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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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?

[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.

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%

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.