Court Orders Uber To Shut Down In Spain 280
An anonymous reader writes with word that a Spanish judge, after complaints from taxi associations that the competition Uber brings to the transportation market is unfair to existing firms' drivers, has ordered the company to cease operations in the country. From the BBC article:
In his ruling on the temporary ban, the judge said Uber drivers didn't have official authorisation to drive their cars and was "unfair competition." The move follows a complaint by the Madrid Taxi Association. The Spanish ban comes just a day after Uber was blacklisted in the Indian capital Delhi. Drivers "lack the administrative authorisation to carry out the job, and the activity they carry out constitutes unfair competition," the Spanish court services said in a statement after the ruling. In Thailand, too. And stateside, the government of Portland, Oregon thinks Uber's a big enough threat to justify a sting operation. Business Insider's keeping score.
Unlicensed taxi broker (Score:4, Insightful)
Ultimately Uber is a broker for unlicensed taxi. There should be a restriction on unlicensed taxi on the roads. In other words, I'm surprised they exist anywhere. They really shouldn't, there are very good common sense reasons for insisting on licensed taxi.
Quite (Score:3)
Though for "digital natives" (or whatever people under 25 are called this week) anything you do via an iToy app is good regardless. Hailing a taxi or making a phone call to a taxi firm? Thats just soooo 20th century! Click click click like a lab rat is where its at!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever you call the generation of people between 25 and 35 learned the Napster vs Bittorrent lesson very well.
Uber and Lyft may die, but they'll just be replaced with entirely P2P systems.
Sting operations give us both an incentive and the opportunity to develop trust network that optimize for protecting sellers from malicious customers. Once developer, the applications for such trust networks will be quite broad.
The era in which one group of people will be able to control the commercial activities of thir
Re: (Score:2)
The era in which one group of people will be able to control the commercial activities of third parties is coming to a close. Deal with it.
... he said, either forgetting or ignoring the fact that a group of people controlling the commercial activities of third parties is exactly what just happened.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm so sorry that you got this far in life without understanding grammar or reading comprehension.
Don't worry - I hear it's a curable condition.
Re: (Score:2)
Cuz tossing around playground insults, rather than offer a cogent argument - that's the hallmark of intellect?
Yea, you go ahead and keep thinking that, Chief.
Geez (Score:2)
The era in which one group of people will be able to control the commercial activities of third parties is coming to a close. Deal with it.
... he said, either forgetting or ignoring the fact that a group of people controlling the commercial activities of third parties is exactly what just happened.
Re: (Score:2)
no it is not (Score:3)
That worked with napster or anything fully digital, but will not work with service or good provided in the real world. Once the government steps ion and say "you are not allowed" they can simply catch you at the payment , or make a take down on your server on non compliance. And as such service multiply take down will simply be quicker. And frankly as a customer there ARE some law
Re: (Score:2)
How can they catch you at the payment point? If I make a request for uber, unless the government is monitoring the app, which now may be encrypted, the uber or lyft car arrives, and money goes from my previously set up account into Uber's coffers. In what way can the government stop this?
All they can do is sue the owners, but with what evidence?
Re: (Score:2)
How can they catch you at the payment point? If I make a request for uber, unless the government is monitoring the app, which now may be encrypted, the uber or lyft car arrives, and money goes from my previously set up account into Uber's coffers. In what way can the government stop this?
Call for a driver, wait for him to turn up, and fine them. Easy enough. If there's a criminal court case, we know you can be forced to decrypt your data. If it's a civil court case, you provide the decrypted data or the judge assumes that it speaks against you.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's going to work just as well with real world services and goods.
Bitcoin
You do know there is an entire planet where servers can be hosted, right?
Also, have you ever heard of "peer to peer networks"? I hear they are making waves these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Use whatever services you want to use.
Refrain from using services you do not wish to use.
Allow other people to make their own choices, or fuck off.
Re:Unlicensed taxi broker (Score:4, Interesting)
Ultimately Uber is a broker for unlicensed taxi. There should be a restriction on unlicensed taxi on the roads. In other words, I'm surprised they exist anywhere. They really shouldn't, there are very good common sense reasons for insisting on licensed taxi.
This is slashdot, so anything that interferes in the right of someone to make money from a "disruptive" service is communism.
Drug smugglers, paedophilic video distributors and illegal arms salesmen are all just creative entrepreneurs trying to make an honest buck.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
So true. To these people's thinking, medical licensing stifles innovation and competition too! We should have a web app to bypass over-priced hospitals and insurance companies, and summon an independent health practitioner. Let the free market decide!
Medical licensing (Score:3)
Despite the tone, remember that it's not just doctors and nurses that receive licenses.
There's a constant battle for just how far to go with licensing drugs - wait too long and people die without it, wait too little and people die from a drug that shouldn't have been released.
Medical equipment can be big - the cost is so huge that medical devices often seriously lag in IT updates. The FDA is just starting to come around that yes, these devices need regular security patches and even OS updates.
You also get
Re:Unlicensed taxi broker (Score:4, Insightful)
Laws making certain drugs illegal make them more expensive and dangerous. They create crime and criminals, wasting human lives enforcing the laws and jailing the offenders, and ruining the lives of the offenders.
Some, not all, weapons laws are wrong. Limitations on automatic weapons and firearm calibre are mistaken; they should not be more restricted than small single shot weapons. On the other hand, prohibitions on chemical and biological weapons are reasonable. RPGs and other devices useful for taking out aircraft and blowing up buildings don't seem to me to be something an individual has an honorable use for, and should remain illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
r_naked really went off the reservation. Such an old account as well.
Still, I support drug legalization and fewer restrictions on arms, such that the illegal drug smugglers and arms salesmen would have a hard time making a living even without government intervention.
It's that thing where you have more control over a market when it's legal than illegal. I believe it would lead to less violence and better ability to help the addicts.
The paedophilic video distributors are encouraging the harm of children, so
Re: (Score:2)
Guns == GOOD == Able to defend myself from assholes like you
Drugs == INDIFFERENT == My fucking body, I do with it as I please. If my actions ON drugs interfere with other people, THEN by all means, lock me up.
Hmm... You seem to be very simple minded when you look at any situation from only one side. Guns are tools and are good if and only if use to defend yourself. They are BAD when you misuse them (and that's what happened in the news), simple.
Speaking of drugs, I could careless and agree with you if you are nobody to me. However, if my children, parents, or siblings are addicted to drugs, that is DIFFERENT! You are looking at it as if you are the ONLY PERSON in the society. You DO NOT care for those who are
Re: (Score:2)
Well since you are so against guns, then kindly please hang yourself. You are what is wrong with this country.
The great thing about your attitude though, is that when revolution happens, it will be much easier for my side to win.
Thank you
Re: (Score:2)
My firearms have NEVER killed another person. Nor will they EVER kill another person. In fact, I don't know ANY firearm that has ever killed another person.
However, there are PLENTY of people who seek to kill others, either through negligence or malice. The choice of tool is irrelevant; the user of the tool is what matters.
Re: (Score:2)
But cars aren't usually used to intentionally kill people. If they were, to the tune of 30,000 Americans a year, we would probably be wise to consider limiting or banning car usage, yes.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Ultimately Uber is a broker for unlicensed taxi. There should be a restriction on unlicensed taxi on the roads. In other words, I'm surprised they exist anywhere. They really shouldn't, there are very good common sense reasons for insisting on licensed taxi.
I think that really should be the choice of the person choosing which taxi service to use. If four members of Seal team 6 decide to save a few bucks, risking the chance that the driver is going to attack the four of them, then they should have that choi
Re: (Score:2)
"If four members of Seal team 6 decide to save a few bucks, risking the chance that the driver is going to attack the four of them, then they should have that choice."
Even those four members of Seal team 6 are exposed for the taximan to give them the "tourist sightseeing" which makes a 20 buck trip into a 200 one.
Given that unregulating this industry would open to obvious and massive fraud and risk it is only intelligent to step before that happens both to protect the consumer *and* the industry itself, sin
Re: (Score:2)
"If four members of Seal team 6 decide to save a few bucks, risking the chance that the driver is going to attack the four of them, then they should have that choice."
"Even those four members of Seal team 6 are exposed for the taximan to give them the "tourist sightseeing" which makes a 20 buck trip into a 200 one."
-----
This is what usually happens to me when I take a "well-regulated" taxi (in many cities in many parts of the world... I can follow the route on Google maps and calculate just how badly I am b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you draw the line? If your neighbor pays you for a car ride to town, should that be illegal? How about if he does it every day? How about carpooling arrangements where not all people have cars? How about a mom who provides transportation services for her friends, in return for (food/landscaping/snowplowing/money)?
There was a link to the UK rules, which are very clear. If you provide a car with a driver, for profit beyond just expenses, to transport people from A to B, and the transport is not just a minor part of the operation, then you need a license.
In this case: Driving the neighbour for money, once or repeatedly, and mom providing transportation services, would need a license. Carpooling doesn't, because the driver wants to go from A to B himself.
Nobody expected... (Score:4, Funny)
... the spanish inquisition.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber is dying! (Score:5, Funny)
It is now official. The BBC has confirmed: Uber is dying!
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered ridesharing community when IDC confirmed that Uber market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all ride-sharing services. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Uber has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Uber is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent "can you get a ride without being raped" test.
You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin to predict Uber's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Uber faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Uber because Uber is dying. Things are looking very bad for Uber. As many of us are already aware, Uber continues to lose market share. Law suits flow like a river of blood.
Uber is the most endangered of all the ride-shares, having lost 93% of its legal battles with regulators. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Uber drivers Ikant Drive and Noah Li Cense only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Uber is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
All major surveys show that Uber has steadily declined in market share. Uber is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Uber is to survive at all it will be among dilettante black car users. Uber continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Uber is dead.
How's This: (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, so how about, instead of regulating Uber as the commercial transport service it is, we deregulate commercial transport services so they can be on a level playing field? You know, no more government mandated licensing and insurance, no special recourse for customers who are cheated\robbed\otherwise harmed by a driver, etc.
Or is that a phenomenally stupid idea for some glaringly obvious reasons?
Re: (Score:3)
no special recourse for customers who are cheated\robbed\otherwise harmed by a driver, etc.
Um, it's already illegal to do those things. Call the police when it happens. You know, on that phone you just used to order the taxi.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, it's already illegal to do those things. Call the police when it happens. You know, on that phone you just used to order the taxi.
Sure, cheating/robbing/harming passengers is illegal. However, calling the police doesn't help much if the driver cannot pay for the damage that they caused. That's why I would want to make absolutely sure that Uber can be held responsible for any damage that their drivers cause, just like any other business is responsible for their employers, and that Uber cannot just claim it's non of their business, when it is exactly all of their business.
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't. Most Uber Drivers are considered uninsured in most countries as you need a commercial insurance and commercial license to operate as a for hire vehicle.
Re: (Score:3)
Hard to call if you're dead. Regulation exists to prevent bad things from happening in the first place.
I know, right. That's why, ever since we outlawed murder, nobody has ever killed another person. Regulations my friend, regulations. They're like magic.
Re: (Score:3)
My argument is that regulation doesn't prevent anything.
Murder laws shouldn't be kept because they prevent murder - they don't. They should be kept because they provide just consequences for an immoral and harmful act. Taxi regulations do neither.
Insurance? (Score:5, Informative)
I can get commercial insurance, but it's _expensive_. Very expensive. Not sure if I need a special license to be allowed to drive paying passengers. So the sting operation that was mentioned is absolutely fine with me. If they drive without insurance, they should be fined very, very hard. I'd also look forward to a court case where Uber is found liable in such a case.
UK Private Hire License (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, in the UK private hire vehicles must be licensed, as must the driver and the operator.
https://www.gov.uk/government/... [www.gov.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But not commercial drivers licenses, or vehicle registration. And their insurance will hang them out to dry when they have a police report that says the driver was operating an illegal taxi service without the proper license. And US states, at least, are increasingly enacting regulations specifically to classify Uber and similar services as a livery service, which is a commercial use, This requires commercial license, as noted above.
Also, apparently, Uber's insurance only covers the passengers, pedestrians,
Spanish taxis drivers against: public buses (Score:2, Insightful)
Recently, in August 2014 in the Spanish city Oviedo some taxi drivers went to the streets, blocked public autobuses for half an hour and appeared in the newspapers.
Oviedo's taxi driver's cause: The enhanced local public bus plan jeopardises taxi driver jobs!
Yeah, actively protesting against better public transportation!
I was there at that time. The roll-out of the new bus plan in delay at that time. Locals were shaking their heads.
http://www.elcomercio.es/oviedo/201408/14/colectivos-taxistas-oviedo-asturias
Re: (Score:2)
Given the unemployment (about 25%), and some generally fucked up bankruptcy laws (you can't bankrupt a mortgage, for instance, no matter how underwater you are), Spain has some pretty serious problem, and it shows.
However, it's not a very good comparison to, well, anywhere else in the world.
The damage is done (Score:2, Offtopic)
Doublespeak (Score:3)
It is funny that a service that allows anyone who wants it to enter a closed market represents unfair competition.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Greasing Palms. (Score:5, Insightful)
I honestly don't know where this idiotic sentiment comes from.
Where I live, the cabs are regulated. In my memory, additional regulations have been imposed on them. They protested, but ultimately got told "too damned bad".
Yes, it's a very lucrative thing, and people pay huge amounts of money for the taxi plate.
But they're not some all powerful taxi cartel which secretly calls the shots. The taxi industry is not the fucking illuminati.
I think the entire premise (which as far as I can tell comes from Uber) of this stupid narrative of Uber being the underdogs fighting the big entrenched players is a crock of shit.
This is about a company who has decided they have an app and a business model which allows them to bypass existing regulations which are applied to all in that industry. They quite publicly are just a scheduling service for unlicensed cabs. That's it. They're not some noble entity fighting the good fight.
They're a company who has decide that magical elves and unicorn dust means they can pretend that laws don't apply to them. Based on what, I have yet to understand -- I've heard their spokespeople saying "well, we're not a taxi company, we're just a technology company, so the law doesn't apply". Really? How's that?
So, whatever this romanticized notion of Uber is, it seems like garbage to me. If you want to be a cab company, you are covered under the regulations of a cab company.
But if you think some sophistry and misdirection makes you not a cab company, you're either delusional, or just hoping to hoodwink enough people to sway public opinion.
So blah blah blah Uber and the evil all powerful taxi cab cartel.
Sorry, you're a commercial vehicle for hire, and covered under all applicable laws and regulations, whether you like it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that we need to regulate me paying one person to transport me from one spot to another is, frankly, ridiculous.
Voluntary certifications? Fraternal industrial associations? Basic safety inspections ? Fine.
What reason is there for regulating commerce in this manner besides cartelization of the transport industry?
Why is it a crime for me to charge someone $40 to take them to the airport in my car?
Re:Greasing Palms. (Score:5, Informative)
The idea that we need to regulate me paying one person to transport me from one spot to another is, frankly, ridiculous.
Try riding a cab in city where they aren't properly regulated and you may change your mind after you get in a cab with a driver who asks you for directions in a city you do not live in and is driving a clapped out ex cop car with bad shocks, a check engine light that's on and whose brakes squeal like metal to metal contact is being made whenever he uses them.
Voluntary certifications? Fraternal industrial associations? Basic safety inspections ? Fine.
What reason is there for regulating commerce in this manner besides cartelization of the transport industry?
Why is it a crime for me to charge someone $40 to take them to the airport in my car?
Sure, regulation limits competition and part of the reasons there is a strong move to keep regulations in place is to keep the value of the medallion artificially high. OTOH, simply arguing because you use an app to hail a ride you are somehow different and not subject to the same rules is ridiculous. There just gypsy cabs with a nicer front end for hailing them.
Re: (Score:2)
Try riding a cab in city where they aren't properly regulated and you may change your mind after you get in a cab with a driver who asks you for directions in a city you do not live in and is driving a clapped out ex cop car with bad shocks, a check engine light that's on and whose brakes squeal like metal to metal contact is being made whenever he uses them.
Sounds just like Seattle's regulated taxis. Not sure what the problem is.
Re: (Score:2)
Try riding a cab in city where they aren't properly regulated and you may change your mind after you get in a cab with a driver who asks you for directions in a city you do not live in and is driving a clapped out ex cop car with bad shocks, a check engine light that's on and whose brakes squeal like metal to metal contact is being made whenever he uses them.
Sounds just like Seattle's regulated taxis. Not sure what the problem is.
Have to make sure you experience the same wilily of ride with Uber...
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, regulation limits competition and part of the reasons there is a strong move to keep regulations in place is to keep the value of the medallion artificially high.
No, it's not part of the reasons.
Keeping the (corrupt) pricing model around the medallion is THE fucking reason for regulation in an industry that doesn't need nearly this much "regulation".
OTOH, simply arguing because you use an app to hail a ride you are somehow different and not subject to the same rules is ridiculous. There just gypsy cabs with a nicer front end for hailing them.
Gas, grass, or ass. Nobody rides for free.
This saying, and the concept of charging someone for a ride in a car has been around a hell of a lot longer than any of these organizations claiming that same activity needs to be regulated. The ridiculous part is claiming we "need" the regulation we have in place today. Of c
Re:Greasing Palms. (Score:4, Informative)
"The idea that we need to regulate me paying one person to transport me from one spot to another is, frankly, ridiculous."
No, it certainly isn't.
You are putting yourself on a one or two tons machine able to trump itself to about 100MPH maybe in a environment you don't know, under control of an unknown guy with a vested while desperate interest in cutting corners and make a profit out of somebody who probably won't see again in his whole life.
_Not_ having regulations on that kind of activity is what looks ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree that the taxi industry is not the illuminati, I don't understand how Uber is a commercial vehicle for hire. Then again, I might not fully understand the extent of what Uber does that's applicable under law.
My understanding is that they offer a service through an app & the Internet that allows people to schedule another (basically) random person to drive them somewhere for a fee. Then Uber takes the fee, takes their percentage, then gives the driver their percentage. The driver can only do
Re:Greasing Palms. (Score:5, Interesting)
In Nashville:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
"In June 2010 the Nashville Metropolitan City Council passed legislation raising the city's minimum fee for limo and sedan rentals, bumping it from $25 to $45. Drivers were prohibited by law from charging less. Other new regulations forbid limo companies from using leased vehicles, require cars to be dispatched only from the place of business, compel companies to wait 15 minutes before picking up a client, and ban parking in front of hotels and bars to wait for customers. More laws that take effect in January 2012 would also require companies to replace all sedans and SUVs over seven-years-old, and all limos 10-years-old and older. Vehicles older than five years cannot enter into service."
The legislation was paid for by mainly by Gaylord, which was exempted from the legislation.
"Opryland Hotel [note: owned by Gaylord] provides shuttle and limousine services to the Nashville airport about 10 minutes away. For the shuttle, a round-trip fare is $40; a single fare is $30. The limousine service costs $270 round-trip and $135 for a single fare. Gaylord Opryland and other big hotels that operate their own shuttle services were given exemptions from the new legislation."
The intent was to put smaller competitors out of business, one being Metro Livery. Thankfully they're still operating. When I lived in south Nashville I could get a ride to the airport from them for $35 or so, cheaper than a cab. That was for a sedan with a driver - not a cabby. The sedans at the time weren't brand new but they were in excellent shape.
Taxi regulations are bought and paid for by taxi cartels. Period. The whole idea that they have the regulations foisted on them is, at this point, so laughable that it barely requires a response.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yup, and these regulations are all coming thanks to local politicians. Average people don't even know the names of their state representatives...and those representatives all won their seats thanks to money from people like the local Taxi Company owners (or influence from people with large groups/unions that they can cajole into voting in local elections). It doesn't take a lot of money to influence a local politician, and there is not a lot of visibility to prevent it.
In this case it was highly visible (note that it even made HuffPo, although probably because they cluelessly tried to turn it into an anti-GOP piece). In the end it didn't matter and Gaylord won.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly don't know where this idiotic sentiment comes from.
Where I live, the cabs are regulated. In my memory, additional regulations have been imposed on them. They protested, but ultimately got told "too damned bad".
Yes, it's a very lucrative thing, and people pay huge amounts of money for the taxi plate.
But they're not some all powerful taxi cartel which secretly calls the shots. The taxi industry is not the fucking illuminati.
I think the entire premise (which as far as I can tell comes from Uber) of this stupid narrative of Uber being the underdogs fighting the big entrenched players is a crock of shit.
This is about a company who has decided they have an app and a business model which allows them to bypass existing regulations which are applied to all in that industry. They quite publicly are just a scheduling service for unlicensed cabs. That's it. They're not some noble entity fighting the good fight.
They're a company who has decide that magical elves and unicorn dust means they can pretend that laws don't apply to them. Based on what, I have yet to understand -- I've heard their spokespeople saying "well, we're not a taxi company, we're just a technology company, so the law doesn't apply". Really? How's that?
So, whatever this romanticized notion of Uber is, it seems like garbage to me. If you want to be a cab company, you are covered under the regulations of a cab company.
But if you think some sophistry and misdirection makes you not a cab company, you're either delusional, or just hoping to hoodwink enough people to sway public opinion.
So blah blah blah Uber and the evil all powerful taxi cab cartel.
Sorry, you're a commercial vehicle for hire, and covered under all applicable laws and regulations, whether you like it or not.
Perhaps I should have clarified. The corruption I speak of is the "regulation" wrapped around the traditional industries.
I'm talking about those corrupt individuals in power that have either ensured those regulations happen, or ensure they are enforced and continue. You know, the ones who ensure that a taxi plate price tag is "enough".
Perhaps Uber is pushing the regulatory rules around this industry, but in reality it does nothing but put a huge spotlight on the "elves and unicorn dust" (read: millions of
Re:Exactly, here is an analogy (Score:2)
So now I decide to make an app that allows people to order food and goods at convenient prices, just because the food and goodies come from farmers that work for themselves, does it mean that my company and the farmers are not bound to producer/food/economic regulation??
People think twice, this is nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live, the cabs are regulated. In my memory, additional regulations have been imposed on them. They protested, but ultimately got told "too damned bad".
Regulation is no panacea and can be a plague. Many regulations cure a non-existent problem. Some regulations are viewed by the regulated industry as a barrier to entry, and that keeps their competition low. And there's always the problem of regulatory capture.
Yes, it's a very lucrative thing, and people pay huge amounts of money for the taxi plate.
Re: (Score:3)
And this is the same for Bangkok, Thailand where they've been banned. Taxis are heavily regulated and dirt cheap. Because the government keeps the price of Bangkok taxi's down they get some protection. They are afforded no such protection in Phuket, so the taxi mafia there makes their own. Drivers who aren't in the Mafia are tracked down and beaten
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. You protest. And work to have them changed. You break them? You take the consequences and endure them. Hell, you do that in principle to SHOW that the current laws and regulations are dumb/wrong/immoral. So yeah, if you think the laws and regulations are not adequate, work your ass off to change them, not just ignore them.
That's the difference between real civil disobedience and the whiny little bitches we have today. Real civil disobedience is breaking the law so that you get arrested, preferably with the TV cameras watching. Not whining like a little girl that laws are enforced consistently.
Re: (Score:2)
No, those laws similar to feudal fiefdoms. Limiting the supply of taxis keeps the cab fare rates very (artificially) high and sucks the working man's income into the pockets of those controlling these laws.
Re: (Score:2)
You, sir*, are a fucking idiot.
*or madam.
Re: (Score:2)
Administrative authorization where I live means a commercial driver's license which cost the same as a regular license but you have to qualify for it. {aka have a clean driving record with no drunk driving charges and the vehicle needs to be inspected and insured.} The laws here may be fairly relaxed compared with the rest of the states or other countries but this customer would like taxi drivers that don't have DUIs, a bad driving record, and can pass a simple driving test.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I want to sell my services as a doctor, electrician, and architect, but I'm barred from doing so by law because I haven't greased the right palms.
Uber is doing the equivalent to opening a restaurant and claiming they don't have to pass health inspections because the chef is a contractor rather than an employee.
Who gives a shit if the customer likes Uber? Are you against all licensing and regulation?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because less guns means less gun violence.
Re: (Score:2)
Drugs have been outlawed, but that hasn't stopped drugs from getting their hands on them.
Likewise, violence is violence. You don't need a gun to commit violence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wait. Are gov't regs good or bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy enough. The question to ask is what does more good for more people? The government is a tool, nothing more or less. And like any tool, it's suitable for some purposes, and unsuitable for others.
The legacy taxis are just utterly terrible services on so many levels. About the only thing they're useful is for trips between the downtown hotels and the airport. That's fine for tourists; but if you actually live here, taxi's are all but useless. Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar show up on time where you need them, don't bitch about trips to or from the avenues, don't play the "the credit card machine is broken, cash only" game, and don't stink of smoke, pee, or vomit. None of that is true of taxis. So breaking the government supports for the legacy taxis is good.
Internet monopolies harm the consumer and stifle the economic development of new and innovative businesses. Obvious and iconic example is the extortion of Netflix by Comcast and Verizon, resulting at first in crippled performance of the service and eventually an increase in the price. That's direct and measurable harm to millions of consumers and an innovative and useful startup business, and hardly the only case of consumers or new businesses bering harmed. The bandwidth monopolies are causing harm and need to be broken. And if government action is what it takes, then so be it.
And on the cops thing, I think what people want is accountability. "Evil and racist pigs" do make it through whatever screening processes the police have for their recruits. When discovered, they need to be punished: thrown off the force and locked away. And when the "good cops" cover for the "evil and racist pigs", refuse to remove the bad ones from the force, and make sure that they are not punished for their crimes and abuse, the "good cops" cease to be good. "One bad apple spoils the whole barrel", as the proverb goes. The bad apples need to be purged before they are able to spoil that barrel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"The legacy taxis are just utterly terrible services on so many levels. About the only thing they're useful is for trips between the downtown hotels and the airport. That's fine for tourists; but if you actually live here, taxi's are all but useless [...] Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar show up on time where you need them, don't bitch about trips to or from the avenues, don't play the "the credit card machine is broken, cash only" game, and don't stink of smoke, pee, or vomit. None of that is true of taxis."
Hummm..
Re:Wait. Are gov't regs good or bad? (Score:4, Interesting)
As are Uber.
LoL, last time I tried to use Uber we ended up getting an ordinary taxi because two cars didn't show. After the second car, I took charge and called a licensed and insured taxi company who's car appeared within 5 minutes.
Also they aren't any cheaper than normal taxis in my city, in fact given surge pricing they're often more expensive. At 2 am in the morning after a night out, there were no Uber cars about anywhere but taxi's were numerous and cheaper.
Uber are an absolute joke. They'll be dead in a year or two. Even fanboyism wont save them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to be fair that multiple people, even in the same organization or party, hold different views shouldn't be a surprise at all. But in this particular case I think you've nailed it on the head.
We're supporting government regulations to restrict the actions of monopolies and oligopolies in regards to the internet. Even if they can't be considered so on a national level, the fact that you normally only have 1-2 choices locally matters.
Taxi companies are the same, except their monopoly/oligopoly is assis
Re: (Score:3)
Government regulations that encourage or promote competition are good (e.g. regulations designed to encourage competition in the broadband market)
Government regulations that prevent a monopoly from abusing their market power are good (e.g. net neutrality regulations)
Government regulations that limit competition are bad (e.g. regulations banning or restricting services like Uber or regulations limiting the ability of municipalities or co-ops from running internet services in competition with the local telco
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The American Taliban, who will prosecute women for miscarriages between conception and birth, after which the newborn can go fuck herself. And during the pregnancy, the mother and the fetus can go fuck themselves as well if they need health care.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdotters, who reduce every complicated political issue to a series of half-witted binary options. Are we done yet?
Re: (Score:2)
Can you show evidence of this beyond some random wordpress blog?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The ability of governments to act as gatekeeper that controls and taxes voluntary commerce between willing parties is ending. Deal with it.
The more they try to fight it, the faster we'll invent and improve circumvention technology.
Re:too late (Score:5, Insightful)
My question is how insurance companies are dealing with it. I am pretty sure if I was a driver and got in an accident they would pretty much drop me like a hot potato. Unless your insurance policy includes driving as part of working there is no bloody way I would even think of taking this on.
This isn't even taking into account being sued by your passenger and what that could entail
Re: (Score:2)
My question is how insurance companies are dealing with it. I am pretty sure if I was a driver and got in an accident they would pretty much drop me like a hot potato. Unless your insurance policy includes driving as part of working there is no bloody way I would even think of taking this on.
The real problem for Uber when this happens is that they will most likely get sued and found liable. In Germany, because the contracts between Uber and the drivers don't really matter; Uber is a taxi company, no matter what it claims. In the USA, because you only need to be a tiny tiny bit responsible for the damages and you are on the hook for all of it.
Re: (Score:3)
My question is how insurance companies are dealing with it. I am pretty sure if I was a driver and got in an accident they would pretty much drop me like a hot potato. Unless your insurance policy includes driving as part of working there is no bloody way I would even think of taking this on.
The real problem for Uber when this happens is that they will most likely get sued and found liable. In Germany, because the contracts between Uber and the drivers don't really matter; Uber is a taxi company, no matter what it claims. In the USA, because you only need to be a tiny tiny bit responsible for the damages and you are on the hook for all of it.
And it would be the same for the rest of the EU as well as Australia.
I cant say how the insurance industry in Germany, Spain or England would deal with it but I'd be surprised if it was much different to Australia. Basically when an Uber driver causes a serious accident (and thats a when, not an if) Uber will be treated as if it were the taxi company regardless of what agreements between Uber and the driver are in place (under Australian law if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a du
Re: (Score:2)
My question is how insurance companies are dealing with it.
For the most part, apparently, they're hanging drivers out to dry. [policygenius.com]
Uber may claim their insurance will cover you for an accident while you have passenger, but no insurance company in the world will cover you - or Uber - if it is determined that the driver is operating illegally at the time.
And at that point, not only are you responsible for the damage to your car, and the other guy's, but also for any medical bills for passengers in either car, as well. I'm not sure my personal health insurance would cover m
Re: (Score:2)
That is what we used to call libertarian cyber-utopianism. The basic assumption there is that technology empowers individuals (and private collectives, in the capitalist version) but not the public collective. (The "utopian" part of the assumption is that this would be good.)
Why do you think that? It seems to me that, just as much as technology empowers individ
Re: (Score:3)
That's corporatism not capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
So laws should be broken for the sheer fun of it?
Derogatory comments about the profit motive are narrow-minded. If an action makes life better for you, it's profitable. Implying that there's something wrong if money or material goods are involved is shallow and wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Well the founders of Uber are extremely "ethically challenged". For instance them digging up dirt on news reporters is exactly what Scientology does with its critics. And sabotaging competitors by calling in fake orders sound just like what the mafia would do.
I have nothing against ride-sharing apps in general, I hope Lyft and others succeed. Just not Uber, they are dirtbags.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe NYC requires UberX drivers to get a commercial license, and I think Chicago has asked for taxes/surchages (as well as specifying insurance and background check requirements for Uber).
Re: (Score:3)
But taking taxis in NYC can apparently sometimes suck so much that people will pay extra to ride arou