Uber Drivers Arrested By Undercover Cops In Hong Kong 231
The Stack reports that local police have raided Uber's Hong Kong office, "after several officers posed as Uber customers and arrested drivers on Tuesday morning in an attempt to put an end to illegal taxi services. Five drivers who had offered their services across the taxi-hailing app were arrested on suspicion of illegally carrying passengers and driving without third-party insurance. The men are being held for further investigation." Are local police quite this concerned in your city with car-sharing dispatch services?
Can we quit pretending that it's car "sharing"? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing at all related to "sharing" about services like Uber.
Re:Can we quit pretending that it's car "sharing"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can we also quit pretending that these "crackdowns" are about safety? They are 100% about money.
Re:Can we quit pretending that it's car "sharing"? (Score:5, Insightful)
If by "money" you mean "the money everyone else has to pay in higher insurance premiums due to Uber drivers taking part in commercial driving without paying commercial premiums", then yes.
Beyond that, even if you don't like the current system, that doesn't mean that you can legally willfully violate it. For better or worse, Uber has a business model built around breaking the law. Don't get so shocked when legal action gets taken.
Re:Can we quit pretending that it's car "sharing"? (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that by "money", GP meant "bribery". HK and most of China is notorious for requiring more than a few 'gifts' to the local constabulary and bureaucrats, all in order to insure that your business runs with as few 'incidents' as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
HK and most of China is notorious for requiring more than a few 'gifts' to the local constabulary and bureaucrats
Mainland China, yes. Hong Kong is putting up a brave resistence but it's creeping in despite their best efforts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uber isn't challenging the laws though. Their primary defense is that the laws don't apply to them
What's the difference? The way you challenge a law is by acting as if the law doesn't apply.
Re: (Score:2)
it kind of blows my mind how Uber just said "fuck the laws" and expanded like crazy
don't get me wrong, i like Uber and I welcome the competition. in New York City now traditional taxi companies are getting their own apps to compete: that's innovation improving our lives, jolting complacency. made possible by Uber
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08... [nytimes.com]
but Uber is going to have increasing problems. you can't just flaunt local regulations. some of it is corrupt. but some of it, like safety and taxes, is valid and im
Uber obeys intent (Score:2)
some of it, like safety and taxes, is valid and important and not a joke
Uber provides insurance to drivers, and other guarantees to riders.
Uber is *safer* that taxis because of all the tracking going on. The Uber app is tracking both rider AND driver so there is extremely strong disincentive for either party to do anything to the other.
With taxis the driver may well not be tracked at all, or can chose to disable tracking. With taxis you, the rider, are probably not being tracked so the ability to just drag
Re: Can we quit pretending that it's car "sharing" (Score:3, Informative)
Odds are is they their drivers are breaking the law. Commercial insurance is required to take passengers, no different than a limo service. I would bet that a very small number of Uber drivers are properly insured.
Re: (Score:2)
And even if Uber requires proof of commercial insurance from a driver in order to begin to drive for them, I can call up my insurance agent, get any insurance changes I need made and pay the premium over the phone, get paperwork sent to me to prove it, then call that agent up again a few days later and cancel the policy and get a refund sans the days that have already passed that I was covered for.
What a huge loophole, I'm surprised insurers and businesses they cover haven't found a way to prevent that.
Oh wait, they have. If Uber required that drivers obtain commercial insurance (individual policies are probably much more expensive than you think), they'd also require that Uber be listed as a Additional Insured on the policy, so they'll be notified if you cancel the policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't work that way in the UK. "Named drivers" do not get told of anything, only the person taking out the insurance policy does.
"Named driver" is different than "additional insured", at least in the USA. Being additional insured means that you *are* notified about changes in the policy. I'd be very surprised if the UK doesn't have a similar concept even if it's called something different.
Re: (Score:2)
You would still be breaking the law because you'd be driving without the coverage required by the law. It may also be fraud
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can we quit pretending that it's car "sharing"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
>taking a cab at a 30% discount is uber-cool
B.S. Where I live, Uber isn't 30% cheaper than taxis. It is 100% more practical and convenient though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and that comes almost exactly to the amount they are "saving" in fees and taxes.
And yet, nobody really understands why government regulations hurt the small guy. All these barriers, all the licenses, fees, taxes all hurt those that can least afford them.
Re:Can we quit pretending that it's car "sharing"? (Score:4, Informative)
Doesn't the driver who is working as an independent contractor for Uber have to pay these things? It is still income after all and subject to taxes. It's not like the drivers are being paid under the table
Also where I live not only is Uber 30% cheaper, but they have changed the attitude of our taxi drivers so as to no longer provide the worst service humanly possible while still legal in the US...Taxis in US metropolises have desperately needed competition for decades, and in many places have just been a borderline criminal enterprise grandfathered in to getting whatever they want.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
but basically the VAT, part of the social security and most insurance is due by the operator -- those who collect the fees and organize the service.
-In other words, mostly money to fuel a considerable bit of corruption in society. I'm not seeing the drawback here. And the insurance is still paid by the operators who are the drivers not Uber.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be saying that taxes are wrong. While that can be a consistent position, I've never seen anybody outline a working society without taxes, and I'm not going to be impressed by arguments based on that assumption.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uber is the scam: it is fueling a considerable bit of corruption where it operates by providing a mechanism for some drivers and service users to free ride on public goods like roads, safety and social security, which they use without paying their dues.
That's nonsense. You still have a variety of taxes which are paid for by either Uber or the vehicle operators. And roads and safety, genuine concerns of a government, just aren't that expensive.
Social security is a bottomless pit of need which I think contributes nothing to society past keeping a few of the bottom rungs of society from rioting. The actual practical part requires vastly less resources than what are actually expended, at least in name, on social security.
This is, of course, done by Uber with the only hope to survive until an IPO on a baseless appearance of huge 'valuation', created with small 'investments' in tiny shares, basically, another scam to siphon even more money. The new owners will, of course, be left to deal with the fines and the litigation, costs, that won't be emphasized in the IR section on the website.
So what? If someone wants to be stu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In common law, there's a principle whereby things are legal in the sense that the laws that cover them are deliberately unenforced. So yes, while there are state laws against it, the state government has chosen to not enforce these laws until new laws are written to accommodate these services, meaning that for the time being, it is legal.
Here's an article on the subject. Long story short, the governor wants to see the impact of these services before crafting new legislation that will govern their use, which
Re: (Score:2)
Long story short, it's illegal where you live, your disingenuity notwithstanding. And rightfully so - passengers do not get the insurance coverage they should. It sounds like your governor may be in violation of his oath of office, most states have some form of "uphold and defend" clause.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't argue the point that Uber drivers and/or Uber itself is breaking laws in many jurisdictions.
The point is that while some of those laws seem to serve a legitimate purpose (providing insurance protection for passengers, etc.) others are intended to protect the profits and often poor service of the taxi monopoly.
I don't believe Uber would succeed based on price alone; in fact at peak hours, Uber can cost as much as a taxi. Where Uber succeeds is in convenience and service. People ride Uber for a reason
Re:Can we quit pretending that it's car "sharing"? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't argue the point that Uber drivers and/or Uber itself is breaking laws in many jurisdictions.
The point is that while some of those laws seem to serve a legitimate purpose (providing insurance protection for passengers, etc.) others are intended to protect the profits and often poor service of the taxi monopoly.
Perhaps, but before the taxi industry was regulated it was a fucking nightmare. Trust me, you don't want that. No. Really. All the coolness of Uber is going to look like so much dumb-ass naivete if they succeed in making their unregulated service "legal". History... doomed to repeat it, and all that.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so famous people like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr were just criminals, not famous civil disobedience people.
Disobeying a law with the intent of bringing it to public attention in order to get the law changed IS civil disobedience. It's just that Uber's actions are more commercial in nature than past civil rights types.
Then again, given that the USA is no longer rated amongst the most business friendly due to our regulatory load, maybe we SHOULD look at fixing that.
Note, in the USA you can't su
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so famous people like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr were just criminals, not famous civil disobedience people.
Parks and King fought for equal treatment and recognition of basic human rights, not to make a profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Pursuit of happiness is a human right.
Making a profit is such.
Re: (Score:2)
How the fuck does this "company's" market capitalization rise to the level of $5 billions. It's like a cross between the game of musical chairs and herpes. It's fun while everyone is listening to the music and switching seats, but when your friends find out about the results of your medical tests, you may end up flat on your ass.
Same way the dotcom bubble happened. People that do not truly know what it takes to make something work are looking for the next hot thing to jump on to ride to profit, so they throw money at anything that looks different hoping some of it will work, and thus the hype builds. Uber is the sexy thing right now, and it's growth rate has actually influenced its growth rate in a feedback loop.
Once governments crack-down on Uber for what it is, a passenger livery company operating by ignoring passenger-liver
Re: (Score:2)
The government (at least where I am) is not going to crack-down on Uber in the way you describe. You left out one other option, which is that the passenger livery laws will become more lax in order to find a compromise that allows companies like Uber to exist and compete. The service is too popular to do away with, if you get rid of it, you look like you are abusing the wants and needs of the general populace.
I live in a notably large US city with very shitty public transportation options for a large numb
Re: (Score:2)
Uber provides the same coverage of service as a Taxi in most areas: if there is no money/safety in it for a Taxi driver, an Uber driver won't miraculously be encouraged to serve an area. The only exception is areas that have no viable taxi service (rural), and the on-call nature makes it something attractive for someone to get some extra cash.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This. The city I live in is somewhat large (6th largest in the US) and nobody cares who you pay to get from point a to point b. We haven't has any incidents either.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Can we also quit pretending that these "crackdowns" are about safety? They are 100% about money.
You're completely right in what you type, but extremely wrong in what you mean.
There are hired driver regulations in most countries. Some of the regulations are to increase local tax revenue, some are for road safety, some are for passenger safety, and some are for driver safety. However it is 100% about Uber trying to increase profit by illegally operating on lower costs than local regulation permits for hired driver organizations.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the regulations are to increase local tax revenue, some are for road safety, some are for passenger safety, and some are for driver safety
You missed that some of the regulations are also there solely to protect the existing companies through regulatory capture.
Re: (Score:2)
If there was no limitation on the number of taxis, the market would be flooded with taxi drivers and their wages would plummet (although that would be good for the customers). It would also create massive traffic jams. So it's not 100% about the money, maybe just 30%.
Also, if Uber can run taxis without permission from the authorities, why can't any Joe do the same?
Re: (Score:2)
Even if that did happen, wouldn't most of those taxi operators go out of business leaving only the ones with the best business model around? Surely, there aren't going to be a ton of cars on the street offering taxi services even if they never get any customers at all.
Realistically, what would happen is that many more taxi operators would take to the streets. Some would fail pretty quickly, some would stick around for a bit. Prices would be driven down and service quality would be driven up. Eventually,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it generally considered a bad thing for the government to artificially limit supply of a good or service in order to ensure cost stays high?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If there was no limitation on the number of taxis, the market would be flooded with taxi drivers and their wages would plummet (although that would be good for the customers). It would also create massive traffic jams. So it's not 100% about the money, maybe just 30%.
No "if" and "would" needed. The reason the limitations were created was because of the problems that did happen when the streets were flooded with taxi drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
If the market were flooded with low cost taxi services then the refiners fire of consumer assessment would weed out the poor service and prices would go up for the quality/reliable services.
Not in the U.S. In the U.S. people will gladly pay 20% less for a product with half the quality. Otherwise Wal-mart would be out of business.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Driving without 3rd party insurance being illegal has nothing to do with driving a taxi. You need 3rd party insurance to drive in any capacity.
Arresting them for driving without 3rd party insurance, but not for violating some taxi related law suggests that they were just targeting uber drivers and getting them on something else because driving for uber isn't in and of itself illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but there's one other aspect as well...
Disclosure time: I've previously used Uber a *lot* when I find myself in cities like San Francisco (way cheaper than a cab).
That said, if you go into a highly-bribery-prone totalitarian country, and try to 'disrupt' the way they generally do business (without greasing the correct palms first, that is), then don't be too surprised when your empl^H^H^H^Hcontractors start finding themselves in jail for breaking the local laws.
Speaking of which, what do you think t
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about HK, but they provided their own lawyers to drivers who were arrested in Paris.
Re: (Score:2)
Right - this is no longer hooking car-pooling folks up. This is a self-business taxi service for some.
Around here - the local city govt took Uber to task. The city had a problem years ago with unnamed drivers painting their cars yellow and going into business. Not following laws (put in place due to previous safety issues), criminals banned from service, non-insured drivers, unsafe cars, and other basic "cleaned up the system due to bad actors." One concern was these folks would just turn to Uber.
An agre
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing at all related to "sharing" about services like Uber.
We could call it 'doing favors', but the prostitution industry has trademarked that term.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you share a cab with the company too. The point is you are just putting person A out of business to employ person B.
Re:How is it not car sharing? (Score:5, Informative)
If I sign up, using my own car, how am I not sharing the car that I have with others?
Sharing does not imply I'm doing so for free; just that I am willing to let someone else use resources I own and could otherwise deny the use of...
We're you headed the same way they were when you gave them a ride? No, you specifically drove with the intention of picking up someonand drive them around for money? Then you are operating as a taxi.
Plenty of people borrow boats and cars in return for beer or pizza or other favors. That's sharing too. So too is Uber, even if it's more formalized and at a larger scale.
So if your friend want's to borrow your boat for the weekend, do you say "sure, but I have to drive the boat around for you"?
You'd think Slashdot of all places would hold people understanding how others can use technology to share what they have at a larger scale than possible before...
If you are giving/loaning something to someone for the express purpose of receiving money from them in exchange, you aren't sharing. You are selling (whether it be a good or a service).
Compare the definition of sell:
to exchange (something) for money
with share:
: to use, experience, or enjoy with others
There is a pretty big distinction between the two.
Re: (Score:2)
In collage I often gave people rides to work for 5 bucks for gas. And gas was only $1.xx back then so I made a small profit.
Ride sharing is legal and applies if:
1.) You were already going to the destination and 2.) Each passenger pays at most their pro-rata share of the expenses.
If you were making money doing it, you were breaking the law. Any legal ride sharing is losing money by at least 1/(number of passengers+1).
Re: (Score:2)
Sharing does not imply I'm doing so for free; just that I am willing to let someone else use resources I own and could otherwise deny the use of...
>
It does imply not doing it for profit or monetary return. And, to your other points, sharing is different from trading, you seem to conflate the two. Borrow boat in return for pizza would be a trade. Borrow boat in return from money would be monetary reimbursement, not a trade or a share.
In a true ride share, the rider would not carry the full expense, but rather share in a portion of it, and both rider and driver would have a common general destination or at least direction.
Re: (Score:3)
If I sign up, using my own car, how am I not sharing the car that I have with others?
So, generally, by your logic if I show up to work with my own tools I'm now in a tool sharing business?
For example, how is a home renovation contractor not in the "tool sharing business"?
Actually even more generically, this sounds like all jobs. The fry guy at mcdonalds. He's big into the the time sharing economy. He has spare time, he arranges to share some of it with mcdonalds in exchange for money.
Re: (Score:2)
If I sign up, using my own car, how am I not sharing the car that I have with others?
So, generally, by your logic if I show up to work with my own tools I'm now in a tool sharing business?
No, you also have to have an app. And even though many other contractors may have apps and still manage to operate according to state laws, you have to claim you are a technology company that provides tool sharing services and that you are then somehow immune from all the licensing, bonding, training, permitting and other regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
By the same token, if I connect People to booze for money, I'm not a bar, I'm beer sharing.
If I connect Prostitutes to Johns for a cut of the money, I'm not a Pimp, I'm body sharing.
So clearly someone giving rides for money isn't running a taxi service.
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely. We agree. Yet you seem to have missed my point.
The point is we only do that wordy nonsense with uber "ride sharing", which creates a sense that it's somehow different than other jobs.
But as you just agreed, its really not different after all.
So if we normally say the fry guy has a job working for mcdonalds, than lets just say an uber driver has a job working for uber.
What reason is there to say a fry guy has a job at mcdonalds while the uber driver is "part of the uber ride sharing economy" as if
The difference is same as contract work (Score:2)
So if we normally say the fry guy has a job working for mcdonalds, than lets just say an uber driver has a job working for uber.
Although that's sort of true, the difference is that the Uber driver comes and goes as he pleases, while Fry Guy has a fixed schedule he must meet or be fired.
Because the Uber driver works completely at his/her own desecration (auto-correct error left intact because I found it amusing), it's truly a more "sharing" arrangement where the Uber driver says "I have some free time now, I
Re: (Score:2)
Although that's sort of true, the difference is that the Uber driver comes and goes as he pleases, while Fry Guy has a fixed schedule he must meet or be fired.
That's a superficial difference. Lots of people have casual or flexible work hours. They still call them jobs. A self employed person comes and goes as he pleases, business owners, board members, day traders, etc ad nauseum. That's not novel or special.
where the Uber driver says "I have some free time now, I'm willing to share my car and drive now".
And everybody else just says "I feel like working now. So I'm going to work." They don't wander about saying "I feel like working now, so I'm going to share my skills, tools, time and be part of a new sharing economy".
Do you think sharing is not the right term for Air BnB hosts either? If not, why not?
Its no more "sharing" than a regular BnB
Re: (Score:2)
When even 'the oldest profession' is on the list of jobs that meet your criteria, we definitely do not have a 'new sharing economy'.
I never said it was new, but that list absolutely qualifies. When the definition fits but you don't like the wording, the problem is on your end - not the terminology.
What mystifies be is your objection to the term sharing, when that's exactly what is happening - those people are deciding when they share resources, as opposed to a more traditional job where you agree to share
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of people borrow boats and cars in return for beer or pizza or other favors. That's sharing too.
No, that's bartering. Giving something with the expectation of payment in return is not sharing.
Re: (Score:2)
You share some of the money you make with Uber.
They 'share' all of the risk with you.
First one, sure, they take your money. Second one? Not so much.
Uber is not about risk sharing, it's a money grab.
Article Title:Driving without insurance is Illegal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a Class B CDL with "P" endorsement (I can drive a buss with air brakes), and you are correct about state law up to a point. Purely private vehicles such as RV's and such can exceed the 13-Ton and length limits and still be driven by Class C license holders.
However local laws may apply here. In Dallas the city requires a "permit" they call a license in order to pick up paying passengers at the airports and other locations. You can drop off, just not pick anybody up. Even my CDL isn't good enough for
There's worse (Score:2)
People have definitely been arrested for lamer reasons. Growing gardens in the US is sometimes an offense, depending on if you have the licenses required to do so. It seems to be much more about money than safety.
No (Score:2)
But if you give them low-hanging fruit for arrestable offenses, they're going to take it.
Re:YES (Score:2)
Also here, one of the incumbent cab companies (DeSoto) has rebranded themselves as flywheel and gotten themselves a web app, so Uber is causing some positive response from the taxi industry here at least....I would still take a real cab over an Uber car given the choice myself
-I'm just sayin'
How is Uber a ride sharing service? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean can I get a ride from them, without paying, and in return in the future give a ride to somebody else? No.... If I could, I would be first in line defending them.
It's a damn taxi service with an app......that is all it is. And currently, the reason they can offer lower prices than most local taxi services in the West is because they don't pay the limited and expensive taxi plates, their drivers aren't tested and given a taxi license (that is usually more expensive than a regular license), they do not belong to some sort of taxi association (which gives you access to their territory, get hails etc.), their cars do not go though taxi inspections.......Which is not to say that normal taxi service is more secure or anything, these are all just hidden forms of taxation who's costs are passed along to the clients.
They are competing unfairly and all profits go to Uber....we the taxpayers get screwed in the end because Uber is not paying their fair share......
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uber is no saint here - they're profiting from bypassing a broken system (actually they're not profiting at the moment - they're slowly going broke).
However, Uber is not the evil enemy here either. They've simply identified a situation where the state has imposed restrictions on a marketplace, and the marketplace has become disproportionately expensive and prone to corruption.
The taxi drivers are not at fault. They have to charge ludicrous fees because th
A cab is a cab is a cab. (Score:2)
If you take money to take some one in a vehicle from point a to point b you are a cab driver. It's really simple. Why do people think it should be any different if you use an app?
Legality aside... (Score:2)
uber costs more than taxis in Hong Kong (Score:2)
but they are far more professional.
Gogo van is the cheap one!
Re:Taking gas money (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you taking the trip with them because you both happen to be going to the same destination, or are you simply driving them to the destination to get the money - and not just gas money, but an amount much greater than your total costs, to compensate you for your time?
Trust me, courts are not so stupid as to not see the difference between A) sharing the costs of an activity, and B) performing an activity as a for-profit for-hire service.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should ask that question to your insurance provider - yes, there is a line that is crossed, generally if you are not soliciting for work then you are on one side of it, and if you are soliciting for work then you are on the other side of it. If your friend can call you up at any time and get a lift from A to B, in return for remuneration of some sort, then your insurance company will probably start looking at that as a business venture sooner rather than later, and will start requiring you to t
Re:Taking gas money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Taking gas money (Score:5, Interesting)
Why was it made illegal again? To protect the taxi industry. That's it. Safety, insurance, etc were tacked on later, but the scarcity was created solely to protect the taxi industry - not the drivers, the plate holders
Do you see any other path to breaking the taxi industry monopoly other than disobedience? How?
The law is a living thing and constantly subject to interpretation and modification. Laws come and go, what is illegal comes and goes. Often, very often, the ONLY way to change the law is to break it first, making breaking it popular, and the lawmakers will come around.
Is it still illegal for woman to vote? Smoke a joint?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
blatantly illegal activities any less illegal.
Why was it made illegal again? To protect the taxi industry.
Have you heard of a thing called taxes? It is something you pay when you earn an income as opposed to when you give things away for free. Stop shilling for Ûber
Re: (Score:2)
Why was it made illegal again? To protect the taxi industry.
And lucky for you, because you are operating a Taxi if you are doing it.
The FAA has exactly the same rules about commercial flights, and yet oddly, there doesn't seem to be any air taxi cartel.
You can attribute it to the taxi cartel if you want. I would be willing to bet that these laws predate taxis and probably go all the way back to the days of horse drawn carriages.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually you have that backwards.
It was safety, protectionism was tacked on later and this is evidenced by places where there is no taxi protectionism like London where Minicabbing has been done for decades. The famous London black cabs have not been killed by pimply teens mincabbing in a VW Lupo who dont know where they're going for some strange reason.
To figure this out you need to s
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really you think an Uber taxi monopoly is somehow better than a local government one...
You are incorrectly assuming Uber will be a monopoly, possibly just because the taxi cartel was one. Uber already has competition in this very same marketplace from Lyft. Furthermore, just because the taxi companies' current monopoly would be broken doesn't mean the taxi companies simply go away. They can adapt their model to compete with Uber and Lyft. There's room for more than one revenue model in the marketplace, but the government needs to back down the level of regulation so that people have room to i
Re: (Score:2)
You really charge your friends gas money? Why don't you just do the normal "I pay for the gas, you pay for the food" arrangement if funds are that tight?
Re: (Score:2)
LOL ... hasn't this been settled since the 70s? Ass, grass, or cash.
I've seen the bumper sticker and everything.
The 70s were a bit of a blur since I was barely in grade school by the end of them.
Re: (Score:2)
So if I take gas money from a friend on a trip am I a chauffeur? Do I need insurance? I bet that there have been instances of people being sued for the if your in an accident.
You are going too far away. Friends are people you know. Uber customers often time are not. However, there are instances that friends becomes ex-friends and sue the other after an accident. Easiest way to see is all those Judge shows :P If you want more reliable examples, look for small claim court cases and/or arbitrary.
Re: (Score:2)
So if I take gas money from a friend on a trip am I a chauffeur?
If your friend asks you to take him somewhere, and he offers you a couple of dollars for gas, that's okay.
If you mention that you're going somewhere, and your friend asks to ride with you and offers gas money, that's okay too.
If you register to use an app that says, "I'll take anyone anywhere they want to go for $X," then you're soliciting for fares, which is generally regarded as a commercial activity. Depending on your location, you may need a commercial driver's license and/or commercial registration and
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you need insurance, that's not even a question. Do you need commercial insurancce? Well, probably not. Because, among other things, charging only gas money makes it clear that it's not a commercial activity. However, note that people make money driving for Uber.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In my limited experience and biased view, it seems most likely that the existent taxi companies got together to push the police force to perceive this as a problem out of scope of it's actual impact. Again, I wouldn't be surprised if it's because they bribed the police to tackle their competition. It's always seemed like bribes are required to make chinese society function, and depending on the venue, that's even more true in hong kong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It saddens me that this post is scored 0, as I think you've accurately summed up the situation. Uber is what happens when the state imposes limits on a free market. By restricting the licences, the sequence of events is well known and documented:
1. The market becomes closed.
2. The licences become a commodity.
3. The value of those licences climbs disproportionately to the value of the service.
4. Gradually, the price of the service rises above CPI due to the prohibitively expensive licences.
5. As