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

[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]

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]

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.

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]

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

[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

[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

[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.

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!

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.

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.