Slashdot Mirror
Court Orders Uber To Shut Down In Spain
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.
Taxi monopolies: gov't regs BAD
Internet monopolies: gov't regs GOOD
Somebody explain?
While you're at it, explain why the "Cops are evil racist pigs" people tend to want to limit guns to only police...
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.
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!
... the spanish inquisition.
Did you not even make it half way through TFS in your race to be frist?
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Drivers "lack the administrative authorisation to carry out the job, and the activity they carry out constitutes unfair competition..."
So they lack the "administrative authorisation".
In other words, the proper corrupt palms haven't been greased yet.
I really wish we could stop sitting around bullshitting ourselves over the traditional cab companies, pretending those organizations didn't come to power or remain in power by using corruption.
I'd say it's pretty well evidenced here by the excuses used to try and shut down any non-traditional competition.
Oh, and screw what the customer wants. Like their opinion matters.
I've always wondered what makes some competition fair and other not fair. Bribing officials and fraud seem unfair (although "illegal" seems more accurate). You could claim Uber, Lyft, and the like evade problematic laws and that is unfair to law abiding competitors. If, for example, ride-sharing rides don't pay a tax on commercial rides, well that doesn't seem right. I might not like the tax but that's a different story, you still need to pay it until the law changes. Just offering lower prices, even loss-leading prices, would be tough for the guy on the receiving end but that's not unfair.
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.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
How about conservatives who think that government has no place telling people who can and can't own a gun, but think it should tell people who can and can't have an abortion. And liberals who think just the opposite.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
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.
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.
Imagine all the people...
That's corporatism not capitalism.
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?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Having driven carefully for a while in the UK, my car insurance is quite low nowadays. However, it doesn't cover commercial use of the car. So if I drive a paying passenger, neither the car, nor I, nor the passenger, nor anyone I hit, will be insured. That's driving without insurance.
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.
1. People put out a product in a market that is completely free.
2. A couple of assholes abuse it and hurt or kill people.
3. People demand regulation.
4. Business fight tooth and nail against and come up with plenty of BS reasons.
5. Businesses eventually get regulated.
6. Businesses finally figure out that regulation creates barriers to entry of new firms and inflated profits. They (mostly) enjoy regulations behind close doors but in public, rail against them and cry how it makes business so difficult.
7. A disruptive technology or service arrives and BINGO - regulations to the rescue.
"The era in which one group of people will be able to control the commercial activities of third parties is coming to a close."
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 i want respected, no matter what you young guys think of them. The law for example enforcing some taxi standard by the government is among those I applaud (in my country there is no artificial limit on the amount of who may be a taxi, there is only requirement on driver license, insurance requirement, and checks on metering system by the government metering entity, so that you cannot make your system add the money "quicker").
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
It doesn't sound that way at all, you're just engaging in exactly the same kind of dishonest reductionist strawman argument that the GP is. And no, you're not doing it on purpose to prove a point. You're just a hypocrite.
Since there is more than one person involved, different individuals can hold different beliefs?
You appear to be advocating replacing control by local oligopolies and local monopolies with control by a national monopoly, the government. This means, taking the worst interpretation for each, replacing abusive pricing and poor service with political censorship and poor service. Not a wise choice.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
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
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.
What? No, that's not the point. The point is government is supposed to regulate the abuse of monopoly power, not create monopoly power with regulations.
Yes, because less guns means less gun violence.
Yes, in the UK private hire vehicles must be licensed, as must the driver and the operator.
https://www.gov.uk/government/...
"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... this is about *Spanish* taxis. I know them fairly well and you can bet no thing you said is of application here.
I'm pretty sure if there were no guns it wouldn't be possible to have gun violence but I might have to check my numbers on this one
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.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
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 individuals to operate as unlicensed taxis, it empowers collectives (insurance companies and governments) to identify them (e.g. license plate recognition and cellphone tracking).
We are 20 years into the Internet age and I don't see a big net shift in individual empowerment. If anything, Big Data empowers Big Business and Big Government.
Big Internet have to lean on regs in order to shut down competition.
Big Taxi are leaning on regs to shut down competition.
Since we couldn't stop lobbying and such in the former, we decided to take it out of everyone's hands and put it in gov't's hands.
I don't think Big Taxi has enough muscle to make gov't do the monopolizing for them, but if it comes down to that, we may very well start demanding an initiative to have Public transportation developed, with optimists projecting cheap service as a result.
Oh wait, we already have that.
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-20140814143441.html
http://www.lne.es/oviedo/2014/07/08/taxis-bloquean-estacion-protesta-entrada/1611558.html
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.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
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.
Slashdotters, who reduce every complicated political issue to a series of half-witted binary options. Are we done yet?
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.
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 assisted by government regulation.
I don't read AC A human right
But the problem is not "gun violence", it is "violence". Here in Canada, "gun suicide" rate dropped after the C-68 bill in the early 90's, but overall, the suicide rate remained the same. Take the gun, and criminals will start using knives. Take the knives, and criminals will start using blunt objects...
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.
Can you show evidence of this beyond some random wordpress blog?
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
Because we do not look only at the libtard "gun violence" statistics, but the broader "violence" in general. The worst is that a thug shot by a home owner while breaking in will actually be accounted as "gun violence", where it is truly defensive use of a gun. [and YES, I do support shooting petty home breaking thugs if they do not comply with my orders to leave my dwelling on the spot.]
Actually, only straight young white men can be criminals, everybody else are just "gentle giants" and/or a victim of WASP patriarch oppression and entitled to use violence.
The same peace-talker will probably be anti-military as well...
Actually, local regs is what gave Big ISP their monopoly... The problem is not net-neutrality, the problem is local government enforce telco monopolies.
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 incidents where the development schedule is so slowed that the iPhone comes along and somebody releases an app for that does what a $10k medical device would do(provide assistance to somebody blind, deaf, or otherwise disabled), for a total that rounds to $500.
Yet because it's not licensed they'll happily buy the crappy $10k device that is and absolute won't pay for the device that's almost 2 orders of magnitude cheaper.
I don't read AC A human right
My question is how insurance companies are dealing with it.
For the most part, apparently, they're hanging drivers out to dry.
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 me if I were a passenger in an illegal taxi when injured.
My ownership (or lack thereof) of a firearm in no way infringes on the rights of another individual. The termination of another individual's life most definitely infringes on the rights of that individual.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It is no coincidence that the places were Uber was most succesful are the places where the Taxi costs are the most ridiculous. In the case of Spain, it was the Taxis in Barcelona, who have to pay a huge fee to the nazi mafia that pose as politicians, so their fares are the most expensive in the country. Uber becomes illegal because nobody in his sane mind would call a taxi in Barcelona if there is any other choice available, and that means the mafia would get less money to divert to Andorra. It is yet again a case of greed killing the children of the golden eggs, but spanish politicians are masters at destroying industry. The problem again is not Uber nor the taxi drivers, but their politicians and the brainwashed morons that keep voting people that close hospitals and soup kitchens at the same time that pour thousands of millions of euros in digging a fucking hole that goes from the city to an airport that was already pretty well connected, possibly the worst case of Porking in the story of humankind.
If this world were fair, spanish people would be living in a hell much worse than the one they are currently experience, because they are fucking idiots. And I do not mean the kind, benevolent, and well-intentioned type of idiots that make you feel bad when someone takes advantage of them, but fastidious and envious idiots that are constantly sabotaging and damaging each other and themselves, so that the best one can hope is to move away and do not let them drag you to into their soon-to-become failed state. Kind of like Detroit or Zimbabwe.
Never ever let socialists run a country, because they do more lasting damage than a fucking atomic bomb. Socialism destroys the economy of a country and turn their population into incompetent, ignorant, lazy, and envious bastards that will never be able to live by their own means except through delinquency, as it is more productive than working. In fact, the law is written in such a way that you cannot do anything against thieves. Specifically in Barcelona delinquency is deemed "legal", which is why it is on the black list of cities a tourist should never visit. But even if you could ignore the thieves, living under a socialist regime means you have to pay outrageous prices for EVERYTHING, including using the roads or the WC, because they are monopoly of the most corrupt politicians you will ever find, as they have absolute power over everything. Uber was making people notice how overpriced the Taxis really are in Barcelona, so the mafia could not tolerate it.
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.
XDInd
Kinda like our anti drug laws have made all drug problems go away, right?
XDInd
The situation has been exposed: traditional taxi services have been suffering from a monopoly position, and there is clearly room for competition that reworks their model into something more fair for the drivers, and as a good opportunity for a startup that wants to make it happen. The demand is there, it just takes a group with the right plan to capitalize on the opportunity.
Twinstiq, game news
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.
And it's hilarious you try and bring up the food industry as an example. What would you do if they decided to bring "regulation" to the food processing industry in the US? Suddenly, you would have to actually pay employees a real (read: regulated) salary to pick tomatoes rather than paying substandard rates to illegal migrant workers, and your produce would be $20/pound as a result.
So, go ahead. Tell me exactly who you would be rooting for in that scenario, since you're seemingly all about more regulation while pointing to a highly unregulated industry as an example.
Believe me we ARE thinking of this nonsense. We're more thinking how the fuck did this nonsense get to the level it is today with regulation for regulation's sake. You know, like the fact that we have laws wrapped around giving another human being a ride in a car...
And it's hilarious you try and bring up the food industry as an example. What would you do if they decided to bring "regulation" to the food processing industry in the US? Suddenly, you would have to actually pay employees a real (read: regulated) salary to pick tomatoes rather than paying substandard rates to illegal migrant workers, and your produce would be $20/pound as a result.
I would not do anything, I do not live in the US, I do not care.
Where I live, the regulation works and prevents people from dying due to bad food production practices. It also forces food companies to produce food that meets minimum quality standards.
Yes, I pay premium price for my quality fruit and meat, I prefer that way than to start eating food that is half plastic and half chemicals.
Believe me we ARE thinking of this nonsense. We're more thinking how the fuck did this nonsense get to the level it is today with regulation for regulation's sake. You know, like the fact that we have laws wrapped around giving another human being a ride in a car...
You can give car rides to whoever you want, the moment you start making it a service to the others then your service must be regulated.
(notice the distinction between service and favour?)
It is funny that a service that allows anyone who wants it to enter a closed market represents unfair competition.
One thing that NOBODY is pointing out about govermnet regulations and taxi firms in the US is this:
In order to have their taxi licenses, companies have to have a minimum number of handicap-accessible vehicle available at all times.
Uber, Lyft, and presumably other companies are skirting around these ADA requirements by trying to tear down the system keeping this in place. There are exactly ZERO handicap-accessible Uber and Lyf veicles IN THE WORLD.
By saying that the only thing taxis are good for are trips to and from the airport is saying that you don't give a shit about handicap-accessible transportation.
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 or cableco)
And it's hilarious you try and bring up the food industry as an example. What would you do if they decided to bring "regulation" to the food processing industry in the US? Suddenly, you would have to actually pay employees a real (read: regulated) salary to pick tomatoes rather than paying substandard rates to illegal migrant workers, and your produce would be $20/pound as a result.
I would not do anything, I do not live in the US, I do not care.
Where I live, the regulation works and prevents people from dying due to bad food production practices. It also forces food companies to produce food that meets minimum quality standards. Yes, I pay premium price for my quality fruit and meat, I prefer that way than to start eating food that is half plastic and half chemicals.
And we have similar food safety regulations in the US, but I wasn't referring to those. I was referring to the highly unregulated part of the industry that allows illegal migrant workers to provide food processing services (i.e. picking) for pennies compared to what they would have to pay a regulated worker.
The end result is we have cheap produce. Unfortunately, almost all of it is GMO (yet another corrupt industry that likes to mandate the use of GMO), but that's for another discussion. And yes, I do see the value in paying for organic non-GMO food vs. "plastic", but that is you and I. We do not represent everyone else.
Believe me we ARE thinking of this nonsense. We're more thinking how the fuck did this nonsense get to the level it is today with regulation for regulation's sake. You know, like the fact that we have laws wrapped around giving another human being a ride in a car...
You can give car rides to whoever you want, the moment you start making it a service to the others then your service must be regulated. (notice the distinction between service and favour?)
If I can give car rides to whoever I want, then I will. I'll even charge for gas. I should, I paid for it. The "others" I offer it to are my co-workers, or people who work in the same area. Now, I want you to notice the distinction between a service and a fucking carpool, and explain to me why both are legal, but only one is highly regulated. Break both of them down, and they're the same damn thing.
If I can give car rides to whoever I want, then I will. I'll even charge for gas. I should, I paid for it. The "others" I offer it to are my co-workers, or people who work in the same area. Now, I want you to notice the distinction between a service and a fucking carpool, and explain to me why both are legal, but only one is highly regulated. Break both of them down, and they're the same damn thing.
The way I see it, the difference is that in a service, the receiving party has the expectancy of a certain minimum quality for the service. I also do carpool and I also charge for the gas, the big difference is that I do not advertise my carpool as a service. For example, if I make a commitment to transport a certain individual with me in my car and at the scheduled hour I do not show up, I do not have any explanations to make to the other person. Sure, I'll come through as a f**king a***ole to the other one but that's it.
Question, in Uber, if the Uber taxi does not show up, aren't you going to complain? Isn't there a service put into place to answer those complaints? Well, for me that ends our discussion, doesn't it?
Also, from Uber itself:
https://www.uber.com/legal/ind...
These terms and conditions ("User Terms") apply to your visit to and your use of our website at www.uber.com (the "Website"), the Service and the Application (as defined below), as well as to all information, recommendations and/or services provided to you on or through the Website, the Service and the Application.
I wonder what is this "the Service" they keep talking about? :)
For example, Jamaica.
Except they get most of their guns illegally from the US.
Less guns means less gun violence.
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.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
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 duck, its a duck). Basically Uber cant palm off it's responsibilities or liabilities in a shrink wrap contract.
So the Uber driver causes a 4 car pileup with serious injuries, 3 people in the hospital at least. The insurance company will pay out the claims for all cars and injuries with the possible exception of the Uber drivers car (as private insurance does not cover commercial use and that the driver is not licensed as a taxi driver). However all insurers will be legally permitted to go after Uber to cover all of their costs, car insurers, health insurers and property insurers, the government as well as they're a health insurer in Australia and local/state governments have to foot the road and infrastructure repair costs.
Basically, one serious accident is enough to send them broke (and yes, I know how much Uber has in the bank... Accidents are that expensive) if not enough to have the CEO and directors indicted on criminal negligence charges (yeah, we do that in Australia).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Taxi monopolies: gov't regs BAD
Internet monopolies: gov't regs GOOD
Somebody explain?
While you're at it, explain why the "Cops are evil racist pigs" people tend to want to limit guns to only police...
The Stawman is very powerful in you. The false equivalences make me quiver!
Now get back to yout Ted Nugent blog and get your daily dose of poopypant's wisdom.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
oh! oh! i has one:
Pro-lifers that only care about the child before birth. After a child has left the womb, they're on their own.
Well duh! Who the fuck says we have to support those anchor babies and their welfare queen mothers? Feel free to add your own social conservative strawbabies.
Infants should get a job and stop being a drain on the economy!
Interestingly enough, that bastion of ethics - Newt Gingrich - proposed reopening orphanages. Which provided character building work for those little bastards.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Slashdotters, who reduce every complicated political issue to a series of half-witted binary options. Are we done yet?
Hey, you did pretty good yourself there!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The problem is the progressives who brought us the attitude that a fetus is not a person are now contemplating that a baby is not a person until its a few years old.
You must have gotten that citation form a shortwave radio.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
violence does not require a gun... your fantasy land cannot exist.
Then again, I'd cetainly prefer to reach out and touch the guy coming at me with a knife, with my semi-auto.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Great point! Oh, except they explicitly specificed gun violence, which completely invalidates your comment...
Yeah, but you should see th estyats on Masking tape violence. Next thing you know, the leeeburuls will want us to ban that!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
And when exactly does the fetus magically get anointed with persondom?
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Basically Uber cant palm off it's responsibilities or liabilities in a shrink wrap contract.
This simply isn't true. Australia operates under contract law, and unless a term is illegal or "unconscionable" to the public, they will not alter that. There are many ways lawyers can arrange this agreement to severely limit Uber's liability. For example, they could force both parties using the app to agree to terms limiting the right to sue to a certain jurisdiction friendly to them.
under Australian law if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck
This is not a proper use of this analogy. The contract defines the terms of the relationship, and unless they are breaching that, is valid. This is why contract staff can exist and they aren't called employees, even though they "quack like one".
And you just said I was right.
A contract has to be legal, companies cannot defer their duty of care in a contract (otherwise you'd see every mining and transport company doing this with their EBA's to reduce their liabilty insurance costs).
No, as long as Uber is facilitating the service they are liable. The same as any other taxi company except Uber do not get the same protections because they are operating outside the law.
Shrinkwrap contracts are not enforceable in Australia. They cant simply force the app user to agree to a limitation to sue. Besides, it wont be the app user that hits them. It will be the insurers and this is where it gets interesting, what protects normal taxi companies against these lawsuits are two fold, 1. they have sufficient insurance, 2. The law protects them, limiting liability. Uber fails on both these counts. The entirely of the contract needs to be explained to you before you can agree to it. You cant even get a bank account here without being read a full page document outlining the key responsibilities of both parties.
Actually it is. Uber facilitates the organisation and the payment, this in effect makes it a taxi company. Attempting to claim they aren't a taxi company when they advertise themselves as such will be considered at best, "misleading conduct" if not outright fraud. The fact they use contractual drivers does not change this (cluebat, normal taxi companies use drivers con a ontract or casual basis, in fact few will be FT or PT employees).
Contracts do not trump Australian law, as you stated in your second sentence.
If Uber acts like a taxi company, it will be treated like one in the eyes of the law.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
A step against UBER..
Kavita
Birth turns out to be a good dividing line. Alternately, we could say after the first trimester, without affecting things much, but that is hard to determine. Sperm getting into the egg would raise far too many problems, such as the need for forensic analysis of late periods.
Historically, abortion has not been murder. It would be a separate crime and carry smaller penalties anywhere I know of. (Counterexamples would be welcomed.)
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
We're not going to get rid of guns with laws here any time soon, since there's just too many out there. Some other countries started with far fewer guns in private hands, and laws were able to deal with the ones that were there.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
And those countries are also typically pretty far from lawless areas, or have rather oppressive governments. If we were to try anything like that, we'd need to either build a wall across our southern border, or start marching south to put an end to the cartels.
XDInd
^^^ AC is either an outright liar, probably schilling for the taxi's; or just a troll who doesn't actually use Uber.
In case anyone honestly thinks this is an issue, and have actually missed it: If you open the app and tap on the promos icon in the upper-right, one of the banners is for WAVs, short for wheelchair-accessable vehicles. Tap on that, and it'll show you the code, currently "WAVSF" that will enable the feature. You can then summon WAVs just like any other Uber variant.
Also, every public transit vehicle, besides the historical relics that are just here still as curiosities for tourists, is wheelchair-accessable. There's also municipal paratransit available.
Only problem is there will probably be a clause in the person's insurance contract stipulating vehicle not to be used for work other than going to and leaving work to go home.
Uber would be considered working
Odds are the insurance company would balk and claim they don't have to pay out to anyone. It would go to court and ultimately they would lose, problem is after that the driver has been dropped for insurance and no insurance company would touch him