Uber Office Raided By Police In China, Accused of Running 'Illegal' Car Business

albert555 writes: Uber's curse keeps on striking after Uber's office in the southern Chinese city of Guangzhou was raided by authorities on the 30th of April 2015. Uber is accused of running an 'illegal' transport service, according to the Guangzhou Daily. Uber has been implanted in China since August 2013 and is suspected of not having the proper qualifications to run a private car business in the city. Following the recent German court ban two weeks ago, who will win the fight for private transportation? Long-term, established transportation companies with powerful lobbying arms or the newcomer making use of disruptive technology? Does Schumpeter's creative destruction also apply to the transportation sector?

Comments

Who will win?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... China. Always China. It's practically a right of passage for internet companies to get beaten into submission by the Chinese government.

Re:Who will win?

[Dunbal]

No, not only China. Uber's business model is illegal in most of the world where there are already laws governing charging fares to passengers in your car.

Re:Who will win?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only China, but other governments have not been so effective yet.

Re:Who will win?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber have been shut down in cities in the following countries:

3.1 Australia
3.2 Belgium
3.3 Canada
3.4 China
3.5 Denmark
3.6 France
3.7 Germany
3.8 India
3.9 The Netherlands
3.10 New Zealand
3.11 Philippines
3.12 Poland
3.13 Portugal
3.14 South Africa
3.15 South Korea
3.16 Spain
3.17 Taiwan
3.18 Thailand
3.19 United Kingdom
3.20 United States

Re:Who will win?

[Anonymous Coward]

>they break the law all over

Read Walden. This is absolutely a case of civil disobedience. The laws about taxis have nothing to do with safety, which is the usual government apologist saw broken out to defend them. In fact, they attract unsafe drivers.

I could present dozens more articles like this, though this is the most shocking:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2221238/Christopher-Halliwell-Swindon-taxi-driver-asked-fellow-inmate-question-serial-killing.html

Nobody gets hurt when these laws disappear except fat cat taxi firms and overpriced fares.

>are un/under insured

Bullshit. $5 million per driver sure as hell doesn't sound uninsured to me.

http://www.thestar.com/business/2015/03/20/uber-loses-bid-to-keep-its-unique-insurance-policy-secret.html

Re:Who will win?

[tmosley]

Breaking oppressive and illegitimate laws is good for the people and humanity.

Governments, especially the likes of the Chinese government, absolutely do NOT have the monopoly on moral authority.

And yes, it has everything to do with "Long-term, established transportation companies with powerful lobbying arms". They are the ones who LITERALLY WROTE the legislation in question, and they did it to stop competition. This is not legitimate, and the politicians who took up this cause should be tried for corruption. In China, they hang corrupt officials. Maybe they do have a little bit of moral authority there. Just not a monopoly.

Re:Who will win?

[Anonymous Coward]

google you lazy fuck.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/16/us-usa-south-carolina-uber-idUSKBN0KP2BN20150116

http://gothamist.com/2015/01/07/taxi_limousine_commission_shuts_dow.php

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/06/uber-lyft-virginia-as-rows-erupt-worldwide

Re:Who will win?

[Dunbal]

Private industry being the mentally unstable guy who will charge you a fee for sitting in his disgusting car which he has an expired license for, while you pray not to die from the fumes and that the car actually holds together long enough to get you to your destination. Laws exist to regulate private industry because private industry too easily focuses on the "my profit" part of the equation and not enough on the "quality of service" part. The race to low prices is a race to the bottom unless artificial floors are put in place. While those floors (such as vehicle inspections and standards, licensing, insurance, etc) might look like a barrier to entry into the industry, they are really defining the minimum level of service acceptable. Anyone who generates profits by circumventing the rules is trading passenger safety for dollars.

Re:Who will win?

[Richard_at_work]

Ok, so what is your argument about Uber flouting the laws in the UK, where anyone can get commercial passenger carrying insurance and then get a taxi cab license from the local council for less than £3,000 to operate from a taxi rank or a private hire license to operate point to point on prebooking jobs?

Is it perhaps because those drivers dont have to prove that they have taken out the commercial passenger carrying insurance, nor pay the license fees, and instead just sacrifice a smaller amount to Uber?

It just shows that when you remove undue barriers to entry, people will still cut corners in order to save that little bit more money, even when the fees are justifiable and fair. And that is why Uber is having the hard time they are.

Re:Who will win?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Private industry being the mentally unstable guy who will charge you a fee for sitting in his disgusting car which he has an expired license for, while you pray not to die from the fumes and that the car actually holds together long enough to get you to your destination. Laws exist to regulate private industry because private industry too easily focuses on the "my profit" part of the equation and not enough on the "quality of service" part.

You amply illustrate the thinking of the nanny state. Yeah, people are just too fucking stupid to make their own decisions. Why not let the all powerful, all knowing, all seeing government tell you what's best for you.

You talk about "minimum level of service acceptable" as if it were an absolute. Why don't you let people decide on what they'll accept instead of you -- or, by proxy, your totalitarian vision of government -- decide for them? What's acceptable to me may not be acceptable to you, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be happier paying less for it. It's my skin I'm risking, not yours. You have no business telling me I can't choose to do something because you think you know better than me what's good for me. Neither does government.

Re:Who will win?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Governments, especially the likes of the Chinese government, absolutely do NOT have the monopoly on moral authority."

They have the monopoly on control, which is all that matters. If the Chinese government doesn't want Uber there, then Uber won't be there. They'll start executing people if they have to, that's how much power they have.

Re:Who will win?

[g0bshiTe]

Keep in mind this isn't the same Tienanmen Square China.

Re:Who will win?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Ok, so what is your argument about Uber flouting the laws in the UK, where anyone can get commercial passenger carrying insurance and then get a taxi cab license from the local council for less than £3,000 to operate from a taxi rank or a private hire license to operate point to point on prebooking jobs?

My argument is simple: such laws are idiotic and serve only to create barriers to entry and depress competition and innovation. If I pick up a friend and drive him to the airport and he gives me gas (excuse me, petrol) money, do I have to have a license and carry commercial insurance? Of course not. That'd be ludicrous. And if I do it for his friends every now and then, do I need it? Still, probably not. But you think there's some magical, arbitrary line that exists somewhere saying that if I transport enough people enough times for enough money, suddenly I need insurance and have to pass a bunch of tests and comply with a bunch of regulations. Baloney. Hogwash. Balderdash.

Uber wouldn't exist if the in situ transportation companies were fulfilling their function as efficiently and cheaply as possible. Nature abhors a vacuum, and Uber is filling that vacuum. Cab companies are crying foul because they don't want their business model challenged. It has nothing to do with their sudden love of human life. You say this is all about profit and you're right, but it's about their profit, not Uber's.

And let's not forget, nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to ride with Uber instead of an insured, regulated cab. People have a (gasp) CHOICE. My God, we can't have that, can we? Government MUST step in and tell these poor besotted idiots how they must decided because they're clearly too stupid to do it for themselves! Here comes government to save the day!

Re:Who will win?

[Anonymous Coward]

Breaking oppressive and illegitimate laws is good for the people and humanity.

Governments, especially the likes of the Chinese government, absolutely do NOT have the monopoly on moral authority.

Governments, by definition, have a monopoly on authority. Maybe not moral, but morals change too quickly anyway to be a solid base for laws. But anyway, please enlighten me how requiring to pass a test that you fit to transport others, requiring more frequent car inspections (since the cars are also used much more intensely), or an insurance that covers potential damage you your customers is oppressive and illegitimate?

But you're probably one of those guys who think any regulation is oppressive and illegitimate. Good luck in your anarchy, which will end up in despotism after a while.

Re:Who will win?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not let the all powerful, all knowing, all seeing government tell you what's best for you...Why don't you let people decide on what they'll accept

Well, I live in a country that's supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people.

But then, I don't live in China.

Re:Who will win?

[tmosley]

So might makes right? I think not, when that might is derived from the power of the people, but their voices are ignored.

People shouldn't be complaining about how Uber is violating the law, they should be complaining about how the law hurts the people!

Re:Who will win?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

The portion you quoted was sarcasm, my friend. Go back and read it again and you'll see.

Re:Who will win?

[Anonymous Coward]

Breaking oppressive and illegitimate laws is good for the people and humanity.
 

Uh? Oppression = not allowing a company to do business? Are we taking the immoral USSC decision that companies are people too far?

Re:Who will win?

[robbyb20]

How come someone who says something positive about a company is labeled as a shill? Should i say the same about you and being a shill for taxis?

Also, I used it this weekend in the US. So it certainly is not shut down in the US. You can says its shut down in parts of the US but not as a whole.

Re:Who will win?

[AmiMoJo]

Could this be the first company whose business model is to break the law, i.e. a criminal enterprise with VC funding? Of course other companies have broken the law, but Uber's specific business model is to break the law and hope to get away with it or get the law changed.

It's kinda bizarre. Maybe VC firms feel a bit uneasy about investing the maffia due to the level of violence, but Uber sounds kinda legit and has a lot of willing customers so is somehow okay. Maybe it sounds more like the kind of white collar rich person illegal-but-only-a-slap-on-the-wrist crime that they are used to, or have even engaged in themselves, like tax dodging or a bit of investment fraud.

Re:Who will win?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no business telling me I can't choose to do something because you think you know better than me what's good for me.

I do when what you do involves me, and it turns out I might be on those public roads, and I might even be asked to pay for the expenses when you get in an accident, and I surely am expected to deal with the fumes released by the ICE vehicles. You know, when you make your business my business.

Sorry, but you're going to have to stop doing all of these things if you want to be sure nobody else is involved.

You can discuss the parameters of what we should do, but you won't win the argument you're trying to make. We do not living a sovereign anarchy.

Re:Who will win?

[jittles]

"please enlighten me how requiring to pass a test that you fit to transport others" What is a person going to do as an Uber driver that would hurt others that he couldn't do just driving himself or his friends around? If there is a danger posed by an Uber driver, then the same danger is posed by regular drivers, and EVERYONE should be subjected to the same tests. Don't punish people for carrying out commerce. That is oppressive and hurts the people.

Someone who drives professionally spends a hell of a lot more time on the road than someone who spends 20 minutes driving to/from work each day. That means that they have a hell of a lot more of an opportunity to kill someone than the average commuter. Uber encourages these people to drive more.

"requiring more frequent car inspections (since the cars are also used much more intensely)" The cars are also owned by the drivers, who will notice when something is wrong, and get it addressed quickly, since they have to pay for it and don't want damage to compound. If the car is unsafe, the passenger will notice, give a bad rating, and complain to Uber, who will quickly deactivate the driver contengent on getting his car fixed. This is called market regulation, and it is 1000x as effective as corrupt government regulation. All you have to do is find a corrupt inspector and slip him five extra bucks and your car will pass ANY inspection.

No. Most people I know will drive around with their check engine light on for months because they don't know how to actually see what the engine code means. They also fail to maintain the emission components of their vehicles, change their oil, and a host of other small things they should be doing. Hell just a month ago I replaced the brakes and rotors on a coworker's car because she didn't realize that grinding noise she was hearing when she hit the brakes was bad.

Re:Who will win?

[Dunbal]

Setting norms for industry is not "nanny state". Are you glad that the pilot of your airline has a license, the mechanics who work on the plane are certified, etc or is that "nanny state"? Maybe I should buy a plane and start flying people around. I have a history of heart disease and haven't actually flown anything apart from my dad's piper when I was a kid and he let me take the controls, but I have plenty of simulator time. I should start my own airline.

Re:Who will win?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Don't punish people for carrying out commerce.

If you think paying taxes and playing by the same rules the yellow taxis have to play by is "punishing people", then I don't even know man.

The cars are also owned by the drivers, who will notice when something is wrong, and get it addressed quickly, since they have to pay for it and don't want damage to compound.

Yeah, that's a nice fantasy there. I use Uber and Lyft to get around sometimes and the number of times I've gotten into a car with a check engine light on is astounding.

I never review drivers and ding them for it because drivers can review me and make it hard for me to get car service.

Here's the thing, it's not the consumer's responsibility to make sure that what they're consuming is fundamentally safe or not. I'm not an inspector. I don't have the tools, money, access, and most importantly time to vet every single one of my drivers. When I need to get across town in twenty minutes, I don't have time to shop around for a cab. I get in the one I can get and go. It's not like I'm shopping around for a washing machine, a video card, a pair of pants, or any other consumer good.

Fortunately, there are people out there who make it their job to ensure that commerce is done fairly with proper levels of oversight to take care of that for me. I elect them. They need to do their damned jobs. And in the case of the Yellow Cabs, they do it amazingly well.

Re:Who will win?

[dunkelfalke]

Right, so if I go fly a plane with no training or testing it's ok, because I'll only do it once?

And this is why private pilot and commercial pilot licenses are very different.

The emissions and brakes, sure, but guess what? Those are things the RIDERS will notice, and they will get bad rating for it and get deactivated before too long.

Even airlines skip on maintenance. This has already killed people. These airlines still exist, making your point unconvincing at best.

Further, lots of Uber drivers don't actually drive that much. Certainly not more than, say, someone who commutes in a major city, or who goes on road trips. If you are going to harp on this further, I would suggest a better system would be to have inspections based on miles driven, rather that periods of time elapsed.

And now you are pulling numbers out of your arse. There is a reason why insurance companies insist on commercial insurances for professional drivers.

And in any event, you are ignoring the elephant in the room, the enormously expensive medallions/good-old boy "regulations" that price everyone out of the market and create artificial scarcity.

Uber has problems with the law even in cities/countries that go without a medallion (i.e. anybody who has a commercial driver license and commercial insurance can have their own taxi).

Re:Who will win?

[IamTheRealMike]

Hardly. AirBnb and PayPal are both good examples of this sort of thing. PayPal got raided a lot and got sent C&D letters by various state regulators when they were rolling out across the USA. Eventually they had to sell to eBay (their primary competitor) to get enough money and political immunity to survive. There's a book about it called the PayPal Wars that goes into more detail on this.

Re:Who will win?

[TheCastro1689]

|Uber have been shut down in cities in the following countries: "Cities" is the keyword here.

Re:Who will win?

[fluffernutter]

I think they are a double edged sword. They get taken advantage of, yes but you can't operate without them altogether either.

Re:Who will win?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is absolutely a case of civil disobedience.

Which is still breaking the law. It's just breaking the law knowingly, with full willingness to accept the punishments that come from doing so (with the aim being that their being punished will draw attention to the perceived injustice of the situation). But somehow I don't think that Uber's top execs or their run-of-the-mill drivers would either (1) admit to breaking the law, or (2) accept the punishments for doing so without trying to weasel their way out of them.

Re:Who will win?

[fluffernutter]

One thing is for sure, some poor Uber driver's life will be destroyed the first time there is an accident causing injury with another uninsured driver. Uber won't be standing behind them.

Re:Who will win?

[gstoddart]

Nature abhors a vacuum, and Uber is filling that vacuum.

Look, you're way abusing that metaphor.

See, "the market" isn't "nature", and "undercutting competition by ignoring laws and regulations" isn't a vacuum. That is a complete lie.

Capitalism isn't a natural law of the universe. It's a belief system which came out of observations about how things were structured. This whole crap about "yarg, let teh companies do as they please" is basically being stupid and ignoring all of the reasons why we have these laws in the first place.

And we have those laws because in the past greedy, shady douchebags with little regard for the welfare of others have decided to act like greedy, shady douchebags. And this whole crap of "people are free to not buy from greedy, shay douchebags" is so so much garbage it isn't funny.

In the same way that melamine laced baby formula in China (and pet food in North America) wasn't a choice where someone could say "hey, gee, I know, I'll save a few bucks and buy the toxic stuff". By the time people know about the corners greedy, shady douchebags have cut ... it's simply too damned late, and people can die to pad the profits of greedy, shay douchebags.

The notion that the market works because people have access to information is a complete lie ... because the people in that market will always be trying to figure out how to fuck over their customers.

The 'market' is an abstraction. It sure as hell isn't some noble construct which achieves perfect outcomes in the long run. The 'market' is amoral, and doesn't give a sweet damn if people die.

Because in the long run it devolves to scams, fraud, collusions and cartels.

Your previous 'market' is a complete lie which has never existed, cannot exist, and will never achieve the perfect outcomes you blindly believe it will.

The rest of us don't want to live in a world where all of the advantages are in the hands of greedy, shady douchebags. And we certainly don't want to live in one predicated on the bullshit lie of consumers making "choices" among lying bastards giving them false information.

Honestly, you have so little understanding of the real world if you really think crap like safety regulations come down to consumer choice and intrusive government. You're romanticizing something which has never existed as you imagine it to be, and which simply can't exist as you imagine it.

Sorry, but you can't run a society on the fucking Ferengi Rules of Acquisition -- which is what the laissez faire capitalists think we should have.

The free market is bloody lie, and especially all of those wonderful outcomes people attribute to it. The market is the collective behavior of a bunch of sociopaths, that's it.

Re:Who will win?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the part they were making fun of. You were implying that letting corporations run rampant = people have control. Yet that's what democracy, which you ostensibly have, is supposed to be... People having control.

It's such a naive worldview, that somehow one simple change will suddenly result in agency for all and this magical world where everything works perfectly because FREEDOM!

Re:Who will win?

[robbyb20]

Good point. Reading comprehension fail on my part. Thanks for pointing this out.

Re:Who will win?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

I do when what you do involves me, and it turns out I might be on those public roads, and I might even be asked to pay for the expenses when you get in an accident, and I surely am expected to deal with the fumes released by the ICE vehicles. You know, when you make your business my business.

I'm not asking you to pay for any of my expenses if I get into an accident. If the government is forcing you to do so, however, your issue should (again) be with the idiotic government regulations that compel you to do such things, not with me for exercising my free will.

The "fumes" crap is just that -- crap. It's a non sequitur to the argument at hand, namely whether the government has any right to shut down a useful service that's in demand by a willing population.

We do not living a sovereign anarchy.

Nor did I say we should. A sovereign anarchy would mean I can do whatever I want regardless of how it might affect anyone and everyone. Quite the contrary, I propose the government has no business telling me what I can and can't do when it only affects myself. For example, if I want to sit in my house and get blind stinking drunk, that's my business and the government has no right to stop me. If, however, I choose to get drunk and drive, then it affects others, so that should rightly be a crime. See? It's pretty simple. You get to do what you think is best for you, I get to do what I think is best for me, and so long as neither of us tread on the other, why should either of us care what the other did or does?

Your problem is you think what's best for you ought to be best for everyone else. The height of arrogance. Let everyone make their own choices, even if they're the wrong ones. In the end, the "right" choices will eventually win the day and society will progress.

Re:Who will win?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Are you glad that the pilot of your airline has a license, the mechanics who work on the plane are certified, etc or is that "nanny state"?

I'm glad they have licenses, certified mechanics, etc., but you miss the point. I don't have a choice in the matter. All these things are mandated and regulated. However, if I did have a choice, I would choose of my own free will to fly the licensed, certified airline. Most other people would probably choose the same way, and the unlicensed, uncertified airline would wither and die for lack of business...all without the almighty hand of government forcing the populace to think and act a certain way.

Maybe I should buy a plane and start flying people around. I have a history of heart disease and haven't actually flown anything apart from my dad's piper when I was a kid and he let me take the controls, but I have plenty of simulator time. I should start my own airline.

Then nothing should stop you from doing so. If you can attract paying customers to your business and you prosper at it, you're filling a market need that wasn't being addressed to begin with. Your customers are happy, you're happy, and nobody is harmed by these free choices. If you give bad customer service, endanger your passengers beyond their willingness to accept risk, or run your business poorly, your endeavor will fail as it should based strictly on the merits of your idea and enterprise. Government should not be in the business of determining who can or cannot come up with a useful service. Period. Government is too corruptible, too faceless, and far, far too powerful to trust with something like this.

Re:Who will win?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

One thing is for sure, some poor Uber driver's life will be destroyed the first time there is an accident causing injury with another uninsured driver. Uber won't be standing behind them.

So? It's not like someone put a gun to their head and said "you will drive for Uber or else!"

For crying out loud folks...grow the fuck up and take some responsibility for your own actions. If you don't want the risk, don't take the job.

Re:Who will win?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

See, "the market" isn't "nature", and "undercutting competition by ignoring laws and regulations" isn't a vacuum. That is a complete lie.

Oh really? Then explain why people are using Uber at all instead of the licensed, regulated cab companies that are omnipresent at all Uber-served locations? Saying something is a "complete lie" doesn't make it so, you know. The obviousness of reality proves you're incorrect.

And we have those laws because in the past greedy, shady douchebags with little regard for the welfare of others have decided to act like greedy, shady douchebags. And this whole crap of "people are free to not buy from greedy, shay douchebags" is so so much garbage it isn't funny.

Spoken like a true Social Justice Warrior. So, do you buy products and services from greedy, shady douchebags yourself? Or do you exercise your own free will and avoid buying from companies that exploit sweatshop workers, cut environmental corners, and screw their employees? I do, and it works out rather nicely. If you do as well then you've just invalidated your premise that government is required to keep the greedy, shady douchebags in check. If you don't, you're a hypocrite. Or, perhaps there's a third case where you're forced to buy goods/services from greedy, shady douchebags but only because they're protected by a government-sanctioned (officially or otherwise) monopoly.

Companies that consistently act in a fashion counter to what their customers want don't usually survive long. In fact, they typically only survive if -- drum roll please -- government regulation or subsidies allow them to do so, usually in the form of a protected monopoly/oligopoly or by excessive regulatory action presenting a nigh-insurmountable barrier to entry.

But go on thinking government is the solution to all that ails you. Knock yourself right out on that one.

Re:Who will win?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

This whole crap about "yarg, let teh companies do as they please" is basically being stupid and ignoring all of the reasons why we have these laws in the first place.

The reason we have most of these laws is rent seeking and crony capitalism.

Capitalism isn't a natural law of the universe. It's a belief system which came out of observations about how things were structured. ... You're romanticizing something which has never existed as you imagine it to be, and which simply can't exist as you imagine it.

So, you simultaneously claim that capitalism was descriptive of how things used to work, yet at the same time never existed?

In fact, free market economics is a theoretical ideal that came out of the Enlightenment, and it follows logically from the fundamental idea that every human being has the right to self-determination. You're correct that it has never existed, but we can move closer to that ideal.

The rest of us don't want to live in a world where all of the advantages are in the hands of greedy, shady douchebags.

So you are saying you want to live in a society in which businesses and individuals work for the common good of society; where their education, health care, and retirement are taken care of by the state; where they are remunerated according to the value of their labor; where foreign workers don't come in and take away American jobs. We've had those societies. Look up the 25 point program of the NSDAP, it pretty much reflects your views.

See, the problem with your ideology is that it ends up concentrating power somewhere, and that's where the "greedy, shady douchebags" go. You may be justified in disliking Mr. Moneybags, but he's still a whole lot better than Mr. Goebbels or Mr. Stalin.

Re:Who will win?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Really? What possible beneficial function does taxi licensing actually fulfill that wouldn't be better accomplished by other mechanisms?

Re:Who will win?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

And why should Uber "stand behind them"? These drivers are adults; they know what kind of insurance they ought to get.

Re:Who will win?

[cayenne8]

Uber have been shut down in cities in the following countries:

That's the problem today with too much damned govt. rules, regulations and stranglehold on innovation.

Geez, if we had the amounts of rules and regulations a 100 years ago that we have today, we'd certainly NOT likely have all the inventions and businesses we have today.

No, that pollutes too much. No you need a permit for this, and this, and this...and well, we don't permit that at all. Are you diverse enough in your company? Do you have medical? Well, you need a license to even think about building and testing that and certainly not around here. You want to sell what across state lines? You want to drive what across state lines? I'm sorry but we have to tax that. Etc.

Shit....Henry Ford couldn't have done business today as a start up.

Re:Who will win?

[Nidi62]

One thing is for sure, some poor Uber driver's life will be destroyed the first time there is an accident causing injury with another uninsured driver. Uber won't be standing behind them.

So? It's not like someone put a gun to their head and said "you will drive for Uber or else!"

For crying out loud folks...grow the fuck up and take some responsibility for your own actions. If you don't want the risk, don't take the job.

No, but if you work for a company (and these drivers are working for Uber, as much as they try to claim otherwise) that company should be liable for any injuries that occur to their employee (workers comp) as well and any injuries and damages caused to a third party by their employee (insurance). If they want to claim the drivers are contractors, then they have a duty to ensure their contractors are fully certified and insured(that is, commercial car insurance with higher liability) before they pick up a single passenger.

Re:Who will win?

[jittles]

Thank you. Obviously this guy has some reason to ignore reality in order to support Uber. Especially that comment about riders knowing that the driver isn't maintaining their car properly. How does anyone know that the brakes need service if they don't stick their head in the wheel well and look? Perhaps if there were no brake pads left! But with drum brakes you wouldn't even hear a sound when the brakes stopped working. And there are plenty of new base model cars with rear drum brakes.

Re:Who will win?

[JimFive]

And if I do it for his friends every now and then, do I need it? Still, probably not. But you think there's some magical, arbitrary line that exists somewhere saying that if I transport enough people enough times for enough money, suddenly I need insurance and have to pass a bunch of tests and comply with a bunch of regulations.

There is a line, but it isn't arbitrary or magical. When it stops being "give a friend a lift to the airport" and starts being "charging people money to take them to the airport" that's the line. It has become commercial activity.

Uber pretends (or used to) to be "ride-sharing" but it isn't. Ride sharing would have people who are making trips post their trips and offer to pick people up on the way. "I'm going from the vicinity of the high school to the mall leaving between 2pm and 3pm, any riders?" If Uber was doing this, they would have an argument that they aren't a taxi service they are just selling unused seats in cars that were making the trip anyway. But that isn't what Uber is selling.
--
JimFive

Re:Who will win?

[tlhIngan]

Hardly. AirBnb and PayPal are both good examples of this sort of thing. PayPal got raided a lot and got sent C&D letters by various state regulators when they were rolling out across the USA. Eventually they had to sell to eBay (their primary competitor) to get enough money and political immunity to survive. There's a book about it called the PayPal Wars that goes into more detail on this.

eBay and paypal were never competitors.

eBay and Paypal are synergistic - eBay needed a low-friction payment platform. Prior to the Paypal acquisition, an auction listing might only take money orders for payment (thought many sellers took Paypal because it was way more convenient). And money orders in the age of the Internet really goes back - I mean, telling the buyer to go to a post office, buy a money order, then stamp and send it off the seller and hopes it all goes alright? If you were a buyer out to screw the seller, you could win a bunch of time-sensitive auctions, then hang them up for weeks waiting for money orders. (You have to remember they will take roughly a couple of weeks for the buyer to get one and mail it off, and perhaps you can claim "lost" and take another couple of weeks). If it was a time-sensitive material, that could span a couple of months and render the product worthless.

Then there was the seller who might receive and claim it as not paid still.

Paypal offered something no one else did (or still do) - the ability for Joe Random to take a credit card payment irregularly. Merchant accounts are expensive and often have conditions. Paypal did not - if you only did 1 $100 sale in a year, that was fine for Paypal. Most merchant accounts would've charged you several hundred dollars if you did that. And credit cards ensured payments could be sent instantly and quickly, more in line with traditional online shopping.

Sure it probably took eBay's might to sort out all the financial and banking issues, but eBay and paypal are not competitors. They're not even just two random companies - they're companies that realize each has a product or service that works really really really well together. Even post eBay/Paypal split the relationship is more than that of two companies.

Re:Who will win?

[Anonymous Coward]

Timothy went full retarded years ago, probably even before his editorship at Slashdot. He's a dumb motherfucker.

Re: Who will win?

[Anonymous Coward]

Our standard of living has also gone up. We no longer have segregation, child labor, smog instead of air (hello China), rancid meat sold by food distributors, etc. Once technology matures there's much less of a need for dangerous experimentation. Maybe someone will come up with a way to make rancid meat perfectly healthy to eat, but they'll have to prove it works first.

Re:Who will win?

[tmosley]

"How does anyone know that the brakes need service"

Not a car guy, eh? Here's a hint: that terrible screeching sound you are hearing every time you hit the breaks means you need to get new pads, IF you haven't already destroyed the rotors.

As for rear drum breaks, they are only an assist. If they go out, it just makes the front breaks wear faster.

I support the rights of the people, including their right to free enterprise without interference from men with guns, whether they be banditos or g-men.

Re:Who will win?

[tmosley]

"I use Uber and Lyft to get around sometimes and the number of times I've gotten into a car with a check engine light on is astounding."

The check engine light can come on for any manner of things, including things that are very expensive to fix, but have no effect on safety. You can't judge the condition of a car by whether or not it is on.

And as for reviews, the drivers can't see them. Uber obfuscates them.

"And in the case of the Yellow Cabs, they do it amazingly well."

They really don't. At least not where I live. Ever get in a cab that was dragging its muffler along the ground behind it? A friend of mine did. When he asked the driver about it, he said he had complained to the owners, but they refused to fix it. An Uber driver whose car was making such a clatter wouldn't dare to get on the road, as they would get terrible ratings as a result and wind up getting deactivated.

Re:Who will win?

[TWX]

Passenger livery laws exist for a reason, and it's not simply to make taxi companies richer. It's to ensure the safety and well being of the passengers both during normal, mundane fares, and when something like an automobile accident happens.

If Uber was being used as a real ride-sharing service, where the driver happened to be going to a destination near the passenger's destination, such that the passenger's fare offset there driver's costs somewhat, I might be inclined to let Uber slide on the regs a bit, as that's not a lot different than getting gas money from the drunk friend for the trip home from the bar. Instead Uber is operating as a taxi service, where the driver acknowledges requests for pickup, drives to the location of the fare, collects them, drives them to their destination, and then looks for another request for pickup. Uber is a taxi. As such it needs to abide by passenger livery laws. If it doesn't like the laws, and if the passengers in a given area also feel that there's a problem, they should work to change the laws, not to break them while claiming that the laws do not apply.

Re:Who will win?

[TWX]

Yes, they escort the cameras out first, then they start arresting the crowd from the edges and driving them away, proceeding in toward the center. As they make arrests they determine who's of high-value and who's small-fry, and let the small-fry go with a note on their record so when they get out of line in the future they know to be harsher, while they punish the high-value prisoners.

All governments do it this way. The various governments within the United States did this during the Occupy movement. The Canadians did this during the G# summit. They don't pull a Blade Runner and bomb the rioters, that's stupid. They tie them down with red-tape instead.

Re:Who will win?

[TWX]

I've taken taxis before. I don't feel that the rides I took, which are the culmination of the laws and policies and rules, were hurting me.

Re:Who will win?

[Etherwalk]

No, not only China. Uber's business model is illegal in most of the world where there are already laws governing charging fares to passengers in your car.

Not only China, but more China. As a practical matter, I have never heard anything good about China's response to foreign business investments. It's probably the single biggest thing limiting their growth at the moment. Worse, even companies investing billions there have to basically have a Chinese company do it for them because there is so much corruption that it is impossible to do it themselves without violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Re:Who will win?

[gstoddart]

Spoken like a true Social Justice Warrior

Spoken like a true drooling idiot who has lost all critical thinking skills.

Look, I drank the Ayn Rand Koolaid for a while. Which means I'm now good at spotting the lies and bullshit associated with it. If you want to continue to be an idiot who falls back to ad hominem attacks when people disagree with you ... go ahead. But fuck off and leave me alone.

Don't fucking pretend it's because you have some natural laws and facts on your side.

I say again, Capitalism is NOT a law of nature, and Uber deciding laws don't apply to them is nothing more than a corporation deciding they should play by different rules. But Capitalism isn't a law of physics, it's a school of economics -- or more accurately, it's an observation that "people own stuff".

Yes, choice is a strong aspect of the market. But if you think the market achieves perfect outcomes in the long run just simply because it's the market ... you're delusional.

Pure capitalism is based on as much fantasy and bullshit as pure communism -- neither can exist on their own as claimed, and neither ever will. Both of these systems of though assume perfect outcomes will happen once everyone is forced to follow the irrational claims laid out in them. Oooh, the magic unicorns on my side say this must be true so it is.

Such bullshit.

If you think removing all government regulations will produce anything except anarchy, you really need to step back and look at reality, and what the actual evidence is for your ideology, instead of just thinking your ideology is 100% complete and infallible.

Then it just becomes an appeal to higher authority, and exactly like any other religion -- full of zealots who just keep repeating things they don't comprehend as if it's magic.

The free market as moral ideal is as full of shit as Karl Marx ever was. Which means between those two extremes might be some truth in both camps.

Taken to their extremes, both of these ideologies collapse under their own crap. Neither is, in fact, an innate and natural fact.

Stop pretending otherwise.

Re:Who will win?

[tmosley]

"Even airlines skip on maintenance. This has already killed people. These airlines still exist, making your point unconvincing at best."

What, exactly is the point of regulations, then? The airlines are probably the most heavily regulated industry in the nation, but they are STILL having these problems? Note that those regulations also shield the companies from liability--you can't sue someone if they were in compliance and win. They also make sure that new companies can't come in, and helps to prevent new paradigms from being tried (flying cars have been shot down by the FAA repeatedly).

"And now you are pulling numbers out of your arse. There is a reason why insurance companies insist on commercial insurances for professional drivers."

Show me where there is a number in that post. Yes, there is a reason why professional drivers have commercial insurance, but only when they are in a commercial vehicle. A big rig driver doesn't have to have commercial insurance on his personal car. The Uber car switches back and forth from being a professional to a personal vehicle.

"Uber has problems with the law even in cities/countries that go without a medallion (i.e. anybody who has a commercial driver license and commercial insurance can have their own taxi)."

Yes, because the taxi companies have bought off the politicians! Look at Texas, and see a state where they failed to do that. The people love these services so much that the money of the lobbyists has been drowned out. This is a good thing.

Re:Who will win?

[tmosley]

What if, instead of being 2-4 times as much as the ride would have been in a free market, it was 100 or 1000 times as much? Would you have felt harmed then? If you were trying to start a small taxi business and spent $50,000 only to have it shut down by the government at a 90% loss, would you feel harmed then?

Do you have a peripheral nerve disorder or something? Because if seems like you can't feel pain at all.

Re:Who will win?

[tmosley]

Oh yeah, and if you got hit by a drunk driver who got tired of waiting after two hours for a taxi to come pick him up? Would you feel that? Ubers get there in a couple of minutes, and there are swarms of them.

Re:Who will win?

[TWX]

I'm a little confused. Are you arguing a hypothetical, that taxi rates could jump orders of magnitude in price, or are you arguing that taxi upstarts would get destroyed, or are you arguing something else?

Re:Who will win?

[Dunbal]

The point you're missing is that many will be happy to tell you that they are fully licensed, certified, etc and actually be lying through their teeth - especially if profit is involved. The only way to ensure compliance is to force them.

Re:Who will win?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not asking you to pay for any of my expenses if I get into an accident.

You're asking me to pay my expenses though. Strangely I have terms for that. You've yet to get my approval, you've yet to give me a choice.

Why is that?

If the government is forcing you to do so, however, your issue should (again) be with the idiotic government regulations that compel you to do such things, not with me for exercising my free will.

My problem is with your actions that impede on me. Your free will does tend to lead to that.

The "fumes" crap is just that -- crap. It's a non sequitur to the argument at hand, namely whether the government has any right to shut down a useful service that's in demand by a willing population.

Not at all, the pollution from ICE's is a serious problem, and yet I have little hope of recovery on my own, now do I? Or can I stop you and charge you the fee for your pollutants released from your vehicle or not?

Nor did I say we should.

Actually, that is your argument. You just don't want to admit it, because you know you'll lose. So you pretend otherwise and expect the rest of us to go along.

Rejected. Same as I reject you driving streets I am also driving without it being my business. Y'know, the thing you just got done saying. You've made your business impact my business. So you pay the price.

A sovereign anarchy would mean I can do whatever I want regardless of how it might affect anyone and everyone. Quite the contrary, I propose the government has no business telling me what I can and can't do when it only affects myself.

And yet you are talking about driving on the public roads. Inherently that is something that will not only affect yourself. See the problem yet? Or will you continue to pretend otherwise?

For example, if I want to sit in my house and get blind stinking drunk, that's my business and the government has no right to stop me. If, however, I choose to get drunk and drive, then it affects others, so that should rightly be a crime. See? It's pretty simple. You get to do what you think is best for you, I get to do what I think is best for me, and so long as neither of us tread on the other, why should either of us care what the other did or does?

Your problem is you think what's best for you ought to be best for everyone else. The height of arrogance.

Except...that's your problem. You're the one who wants to decide how you're driving on the road and not give the rest of us any input. You're the one who just got done telling us that it was none of our business.

How arrogant do you have to be to think nobody is spotting the hypocrisy in your remarks?

You're the one ranting and raving how you want to make choices. What about the rest of us?

Re:Who will win?

[penguinoid]

As such it needs to abide by passenger livery laws. If it doesn't like the laws, and if the passengers in a given area also feel that there's a problem, they should work to change the laws, not to break them while claiming that the laws do not apply.

Or, they could just ignore the bad laws like a responsible grownup. (Eg, compare to certain places where the speed limit is 35 but no one goes below 55, it is clear that the law is bad, that the people don't want the law, but instead of changing it people and law enforcement just ignore it). Changing laws is hard!

Re:Who will win?

[newcastlejon]

As for rear drum breaks, they are only an assist. If they go out, it just makes the front breaks wear faster.

They're also quite useful when you're not driving the car.

Re:Who will win?

[TWX]

The police are still free to enforce the speed limit though. The defense in court that everyone was doing it doesn't hold any weight with the judge, and in in jury trials where the odds of finding people more sympathetic to the herd argument it might not work. Also in this analogy, if the police are letting speed infractions slide, they might still pull over tailgaters and other aggressive drivers that are making the road more dangerous irrespective of speed, or they might cite the speed limit infraction along with the reckless driving infraction.

Re:Who will win?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you glad that the pilot of your airline has a license, the mechanics who work on the plane are certified, etc or is that "nanny state"?

I'm glad they have licenses, certified mechanics, etc., but you miss the point. I don't have a choice in the matter. All these things are mandated and regulated. However, if I did have a choice, I would choose of my own free will to fly the licensed, certified airline. Most other people would probably choose the same way, and the unlicensed, uncertified airline would wither and die for lack of business...all without the almighty hand of government forcing the populace to think and act a certain way.

So here's the issue. Without the regulations, the non-certified shady airline will be able to offer lower fares. Some people -- not all, but many -- will then move to the shady airline. The airline industry operates on razor-thin margins. So the airline you claim you will take will either go out of business or, more likely, also decide to cut corners. Without the regulations, there wouldn't be a high-quality airline for you to take whether you want to or not.

This is why regulations are put in place, by the way: areas where market forces produce screwed-up incentives that produce a race to the bottom where both profits and quality of service disappear.

Re:Who will win?

[jittles]

"How does anyone know that the brakes need service" Not a car guy, eh? Here's a hint: that terrible screeching sound you are hearing every time you hit the breaks means you need to get new pads, IF you haven't already destroyed the rotors.

Sounds like you are not the car guy. The screech you hear can be chatter from the brake pads, or from the wear indicator. It is NOT and indication that you need to replace the brakes, it is an indication that you need to inspect the brakes. Brand new brakes can cause a screeching sound if they do not have the proper shims installed, or an anti-screech compound put onto the back of the pads.

There is nothing to cause a screeching sound that would also destroy the rotors - neither brake chatter nor the wear indicator will cause damage to the rotor. If you hear a grinding noise, then the brake pad has been worn completely away (at least in one place, or on one side of the rotor). Of course someone can hear steel on steel grinding. You can feel it in the car when the brakes are applied.

As for rear drum breaks, they are only an assist. If they go out, it just makes the front breaks wear faster.

Anyone who understands physics understands that the rear brakes do not provide as much stopping power as the front, regardless of whether they are drum or disc. However, up to 40% of your stopping power can come from the rear brakes. If you're driving without rear brakes, you had better hope you never need to make a panic stop. In a brief Googling the best I could find for you is the Motorcycle Safety Foundation's Basic Handbook that indicates that the average motorcycle has 30% of its total available braking power in the rear wheel. It does not say that the rear wheels provide nothing but brake assist, that is just absurd. And I would prefer to NOT ride in the car of someone who only has 70% of their total stopping power available to them.

I support the rights of the people, including their right to free enterprise without interference from men with guns, whether they be banditos or g-men.

You're right, people deserve freedom. However, being a member of society requires that you follow certain norms. For simplicity's sake, why don't we call these norms regulations? These regulations forbid you from murdering me, for instance. The general purpose of these regulations are to prevent injury or harm to others. If you'd like to go back to the days without any sort of government regulations, why don't we just go ahead and let you, your partner, your parents, your children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, or any progeny of your family work in a factory for 100+ hours a week?

Re:Who will win?

[fluffernutter]

Democracy has rules! It is not just about everyone rampantly going around doing what they want! If what you say is true, then the existence of any government at all is purely undemocratic.

Re:Who will win?

[fluffernutter]

It ensures a certain minimum of safety. When you release the floor, everyone will devolve into total crap. Crap for the consumer, crap for the industry. No one wins unless everyone is forced to a certain common minimum.

Re:Who will win?

[fluffernutter]

The whole Uber thing is nothing more than Karl Marx's prediction that capitalism would end up being a race to the bottom.

Removing government controls at this point would just get us there more quickly.

Re:Who will win?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

The check engine light can come on for any manner of things, including things that are very expensive to fix, but have no effect on safety. You can't judge the condition of a car by whether or not it is on.

I don't know what code that light is indicating. I'm 99% sure I'm going to reach my destination, so I hop in anyway.

Still, doesn't make me feel great to do so.

They really don't. At least not where I live.

I live in NYC. Yellow Cabs here are impeccably maintained. Maybe you live somewhere that doesn't care about taxis? NYC is run on taxis.

Re: Who will win?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course that one is the most shocking, it's from the Daily Mail, the UK's biggest tabloid. Are any of your dozens to find articles from newspapers with considerable international recognition for the veracity of their news reports?

Re:Who will win?

[cayenne8]

That's what radar detectors are for...

;)

Re:Who will win?

[penguinoid]

The police are still free to enforce the speed limit though. The defense in court that everyone was doing it doesn't hold any weight with the judge, and in in jury trials where the odds of finding people more sympathetic to the herd argument it might not work. Also in this analogy, if the police are letting speed infractions slide, they might still pull over tailgaters and other aggressive drivers that are making the road more dangerous irrespective of speed, or they might cite the speed limit infraction along with the reckless driving infraction.

No, in that area they will pull you over if you do go the speed limit, because if you're not speeding then you're impeding traffic. Go ahead and try it if you don't believe me.

The problem is that the people who make the rules, the people who enforce the rules, and the people most affected by the rules, are all different groups with different objectives. Reality is based on which rules are enforced or followed, not what is written.

Re:Who will win?

[tmosley]

Reductio ad absurdum. You claimed that higher prices don't hurt you, which is patently wrong. They just haven't hurt you enough for you to notice. Others sure have.

Re:Who will win?

[penguinoid]

There's no rule that says that if you disagree with a law and decide to break it, that you have to be willing to accept the punishment and draw attention to the situation. That's only one way to do civil disobedience, and it will only work if people are extremely sympathetic to those breaking that law. Uber's method of blatantly breaking the law but having anyone important untouchable due to technicalities, also works well. Presumably not getting caught would be yet another (and drawing attention via the amount of resources wasted on attempted enforcement).

Public civil disobedience would of course be the best method for those few who live in a democracy.

Re:Who will win?

[TWX]

No, I claimed the prices that I paid didn't hurt me. While I usually make an effort to get low prices, it doesn't physically pain me if there are circumstances when relatively inexpensive transactions are not absolutely bargain-basement in the interests of expediency. The two times most recently I used a taxi were hailing one in a high density city, and taking one home from the airport. In both cases I got my transport essentially immediately.

Re:Who will win?

[TWX]

I live in a city where people routinely do fifteen miles an hour over the posted speed limit on the freeways, and usually to 5 to 10 miles per hour over the speed limit on surface streets. So, upwards of 80 in a 65, 70 in a 55, 55 in a 45, 50 in a 40, 30 to 35 in a 25.

To be pulled over for obstructing traffic on a freeway, you have to be going at least ten miles an hour slower than the posted speed limit, and honestly have to be too far to the left. You won't be pulled over for obstructing traffic on a surface street unless you're not moving or again, you're too far to the left.

Re:Who will win?

[penguinoid]

As you said... but remember, no matter what lane you are, if you're going the speed limit the only traffic you'd be obstructing would be traffic going above the speed limit.

Re:Who will win?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Spoken like a true drooling idiot who has lost all critical thinking skills.

Those who cannot argue logically resort to ad hominem attacks.

Yes, choice is a strong aspect of the market. But if you think the market achieves perfect outcomes in the long run just simply because it's the market ... you're delusional.K

No one said it was perfect, but thank you for creating a strawman, another weak logical fallacy.

f you think removing all government regulations will produce anything except anarchy, you really need to step back and look at reality, and what the actual evidence is for your ideology, instead of just thinking your ideology is 100% complete and infallible.

Again, another strawman. I never said anything about removing all government regulations. Some things -- like not being able to shout "fire" in a crowded theater -- make logical sense. Others -- like forcing nail salons to obtain a license in order to do their specific business -- are idiotic. If you're unable to sift the wheat from the chaff, that's your problem.

Stop pretending otherwise.

Since you're the one who's consistently stooped to ad hominem, strawmen, and completely refused to address any of the logical arguments presented -- namely, why should choice be restricted when it harms no one but the person making the choice? -- it's clear you're the one who needs to quit pretending. This is not about Uber being a corporation trying to flout rules and screw the public. It's about the rules being ridiculous in the first place and Uber is disrupting the status quo. Get this through your thick anti-capitalist skull: Uber would not exist if there was not a demand for its services. Ergo, if Uber exists, it's because the existing services model is flawed, inefficient, expensive, outmoded, or some combination thereof. Replacing something flawed with something less flawed -- or even differently flawed -- is probably a good thing. The only way to know for sure is to let the idea compete in an open market where it will live or die on the merits of its usefulness. But you don't want to do that. You want to maintain the status quo, quash choice and innovation, and tell people you know what's better for them than they do. Because reasons. And corporations bad. Yadda yadda yadda. Your vitriol in this respect is as predictable as it is laughable.

I have yet to hear anything logical or reasoned from you regarding why choice should be quashed. If the idea is bad, it will die on the vine...as all bad ideas should. If it's good then what it replaces will die on the vine...as it should.

Re:Who will win?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

It ensures a certain minimum of safety. When you release the floor, everyone will devolve into total crap.

And where is the evidence for that? We have private limousine service, private bus companies, and Uber itself, and they all work a lot better than taxis and public buses.

Re: Who will win?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, we're no longer allowed to marry nubile teenage girls. We have to content with marrying girls older than 18 years old. *sigh*

Re:Who will win?

[stoatwblr]

Uber has not been shut down in any part of the UK.

It operates as a licensed private car hire service ("minicabs") and drivers must possess appropriate licensing for commercial work plus have a criminal record check.

The problem arises where Uber is touting drivers "for hire" when they're not licenses for hire work - which in most cases invalidates their insurance.

Re:Who will win?

[stoatwblr]

"no matter what lane you are, if you're going the speed limit the only traffic you'd be obstructing would be traffic going above the speed limit."

Just about every set of road rules in the world says "keep right(*) unless passing". Cruising up the middle lane of the highway is "failing to keep right" (*) and can be prosecuted as careless driving, even if there's no other traffic on the road - in practice such people are rolling roadblocks because it's usually illegal to pass them on the right(*) and as such they turn a three lane road into a 1 or 2 lane one.

Many countries also have laws on the books such that if you're travelling slowly and have more than N cars behind, you _must_ pull over and allow them to pass.

(*) s/right/left/g for countries which drive on the left side of the road.

Re:Who will win?

[penguinoid]

Well, I find it amusing that they have laws that are there to benefit people breaking other laws.

Who will win?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Following the recent German court ban two weeks ago, who will win the fight for private transportation? Long-term, established transportation companies with powerful lobbying arms or the newcomer making use of disruptive technology?

Timothy, have you gone full retard? The whole uber issue is that they break the law all over the world are un/under insured, time after time after time. This has nothing to do with "Long-term, established transportation companies with powerful lobbying arms". And neither do uber make use of disruptive technology, their system is the same or similar to many other systems, its just they have raised more VC than anyone else and spend a lot more money on advertising.

there is a legal system that all companies obey

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber must to, or work to change the laws

just like everybody else

Re:there is a legal system that all companies obey

[tmosley]

Aztecs legally sacrificed children to their gods. Should their parents have worked to change the laws to divest legal authority from the priest class while allowing their children to be slaughtered? Would a (non-violent) rebellion have been justified?

Re:there is a legal system that all companies obey

[Dunbal]

Are you seriously comparing transportation with human sacrifice?

Re:there is a legal system that all companies obey

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of the obvious ridiculousness of your comparison, if people live in a society that legally sacrifices children, you have four choices:
a) deal with it
b) work within the system to change the rules
c) work outside the system to change the system (aka revolution)
d) go somewhere else.

Now, you can always try c), but you better be prepared to deal with the consequences if it turns out that the majority of your society doesn't want to change. And coming back to the case at hand, I daresay that there will be no revolution just because of Uber, because too many people just don't care, and even the ones who do will probably not go to jail or even risk their lives over it, so while it's a fun story to watch, c) will never happen.

Re:there is a legal system that all companies obey

[tmosley]

You don't understand politics. You see, politicians are largely bullies, and all bullies are cowards. They fear losing their position. Show them anger, or even figuratively bloody their nose, and they will usually change their policies. As such, there is a spectrum between b and c, which includes things like nonviolent protests (including where such protests are illegal a la Ghandi), and active defiance of the law, which worked in Austin to make it de facto legal to smoke marijuana in public (the police have been instructed not to enforce that law due to popular demand and popular defiance of the law).

Unbiased article?

[houghi]

Was this written by Fox? It could easily been written as "Commie evil people block Fredom fighters of the USA".

They did not follow the rules, they get caught. If you do not like the rules of a country, don't do business there.

Re:Unbiased article?

[Anonymous Coward]

also what many americans, and especially the extremely egotistical and downright retarded highops at uber doesnt realize, is that not every country is as extremely fail in a great many ways as the god planted US of A.

they simply do not understand the "foreign" markets, and act as if everything is atleast as bad as the US, and most probably worse, when in fact in most countries they could simply register and be done with it.

Re:Unbiased article?

[disposable60]

This is China we're talking about. If you grease the right palms, it's the Wild West (East?).

Skewed

[Anonymous Coward]

The established transportation service does *not* have to lobby. The relevant laws where established a long long time ago.

It is uber who must lobby, and it should do so *before* opening up business.

Re:Skewed

[tompaulco]

The established transportation service does *not* have to lobby. The relevant laws where established a long long time ago.

It is uber who must lobby, and it should do so *before* opening up business.

Not to mention, if they do lobby and manage to get the law changed such that they don't have to have insurance or be registered or have medallions, the same law would apply to the other transportation companies, so Uber STILL wouldn't have any advantage. They talk about being a tech company, but I don't see where they have any more tech than any other company. They have a mobile phone app and a scheduling system. Color me unimpressed. Plenty of other transportation companies have those as well and ALSO have insurance and the proper certifications.

Re:Skewed

[gstoddart]

Ah, but Uber's story only works if they can basically re-define what the local law is according to their own wishes.

Uber likes to hide behind their lie about only being a tech company, and they love to stress this whole "little guy fighting for the underdog".

The problem is they have to deal with reality, and the Libertarian notion of subverting regulations making you a noble and better person isn't an argument which is accepted in most places. In fact, it will simply get you arrested or fined.

The regulations exist. You are subject to those regulations. Your own perceived nobility in deciding those regulations don't apply to you is your damned problem, but it doesn't make it fact.

And the fact is, in places which have regulations around the licensing and operations of commercial vehicles -- you don't simply get to decree that the law doesn't apply to you because you stepped in unicorn poop.

I figure the people who run Uber are either collectively delusional, or collectively lying bastards. What they aren't is magically exempt from laws and regulations because they claim to be.

And if they don't like it ... that's really too damned bad for them. And, like a child throwing a temper tantrum, it doesn't change a damned thing.

Re:Skewed

[tmosley]

"The relevant laws where established a long long time ago."

And who do you think wrote those laws?

Uber is wise to open immediately, since the people using it absolutely love it, and will complain if the government tries to get rid of them. The solution is to get rid of the longstanding laws that were born of corruption. They only serve the people who hired the now long dead lobbyists that paid off a few long dead politicians to sign unconstitutional legislation in smoke filled back rooms far from the public eye.

Re:Skewed

[bws111]

Yeah, the 'transportation industry' wrote those laws. Just like the meat packing industry wrote the meat packing laws, the building industry wrote the fire codes, the coal industry wrote the clean air laws, the mining industry wrote the mining safety laws, the restaurant industry wrote the health codes, etc.

Maybe you should read up on what conditions were like before those laws (and still are in some places), then maybe you could understand why the PEOPLE wanted those laws.

Re:Skewed

[tmosley]

No, meat packing laws were written after "The Jungle" was published, something you are no doubt referencing. Each case of those were, indeed, written by politicians, but only AFTER some tragedy or news article or book brought the subject into the full view of the people, where they demanded action. This is a case only in the vast MINORITY of regulations, most of which you have already named.

Just because a government makes a law against killing babies doesn't mean that every law they create is legitimate. Read up on the lobbying industry. They write practically every piece of legislation that is introduced. You think they do this for the good of the people?

Re:Skewed

[bws111]

You don't think there were tragedies, news reports, public outrage about unregulated cabs? I suggest you do some research.

Re: Skewed

[Anonymous Coward]

Child throwing a temper tantrum.... I like that. It also describes most of the Ayn Rand crowd around here...

Re:Skewed

[tmosley]

I'm not talking about gypsy cabs, I'm talking about Ubers, who are tracked by GPS, along with their riders, and as a result, can't rape or murder anyone while working without getting caught. And don't talk to me about the guy in India. He wasn't working when he raped that woman.

Might as well have regulations on stores because the employees might rape or murder the customers.

Re:Skewed

[bws111]

So SOME types of unregulated cabs should not exist, but Uber is special so it gets a free pass? The law does not work that way.

Also, the primary purpose of these laws in not to prevent murder and rape of fares, it is to protect the safety of the public who are NOT fares. For instance, your wonderful GPS (and Ubers much-ballyhooed 'insurance') does nothing for the poor schlub who gets mowed down by an Uber driver on the way to pick up a fare.

Re:Skewed

[tmosley]

" but Uber is special so it gets a free pass"

Uber is special, for the reason I mentioned. Not that gypsy cabs should be regulated either. If I want to offer someone a ride for pay, that is a private transaction between me and another person. The government has no business butting in.

If an Uber driver runs over someone, how is that different from a regular person running over someone? Or are you saying that people need to be punished for trying to make a little money?

Re:Skewed

[bws111]

The 'regular driver' is INSURED, so the victim is compensated. An Uber driver on his way to pick someone up is driving for commercial purposes so his 'regular' insurance will not pay, and neither will Ubers insurance as it is in effect only when there is a passenger. Yes, this has happened more than once.

Re:Skewed

[tompaulco]

I'm in total agreement with you. If Uber wants to claim to be a technology company then I am all about that. Just stop transporting people. Develop your smartphone app and your scheduling system and sell it to Yellow Cab, ABC Limo, whoever. Let the transportation companies deal with the regulations. It is what they have been doing for 100 years.

Re:Skewed

[mattventura]

That doesn't solve any problem. The issue is that in many places, taxis are given government-granted x-opoly in the form of taxi medallions which effectively shield them from competition, allowing them to overcharge.
In addition, it's pretty dumb to begin with that you can take some action which is perfectly legal (in this case, letting someone ride in your car), but as soon as you add a transfer of currency (also perfectly legal), it somehow becomes illegal.

Re:Skewed

[tmosley]

Sounds like you have a problem with insurance, then, not Uber. Perhaps the insurance industry needs some more regulation, or more likely, need to be sued until they figure out who is liable.

Re:Skewed

[bingoUV]

in many places, taxis are given government-granted x-opoly in the form of taxi medallions

So could we start with saying that in only such "many places", Uber's activities are moral, and even there illegal?

At other places, they are both immoral and illegal so we will talk about them when they shut their services at least in places where there are no medallions. And let us be clear from the start that Uber knew about this immorality and illegality when they started their business and it didn't stop them from operating in such areas, so Uber cannot ride any high horse - moral or legal.

No matter what Uber says ...

[gstoddart]

Uber isn't some magical entity which exists outside of laws and regulations, no matter what its owners keep trying to tell us.

Uber has basically said "why, no, we're special because we say so, and we don't give a crap about your laws", and then they go on to say "we're not a transport company, we're a tech company, who happens to behave like a transport company".

I have precisely zero sympathy for Uber, and I think more places should be impounding cars and arresting people who have basically decided "fuck you, I'm going to run a commercial car service and keep saying loudly how I'm not a commercial car service".

This bullshit about "Long-term, established transportation companies with powerful lobbying arms or the newcomer making use of disruptive technology?" is exactly that ... it's bullshit. It's how Uber tells their underdog story, but it's a complete lie.

This has nothing to do with established players with powerful lobbying arms. This has everything to do with how governments have regulated commercial vehicles, and Uber using their bullshit story to sound like the plucky underdog.

Uber is a tech startup, acting like a spoiled child, and decreeing they aren't subject to laws.

The whole underdog thing makes for great PR copy, but is otherwise a complete fucking lie.

Re:No matter what Uber says ...

[CaptBubba]

The trouble with impounding cars is that those aren't the people who are behind it all. They're just the people desperate enough to themselves into the ground for negative income once you subtract out costs like fuel and depreciation, or those gullible enough to think they are gonna be rich. Maybe a few true believers or those who just treat it like entertainment to meet people. It would be like attacking Herbalife by arresting every seller.

But I agree with you about Uber not being a tech company. U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen agrees:

“Uber is no more a ‘technology company’ than Yellow Cab is a ‘technology company’ because it uses CB radios to dispatch taxi cabs, John Deere is a ‘technology company’ because it uses computers and robots to manufacture lawn mowers, or Domino Sugar is a ‘technology company’ because it uses modern irrigation techniques to grow its sugar cane,”

Re:No matter what Uber says ...

[Nidi62]

If an airline was touting the fact thay they use uncertified mechanics, pilots without commercial ratings, and insuring 737s like they were single engine Pipers and that it makes them the cheapest and most competitive people would be all over them yelling for them to be shut down. That is essentially what Uber is doing. It's a lot easier to be cheap and convenient when you are ignoring laws and regulations that are put in for very good reasons.

Re:No matter what Uber says ...

[gstoddart]

The trouble with impounding cars is that those aren't the people who are behind it all.

Within the first week of Uber showing up in a city, you can hear quite plainly how this is an illegal cab, frequently operating with improper licensing and insurance, and which is in violation of the law.

At which point, you are either a gullible fool who thinks he is going to 'fight the power'. Or you have willfully said "fuck it, I'll keep being an illegal cab and make some money".

What you can't argue is that poor little you had no idea you were breaking the law.

And then that becomes your damned problem, and you don't get to claim to be an innocent victim. Because you knew damned well what you were doing was illegal.

You've made yourself a patsy so a tech startup who doesn't give a crap about you can continue their self created mythology of being the underdog fighting for the little guy.

But at the end of the day, it's the people driving the cars who are breaking the law.

Got talked into thinking you were doing this out of some sense of nobility? Bummer dude.

I'm betting Uber isn't paying anybody's legal bills or fines. Because even Uber knows that the suckers on the front lines are expendable to them.

Re:No matter what Uber says ...

[wonkey_monkey]

The whole underdog thing makes for great PR copy, but is otherwise a complete fucking lie.

Uber (valued at US$40 billion after its most recent funding)

Yeah. Wish I could be that kind of underdog.

Re:No matter what Uber says ...

[geekmux]

...Uber is a tech startup, acting like a spoiled child, and decreeing they aren't subject to laws.

The whole underdog thing makes for great PR copy, but is otherwise a complete fucking lie.

OK, I get they want to be a startup and complain about the establishment.

However, complaining about this establishment does have it's valid points.

When you hear of taxi medallions costing hundreds of thousands, it reminds me of the restriction and control around county-issued liquor licenses. In fact, it's the exact same bullshit. And yeah, it is bullshit, because we've allowed greed and corruption to essentially block almost anyone from entering the market due to the costs that are out of fucking control.

When your market can be easily compared to the corruption around liquor and gasoline, I'd say you have plenty to valid points to address when attempting to compete.

But hey, let's get these spoiled kids under control. Make them get recognized as a legitimate transport service and play by the rules dammit! Hey, I know, lets issue Uber medallions and make them create a union! Yes, I'm sure that is the fucking answer we all want to hear...

Re:No matter what Uber says ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, Uber raised more than $5,6B in funding from various sources.

Compare this with the local cab corporation with proper licensing... Who is the underdog here?

Uber needs to be exposed for what it is... It's a bunch of rich people trying to assimilate (and in the process destroy) a market under the pretext of being disruptive, anti-government-monopoly.

And what do they need all those Billions for anyway? They're not the ones owning the cars, they're only building a shiny app for your mobile phone. I'll guess lobbying yourself into a market is rather expensive....

Re:No matter what Uber says ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that the capitalist ideal? No laws to limit the corporations, only people. I wonder how so many are saying fuck uber and yet so many whine when microsoft or apple or any other corporate motherfucker is being investigated for doing the same things.

Re:No matter what Uber says ...

[smooth wombat]

You forgot to add that people who are employed by Uber need to be investigated to make sure they have the added insurance required when you are transporting people for money.

What should happen is insurance companies should use the service then cross-reference the driver with their insurance policy. If they don't have the required insurance, send them a bill.

Same goes for the state department of revenue. Since these people are operating a business they need to claim the money on their tax returns, though they can still deduct expenses just like any other business.

Re:No matter what Uber says ...

[Anonymous Coward]

part of the regulation is also there to make sure there is taxis on the street when there isn't much to do, the taxi companies get a "monopoly" on the good times in exchange for also providing service at bad times

Re:No matter what Uber says ...

[misexistentialist]

And if an airline was double-certified all the normal airlines would have to be shut down!

Re:No matter what Uber says ...

[bws111]

Medalliions cost what they cost because they are limited. They are limitied because there is only so much taxi service a city can handle. Adding more cars to the street doesn't move more people, it just creates more congestion. And congestion leads to aggressive driving and such stupity as using the sidewalk as a way around traffic. A glut of taxis means aggresive actions in trying to get fares (like picking up on the wrong side of the street, etc). A glut of taxis also means it is difficult for any particular taxi service to make enough money to stay in business. Who will survive? The one that spends the least money on luxuries like proper maintenance.

Yes, this describes conditions before the taxi laws were introduced. It is why the people wanted regulation.

There are good reasons for the taxi regulations and the medallion system. Just because you want to pretend they don't exist does not mean the don't exist in reality.

Re:No matter what Uber says ...

[msobkow]

So by your logic, the police should never be bothered with "busting" street-level drug dealers, pick-pockets, or muggers because they aren't the "big fish" in their criminal organization.

I don't give a damn if you're some greedy schmuck who bought into Uber's lies. You are providing the end service, and your activity is illegal, so why shouldn't the book be thrown at you?

It's not like you're innocent. Even if you are ignorant of the law, that has never been held as an excuse in court.

Re:No matter what Uber says ...

[geekmux]

part of the regulation is also there to make sure there is taxis on the street when there isn't much to do, the taxi companies get a "monopoly" on the good times in exchange for also providing service at bad times

Does putting quotes around "monopoly" make it sound more legal or just less corrupt in your mind?

Competing markets want to know.

Re:No matter what Uber says ...

[geekmux]

Medalliions cost what they cost because they are limited. They are limitied because there is only so much taxi service a city can handle. Adding more cars to the street doesn't move more people, it just creates more congestion. And congestion leads to aggressive driving and such stupity as using the sidewalk as a way around traffic. A glut of taxis means aggresive actions in trying to get fares (like picking up on the wrong side of the street, etc). A glut of taxis also means it is difficult for any particular taxi service to make enough money to stay in business. Who will survive? The one that spends the least money on luxuries like proper maintenance.

Yes, this describes conditions before the taxi laws were introduced. It is why the people wanted regulation.

There are good reasons for the taxi regulations and the medallion system. Just because you want to pretend they don't exist does not mean the don't exist in reality.

So a taxi medallion at a cost of over $750,000 is somehow justified to you due to the need for scarcity?

Oh, this should be downright fucking hilarious to hear your argument as to why liquor licenses cost so much, but hey I'm up for a laugh if you want to try and justify that corruption too.

Re:No matter what Uber says ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The trouble with impounding cars is that those aren't the people who are behind it all.

Yes they are. No drivers no Uber. Kinda like the BS idea of Support the troops but not the war. No troops no war. Its that easy.

Re:No matter what Uber says ...

[bws111]

Medallions and liquor licenses are not usually 'priced' (especially for high-dollar ones like you state), they are auctioned. The price goes that high because someone thinks it is worth it. Not that difficult of a concept.

Of course, in many places there is not a single auction, there are different auctions for different classes of bidders (fleet operators vs owner/drivers, etc). Naturally the price of a owner/driver medallion is usually much less than you quote, but that never gets mentioned.

Could they do it another way? Certainly. They could have a lottery for instance. However, having an auction does two things - nets more money, and insures that the purchaser is going to do what they must to protect their very valuable asset. In other words, comply with the taxi regulations and don't run a nusiance bar. These are generally things that are good for the public.

Re:No matter what Uber says ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Name two CITIES that sell the medallions.

Those prices frequently quoted are private owner to private buyer.

Re:No matter what Uber says ...

[Locando]

Make them get recognized as a legitimate transport service and play by the rules dammit!

The rules aren't just about those legitimate concerns you discussed. They're also about having proper insurance and not skirting IRS rules by categorizing employees as independent contractors. I'd also like to see some accountability on the part of Uber for negligent drivers — some indication that they're trying to profit off of actually improving people's lives, rather than more of that same greed you see in the taxi companies.

(It would also help your case if you showed you knew the historical reasons why taxi medallions were introduced, and the current rationales for maintaining the system apart from pure rent-seeking.)

obey?

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is a word obey, then there is a different word for this system, but it is not "legal".

People easily forget that legal system is meant for the 99% of "just like everybody else".

news flash....

[Anonymous Coward]

You are subject to the law even if you claim you are not.

Uber is discovering this all around the world.

Re:news flash....

[gnupun]

Uber is trying to enter the taxi market that is controlled by the govt. Instead of just providing internet hailing service to existing taxis and collect very low profits, it wants to provide taxis directly to consumer and make the whopping 20-30% cut of taxi fare (instead of the 2-4% cut by providing internet booking to existing taxis).

All these illegal maneuvers are about making a ton of money by working around the highly controlled and regulated taxi market.

Money talks....

[Anonymous Coward]

Like everything else, The Uber problem is a question about money and nothing else. Not safety and insurance and all that other malarky.

For example, in my city in order to operate a taxi you need the following:

#1 Taxi plates. Limited in quantity (to probably keep the price up high). They can EASILY go for $500,000 + to purchase , renewed annually (and it is not cheap).
#2 Annual inspection of car (more $$$ for gov)
#3 Taxi license. In order to procure you need to do some special tests (which cost more than an average license) + the annual renewal fee.

Bonus requirement
#4 This one is not imposed on by government; belong to one of the local cab companies. Like I said this is not a government requirement, however the city is carved up in territories that belong to one of the local cab companies. Pick up a fare in the wrong part of the city and you are looking to get a beating or worse. Some also have exclusive rights for pickups in some malls, tourist attractions etc....

Uber basically comes in and says fuck this.....and bypasses all that crap (which == to a lot of $$$$). And the locals simply CANNOT COMPETE because they are burdened with all these taxes.....

The thing about Uber is....it's a taxi service. Since you pay to be transported. Their business model is predicated on the fact they label themselves as a "ride sharing service" to avoid paying their dues and yet charger rates within the same ballpark.....All the other stuff is fluff...(the app, gps tracking, etc.) that will be copied by all (if not already).

IMHO one of 2 things will happen; Either they will lobby local govs and eventually transition to a regular taxi service with global presence.....Or the scam will be up and the company will fold.

Re:Money talks....

[Anonymous Coward]

So where do you draw the line then? Let's say I drive to work - 60+mi each way (I really do, sometimes). If I give someone a lift from their place ... say 2 streets away from my house, to where I'm working, and they walk another 300 yards to work - should that be banned? Why? What if they offer to chuck in $10 to cover some fuel every week (with my weekly fuel bill at $100)? What if we agree they'll pay for every second tank? Now, what is the fundamental difference between chucking in half the cost by paying fuel and by giving me $15 each time?

Or is it the central organisation you're concerned with? Am I as a citizen permitted to say "Hey Rob, don't you live in X? So does Phil, and you both work here - you guys could carpool! Would it be "bad" or "worse" if Phil and Rob got together and spent $100 on a gift for me, because I saved them both $400 this year? Is it any better if the person is required to have insurance of a specified type (e.g. "transporting someone" - and if you say yes, you can get a ticket for taking a friend to the movies without it!) Is it only bad when a company sets itself up to match people? Or is the line crossed when the company charges $1 to match you with someone? What if it's $5? What if it's $1 of each trip? Is the line when there's a third person Barbara getting a lift sometimes too? A fourth person? Or is it person 904, and why them?

At some point you're drawing a line and saying no further - I don't know where your personal line is drawn, and I'm not saying Uber should be allowed to behave like a taxi service. But I'm not sure where the "right" line in the sand is either. I know Uber is trying to be "disruptive" and there's a case for massive disruption in most any city with regulated taxi service. And goodness only knows the number of crap taxis I've had both locally and interstate, such that quite frankly anything would be better. From what I've heard, anecdotally, Uber and Lyft cars tend to be nicer than many/most taxis (where I live taxis are often vinyl throughout for easy cleaning, with 1/3 of the cabin taken up by a large perspex driver capsule for their safety - so you can only get 2 people comfortably in a cab).

TL;DR: I think Uber are over the line, but I don't know how far and I don't think it's clear why.

Re:Money talks....

[tmosley]

Funny how after all that talk about how the regulations are corrupted and illegitimate, you turn around and call Uber a scam. How about a third option: The people like Uber so much that any attempts to close it result in complaints and politicians getting thrown out of office as young people start to enter the voting population.

As an example, in Austin, Texas, it is illegal to possess marijuana for personal consumption. Yet everyone smokes it out in the streets, and the cops just walk on by. They have been told to ignore it, and allow the "law violation" to proceed. Why is this? Popular outcry. The politicians see the writing on the wall, and while it is hard, politically, to change the law, it is easy to call up the police commissioner and tell him to adopt a new "lax enforcement" policy. Of course, with respect to taxi companies, this results in uneven application of the law. Perhaps now they will lobby to drop all the ridiculous regulations their grandfathers called for.

Re:Money talks....

[Nidi62]

So where do you draw the line then? Let's say I drive to work - 60+mi each way (I really do, sometimes). If I give someone a lift from their place ... say 2 streets away from my house, to where I'm working, and they walk another 300 yards to work - should that be banned? Why? What if they offer to chuck in $10 to cover some fuel every week (with my weekly fuel bill at $100)? What if we agree they'll pay for every second tank? Now, what is the fundamental difference between chucking in half the cost by paying fuel and by giving me $15 each time?

Because you and he are going the same direction, and you aren't making a profit from them, just something to offset the cost of driving you were mostly going to be doing anyway. Uber drivers are sitting around until they are effectively dispatched by the app(they can pick who they want to pick up, but it's the same idea) to a person to take them to a place that the driver was not (in all likelihood) already going to, and getting paid to do it. If you can't see a clear distinction in that you are either rather dense or going through some major cognitive dissonance.

Re:Money talks....

[Anonymous Coward]

OP here, I agree Uber is over the line. And as for the why, imho, is because they try to not play by the rules.

My line is basically if you are going to charge me $$$$ then you are a taxi service like the rest of them.

If it was like more like a ride sharing service where for example i signup, invite friends, state my availabilities and where I am heading and it matches me with somebody to give them a lift in exchange for me getting a lift sometime in the future (by somebody else), then great!

But that is not what Uber does (maybe it did once in the past?). Uber charges me for a service that is pretty similar to a taxi service, but wants to avoid paying all fees related to having a taxi service. And (at least in my city) their prices are not that great for Uber (as in they are not passing the savings on to the customer for the most part).

As for their "disruptive technologies", they have a stupid app it's nothing special and easily copied. 10 years ago it would have been amazing, but today it;s meh....

Like I said either they are gonna transition to more traditional taxi service (with a global presence) or they will fizzle out and die because one thing is for sure, governments will not be fucked out of their share of the pie.

Age Old Question Answered

[Luthair]

Would a taxi service by any other name behave as badly? Apparently yes.

Laws around taxi services exist for a reason, regardless of what uber would like people to believe.

Re:Age Old Question Answered

[Anonymous Coward]

The exist for 1 reason: MONEY.....

More specifically, so the local government can tax you even more.

Re:Age Old Question Answered

[tmosley]

If you were a citizen of Nazi Germany, I suppose you would think that the laws for internment of undesireables was a good thing as well? How about in the good old USA? If not, please tell us what you would have done. One solution that you must apply in both cases.

Re:Age Old Question Answered

[Luthair]

Good ole Reductio ad Hilterum....

Uber driver to organ donor in 5...4...3...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unsurprisingly, Chianti and Fava Beans do not go well with Uber Liver. A hipster ironic beer like PBR and a side of cheese fries really completes the meal.

10/10, would eat Uber again.

Who will win?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

In the long run, private industry will win, if only because the government cannot stifle disruptive competition forever. But in the meantime, government can -- and obviously will -- inconvenience an awful lot of people by fighting Uber.

I see tons of posts here bashing Uber for not following the rules, basically saying they're competing unfairly with cab companies that are required to carry insurance, etc. All that is true, but it's also completely irrelevant. You do realize these cab companies came up with and supported those rules, right? It presents a formidable barrier to entry for any new transportation service, thus virtually guaranteeing a small number of service providers a captive market, an oligopoly if you will. No wonder they're crying foul. They should be screaming "let us compete with the same lack of restrictions as Uber" but instead they're screaming "force Uber to be just as restricted as we are!"

It's amazing what the free market can do if you let it. If people have a choice between cheap Uber rides with under-insured drivers and more expensive cabs with fully-insured drivers, let people make that choice! Why does government have to nanny the ever living fuck out of people to the point where it will deny them the right to make a choice that affects no one but themselves???

Yes, seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes we seriously compare transportation with human sacrifice laws.

Because those who want to regulate Uber are threatening and scaring with potential injuries and the loss of life riding the cars that are under-insured, under-maintained with un-showered un-dereducated drivers, and they say the laws are for common good.

Same with Aztecs, they scarified for what they believed was common good.

And, as lawyers like to say often, the law is the law and justice is blind.

The truth is both type of regulations, be it Uber regulation or Aztec times sacrifice rules are anti human and not reasonable.

What is reasonable is Uber maintained rating system which, using free market principles, is weeding out not only bad apples but also bad servicemen with bad temper

Re:Yes, seriously

[Zontar The Mindless]

I have mod points, but Slashdot has no "-1, Full Retard", so I'm posting instead.

Re:Yes, seriously

[tmosley]

Reductio ad absurdum is NOT a logical fallacy. It only makes clear the problems inherent in a person's position by taking the position to the extreme and examining the consequences, showing that their position creates a similar but lesser consequence.

Re:Yes, seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

Knowing terms is not enough, you have to know what they mean as well.

Leaving aside equating religious customs and regulation, "There was some awful regulation in the past, there's also some regulation I disagree with today, ergo all regulation is bad!" is not reductio ad absurdum, it's simply being absurd.

It's like saying "Nightshade is poisonous, potatoes are from the same family. Don't trust vegetarians, eat only meat!"

Re:Yes, seriously

[Zontar The Mindless]

Well, just so you know... I visited Guangzhou last week, and left there at roughly EOB on 30 April.

Put that little logical capsule in your Nespresso and see what gets poured into your mug.

Re:Yes, seriously

[tmosley]

That's not reductio ad absurdum, that's a non-sequitur. And I didn't say that all regulation is bad. I said that laws that harm the people are not just, and we have no moral obligation to follow them, as so many here seem to assert. Yes, everyone needs to play by the same rules. In the case of the Aztecs, do you think that should mean that the ruling class should have submitted their own children for slaughter, or that they should have just stopped slaughtering children altogether?

communist dictatorship

[Anonymous Coward]

what do you expect from a communist country like china. And yes they are commies!

tell it to family of Sofia Liu insurance gaps can

[Anonymous Coward]

tell it to family of Sofia Liu insurance gaps can lead to victims / 3rd party victims to be left holding the bag for the doctor bills / other damages when uber and others use fine print to get out of paying up.

Re:tell it to family of Sofia Liu insurance gaps c

[tmosley]

"Fine print"

When the policy is or isn't in effect is the central point of the policy. That's like saying that a life insurance policy not paying out on a suicide is "fine print". The driver was personally liable in that case. And also, I should add, no more likely to be the cause of such a tragedy than any other driver. Should all drivers be required to carry million dollar policies?

What's with the quotes?

[Qbertino]

AFAICT it was illegal.

Re:tell it to family of Sofia Liu insurance gaps c

[Anonymous Coward]

But the drivers own insurance passed the bag to uber and uber said the driver was not hired at the time (was open looking for a fair) but at the same time other taxis are on the taxi insurance when they are open looking for a fair.

It's always the same

[stealth.c]

The story never ends. Innovators try to create something new and help their fellow human beings, then the state tries to stamp it out. Fortunately, innovators move faster than government. In the long run humanity wins and bureaucracy loses.

Re:It's always the same

[Punko]

The story never ends. Tech head figures out a way to earn money by not playing on a level playing field. Of course,they make it sound like the "evil establishment prohibits competition". The truth is there: the table is level and either step up and challenge or go away. When you meet all the technical requirements for the contract, you may then compete on price. failing to meet the technical standards and you don't get to play.

Disruption is always good?

[wytcld]

Long-term, established transportation companies with powerful lobbying arms or the newcomer making use of disruptive technology?

Who will win, long-term, established ecologies or kudzu?

Maybe it's inevitably kudzu, but does that mean we should cheer for it? Cancer is also a disruption. Should all laws be dissolved if they get in the way of anyone's business plan? Why insist on anyone having drivers licenses at all, let alone commercial ratings and proper insurance to carry fares? It would be cheaper to build cars without seat belts and airbags. Let's disrupt that!

Re:Disruption is always good?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Why insist on anyone having drivers licenses at all, let alone commercial ratings and proper insurance to carry fares?

Good questions. You should reflect on them. Are those the best ways of ensuring road safety or are there better ones?

It would be cheaper to build cars without seat belts and airbags.

Indeed it would be. And that too is something you should reflect on.

Let's disrupt that!

Good idea. Let's replace it with something that makes people safer and saves money in the process.

I'm speechless

[Anonymous Coward]

This may be the most biased summary I've ever read. It's almost as bad as Fox news.

Re:tell it to family of Sofia Liu insurance gaps c

[dunkelfalke]

In a civilised country they are required to. German driver insurance policy has to be, by law, at least EUR 7.5 million for personal damage - per person, capped to 100 millions per case.

depends on the sector

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Does Schumpeter's creative destruction also apply to the transportation sector?

Obviously, the more crony capitalism and rent seeking there is in a sector, the harder it is to innovate, drive down prices, and deliver a better product, viz transportation, healthcare, education.

Illegal Scarequotes

[Anonymous Coward]

Most taxi companies are EXTENSIVELY regulated, regulation that Uber has been expressly avoiding. Yes, they are illegal, highly illegal. Almost everywhere they go, they are illegal. Almost every place they've tried to operate has had them shut down because they are not following regulations. This should not come as a surprise to anyone.

This is why

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber needs to unionize.

China

[BitcoinBenny]

This is China. So you can be sure that once Uber is driven out of the country, the Chinese version of Uber will be sanctioned and completely take over the market share. Its happened in every other sector. US companies go there to divulge technology and operations information, only to be replaced by state sponsored actors as soon as is convenient.

Uber in NYC

[Anonymous Coward]

Since everyone seems to be talking about Uber's practices. I was taking a cab back to LaGuardia last week and noticed the cabbie had Uber up on his phone. Thoughts?

Re:Uber in NYC

[moderators_are_w*nke]

I don't know about NYC, but in London Uber has an option for this, UberTAXI which summons a black cab. You're then charged off the meter in the usual way.

Re:tell it to family of Sofia Liu insurance gaps c

[tmosley]

Then there is a lawsuit, and the courts will sort it out. These kinds of disputes happen ALL THE TIME in insurance. Why do you think there are so many lawyers advertizing on TV with tough guy names like "The Hammer" or "The Gorilla" all talking about going after insurance companies?

Re:tell it to family of Sofia Liu insurance gaps c

[tmosley]

That's good then. Sensible, self consistent, consistent with current law, and non-biased is what you want in regulation.

'Illegal'?

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Its legal according to Chinese law and the government shut them down anyway? That is whack!

Grooveshark, thepiratebay, napster...

[fluffernutter]

What I don't understand is why this business model is allowed to work for Uber, but not for napster, thepiratebay, or more recently, Grooveshark. All of these entities thought that they would invent themselves in the face of laws that they considered unfair yet only Uber is the one that is allowed to survive among them?

Next time uber, pay the fire chief

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone probably didn't pay of the fire chief or whoever else was important in that district to turn a blind eye. It seems to be how it works in China.

We all know what should happen..

[Anonymous Coward]

The Chinese government should send several dozen of their federal agents (and couple choppers for good measure) to swoop in to arrest all of Uber's executives in America... after all that seems to be a trend the Americans are setting i.e. Kim Dotcom