Over 30 Uber Cars Impounded In Cape Town

An anonymous reader writes Uber's in trouble again: 34 drivers in Cape Town, South Africa have had their cars impounded after being caught driving without a metered taxi permit. Uber says that the process of getting permits is subject to delays and drivers have been left in limbo due to a moratorium on new licenses last year. Cape Town says that it's been clear all along about what Uber drivers need to operate in the city and it's making no exceptions. Uber first arrived in Cape Town in 2013.

Comments

Give Uber a dictionary

[TBoon]

Give Uber a dictionary, and highlight the definition of the word "taxi".

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

What has been set in stone has been set in stone.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

google:

taxi
taksi/
noun
a motor vehicle licensed to transport passengers in return for payment of a fare and typically fitted with a taximeter.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

But but but..... it's all about the sharing economy. People are just ride sharing. I find is so amazingly convenient that someone is always going exactly where I need to go. Sharing a ride is some much better than being picked up by an random gypsy cab.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Shinobi]

While your faith in the religion of liberretardianism sounds fun, history empirically proves you 100% wrong.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[mwvdlee]

How about just giving Uber a large kick in the behind.
These guys seem to be intentionally breaking laws continuously.
At some point they can only be labeled as a criminal organisation.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[epyT-R]

Yes, because the law defines reality and morality, right? WTF..

I don't get why people hate uber so much.. If you don't like their price gouging, don't use them. It's not like taxis are any less of a ripoff these days.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[91degrees]

South Africa isn't a libertarian, pure capitalist state. You do need to be licensed just to charge someone for a ride.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[mwvdlee]

People hate Uber not just because they're breaking the law, but exactly because they are amoral.

Just read their Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... and try saying with a straight face that how Uber is operating is OK.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that taxis are expensive but that doesn't justify Uber not paying the same fees and taxes as taxis do. For instance, taxes are used to pay for roads and streets and higher taxation on professional use (transport of goods and people) is an attempt to make the system more fair by making those who use roads and streets more pay more. This might of course not be the specific case in America (I don't live there) but the general idea in practically all countries is that if you benefit more from what everybody needs that is funded by taxes, you pay more. An even more trivial example: If you have more property, you benefit more from the police and fire department. There is simply no way to provide that privately - nonsense ideas such as relying entirely on security guards and insurance only shows that whoever proposes that doesn't see the bigger picture. If there is no policing in an area, the value of your property goes down even if you personally ensure that the precise area which belongs to you is secured privately (and how could you security guards have authority elsewhere? To do what? Confront suspicious people?). And fire departments exist because it benefits everyone nearby to put out a fire as soon as possible because (1) fires spread and (2) smoke damage to buildings nearby happens anyway. Providing a system with private fire departments only putting out fires and charging for it simply doesn't work because not everyone would get insurance that would pay for it and if you've just had your house destroyed in a fire and don't have insurance, it's not likely that you'll be able to pay for putting it out let alone pay compensation for smoke damage to houses nearby.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[epyT-R]

Amoral or immoral? there's a difference. Breaking immoral law is not immoral. Just because a bunch of government bureaucrats and their protection racket lobbyists are whining that someone is bypassing law designed to prevent competition doesn't mean it's a bad thing. If uber is playing games with fees and the like, then don't use them. There are plenty of other options.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[epyT-R]

I didn't say that it was or that it should be, nor does the lack of a required license to charge for rides equate to such a state.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[epyT-R]

oh wait, that's right, the states are cracking down on those options too.. guess you're back to being ripped off by taxis.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[epyT-R]

My point is that none of them should be paying these fees. If you want to fund roads publicly, itemize it as a portion of income tax and drop the rest of the steep fees associated with vehicles ($60 for a plastic card that grants a driving 'privilege'? It should be $2.50). The 'big pot' style slushfunding you advocate is where all the waste comes from. I guess my definition of fairness is different from yours. Different groups paying different amounts creates its own castes, with those at the top having to pay more and more as more and more regs pile up over time. Then there's ever increasing bureaucracy which adds its own cost. The current USA federal budget is something close to 20 TRILLION dollars, a lot of that borrowed. There's plenty of money to fund all the roads needed, but the left in this country are unwilling to cut the fat from anything, and the neo-right are too interested in shielding the loopholes that protect the wealthy from paying what they'd normally pay under the current system. The net result is that the middle class and poor fund their own financial and legal servitude. If independents are able to eviscerate the protected markets, that means there's fat to be cut that will eventually save people money. This isn't just about uber, but about any independent offering the same services.

I swear, people suck at reading comprehension sometimes, that or they're deliberately misinterpreting. I don't get why people around here equate any criticism of regulation to anarcho capitalism and then fire off the ad hominems based on that strawman.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Aighearach]

Give the state a dictionary, and highlight the definitions of the words "capitalism" and "liberty." We are adults. We shouldn't need to be 'licensed' just to charge someone for a ride.

Sorry kiddo, I've read my Adam Smith. You might be interested to know that "Capitalism" is the system where the government creates a level playing field for entrants to an industry... by regulating it so that everything operates according to known, predictable rules.

What you're advocating is called "feudalism," where everybody just does what they want, meaning that whoever has the most money forces everybody else out of business through whatever unfair practices are available.

As for Liberty, over thousands of years nobody has really been able to agree what it means, so just looking in a dictionary isn't going to do much good. You may or may not receive a top shelf explanation of the various philosophical meanings of the highly abstract concept, but it is guaranteed to be too high level to be of use here. What about the Liberty of the taxi operator who is complying with the community standards and expectations, but being forced out of his livelihood by a company spiteful of the community's right to have local rules and a level playing field?

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[epyT-R]

Yes, except 'level playing field' doesn't include enabling monopolies that build decrepit, out of date protection rackets that get in the way of innovation. No, I am not arguing for feudalism.

Communal right to what? If the community hates the service for whatever reason, it will die. It's the over regulation that kills any potential replacements. Why do you think Uber (and others) have sprung up at all? Obviously because their founders saw opportunity and the community is at least somewhat interested in a shake up. If the community wasn't interested, they'd all have gone out of business already. Government bureaucrats are agitating because the lobbyists of the established systems are bitching. What's wrong with taxi services competing with each other to offer the best service at the lowest price?

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been 100% proven wrong that worker control of the means of production fails? The supermarket I use every week, Waitrose - part of the John Lewis Partnership - must be merely one of my weird dreams!

Or maybe you mean the US definition of socialism, which is something like "any regime that's considered anti-American in some way". In which case, no, there are quite a lot of successful European social democratic regimes.

Or maybe you mean Soviet Communism. In which case, yeah, that failed once - but, as my Russian grandfather used to say, "Soviet Communism failed once and was rescued by corrupt bureaucrats already part of its power edifice. American Capitalism fails about once every 30 years and is rescued by its own government each time. Your monetary system is even run by the government now. You are not capitalist, even as you sell capitalism to the world."

Or maybe you're forming a false dichotomy because you have some hard-on for Uber, though it acts immorally in breaking democratic law formed to prevent the harm once caused by unregulated taxi services, and acts immorally in its handling of the competition. As for, "Don't do business with them!" only a libertardian (as Shinobi says) would accept that as a sufficient approach toward an entity that breaks the law. If Uber wants to buy up its own private city with its own private infrastructure, and that infrastructure is as safe and healthy as that provided by regulation - and not say, like Hong Kong's Kowloon - I'll give serious consideration to any argument it makes that it should be entitled to drive its taxis there. Until then, it can stop behaving like an antisocial boy wonder.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[epyT-R]

1. That's what socialists say socialism is, but that's not what it really is. It's still control of the means of production by others, except they claim to answer to the workers but don't, since what's said in certain, 200+yo legal paperwork is ignored whenever it's inconvenient. What happens in the USA is the worst of both worlds: we have government meddling AND corporate greed, passing the puck back and forth at the top of the pyramid. Each sells access to what the other legally cannot. The currency can be the dollar, or favor, or exclusivity. The wealthy cannot rule over the proles without a big state to impose on their liberty and finances. What better way to do that than slowly increasing tax, inflation, and artificial barriers to opportunity?

2. The US government is full of hypocrites and there is no shortage in other nations either. Most libertarians would agree with you here.

3. Soviet communism is what trainwrecked most of eastern europe and several asian countries whose preexisting regimes favored heavy handed states anyway. Then there's the self-loathing cultures it created in places like sweden. I hardly call any of this a success.

4. I have no hard on for any particular company. An even playing field means the state isn't picking winners and losers or forming exclusive clubs that have to be bought into, either outright with cash, or with political lobbying. As long as vehicles meet safety regs (which is required of every vehicle anyway), what's wrong with some competition? You are arguing circular reasoning. The law is what needs to change here. Loosening the regs on private taxis would force the ones currently protected to have to compete. There's nothing wrong with that but that's why their lobbyists bitch.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, except 'level playing field' doesn't include enabling monopolies that build decrepit, out of date protection rackets that get in the way of innovation.

So you're arguing for liberty when it's something you want, and regulation when it's something you don't. Got it.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

As I said, I don't live in the US so I'm used to a not entirely dysfunctional state. I didn't say it was fair. I said it was an attempt to make the system more fair and I believe that you too prefer a system in which you pay in proportion to how much you benefit from the system. However, it's practically impossible to construct a perfectly fair system so society will always be reconstructing the current system in an attempt to do so and in the process everyone will look for their self-interests more than anything else. Apart from "itemization" you don't seem to propose any better system and "cut fat" without specifying how is an euphemism for "vote for me". And you do realize that those at the top benefit much more from everything society provides, don't you?

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[goose-incarnated]

Yes, because the law defines reality and morality, right?

Maybe not, but everyone has already decided that it's a pretty good start to the definitions of reality and morality. The people who broke laws in the past because those laws were "unjust" (for whatever meaning of unjust you want to use) didn't do it purely to make money first, and perhaps make a statement later. They made a statement; money, if any, came later.

Ghandi didn't have his hunger strikes sponsored. Mandela didn't have corporate backing. They broke laws too.

Uber is no different than a common patent troll, with the only difference being that the patent troll at least has the laws on their side.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? The healthiest, wealthiest and happiest people on earth live in quite socialistic countries (Scandinavia...). Libertarianism isn't even functional enough to ever have been put to the test since only those societies in which people have banded together and recognized the common good have survived. History is set in stone.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Aighearach]

In my community we have Direct Democracy and the community can change the taxi regulations by direct vote. Your wild assumption and slander against all taxis and all taxi regulations is absurd. We have good taxi rules, and each of the (many) rules are there for real reasons based on real history. Most of the rules are ones that customers requested in the past, and a few are ones that the taxi companies all agreed on.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[drinkypoo]

Sorry kiddo, I've read my Adam Smith. You might be interested to know that "Capitalism" is the system where the government creates a level playing field for entrants to an industry... by regulating it so that everything operates according to known, predictable rules.

No. Capitalism is a monetary system in which capital controls the means of production. That is all. What you are describing is free market capitalism, in which the government's role is to make sure that things run smoothly. But there are lots of other kinds of capitalism, including corporatism, which is what we have now in the USA for example — and across most of the globe.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

1. "That's what socialists say socialism is, but that's not what it really is." - so you redefine socialism to mean "anything which calls itself socialism and doesn't work"? That's intellectually dishonest. Socialism exhibits itself in various ways, purely or as a concept to mix with others, some of which fail horribly, and some of which succeed excellently. For example, the labour union - while corruptible as any organisation of humans - is an excellent example of cooperative voluntary association which has improved conditions for workers.

There will always be a big state, whether it's called that or not. Only in the minds of fantasists does power not fill a vacuum. The question that always remains is who pulls the strings of power: is it the powerful few, or the voice of the many? Money does not speak for the voice of the many, because money weighs votes by the size of the wallet. Our representative "Western Democracy" does not give the voice of the many, because propaganda can be used to mislead people into acting against their own interests. What is the solution? Well, some sort of balance, as always - something ideologues are so scared of.

3. Russian imperialism trainwrecked Eastern Europe, just as US imperialism has been fucking up South America. This has very little to do with the ideology they claim to follow, and everything to do with turning another nation into a mere tool for your own ends. As for "the self-loathing cultures it created in Sweden" - well, I suppose if you have no rational argument then you can use terms like "self-loathing" to describe a culture which is doing annoyingly fine in the eyes of a quasi-religious idealist who refuses to believe that anything can work except when it's working as he wants it to.

4. "As long as vehicles meet safety regs" - and comprehensive insurance regs, and the driver meets criminal background and area knowledge regs, and there are not so many commercial vehicles as to congest the roads, and the companies are not involved in any illegal practices, and de facto employees are not treated as contractors (who cannot sustain their employment) merely so the employer can avoid responsibilities it would otherwise have, and any and all other considerations which have been established democratically as being necessary in a civilised society which treats people equally.

Now I would definitely question the high-price medallion requirement of certain (but not all!) cities, but I understand its purpose: to ensure that people are completely invested into the job. It's just that it has the side effect of keeping out people who could otherwise do the job. But it's definitely not want of money that's stopping companies like Uber, who have more funding than any other taxi company in the world.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[umghhh]

How is that relating to the subject of the discussion? Not at all which is to be expected from naive /.ers as well as from Uber shills.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[umghhh]

People do not really hate Uber or rather most of us had unsettled view of the company and its methods till more and more stories about criminal or almost criminal activities came out. This is topped with all comments on these evil commies 'banning' Uber in say Berlin i.e. on requiring Uber to follow the law as all others do. Stop throwing verbal abuse at opponents and use arguments of reason instead, then maybe the 'hate' will become reasonable doubts about revealed business practices. But I guess that is too much to ask, is it not?

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[dunkelfalke]

3. Soviet communism is what trainwrecked most of eastern europe and several asian countries whose preexisting regimes favored heavy handed states anyway. Then there's the self-loathing cultures it created in places like sweden. I hardly call any of this a success.

Along with pushing literacy from 24% to 99.8%, sending a man into space, advancing the technology level from being more than 50 years behind the rest of the developed world to being maybe 10 years behind and doubling the life expectancy. No sir, totally not a success.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Optali]

Mate, Eastern European Nations that are currently trainwkrecked have dome so all by their very own merits: Hungary was quite OK after the fall of the wall and have been screwing up their country since then with corrupt governments and are now trying to mimic Putin's Russia. While East Germany is now becoming wealthier than the traditionally wealthy west (being the new depressed zone is the Ruhrgebiet).

The Check Republic, the Slovaks and Poland are quite OK, same goes for the baltic states and Slovenia and Romania and Bulgaria are so-so. economy growing and decent standard of living, not as corrupt as Hungary and richer than old EU members such as Spain, Portugal or Greece...

Well, yes, there's these Ukrainians, etc, but nobody gives a fuck about these.

So much for your trainwrecked Eastern Europe mate. You shouldn't watch so much Fox and RT

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Aighearach]

I recommend actually reading Adam Smith.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

founders saw opportunity

Yes, they saw an opportunity to make a quick buck by using unregulated taxi cabs to undercut regulated taxi cabs.

Unfortunately for them you can't just ignore regulatory requirements.

Maybe you consider taxi regulation as a "protection racket" but then again maybe you just don't understand why taxi cabs became a thing that had to be regulated. It REALLY doesn't take much imagination to see it, but if you're the kind of "everybody is as nice as me so of course this will work" libertarian you seem to be then maybe you're also in denial about the very existence of crimes against the person. Cognitive dissonance FTW. Good luck with that.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[drinkypoo]

I recommend actually reading Adam Smith.

I skimmed him, but I found him a bit dry. However, what I recommend is remembering who was paying Adam Smith's bills while he wrote the book everyone is fond of referring to.

Re: Give Uber a dictionary

[blang]

Even in the most liberal, capitalistic and free societies, ist he regulation of taxies and the handling of taxi licenses often a very corrupt process.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a good definition to use if you're accused of operating an unlicensed taxi, because it implies that unlicensed taxis don't exist.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[dywolf]

please learn the history of taxis and why it was deemed needful to create those rules in the first place.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[dywolf]

It is a protection racket, but you are wrong about who is being protected.
Its about protecting the consumer.

Other than fixed-route/fixed fare taxis, taxi fares are typically based on milage.
But how do you know you actually traveled the distance the meter claimed you did?
Because there is a requirement that the meter be calibrated to ensure its accuracy for the protection of the customer.
Same as the scale inthe produce or meat departments of your grocery store must be calibrated for similar reasons.

And yes, you are arguing for fuedalism. Its what liberrtarianism ultimately boils down to: all the power rests in the hands of those best able to sieze, which is typically the wealthiest people. Its anarchy for the rich. Bonus: its libertarianism that actually best serves to create actual protection rackets for monopolies.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean things like "medicaid" and "medicare" being a good example of "capitalism" or only when it suits you?

Maybe you can run for president and determine what you should and should not need a "license" for?

You don't need to be licensed to charge someone for a ride. If you and i are at a party and you give me $5 for gas and i drive you home we are good.

You need a license to run a taxi service, which UBER is running behind a "technology" cover.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

I swear, people suck at reading comprehension sometimes, that or they're deliberately misinterpreting

Uou mean like calling Sweden a "Soviet communist," "self-loathing" country?

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Richard_at_work]

Mandela didn't have corporate backing.

You realise that Mandela was a heavily involved member of the ANC, which was a very large terrorist organisation right up until they took power in the 1990s? They had huge backing from international parties opposed to apartheid, and carried out a large number of bombings and rocket attacks between 1970 and 1990.

And yet they are today seen as clean as fresh snow...

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

Breaking an immoral law and immoral behavior aren't mutually exclusive. You need to understand that Uber's activities are immoral for non-legal reasons, like abuse of their own drivers, failing to check criminal records, allowing drivers that they absolutely know have a criminal record still drive, price gouging, sabotaging competitors (other services like their own, not taxis), etc.

Whatever immoral status you believe about a given law, if you're going to preach morality you need to apply your standards to all bodies; not just the ones you don't like.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[goose-incarnated]

Mandela didn't have corporate backing.

You realise that Mandela was a heavily involved member of the ANC, which was a very large terrorist organisation right up until they took power in the 1990s? They had huge backing from international parties opposed to apartheid, and carried out a large number of bombings and rocket attacks between 1970 and 1990.

And yet they are today seen as clean as fresh snow...

And their corporate backing came from where exactly?

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

Amoral or immoral? there's a difference.

Quoting from Google:
sophistry
säfstr/
noun
noun: sophistry
        the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
                a fallacious argument.

Breaking immoral law is not immoral.

Just illegal, right?

Just because a bunch of government bureaucrats and their protection racket lobbyists are whining that someone is bypassing law designed to prevent competition doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

Just illegal, right?

If uber is playing games with fees and the like, then don't use them. There are plenty of other options.

Would you consider flouting published laws in recognized legal jurisdictions to be playing games or not?

So you and the rest of the Uber crowd are anarchists, right?

Quoting Google:
anarchist
anrkst/
noun
noun: anarchist; plural noun: anarchists
        1.
        a person who believes in or tries to bring about anarchy.
        synonyms: nihilist, insurgent, agitator, subversive, terrorist, revolutionary, revolutionist, insurrectionist

So let us cite some examples of revolutionary thinking surrounding Uber from the previously mention Wikipedia article on "Uber (company":
Speaking about Uber, LeWeb founder Loïc Le Meur said to the TechCrunch news website: “This is going to end the monopoly of the taxis in Paris.”

Uber CEO Travis Kalanick responded to the criticism [of surge pricing]: "...because this is so new, it's going to take some time for folks to accept it. There's 70 years of conditioning around the fixed price of taxis."

I suspect that You believe that you should only follow laws that you think are moral and ignore laws that clash with your own view of moraltiy, right?

Quoting the Wikipedia article on "Uber (company)":
The service was launched in Montreal in October 2014. The city's mayor Denis Coderre publicly said, "Right now if they don't respect the rules, yes it's illegal, of course it's illegal".

Sorry to tell you, but living in a just & civil society sometimes means conforming to expected levels of conduct that you may disagree with on a moral level but are accepted practice on a societal level. It's like having to raise your hand and obtain permission from your classroom teacher before you can ask a question, comment on another's statements, or leave the room to go to the bathroom.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Gliscameria]

I'd at least like to have the option as a customer on choosing if I want to pay for a licensed service or not. Honestly, if I needed a cab in south africa I would want the thing practically coated in certifications and licenses, but for locals I don't see why they should have the option of an unlicensed ride sharing service. There's a lot of professions that are illegal to practice without a license that are silly if there is some requirement to disclose that you are unlicensed - like say barbers.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Ryanrule]

i hate them because they are following the SV model of break a lot of rules and laws, get rich, and then close that door behind you so no one else can possibly compete.

Re: Give Uber a dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

In the USA, ist he regulation of taxies and the handling of taxi licenses often a very corrupt process.

FTFY.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't buy that. What really happened was more along the line of intentional or unintentional manipulation and policies and/or associations advocating for the select few of its members. For example it might have started with the newspapers reporting rapes because of a law that requires the public reporting of arrests. That leads to people fearing taxis and demanding a solution. The association thinks "hey if we play this right it could be a good thing for our members (or more likely the person at the top of the association)". So they campaign for restrictions on who can drive taxis and demand the city to license. This enables the newly licensed taxi owners to charge premium prices relative to what they could get before. Everybody seems to be happy. The consumer might object-but its too late. It's a completely unorganized mess of people objecting and nobody will remember this the next time elections come around- or if they do they'll just be lied to.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[deadweight]

So I wasted how much money getting a commercial pilot's license when all I needed was a sign saying "adult giving other adults plane rides - all aboard"?

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Aighearach]

Kindof funny, the man's book is too "dry" for you (it is non-fiction, dry isn't even bad, it means "informative" in that context) yet you imply deep knowledge of his biography, which isn't obviously more interesting or important than his works.

As to "who was paying Adam Smith's bills while he wrote the book," he spent the 10 years prior to publication primarily in the act of writing the book; prior to that, he was a famous tutor. He was mostly living off his wealth from past work while writing the book, but he was also paid to tutor Henry Moyes, a blind Natural Philosopher as well as Smith's friend. There is no scandalous or incriminating accusations of any sort of career of ill repute.

Having only skimmed his works, you have no claim to knowing what they say. So my encouragement stands: I recommend actually reading Adam Smith, the Father of Capitalism, to find out what it is all about.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

I will second the recommendation to reading the man's words before making ad hominem attacks.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxi comes from taximeter, which was a device fitted into licensed cabs for metering passenger fares. Perhaps the word you want is cab, which may or may not be licensed. Taxi, on the other hand, does imply a license. Words, it turns out, mean things. It's helpful if we agree on what they mean and dictionaries do a good job of documenting that.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

You see, this is what I find funny. You believe (correctly) that soviet communism is not socialism. Yet at the same time, you believe what America practices is capitalism. Yet, I imagine that through your blind hatred of libertarians, you cannot see that America doesn't practice capitalism any more than the soviets practiced communism (or socialism).

Neither of you are particularly good examples of your philosophies. It's sad, really, since you're getting mad mod points for stating what others idiotically believe. Be assured, raw capitalism doesn't exist anywhere on the planet and never has. It's an untried experiment. If you believe it would fail, that's certainly a valid opinion. However, socialism IS a tried experiment and does work to some degree (providing for those under it), and yet fails in others (liberty). Deciding which of those you worry about more is an exercise and choice that should be left up to the individual. Well, that's an opinion in an of itself though, isn't it?

Philosophy on slashdot. Joy.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

"The current USA federal budget is something close to 20 TRILLION dollars"

Some people do suck at reading comprehension, and some people excel at making up wildly inaccurate numbers.

The budget is closer to 3.9 trillion USD. Still a lot, but about a fifth of what came out of your ass.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

  Aighearach said:

What you're advocating is called "feudalism," where everybody just does what they want, meaning that whoever has the most money forces everybody else out of business through whatever unfair practices are available.

Are you sure that's "feudalism"? perhaps you meant "Anarchy"?

define:feudalism
"the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labour, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection."

define:anarchy
"absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal"

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[ultranova]

The wealthy cannot rule over the proles without a big state to impose on their liberty and finances.

Sure they can: they just hire a private army to enforce their will. Historically, this was called Feudalism, and it ended when the state got strong enough to enforce its monopoly on violence. Even today, everywhere where state power fails the result is violent chaos, Somalia being perhaps the most famous example.

The real innovation of modern states is precisely that they've transferred most of the wealth - most of the power - to a role rather than person. This means it can be transferred, limited through Constitution, etc.

Re:Give Uber a dictionary

[Anonymous Coward]

3. Soviet communism ... pushing literacy from 24% to 99.8%

Crap off. I'm from Eastern Europe. We had 96% literacy BEFORE Soviet rule. The Protestant education was mandatory for all - boys and girls, cities and villages, no exceptions. The state & Church worked together to guarantee that no child was left behind.

The 4% of illiterates were probably mostly elderly, which means that ALL young people could read.

Socialism has its merits... and universal free education is one of them. But to say that it was the sole pusher of literacy, or technologial progress, is stupid.

Serves them right

[Harlequin80]

If you don't follow the law you will get in trouble.

If you were to change the word driving to drilling or perhaps had pharmaceutical companies say "the FDA is subject to delays so we decided to sell out drug anyway" would Uber supporters say "thats ok - regulations are stupid!"

Re:Serves them right

[Harlequin80]

Why? All require permits.

Or is it that now we can pick and choose which laws and regulations we follow? Nah this one isn't important to me so sod it?

Re:Serves them right

[devnulljapan]

If you don't follow the law you will get in trouble.

If you were to change the word driving to drilling or perhaps had pharmaceutical companies say "the FDA is subject to delays so we decided to sell out drug anyway" would Uber supporters say "thats ok - regulations are stupid!"

Unfortunately the answer is "probably"

Re:Serves them right

[Harlequin80]

I don't agree with you.

Taxi regulations ensure that drivers are background checked. In Australia that make it illegal for the taxi driver to refuse a fare. They require the driver to have been assessed at a higher level than your once in a lifetime driving test. They log the hours that are worked by you as a driver so you don't work too many and hence get exhausted.

Is the system perfect? Of course not. But it is definitely better then no regulation.

Re:Serves them right

[Harlequin80]

And pedestrians, and drivers, and passengers, and other road users.

Simple regulations such as a taxi is not permitted to refuse a fare. It means people don't get left at the side of the road because they want to go somewhere less than ideal for the taxi service.

Re:Serves them right

[rmstar]

If you don't follow the law you will get in trouble.

The fun thing here is that it is not Uber that got in trouble, but their drivers. Which aren't their employees, btw. Uber just looses a bit of revenues. The drivers, though, which own the cars, now have real problems.

That's the real innovative thing in Uber. They have found a way of shielding themselves from any problems. It really is genius, albeit evil genius.

Surge pricing has an interesting dark side that I see nobody talk about: cars are often too cheap for the service to be sustainable, in the sense that the money does not even cover the running costs of the cars when considering wear and loss of value on purchase price. Since noticing this implies a complex calculation as well as the mental makeup to take such calculations seriously, most drivers just don't notice. They are literally loosing money. Uber, however, always makes money.

It really is genius.

Re:Serves them right

[thegarbz]

would Uber supporters say "thats ok - regulations are stupid!"

Depends on the scenario. There are lots of very valid laws and regulations in place all over the world for very valid reasons. People have likened this to licences for plumbers, and electricians but there's one very key difference with taxis, we are already licences to do what taxis do.

I support Uber providing they ensure that all their drivers have a valid drivers license. The drivers license means they have met the requirements to drive on the road. In pretty much the entire world cars have more than one seat so that license permits you to carry passengers.

So why all of a sudden if someone offers you restitution for that service does it suddenly become illegal? I could meet up with you at the bar and you may miss your last bus. Maybe you ask me if I can drive you home on the way and you'll shout me a beer for it. Is that now illegal? Why is that more illegal than a taxi operating without a license? What additional protection do you get from the license if I have already proven that I am capable of driving on the road and I'm allowed to carry passengers?

Some regulations truly ARE stupid. But that is an exception, not the norm.

Re:Serves them right

[epyT-R]

Why can't a taxi driver refuse a fare? What if the would-be passenger is a threat? What is so terrible with letting individuals make their own damn choices? For the taxi driver it's a choice between taking the fare and earning some money, or not. For the would-be fare, it should be a choice between those who are offering the service. If Uber sucks, don't use them. We're not talking about something extremely complex and life-altering here (like pharmaceuticals).

Re:Serves them right

[Aighearach]

Why can't a taxi driver refuse a fare?

For obvious, known reasons.

Everybody knows you know, so why do you pretend you do not? Is it some sort of code?

Re:Serves them right

[epyT-R]

So common, so obvious, yet you don't list any.

Re:Serves them right

[Anonymous Coward]

So common, so obvious, yet you don't list any.

1. "So, you are black? Hell no I will drive you."
2. "So, you want to go somewhere where I'm not guaranteed a return fare? Hell no I will drive you."
3. "So, you are gay? Hell no I will drive you."
4. "So, you are Muslim? Hell no I will drive you."
5. "So, you are not from my country? Hell no I will drive you."
And so on.

Re:Serves them right

[drinkypoo]

Simple regulations such as a taxi is not permitted to refuse a fare. It means people don't get left at the side of the road because they want to go somewhere less than ideal for the taxi service.

That's OK when the taxi is state-subsidized. It's not OK when the taxi is privately owned. No one should ever be forced to do business with someone they don't want to. If it's state-subsidized, then it's not just business, it's a service, and there is a legitimate argument for forcing people to serve the needs of people they would rather not deal with at all.

If the state wants taxis to have to pick people up, then it can pay part of the tab.

Re:Serves them right

[Anonymous Coward]

Racism
Sexism
Classism

Poor black people should be able to use taxis too.

Re:Serves them right

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a professional, someone who is paid money to perform a service, implies a degree of competence. I would never get in my friend's car with him driving. He ought to lose his license. He's awful at it and yet has not lost his license. I know this, so I don't get in. When I hail a professional to drive me somewhere, I should be ale to assume that, as a professional, the person driving me is competent. That is why professional drivers need a special license.

Try not to be quite so stupid in the future.

Re:Serves them right

[Anonymous Coward]

1. In todays hyperconnected world, do you really think a racist taxi driver would get very far without being fired because he gives his employer bad rep? If it was a corporate level policy, how long do you think it would remain in business?

We're all saying that about Uber right now.

Re:Serves them right

[Vintermann]

It is false equivalence to say that unregulated taxis have the same consequences as unregulated pharma.

Well, that wasn't the argument. The argument was that if lawmakers think the consequences are bad enough to warrant regulation, then maybe companies (with a huge profit motive clouding their judgements of said matter) shouldn't just be able to disregard it.

Re:Serves them right

[Vintermann]

I am licensed to do most of the things a plumber is licensed to do, too. Usually it's the insurance company that minds me doing everything myself, not the government. In fact I had a plumber berate me once, he said installing a toilet was such an easy task we should be able to handle it ourselves next time.

People are licensed to drive. Taxis are licensed to drive people for profit. Profit motives should always be considered potentially dangerous, there are a lot of things people are willing to do, corners they are willing to cut, if it stands between making good money and being destitute.

Taxi deregulation has been tried, many many times. It has many perverse and unexpected results. For instance, you get more taxis on the road with deregulation, but prices become higher. Customers are unable to discriminate between individual drivers based on price (this is also true in Uber's regime, by design). As a result, it's pretty much random who gets a paying customer. If you only win that lottery once every three days, of course you have to crank up prices when it happens - as much as you dare, until you start to worry that they might change their mind/step out of your cab/punch you.

Re:Serves them right

[gnupun]

In Australia that make it illegal for the taxi driver to refuse a fare.

But they still do it, because short trips are not very profitable

Re:Serves them right

[DrXym]

No one should ever be forced to do business with someone they don't want to

So it's okay to put up a sign in a bar that says "no blacks or hispanics?" or for a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription because the person is a Muslim? Basically you're spouting horseshit. It is not acceptable in this day and age to do so. If someone finds themselves prejudicial to people of one sort or another they shouldn't be a taxi driver or in some other public facing profession in the first place.

Re:Serves them right

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

" No one should ever be forced to do business with someone they don't want to." You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? That may have been the way it used to be, but even in the US we have several cases of "forced business". The most recent was a flower shop in Portland court ordered under the Equal Protection Act that she had to make flowers for a gay wedding, never mind she claims "Jesus" told her it was bad.

Personally, I'm torn on that. One one hand, in a free country we SHOULD be able to refuse service to whomever we want. Yet that doesn't work out very well because people are racist, bigoted assholes. My rational mind screams that 1. religion is the root of much suffering 2 the whole "man laying with another man" in Leviticus doesn't apply in this situation 2b she's not a member of those people anyway (she's old, but she's not a 3,000-4,000 year old Jew) 3. making money off a group you feel are sub-human should make you happy.

There are several areas Uber has been playing with fire such as background checks, driving record checks, vehicular safety checks...Their going to have to come to some middle ground, and have enough transparency to satisfy level-headed State requirements. Driving your vehicle as a taxi seriously racks up miles and most "normal" people probably won't keep up their vehicles well enough after awhile. There was that Uber rape in India; but unfortunately that seems like an underground past time of our species; crimes like that should only 'ring alarm bells' if it goes over the statistical norm of the local taxi service. And the gray area that the drivers are in for wrecks, medical expenses, etc has kept my girlfriend from doing anything like that. It's very conceivable that if there is an Uberwreck the driver's insurance may refuse to pay out, the passenger might have to end up suing to pay the ridiculous medical bills...there is a big cost difference between normal, corporate, fleet, etc types of insurance policies. Even with some type of Uberinsurance it's still very gray with little to no case law.

They will have to somehow collect taxes from Uber, this isn't some "internet only" business. The private citizen's increased payments on road tax via their gas isn't enough to compensate the wear and tear from this. Perhaps they can get their app approved as a "meter" instead of forcing everyone to buy various meters for each municipality. I expect these seizures to increase worldwide until Uber addresses these issues.

Re:Serves them right

[Anonymous Coward]

Apart from number 2, your examples are examples that would be illegal for any business, not only those with a "pay for the right to have a job" law.

Number 2 is simply a sound business decision.

Re:Serves them right

[serviscope_minor]

If Uber sucks, don't use them. We're not talking about something extremely complex and life-altering here (like pharmaceuticals).

I like how you ignored the bits about better testing stnadards and logged hours to make sure the drivers are competent. A car crash does count as a life altering issue.

But hey, if you die in an uber related car crash, vote with your dollars and don't use them next time!

Re:Serves them right

[serviscope_minor]

If the state wants taxis to have to pick people up, then it can pay part of the tab.

Oh wait they do!

Most cities have taxi ranks, and many have routes blocked to private cars that vehicles like busses and taxis get to use. So, the city does pay some of the tab.

Next pointless objection!

Re: Serves them right

[Anonymous Coward]

Many taxi drivers are self employed. In a hypothetical world where there's a lot of competition, there would be lots of tiny taxi companies - in which case there would be a lot of sketchy, terrible taxi drivers exhibiting this type of behavior.

Yes, they might go out of business, but there would always be another to take their place.

Self regulation via capitalism only works when you can reward and punish over multiple transactions. There's always room for shifty, fly-by-night scam artists.

Re: Serves them right

[blang]

Here taxies are generally not driven by the owner. Taxies are hired out in 24 hour shifts, and most drivers work 24 hours on 24 hours off.

Re:Serves them right

[JaredOfEuropa]

But it's ok to put up a sign "Women only" in a bar, or for a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription because he's a muslim and the customer is not wearing her obligatory headscarf. We seem to be very selective in the kind of discrimination we condemn, and the kinds we tolerate. That seems hypocritical. Either no discrimination is ok and everyone ought to be forced to do business with anyone at all, or everyone should have the right to refuse to do business with someone on any grounds.

Re:Serves them right

[dywolf]

There is no real reason for taxi regs these days beyond safety regs, which apply to all vehicles.

Again: this right here is the source of your ignorance.
You simply do not know what you are talking about.
There are real and concreate reasons for the regulation of taxis.

Your ignorance of that history is not a reason to dismantle those regulations.
But you can try if you want...you'll simply learn first hand why they existed in the first place.
Which is ultimately the end consequence of libertarianism: if it actually succeeds and is implemented, it will necessarily be abandoned as its followers slowly learn firsthand why we did things the way we did, a lesson they could have avoided if they had simply learned some history. When we talk about those who dont learn history being doomed to repeat it, libertarians are a prime example.

Re:Serves them right

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily. What if a drug company pulled it off by rushing to market a cancer treatment drug and saying "Screw the FDA" and then doing a huge social media thing about it and got a ton of people on their side saying that lives were saved/etc. I could actually see that working for them in certain circumstances.

Re:Serves them right

[smooth wombat]

So it's okay to put up a sign in a bar that says "no blacks or hispanics?"

There is the gun range which has a sign saying, "Muslim Free Zone" and so far they're able to get away with it.

or for a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription because the person is a Muslim?

No, but we do have pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control because it might offend their religion.

Not to mention there are those bakeries and photographers who refuse to cater to gay people who want to get married.

While the courts have ruled against the above practices, the owners can simply be more selective in who their clients are, thus getting around the issue. This is the same thing businesses do when interviewing. They see someone's great resume but when they come in they realize the person is over 40 and disqualify them.

The reason they can give is simply, "We found someone more aligned with our requirements" even though they are discriminating by age.

Re:Serves them right

[Tokolosh]

Read this http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Rent seeking is the problem.

Re:Serves them right

[DrXym]

There is the gun range which has a sign saying, "Muslim Free Zone [arktimes.com]" and so far they're able to get away with it.

Am I supposed to applaud that? The fact that it happens is no excuse that it should be tolerated or supported.

No, but we do have pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control because it might offend their religion [ncsl.org].

Quite. And it should not be tolerated. Their job is to fill the damned prescription, not moralise, judge, discriminate or otherwise selectively choose to serve one person and not another. If they can't keep their beliefs separate from their damned job they should get another job.

Re:Serves them right

[smooth wombat]

I was only responding to your questions by giving examples where this is already happening. I am in agreement with you.

Re:Serves them right

[GlennC]

I imagine you've never been denied service because of how you looked, the neighborhood you live in, or some other subjective opinion.

It must be nice where you live, that ignorance and intolerance don't exist, and where everyone has immediate access to perfect information all the time. I wouldn't share my location with the general populace, though....the rest of the world isn't so nice.

Re:Serves them right

[drinkypoo]

Most cities have taxi ranks, and many have routes blocked to private cars that vehicles like busses and taxis get to use. So, the city does pay some of the tab.

Guess what? The Uber "taxis" aren't allowed to use those things, so the city does not pay some of the tab.

Next pointless objection!

I suppose it would be pointless to point out that you're prevaricating, since you're only going to do it again.

Re:Serves them right

[Anonymous Coward]

With so much competition, individual driver income get cut by 1/3 to 1/2 making it impossible for them to take time off when they get sick. They drive around spreading colds and flu because they need to work 6 days a week just to stay afloat. Even though they can now no longer afford health insurance and have to get Obamacare, it still doesn't prevent them from driving when sick and loaded with meds.

Because income is wiped out, drivers become enslaved to their jobs. They cannot save.

If you really want to understand Uber and particularly the mindset they had when they formed their company, they explicitly looked to eliminate driver profits so they could claim it for themselves.

So to all you folks who talk about regulation and what not, just know one thing. Regulation allowed individual drivers to make a decent living. Now when you get into the car of either a taxi or uber in a city where both operate, know that both drivers are barely surviving. Uber is the beneficiary. I think it's comical that the libertarians view the monopolization by uber as preferable to the myriad of taxi companies that operate over the face of the globe.

Re:Serves them right

[Anonymous Coward]

This is irrational thinking. There are lots of less competent drivers on the road and all of which could be a danger. Uber drivers still have to have drivers licenses so there is already a minimum standard. There is no real difference between a new driver driving a friend and a new driver driving a random person that paid for it. The risk of death is the same. So while a car crash is life threatening your not at some greater risk or reduced risk here than what we've already agreed is a minimum acceptable standard. There is no reason we can't have both a regulated market and an unregulated market. If your concerned about safety here or people being unaware of the ohh soo slight risk you seem to perceive then a warning to Uber passengers is at most all that is warranted.

"Uber is not a regulated tax service and while our drivers meet the minimum threshold to legally drive they do not meet the stricter set of safety standards set for taxis."

Re:Serves them right

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber drivers still have to have drivers licenses so there is already a minimum standard. There is no real difference between a new driver driving a friend and a new driver driving a random person that paid for it.

This is the crux of the issue. Taxi drivers in some jurisdictions *are* subject to a higher than minimum standard. There *is* a difference between a new driver driving a friend and a professional licensed driver tested to a higher standard driving a stranger. Uber wants the public to believe there is no difference, but there is in places a difference.

Re:Serves them right

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting that people talking about deregulation rarely mention that Uber only exists because of government regulation protecting their imaginary property.

Re:Serves them right

[bws111]

The 'subsidy' that taxis get (because the cities DO consider them a service) comes in the form of the limited number of licenses/medallions that are issued. That allows the taxis to maximize their usage, and in exchange they are subject to the regulations. Of course, the limited number of medallions could also mean that rates are very high, which is why the cities that issue medallions also have regulated rates. This arrangement gives the city a much-needed service, the taxi companies a steady source of income, and the riders a chance to get a ride for a reasonable price, regardless of who they are or where they want to go.

When Uber shows up and claims it doesn't need to play by the rules, that means the taxis are no longer getting their subsidy, but they are still required to charge the fixed rates and carry anyone anywhere. Uber can cherry-pick the profitable rides and leave the crumbs to the taxis. This means the city's taxi service is no longer functional, and that is not good for anyone except Uber.

Re:Serves them right

[MooseTick]

" cars are often too cheap for the service to be sustainable, in the sense that the money does not even cover the running costs of the cars when considering wear and loss of value on purchase price"

This could be true if you purchased a car just to be an Uber "taxi". If you already owned a car though, and want to make a few extra bucks a few nights a week, then you may be able to come ahead. Especially with gas being $1.50/gallon now.

Re:Serves them right

[thegarbz]

Ahhh so a mythical piece of paper that allows you to accept money for something that someone else has already qualified you to do makes you competent?

The competence of a taxi driver has nothing to do with a taxi license and everything to do with a licence that is given to the general public that permits them to use the road. Please get your head out of your arse.

Re: Serves them right

[Harlequin80]

Where the hell are you? 24hrs behind the wheel and you will be exhausted! There is absolutely no way that is legal in most developed countries.

Re:Serves them right

[thegarbz]

I am licensed to do most of the things a plumber is licensed to do, too.

Then the same rules apply. If you have a licence that covers you to do plumbing work I agree that it is equally absurd that you're not allowed to do this work.

Usually it's the insurance company that minds me doing everything myself, not the government.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Taxis are licensed to drive people for profit. Profit motives should always be considered potentially dangerous, there are a lot of things people are willing to do, corners they are willing to cut, if it stands between making good money and being destitute.

Just like every business in the world is licensed and regulated right? Except it's not. The problem can solve itself with open information. I don't go to restaurants where the reviews say over and over again the service was crap either, I say service because food safety is regulated,.... except that doesn't stop food poisoning either.

Taxi deregulation has been tried, many many times. It has many perverse and unexpected results. For instance, you get more taxis on the road with deregulation, but prices become higher. Customers are unable to discriminate between individual drivers based on price (this is also true in Uber's regime, by design). As a result, it's pretty much random who gets a paying customer. If you only win that lottery once every three days, of course you have to crank up prices when it happens - as much as you dare, until you start to worry that they might change their mind/step out of your cab/punch you.

Complete de-regulation is not the name of the game. The point is obtaining a licence for something you already have a licence for. There's nothing stopping people imposing limits outside of the licensing scheme. After all the existing drivers licence scheme already imposes limits on people all over the world. Also I live in a city where violence from / against cab drivers was actually quite common. A license did nothing to stop that either. The taxis which pick you up after 8pm now have plastic shields like the type in banks that separate the driver from the passenger for that reason.

I find it funny you mention price. You see as "evil" as everyone thinks Uber is because those bastards are working outside the regulatory scheme, they are actually much cheaper here than existing cabs, so your complaint really falls on deaf ears.

Just to be clear, I'm not for wholesale deregulation. I'm for elimination of the absurd belief that we need 2 licencing schemes to operate the same piece of equipment where the second scheme only artificially protects and limits entrants to an industry. This is why I'm not against plumbing licenses because there are zero limits on it. If you are a qualified plumber you can be a plumber. If you are a qualified driver, oh sorry you need to rent some magic multi-million dollar medallion if you're going to drive someone else and god forbid they hand over money.

Re:Serves them right

[mjwx]

There is the gun range which has a sign saying, "Muslim Free Zone [arktimes.com]" and so far they're able to get away with it.

Am I supposed to applaud that? The fact that it happens is no excuse that it should be tolerated or supported.

Sadly, the great ideals that make our nations free, also make it free for some people to be cunts.

What we can do is choose not to frequent that business and encourage others to do the same. We can also express our opinions about the business.

Re:Serves them right

[Vintermann]

Just like every business in the world is licensed and regulated right? Except it's not.

Where are you running a business? Yes, every business in the world is regulated, and for businesses where there is high competition and temptation to cut corners, there are regularly domain-specific rules or licensing requirements in place. A highly competitive industry is by default a corrupt industry, because the more bitter the fight, the harder it is to survive without playing dirty. In many countries and many domains, regulation evidently helps with that, but if the industry is sufficiently capital-intensive, regulation itself becomes an arena for dirty fighting.

Taxi drivers are usually poor immigrants. Given sufficient desperation they will play dirty by cheating on their taxes, scamming their customers, or working with criminal organizations (to do e.g. money laundering). They do not, however, have the resources to play regulatory capture dirty game. Uber does.

The problem can solve itself with open information.

Only it didn't when they tried. Taxis are often selected in situations where you can't meaningfully discriminate between them (from a queue, or hailing). They're also heavily used by people ill-equipped to discriminate between them (tourists and drunk people). Throwing more information on them doesn't help.

Re:Serves them right

[rmstar]

This could be true if you purchased a car just to be an Uber "taxi". If you already owned a car though, and want to make a few extra bucks a few nights a week, then you may be able to come ahead.

You might, getting a ridiculously low wage out of it - but only if you are lucky. Which means that you are still a sucker, gambling stupidly like that.

Re:Serves them right

[thegarbz]

Yes, every business in the world is regulated

If you're talking about most generic business rules then you're absolutely right. That kind of just makes my point worse. We now have an even additional level of regulation for running a taxi.

So you have regulation to ensure the person is competent to drive.
You have regulations that cover a person undertaking business practices.
And then you have a taxi licence because "OMG TAXI!"

Yes that makes perfect sense. None of what you said above necessitates an expensive "taxi licence" which restricts the number of taxis that are allowed to operate. All of those regulations can be applied and then managed through either of the other existing licenses / regulations whether it be a business name / ID or the drivers license system.

If you think that can't work then I ask you what's the difference between a law capping a price and a law capping the blood alcohol content of a driver? Both do the same thing and apply artificial regulations yet one works quite easily via the existing drivers license scheme.

I'm beginning to think that you are confusing my thought that separate taxi licenses are stupid with the thought that we should get rid of all laws and regulations. You can't be further from the truth, we should be getting rid of stupid laws and regulations. The kind which say that if you want to run a taxi service that you have the option of working for one or two of the major established brands, or that you have an initial cost outlay for a piece of paper which is borderline bankrupting for the small business startup and yet provides no benefit which cant be covered by existing licensing schemes and modifications to the regulations.

Why stop with rides?

[Powercntrl]

There's all kinds of services people can offer without pesky government interference! Meal sharing could be the next killer app. Why pay restaurant prices when you can just search for a family with an extra chair at their dinner table?

It's like when your furnace goes out and you find some self-proclaimed handyman on Craigslist to fix it. Licensed, bonded, insured? Hah, those are just extra costs that would be passed on to you. You're saving a bundle and carbon monoxide poisoning is probably just some B.S. made up by those government brown nosing "legit" guys who charge higher prices!

Re:Why stop with rides?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like when your furnace goes out and you find some self-proclaimed handyman on Craigslist to fix it. Licensed, bonded, insured? Hah, those are just extra costs that would be passed on to you.

Surprise!!!
In MOST of the world, it works exactly like that!
Replace Craigslist with word-of-mouth advertising, of course.

I have had furnaces built, and repaired, and all kinds of other works being done, without licences and insurance involved. The car workshop where I used to go for ten years worked without any paperwork whatsoever. Because in this part of the world it works like this. Now I don't know South Africa, but my guess it that their business culture is more like ours... not like U.S.

Re:Why stop with rides?

[FlyHelicopters]

Heck, in the USA you can fix your own furnace, no licence required...

As far as handymen, you can find plenty of those who will do it as well, some of whom know what they are doing, others do not... Buyer beware... :)

Re:Why stop with rides?

[thegarbz]

Do you have a restaurant license?

Re:Why stop with rides?

[Aighearach]

Interesting thing about the US. We really do force the construction trades to be licensed, bonded, insured. Buildings are designed by real engineers, according to known material and design standards. And when there is a major earthquake... a few up to dozens of dead.

When "MOST of the world" has an earthquake... dozens of thousands are dead.

And people without auto shop paperwork have no service history, their vehicle has less resale value (if well taken care of, since they can't prove it was) and they won't know when major parts were replaced. Also, if you get ripped off... tough luck. You can't even prove what work was done, much less if it was the same work that you paid for. And it is a known fact that there are lots of dishonest people everywhere in the world who will, in fact, rip you off.

Yes, it is done. It is a known thing. It also is known to achieve demonstrably worse results. And it isn't actually cheaper, it is just lower quality.

Re:Why stop with rides?

[codeButcher]

If by "furnaces" you mean oil/gas-burners to heat a home, South Africa obviously doesn't have that. Some closed wood stoves are available, imported from anywhere from Chile to China, that can be installed DIY or by a technician that does this sort of thing regularly (may have completed a course from the company that supplies the ovens). South Africa also doesn't have building codes that require air-tight doors and windows, so CO poisoning is perhaps less of a risk. Car mechanic's workshops can range from anything from dealer licensed (if it's still under warranty) to franchised chain to independent back-yard. Paperwork? Of course the buyer needs to ensure that they can do what they claim; reputation goes a long way regarding that.

But South Africa does have something called a Public Driver's Permit, needed when one wants to convey anyone for remuneration, be it a bunch of kids from the creche or your boss' wife to her nail appointment - if your employment includes chauffeur duties. Bumming a ride with a friend (social media acquaintance) and "helping with the petrol money" is probably tolerated as the money is (technically) a voluntary donation.

Re:Why stop with rides?

[drinkypoo]

It's like when your furnace goes out and you find some self-proclaimed handyman on Craigslist to fix it. Licensed, bonded, insured? Hah, those are just extra costs that would be passed on to you. You're saving a bundle and carbon monoxide poisoning is probably just some B.S. made up by those government brown nosing "legit" guys who charge higher prices!

I've got news for you: you're not required to have any of those things to be a repairman, and many if not most repairmen are not bonded. So if they steal your shit, you're going to have to file civil suits to gain restitution. And the insurance won't help you if you're dead. And there's no licensing process for furnace repairmen in the USA, either.

Re:Why stop with rides?

[zmooc]

I think you don't get what Uber is up to. They don't care about the sharing part, they don't care about their drivers. They just want to get as big a market share as possible and they want you to have their app on your phone. And then ... they're going to wait.

Because what Uber understands is that in the near future we will not have drivers. We will not even have steering wheels. Or parking spots. Or traffic lights. Or people owning their own car. Or multiple lanes. We probably don't even have people that are allowed to drive a car. And we almost certainly will not have trains, subways or buses anymore. Instead We we all just be driven arounnd in a self-driving car owned by some big company. And Uber is planning to be that company.

Re:Why stop with rides?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have a restaurant license?

Of course you do. Can't think of a single country that doesn't require restaurants to comply with health and safety and hygeine regulation and demand the right to spot check its being upheld.

Re:Why stop with rides?

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

To legally work on the AC power system in a house your supposed to be licensed and bonded. Even in your own home if you have an addition, re-wiring in the walls, etc most municipalities require a certified electrician to inspect it for the building permit system. People do clandestine re-wiring all the time, and people's houses burn down from it all the time too. Few normal home owners know how to safely run wiring; casings, gauges, groundings, water-free pathways, proper bends / joints, etc. Personally I'm not sure where the "line" is with all that, as to just replacing a wall socket vs. putting in a new breaker box.

Unless you live off by yourself, living in a neighborhood carries with it certain social responsibilities. Not setting your neighbor's house on fire when your "hacked together" gas heater explodes is one of those. I'm all for do-it-yourself stuff, I'm infamous for styrofoaming and colored duct-tapting a convincing looking headlight assemble and wheel well for years on my old van; from a couple of feet away it looked like the original plastic / metal. But just because you CAN do something on the cheap doesn't mean it's a good idea. Immediate savings on faulty natural gas lines is one of them.

Re:Why stop with rides?

[Anonymous Coward]

O gee, we don't really have that? I mean, I really need those pesky restaurants bribing the local government openly to outlaw food carts, because I'm not going to have a whiff of sense to choose between the sterling looking sealed-stainless steal cart with an inspection certificate by a trustworthy authority (private or otherwise) as to cleanliness vs. the government-licensed one run-down and made of porous plywood. OMFG I'm gonna die! I've only eaten at food carts around the whole world and never had an issue, ever, in some of the poorest places imaginable, but been food poisoned some the most heavily government-controlled institutions (in the middle of Washington D.C.at that). I'm sure happy to have the government protecting me!!!

And it's not like that licensed-and-bonded insurance guy didn't nearly get a family house burned down (actual experience) but the competent fix-it man who circumvents (legally, to the ire of the assholes who've repeatedly dragged his ass into court) didn't do it right (after repairng everything) because he's actually competent to get recommended by word of mouth (after fixing the licensed actors' shitty, often dangerous work) rather than just advertising and paying people for reviews. It's like...merit is just not trustworthy, and like government "protection" just doesn't devolve to mob-like syndicalism which is only ever demanded by incompetent boobs with no social connections to find reliable people (or judgement to discern who in their circles are idiots, and who are not).

Anyway: next time you're in Tijuana, make sure you get the stone-bowl (super-hot) soups and avoid the "regulated" microwave meals (from restaurants) so many retarded tourists get thinking it's safer. And if in China, avoid the official-looking (local Communist-officials' run) stands for the smaller providers who look professional and run when the thugs' goons come to give a beat-down: eithe way, in the former case you have nothing you can take to court, and in the latter the thugs will gladly prosecute...much like in the US the licensing often relieves of liabilities and the unlicensed aren't...I wonder why?

This seems to apply, btw, in every part of the world. The general rule is: cook the ****ing food thoroughly--raw salad isn't actually a good diea for you, really anywhere. It's only in the modern world that it is--because (as I've worked in a regulated food production environment) there are solutions that are only slightly-toxic with which you can sterilize the slug-crap and slime filled with amoeba (and all invisible) that's stuck on the leaves. Sure, it's usually not an issue, but that 1 of 1000 cases you're screwed in one way or another, and that's why all of Asia cooks everything.

Do note, I'm of course not talking about industrial (highly capitalized) food product. But protections only work there when the inspectors aren't corrupt too--Canteloupe gate from that farm in Colorado happened despite it being a regulated facility, but suddenly the puddle of water in the packing facility was a big deal AFTER a bunch of people died...my foreign friends all asked ,"why didn't people just make sure to wash the" ****ing "peal before cutting-in? Don't Americans know that's important?"

Re:Why stop with rides?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem I'd face there, is that even if I know how to change a thermal fuse or whatever is the most common part that goes out in a furnace, I can't make nearly as much money as working a normal 8 to 5. If there was an app that made THAT possible.... well...... I'd be impressed. (And I have worked on Onforce/Workmarket/Fieldnation/etc. The problem there is the "race to the bottom". You have people accepting work orders to go out 100 miles and work 4 hours for $20 or something stupid like that. That would even be cheaper than taking an Uber....)

Re:Why stop with rides?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting thing about the US. We really do force the construction trades to be licensed, bonded, insured.

In much of the USA it is common to drop by Home Depot and pickup Hispanic day laborers for your construction project. Some articles about it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/10/national/10depot.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.reddit.com/r/Austin/comments/1v3n6x/day_laborers_in_homedepot_parking_lot/

Re:Why stop with rides?

[Anonymous Coward]

To legally work on Slashdot posts, YOU'RE supposed to be legally licensed and bonded by the grammar police. Sorry, we're going to have to cite you.

Re:Why stop with rides?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bumming a ride with a friend (social media acquaintance) and "helping with the petrol money" is probably tolerated as the money is (technically) a voluntary donation.

Interestingly, here in the US, accepting "Gas Money," as we call it, often has major legal liability consequences, since the passenger is considered a business invitee rather than a mere licensee (mere guest). As a result, the car owner has a duty to inspect and make safe the car, or he/she can be sued into the ground by the passenger in the event of the accident. That's one of the main reasons taxis here are required to maintain adequate insurance.

Uber's so-called "competitive advantage" is merely the ability to push this risk onto the driver while still skimming off the top of the fares. Yet pro-Uber advocates somehow think that it is more "pro-driver" than a traditional taxi system. The reason drivers get screwed here isn't because they are over-regulated, but due to the comddification and subsequent hoarding of taxi medallions (permits) in many cities.

Re:Why stop with rides?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, as long as you never want to sell your house. Maybe you'll get a cash buyer who doesn't want inspections, or care if repairs are made to code. I give you hashtag #imatwelveyearold

Re:Why stop with rides?

[Drethon]

Like the first time I had a sink clog fixed and the plumber pointed out to me how to take it apart and fix it myself (wish my parents had shown me). They charged $59 for the trip out and now I take care of it myself in 15 minutes. I've fixed a couple furnace and air conditioner issues myself that would have cost over $100 an hour. I don't make near that much 8 to 5.

Re:Why stop with rides?

[Anonymous Coward]

South Africa also doesn't have building codes that require air-tight doors and windows, so CO poisoning is perhaps less of a risk.

Emphatically wrong. CO poisoning deaths are an annual problem here because the poor largely live in uninsulated shacks put together from corrugated steel plates elsewhere intended for roofing/sheds/factories. In winter they try to heat themselves with coal stoves and many close their shacks too tightly because of the cold.

The country is relatively warm (air-tight doors and windows are alien and leave us feeling very stuffy) but cold is relative to the protection you have.

Re:Why stop with rides?

[drinkypoo]

To legally work on the AC power system in a house your supposed to be licensed and bonded

Who told you that? They're an idiot.

Even in your own home if you have an addition, re-wiring in the walls, etc most municipalities require a certified electrician to inspect it for the building permit system.

Yep. But you don't need any kind of license to do the work, just to bless it before connection is made.

Few normal home owners know how to safely run wiring; casings, gauges, groundings, water-free pathways, proper bends / joints, etc. Personally I'm not sure where the "line" is with all that, as to just replacing a wall socket vs. putting in a new breaker box.

Guess what? Most electrical codes don't specify any of that shit. And the electrician is only responsible for ensuring that it meets code. So where you're allowed to put the wire, how many outlets and whatnot, that's all mandated by law. But if you even attempt to follow the law, you'll probably succeed; you can't even walk into a hardware store (or electrical supply) and buy non-compliant equipment, so the only thing you can do is install it wrong. Mostly this is common-sense stuff, for example any time you make a splice you are required to do it inside of a box with "proper" retention (for interior wiring, that can just be the plastic boxes with the little flaps that pinch the wire) and expose the box to either the inside of the dwelling with a wall plate, or the outside with a proper all-weather cover. There are sometimes requirements like having to have an outlet every 6' on every wall over 8' which you have to watch out for, and which a building inspector would love to wring some money out of you for, but you can usually address those issues by simply installing lots of outlets anywhere they look useful.

just because you CAN do something on the cheap doesn't mean it's a good idea. Immediate savings on faulty natural gas lines is one of them.

Oh, you mean like PG&E failing to repair known-faulty natural gas line infrastructure for no justifiable reason whatsoever? There's no guarantee the pros are going to Do The Right Thing(tm). Meanwhile, I guarantee you that if I'm installing a gas line, I'm going to be very serious about it. I'm going to install strain relief (support any floating pipes, that is) and use the proper black iron and even use the proper teflon tape. If I'm installing an appliance, like the on-demand propane water heater that I installed, or the gas dryer which I installed after conversion from natgas to propane, I'll use fresh flex connectors and counterhold the nut while I install them. And that's why I won't have any leaks, just like I don't have now. Of course, I checked my connections with soapy water, just like you're meant to. And when I was correcting wiring failures in the pump house (some dillhole wired neutral to ground inside the box down there) I was damned glad that I wasn't legally obligated to call an electrician. I just shut off the breaker that runs down there, and then repaired the fault myself.

Most of this stuff is stupid simple, and any asshole can accomplish it if they follow simple rules involving safety, like checking and double-checking all your work, and not checking for gas leaks with a match. I don't expect everyone to have also soldered the copper water piping running to the water heater, you need a MAPP torch or better for that, but any of this other stuff can be done by any monkey with a pair of channel-locks, a pipe wrench, and a crescent wrench.

Re:Why stop with rides?

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

You might be decent at that stuff, but the "average home owner" really isn't. And as we move down the intellegence levels, it gets more dangerous...you personally seem to "know your stuff" and probably can make better repairs than most "professionals". Yet half the population is below 100 IQ, they should NOT be working on this stuff. That's what I was going for...not an attack on you.

Re:Why stop with rides?

[volmtech]

Are restaurant licenses limited? Do they cost a million dollars each? Would you be happy if your town decided that five restaurants was enough? Or if one of them had to be in the part of town that wasn't safe after dark? Would prices be cheaper if the wait time was always two hours? Nothing wrong with safety regulations. I don't think social engineering and guaranteed profits are right.

In Cape Town? Corruption...

[Dr_Barnowl]

This is South Africa.

The "delays" are more likely to do with the fact that Uber have failed to grease the right palms.

Re:In Cape Town? Corruption...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is also Cape Town, the only major city, and part of the only province (the Western Cape) that is not run by the corrupt ANC. If you'll look it up, you'll find that they've been receiving unqualified audits year after year, since the ANC lost control of the city. For reference, around 9% of municipalities around the country receive unqualified audits. In the Western Cape, that number is 92%

Re:In Cape Town? Corruption...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is South Africa.

The "delays" are more likely to do with the fact that Uber have failed to grease the right palms.

So an Multinational company with a history of having the exact same thing happening to them all round the world including major American cities, exposed for unfairly (fraudulently?) "competing" with their competitors gets called for it in South Africa and it is because Capetonians are corrupt?

Please explain

Re:In Cape Town? Corruption...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a US- free Trade Agreement with SA?
if so simply not making available licenses is a restraint of trade.
A complaint to the right body - and a judgement may hurry things along.

Re:In Cape Town? Corruption...

[eugene_roux]

Clueless much?

Re:In Cape Town? Corruption...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay, prejudice.

A lot of money in the bank doesn't make it right..

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber, a company with lots of money in the bank used to force rules and regulations their way.

Why do we have sympathy with them? Some taxi markets might be some inbred cartels that could use a little shake-up, but I for once like the fact that my taxi driver is properly licensed, centrally registered and at least somewhat screened. This really is a good thing, especially in places with rampant criminality, like many places in e.g. South Africa.

But the very best bit

[Dunbal]

The best bit is the banks valuing Uber at 17 billion dollars and thinking of raking in many more billions than this with a possible IPO. Caveat emptor.

Poor Uber

[DrXym]

Imagine having to abide to the same laws and regulations that govern other commercial taxi operations. How on earth are they going to make a profit now?

Re:Poor Uber

[cgimusic]

It's almost like those laws and regulations were lobbied for by the taxi industry to make it impossible to compete with them!

Re:A lot of money in the bank doesn't make it righ

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Perhaps Anni Dewani might agree. Or she might not.

Some more details and fixing some missing details

[sirlark]

Captonian here. The summary is a bit misleading. In South Africa there are two nationwide requirements for anyone (including Uber drivers) to transport members of the public. They must be personally licensed to drive (i.e. have a valid drivers license), and also licensed to transport members of the public (a public drivers licence, which requires not having a criminal record, not having ever had your driver's license revoked, etc...). In Cape Town specifically, there's an additional by-law that means the vehicle must be licensed. This requirement is the case in most municipalities in South Africa, although some municipalities classify Uber's service as "chartered transportation" and Cape Town classifies it as a "metered taxi service".

A local talk radio show had both a representative from Uber and a representative from the city’s Safety and Security department. Both Uber and the city confirmed that Uber only checks the national requirements, i.e. the driver's credentials. Uber doesn't check that the vehicle is licensed to transport. To be fair, Uber apparently goes above and beyond the minimum checks regarding the driver, doing deeper background checks etc, but they do not check that the vehicle is licensed. All of the impounded vehicles were impounded due to a lack of the vehicle license. Uber seems to be trying to spin things saying that the City's bureaucracy is way too slow, but what it comes down to is the fact that are plenty of metered taxi's already, they need to be licensed, and there are a limited number of licenses. Uber's been categorised as a metered taxi service, so no new uber drivers are going to be given vehicle licenses. Uber wants to be reclassified as a chartered transport service, and here things get a little fuzzy. As far as I can tell, a chartered transport service requires an upfront statement of cost, i.e. the driver/company has to provide a quote for the proposed route. Airport shuttles fall under this for example, because they charge a fixed amount per suburb/area, they don't charge per kilometre. I'm not sure how exactly uber determines the fare, but it's not fixed, so technically, they're not a chartered service.

So it doesn't look like it's the city's fault. They're following the law. Now, it's open to discussion whether Uber is at fault for not ensuring their driver's vehicles are licensed, or whether it should be the driver's responsibility, but from the consumer side, I'd say the expectation is that Uber has done their due dilligence.

Re:Some more details and fixing some missing detai

[Anonymous Coward]

AFAIK (and is in the article linked at the top) the vehicle licensing is also a national requirement laid down in the national transport plan, but it's left to the local municipality to set up bylaws and govern. So in Joburg, the city has classified Uber as a charter service (regardless of the fact that it doesn't fit the description), while Cape Town has classified it as a metered service.

The main thing for me is that both Uber and Cape Town are in agreement on one thing: they sat down and spoke last year, both agreed they loved each other, and Cape Town said it would change the law to be more accomodating. I'm not sure what more Uber could have asked for - the legal changes were always going to take some time to set up, there was no misunderstanding of the current situation.

The CT alderman's response about other firms threatening to burn Uber vehicles if they kept on breaking the law probably wasn't far fetched either, if anyone knows anything about the history of violence in South Africa's public transport system...

Re:Some more details and fixing some missing detai

[HolyMackerelBatman!]

In the UK, Uber cars and drivers have to follow the same registration and licensing requirements as private hire taxis, which they do in my city and they don't seem to have made much of a fuss about it. Every other day though there's an article where they kick up a stink about being forced to follow municipality regulations and how it shouldn't affect them as they're not really a taxi service. I've no idea why they think it would fly anywhere else.

All part

[MitchDev]

of the corrupt city government "lock" on permits....

Boo hoo

[mr100percent]

but obeying laws is a PAIN. We're an online company! Waaah

Taxi cabs != News for Nerds

[bonius_rex]

Uber is a taxi cab company. In what way does this constitute "News for Nerds?"
Are the taxi cabs self-driving Google cars? No.
Are they powered by Dilithium crystals? No.
Does Natalie Portman pour hot grits down her pants in the back seat? No.
Why is this rubbish on the Slashdot?

Uber is a criminal enterprise.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber is a criminal enterprise facing criminal charges in several jurisdictions.
It is in direct violation of laws and regulations that other small businesses follow.
This is unlawful and unfair operation that needs to be BANNED.

Re:Uber is a criminal enterprise.

[johncandale]

lol you think taxi medallions is a small business http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Good! Uber is a thieving company.

[Anonymous Coward]

What gives this company the right to supercede written laws and civil codes? What about the taxi drivers put out of business and their families. Seriously, this company and every other so-called "sharing" company like it are little more than thieving scum who leverage the increasing scarcity of money and jobs for their senior executive's and investor's benefit.

Some Cities Severly Limit New Cab Licences

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, a lot of industries work based off quotas. Uber is basically throwing a hissy-fit because they weren't given special treatment.

Re:Some more details and fixing some missing detai

[DerekLyons]

Both Uber and the city confirmed that Uber only checks the national requirements, i.e. the driver's credentials. Uber doesn't check that the vehicle is licensed to transport. To be fair, Uber apparently goes above and beyond the minimum checks regarding the driver, doing deeper background checks etc

How is something completely irrelevant to the question at hand "fair"? Why is "fairness" even a question here?

It's pretty much a black and white question, either they ensure their drivers comply with the law, or they don't. Anything else is just smoke and spin.

necklace?

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxi turf wars are quite literal in South Africa....Uber Drivers got off easy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi_wars_in_South_Africa

Re:Some more details and fixing some missing detai

[johncandale]

and how it shouldn't affect them as they're not really a taxi service.

There are some differences. You have to call an uber, you can't hail them. So they don't have to clog the busiest streets driving up and down looking for fare.

I am glad they are breaking municipality regulations thou. The taxi monopolie needs to die, their service in most cities besides New York and London have become unusable, and their monopoly on licenses is the main reason.

Uber gets to my door in suburbs in 2 minutes , a taxi would take 30 minutes to an hour or not show up at all

Re: Some more details and fixing some missing deta

[Anonymous Coward]

There are 2 licensed minicab offices within 50 metres of my house in the suburbs and this is typical for london. Dont see why uber would need to break the law.

I actually like this

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad a company like Uber exists. Very few have the guts to directly disobey regulated economic protectionism. If traditional taxi's want to continue existing, they have to at least offer what Uber does or more.

Re:A lot of money in the bank doesn't make it righ

[cgimusic]

Because previously the taxi industry, with lots of money in the bank used to force rules and regulations their way. At least Uber benefits consumers rather than driving up taxi fares to insane levels by creating an artificial monopoly.