A new law that allows Pennsylvania drivers to go through some red lights went into effect on Sunday.

Dubbed the “Ride on Red” law, Act 101, sponsored by Rep. Stephen Bloom (R-Cumberland), allows drivers across the state to go through red lights under specific situations using common sense and caution.

Governor Tom Wolf signed the bill into law in July.

The legislation states that in instances when the light is unresponsive or broken, drivers can legally cross the intersection. Originally the legislation was meant for motorcyclists, but was later expanded to include all vehicles.

Often times motorcycles do not trigger the sensors that are under the pavement, therefore never alerting to the light that it needs to change to green. This law is meant to aid in these malfunctions.

The law, however, does not specify how much time a driver must wait before proceeding, but is intended for drivers to treat it like a stop sign, and waiting for a safe time to cross.

I can see it now…. person at light, man its been 30 second I’m going thru it. In to on coming traffic…….. https://t.co/xFUJ6j9cUA

— Pandora CrossBones (@Pandora_Cross) September 18, 2016

“I was seeking to provide a safe and responsible legal alternative to prevent riders from being trapped in perpetuity at a locked malfunctioning red light,” Bloom said in a statement. “This issue was brought to my attention by a local rider and I’ve learned it’s a frequent problem for riders throughout the Commonwealth. This bill doesn’t give riders or anyone else a free pass to run red lights, but it does provide them with a sensible safe option under established standards already in place for other types of signal malfunctions.”

Suddenly, all the lights seem to be defective. https://t.co/wMcSqqj5a9

— cablebandit (@cablebandit) September 18, 2016

The department will also be conducting evaluations on red light enforcement systems.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pennsylvania Drivers Can Now Go Through Some Red Lights appeared first on Law Street.

Uber is a great way to get from point A to point B, but the company may have a rocky road ahead of it in 2015. There are a lot of lawsuits pending against the ridesharing company, and while none of them seem that damaging, it does raise a question: why is Uber so prone to lawsuits?

One of the pending legal struggles against Uber involves its habit of sending incessant text messages to users. Uber has been named in a class action suit filed in U.S. District Court based in San Francisco. The suit argues that Uber has been abusing text-messaging marketing and bombarding people’s phones with unwanted messages. This is illegal ever since a change in FCC polices that interprets a law differently, namely that it:

Restricts telephone solicitations and the use of automated telephone equipment to include text messages sent to a mobile phone, unless the consumer previously gave consent to receive the message or the message is sent for emergency purposes. The ban applies even if consumers have not placed their mobile phone numbers on the national Do-Not-Call list.

Uber isn’t the only company to be on the receiving end of such a lawsuit–CVS, Jiffy Lube, Steve Madden, and Burger King have also been sued for doing the same or a similar thing. This class action lawsuit is asking for over $5 million in total for the text messages, although a judge will have to rule on whether or not to allow the legal proceedings to move forward as a class-action lawsuit.

That’s not the only time that Uber may see the inside of a courtroom this year. There’s currently an ongoing lawsuit about the tipping procedures used by the company. The lawsuit claims that Uber advertises that 20 percent of its fees go to tips for the drivers, but that it’s actually misleading its customers and keeping a substantial amount. This case, which also has the potential to become a class action suit, was originally filed by Caren Ehret of Illinois. She claims that because Uber’s policies are misleading, she, and other customers, ending up overpaying. This case has been stretching on for a while, as there has been some back and forth over whether or not the plaintiff can have access to certain of Uber CEO Travis Kalanick’s emails. It was just ruled that the plaintiff will be able to see those messages, and the case is continuing to move forward.

A third recent lawsuit against Uber involves the company’s “safe ride” fee that’s charged to its UberX customers. UberX is a ride sourced through Uber that uses the driver’s own car. This lawsuit argues that UberX is misleading its customers about what the “safe ride” fee does. According to Uber’s website, the safe ride fee is used to ensure that the drivers are up to industry standards, that they have the proper training, and that they pass background checks; however, this lawsuit, filed by one California and one Michigan resident, says that Uber’s safety features actually fall below industry standards.

These aren’t the only lawsuits with which Uber will have to contend in the coming months and years, and it’s not just in the courtroom that the company will see trouble. It’s also seen PR backlashes from controversies ranging from charging surge prices during the Sydney hostage crisis in late 2014, to sexual assault allegations in Chicago and New Delhi.

To be honest, I probably won’t stop using Uber, and I have a feeling most of my peers won’t either. It’s cheaper than cabs, and incredibly convenient. It’s a company that truly does have the ability to revolutionize transportation. But in order to get to that point, the truly revolutionary point I mean, it’s going to have to be careful. There are a lot of bumps in the road ahead for Uber–if it can weather them, it’ll be in good shape.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber Will Have a Rough Ride in 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be an undercover cop. At least, that was the case in New Jersey on Halloween this year.

If you see a duck stepping up and down from the sidewalk at a crosswalk, and not just any duck, but an adult-size cartoon Donald Duck, would you stop to let it walk across the street? Or would you keep going because you assume, “Hey! This is New Jersey, and that is probably a crazy man in there!”

Courtesy of Giphy.

Well, the answer to this question could be a matter of life and death. Well, okay, maybe not that–though it could be for the duck–but the answer very well could be the difference between getting a ticket or not.

Fort Lee New Jersey has a problem with people hitting pedestrians, and the town has an unusual way of fighting it. It sends out an undercover cop, sometimes dressed as a duck, to see who stops when he tries to cross the road–and I could make the really obvious joke here, but I will refrain.

Courtesy of Giphy.

On Halloween, several people (and by several, I mean more than 100 New Jersey drivers) got ticketed for failing to yield to this silly goose–I mean, silly duck. One of these individuals was Karen Haigh, who was not happy when she found out she was “getting a ticket for not stopping for a duck.” She claimed, though, that–because she thought he was crazy–she was afraid to stop for him and that she, and probably everybody else, would have stopped if he had been a regular guy since it is only crazy ducks that scare her.

She was probably scared because she thought if a 6’2” Disney duck were to decide to break into her car in the middle of the street, it would not draw a lot of attention from other passersby and drivers. It also would be done quickly since I am sure the duck costume is designed with easy car entry and exit built right into it. So since a giant duck could discreetly and easily break into your car in broad day light under a traffic light with a camera, it would probably be the perfect … decoy (get it? A decoy, as in an artificial bird used to entice game into a trap, as paraphrased from the free dictionary) … costume in which to become a criminal. I understand her fear.

She claims she is going to get her ducks in a row so she can fight the ticket (which costs $230 and two points on your license) in court, but what is the point? Those annoying judges will probably say something dumb along the lines of, “It’s the law to yield for pedestrians in costume or not, crazy or not.”

As Fort Lee Police Chief Keith Bendul said, “When you see a pedestrian, child, adult or duck, stop.” That seems like very good advice to me. He also said that last year, 62 pedestrians were struck in the town, down to 40 this year, and with a goal of zero in the future. So, I cannot really make fun of that, but I do have something I want to say: why does it have to be a giant duck? Couldn’t the officer have gone undercover as a superhero, a pirate, or, I don’t know, a regular dude? Dressing as a giant bird just makes him a sitting walking duck for all the avian jokes that follow.

No matter the outcome, one thing this story proves is this: nothing good comes from driving in New Jersey.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Over 100 New Jersey Drivers Ticketed for Ignoring Donald Duck at Crosswalk appeared first on Law Street.

Uber and Lyft are the two big names in the modern transportation industry. Both services, heavily technologically based, provide dependable transportation and serve as a foil to a traditional taxi. So, naturally, there’s plenty of room for feuding there. Case in point: Lyft is suing former COO Travis VanderZanden, who is now with Uber. Lyft is arguing that VanderZanden breached the confidentiality agreement he signed with Lyft, as well as failed his fiduciary duties.

VanderZanden left Lyft in August after purportedly feuding with company founders John Zimmer and Logan Green. Soon after, he got a job with Uber, Lyft’s most obvious rival.

Lyft is accusing VanderZanden of a few different types of inappropriate conduct after he left the company. It is arguing that he attempted to solicit Lyft employees to leave with him, and it claims that he took a bunch of confidential documents with him when he left. There are traces of certain proprietary documents being copied to VanderZanden’s personal Dropbox–an online account used for large document storage. Lyft claims the confidential documents included:

Historic and future financial information, strategic planning materials like marketing plans and product plans, customer lists and data, international growth documents, and private personnel information.

Even if VanderZanden in no way conveyed this sort of information to his new employers, Lyft argues that he’s still breaking the confidentiality agreement that he signed when he began working with them. The possession of the documents in a personal account alone breaches the document he signed. Uber claims that it doesn’t have any of Lyft’s proprietary information, but who’s to know if that’s true.

The ongoing feud between the two companies is certainly interesting though, as they have very similar roots. Lyft was founded in San Francisco in 2012; Uber was founded in San Francisco just three years before. Having used both services in Washington, D.C. multiple times, there are very few noticeable differences in terms of user experience, except for maybe the fact that Lyft drivers adorn their cars with bright pink mustaches, whereas Uber drivers go for significantly more subtle window stickers.

Despite the obvious similarities, Uber is pretty much trouncing Lyft in the market. Fortune discovered that in the last year, riders spent $26.4 million on Uber rides, in comparison to only $2.2 million reported by Lyft. Part of that could very well be because Lyft is a younger company, and while they’re growing quickly they’re certainly still behind Uber in the grand scheme of things. Uber is a global company, whereas Lyft is still working on expanding.

Given that the two companies really are fighting for the same market–smartphone wielding people who don’t want to have to bother with hailing a cab or fumbling with cash to pay for said cab–Lyft and Uber have every reason to compete. Like Apple and Samsung, on a much smaller scale, I think we can expect to see lawsuits, court cases, and allegations thrown around between the two companies for a while to come.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rideshare Infighting: Lyft Sues Uber Executive appeared first on Law Street.