After Protest, France Cracks Down On Uber

An anonymous reader writes: Just a day after taxi drivers began a high-profile protest of Uber in France, the nation's interior minister has issued a ban on the car-sharing service UberPop. The minister stated that the service was illegal, and ordered police to begin seizing vehicles defying the order. French president Francois Hollande agrees that UberPOP "should be dismantled," but says the state isn't legally permitted to seize cars itself without court authorization. "UberPOP is a car-sharing service offered by Uber, which brings together customers and private drivers at prices lower than those charged by both traditional taxi firms and even other Uber services. UberPOP differs because it allows non-professional drivers to register their car and transport other passengers. It has been illegal in France since January, but the law has proved difficult to enforce and the service continues to operate, AFP news agency reports."

Comments

why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Noah Haders]

I heard that protesters were flipping cars over and smashing windows. Perhaps they should be the ones cracked down upon? This hasty reaction to appease the angry mob seems like the wrong message you would want to send. Unless France wants to encourage angry mobs...

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is France, of course they want to encourage angry mobs.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? It's government's fault UberPOP is still operating. People were just expressing their disappointment (beside - they are not black). Keep your humvees and grande launchers at home.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Anonymous Coward]

In defense of taxi drivers, their perceived quality of service aside, wouldn't you be just as pissed off it you had to pay $250,000 for a taxi medallion only to have people doing your job without buying one? I believe Paris set up the medallion system to ease congestion many years ago when there were too many taxis. So after creating an artificial market for taxi medallions they all of a sudden are tolerating what are essentially taxis without medallions. Seems to me the only thing to do is ban UberPop or buy back every taxi medallion.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[aardvarkjoe]

From where exactly? Strange that you provide not a single source for this claim.

Perhaps this source will help.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://q13fox.com/2015/06/25/angry-french-taxi-drivers-flip-uber-cars-disrupt-traffic-in-protest/

Cause yesterday's news is too old.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[u19925]

When I was small, some private company wanted to start bus service in my city, but government struck down the proposal. The government buses serve non-profitable and profitable areas. They make profit in one area and subsidize another. Private player would only operate in profitable area causing either a loss or winding down operation in non-profitable area.

Case with Uber is similar. Registered taxi services have to carry passengers at pre-determined rate. Sometimes it is not profitable specially if a customer stays in area from which you don't easily get return passengers. This gets compensated when you customer and return as well. With Uber, they will charge more or less based on the analytics and eventually registered taxi drivers would lend up serving less profitable areas and more profitable routes will be undercut by Uber. If Uber is allowed, it should have the exact same requirements: Publish fare, must take customers at this rate irrespective of where you want to go and should take passengers strictly in the order in which requests are incoming. Otherwise, it is giving unfair advantage to Uber over taxi service.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[sverdlichenko]

Let me google it for you: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/... This photo in particular: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnne...

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Noah Haders]

If Uber is allowed, it should have the exact same requirements: Publish fare, must take customers at this rate irrespective of where you want to go and should take passengers strictly in the order in which requests are incoming. Otherwise, it is giving unfair advantage to Uber over taxi service.

In the US, this is exactly how Uber operates. The fare is fixed. It varies by area, but in LA it's about a dollar per mile and 20 cents per min. When you order the uber ride, the driver accepts before he knows where you're going. I've never had a driver tell me "no I won't go there" and I'm pretty sure they would be cut off if they did that.

Your taxi analogy is flawed, because taxi drivers can serve whatever areas they want, regardless of what Uber does.

The main difference in my eyes in why Uber is cheaper is because taxis are set up so people have a career as a taxi driver, but uber is set up for temporary work. So with uber people don't worry about job longevity, or living wage, or health insurance.

But honestly, even if uber were the same price as taxis I would take them way more often because the uber passenger experience is so much NICER. This is a fact and it is a shame that the taxi companies have not tried to step up their game, and instead are looking for regulatory interference to save the day.

Also, it's fair to say that while uber is cheaper than cabs I use the service a whole bunch more, so my total "cab expenditures" in a year is much greater on uber than it was with cabs.

But the biggest point that I'm making is that cabs are 90% NASTY while uber is just 20% NASTY. I like Lyft the best, which is just 5% NASTY.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Anonymous Coward]

So.. because they do it better, they shouldn't be able to operate? They should be resigned to the same corrupt and archaic service their competitors use because it is 'unfair'? As far as risk, I'm willing to risk an accident with an Uber driver after my experience with taxi service where I live. Seriously, I'd rather be maimed for life than give any taxi service here a fscking penny. I hope they all suffer and go out of business.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[ArmoredDragon]

Well at least we can now distinguish protest from celebration, because it seems that in France, setting your neighbors car into a blazing inferno is a sign of celebration.

http://europe.newsweek.com/940...

So there you have it:

Car flipped, somebody is angry.
Car burned, somebody is happy.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Medallions are free!
But none is issued anymore as it would threaten the current taxi monopoly of the big companies owning them and devalue the medallions people already bought. The ones asking for not issuing them anymore are the people with one already. So they are the ones causing the price to be that high and they can't blame other people for devaluing the price of something they intentionally made rare and expensive. Protecting a bad investment is never a good idea.

If there were more taxis again in Paris, there would be some competition, price would go down and quality of service increase. If it wasn't profitable to be a taxi as there could be more supply than there's demand, people would switch to a different job and it would regulate automatically. Not a bad thing.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[HairyNevus]

grande launchers

Like a T-Shirt cannon, but shoots medium-sized espresso drinks at people? Genius! By jove, AC, you've done it again.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Rockoon]

Seems to me the only thing to do is ban UberPop or buy back every taxi medallion.

They should buy them back for the price they sold them for: $0

Oh, you that that the State was selling them? Yeah... uninformed on the basics but has an opinion on the whole thing.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[bill_mcgonigle]

This hasty reaction to appease the angry mob

When the magician is waving his hand over here, you always have to look at the other hand to see what's really going on.

Turn your assumption on its head - cause and effect are reversed. The taxi industry paid the corrupt politicians to crack down on their competition. They promised a riot for the politicians to "react to" so that it wouldn't be quite so bloody obvious to the muggles that it's just corruption-as-usual at work.

Because what makes more sense - that politicians started to ban stuff to appease a mob? Or that they're corrupt and they got paid off? Obvious cover story is obvious.

"But look, bantha tracks, ghaffi sticks - it looks like sandpeople did this, alright."

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Noah Haders]

sorry dude. i thought it was self evident. it's been in the news and was on slashdot yesterday. If I mentioned Obama in a post would you expect me to link to his wikipedia page? also, i'm sure it's in TFA.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

As with any theory, a Doubting Thomas' theory someone is wrong, that proves to itself be wrong most of the time, just implicates himself as the clown.

Your doubt less controls reality than the OP's un-sourced assertion. Request more info, or go look it up. Do not declare it should be considered false without additional info. Your judgment is proven wrong, and should scare you.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Anonymous Coward]

You invalidate your entire argument by claiming that 'The Uber passenger experience is much NICER' is a FACT.
please look up the definition of a fact. The uber passenger experience varies from trip to trip just as it does for taxi passengers. It's quality is highly variable and is definitely not anything remotely like a FACT.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Anonymous Coward]

First, with regards to the bus service, it's not a public vs private issue. If the local government decides that low paying routes should be subsidised so that they exist, something which I agree with incidentally, they can subsidise a private operator. If they decide to keep that off their book and have the high paying routes subsidising them, something which I agree with too, they can do that too. If they can deny, they can regulate and make it that way. So your "point" is irrelevant.

Now onto uber. I have never used uber. Why? Because I live in Ireland and taxis here are great. For one thing, there's loads of them, they have to work, so they will take you from where you are to where you want to go.

Ever tried a taxi in France? I have. Had to. They _will_ refuse your custom if you don't go somewhere they can expect a return fare, if you don't go far enough (waiting for a customer is not earning, waiting _with_ a customer is) or if they don't like the area. They _will_ slow down to catch the red light. They _will_ "miss" that turn and of course the next one that's not a one way street is half a mile away - and that's if you know where you're going, if you don't all, you'd better carry a lot of cash. They _will not_ take you on the street - you have to go to a taxi rank. They _will not_ turn up at 3 in the morning to get your drunken self safely home. They_will_ tell you they're coming, tho, have to follow the law, so you're left hanging. They _will_ turn up late to take you to the airport, how could they possibly have known from your 9am booking that you actually intended to be picked up at 9am, right? In short the "public service" that taxis are supposed to offer is rather more like a service _to_ them _by_ the public. If you want to go where they want to take you, when they want to take you, at the price they want you to pay, and they're not having lunch or something, they'll do it. If not get lost.

Hence why uber is so successful there.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but perhaps the political establishment prefers some angry mobs to others.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Jack Griffin]

Case with Uber is similar. Registered taxi services have to carry passengers at pre-determined rate. Sometimes it is not profitable specially if a customer stays in area from which you don't easily get return passengers.

Registered taxis have to carry passengers, but they don't. I regularly get refused service from taxis because of my destination, and have even been kicked out half way through my trip home because the cabbie didn't want to go all that way then risk coming back without a fare. Yes it's illegal, but that is the current state of the industry. It is a monopoly and it is corrupt.

This gets compensated when you customer and return as well. With Uber, they will charge more or less based on the analytics and eventually registered taxi drivers would lend up serving less profitable areas and more profitable routes will be undercut by Uber.

Only if they are uncompetitive. Currently it is a monopoly, Uber introduces competition which forces Taxis and Uber to compete for the good fares. The biggest benefit of Uber which doesn't fit you bus analogy, is that there is a number of casual drivers with Uber who don't necessarily chase big fares. These people aren't all crowding the busy areas and seem happy to hang out in their local area to pick up a few dollars pocket money. This creates a much more widely spread service offering, and hence overall better service.

If Uber is allowed, it should have the exact same requirements: Publish fare, must take customers at this rate irrespective of where you want to go and should take passengers strictly in the order in which requests are incoming. Otherwise, it is giving unfair advantage to Uber over taxi service.

I have no problem with a dynamic fare structure. Fare estimates are given before you commit, and like flights, high demand should be allowed to generate higher fares, as long as there is genuine competition. I would prefer the choice of paying more and actually getting a ride, then having no way of getting home (which was the case a lot of the time due to the poorly run taxi monopoly)

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Venerable Vegetable]

I thought I'd help out a bit and look it up. FACT: something said to be true or supposed to have happened. So it's a fact that the uber passenger experience is nicer, because Noah Haders said so, and I agree with him. The fact may be proven wrong, but that's beside the point. After all, we're just arguing semantics...

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[cayenne8]

Well at least we can now distinguish protest from celebration, because it seems that in France, setting your neighbors car into a blazing inferno is a sign of celebration.

Same thing happens in the US when a more urban city's sports teams win a championship it seems....

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Anonymous Coward]

well the french are the only ones in EU that had the balls to get rid of their royals. I guess its in their spirit.
Kudos to them I say, I reckon the world needs more of this spirit.

Back to issue here: I m not 100% comfortable with every man and his dog being able to drive people left and right. There should be some form
of regulations, ie safety of car and driver etc. That already applies to buses and taxis. Cant see why this shouldnt apply elsewhere? And maybe
it does?

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[ADRA]

1. That is Europe, the home of angry mobs that get shit done, unlike the US where protestors wimper in the corner and accomplish essentially nothing (blame / support your political systems for reenforcing said outcomes)
2. They were protesting the lack of enforcing a law on the books, so its hard to complain about their reasoning.

If you want to complain about banning uber or supporting them, then for fuck sakes do it.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[amicusNYCL]

A "more urban city"?

adjective: urban
1.
in, relating to, or characteristic of a city or town.

So a city more like a city? What's an example of a less urban city?

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[amicusNYCL]

The fare is fixed for everyone at a particular time and in a particular place, but the fare can change based on demand/availability or place.

So with uber people don't worry about job longevity, or living wage, or health insurance.

From what I've heard from Uber drivers who are also taxi drivers, Uber pays a little better. One driver said he got 72% of the fare. In the best case, an Uber driver could make a lot of money (if they constantly have passengers for several hours).

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Noah Haders]

that's an interesting point... you remind me, I had a couple great taxi rides in Ireland. just one of those cultural things. your points about france remind me of every city in US.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[amicusNYCL]

Registered taxis have to carry passengers, but they don't. I regularly get refused service from taxis because of my destination, and have even been kicked out half way through my trip home because the cabbie didn't want to go all that way then risk coming back without a fare.

I was trying to get a ride home from a bar one night (both from and to well-traveled areas) and every time I called the taxi company and gave my pickup location she just hung up on me. I called 3 or 4 times, luckily an empty cab drove by that I flagged down.

One of the good things about Uber is that I presume that they first offer the job to the closest drivers, because my driver is always pretty close. I don't know how taxis delegate their fares, but I've been called by my assigned taxi driver to tell me that he's on the other side of the city and will be there in a half hour. It's ridiculous.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Anonymous Coward]

"because the uber passenger experience is so much NICER"

Is it? Are you speaking from personal experience or do you have some global statistics?

How many Uber drivers vs taxi drivers were involved in accidents, how many were drunk on or off hours, how many actually have their license or a criminal record for a violent crime, the list goes on.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Noah Haders]

The fare is fixed for everyone at a particular time and in a particular place, but the fare can change based on demand/availability or place.

maybe the pricing structures vary in different countries? In US the pricing is fixed in each market (eg LA, SF, etc). There is surge pricing for peak times, which is clearly labeled 1.1x, 1.25x, 2x, etc and you see this when you order the ride. If you don't want to pay the surcharge then they can text you when the surge charging prices end, usually within 30 mins.

It's not like uber prices constantly vary throughout the day like the stock market. nor do they vary depending on your origin and destination. Or is that what it's like where you are?

Re: why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Anonymous Coward]

https://youtu.be/L1C4fgYoVlA

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[amicusNYCL]

No, I was referring to surge pricing and the different markets. Uber doesn't have a single fixed price, but the price is the same for everyone in a certain time and place.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you were not being facetious, "urban" is code for "black", so the parent was wanting to say "a more black city" while maintaining some semblance of PCness.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[gnasher719]

I heard that protesters were flipping cars over and smashing windows. Perhaps they should be the ones cracked down upon? This hasty reaction to appease the angry mob seems like the wrong message you would want to send. Unless France wants to encourage angry mobs...

Your source, which you verified carefully without doubt, is free to send any evidence to the French police which will take care of it. Well, unless of course your source is lying or doesn't exist.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

They should buy them back for the price they sold them for: $0

So the US government should be able to repossess the vast majority of land in the midwest (and a good portion elsewhere?)

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Daemonik]

No, the Parent was wanting to say "A city large enough to host a pro-sports team".

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Daemonik]

A decrease in price does not equal an increase in quality. I put forth as evidence everything Wal-Mart sells, especially clothing.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[hey!]

Talking to the French about their rioting is like talking to Americans about their guns. They'll assume you're out to undermine their national origin myths.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, the modern world is based around free trade and free markets, and the first clear policy that lead to the industrial revolution is traced to France's XVIII century with Quesnay's famous phrase "Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même!" ("Let do and let pass, the world goes on by itself!"). Regulation was killing the country economy. Gournay was an ardent proponent of the removal of restrictions on trade and the deregulation of industry in France, where everything was a regulated inefficient monopolistic mess.

In the case of UberPOP, it may be a horrible service. But let the consumer choose. Regulations are enforced to supposedly protect consumers. And this way, they restrict trade. The next thing that happens is that operating a cab is a tax source, and it becomes a monopoly (fixed number of plates, or very very expensive plates for no reason).

They should ask the people of France what they want. And if they vote with the "Request UberPop" button (vote), ....laissez passer!

I expected better from France, but it has become the anti-progress country, apparently.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to see things differently. In France, a group of people serving public transport needs are blocking EVERYONE's basic access to critical infrastructure, to ensure that the preffered choice for many CITIZENS (the Uber clients) no longer have an option, and have as only choice the very same people ruining their days or doing acts that are crimes and unlawful. It was not a peaceful protest, and UberPop should be allowed to not only operate, but have the violent people commiting crimes removed from their driving license forever.

Re: why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he was saying Detoit, Oakland,Chicago

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Rinikusu]

Or a bunch of crackers at a pumpkin festival.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Anonymous Coward]

They got their math wrong.

940 cars were set on fire across France [] actually a 12% improvement on last year's New Year's festivities when 1,067 cars were set ablaze

That's a 12% decrease in productivity, not a 12% improvement.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Half-pint HAL]

It's just French for "big launcher".

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Half-pint HAL]

The main difference in my eyes in why Uber is cheaper is because taxis are set up so people have a career as a taxi driver, but uber is set up for temporary work. So with uber people don't worry about job longevity, or living wage, or health insurance.

...which is surely a problem for everyone...?

Labour laws exist to serve the principle of an honesty day's pay for an honest day's work. If we allow certain parties to engage in commercial activity but excuse them from labour laws nased on "it's not their main source of income", then we're back on the race to the bottom, even as we're just finally getting rid of unpaid internships.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Half-pint HAL]

Modern France is not 18th century France! You might as well be disappointed that they have no emoire any more.... France regulates it's industry very successfuly, and while it's not the world's strongest economy, it has been remarkably stable. One of their strengths is that thte regulation has prevented competition becoming a race to the bottom, so when markets change, there's more give-and-take in the system.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Eunuchswear]

I only know one person who took UberPop instead of a Taxi.

She missed here plane because his GPS was broken and he didn't know how to find Orly airport without it,

FACT.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[jonbryce]

Is that why the 5th largest French city in the world is London? As in, if all the French people in London lived in a city on their own, it would be larger than all but the 4 largest cities in France. They are there to escape the high taxes in France and to have a chance of actually finding employment.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Anonymous Coward]

well the french are the only ones in EU that had the balls to get rid of their royals.

What?

A few seconds of Google would tell you that is not true.

In fact I believe the UK (or whatever it was called back then) did it before the French (Charles I) and then when it didn't work out too well (Cromwell) - we went back to a Monarchy. It also depends on the 'definition' of Monarchy I suppose - Napoleon considered himself an 'emperor' and that is (all bar the shouting) the same thing as an unelected Monarchy. Likewise us in the 'EU' often look at the USA's presidential candidates and wonder if there is any difference either - Bush, Clinton, Bush (Obama was more of a protest vote it seems on reflection now) and now it looks like a choice between err ,.. Clinton and a Bush again (perhaps).

Re: why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amateurs. We Germans just round up some jews and kill them.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Opportunist]

But upholding a de-facto monopoly NEVER EVER resulted in a decrease of price OR increase of quality.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Opportunist]

No way. The US government can't afford to piss off the banks.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have gone a bit astray... The ban only applies to UberPOP, which is supposed to be some kind of urban car sharing, not to Uber itself; it was already in effect since a court order in January but it had not been enforced.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the U.S. the term "urban" is used to politely refer to black people.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[hjf]

libertarian OP only sees only "it's cheaper for me" and not the big picture.

they will also gladly avoid paying taxes by using an illegal service or by buying a black-market product, simply because they don't believe taxes are moral - so they don't consider it illegal or immoral to avoid taxes. I imagine this kind of people representing themselves in front of a judge (to cut on the "middleman" lawyer) telling the judge that, and expecting a ruling such as "you know what? you're right. good job OP".

libertarian OP will cry rivers and demand regulation the day H1B workers replace his programming job by an indian that will work for 1/10th his salary.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Germany got rid of their royals, too. In 1918, after losing World War I, every ruling monarch was replaced by a republic and nobility lost all their benefits (even the "von XY" just became part of their surname), they are no longer "more equal than others". France got rid of theirs after a long famine, germany after losing a war (during which they had a famine).
Italy also got rid of their roayls, but got Mussolini instead (and after the war it was remade as a republic - with for the first decades more than one government change per year(!) on average), so I don't know if this counts.
The middle and eastern europe got rid of their nobility, too, for one reason or another, and didn't reinstate them when they could after the fall of the iron curtain.

It's only western european states that still have a monarchy, and even then the monarch is only a figurehead.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[KGIII]

Where is your citation for your claim?

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Noah Haders]

because they don't believe taxes are moral - so they don't consider it illegal or immoral to avoid taxes. I imagine this kind of people representing themselves in front of a judge (to cut on the "middleman" lawyer) telling the judge that, and expecting a ruling such as "you know what? you're right. good job OP".

Depends where you're from, I suppose. In the U.S. It's called Tax Avoidance - reducing your taxes by any means as long as it's not technically illegal. Supreme Court said

“The legal right of an individual to decrease the amount of what would otherwise be his taxes or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted.”

And more on point, the abscond Circuit court said (same link)

“Anyone may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[KGIII]

"It's a fact!" - Kids in the Hall (Not my favorite repeating sketch. That would go to 30 Helens Agree or the Head Crushing dude. Yes, I am old.)

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[KGIII]

I have been to every major city in the United States. I have also been to many of the smaller ones and to many that were just barely qualified to be called cities. I have used a taxi in almost every single one of those places at one point or another. I have only had one poor experience. I have a property, I had just purchased it, in Henderson. I wanted a ride to Vegas. The taxi driver refused to take me even when I offered him what was pretty much double his estimate.

Now I have not taken a taxi in years - I am going to estimate about ten years, so my question are these... Have they changed? Have your/our expectations changed? Where you taking taxis ten years ago? Today I either drive, rent a car, or hire a driver so I really do not know the spectrum.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[KGIII]

The only ones? How many monarchies are still in Europe?

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[hjf]

No. I'm talking about illegally avoiding taxes. What you talk about is IMMORALY avoiding taxes.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[KGIII]

You are advocating giving them a penalty that is not lawful? I am not 100% positive, and I am too lazy to look, but I suspect that, even in France, there is no law that allows a judge to revoke someone's driving penalties for violent protests. I am in favor of them being penalized, absolutely. I think that the judge should follow the law. The laws here, and elsewhere, clearly state what may be applied in the judgment. It is, for something like this - up to a Class B crime - up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. There is no clause that says the judge can order the bailiff to whack his pee-pee. The driving laws include verbiage that allows revoking the driving privilege such as: Up to a $5000 fine, 1 year in jail, and a suspension of driving privileges up to 3 years.

I am not sure that I want a judge to make arbitrary choices like adding on various punishments. What a judge *can* do is offer alternative sentencing but I do not think this is a case for this. A judge can, for example, offer to let you do 30 hours of community service and pay a $50 fine, like picking up trash, if you are otherwise going to be sentenced to a $500 fine. The judge can not simply revoke your driver's license for a property crime like littering. I am grateful for that though I do not, generally, have to be judged but the idea is comforting.

Now, I suppose, I could be mistaken - I am not a lawyer. I suppose other jurisdictions could be different. Most of my dealings have been with corporate/business or contract law. My few other legal experiences are not adequate for drawing any conclusions beyond what I have learned from talking with lawyers and learned in Civics. I welcome correction if I am mistaken.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[KGIII]

Google is your friend. This is pretty much well known at this point. It is also quite factual unless the news has spent a lot of time editing videos and using Photoshop. You could have learned of this with almost no effort. Point, click, type in "paris uber riots," press enter, and maybe click on images or news. I know, I know... Google is so very far away. And they are complicit in the conspiracy to make us think that this really happened!

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Noah Haders]

your post uses the word immoral twice so... also from what I've read on this issue there are no laws saying its illegal for passengers to use uber... I haven't seen any passengers be arrested or fined, have you??? so it's not illegal to use uber, it's not immoral to use uber. if anything it's my obligation to use uber cuz that's the only thing that will force taxi companies to not be nasty.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Myths? I mean, ignoring that there have been an improbable number of governments since the end of the ancien regime, modern France was born of (truly appalling) riots. And what was it Jefferson said about rebellion? "what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?"

Americans talk a big fight, but there is not one person in the entire country who actually 'preserves the spirit of resistance'. Maybe the lack of violent protest is a good thing, but I doubt it.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Anonymous Coward]

I call BS on your made-up "fact", I take it you never actually used Uber. The Uber app runs on a phone or tablet with GPS, the drivers don't have a standalone gps device like taxis sometimes do. How often have you seen the GPS "break" on a phone ? Besides, if the device broke the driver would not have been able to 1) receive the request for Uber and 2) find the passenger, as the latter uses GPS to guide the driver to wherever you may be.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Eunuchswear]

I have never used Uber. My friend did miss her plane.

How often have you seen the GPS "break" on a phone ?

Fairly often.

Rarely in a car, but quite often when on foot in a large city.

Anyway, that's not the point -- what kind of cretin would even need a GPS app to find of the major Paris airports?

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Half-pint HAL]

His post also uses illegal, and Uber is de facto illegal almost everywhere, because there are laws regulating transport for hire that Uber doesn't respect. The other poster was saying that libertarians view the moral argument as overriding the legal one.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Rockoon]

What are you talking about? The government isnt repossessing medallions. Its this sort of irrational babel that has convinced me that the Statists don't care about any facts at all. They don't even get the basics right. its as if they are living on another world where reality is completely different.

Reality: The government isnt selling $1,000,000 medallions in new york city.
Reality: The government isnt repossessing medallions.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[mjwx]

If there were more taxis again in Paris, there would be some competition, price would go down and quality of service increase.

Reality disagrees with your assertion.

Quality is the first thing that goes in a race to the bottom and that's exactly what you're proposing. I've lived in places where there was an oversupply of taxi drivers. Eventually you reach a point where there are so many taxis they start to resort to any number of dirty tricks. These range from grabbing you and manhandling you into a cab to dodgy meters to forming gangs and enforcing turf.

One thing that is consistent is that the quality of driver is very, very low. This is consistent from my experience with Phuket's Tuk Tuk drivers to the Dominican Republics Motoconchos to Filipino trike drivers. Quality always suffers when its a free for all. Its like saying that a buffet will be better quality than made to order because it's cheaper.

If it wasn't profitable to be a taxi as there could be more supply than there's demand, people would switch to a different job and it would regulate automatically.

Every place with deregulated taxis disproves this assertion. The system does not regulate automatically, if the government does not regulate it, someone else will. Typically when regulation is left to the drivers they form gangs, establish turf and are pretty violent in enforcing it. Its not the clean, rational system you imagine.

Also, self regulation leads to higher prices, not lower prices. A taxi in well regulated Bangkok is very cheap, 400 Baht from the airport to the city centre. A taxi in unregulated Phuket is extremely expensive, they wont turn on the engine for less than 200 baht.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[dave420]

The taxis in your area are not the same as the ones elsewhere. Your 90% "nasty" measurement isn't necessarily reflected elsewhere.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Noah Haders]

true, but from comments on this thread, it seems that a lot of people have found taxies to be really nasty throughout the world.

Re:why not crack down on the rioting protesters?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

You said, and what you replied to quoted, that the government should take the medallions back and pay them the $0 that the medallions initially cost in compensation. The apparent principle is that the government can undo a transaction (with it) for the purcahse price.

Since most land west of the Mississippi was given away for free, your idea seems to imply that the government (using said principle) could repossess it.

competition...

[verbatim]

When you can't compete, legislate.
When you can't legislate, riot.
When you can't riot... erm...

Oh well.

Re:competition...

[Half-pint HAL]

They already had legislated -- as I understand it, the demonstration was against the fact that the law wasn't being applied. Regulation may not be your preferred free market solution, but where regulation exists, it's only fair that it's applied equally.

Re:competition...

[jonbryce]

When you can't riot, overthrow the government. They do that from time to time.

Writing on the wall

[Jahoda]

I'm all for protecting folks' jobs and I'm solidly on the side of labor in most things. But a minister ordering police to begin seizing cars without any kind of due process is beyond the pale.

I'm also inclined to wonder how France plans to handle self-driving cars which will 100% definitely be replacing cab drivers in the next 10-15 years.

The profesion of taxi driving and trucking is _over_. It is just a matter of time.

Re:Writing on the wall

[Anonymous Coward]

Self driving taxi cars will most likely be illegal, not only in France but most of Europe.

Re:Writing on the wall

[Jahoda]

I'm not so sure. I agree there'll be initial resistance as there is to all major societal change. But, particularly in Europe's densely packed major cities, that tiny prototype 2-seater concept (probably Google's?) without any steering controls or unneccesary "fluff" starts to make a lot of sense when you think about the challenges currently faced with regards to traffic control. Fast, tiny, space efficient, zero-emisions. Seems unlikely for it to not be a competitive space, as well.

Re:Writing on the wall

[tompaulco]

I'm also inclined to wonder how France plans to handle self-driving cars which will 100% definitely be replacing cab drivers in the next 10-15 years.

They won't, for the simple reason that this 100% likelihood has 0% chance of happening.

Re:Writing on the wall

[KGIII]

This...

As much as I wish it were true - but not for me, I like driving and I am an *excellent* driver (just like everybody else), it simply is not going to happen for a very long time. I am willing to put money on this if anyone is willing to put it into escrow, establish a time limit, and setup their rules and make it worth my time financially.

I modeled traffic as my career. That is a long story so I will skip it. This is not an appeal to authority but is rather an explanation as to where I am coming from and what my familiarity is with the subject at hand. Again, this is not me being an expert and disagreement is certainly in order.

There are too many things that are not being considered with autonomous cars. Unless there is a human in the loop who can immediately take control of the vehicle then there simply is no way this can be done safely and a human can not take control in a safe manner and requiring that type/much of attention negates the value of the autonomous vehicle in the first place. How about if an animal jumps into your lane? Does the vehicle slow to avoid it? Does it slow and turn right (and possible result in death/injury to the driver)? Does it turn left and go into that lane and possibly hit a minivan with a bunch of children? How about if it is not an animal but simply a cardboard box flying off the back of the truck in front of you? How about if it is a child running in the road? How will it deal with accidents? How will it deal with road conditions that are beyond the normal operating range - like flooding, collapse, or emergency construction? How does it prioritize dealing with emergency vehicles? What common courtesies does it enforce? How does it deal with different cultures - the way people drive where I live is vastly different than the traffic on I5 from LA to SF? How does it deal with unknown and sudden weather changes? Sometimes it is snowing at my house but not snowing by the time you get to the end of my driveway. What happens when things change and the system is not updated to reflect this? Signage that broadcasts information for the car is a great idea but, then again, who is going to foot the bill to put them into place?

I could go on.

These things can be solved, maybe. They must first be considered. They must have solutions. The easiest way will be to have them communicate with each other and a total system replacement all at the same time. That is not going to happen. What will we do with the older vehicles? What if people do not want to get rid of their older vehicles? Who is going to pay for all the new vehicles? The whole political aspect makes this a non-starter except in special-use cases. This would be good tech for certain things but is not going to be anything large-scale for a very, very long time.

We can wish, hope, and pray to our various gods but this is not going to happen in the time frame which they have alloted. There are many reasons to say this is the case and, for now, there are no viable answers. There is a time and a place for limited autonomy. These times and places will increase over time as things adapt. To think that there will be self-driving cabs (beyond testing phase) in a time-frame of 10 to 15 years is to believe in pink unicorns, the tooth fairy, and corporate accountability - all at the same time.

I am willing to match anyone's escrow between $1000 and $10,000 USD. They can set the "rules" if they want and I will agree to anything reasonable and take that bet. Hell, I will give 2:1 odds on it for the first 10 people to put up their bets.

Re:Writing on the wall

[Jahoda]

What and excellent and insightful response! Thank you so much for your deep and thoughtful opinion.

Require licenses for commercial driving or not?

[captaindomon]

At the heart of the matter, it comes down to being fair. If you want to require people that drive customers commercially to go through additional training, insurance, licensing, inspections, etc. then you should require Uber drivers to do that as well. If you don't want to require that, then taxi drivers should not be required to do any licensing either. But you can't enforce licensing on taxis and ignore it with Uber drivers.

Re:Require licenses for commercial driving or not?

[Chalnoth]

Yes. And there's also the issue that Uber drivers are paid at such low rates that many barely break even after vehicle maintenance is taken into account.

Re:Require licenses for commercial driving or not?

[aaaaaaargh!]

I'm afraid you're just a moron - but a rather lucky one! Because in your world you'd already have died by a plane, car or train crash, food poisoning or thousands of other causes of unnatural death due to lack of security regulations.

Re:Require licenses for commercial driving or not?

[Bing Tsher E]

No, you're just afraid.

It's frightening when people don't play by the rules you assumed we all have to follow. Clutch your rulebook, then, and hope things will work out.

Re:Require licenses for commercial driving or not?

[Jack Griffin]

At the heart of the matter, it comes down to being fair. If you want to require people that drive customers commercially to go through additional training, insurance, licensing, inspections, etc.

Training? Inspections? Taxis must be run differently in your country because here the only requirement here is to pay a fee for insurance and registration, there is no training or inspections, or if there are they are dodgy because there is no evidence of it.

then you should require Uber drivers to do that as well. If you don't want to require that, then taxi drivers should not be required to do any licensing either. But you can't enforce licensing on taxis and ignore it with Uber drivers.

The taxi industry brought this on themselves. They are the ones that lobbied for decades for stricter licensing as a mechanism to restrict competition. They made a lot of money by increasing the barrier to entry, and now faced with losing it all.
I think there exist space for both models, just not sure of how to differentiate the two, which I think is the issue regulators are also struggling with.

Re:Require licenses for commercial driving or not?

[ADRA]

Yes yes, your libratarian rhetoric is nothing new, and your singular bile won't be winning any minds. But hell here's one.

You piss your neighbors off so much that they decide to deficate their pets in front of your house (lets say just outside of your property, another 'government established' boundary I may add) multiple times a day, why not. Your options are: assault/kill them, you could attempt reconsiliation, you could call the police to enforce laws and structure that you have no belief in, or you can put up with the reems of crap flowing over your lawn.

Re:Require licenses for commercial driving or not?

[aaaaaaargh!]

LOL

Re:Require licenses for commercial driving or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sad you're not at the top because you seem like one of the few sanest people around here... too many pro-corp boys over here.

Re:Require licenses for commercial driving or not?

[drinkypoo]

I think there exist space for both models, just not sure of how to differentiate the two, which I think is the issue regulators are also struggling with.

It should be simple. The taxi licenses should come with inspection requirements which actually mean something, and a sticker or medallion or whatever, and if you don't see one of those, that's your problem. But the drivers are going to have to carry insurance which is willing to cover them, which is not a new requirement. It's already illegal to drive without that. If Uber is willing to become an insurance company and find someone willing to underwrite their drivers for the time that they're not covered under their other insurance policies, and can make that work economically, then they could fill that need for their drivers. Which they aren't doing, of course. There are several problems with the implementation, but the idea is still sound. Then the government will be able to function in an advisory role instead of with an iron fist.

The Uber question leads to a much more interesting one: How are we going to handle the case of autonomous taxis, at least in those states which choose to have autonomous vehicles? That's going to fix most of the problems with taxicabs, which primarily center around the driver.

Re:Require licenses for commercial driving or not?

[deathguppie]

Exactly, in France much like New York you must purchase a Taxi medallion. In NY these are well over 1M dollars each in France they are over 300K Euros. It's a lot of moola, but it's also an investment. If and when you get out of the biz you can sell the medallion to someone else. Uber has just side stepped all regulation making those medallions worthless . It's much like burning someone’s house down. Most of these people will never be able to get back the investment by simply driving a cab. Which means Uber is stripping much of their retirement fund. So ya their pissed.

Re:Require licenses for commercial driving or not?

[KGIII]

As a Libertarian I am bothered by your ignorance. There is a such thing as a spectrum. We give money to the government (and I am in favor of a limited government and individual state's rights as well as erring on the side of individual freedom whenever possible) to do things that we can not do as individuals. We would not willingly, as a group or as an individual, provide for the things that a government does. We are greedy and interested in ourselves and our families - such is only natural.

Now we can firmly assert that the various governments are too large, exceeding their charters, and oppressive. What we can not assert, in good faith, is that a system of no government or zero taxes is going to be effective. It is, much like pure AND political ideal, not going to work and never has. There has never been a Democracy, Republic, Anarchic, or Communist government ever. No, not one. Not one single system of government is, or ever will be, purely any of those things. Why? Because they will not work.

The trouble is, I feel, that people fail to understand the idea of moderation. You, yourself and your comment, are a prime example of this. In short, you are a lunatic. In long? Well, I am not going to take the trouble to explain it more than has been explained above. You will fail to comprehend this. You will not accept it. You may even want to argue with it. You are wrong. Enlightenment may reach you but that is unlikely. I have been wrong before and have firmly established views that would be nearly impossible to change so do not think I do not understand your position. I have been there before. I encourage you to think about your belief system and to speak less. I do not want you to silence yourself for the sake of silence - rather I want you to read and listen, actually listen in an attempt to understand the people around you, so that you can see why your system is not going to work.

Also, it is shameful (to some folks) to be affiliated with the Republican party. Co-opting the name Libertarian and then attempting to change it to fit what you feel it should be in just a dick move. Most Libertarians were pretty sane and rational until the influx of Republicans who are way too vocal considering their minority status. It is disgusting and limits their chance of success and the only reason for it is that you shit up your own backyards so much you were forced to shit up someone else's area because your's stunk too much to appeal to anyone. This is hardly acceptable behavior and, worse, you know it but do it anyway and perform mental gymnastics to justify your actions.

Re:Require licenses for commercial driving or not?

[roman_mir]

You are an ignorant little ass, you have no clue even about your own government system. The USA Constitution talks about the consent of the governed and there is no consent. Beside that, as QN anarcho capitalist, objectivist I reject any notion of limited government power over an individual in the first place.

Re:Require licenses for commercial driving or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, citizens have the right to steal and inflict violence on one another. You may be said to have a natural right to anything that cannot be taken away from you short of death, and the ability to do violence is nearly impossible to eradicate even in maximum security prisons. Or to take a look at it from another standpoint, the government clearly does have the right to do such things to you, so why should the component individuals not also have such rights? You don't get to just wave it out of existence because you don't like it. The simple and obvious answer to your "paradox" is that these rights are delegated to the government in the same way that our legislative rights are.

You are free to arrogate to yourself whatever rights you see fit, the collective will do similarly, and the tie goes to whomever can enforce these rights. Sorry for your loss.

Re:Require licenses for commercial driving or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

give it up. the average american hates freedom too much to ever understand.

Re:Require licenses for commercial driving or not?

[KGIII]

They are not a Libertarian. They have just co-opted the moniker and made a lot of noise. They do not now, nor have they ever, represented the views of the party's majority. They are Republicans who are ashamed to be associated with the Republican party and have decided to claim the title of 'Libertarian' with no actual knowledge of the political platform. They are vocal and, as such, they are influencing the opinions of otherwise fine people. They represent the Libertarian Party about as well as the average PETA or Greenpeace zealots represent the Democrat Party. Unfortunately there is no way to kick people out of the party or to prevent them from using the name. There is also the lack of an effective centralized component that sets out the policy in a clear and easy to understand manner. Thus we end up with hyperbolic gibberish being the de facto party line because the stench that the Republicans created is not appealing to anyone - not even to themselves.

Do not go too hard on yourself, the media is not helping. It is much the same as when the media concentrated on showing the insane people instead of the rational people during the Occupy movement. These non-Libertarians are vocal obstructionists who are doing more to damage the political playing field than they have ever done as Republicans. Then again, perhaps, that is their objective or the objective of those who motivate them to do so. I have my doubts about their ability to think things through enough to do it on their own. They're likely being influenced by the media that they consume and there is, quite likely, someone or something behind that who actually finds this useful. A Limousine Liberal does not represent the Democrats any better than Roman_Mir represents the Libertarians.

I, personally, apologize and accept accountability for this. I need to be more vocal in explaining and I should be more active in organizing the party better so that it accomplishes getting out the information that would negate these fruitcakes. Well, potentially negate them. People, once they start to believe something, are unlikely to change their beliefs regardless of how much new, factual, information they are given.

I am certainly against being taxed for unacceptable things or against being taxed at an unacceptable rate. I am not, for example, against taxation nor am I against a strong government - just against an overly powerful government that unjustly limits personal rights and am aware that rights come with responsibilities. My tax rate, for instance, is actually too low (no, I am not going to pay more - I do, on the other hand, pay a great deal of money and time to a variety of charities). However, even though I feel I should pay more in taxes I feel that the taxes should support other causes. I believe that we must, for our own sake and our own potential, have a social net that is effective. I strongly support, as an example, a single payer health care system. Noblesse Oblige, and all that, is not because they nobles feel generous. It is because if the impoverished have no food they will eat the wealthy. Altruistic behavior is rooted in a common sense approach to self interest but has a more effective PR agent than explaining the details does.

Those seem like altruistic things but they are not. I believe in them because they are quite likely to benefit me in the long run. I do not really care if people are dying in the street - I care that the danger and expense of cleaning up the mess is more expensive than solving the problem in the first place. I have personally managed to accomplish a position where me and mine are taken care of. Providing a system where other people can do the same thing is only going to benefit me (if done right) in the long run and to have a greater benefit on my children and their children beyond them. This may be shocking but I can assure you that I am being quite honest about these opinions of mine and I can assure you that my feelings on the subject are not unique. Hell, I am further left than any Democrat in office. Tha

Re:Require licenses for commercial driving or not?

[KGIII]

Reject all you want. It makes no difference. Your consent is your presence as it is a majority thing and not an individual thing. You can not, as an individual, decide which regulations you wish to obey. If you fall afoul of the law you will learn this quickly. Or, maybe not. You may just protest it and whine instead of learning. Your whiny anarchic views couched in a mislabeled Libertarian moniker are tired and juvenile. I suspect you know this but refuse to accept it.

Either way, you are certainly free to view things as you wish and you are free to openly discuss them (as far as I am concerned) so shine on you crazy diamond. However, for the sake of the rest of us, try to avoid letting people confuse you for a Libertarian (and if you self-identify as one then, seriously, stop as you are not helping). Also, as you seem to be aware, be mindful of the fact that you are going to get a lot of blowback. Maybe try some introspection and see if you can find a path to moderation? I don't know, I am not a psychiatrist.

I do not know how old you are but most of us learned that a pure political system (of any type) is never going to work because ideals will not work with humans in the loop. Maybe, eventually, we will have reached the point of enlightenment and can actually do things like that. Maybe... However, these political theories have been tried and do not work. In theory an anarchy will settle down and be fair. See Somalia to find out how well that actually works.

Re:Require licenses for commercial driving or not?

[roman_mir]

I don't need Somalia for any so called examples, my own country of birth has a deep history of freedom fighters, anarchists of various kinds who managed for years to stave off much larger forces from East and West. Of course lately another fight started and we will see how this goes. I am an anarcho capitalist, objectivist, and your childish leaning towards limited government is of no interest to me. How I deal with the reality around me is not for most people either.

Re:Require licenses for commercial driving or not?

[roman_mir]

Ha ha,ignorant little ass,apologise for yourself, not for others. As an anarcho capitalist, objectivist I denounce any association with you whatsoever. You don't represent me or my ideals in any way. Now shoo.

Re:Require licenses for commercial driving or not?

[Jack Griffin]

But the drivers are going to have to carry insurance which is willing to cover them,

This is probably the crux of the issue. For some reason a business requires public liability insurance which is far more costly than a private person performing the exact same function. Why is that?
eg.
you drive your car -> no insurance (outside regular insurance)
you drive your car with your friends onboard -> no insurance
you drive your car, pick up a hitchhiker -> no insurance
you drive your car, pick up a hitchhiker who remunerates you somehow -> suddenly you have to pay insurance
I don't know how insurance and liability works legally, but I think there exists a new space between private person, and big company, where public liability should scale along with expected risks ie If I go ride sharing with someone privately, I expect the risk to slightly more than if I was going as a passenger of a branded business. Therefore less burden should be on the operator and more on the individual. For those not willing to accept these risks, they can stick to higher priced official means of transport.

Re:Require licenses for commercial driving or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. Those US taxi cab drivers are SO well trained!

Re:A case of out of control Liberals

[Blaskowicz]

There's no 75% tax rate and liberals means "right wing" here (including the current government)

Re:A case of out of control Liberals

[Chalnoth]

"Productive?" Productive workers don't have salaries of millions of dollars. And few rich people can move overseas to avoid their tax burden because their money is made within the country (and you can bet your ass that to the extent they are able to shift their tax burden overseas, they already do that). But rich people are leeches on society. They're not productive workers. They just exploit their own privilege and the rule of law to fleece everybody else of their money.

You go! France!

[Anonymous Coward]

the ONLY thing Uber is sharing is the massive profits it makes that are distributed to the top of the chain. What a life-sucking company this is, breaking the law at will! Jail every single board member and senior executive of this outlaw company!

Re:You go! France!

[amicusNYCL]

the ONLY thing Uber is sharing is the massive profits it makes that are distributed to the top of the chain.

Other than the 72% of the fare that they give to the driver, right?

Re:You go! France!

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is tiny? Since the driver is doing all the actual work here?

Re:You go! France!

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than the 72% of the fare that they give to the driver, right?

72% of fuck all is still fuck all.

It's a race to the bottom based on some company not having to comply with regional laws.

It may be that Uber just end up finally kicking nation states into realizing that this free market with the internet having no boundaries simply does not work at a social level.

Make Uber become a glorified Taxi Cab Rank - that just happens to based in wherever their Corp HQ Is - and make them pay all the various license fees for all the nation states they want to occupy. It doesn't seem that hard. If you don't have all the paper work for whatever country you want to operate in, you cannot operate.

If the Interior Ministry is upset about disruption

[tlambert]

If the Interior Ministry is upset about disruption of commerce, perhaps they should crack down on the taxi drivers?

Taxi money brakedown

[sectokia]

I don't know about France but in Australia the taxi system typically operates line this: Taxi gets in $200,000 per year in fairs across two driver shifts running pretty between 24/7 and 22/6. Cost are typically $30,000 per year (car, maintenance, fuel, insurance). Each of two drivers earns at most $35,000 per year. The owner of the cabs licence takes the left over $100,000 per year. Most of the licences have been brought up by one our two big companies in each state. The owners typically pay $8,000 per year to be part of the cab company who issue the jobs and keep the drivers getting fairs. Needless to say with half the money going to artificial licence holder, uber can easily under cut taxi prices. I suspect in a free market taxi prices would decrease at least 40%. The drivers themselves are tricked mainly by the rich licence holder into thinking that uber will take there jobs and threaten their messag megre pay. Of course in reality if it's the licence holders who are the only ones who attend to lose anything. Taxi licencing are regulation is often favored by the left. Uber is interesting because it exposes that even though the left are meant to be progressive they draw the line at labor regulation, and will stand fast on the side of entrenched interests of regulated industries.

Re:A case of out of control Liberals

[Jahoda]

Do you know how I know that you don't know anything about France?

Uber != car sharing

[plopez]

They are a global taxi service with centralized command and control. A taxi service which does not want to be treated as a taxi service. The only difference is they use a smart phone app as a dispatcher.

They lie about what they are and elicit sympathy for the 'little guy' to rip off the little guy. I will use the independents instead, thank you.

Re:Uber != car sharing

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not a taxi service, they're a matchmaking service. Nothing is stopping taxi drivers from also signing up, other than the taxi drivers' own organizations.

Re:Uber != car sharing

[myowntrueself]

They are a global taxi service with centralized command and control. A taxi service which does not want to be treated as a taxi service. The only difference is they use a smart phone app as a dispatcher.

They lie about what they are and elicit sympathy for the 'little guy' to rip off the little guy. I will use the independents instead, thank you.

The only place I've known that has independent taxi drivers is Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia where literally anyone at any time can decide to be a taxi on the spot and pick someone up.

Is that what you mean by 'independents' or do you really mean 'taxi drivers who work for entrenched licence holders'?

Re:Uber != car sharing

[amicusNYCL]

The only difference is they use a smart phone app as a dispatcher.

This might be a complete shock to you, but the app is not actually the only difference between Uber and a taxi company. That being said, having an automated dispatcher itself is a major benefit over taxi companies, unless you like it when your cabbie calls you from across the city to say he'll be there in half an hour.

Face it, Uber is successful because they are doing the job of taxis far better than the taxis do it. Like any other industry that has been around a long time, taxi companies got lazy and quality plummeted. I don't even want to think about how many cabs I've been in that had shredded seats, sticky floors, smelly drivers, etc. One example that sticks in my head was a driver who was in the range of about 400 pounds and had his seat back far enough that there were maybe 6 inches between the back of his seat and the seat behind him, so no one is going to sit there. He sure as hell isn't moving his seat if 4 people need to get in the car though. When I think of taxi rides, it's those experiences that I think about. Long waits, bad cars, angry drivers, etc. Uber solved all of those problems at once. I can see where all of the cars around me are, when my ride gets accepted I can track the car to where I am, I know the driver's name, license plate number, make and model of the car. I can talk to the driver before they pick me up. When the ride is over I just go, I'm not sitting there dicking around with payment. I can also track the entire ride, I've called Uber cars for women leaving my parties and I've tracked her the entire way home. If anything got shady I know the driver's name, license plate, phone number, last location, and car description. And, without exception in my experience, every Uber car I've had has been as clean or cleaner than any cab. I've never had an Uber vehicle in poor condition, and after the ride I can rate the driver. If the driver's rating goes below a high threshold then Uber does not give them any more jobs, so the drivers and vehicles need to be presentable and agreeable if they want to keep working.

If taxis want my business again, all they need to do is match the service I get from Uber. This is what the largest taxi company in Phoenix thinks about mobile apps (for reference, at the time of posting that page says nothing except "Sorry, the offer you tried to access has ended."). For most taxi companies the concept of a mobile app means being able to order a taxi without calling. I'm not interested in that, I want the convenience and accountability that I get from Uber. Taxi companies don't want to compete with Uber though, they just want to outlaw them and go back to their monopoly.

Re:Uber != car sharing

[Anonymous Coward]

So taxi's are not taxi services either then right?
They are a matchmaking service which matches up taxi drivers with customers needing a taxi?

Just because Uber says they are not a taxi service doesnt make it true.

Uber has a dispatch service (the mechanics of how you do this is not relevant)
Uber has drivers who take you from A to B and are not a "ride share" services since the driver is only going there because you paid them to (just like a taxi).
Uber charges the customer and then pays the driver after taking their cut just like a taxi dispatcher.

Re:Uber != car sharing

[tompaulco]

In other words, it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, and none seem to be around during duck season. Sure seems like what we have here is duck.

Re:Uber != car sharing

[tompaulco]

Taxi companies don't want to compete with Uber though, they just want to outlaw them and go back to their monopoly.

They don't want or need to outlaw Uber. Uber is already illegal. All the taxis want is for the competition to have obey the same laws, which legally they do. In practice, Uber chooses not to obey the law.

Re:Uber != car sharing

[phantomfive]

I will use the independents instead, thank you.

Where do you find an independent taxi?

Re:Uber != car sharing

[plopez]

Clarification, non-globalized with localized control, with drivers who both get dispatched and hailed on the street and often pick people up because they know their schedule.

Re:Uber != car sharing

[plopez]

My point is they are lying. They are a taxi service which happens to use a smart phone app. n fact I have decided that if I ever use them I will NOT tip the driver. After all, I am already cover the gas money. Right?

Re:Uber != car sharing

[plopez]

If they are matchmakers then both the driver and the passenger would pay money to Uber for their service. Only Uber would get paid.

Re:Uber != car sharing

[Noah Haders]

you can't tip the Uber driver. If you use Lyft you can tip the driver, but you can't do it in Uber. You coudl theoretically give the guy cash, but that is frowned upon and may be against uber rules.

Re:Uber != car sharing

[Anonymous Coward]

"I will use the independents instead, thank you."

The independents will just be murdered by the brown men who buy the laws they want. And they're also not legal. So why is this "insightful"?

p.s. all the former regular cabbies I would call to get around--controlled by the little kings (and friends of politicos) are now on Uber and love it. Taxi drivers also pay commission, often are forced to pay for rents on the vehicles, are also classified (US) as independents despite, by PUC rules, being forced to work within only one or another company in a given area and do largely as they say...

p.s. A LOT of paid shills are involved in forum discussions on these things due to the fact these people have paid-up to get their no-skills captured-driver slave workforces and guaranteed revenue streams in the name of "public" service around the world, so beware: they ARE the mob...or worse, as one [very worldly] lawyer told me, "I'd rather piss of the mob, they're more scrupulous."

Re:Uber != car sharing

[Anonymous Coward]

(American in the U.S.)
I think there needs to be an exemption to the law. Like if someone makes less than $200/month with providing paid rides to someone, that it's not commercial activity. Something like that.

Re:Uber != car sharing

[KGIII]

Show us one paid shill. Just one will do. What is with this imaginary thinking that there are a bunch of paid shills? Sure, they are out there. They are not in abundance and tend to be employed by governments (from what I have read) and not some taxi service with 100 employees and a drunk IT staff of one.

Re:Uber != car sharing

[amicusNYCL]

Face it, the taxis don't want the competition at all. They don't want to have to invest in new technologies and new vehicles to match the level of service, they just want to keep doing the same shitty job they always have done.

Re:Uber != car sharing

[david_thornley]

Matchmaking? In most matchmaking services, the service gets paid by both sides. There are matchmaking services where the woman gets paid, but they have a somewhat different reputation.

Why on Slashdot?

[ThePhilips]

Why the hell Uber/etc are on /. front page at all?

I do not see any relevance to - or deep profound effect on- IT/etc.

The Uber - and its failing outside USA - are so non-news.

Re:Why on Slashdot?

[FranTaylor]

I do not see any relevance to - or deep profound effect on- IT/etc.

Really? IT people design and make the "social engineering" software that makes things like Uber possible!

Re:Why on Slashdot?

[ThePhilips]

I do not see any relevance to - or deep profound effect on- IT/etc.

Really? IT people design and make the "social engineering" software that makes things like Uber possible!

Oh please. Business intelligence is one of the oldest types of software in existence.

That's basically how/why the computers were commercialized. Otherwise they would have stayed a toy of scientists and a tool of military.

Re:Why on Slashdot?

[Bing Tsher E]

And I don't think 'IT' should be the focus of more than about 20% of Slashdot. Because I'm a nerd, not an IT drone. When I was a developer at a medical device company, I still wasn't an IT guy. The IT drones were the people who screwed up our computers with shit like Lotus Notes. We really didn't want them around much. All they were good for was keeping the paper and toner supplied to the printers.

Re:Why on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Designed and made. It's just repetitive legal stories now

Re:Why on Slashdot?

[FranTaylor]

Oh please. Business intelligence is one of the oldest types of software in existence.

what are you saying? I have no idea! Are you saying that business software has been offering real-time service to individuals since mainframes? huh?

Re:Why on Slashdot?

[ThePhilips]

And even at that - legal boring stories: USA company comes to another market and ignores the local laws; but drat, USA can't bomb it to ruin provisionally, because unfortunately they are both members of the NATO. Oh tragedy.

Re:Why on Slashdot?

[ADRA]

Anything to do with Uber (which is 99.999% about 'business freedom') attracts the libertarians who are far more active on slashdot than I've ever seen in the real world. Whenever you have libertarians espousing dogma, it turns into a holy flame war and only the victors are the ones who skimmed past the story (damn it!).

Re:Why on Slashdot?

[amicusNYCL]

It may surprise you that many of Slashdot's readers are not in IT and don't go around installing printers and fixing networks all day. For example, I'm not in IT. I'm a programmer, I design and write software. I don't think of programming as IT, I think of IT workers as the people who install printer drivers and set up desk phones. Those are the people who I see claiming they work in IT. I don't hear programmers say IT when people ask them about what they do.

Re:Why on Slashdot?

[BradMajors]

The most popular topic on this website is politics. Not IT.

Re:A case of out of control Liberals

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no 75% tax rate and liberals means "right wing" here (including the current government)

The center in the USA as moved so far to the right that most of the alleged leftists in the USA would be right wingers elsewhere.

Slashdot is broken.

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Seriously. Slashdot is broken. On Android, the fucking story section icon and comment count have been rendering over the top of the headline recently. Does anyone even beta test this shit? (Also, apologies for using the word beta. Fuck beta.)

Re:Slashdot is broken.

[clonehappy]

Does anyone even beta test this shit?

Dice, Inc. thanks you for your service.

Re:Slashdot is broken.

[buckfeta2014]

ahem.

Re:Slashdot is broken.

[Anonymous Coward]

Be grateful that you see anything at all. I have to switch to desktop view on every single /. page because mobile view comes up blank. Apparently this happens when you disable 3rd pay cookies. Wtf /.

Re:Slashdot is broken.

[thegarbz]

Nothing to do with Android. It does it on all platforms. Someone thought they were being clever and broke the damn UI to fit in the pointless share buttons.

charge the organization

[Anonymous Coward]

Charge the organization under corruption charges; indict the board of directors and senior executives, then have them arrested and extradited to France for trial.

You know, same shit the US does.

Re:charge the organization

[BitZtream]

You can rant and rave, but when you're defending shitheads like the ones the US asks to be extradited you just make yourself look ignorant.

Re:A case of out of control Liberals

[clonehappy]

There's no 75% tax rate

You're absolutely correct!

From TFL: "The overall rate of social security and tax on the average wage in 2005 was 71.3% of gross salary"

And that was in 2005. I'm sure taxes have dropped dramatically in France in the last decade, as they have across the globe. (/sarcasm)

Re:A case of out of control Liberals

[amicusNYCL]

Then they talk about offering asylum to Snowden who campaigns to reduce state security.

Do you really believe that, or is that just what you tell yourself? I would say he campaigns to increase privacy. Do you really think his end goal is a state that is less secure, or a citizen that is more private?

Sweet Jesus, I'm arguing with a political troll. It's Friday, I need to go home.

French Salute

[Anonymous Coward]

Both hands above head.

Re:French Salute

[Anonymous Coward]

French military rifle for sale.
Never fired, only dropped once.

F***sck Uber and others

[kosmosik]

I'am posting this from Warsaw, Poland. Taxi business here is OK I guess as a client - there are just a loads of taxis everywhere, you can call you favourite and it will come in 10 minutes - always. And it is great. Local regulations require that TAXI to be called TAXi is to have a license - fare with these guys is regulary between 2,60-1,50 (per kilometer +"shutting door" fare). There are also "people transfer" services which are like TAXI but are not formaly these but private lines - they can't have TAXI sign on car but would use something like TAKSI and so on. Also there is a law that anybody who can transport 7 people (large vans with seatings in back) can operate as private transporter. Also you have the thing called "Night Drivers" and it is like a person transfer (legally) but usually somebody with really fancy car shows up and drives you - and then gives you their card so you call them more often.

This is a mess I guess but if you know the differences you can pick the best way for you (which in my case is registered cheapest TAXI - since they can use exclusive lanes for them).

And there also was a case in Kraków in which the city forbided non registered taxis - so they operated as psychological services (sic! - you drive you get an advice). Etc.

Nevertheless I love taxi-and similar services in my city (Warsaw) - I can order whatever the fuck I want. :) TAXI, private transfer, Uber etc. - and get home....

So in my opinion Uber has no chance here (with their 1/4 provision going just about using the app - fuck you uber - clients PAY for tha) since you can get cheap rides anyway... Uber is only strong where old-school style city-regulated TAXIs are strong.

Re:F***sck Uber and others

[jbssm]

You just explained exactly why the users prefer Uber.

Sure, like you said, there are nice taxis therein Poland regulated by the government. And then there are all the other scammers around.

Now, me as a tourist, I land at Krakow airport and I have no clue which is which and I may as well end up in a shitty dirty unregulated cab paying 5x the fare I was suposed to pay and I basically have no way to even complain about it. Or, I can just connect to the airport WiFi, call a Uber driver and be sure to arrive at my destination in an accountable transport that charges me the minimum fare possible for that trip.

Guess which one the users choose.

Re:F***sck Uber and others

[kosmosik]

You are perfectly OK to choose Uber whenever you like and it is aviable for you but the rest of your post is just invalid.

> Sure, like you said, there are nice taxis therein Poland regulated
> by the government. And then there are all the other scammers around.

And what makes you think that Uber are not scammers? What real jurisdiction Uber has over transport in Poland?

> Now, me as a tourist, I land at Krakow airport and I have
> no clue which is which and I may as well end up in a shitty dirty
> unregulated cab paying 5x the fare

Well I don't know the airport in Kraków but Warsaw airport has like five accepted taxis which can pick you up straight from the terminal. Other ones (if you order them) can drive to further pickup lanes on the airport. So it is really not longer a problem with scammer taxis on aiports in Poland (it used to be). The same is for major railway stations. You can safely pick the ones recommended by airports - they are not the cheapest (in 2,4z per kilometer range) but they are safe.

> call a Uber driver and be sure to arrive at my destination in an accountable
> transport that charges me the minimum fare possible for that trip.

What makes you thint Uber is accountable?

> Guess which one the users choose.

I guess they choose airport aproved taxis.

Re:A case of out of control Liberals

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not even a reasonable comparison. Usually when people are talking about taxes in the US, it does not include payroll tax and the like (or the cost of health insurance, which is large and in taxes in France but not the US). For someone with an average salary, income tax is ~20%, which you could find out from the same wikipedia article.

Fuck you French taxi drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

It's illegal because if not we will have to arrest all the corrupt taxi drivers who will be killing and burning.

Ya pretty much

[Sycraft-fu]

You can argue for or against various licensing, insurance, bonding, etc requirements but what it comes down to is they need to be consistent. If a given type of work has that requirements, then everyone needs to be held to it, or it needs to be removed. You can't have it where some people have to jump through the hoops, but others don't.

A more extreme example would be pharmacists. To be a pharmacists requires a great deal of training and certification, in the US at least. That is how it is: You wanna dispense prescription medication you have to have the right degree, and experience and certification. Well, we can't very well have that but then also allow someone to be a "medicine sharing service" that just has random uncertified people who dispense medications. I suppose you could argue drug dealers are that and, what do you know, the government will put them in jail.

So if you think the licensing requirements for taxi services are silly, fair enough, let's work on getting rid of them. But Uber and the like shouldn't get a pass whereas traditional taxi services have to comply. Either is is a requirement or it isn't. It should have to do with the type of work you do, not the name of the company you work for/with.

How about someone writes a real sharing app?

[plopez]

Sort of like a craigslist for ridesharing. I am not a great developer and haven't done anything with apps but if anyone wants to run with the idea it is fine with me.

I like the undeadly.org interface

[Anonymous Coward]

It works. It's usable on my smartphone. And it's written in a few hundred lines of C.

Re:A case of out of control Liberals

[Anonymous Coward]

Airheads discussing taxes don't include payroll taxes but anyone looking into expanding internationally and thus paying for employees does. When it becomes an obligatory factor per employee and a major competitive disadvantage to employment as it is in France attempting to argue "it's not a tax paid by the employee" is specious.

Re:Can you obtain a Greek citizenship?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yo mama?

Re:Can you obtain a Greek citizenship?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd shag your sis after telling you to get your faggy ass out of my room.

Re:Can you obtain a Greek citizenship?

[KGIII]

That depends... Is Kurkosdr my first or my last name? Also, what color are the sheets?

Taxi not Ride Sharing

[BitZtream]

UberPOP differs because it allows non-professional drivers to register their car and transport other passengers.

At what point do you not realize this is a taxi service and stop calling it ride sharing.

This is not ride sharing. If you think it is, you're an idiot. This is a taxi service and they need to play by the same rules as everyone else.

Whats next, murder is illegal because the murder claims that he's really just a liberator of trapped souls? Sound ridiculous? Yea, so is calling anything about Uber 'sharing'

Re:Taxi not Ride Sharing

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck you for thinking we need these rules in the first place

Re:A case of out of control Liberals

[KGIII]

I am a huge fan of Snowden and think he is a patriot of the highest order. However, yes, increasing privacy reduces security. There are trade-offs to be made.

What I post's nonsense dave420?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)

Why'd you agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you:

"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

Of course not: It's impossible to dispute HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!

Since my points in favor of hosts SINGLE FILE native kernelmode faster part show hosts doing more w/ less vs. so-called 'competitors' many part messagepassing + cpu/ram use overheads laden slower usermode FAR MORE COMPLEX 'solutions' doing less than hosts do for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity!

I make creating a superior more efficient solution EASIER!

(That's more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).

---

"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)

I bother you? Then WHY DON'T YOU DO IT & use 'em? Answer that!

(You stalk/harass me instead!)

OBVIOUSLY you don't & you're a "ne'er-do-well" troll & you have "other motivations" (next):

---

* QUESTION:

DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , or a MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?

Answer it!

As per your usual you'll avoid every question, or lie & You've been EXPOSED in your "motives" in the last link just above, lol!

APK

P.S.=> See Dave420 the "pot puffing clown" SQUIRM - evasions galore will ensue (as well as effete downmods via sockpuppets to *try* vainly "hide it" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )... apk

Re:A case of out of control Liberals

[amicusNYCL]

No doubt, a free society can never be fully secure, the two goals are at odds. But to suggest that Snowden's goal is specifically to decrease state security is being disingenuous, the guy was phrasing the debate to make his stance look better. Just like how someone who is anti-abortion would say they are pro-life to turn their negative stance into a positive one.