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.
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.
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.
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.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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...
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?
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.
"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
Since there is more than one person involved, different individuals can hold different beliefs?
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
In Nashville:
http://www.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.
Do you have ESP?
Yes, in the UK private hire vehicles must be licensed, as must the driver and the operator.
https://www.gov.uk/government/...
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.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
"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.
The tech industry went through this argument before, and lost (mostly). Claiming that everyone is an "independent contractor", and thereby avoiding any responsibility for their actions or any responsibility to them as employees, has been argued for years. Uber can claim that they are "only" the communications broker, and they have nothing to do with actual rides in actual cars, but if they weren't organizing rides in cars there would be no reason for their communications, so yes, they're a cab company.
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
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
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.
Do you have ESP?
It is funny that a service that allows anyone who wants it to enter a closed market represents unfair competition.
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)
But taking taxis in NYC can apparently sometimes suck so much that people will pay extra to ride around in some random dude's car. They aren't even undercutting the competition on price. They are purely succeeding on quality of service (and availability).
Bottles.
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.
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. But seeing as Phuket is an unregulated "free" market for taxis and regulation is bad, this must be a good thing. Evil regulation means it costs a whopping 400 baht to drive 30 KM from the BKK airport to the city centre, the good and unquestionable free market means that a taxi driver in Phuket wont even turn on the engine for less than 200 baht... Go free market. I'll head you off at the pass, if you say "but that isn't the 'true' free market" and give you a pre-emptive WHOOOOSH. This is what a truly unrestricted market becomes because people aren't rational.
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.