Slashdot Mirror
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?
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.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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
"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.
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.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.