars illegally passed stopped school buses, including while students were getting on or off. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Related: Supervisor Mahmood Calls For Hearings Into Waymo After Last Weekend’s Mass-Stalling Shambles

The hearing on expanding autonomous-vehicle taxi service in San Francisco has gotten underway at the California Public Utilities Commission — and a long line of attendees and possible speakers during the public-comment portion was visible at Van Ness and McAllister on Thursday morning.

It could be quite a while before the votes on two resolutions take place that would broadly expand the ability of Cruise and Waymo to take paid passengers on driverless taxi rides around the city. As the SF Standard reported Thursday afternoon, at least 150 people had signed up to speak in person at the committee hearing, with another 80 signed up to make comment remotely.

That could amount to hours of public comment, the likes of which the SF Board of Supervisors knows all too well.

Of the signed-up speakers, we don't know approximately how many will be speaking on behalf of the self-driving technology — we already know there's a contingent of tech folk and investors who want very much for everyone to love these autonomous vehicles and for SF to embrace the fact that it's a testing ground for something much bigger and unavoidable. Nor do we know how many people are there to oppose the whole business.

You can tune in to the meeting yourself right here.

The backdrop to the meeting is that, three days ago, dozens of members of the San Francisco Police and Fire departments were part of a special hearing with the CA PUC to discuss their many documented incidents of the autonomous taxis disrupting or otherwise frustrating their public-safety work.

These incidents included ones in which the vehicles drove willy-nilly into active firefighting areas, and in which they inadvertently blocked fire engines from getting out of their stations — and critical minutes passed in some cases before the companies could resolve the situation.

Meanwhile, on an earnings call last month, the CEO of Cruise discussed a potential tenfold increase of the number of Cruise vehicles on SF's streets, if they are allowed.

We'll update you once we know the results of the vote.

Update: The vote was taken after hours of public comment, and it was 3-1 in favor of approving the expansion of paid robotaxi services citywide.

On the eve of a key vote by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on whether to allow Cruise and Waymo to further expand their autonomous vehicle testing and begin taking paid passengers all over SF, we're getting to see some of the 55 incident reports filed by the SF Fire Department involving AVs.

As Mission Local reports, there have been so many of these reports in recent months, the SFFD gave up calling them Unusual Occurrence reports and created a new file for Autonomous Vehicle Incidents.

SF Fire Chief Jeanine Nicholson discussed these 55 incidents at a Monday meeting with the CPUC, and made clear that it is not her department's "job to babysit their vehicles." And the frustration being felt by firefighters is obvious after you hear some of these incidents.

We already knew about the day of the Outer Sunset house explosion, February 9, when a cop had to light a flare and scream "you stay!" at a driverless car, and basically stand in front of it to keep it from driving over an active fire hose.

But Mission Local has obtained the full report from the SFFD on all 55 incidents, and yes, the frustration is real! A couple examples:

On March 21, a fire truck with its lights and siren running passed a driverless Waymo while heading south on Dolores. While the driverless vehicle initially edged to the right enough that the fire truck could pass, it then “appeared to turn sharply” and accelerated toward the rear of the fire truck. “I accelerated to avoid being hit by the driverless vehicle,” wrote the firefighter. The driverless car proceeded to chase him or her off: “The vehicle continued to come all the way over into my lane and appeared to accelerate towards my rear bumper. I then further accelerated to get away from the vehicle as quickly as possible.” ...

On May 4, firefighters at Station 36 in the 1100 block of Mission were unable to respond to a call as they were blockaded within by a driverless vehicle...

On June 5, a Waymo blocked Engine 2 into its station on the 1300 block of Powell. The engine could not pull out, despite a serious “Code 3” call. “The employee from Waymo was flustered and trying to override the car and have it moved,” writes a firefighter. “It took over 2 minutes for the car to finally move.”

So, yes, you can see why Chief Nicholson has come out guns blazing.

Also on the eve of the vote, the New York Times ran a story headlined "San Francisco Balks at Expanding Driverless Car Services on City's Roads." They cite a collision report that has been disputed by Cruise and Waymo saying that there had been some 600 incidents involving AVs stalling, making illegal turns or doing something else.

Cruise has reported 177 rides between January 1 and July 18 in which its vehicle was stuck on the road and had to be removed, and in 26 of those, there was a passenger inside.

The car companies continue to tout the fact that no injuries have been reported, and that their technology is safe.

Previously: Cops, Firefighters, and of Course Taxi Drivers Tee Off on Self-Driving Robotaxis Before Key Regulatory Vote

Image: SF Fire Department

GM's self-driving taxi arm Cruise will have to answer to federal safety regulators who are now rightfully concerned about several incidents in which the robot cars decided to stop in the middle of streets and block human drivers from getting past, or randomly brake quickly and cause collisions.

In a new filing, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) says it is looking into reports of Cruise vehicles braking suddenly and/or stopping in the middle of city streets for no apparent reason. As the New York Times reports, the agency's Office of Defects Investigation is investigating two types of incidents: the type in which the cars become strangely disabled or disconnected from Cruise's servers, as was apparently the case in that creepy July incident in which a whole gang of the robot cars swarmed on Gough Street and blocked traffic for several hours; and the type in which the cars brake too quickly and sometimes cause rear-end collisions.

The NHTSA says that these seemingly defective behaviors of the cars "may strand vehicle passengers in unsafe locations, such as lanes of travel or intersections, and become an unexpected obstacle to other road users," and/or "These immobilizations may increase the risk to exiting passengers."

"Further," the agency writes, "immobilization may cause other road users to make abrupt or unsafe maneuvers to avoid colliding with the immobilized Cruise vehicle."

The investigation came about, the NHTSA, after discussions with Cruise, local law enforcement, and because of media coverage of the incidents.

As SFist learned shortly after the Gough Street swarm in July, that wasn't the first time something like that had happened. Other, earlier incidents had occurred in May and June in which Cruise's servers lost touch with the robo-taxi fleet altogether. Wired revealed this in an investigative report, which in part came out of a letter from an anonymous Cruise employee who blew the whistle with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), suggesting the company had tried to hide the incidents to avoid bad press.

Now, the CPUC will have the final word on whether Cruise is going to get its permit to take paid passengers on rides all over the city at all times of day. As the Chronicle reports, while Cruise vehicles have been able to offer driverless taxi rides for much of this year in some parts of San Francisco, geofencing keeps the cars out of downtown and off of streets with steep inclines. And the cars have only been allowed to operate during overnight hours when the streets are less busy — between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.

News of the federal probe arrived one day after the California Department of Motor Vehicles granted its permission to GM to all Cruise to offer 24/7, full-city service in SF. And now it seems like the CPUC will wait to see what the results of the investigation are before giving its blessing.

Previously: GM Cruise Robotaxis Blocked SF Streets More Frequently Than We Knew, One Night ‘Nearly 60’ Cars Stopped

Top image: @TaylorOgan via Twitter

Uber’s long war on the taxicab industry has ended with a whimper and a merger, as Flywheel cabs are now incorporated into the Uber fleet, in a pilot that’s starting here in SF and hopes to fly nationwide.  

Back in during Uber’s “asshole culture” days of the Travis Kalanick era (2010-2017), the all-out war between Uber and the taxicab industry had Uber sending SFist attack PR emails complaining of “false information propagated by Big Taxi monopolies.” Meanwhile, the established taxi industry that Uber hoped to "disrupt" was hitting back. The former DeSoto Cab, renamed Flywheel, was suing Uber for predatory pricing, with Uber (of all companies!) calling the taxi industry “corrupt and greedy.”

But their war has now ended in a marriage of convenience (or desperation?). The Chronicle reports that Flywheel cabs will be available on the Uber app, in a one-year pilot that has now received full approval from the SFMTA.  We reported on late March that Uber and Flywheel were working on cutting a deal, which has now received regulatory approval in SF.

When that deal was still in the works, Flywheel said in a press release, “This integration will first launch in San Francisco, and then roll out to subsequent cities in the following months, bringing new lucrative opportunities to drivers, assisting in the development of cutting edge rideshare technology, and providing more transportation options for passengers nationwide.”

It’s unclear if this integration has actually happened yet. But as we see above in a letter dated November 9, the SFMTA has approved this arrangement, saying “SFMTA staff hereby approves Flywheel’s request to offer Third-Party trips” via the Uber app.

Uber is suffering from driver shortages, and they already started a similar partnership with Yellow Taxi in New York City two months ago. (SF’s Yellow Cab, which uses the Yo Taxi app, is scheduled to be integrated in the future as well.) And they also have international aspirations with this. The UK industry publication TaxiSite sounds the alarm that “Ride-hailing firm Uber are looking to make available ALL licensed taxis on its platform by 2025,” pointing to a March Reuters report that said Uber hoped to “include every taxi on its Uber app by 2025.”

But some perspective on Uber predictions: this is the same company that claimed they would have flying cars by 2026.

San Francisco Flywheel cabbies are not being forced to work with Uber — they can opt out. But Flywheel president Hansu Kim tells the Chronicle, “Most of the taxicabs in San Francisco will be serving Uber-booked rides.” For you, the consumer, the pricing and experience will be the same, except it’s a Flywheel that will show up rather than a regular Uber driver.

And who knows, maybe there will be some environmental upside to having fewer rideshare cars idling for hours on end. But it is an ironic chapter that Uber is entering, after boasting for years that they would “disrupt:” the taxi industry, that Uber is now in effect trying to hail every taxicab on the planet into joining their fleet.

Related: Uber On the Verge of Cutting Deal With Taxi Fleet Flywheel [SFist]

Image: Caesar A. via Yelp

That beleaguered staple of San Francisco, Yellow Cab Cooperative, is for sale. The Examiner reports that the almost 40-year-old taxi company just couldn't overcome the one-two punch of a series of lawsuits stemming from collisions and the ever-present competition from ride-hail companies Uber and Lyft.

In particular, a single lawsuit that settled for around $8 million really hit hard. “Yellow Cab Co-Op is basically over,” the president of the Medallion Holders Association, Carl Macmurdo, told the paper. This news follows on a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing by the company this past January. At that time Yellow Cab's former president, Jim Gillespie, told the Examiner that the company would continue to operate as normal for as long as possible.

The situation reportedly became rather dire in 2015, with the Business Times noting that a subpoena revealed that Yellow Cab was “not generating enough revenue to give checks to the members.” It stopped paying them, in other words.

Yellow Cab owns approximately 520 taxis. No asking price was included in the letter announcing the company's availability for purchase, the Ex reports, and it is not immediately clear if the desired sale will in any way affect day-to-day operations.

While it is perhaps difficult at this time to tease out exactly how much of Yellow Cab's problems are due to lawsuits and how much are due to the ride-hail effect, that competitor Flywheel Taxi announced earlier this month it is suing Uber for alleged predatory pricing and violating antitrust rules gives us a window into just how badly the tech giant is hurting the traditional taxi industry.

"Uber has been able to maintain below-cost pricing for its UberX and UberXL services in the San Francisco Ride-Hail Market due to vast reserves of capital invested with the expectation of reaping extraordinary future returns,” Flywheel's complaint states, per Bloomberg. “In adopting this approach, Uber has veered from free market principles and artificially deflated fares of UberX and UberXL to prices below cost in an effort to drive competitors” out of the market.

Meanwhile, the price of taxi medallions has been on the decline nationwide, and in San Francisco, medallion lease rates — what cab companies like Yellow Cab pay taxi medallion holders each month in exchange for the use of their medallion in the fleet — have been nearly halved in the last couple of years, leading some drivers to flee to other companies, and/or try to sell their medallions and start driving for Uber or Lyft themselves. As Sherpa Share explained earlier this year, come Yellow Cab drivers saw months with no payments, or saw payments of just $1,000 a month, which did not cover their loan payments for the medallions, many of which they bought for $250,000.

If things don't turn around for Yellow Cab soon, Uber may soon have one fewer competitor — and San Franciscans may have one fewer option for getting about town.

Previously: SF's Yellow Cab Enters New Chapter... 11 Bankruptcy
Taxi Drivers and Cab Companies Are Escalating Their Losing Battle Against Uber and Lyft

The number of drivers for transportation network companies Uber and Lyft who operate in the companies' hometown of San Francisco might vary wildly from month to month, or even from Saturday night to Monday morning. While that's partly the premise of the ride-hailing technology industry, the Treasurer's Office has expressed a vested interested in pinning down that number as it demands individual drivers obtain business licenses to work within the city.

That process began in April when City Treasurer Jose Cisneros sent out 37,000 letters to a list of drivers provided by Uber and Lyft, asking them to apply for business licenses that cost $91 per year or else face penalties for operating without one ($155 per year). But in June, presumably prompted by a lack of registrants, Cisneros forgave fines and extended the deadline for business license registration to August.

These days, according to numbers the Treasurer's Office shared with the Examiner, there may be as many as 45,000 Uber and Lyft drivers who operate in San Francisco, dwarfing the 1,800 or so medallion-equipped taxis on our streets. 12,000 or so people responded to the first batch of 37,000 forms sent out by the Treasurer's Office to say that they were no longer driving for Uber and/or Lyft in San Francisco, had already registered for a business license, or considered themselves employees of the companies (a sentiment not shared by Uber and Lyft, who insist their drivers are contractors and no more).

On the other hand, 20,000 drivers have registered since notices were sent out, providing a rough baseline number of Uber and Lyft drivers. Yet an added 20,000 notices have since been sent to another group of potential drivers according to Amanda Kahn Fried of the Treasurer's Office. Adding the original 37,000 letters and the new set of 20,000 while subtracting the 12,000 respondents who said they weren't driving for Uber/Lyft, the Examiner estimates 45,000 active or Uber and Lyft drivers.

Or, more specifically, it calls them "not yet discounted" — Uber and Lyft drivers until proven otherwise, essentially. Those murky numbers best represent a broad effort from the Treasurer's Office to obtain as many Business License registrants as possible. How many Uber and Lyft drivers are out and about in San Francisco right now? The answer, for now, is blowin' in the wind.

Previously: Treasurer Gives Uber And Lyft Drivers Longer To Obtain Business Licenses, Forgives Fines
SF's 37,000 Lyft and Uber Drivers Will Be Ordered To Get Business Licenses

Uber is on the receiving end of another lawsuit this week, and this time it's not from the ride-hail company's "driver-partners". Rather, according to the Chronicle, in a lawsuit filed yesterday in federal court taxi cab company Flywheel (formerly DeSoto Cab) alleges that Uber is practicing predatory pricing and violating antitrust rules in an effort to drive competitors out of business and establish a monopoly.

Basically, Flywheel says Uber is using all that venture capital money to artificially deflate the cost of its service — making it impossible for regular cab companies to compete.

"Uber has been able to maintain below-cost pricing for its UberX and UberXL services in the San Francisco Ride-Hail Market due to vast reserves of capital invested with the expectation of reaping extraordinary future returns,” Bloomberg quotes the complaint as reading. “In adopting this approach, Uber has veered from free market principles and artificially deflated fares of UberX and UberXL to prices below cost in an effort to drive competitors” out of the market.

Flywheel, which takes its name from a Redwood City-based ride-hail app for taxis, is the name adopted by the former DeSoto Cab company in 2015 in an effort to better compete with Lyft and Uber. As DeSoto, the company has been operating in San Francisco since the 1930s making them one of the oldest operating tax operation in the city — BuzzFeed calls them the oldest, but that may in fact be Luxor, founded in 1928. “This lawsuit is about holding Uber responsible for their unlawful practices,” Flywheel Taxi CEO Hansu Kim told the Chron. “It is not about stifling competition or technological innovations. We want all on-demand taxi services to be treated fairly under the law, and competing on an even playing field."

Uber, unsurprisingly, disagrees with the allegations. “We compete with lots of ways to get around, especially car ownership,” Uber spokesman Matt Kallman told Bloomberg. “Our technology lets us make our network more efficient over time, and innovations like uberPOOL are further lowering prices, making ridesharing more available to more people.”

Flywheel, explained the director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology to the Chronicle, will likely have a tough case to make. “The complaint that a competitor charges too little money is usually not evidence of a secret conspiracy to drive everyone out of the market and then raise prices," observed professor Mark Lemley. "[It's] usually [made by] someone who is failing to compete in the market and is upset about it.”

If the suit fails, maybe Flywheel can apply for Legacy Business status as a backup plan — something that competitor Luxor recently was granted.

Related: Flywheel Taxi Sues For Cities To Regulate Uber And Lyft

SUTTER SANSOME UPDATE 3 critical adults VEH into pedestrians AVOID AREA pic.twitter.com/YmpCx6sYVg

— San Francisco Fire (@sffdpio) August 23, 2016

Market Street was blocked off with firetrucks and ambulances today following an afternoon crash that left three adults seriously injured. According to the Chronicle, the crash occurred around 3:29 p.m. as the driver hit a newsstand and a streetlight before crashing into two pedestrians.

The San Francisco Fire Department tweeted out that the collision took place at the intersection of Sansome and Sutter, and the paper confirms that a Yellow Cab driver, without passengers, lost control of the vehicle sending it flying over a curb and into a shoe-shine stand and a newsstand kiosk.

“I had just come out of the building over here, and was gonna cross the street and heard what sounded like an explosion,” witness Tom Booher told KRON4. “I looked up and there were pieces of stuff flying everywhere right where the shoeshine guy’s stand used to be and the restroom that was over there. I mean, there was no skidding, it didn’t sound like there was any brakes, it was just — it did sound like an explosion.”

The three injured include the driver of the taxi, and two workers at the shoe-shine stand. A 40-year-old man is in critical condition, and a 59-year-old and 66-year-old are listed in fair condition. It is not clear at this time which of the three was the driver.

According to SFFD, the injured were transported to SF General, and the scene was being investigated.

This post has been updated.

So it's Friday afternoon and you're probably sitting at your desk thinking about weekend plans. Maybe heading out to dinner, or meeting friends at a bar? Many of you, no doubt, will end up at some point hopping into an Uber or Lyft to get to or from your party destination of choice. However, you likely don't realize that by eschewing taxis in favor of their ride-hail competitors you're depriving yourself of one of the great joys in life: Legally getting drunk in a taxi.

That's right, as the Examiner reminds us, it's completely legal to drink alcohol in the backseat of cab. Say hello to your new best friend: California Vehicle Code 23221. According to the Shouse California Law Group, this gives passengers in party buses, limos, and taxis the right to get totally sauced on their way to wherever. This, it should be strongly noted, does NOT apply to Ubers or Lyfts as those are considered private vehicles.

So hop in a cab, crack a few beers, and split the fare five ways on five different credit cards (as Thrillist notes, California cabs legally have to accept major credit cards and are required to split fares if so requested) — just remember to leave a nice tip. Oh, and don't puke in the cab, as that will cost you up to $100 (but legally no more!) in cleaning fees.

You're welcome, and happy weekend travels.

Related: S.F. Cabs Often Refuse Fares, Endanger People, and Sometimes Have Bed Bugs

It what appears to be semi-common occurrence these days, early morning Wednesday a man reportedly got into a random car thinking it was his taxi. Unfortunately for the unnamed 49-year-old, KRON 4 reports that the car was definitely not his ride (hailed or otherwise). Instead of simply telling him to "get out," the people in the car robbed the would-be passenger.

This all went down around 2:30 a.m. on the 700 block of O'Farrell Street, the Chronicle reports, and although the victim in this case was not beaten like the 30-year-old man in a similar case in April of last year, he was robbed of his phone, bag, cash, wallet and electronic tablet.

Interestingly, both the Chronicle and KRON 4 say that the car had two people in it, both of whom "got out of the vehicle" before robbing the man and then fleeing in an unknown direction. If the man was in the car, and the suspects got out of it to rob him before they took off, it seems like they left the man — now bereft of his belongings — in the car.

Let's take this as another opportunity to remind you to always make sure the car you are getting into is the one you hailed — be it Uber, Lyft, or just a straight up taxi. If you can, double check the license plate — just seeing an Uber or Lyft decal isn't enough.

As of yesterday, the suspects had not been located.

Related: Online Sales of Lyft Mustaches And Uber Decals Raise Questions

On-demand ride-hailing service Lyft just went old school with a new option to book your ride up to 24 hours ahead. It's a test run for now, says Mashable, but the vintage, taxi-style reservation method could prove popular with the particularly time-sensitive — and/or airport-bound — granting them "peace of mind" according to a Lyft spokesperson.

"While on-demand rides remain core to our platform, we’re thrilled to offer even more options to passengers — as well as another opportunity for drivers to earn," Lyft writes in a statement on its blog. But Consumerist quips that booking in advance "essentially defeats the purpose of an on-demand ride-hailing app." Eh, "what the hell," might sum up Lyft's philosophy.

Considering that drivers might not want to take time out of their regular stop-to-stop schedule, Lyft is imposing a $20 minimum fare minimum fares, which are TBD, on scheduled rides. Testing begins in San Francisco "shortly" — does that mean within 24 hours?

Related: Uber Courts Parents With Trip Tracker To View Their Kids' Rides In Real-Time

As anybody knows, if you see Stanley Roberts, you've been behaving badly.

The SFPD and SFMTA are cracking down on Uber and Lyft drivers trying to pick up passengers who are attempting to hail taxis in taxi-only lanes. And, wouldn't you know it, KRON 4 sent Roberts (of his "People Behaving Badly" segment) along to witness the sting effort paid for by the SFMTA.

Roberts shadowed plain-clothes officers who attempted to hail a taxi in red taxi and transit only lanes. These would-be passengers then confronted any non-taxis — Ubers and Lyfts — who stopped, seemingly with the intention of picking them up, either, presumably, to charge them under the table (illegally) or to encourage them to use the app to hail them.

Since they really did a double bad, these drivers received two tickets. First, you aren't allowed to drive in the taxi lane if you are a ride-hailing vehicle. Second, if you're a ride-hailing vehicle, you can't just pick up anybody on the street — you must have arranged in advance with them via the app.

In addition to a ticket from the police officer, an SFMTA employee was doling out administrative tickets to offenders. Those can be as costly as $5,000.

Related: Google-Owned Waze Gets In The Ride-Hail Game, Launches New Carpooling App

A California Senate committee blocked a bill this week that would have stopped Uber and Lyft from employing the dynamic fare pricing known as "surge" pricing. The AP reports that the measure fell short by a single vote in the Transportation and Housing Committee — and one can assume that a lobbyist from Uber likely had something to do with this.

According to ride-hailing companies, surge pricing motivates drivers to get out and collect fares, or to seek out fares in certain areas where demand is high and drivers are few. However, last year, the Chronicle argued that such a system might not be working, invoking drivers who flee when surges strike.

“If anything, we need to be loosening up rate regulation, not the other way around,” said Senator Ben Allen, who could have but eventually did not provide the final necessary vote for the bill to proceed. “Taxis absolutely are at an unfair disadvantage," he continued, "We need to be working to help the taxis out, instead of doubling down on a broken policy.”

In addition to forbidding surge pricing, the bill, introduced by San Diego Democrat Ben Hueso, would have compelled Uber and Lyft to share data with the state of California and called for stricter background checks on drivers. Recently, Uber settled with the District Attorneys of Los Angeles and San Francisco, who jointly challenged the company's so-called "safe-ride" fee and criticized the quality of its background checks

Senator Hueso's ties to the taxi industry, critics say, have undue influence over the bill. In San Diego, Hueso's brothers own USA Cab, a company once owned and operated by their father and for whom Hueso used to drive.

The stalled bill must come as welcome news to Lyft and Uber, whose legal battles on many fronts rage on. Another bit of relief: Uber appears to have reached a settlement in a suit filed by the National Federation of the Blind, one alleging that drivers refused service to passengers with service dogs. The Chronicle writes that the parties are close to an agreement, and Lyft is negotiating on similar issues, outside of court.

Related: As Uber Settles With SF & LA For $25 Million, Lyft's Class Action Settlement Is Denied