Uber Is Dealt a Fresh Blow in European Legal Case(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Uber Is Dealt a Fresh Blow in European Legal Case
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/04/business/uber-ecj-europe-france.html?pagewanted=all
4 comments
There are Uber-like services in Europe that somehow still manage to comply with the law, while bringing the same benefits to the end user. You don't have to ride roughshod over regulations and worker protections to be innovative and thriving.
I'd be curious to know any examples that really bring the same benefits (usability and features mostly, less about the price), I was looking for them, and couldn't find any (e.g. in London at the moment). Otherwise it's just hand waving argument...
I use both Uber and TaxiPhone app in Geneva Switzerland. The taxi phone app is better because it is more honest, no fake cars in the TaxiPhone app driving "in the middle of lake geneva (along the pedestrian ferry routes)" while the Uber app has dubious arrival times and while payment is straightforward nothing about the app is really better.
While the taxiphone app is branded Geneva it also works in other cities. Basically, it is a locally branded app but the infra is in 42 cities/regions and works in the "foreign" ones.
Uber is a bit cheaper during the night, but not always during the day and certainly not during rush hours in the city center.
Address search could be a bit better but otherwise it is as good as the uber one. At least it doesn't have this annoying inbuilt Dev recruitment tool, that stupidity almost ruined the day of a blind developer I know.
When booking a ride ahead of time e.g. to the airport with family the taxiphone website is best. You can arrange child seats etc.. and they will have them and arrive on time.
While the taxiphone app is branded Geneva it also works in other cities. Basically, it is a locally branded app but the infra is in 42 cities/regions and works in the "foreign" ones.
Uber is a bit cheaper during the night, but not always during the day and certainly not during rush hours in the city center.
Address search could be a bit better but otherwise it is as good as the uber one. At least it doesn't have this annoying inbuilt Dev recruitment tool, that stupidity almost ruined the day of a blind developer I know.
When booking a ride ahead of time e.g. to the airport with family the taxiphone website is best. You can arrange child seats etc.. and they will have them and arrive on time.
Stockholm has dozens of taxi companies and strict regulations (special training required etc, safety and insurance regulations, etc).
All the major companies, perhaps the top 10 - have apps with pre-paying and hailing or pre-booking in the app.
I haven't called a taxi by phone or hailed one on the street for years. I can't find when the first company launched their app, but I'm pretty sure I hadn't heard the name Uber when they did (which doesn't mean Uber weren't first - just that I hadn't heard of them because they didn't exist in Sweden then).
There are obviously no taxi medallions or similar, so anyone is free to start a taxi service and the cost for doing so is low. Usually you'd join one of the bigger players to be connected to a booking central and app service but you can just get a license and start driving.
So the bottom line is - in ANY city where there isn't a US-style medallion bureaucracy surrounding taxis I just don't see the point of Uber. Uber is Taxi. If there are 100 taxi companies with apps, then with Uber they are 101.
US cities (and others worldwide) should just buy back all medallions at the last transfer price and then allow free competition.
All the major companies, perhaps the top 10 - have apps with pre-paying and hailing or pre-booking in the app.
I haven't called a taxi by phone or hailed one on the street for years. I can't find when the first company launched their app, but I'm pretty sure I hadn't heard the name Uber when they did (which doesn't mean Uber weren't first - just that I hadn't heard of them because they didn't exist in Sweden then).
There are obviously no taxi medallions or similar, so anyone is free to start a taxi service and the cost for doing so is low. Usually you'd join one of the bigger players to be connected to a booking central and app service but you can just get a license and start driving.
So the bottom line is - in ANY city where there isn't a US-style medallion bureaucracy surrounding taxis I just don't see the point of Uber. Uber is Taxi. If there are 100 taxi companies with apps, then with Uber they are 101.
US cities (and others worldwide) should just buy back all medallions at the last transfer price and then allow free competition.
>"There are Uber-like services in Europe that somehow still manage to comply with the law, while bringing the same benefits to the end user"
Could you say what those are? I agree you don't need to ride roughshod on regulations to be innovative.
Could you say what those are? I agree you don't need to ride roughshod on regulations to be innovative.
http://tech.eu/features/2501/european-transportation-startup...
Of course many taxi companies will have their own apps.
Of course many taxi companies will have their own apps.
As a member of the tech/HN community it's very easy to take your position about laws benefiting the entrenched market incumbents, but you can't ignore tech has those very same lobbying/legal protections.
For example, take the New York market with the limited number of taxi medallions, prior to Uber there was stricter regulation and enforcement against individual drivers illegally operating rides for hire. Though when Uber comes along they facilitate these types of illegal ride for hire operations all over the country, even in many jurisdictions where Uber drivers are arrested for illegal operations Uber itself never has to answer for their roll they simply pay a lawyer of their choice to represent the drivers in these cases in order to protect Uber's interest not the driver.
Apply the same organization to any other illegal activity (drugs, prostitution, etc...) it becomes clear very quick Uber has been legally protected even though their driver continue(d) collecting fines and arrests.
And all these great US internet companies you speak of I'm pretty sure are global companies and have global headquarters in Europe (Ireland) specifically in order to avoid pay US taxes, but again are protected by laws designed to protect their entrenched interests.
For example, take the New York market with the limited number of taxi medallions, prior to Uber there was stricter regulation and enforcement against individual drivers illegally operating rides for hire. Though when Uber comes along they facilitate these types of illegal ride for hire operations all over the country, even in many jurisdictions where Uber drivers are arrested for illegal operations Uber itself never has to answer for their roll they simply pay a lawyer of their choice to represent the drivers in these cases in order to protect Uber's interest not the driver.
Apply the same organization to any other illegal activity (drugs, prostitution, etc...) it becomes clear very quick Uber has been legally protected even though their driver continue(d) collecting fines and arrests.
And all these great US internet companies you speak of I'm pretty sure are global companies and have global headquarters in Europe (Ireland) specifically in order to avoid pay US taxes, but again are protected by laws designed to protect their entrenched interests.
The USA has some of the same regulations, sure, but when it became clear that they were outdated, most cities got rid of them.
You can get an uber in any major city in the USA, now.
The best way to get rid of bad laws is to break them.
You can get an uber in any major city in the USA, now.
The best way to get rid of bad laws is to break them.
You start by saying "the New York market" which presumably you mean New York City by citing taxi medallions. Then you say
>"when Uber comes along they facilitate these types of illegal ride for hire operations all over the country"
How did you go from Uber operating in NYC resulting in "facilitating illegal ride for hire operations all over the country in your next sentence?" Uber didn't start in NYC. I don't see the connection, can you explain?
Illegal ride for hire in NYC are what are informally known as "Gypsy Cabs"(not a politically correct term but its not mine term.) I have not seen or heard any evidence that the presence of these has increased with the introduction of Uber. Please provide a citation.
I am quite doubtful that given the availability now of Uber/Lyft along with the already existing licensed yellow cabs, green cabs and livery cabs that people are at all inclined to elect to take an unlicensed cab.
>"when Uber comes along they facilitate these types of illegal ride for hire operations all over the country"
How did you go from Uber operating in NYC resulting in "facilitating illegal ride for hire operations all over the country in your next sentence?" Uber didn't start in NYC. I don't see the connection, can you explain?
Illegal ride for hire in NYC are what are informally known as "Gypsy Cabs"(not a politically correct term but its not mine term.) I have not seen or heard any evidence that the presence of these has increased with the introduction of Uber. Please provide a citation.
I am quite doubtful that given the availability now of Uber/Lyft along with the already existing licensed yellow cabs, green cabs and livery cabs that people are at all inclined to elect to take an unlicensed cab.
I think we'll be fine without "innovation" that's innovate exclusively by breaking basic safety and labour laws.
Taxi services across EU (at least in my experience) are usually of significanly better quality than those in US. Well, at least I've yet to meet a cab smelling of piss and shit as opposed to SF.
Taxi services across EU (at least in my experience) are usually of significanly better quality than those in US. Well, at least I've yet to meet a cab smelling of piss and shit as opposed to SF.
Which basic safety laws have Uber broken in the EU?
Depending on the country - requirement for driver to have a commercial driving license, first aid training and more detailed car safety checks required for taxi services.
Names such as Battlefield, Candy Crush, Angry Birds and Minecraft are known internationally now, right?
There are more studios per capita in the nordics than anywhere else. Obviously the games industry is just one niche but those are examples of somewhat successful companies.
There are more studios per capita in the nordics than anywhere else. Obviously the games industry is just one niche but those are examples of somewhat successful companies.
It's not anti American though, it just so happens that US firms are the first of these types of companies. The rulings that are set apply to all companies equally so Chinese and European firms are bound by the same rules.
True: it's just anti-progress or at least anti-anything-that-doesn't-fit-a-hundred-plus-year-old-notion-of-how-things-should-work.
anti-worker, anti-customer, anti-morals. Let Uber die by a thousand cuts.
Pro-consumer.
Consumers overwhelming support ridesharing because of how cheap it is.
Also, if a consumer doesn't like these service, they are free to use any number of other transportation services.
That is what this fight is about. Letting consumers decide for themselves which services they prefer.
Consumers overwhelming support ridesharing because of how cheap it is.
Also, if a consumer doesn't like these service, they are free to use any number of other transportation services.
That is what this fight is about. Letting consumers decide for themselves which services they prefer.
Consumers would support slavery if it was legal, hence labor laws and regulations. Just because you're a tech platform doesn't mean you're a special snowflake.
Consumers may choose from any service that follows regulations set forth by government.
Consumers may choose from any service that follows regulations set forth by government.
Here's the thing, you can be pro-consumer without being anti-worker. Uber just haven't figured out how to do that.
My comment was less about this specific ruling and more about the trend. In the US, uber was practically illegal just like Europe. The US made it legal (or looked the other way) while Europe (and much of the rest of the world) decided to clamp down on the service with regulations without ever reflecting on whether the laws themselves were beneficial in the first place.
At least in the US, much of the fear mongering over the possible outcomes of Uber drivers not being properly licensed never came to pass.
At least in the US, much of the fear mongering over the possible outcomes of Uber drivers not being properly licensed never came to pass.
Note there's all kinds of regulations affecting taxis in Europe: some have clamped down heavily, and others Uber operates totally above the law in.
Do you mean within the law? Evidently they have acted like they are above the law in most jurisdictions until legal rulings have required them to comply.
Uh, yes!
It just depends on how the company deals with it. AirBnB for instance is working with regulators which cannot be said about Uber.
Perhaps the laws in the US are too lenient?
-Facebook makes it nearly impossible to delete your account permanently or reactivates on accidental clicks from 3rd party websites(which increases their metrics),
-You can be opted in for email messaging without you opting in explicitly (increases advertising companies "reach"),
-Uber just ignored regulations it didnt like, or would be detrimental to their bottom line if they actually followed them.
This mentality is wholly rewarded in the US, that isnt necessarily a good thing.
-Facebook makes it nearly impossible to delete your account permanently or reactivates on accidental clicks from 3rd party websites(which increases their metrics),
-You can be opted in for email messaging without you opting in explicitly (increases advertising companies "reach"),
-Uber just ignored regulations it didnt like, or would be detrimental to their bottom line if they actually followed them.
This mentality is wholly rewarded in the US, that isnt necessarily a good thing.
http://tech.eu/features/186/ignorance-is-remiss/
MySQL is another one not on that list but I guess thats because Oracle bought them over.
MySQL is another one not on that list but I guess thats because Oracle bought them over.
> innovative businesses
what's innovative about pirate taxis? they're as old as taxis
what's innovative about pirate taxis? they're as old as taxis
[deleted]
> As Europe continues to add laws and regulations targeted at American tech companies
Any example of those laws and regulations?
Any example of those laws and regulations?
I am inclined to agree with you, but most of EU countries had working alternatives to Uber, albeit more local, that DO follow the law.
It seems like the state of taxi services in the US somehow self regulated out competition?
It seems like the state of taxi services in the US somehow self regulated out competition?
so can anyone speak to what it entails to gain a taxi license? is this a burdensome requirement on those who want to drive? I have no issue with requiring specific insurance as anyone driving for any ride share service is just risking too much without proper coverage.
in the US far too much occupational regulation/licensing only serves now to protect current providers effectively locking out or deterring competition.
in the US far too much occupational regulation/licensing only serves now to protect current providers effectively locking out or deterring competition.
Most places restrict the number of available licenses
However, The EFTA surveillance authority is looking into if Norway is in breach of EU rules by restricting taxi licenses, so it could be opened up. We are governed by the same laws as the EU
Uber should comply with rules, but we really need Uber and similar services
I was in Paris and Barcelona last week: In Paris I could easily take an Uber and everything was a breeze In Barcelona I had to take taxis. I paid with credit card, and the drivers charged me in NOK without asking, against MasterCard rules. I even said I wanted to pay in EUR at one occasion
To submit a complaint I had to fill in a paper form, and post it by mail with the original receipts. The receipts from the credit card terminal don't even have the taxi information as in Norway, so not sure they can do anything either.
It's frankly ridiculous
Taxi drivers in Barcelona was even on strike to protest against Cabify and Uber that want to compete on equal terms, while they are protected through draconian systems that have no accountability if you have a problem
However, The EFTA surveillance authority is looking into if Norway is in breach of EU rules by restricting taxi licenses, so it could be opened up. We are governed by the same laws as the EU
Uber should comply with rules, but we really need Uber and similar services
I was in Paris and Barcelona last week: In Paris I could easily take an Uber and everything was a breeze In Barcelona I had to take taxis. I paid with credit card, and the drivers charged me in NOK without asking, against MasterCard rules. I even said I wanted to pay in EUR at one occasion
To submit a complaint I had to fill in a paper form, and post it by mail with the original receipts. The receipts from the credit card terminal don't even have the taxi information as in Norway, so not sure they can do anything either.
It's frankly ridiculous
Taxi drivers in Barcelona was even on strike to protest against Cabify and Uber that want to compete on equal terms, while they are protected through draconian systems that have no accountability if you have a problem
>"and the drivers charged me in NOK without asking, against MasterCard rules"
What is NOK?
What is NOK?
Norway's currency, the krone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_krone (They are not on the Euro.)
Sure, the Kroner, I guess I was confused you are referring to Paris and Barcelona being a breeze in the sentence before.
Depends massively between EU states.
Some it's relatively easy [edit: to operate as a "taxi" in a general sense, rather than the legal term], such as in the UK (pass a prolonged driving test, have commercial insurance, review of any criminal record as to whether they pose a threat to the public, though there's some variety between councils who are the licensing body especially when it comes to vehicles and equipment), others it's as bad (and expensive) as I understand many US cities to be like.
Some it's relatively easy [edit: to operate as a "taxi" in a general sense, rather than the legal term], such as in the UK (pass a prolonged driving test, have commercial insurance, review of any criminal record as to whether they pose a threat to the public, though there's some variety between councils who are the licensing body especially when it comes to vehicles and equipment), others it's as bad (and expensive) as I understand many US cities to be like.
Depends on the taxi service as well. Black cabs in London have a fairly tough test (the knowledge) to go through and only those can be hailed from the roadside.
Although it is not entirely that easy in the UK, if you want to be a London black can driver then it is very difficult, as well as what you already mentioned there is also "the knowledge" exam that must be passed. Which is quite possibly one of the toughest assignments I have ever witnessed.
Well, I was really referring to private hires here, given Uber Britannia operate as a private hire company, and private hires don't have any such requirement anywhere in the UK.
Another difference taxis tend to have specific whitelisted vehicles (hence the iconic image of a black hackney cab), whereas private hires generally just need to meet some list of requirements (typically something along the lines of having at least four doors, seating at least four, etc.).
Another difference taxis tend to have specific whitelisted vehicles (hence the iconic image of a black hackney cab), whereas private hires generally just need to meet some list of requirements (typically something along the lines of having at least four doors, seating at least four, etc.).
In most parts of Germany, there’s two types of such licenses.
1. Car-With-Driver-For-Hire. This is what uber falls into. You need a drivers license that allows you to transport people, and insurance for the car that covers your commercial driving.
2. Taxi. This is what traditional taxis are, it allows you to pick up people from the street, but there are maximum rates set by the city, you need to navigate without GPS, etc. These are also restricted by amount.
1. Car-With-Driver-For-Hire. This is what uber falls into. You need a drivers license that allows you to transport people, and insurance for the car that covers your commercial driving.
2. Taxi. This is what traditional taxis are, it allows you to pick up people from the street, but there are maximum rates set by the city, you need to navigate without GPS, etc. These are also restricted by amount.
In London they have to pass a test called "the knowledge"[1]. It's the "hardest taxi test in the world" and quite impressive. It ensures taxi drivers actually know what they are doing and where they are going, not just blindly following their GPS.
> To become an All-London taxi driver or Green badge holder you need to master no fewer than 320 basic routes, all of the 25,000 streets that are scattered within the basic routes and approximately 20,000 landmarks and places of public interest that are located within a six-mile radius of Charing Cross.
> It takes the average person between 2 and 4 years to learn the knowledge, a lot however depends on how much time and effort they are willing to dedicate in learning it.
1. https://www.theknowledgetaxi.co.uk/
> To become an All-London taxi driver or Green badge holder you need to master no fewer than 320 basic routes, all of the 25,000 streets that are scattered within the basic routes and approximately 20,000 landmarks and places of public interest that are located within a six-mile radius of Charing Cross.
> It takes the average person between 2 and 4 years to learn the knowledge, a lot however depends on how much time and effort they are willing to dedicate in learning it.
1. https://www.theknowledgetaxi.co.uk/
Not just the hardest taxi test, it's arguably the hardest test of any kind:
> If anything, this description understates the case. The six-mile radius from Charing Cross, the putative center-point of London marked by an equestrian statue of King Charles I, takes in some 25,000 streets. London cabbies need to know all of those streets, and how to drive them — the direction they run, which are one-way, which are dead ends, where to enter and exit traffic circles, and so on. But cabbies also need to know everything on the streets. Examiners may ask a would-be cabbie to identify the location of any restaurant in London. Any pub, any shop, any landmark, no matter how small or obscure — all are fair game. Test-takers have been asked to name the whereabouts of flower stands, of laundromats, of commemorative plaques. One taxi driver told me that he was asked the location of a statue, just a foot tall, depicting two mice sharing a piece of cheese. It’s on the facade of a building in Philpot Lane, on the corner of Eastcheap, not far from London Bridge.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/t-magazine/london-taxi-te...
> If anything, this description understates the case. The six-mile radius from Charing Cross, the putative center-point of London marked by an equestrian statue of King Charles I, takes in some 25,000 streets. London cabbies need to know all of those streets, and how to drive them — the direction they run, which are one-way, which are dead ends, where to enter and exit traffic circles, and so on. But cabbies also need to know everything on the streets. Examiners may ask a would-be cabbie to identify the location of any restaurant in London. Any pub, any shop, any landmark, no matter how small or obscure — all are fair game. Test-takers have been asked to name the whereabouts of flower stands, of laundromats, of commemorative plaques. One taxi driver told me that he was asked the location of a statue, just a foot tall, depicting two mice sharing a piece of cheese. It’s on the facade of a building in Philpot Lane, on the corner of Eastcheap, not far from London Bridge.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/t-magazine/london-taxi-te...
That is, however, a requirement for taxi drivers only (who can be hailed and pick up people off the street), but not for private hire drivers (who must be prebooked through a booking office). It is, perhaps, the most notable difference.
London has more stringent requirements for private hires than much of the UK (especially relating to pollution), but ultimately most of the requirements essentially relate to equipment (pollution standards for the car, fire extinguisher, first aid kit, etc.) which while they form a cost to entry are nothing compared with a multi-year effort to learn a large part of London, or the tens/hundreds of thousands that medallions cost in many places.
London has more stringent requirements for private hires than much of the UK (especially relating to pollution), but ultimately most of the requirements essentially relate to equipment (pollution standards for the car, fire extinguisher, first aid kit, etc.) which while they form a cost to entry are nothing compared with a multi-year effort to learn a large part of London, or the tens/hundreds of thousands that medallions cost in many places.
>"In London they have to pass a test called "the knowledge"[1]. It's the "hardest taxi test in the world" and quite impressive. It ensures taxi drivers actually know what they are doing and where they are going, not just blindly following their GPS."
I am familiar with "the knowledge" and while I think it's indeed impressive and I frankly I prefer taxis drivers that have local knowledge however is this still practical in 2017?
I am asking sincerely. Certainly "the knowledge" doesn't include local traffic conditions a la Waze.
I am familiar with "the knowledge" and while I think it's indeed impressive and I frankly I prefer taxis drivers that have local knowledge however is this still practical in 2017?
I am asking sincerely. Certainly "the knowledge" doesn't include local traffic conditions a la Waze.
> I am asking sincerely. Certainly "the knowledge" doesn't include local traffic conditions a la Waze.
Experience provides that, I guess. Waze is perhaps better in US grid style systems with lots of large, laid out roads but In London the streets are tiny and the traffic patterns very different. I think the traffic follows in a predictable ebb and flow pattern based on the week day and time, which you can pick up easily enough if you spend all day in it.
I've seen the Google maps traffic display in London and it's not terribly useful: all red everywhere at peak times, yellow/green off-peak.
It's anecdotal, but in London every taxi experience has been superior from a directions point of view. Uber sometimes gives drivers crazy directions that make no sense and the drivers just go along with it. That being said, Uber is a fair bit cheaper so it's all a trade off I guess.
Fankly, if I've got money I don't mind spending it on a black cab, I see it similar to supporting local businesses over buying off Amazon - a good idea for smaller purchases, but the discounts on larger items are often too good to turn down.
Experience provides that, I guess. Waze is perhaps better in US grid style systems with lots of large, laid out roads but In London the streets are tiny and the traffic patterns very different. I think the traffic follows in a predictable ebb and flow pattern based on the week day and time, which you can pick up easily enough if you spend all day in it.
I've seen the Google maps traffic display in London and it's not terribly useful: all red everywhere at peak times, yellow/green off-peak.
It's anecdotal, but in London every taxi experience has been superior from a directions point of view. Uber sometimes gives drivers crazy directions that make no sense and the drivers just go along with it. That being said, Uber is a fair bit cheaper so it's all a trade off I guess.
Fankly, if I've got money I don't mind spending it on a black cab, I see it similar to supporting local businesses over buying off Amazon - a good idea for smaller purchases, but the discounts on larger items are often too good to turn down.
Sure, I am quite familiar with the narrow Victorian streets in London and agree that that knowledge is certainly and asset but having knowledge of those doesn't tell me if there's road work or an accident on them until it's too late. That's all I meant.
I agree that the level of professionalism of a London cabbie provides a comfortable experience. Certainly to to that of a Yellow cab driver in NYC. And this is one of those issues for me. Taxi drivers in NYC have no regard for blocking an intersections, blocking cross walks, running red lights and blowing the horn incessantly. The Uber/Lyft driver on the other hand seems to do these quite rarely. It's seems to be a much more considerate experience for both the passengers and pedestrians. I do certainly see the danger though if cities losing their cabs and Ubert/Lyft just becoming the new entrenched player.
I agree that the level of professionalism of a London cabbie provides a comfortable experience. Certainly to to that of a Yellow cab driver in NYC. And this is one of those issues for me. Taxi drivers in NYC have no regard for blocking an intersections, blocking cross walks, running red lights and blowing the horn incessantly. The Uber/Lyft driver on the other hand seems to do these quite rarely. It's seems to be a much more considerate experience for both the passengers and pedestrians. I do certainly see the danger though if cities losing their cabs and Ubert/Lyft just becoming the new entrenched player.
Depends on the country probably but it can include things like:
- Holding a regular driving license for n years
- First aid training
- Taxi specific theory/practical driving test
- Passing extra vehicle tests (I know where I'm from they used to require taxis to be fitted with small fire extinguishers for example).
- Background check
- Holding a regular driving license for n years
- First aid training
- Taxi specific theory/practical driving test
- Passing extra vehicle tests (I know where I'm from they used to require taxis to be fitted with small fire extinguishers for example).
- Background check
I heard in London that cabbies also have to know all sorts of landmarks/touristy types of attractions by heart.
The Knowledge: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/t-magazine/london-taxi-te...
"It has been called the hardest test, of any kind, in the world. Its rigors have been likened to those required to earn a degree in law or medicine. It is without question a unique intellectual, psychological and physical ordeal, demanding unnumbered thousands of hours of immersive study, as would-be cabbies undertake the task of committing to memory the entirety of London, and demonstrating that mastery through a progressively more difficult sequence of oral examinations — a process which, on average, takes four years to complete, and for some, much longer than that."
"It has been called the hardest test, of any kind, in the world. Its rigors have been likened to those required to earn a degree in law or medicine. It is without question a unique intellectual, psychological and physical ordeal, demanding unnumbered thousands of hours of immersive study, as would-be cabbies undertake the task of committing to memory the entirety of London, and demonstrating that mastery through a progressively more difficult sequence of oral examinations — a process which, on average, takes four years to complete, and for some, much longer than that."
It's called "the knowledge" and not only do they need to know 20,000 landmarks (things like The Royal Institution of British Architects building, which is not a very touristy landmark at all) they also need to know 20,000 streets and the best route between them. On their test they have to describe a route across London between 2 landmarks and name every road, roundabout, where they should be in the road when there are multiple lanes, one way restrictions and it has to be perfect. It's an incredibly difficult test to pass.
Burdensome? Taxi licenses are limited so taxi drivers can keep their cartel against
the entry of competitors. It is impossible unless you're politically connected.
That's why Uber is so great: it is destroying this stupidity.
That's why Uber is so great: it is destroying this stupidity.
In the US perhaps, the medallion system there almost guarantees that new entrants are priced out of the market.
Not everywhere in Europe has limits on the number of taxi licenses.
Hurray.
Unless you own taxi medallions, I don't really see much cause for celebration. Unnecessary regulation is unnecessary.
Edit: due to aggressive rate limiting on HN's part, I'm not able to respond to those who have chosen to reply rather than downvote. What I'd say in such a reply is this: despite all of the advantages of regulated taxi services that people are citing, rideshare services are still winning in the marketplace. Have you ever thought about possible reasons for that?
Clearly people aren't being forced to use Uber, and just as clearly, they shouldn't be forced not to.
Edit: due to aggressive rate limiting on HN's part, I'm not able to respond to those who have chosen to reply rather than downvote. What I'd say in such a reply is this: despite all of the advantages of regulated taxi services that people are citing, rideshare services are still winning in the marketplace. Have you ever thought about possible reasons for that?
Clearly people aren't being forced to use Uber, and just as clearly, they shouldn't be forced not to.
Taxi drivers in my European country are subject to some requirements that make a lot of sense and help keep people safe. I've user Uber a lot and it's great but anything to up the quality of drivers is good. I've been down one way streets multiple times in Uber's, I've been in multiple near-misses, I've never had these things happen to me in taxi's. Not all taxi drivers are great either but the even the bad ones are better than the average Uber driver.
Obviously this is all city specific but I think a valid counter point to the 'unnecessary regulation' argument at least where I live.
Obviously this is all city specific but I think a valid counter point to the 'unnecessary regulation' argument at least where I live.
> I've been down one way streets multiple times in Uber's, I've been in multiple near-misses
What exactly is it about a taxi license that would affect that behavior? And shouldn't those regulations apply to _every_ driver?
What exactly is it about a taxi license that would affect that behavior? And shouldn't those regulations apply to _every_ driver?
If you really believe this, then why not let consumers decide for themselves which transportation services that they want to use?
If all these rules and regulations are so awesome, then consumers will overwhelming choose to buy from companies that follow them.
Thats how markets work.
If all these rules and regulations are so awesome, then consumers will overwhelming choose to buy from companies that follow them.
Thats how markets work.
Because individuals won't make decisions that benefit society as a whole. They'll make decisions that benefit themselves and themselves alone.
People will simply use whatever's cheapest and easiest without much thought into anything else.
People will simply use whatever's cheapest and easiest without much thought into anything else.
So, all I have to do to impose my will on you is to insist, backed by little to no evidence, that highly-regulated taxis "benefit society" more than less-regulated rideshare services do. Correct?
It seems that the people who determine what does and does not "benefit society" have a significant amount of unwarranted power. If this weren't true, we wouldn't be seeing cases like this one where the people -- the same ones that supposedly make up the democracy in question -- insist on using unauthorized/illegal rideshare services.
If your response to my reasoning is, "Well, it's a democracy after all, they're getting what they voted for," then the contradiction is too obvious to bother pointing out.
It seems that the people who determine what does and does not "benefit society" have a significant amount of unwarranted power. If this weren't true, we wouldn't be seeing cases like this one where the people -- the same ones that supposedly make up the democracy in question -- insist on using unauthorized/illegal rideshare services.
If your response to my reasoning is, "Well, it's a democracy after all, they're getting what they voted for," then the contradiction is too obvious to bother pointing out.
My point was intended more as a general one, that you can't simply assume what the market chooses is actually the best choice, as individual market participants have different priorities to the collective.
> So, all I have to do to impose my will on you is to insist, backed by little to no evidence, that highly-regulated taxis "benefit society" more than less-regulated rideshare services do. Correct?
No, the regulations predate Uber. Uber needs to either change the law through lobbying or adhere to it.
> It seems that the people who determine what does and does not "benefit society" have a significant amount of unwarranted power. If this weren't true, we wouldn't be seeing cases like this one where the people -- the same ones that supposedly make up the democracy in question -- insist on using unauthorized/illegal rideshare services.
> If your response to my reasoning is, "Well, it's a democracy after all, they're getting what they voted for," then the contradiction is too obvious to bother pointing out.
What we have isn't democracy, it's representative democracy, which addresses exactly the problem I was originally making. The masses can't be expected to make informed decisions on everything that concerns them, so they elect a few people who can on their behalf.
When an average person decides Uber vs. Taxi, in the 10s or so they spend thinking about it, they're not considering the impact it'll have on the local economy, the safety features of the vehicle, the qualifications the driver is required to have or the regulations they're required to adhere to. All your average person thinks about is that the Uber app is already on their phone, the car will arrive quickly and in the grand scheme of things, the likelihood of something bad happening is small.
Elected representatives will listen to experts, consider the wider impacts of their decision and do their best to make a decision that benefits their constituents. Sometimes that decision will conflict with what their constituents would choose themselves.
> So, all I have to do to impose my will on you is to insist, backed by little to no evidence, that highly-regulated taxis "benefit society" more than less-regulated rideshare services do. Correct?
No, the regulations predate Uber. Uber needs to either change the law through lobbying or adhere to it.
> It seems that the people who determine what does and does not "benefit society" have a significant amount of unwarranted power. If this weren't true, we wouldn't be seeing cases like this one where the people -- the same ones that supposedly make up the democracy in question -- insist on using unauthorized/illegal rideshare services.
> If your response to my reasoning is, "Well, it's a democracy after all, they're getting what they voted for," then the contradiction is too obvious to bother pointing out.
What we have isn't democracy, it's representative democracy, which addresses exactly the problem I was originally making. The masses can't be expected to make informed decisions on everything that concerns them, so they elect a few people who can on their behalf.
When an average person decides Uber vs. Taxi, in the 10s or so they spend thinking about it, they're not considering the impact it'll have on the local economy, the safety features of the vehicle, the qualifications the driver is required to have or the regulations they're required to adhere to. All your average person thinks about is that the Uber app is already on their phone, the car will arrive quickly and in the grand scheme of things, the likelihood of something bad happening is small.
Elected representatives will listen to experts, consider the wider impacts of their decision and do their best to make a decision that benefits their constituents. Sometimes that decision will conflict with what their constituents would choose themselves.
And people wonder why a Reagan or a Trump or a Brexit appeals to so many voters.
Just because you can regulate something doesn't mean it's always a net win for society to do so. The EU definitely seems to have missed this particular clue.
Just because you can regulate something doesn't mean it's always a net win for society to do so. The EU definitely seems to have missed this particular clue.
>> Thats how markets work.
No, that's how markets are _supposed_ to work but we don't live in a world of perfect competition where completely free markets work without flaws.
No, that's how markets are _supposed_ to work but we don't live in a world of perfect competition where completely free markets work without flaws.
So use taxi, if you like it so much. Keeping people "safe" against their will and with money from their own pockets is evil, to say the least.
> despite all of the advantages of regulated taxi services that people are citing, rideshare services are still winning in the marketplace. Have you ever thought about possible reasons for that?
It's pretty simple why they win in the marketplace: They're cheaper and easier to use.
There are a number of problems that riders aren't likely to think about though:
- Uber drivers can earn less than minimum wage
- They don't have to pass the same tests and adhere to the same regulations as taxis
- Their vehicles aren't built with the same safety features as taxis (for example the screen protecting the driver or the camera in the back)
It's the role of government to act in the people's best interest and that will often mean acting against the market.
Uber could likely operate without breaking the law by simply calling taxis with their app (and from memory it actually did exactly that in Germany once) but that wouldn't make them nearly as much money.
It's pretty simple why they win in the marketplace: They're cheaper and easier to use.
There are a number of problems that riders aren't likely to think about though:
- Uber drivers can earn less than minimum wage
- They don't have to pass the same tests and adhere to the same regulations as taxis
- Their vehicles aren't built with the same safety features as taxis (for example the screen protecting the driver or the camera in the back)
It's the role of government to act in the people's best interest and that will often mean acting against the market.
Uber could likely operate without breaking the law by simply calling taxis with their app (and from memory it actually did exactly that in Germany once) but that wouldn't make them nearly as much money.
In what way is Uber not a taxi service? How do you feel it differs to the end user?
To any New Yorker, Uber is a black car service... you can't hail an Uber on the street. And the current compromise between Uber and NYC is that Uber cars are licensed exactly like black cars. Done.
(You actually refer to the street hail thing in one of your other comments, surprised you didn't mention that here.)
(You actually refer to the street hail thing in one of your other comments, surprised you didn't mention that here.)
Just to straighten out the terminology: Let's say "Taxi" (at least for the context of this discussion) is a car that takes someone somewhere the passenger decides, for money.
It doesn't matter whether you hail it on the street or book it elsewhere. Taxi is a paid car. By that definition in NYC all black cars, yellow cabs, Ubers etc are Taxis.
That weird US regional laws have made a whole family of terms for this simple service just makes this discussion muddy (as you might have noticed).
What this news article is about and what is already obvious is that Uber is Taxi because they take people places for money.
It doesn't matter whether you hail it on the street or book it elsewhere. Taxi is a paid car. By that definition in NYC all black cars, yellow cabs, Ubers etc are Taxis.
That weird US regional laws have made a whole family of terms for this simple service just makes this discussion muddy (as you might have noticed).
What this news article is about and what is already obvious is that Uber is Taxi because they take people places for money.
Same in Germany, but Uber wanted to be licensed like a web service, not like a black car service, and argued that instead each driver is operating a black car service, and they should be responsible for insurance.
Sounds like what we have in the UK as "minicabs" as opposed to "black cabs" that you can hail on the street. Both are considered taxis.
It is not a cartel protected by the government against external competitors.
I think people are conflating two different things: medallion systems (bad) and other regulation (good)
Saying Uber should follow regulations that other taxi companies follow is just common sense imho. That includes minimum pay, insurance regulation, background checks, training requirements, employment security etc.
That some cities regulate the number of taxis via medallions or monopolies is a related but different topic. I find that practice very strange, and that I hope will be gone in most places soon. The irony though is that cities that don't have medallion systems are tougher markets for Uber because there Uber doesn't have the same obvious edge.
Saying Uber should follow regulations that other taxi companies follow is just common sense imho. That includes minimum pay, insurance regulation, background checks, training requirements, employment security etc.
That some cities regulate the number of taxis via medallions or monopolies is a related but different topic. I find that practice very strange, and that I hope will be gone in most places soon. The irony though is that cities that don't have medallion systems are tougher markets for Uber because there Uber doesn't have the same obvious edge.
Medallions are a US thing. In the EU generally it is driving and background checks that are required, not the payment of an arbitrary sum to some regulatory body.
well it means I might not have to pay as much tax if these loopholes avoiding the companies side of the social bargain
No, the opionion doesn't say that Uber should be treated as a taxi service, the opionion says thet UberPop should be treated as a transport service, not an information society services.
It's been 17 years since the internet has become widespread, how many successful information technology companies have come from Europe, a continent with 500 million people, many of them well educated? Maybe it's time to look inward.