Uber France Leaders Arrested For Running Illegal Taxi Company

An anonymous reader writes: Two Uber executives were arrested by French authorities for running an illegal taxi company and concealing illegal documents. This is not the first time Uber has run into trouble in France. Recently, taxi drivers started a nation-wide protest, blocking access to Roissy airport and the nation's interior minister issued a ban on UberPop. A statement from an Uber spokesperson to TechCrunch reads: "Our CEO for France and General Manager for Western Europe were invited to a police hearing this afternoon; following this interview, they were taken into custody. We are always available to answer all the questions on our service, and available to the authorities to solve any problem that could come up. Talks are in progress. In the meantime, we keep working in order to make sure that both our customers and drivers are safe following last week’s turmoils."

Comments

Uber this!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the future of Uber transactions will be conducted over the Silk Road using bitcoin.

Re: Uber this!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to be driven around on silk roads all day - would be proper posh!

Re:Uber this!

[pete6677]

France can always be counted on to do things in the least logical way possible.

Re:Uber this!

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is damn nice in todays worls where CEOs are usually intouchable. It's good to know in some countries they can still be held personally responsible if they do something illegal.

Re:Uber this!

[gnasher719]

France can always be counted on to do things in the least logical way possible.

In which alternate universe is arresting the people running an illegal business the "least logical way possible"?

Re:Uber this!

[BlueStrat]

France can always be counted on to do things in the least logical way possible.

In which alternate universe is arresting the people running an illegal business the "least logical way possible"?

The fact that it's illegal for a private person to accept payment for a car ride principally to protect politically-connected businesses practicing an outdated/obsolete business model is both corrupt and illogical. It's protectionist crony-capitalism. Rather than logically correcting such a corrupt system, they doubled down on it. Just because a government declares something "illegal" does not mean it is morally and/or ethically wrong, or a detriment to society and/or the economy.

Strat

Re:Uber this!

[Anonymous Coward]

Public Hire vehicles are regulated, this includes ensuring they carry the correct insurance, the vehicles are to a certain standard and are serviced, the drivers are only allowed to work certain lengths of shifts, and who is driving which vehicle is recorded. Drivers are required to pass at least a minimal level of background check.

All of this is to ensure the safety of the person paying them for a service.

If you think this should be completely unregulated and "the market will sort itself", please fuck off my planet.

Cheers.

Re: Uber this!

[Anonymous Coward]

But in that case I can think of other things that are even more illogical. Copyrights lasting decades is one of them.

Re:Uber this!

[NotDrWho]

France can always be counted on to do things in the least logical way possible.

A bunch of taxi drivers start rioting in the streets, blocking traffic, and burning cars. France's response? Arrest the people they're protesting AGAINST.

Is it any wonder they keep getting invaded, or that the only decent tactician if the history of their country was from Corsica?

Re:Uber this!

[gizmo2199]

Liberia, er, Libertarianstan (same difference)

Re:Uber this!

[Stuarticus]

Politically connected? I think you're confusing taxi drivers with those secret service guys who drive the president around,

Re:Uber this!

[dave420]

That's so when people get in a taxi they know the car is insured for any accidents, and it is in good working condition, not to mention background checks and extra training (in some countries, it doesn't sound like yours). Without the medallion system this is still the case. You seem to be confusing several issues, making a blunderbuss attempt to make your point, and failing miserably. Ouch.

Re:Uber this!

[dave420]

If you think their getting invaded has anything to do with the French troops and not who was invading them, you really do need to brush up on your history.

Also, the government already promised to do something about Uber, and then didn't. Hence the protests and the response. Protests such as these are common in France and especially in Paris, and have been throughout the centuries.

It sounds like you know very little about France's history, and thought to wade in and let everyone know. How considerate.

Re: Uber this!

[Anonymous Coward]

All my +1. A free market resembles nature -- the ugly side. Animals eating each other and dying painfully and without dignity.

Re:Uber this!

[siliconsmiley]

Morality need not and should not ultimately come into consideration in a legal system. Morality is subjective. The law should not be. It often is and that makes sad kitten sad.

Re: Uber this!

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with both of you. Can't we find a middle ground??? Both of you are right to a certain extent. Sure, we should give Uber a chance. And sure Uber needs to share some of the responsibility. The question is how much of each?

Re: Uber this!

[Anonymous Coward]

A free market resembles nature -- the ugly side. Animals eating each other and dying painfully and without dignity.

Absolutely!

Government needs the ability to monitor, regulate, and control any economic interaction between any 2 individuals in order assure public safety. The private exchange of money between individuals is how criminals, terrorists, and religious groups/charities work, and are a clear and present danger to state power and control. Monetary exchanges of any kind between individuals need to be tightly controlled & monitored by authorities. It's the only way for government to assure our safety.

Does Uber need executives in France?

[EllisDees]

It's not like they need to have a physical presence for their app to work there.

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Mr D from 63]

They need drivers, and if they can arrest executives, they can likely arrest drivers as well. Interestingly, France has a heavily unionized workforce...so maybe the Uber drivers need to unionize (jk).

And while France may have a legal basis to take those actions, I hate that they give the union protestors, who damaged and disrupted so much, what they wanted. It sends a message for others to follow suit. France is in a pickle.

Re: Does Uber need executives in France?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, you've got it wrong; France is the pickle.

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Anonymous Coward]

How does that sound any different than the good 'ol USA?

Unions had their place. It's in history now, just like the confederate flag. Unions need to die, they do nothing any longer other than make a few wallets fat (the few running the unions), a TON of people lazy (nearly all union workers), and they disrupt commerce and trade and they artificially increase the cost of all goods due to their now over sized salaries for their skill sets. Union bus drivers easily make $80k+ No HS diploma needed. Dock workers, 6 figures on a regular basis, again no education needed at all. Most of these people's wallets are not fat even though their incomes are because they lack the basic education need to save money... Most of them still end up in the bars drinking their paycheck away. These are grunt jobs, no different than picking cherries or apples, however, everyone draws the line at paying an apple picker $60k+/year so those jobs are still in the hands of what Trump calls "bad people".

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Anonymous Coward]

they are protecting for the laws that exist that protect them, to be enforced. It's their rights. To be a taxi driver you need a pay a massive license fee, that's how it is. You can't just tell people you're a taxi driver and start making money, there's the insurances and all that, needed. Uber has NONE of it. If anything happens in a "uber taxi", you, your family and friends, essentially eat sh*t. Because not only was your using their illegal, they also don't any have sort of insurance that can protect you.

Re: Does Uber need executives in France?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong here : uber drivers are obligated to have a special insurance, they shall have no records of issues with law or police, and get a basic safety and behaviour training.

The price of the taxi driver's license is being kept high because of a numerus closus that the taxis never wanted to see changed, because it might make them loose a fortune. When they don't use it, they rent their licences, instead of giving it back into the pool.

Oh, and BTW, the licenses are not expensive when assigned by the state⦠at least never around the 6 figure price that is currently being the value of the license.

So the unions are blocking the streets and attacking customers or uber drivers, only because they won't be able to speculate anymore because Uber said fuck off to the numerus closus. And over the last 20years, every time a government tried to reform the taxis so they can actually have more customers, they ran on the streets blocking paris economy.

But it is wrong to say uber drivers are more exploited than taxis. For half the price we pay, they get as much as when working with a hired license, a hired car and having a company giving you the customers.

And I am un anonyme lÃche, writing this from Paris, France ;-)

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[cstacy]

they are protecting for the laws that exist that protect them, to be enforced. It's their rights. To be a taxi driver you need a pay a massive license fee, that's how it is. You can't just tell people you're a taxi driver and start making money, there's the insurances and all that, needed. Uber has NONE of it. If anything happens in a "uber taxi", you, your family and friends, essentially eat sh*t. Because not only was your using their illegal, they also don't any have sort of insurance that can protect you.

In the USA? Not quite.

Uber is not a taxi, it's a limo service. Limos are regulated in some (all?) states, but differently than taxis. You can't hail a limo on the street (or airport lane), you have to call them (phone or app) to specifically come to you. Limos don't have "medallions" and are not a limited quantity. The requirements for special driver's license, insurance, and so on, are different than taxis.

Uber provides significant insurance to it's drivers, and it's not "illegal" (at least not in the USA). And they do pay out on claims. Other tort arguments seem unlikely. HOWEVER: When you drive for Uber, your own PERSONAL insurance policy is probably void (most carriers). In fact, if you have EVER used your vehicle for Uber, your insurance is voided -- even if your claim had nothing to do with any Uber trip. If you get hit on the way to the grocery store or injure someone on your way to your day job, your nasty surprise is that you had no valid insurance at that time. Because you once on another occasion used your vehicle for a purpose that totally voids your insurance.

When you call up an insurance company these days to report an accident, the very first words out of their mouth are: "Have you ever used your vehicle for Uber, Lyft, or anything like that?" Because if they find out (and, being insurance investigators, they WILL find out) that the answer is "Yes", then they will inform you that at that time, you voided all your insurance. You Are Fucked.

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Uberbah]

Unions had their place. It's in history now, just like the confederate flag. Unions need to die, they do nothing any longer other than make a few wallets fat (the few running the unions), a TON of people lazy (nearly all union workers), and they disrupt commerce and blah blah blah blah blah

Unions will be needed as long as greedy executives try to exploit labor. Any more concern trolling?

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Anonymous Coward]

They refund the insurance since the time the contract was voided as well, so there's no problem.

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[TapeCutter]

Fucking hypocrite, you don't want to pay "grunts" $60k/yr but I'd bet my left testical that you wouldn't trade jobs with a mexican farm hand for the same amount. Insufferable snobs like you are the first to burst into self-centered tears when life hands you the choice of food vs grunt work.

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Anonymous Coward]

apart from the problem of not having insurance?

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely. To supplement my pay, I'm thinking of dabbling at nights in:

- medicine (GP? Surgeon?!)
- accountant (I think I'm good at giving financial advise)
- bridge building (that would surely be fun!)

Sure, I have no accreditation / certification, but the government seems happy to turn a blind eye to Uber drivers engaging in taxi services without proper accreditations ... perhaps they'll let me practise in other professions.

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Anonymous Coward]

They refund the insurance since the time the contract was voided as well, so there's no problem.

Does that mean I can say I Ubered for ten years* and get all my insurance premiums back if I say I want to file a claim?

Because that sounds like a good idea, so long as I haven't actually hit anyone. I didn't say I needed to file a claim, just that I WANTED to...

*ten years or however long it is from Ubers start til uber's kozmo.com style death.

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Anonymous Coward]

anybody can be an accountant, you don't need qualifications for that! have fun!

Re: Does Uber need executives in France?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right to work laws will be needed as long as greedy union executives try to exploit labor. FTFY

Re: Does Uber need executives in France?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't you do any of those things? It's easy enough to just have a law that says you need insurance to drive a taxi. Oh yeah.. Power. That's why. Fuck you, you authoritarian tuck..

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess, with Amerika being the land of free enterprise and all, that will only last until some insurance company runs adds like:
"Been a Uber driver and no longer covered by insurance? Take out our 'Uberance' cover and you're sorted. Just call this number right now..."
That's going to happen, right?

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they refund your *future* payments.

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Anonymous Coward]

So let me guess, you can't sue the insurance company to reclaim all premiums paid after the time your insurance was "voided".

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[pr0fessor]

Uber left my state although it's one of the most loosely regulated because they didn't feel they should be required to have more than minimum private liability insurance as apposed to the same commercial insurance that taxis are required to have. Medallions are not required and a commercial license for a taxi driver is about $15 more than a regular driver's license every four years.

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they refund your *future* payments.

That seems much more like the insurance industry. Sort of how its worded that if a late payment is accepted, then your coverage "continued without interruption" - though I'm pretty sure if you then back filed a claim they'd deny it.

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[DaJoky]

So, the insurance don't want to work with Uber drivers? That would be a terrible, terrible mistake, seeing the ambition of Uber's executives, in a company valued $50 billions, they could just start a business in the car insurance and get more profit.

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet they will happily work with uber drivers. As long as they pay the higher commercial insurance, because the normal is so cheap they coudn't cover the claims.

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Jesrad]

France has a heavily unionized workforce

Nope. Norway or Italy have heavily unionized workforces, whereas France has the least-unionized workforce (7.7%) in Europe save for Estonia (6.8%).

However, France has some of the richest, most politically influential unions, by a huge margin. To put it simply, unions in France are like parallel political parties, with their own occult sources of funding, high-ranking members inflitrated in every institution, and legal priviledges that protect their position.

But french taxis V.S. Uber is an entirely different, though related, issue.

To make light of the sorry state of Uber in France, you only need to know a few things:
- just a few months ago, Agnès Saal was mediatically ousted from her position as head of the INA for allegedly squandering taxpayers' money on... taxi rides (40 000 euros' worth)
- then a couple weeks ago, we learned that the amount squandered was actually an order of magnitude larger than previously stated - there was simply noway to spend that much on taxis
- also notice that Jean-Jacques Augier, the previous CEO of G7 taxis, the biggest taxi company in France, was the financing director of François Hollande's presidential campaign in 2012
- G7 taxis' current CEO is a close friend of Hollande's Parti Socialiste, and was involved in François Mitterrand's own campaigns too

The intimidation campaign that is raging on against Uber in France is simply how the politicians currently in power are defending some of their illegal sources of funding. The seemingly "out of proportion" violence of this campaign is simply a reminder that, in France, you just don't ask about political parties' or unions' money unless you're ready to die (just like Robert Boulin, Pierre Bérégovoy and judge Pierre Michel died).

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[gnasher719]

So, the insurance don't want to work with Uber drivers? That would be a terrible, terrible mistake, seeing the ambition of Uber's executives, in a company valued $50 billions, they could just start a business in the car insurance and get more profit.

Fifty billion dollar? So why do we always hear sob stories about little Uber fighting the evil monopoly of taxi drivers?

How many of that fifty billion dollar goes towards convincing politicians? And as with other big companies, if a fifty billion company breaks the law, then any fines must be big enough so that a fifty billion dollar company notices them and changes its way.

Re: Does Uber need executives in France?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do the state-limited number of surgeons rent out their lisences to others when they're not practising? Seems like a wise system AND an appropriate revenue stream!

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Anonymous Coward]

Workers are just as greedy as executives. The problem is that a smallish number of companies have a negotiating advantage over a large number of workers. The best way to fix this is to break the companies up, to get some competition in the market, but if you can't do that, consolidating the workers into unions (with increased negotiating power) is a decent way to go. If there's one union and many companies, though, you have the same problem, but the other way around.

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[umghhh]

If that is true (which it may be) how about a legal obligation to have a valid insurance - if your insurance is voided you are not supposed to be on the road or? So it is not an issue of insurance claim only but a breach of law?

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[KGIII]

Why the hell would anyone want to win a left testicle? I am not sure we should take advice from you. Your testicle has value only to you and, perhaps, your SO. I mean, really, it is not even a pair of testicles. This is not a bet I would take because I do not want to be the winner. How am I to explain it to the mailman when he delivers a bloody package containing your testicle?

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Anonymous Coward]

So a country can have a "heavily unionized workforce" with less than 10% of workers being part of an union? (less than 5% in the private sector)

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Anonymous Coward]

So let me guess, you can't sue the insurance company to reclaim all premiums paid after the time your insurance was "voided".

Post-claim underwriting is far worse than that.

It would only be fair if they refunded all premiums paid by all customers who COULD be voided, not just those who meet the criteria and also happen to get in accidents.

Otherwise you get the SleezeCo business model. I'll offer you cheap insurance for $200/year which indemnifies you against anything that could go wrong with you, but which will refund your $200 and deny you coverage the first time you submit a claim. I get a million people to sign up and collect $200M. I get 500k claims and refund $100M. The rest drop coverage or die or forget about me without filing a claim, and I keep their money, having never provided a service to anybody.

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you get hit on the way to the grocery store or injure someone on your way to your day job, your nasty surprise is that you had no valid insurance at that time. Because you once on another occasion used your vehicle for a purpose that totally voids your insurance.

Yeah, somehow I doubt that would hold up in court. Citations to the contrary welcome.

That sounds a bit like the "don't report the claim because they'll raise your insurance" nonsense that seems to be common knowledge in the US. I'm sure it varies by state, but at least in Pennsylvania you can't have your auto rates increased by filing claims. You can have them from being responsible for causing an accident, and that happens whether you file a claim or not.

All those contracts you sign when you go skiing that basically say that you can't sue them for any reason at all are also void. If you break your leg because you fell and skiing is dangerous sure you can't sue them. If you break your leg because the ski lift was improperly designed you certainly can sue all those forms to the contrary.

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Anonymous Coward]

"G7 taxis' current CEO is a close friend of Hollande's Parti Socialiste, and was involved in François Mitterrand's own campaigns too"

André Rousselet who owns 70% of Paris taxis with the companies G7 and "Taxis Bleus". He was also founder of the Media company "Canal Plus" which is a very strong http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/06/29/2114210/uber-france-leaders-arrested-for-running-illegal-taxi-company#supporter of the Socialist parti for about 30 years,

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Anonymous Coward]

" unions in France are like parallel political parties"

Especially CGT, which is a kind of sectarian organization, doing for exampel the dirty job of taking parts in protests each time the socialist government needs it, and always pretending to speak for the people, the poor etc... As an exchange they are wellsubsidised although they have a very low and also declining numbers and workers .

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[wvmarle]

They may need a physical presence for other reasons, such as managing payments (much cheaper and faster to keep that within the borders of a country, or at least the Eurozone). Or dealing with complaints of drivers and customers. Or dealing with promotion of the service.

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[wvmarle]

These execs were arrested for running an illegal company. Drivers may be arrested for driving an unlicensed taxi. I do suspect the former is the more serious charge, especially as the business of Uber has been declared illegal already in France, and the bosses decided to continue anyway: that's contempt of court, and courts tend to not be happy with that.

If you want to stop a business, you have to chop off its head, i.e. go after the bosses. The bosses of Uber don't care for drivers to get arrested, that's just collateral damage to them. They still make lots of money off the other drivers. Getting arrested themselves may finally get the message home that they have to follow the rules and regulations of the country they operate in, whether they like those rules and regulations or not.

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[flopsquad]

Agreed, I would love to see some citations for this backcanceling practice.

I did some quick googling, and insurance carriers are certainly threatening to cancel (future tense) coverage for RS drivers, and refusing to pay for claims occuring within the passenger pickup gap.

But basic contract law fundamentally condradicts the notion of backcanceling. If the contract was void the moment you turned on the Uber app the first time, your insurer would have to refund all your premiums so as to avoid being unjustly enriched.

Of course, they can also argue for a course of action that's not legally correct just to hassle you and hope you give up.

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Cederic]

in Pennsylvania you can't have your auto rates increased by filing claims

Why is that? Is there legislation preventing this?

If I file three no-fault claims because other people hit my car from behind, and my next door neighbour files no claims at all, my premium will rise and his will not.

This is because the insurance company has identified that I'm more likely to be involved in an accident, and that makes me a higher risk.

What excludes Pennsylvania from this logic?

Re: Does Uber need executives in France?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is your state no fault? In my state the liability insurance for the guys that hit you would be responsible for your car. Your insurance company would pay you and then their lawyers would work to get their money back from the other guy. That service is a part of the value that insurance adds.

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Eunuchswear]

Interestingly, France has a heavily unionized workforce

Rubbish. France has one of the least unionised workforces among industrialised countries, even lower that the US.

(France, 2012 7.7% USA, 2012, 11.1%)

Source: https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=UN_DEN

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Mr D from 63]

Yeah, I stand corrected. However, I'd like to see the numbers for industry only and not including federal employee unions.

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[cstacy]

But basic contract law fundamentally condradicts the notion of backcanceling. If the contract was void the moment you turned on the Uber app the first time, your insurer would have to refund all your premiums so as to avoid being unjustly enriched.

You breached the part of your contract where you promised not to do what the insurer considers commercial driving. If you lied about it, it might also be insurance fraud, maybe even a crime.

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Eunuchswear]

And you'd also need to see the same split for France.

(I can't find the numbers but I've seen claims that French private industry is about 5% unionised).

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Mr D from 63]

I think over half of the US union force is government workers, so that would put them about even in private industry. I also looked for a breakdown country by country, but its hard to find. Some countries don't allow federal employee unions, others its almost 100%, and that makes a big difference in the figures.

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any more sophistry and hyperbole?

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[gnasher719]

If the contract was void the moment you turned on the Uber app the first time, your insurer would have to refund all your premiums so as to avoid being unjustly enriched.

Slow down, cowboy! The reason for car insurance is mostly that third parties are kept save by having someone with lots of money who has to pay. Insurance companies can't get out of that liability. In Germany, for example, it takes about two months of non-payment until the insurance company can cancel your contract, and a notice of that will go simultaneously to you and to the police, who will make sure that you don't drive around without the insurance having to pay.

However, a lot earlier the insurance will try to recover any damage payments from you, which could easily bankrupt you.

You will obviously not get a refund, because the insurance company still has to pay out (and slim chance to recover the money from you if your victim ends up in a wheelchair), and of course their risk is higher than assumed, based on the premiums they charge commercial drivers.

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Uberbah]

Any more fascist groveling & bootlicking for a club you'll never be in?

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[Uberbah]

Workers are just as greedy as executives.

And Stephen Hawking may have as much desire to engage in barfights as a 6'4", 350 MMA fighter who's been undefeated for a decade. Even buying in your BS storyline - most workers just want a decent home and decent standard of living for their families - capability and proportionality matter, fuckwit.

Re: Does Uber need executives in France?

[Uberbah]

If you're a complete moron with zero sense of proportionality, I suppose you could see it that way.

union executives

And just how long have you opposed both democracy and shareholder voting? Since the right to vote and the right to control the pooling of your capital (labor, when it comes to workers) is anathema to a bootlicking corporatist such as yourself. Unless you're speaking of the .01%, in which case your "principles" do an about-face.

Re:Does Uber need executives in France?

[DaJoky]

This valuation relies on active users of Uber (far less than a lot of companies in the valley), and the amount of money made on each active user (far more than most of companies in the valley). Also, Taxis lobbies are better at getting introduced to politicians (case of the Paris monopoly taxi: the guy is the son of a former French President friend... that sounds a lot like 3rd world corruption). The French monopoly on taxi in Paris is really ridiculous and killing the business.

Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

If taxi drivers have to buy licenses and following certain regulations, shouldn't Uber do the same or are they already?

Re:Not surprised

[pecosdave]

Look, we're fucking that group of people with uncalled for protectionist laws, shouldn't we fuck the others also?

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

They're starting to impound these scab drivers' cars. About bloody time!

Re:Not surprised

[crioca]

Alternatively; if Uber drivers don't need to buy licenses and follow certain regulations, why should taxi drivers? It seems like Uber is working well enough under a de-regulated environment.

Re:Not surprised

[Mr D from 63]

Alternatively; if Uber drivers don't need to buy licenses and follow certain regulations, why should taxi drivers? It seems like Uber is working well enough under a de-regulated environment.

Then the very environment that Uber thrives on would be gone. They'd have to adapt as well.

Re:Not surprised

[zlives]

it would only be just. Taxi drivers that "choose" to forgo licensing would also be arrested. Its the law of the land, change the law if you so wish but until then...

Re:Not surprised

[Rei]

Uber drivers are subsidized by everybody else. Taxi drivers have to pay high insurance rates because the act of driving a long distance every day for a ton of strangers is a job that inherently leads to a much higher statistical rate of payouts. If they're driving as a taxi on regular car insurance, it's you that's paying the bill for their swindle of the insurance system.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be a taxi driver afraid to lose his job.

Re:Not surprised

[Mashiki]

Protectionist laws like requiring a chauffeurs license? Having appropriate carrier insurance? Following the same rules that actual taxi companies have to? Holy fuck! It's like people want them to operate like a legal business or something!

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlikely: mostly likely the parent works in IT or a related field. (This is /. after all.)
I work in IT, and I'm in Australia, and I share parent's view.

I think it's unethical what Uber is doing. Clearly some countries also think it's illegal, and are starting to take action.
Imagine if people started practising in other professions (medicine, law) without proper accreditation / certification?
But of course, doctors and lawyers are better represented to politicians than are migrant taxi drivers.

Re:Not surprised

[thegarbz]

I don't understand why this comes back to insurance. There is a concept of self insurance, or no insurance.

We run risks every day of doing something where come company won't come and bail us out. Why should someone suddenly be *forced* to have insurance to do something?

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. They've likely only got consumer level car insurance while using their vehicle at a commercial level.

Re: Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have to buy licenses. Someone makes them buy licenses.

Re: Not surprised

[Bartles]

Oh no, the horror. Someone trying to sell something has to adapt to better serve their customers. I liked the protectionist middleman system so much more.

Re:Not surprised

[mysidia]

No... protectionlist laws, like requiring a permit and then limiting the number of outstanding permits to a small fraction of those who want to be in the business, for the sole purpose of restricting supply to be less than what the public needs.

Re:Not surprised

[TFAFalcon]

So that when you crash, and you have to pay damages to both the person you hit and your passenger, you can't just shrug and declare bankruptcy.

Re: Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber would be dead if taxis were completely deregulated. I mean, what's the point of uber if streets we swarming with taxis? You woudn't know which one is safe or clean or not cheating you anyways. Just pick one and hope for the best. That's actually why most places have regulations in the first place. Yes, later most of the regulation has turned against the customer, but the original purposo was for the custoers benefit, ie. you know in advance how much the trip costs, the driver won't drive you to an alley where he mugs and robs you, the driver won't drive the longer route in order to get more money etc.

Re:Not surprised

[dave420]

If you think that's the reason you really need to do some research. Until then it's pretty safe to assume you don't understand this topic in any great depth.

Re: Not surprised

[davester666]

Stupid. Read up on something called "history". We already tried what Uber is doing, only without the "over the internet" part. It didn't work out so well.

It is precisely why the taxi industry is like it is now.

Re:Not surprised

[Rakarra]

If you think that's the reason you really need to do some research. Until then it's pretty safe to assume you don't understand this topic in any great depth.

So having way fewer cabs on the street than needed, and never being able to hail an empty cab are just pleasant side benefits?

Re: Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

They have the required accreditation to drive a car, it's called a driver's license.
What they don't have is a license to pick people up off the street.
miracle of miracles, they aren't doing that! They are only performing an agreed upon prepaid limo service.
There's no taxi meter.
They're exactly like that private car a nice hotel will organise for you to get you from the airport.
notice how a hotel NEVER sends a taxi? That's because the private car is nicer and cheaper.
Should the owners of that service be arrested too?

Re: Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like all those things you attribute to a taxi saving you from are precisely what taxis do.
other than being mugged, that are also what uber actually protects you from.
prepaid fares, known drivers, driver ratings.

Re:Not surprised

[Jesrad]

You know nothing.

France established the taxi licenses at the demand of taxi drivers, to help them self-organize. Then the taxi drivers pressured for quotas of licenses to stop new-comers from entering the business and establish a corporate monopoly.

The licenses were issued free of charge by the state, and were not to be transferred to someone else by the isuee. The taxi drivers are trading and reselling these licenses illegally, for large sums of money (on par with house prices). The taxi drivers are doing this to themselves, just so they can keep strangling the market and their customers.

And now, they're violently defending this stranglehold, by smashing cars and bludgeoning people in the streets, while at the same time complaining with a straight face that their competition is "illegal".

Re:Not surprised

[serviscope_minor]

Why should someone suddenly be *forced* to have insurance to do something?

Because you're doing something where there's a reasonable liklihood you're going to do far more damage than you can afford to compensate someone for. Unfortunately, too many people's attitude would be "ha ha I wrecked you stuff fuck you!" which is why insurance is mandatory.

Actually in the UK, insurance isn't mandatory. But you have to prove you can pay out in the event that you cause damage. And that proof comes in the form of leaving a million pounds in the custody of Her Maj.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that legislators compel Uber to display a popup saying "This driver may not be adequately insured for $reasons. Ride at your own risk." ... fills my schadenfreude gland with a warm, happy glow.

Re:Not surprised

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Is an official Taxi more expensive than Uber? Certainly. But a Taxi driver is a job that can sustain a family. Uber on the other hand strives to turn all of that segment into cheap dayjob/sidejob territory, while reaping the main benefits for itself.
That's starting to become a staple of our "new society" - everything cheaper, faster, less regulated... except it also destroys regular jobs and makes the lives of the professionals involved less secure and less predictable.

Not all regulations are bad regulations and not all "progress" is good progress. For me, companies like "Uber" are a form of new ultra-capitalism that is perhaps convenient for consumers, but destructive on a social level, and above all benefiting the "mega corp" involved.

Re: Not surprised

[cyber-vandal]

If insurance isn't mandatory here then why will the police confiscate your car if you don't have it?

Re:Not surprised

[Kopp]

Well, as one liter of gas is more expensive than one bus ticket, I can't see how taxis could compete with buses for most people. Anyway, there have been many reports about the lack of taxis in Paris for many year, and the decisions to increase that number have not been followed. I don't see what is preventing them from issuing new licences, appart from lobbying of the current taxi companies that make huge profits out of the that? At the expense of everyone else. It's costing money to people, to companies that pay taxi to their employees, etc.

Re:Not surprised

[Kopp]

Excuse me, but being a doctor or a lawyer requires much more accreditation/certifications, knowledge etc, than being a taxi driver. If they do have a driving licence, they are probably as apt to drive people around than most taxi drivers.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

you must be an uber shill ?

Re:Not surprised

[Mashiki]

In Ontario, anyone can open a cab company with next to no money if they're a single individual(in my city a person can run a 1-2 car company for $250-700/yearly). A company is required to front money for a mass-operators license in most cities/towns. This is anywhere from $10k to $500k depending on the number of cabs you're going to operate. Uber refuses to follow existing laws, bylaws, or even insurance regulations.

I can tell you right now what's going to happen. Someone is going to get into a serious or fatal crash with an uber driver, they're going to have bottom barrel liability insurance(because they refuse to follow the law), and the company will be banned from operating in xyz provinces/states/etc.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Plenty of people work in IT without proper accreditation/certification... ;)

But yeah there should regulation but it should make sense and it should apply to the taxi drivers too (e.g. if the licenses are for specific drivers they can't just rent out their licenses to others).

Re: Not surprised

[KGIII]

Just a guess but maybe you should not have stopped at the end of that sentence?

Re:Not surprised

[thegarbz]

Because shrugging and declaring bankruptcy is some magical panacea that is easy to do and gets everyone out of every obligation for free?

I don't think you quite understand what it means.

Re:Not surprised

[thegarbz]

Because you're doing something where there's a reasonable liklihood you're going to do far more damage than you can afford to compensate someone for.

So the same can be said for anything right? Why does uber and commercial insurance come into it?

In Australia we have personal liability insurance, but that does sweet-f-a if I hit a Ferrari in my beat-up pick-up, and yet every driver on the road is not legally required to carry anti-Ferrari insurance.

What you can and can't do is a question of wealth and risk and there should be other legal avenues in place to deal with that rather than mandating insurance. If the insurance is mandated then it should be universally so and thus Uber should be treated no differently than some underpaid McDonalds worker who could equally mame someone on the way home.

Re:Not surprised

[bingoUV]

When the law is the way you want, probably Uber will be law abiding. Since it isn't, uber is illegal.

Re: Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Slavery was legal for a time. I guess all those people trying to free slaves back in the day were in the wrong too.

Being arrested for something deemed illegal and being in the right are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, ultra-liberalism and ultra-capitalism go hand in hand. Although it is called 'liberalism' there is a lot less freedom now. We are all forced to become flex jobbers. I haven't had a job for longer than 6 months the last 5 years, when my old company was bought up to be closed down by a competitor. I'm having problems to build up a good retirement saving account and will probably have to endure this for the rest of my life, until I'm too old, tired, burned out, whatever comes first and am disposed off in some retirement home with cheap flex job labor who will feed me anti-depressants to have less work with me.

There are already old people who don't have a high retirement income exported to cheap countries where they are 'taken care of' by people who speak a foreign language.

Profit before everything else. You can't even escape this new ultra-capitalistic world, the old 'black sheep' places have now become expensive luxury resorts filled with expensive hotels and clubs, and are no longer for those who don't fit in the society. The only alternative seems to become a extremist. Many kids in my neighborhood are attracted to the paradise promised by the Salafists and move to Syria or Iraq to fight the Jihad.

Nobody points to the real cause of extremists, ultra-liberalism, and just points to the average 'white' person who is apparently so racist that people start killing each other thousands kilometers further away.

Lets replace all taxi service with Uber, what will happen? No more taxi drivers, only cheap drivers. We no longer need a car, because you can get everywhere with Uber. Only a few will buy cars, those who drive for Uber. Less cars, more unemployment, more people buying cars to join the race to the bottom in the Uber world. Of course this view is way too simplistic. But Uber is just one of the many potential network empowered services providers. Slowly, many other services will follow the example of Uber.
 
More and more low skilled services will be replaced by a network empowered service, making those low skilled service workers very cheap. All these cheap workers will earn a lot less than the current low skilled workers. Most of the profit than goes to a very small elite that doesn't pay taxes, instead of to a fairly large, low skilled middle class that pays taxes. The gap in income keeps on rising. Social services are build off, because the middle class is shrinking and can no longer pay for the too expensive social services. God will win souls again. When you have nothing to fall back on when you can't keep up with the race to the bottom, blind faith will be the only thing left.
 
  When the group of fanatic religious has grown big enough, they will start a new wave of revolts and destruction. And the destruction of the world, as promised in the books of revelations, will be a fact.
 
Of course not as described in those books, just a return to some sort of dark ages where the new religious elite can rewrite history around a new invented prophet or son of god or whatever, just like happened before (and before, and before, ...). It seems human culture is all about cycles with the figurative end of the worlds, which are just ends of societies and starts of new religions.
 
When we are lucky it will not be a total destruction of the society, and more a hundred year war like destruction as has happened when protestantism was 'invented' as a reaction to the first wave of industrialization in Europe which caused a lot of unemployment among farmers/workshop workers. But it will take a lot of struggle for a lot of people before we have settled with the new technology.

Re: Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. That is the reason. We need the state. We are just drooling morons who can't make informed decisions. Thank you oh glorious nanny state for saving me from my stupid. Medallions costing one-hundred thousand, two-hundred thousand, it is all for my safety.

Re:Not surprised

[Talderas]

Self-insurance will require that some amount is set aside and cannot be touched thus it will be available should the insurance be required. This means you're locking up a sizeable amount of your assets where you can't get access to them. The people that can afford to self insure are not the majority of Uber drivers.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber is thriving on being hip, not on any actual benefit.

Re:Not surprised

[Stuarticus]

It's not hard to be a taxi driver, give it a go if you don't believe me. It may be harder to register your own vehicle as a taxi. This shouldn't be surprising.

Re: Not surprised

[cyber-vandal]

It's a fairly simple question. The police will confiscate your car here in the UK if you don't have insurance. How can they do that if it's not mandatory?

Re:Not surprised

[dave420]

You really don't understand this, do you? Wow.

Re:Not surprised

[dave420]

I take it you've not heard of The Knowledge in London. Those black cabbies are fucking nuts when it comes to navigation. Some guy in a car with an app can't match them, even if they use GPS.

Re:Not surprised

[stoatwblr]

The Knowledge applies to a specific area in London (mainly the "square mile" of the original City of London) and they're notorious for not knowing the way outside those confines, or refusing to take fares south of the river (illegal to refuse if journey is less than 12 miles), dogs and other pets (illegal to refuse), and in a few cases for sex offences which for years were blamed on unlicensed drivers.

Only tourists or those not paying the bill take a black cab. Everyone else calls a minicab (or Uber).

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that a normal car insurance does not payout if the driver is operating a taxi service.

Re:Not surprised

[TFAFalcon]

It means that instead of a payout that covers their medical bills and other damages (which would be covered by the mandatory insurance), your victims get whatever bankruptcy court can squeeze from you and nothing else.

I might be in favor of this if they were allowed to sell of your organs in cases where you can't pay for the damage you cause and you aren't insured.

Re:Not surprised

[powerlord]

At which point Uber might (I stress the word "might"), just get the appropriate liability insurance as an umbrella covering their "contractors", pay the required operator fees, chip the spent money out of the drivers pockets, claim they were always going to do this if needed to but hadn't realized they were required to, and use the garnished name recognition to take a major stake in the updated business model.

Not sure if they just plan to grow and become a conglomerate middle man, or if they are pursuing a growth phase pre-speculative acquisition, but either way the people in charge there now have show they have no willingness to follow existing laws unless forced to, in their pursuit of the large market share.

Re:Not surprised

[david_thornley]

I drive to get places myself primarily, meaning my car is usually parked somewhere, and I can generally avoid driving when I feel unsafe. If I were driving for a living, I'd be on the road much more, and I'd have a financial incentive to keep driving even if I felt too tired or sick. Therefore, if I'm driving commercially, I'm more likely to get into accidents, and therefore cost my insurance company more. This is a sweeping generalization, of course, but laws have to work that way.

Re: Not surprised

[davester666]

Yes, that IS the reason. We tried the 'free market solves all problems' for this exact thing. Before we came up with medallions and the rest of the taxi regulations, it is what we did.

It wasn't pretty.

We came up with the taxi system BECAUSE of it. We didn't just decide out of the blue to do it.

Uber is counting on you NOT bothering to find out why we came up with the taxi system to begin with.

I'm not claiming the current system is great, or even good, or works well. But it's better than what we WILL get going down Uber's path. Because we've already done it.

Re: Not surprised

[serviscope_minor]

If insurance isn't mandatory here then why will the police confiscate your car if you don't have it?

Simple: they don't. If, however you have neither insurance nor a bond of a half million pounds posted with the accountant general of what is now the supreme court, then they'll confiscate your car. Since very, very few people have a handy half million (at a minimum, see below) to leave with HM, next to no one actually does this. So the PSAsa are all about driving without insurance, not "driving without insurance or having deposited the sum of 500,000 pounds (this may vary) with the accountant general of the senior courts" because that's not very snappy.

See Part IV, clause 144 if the road traffic act 1988:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

Now enjoy being smug at your friends down the pub with your new-found pedantry next time the topic of conversation arises :)

Re: Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

But it is a question that cannot be answered, since the premise it is based on is wrong. The police can only confiscate the car if it is not insured and the required liability deposit has not been made.

Re:Not surprised

[Mashiki]

claim they were always going to do this if needed to but hadn't realized they were required to

Yeah, and ignorance of the law is no excuse right? In places like Canada, the fines for failing to have the proper insurance start at $10k per incident. After the first incident, they jump to $50k, $100k and $250k per incident thereafter. Maybe it's time for the crown/DA to start laying fines at their feet.

Re: Not surprised

[gnasher719]

If insurance isn't mandatory here then why will the police confiscate your car if you don't have it?

As was said, they won't if you have a million pound in a bank account reserved solely for paying insurance claims, that you otherwise can't access.

Re: Not surprised

[cyber-vandal]

Can't see anything on Google about this. Any links?

Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[MouseR]

In Quebec, it costs upwards of 200,000$ CDN to have a taxi license.

Drivers spent their entire life's saving enough to buy their own license while they lease another one's. It's their only retirement plan: lease a license they earned to buy.

No wonder they're pissed.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[pecosdave]

It's their own fucking faults. They lobby to make sure this is the system that's in place to prevent competition from companies like Uber. They got the laws they paid for, it's the people who bought the first wave of licenses/medallions whatever that made bank, now everyone else has to deal with it.

An upstart breaking that system is exactly what real business needs.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[MichaelSmith]

Its the same here in Melbourne with taxi licenses and newsagent licenses. To sell newspapers you needed to front up with 200 kAUD for the license. Unfortunately the newsagent licenses are worth next to nothing now and a lot of people got burned.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Noah Haders]

I would have the slightest shred of sympathy if taxi unions hadn't used their protectionist racket to provide the nastiest most unpleasant rider experience. If taxi companies were really good at providing good service and uber came in with some sort of unlicensed fly by night business, then it would be clear. But even if uber were the same price as cabs, I would choose uber every_single_time. Maybe cabbies should think on why that is, and try to make an experience that is good for the customer so they win their business, rather than focusing on their entitlements and how they should be able to shut everybody else out of the market.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[MoaDweeb]

New Zealand liberalised its taxi system about 25+ years ago. The Gov't allowed anyone to setup a taxi company who had the appropriate car licence endorsement, log books and passed a vetting process for its drivers. etc.

Uber have shown up and decided that they do not have to have vetted drivers, log books etc. 'cos they are Uber!
The Police are investigating.

The barriers for entering the NZ market are quite low but even then Uber do not think they should apply to them.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[quantaman]

It's their own fucking faults. They lobby to make sure this is the system that's in place to prevent competition from companies like Uber. They got the laws they paid for, it's the people who bought the first wave of licenses/medallions whatever that made bank, now everyone else has to deal with it.

An upstart breaking that system is exactly what real business needs.

Medallion owners bought the medallions with the understanding that they were buying into a limited monopoly.

I'm not opposed to changing this agreement, in fact I encourage it, but if you're going to do so you need to compensate who bought the medallions.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[jklovanc]

This assumes that all the laws regarding licensed taxis were instigated by taxi owners. That is patently not true. Many of the regulations were created in response to problems caused by unlicensed taxis. Here are some of the regulations that cost licensed taxis money.
- Minimum number of cars on the road/company.
- ratio of handicap accessible taxis.
- standards of cleanliness.
- language standards
- anti-discrimination
- driving record checks
- criminal record checks
  - frequent vehicle inspections
- professional driver's licenses

While it is not perfect there is a mechanism to pull bad taxis off the read. Without being able to pull a license that mechanism is gone.

The reason there is a limit on competition is to create an environment where owners can make a living and still follow the regulations imposed on them.

An upstart breaking that system means going back to the bad days when taxis were unregulated.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

>Medallion owners bought the medallions with the understanding that they were buying into a limited monopoly.
Shit happens!

>need to compensate who bought the medallions
Nope! My shares went down in the last crash, noone compensated me!

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[larkost]

If you are right, then why can't/won't Uber compete legally with medalioned taxi companies? Why do they have to pretend that the rules don't apply to them to undercut existing taxies? I completely agree that the taxi market was slow to adapt to apps, and that created a market open for a system like Uber, but the way they have "disrupted" the market by ignoring the existing laws rather than trying to work inside them is simply disgraceful.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[idji]

Uber has to do these checks anyway before they are allowed to take the drivers.
The "bad days" of unregulation were long before the digital age - we have better ways of checking these people now, including star ratings within the Uber app - if the driver doesn't have 5 stars, just reject them.
The goal shouldn't be so that taxi drivers can make a living, but rather that people can get from A to B how they want.
The fight here is about cronyism, protectionism and the scam of making taxi drivers pay $200,000 blood money to be able to drive in Quebec, Melbourne, etc. I have talked to taxi drivers in Melbourne who hope that they can sell their license when they retire so that they can retire.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[aristotle-dude]

Standards of cleanliness? In what city? I would never wear white in a cab. A lot of cab drivers also stink almost as bad as your average pan-handler.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Rockoon]

If you are right, then why can't/won't Uber compete legally with medalioned taxi companies?

So we have to argue circles with you? you have been told why

The medallions are of limited supply because those taxi companies, the ones with the monopoly on them, lobby government to keep them in limited supply.

You have proven to us that the Statists dont give a fuck about the facts, that we have to argue endlessly in circles with you. Go fuck yourselves.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

According to TPP pushed by Obama and supported by GOP, if foreign company invested in these medallions and they lose value because of some change in the law/regulation they can sue the federal government for compensation. This bail out is not available for domestic investors. Only foreign investors can do this. And only the foreign investor has the standing to sue, not unions, not labor activists, not local governments. And they will be judged by fellow lawyers who could be representing other parties at the same time.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[jklovanc]

Uber has to do these checks anyway before they are allowed to take the drivers.

Not all and they could drop them at any time.

The goal shouldn't be so that taxi drivers can make a living, but rather that people can get from A to B how they want.

Right now Uber is a new thing and many people are interested in it. Wait a few years when licensed taxis are out of business and there are no taxis on the road when you need them. Wait till there are few if any handicap accessible vehicles and few will pick up certain minorities. The problem with star ratings is that they can be misused. Give every "insert minority here" a negative rating and see what happens.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Rockoon]

Medallion owners bought the medallions with the understanding that they were buying into a limited monopoly.

..and I bought stock in oil reserves with the understanding that I was buying into a limited monopoly. Then Saudi Arabia started dumping oil on the market. Should the government make me whole again, too?

It seems that you are the victim of a common misconception: That the State is the one selling the medallions that cost so much. Wrong, ignorant fuck.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[jklovanc]

I drove taxi and we had cleanliness standards. If the owner of the car got a complaint he was down my neck to clean. There have been several taxis pulled by the city for being dirty. We are a tourist town and the local business association is very sensitive to bad comments. Just because your city has low standards does not mean it happens everywhere.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[PopeRatzo]

Standards of cleanliness? In what city? I would never wear white in a cab. A lot of cab drivers also stink almost as bad as your average pan-handler.

When I was in grad school, I drove a taxi. This is a pretty long time ago, but let me tell you, y'all passengers don't always smell so great, either. I remember an August day when a guy got in my cab at O'Hare just drenched in Calvin Klein cologne (which was a fad at the time and smelled like a skunk in a whorehouse). I had to drive him all the way downtown, with my eyes watering and me choking. I had the AC on full because it was hot and finally by about Belmont I just said, "fuck it" and opened my window, wanting to stick my head out like a labrador retriever. This is before they forced cabs to have the plastic barrier between the driver and passenger.

The worst part is he gave me a two dollar tip. Another Gordon Gecko yuppie throwing nickels around like they were manhole covers.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[pecosdave]

Why?

Compensate them because their government backed monopoly in which they prevented hundreds if not thousands of others from profiting because they worked the system in such a way that guaranteed the laws of supply and demand didn't affect their business? They're lucky there isn't a lynch mob coming after them for the affront to the natural market, losing a protected monopoly is no reason to reward them.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said. I'm still puzzled sometimes how people don't seem to have any sense of the value of some regulation. It seems like a self serving bias on the part of Uber users that the feel Uber is in their best interest, so therefore it has to be an acceptable business model. Apparently being dispatched by an APP gives one legitimacy that duct taping a cardboard taxi sign to the roof of one's car does not. It's not a surprise I suppose, that when given the choice consumers will not opt for the artificial scarcity imposed by regulated taxis. Regulators should have shut Uber down the moment it became clear ride-sharing rather than taxi service was a blatant lie. Instead influential people prop them up as a "disruptive innovator". There's nothing innovative about operating outside the law, it's been a profitable model for a very long time. The only thing novel is that they have been able to convince society to look the other way. If I slap a cardboard taxi sign on the roof of my car and drive through a major city, I'll make it 30 minutes before I get cited, but I can sign up with Uber and digitally do the same thing and somehow that's just fine.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[andymadigan]

If "within existing laws" means having a medallion, that simply isn't possible, as there are not enough available. Up until a year or two ago, there were less than 500 medallions total in San Francisco.

There are other problems too. Various laws prevent Uber from performing a background check going back more than 7 years. As a regulated business, Taxi companies are required to (and able to) run better background checks going back 99 years.

As for pricing, taxi fares in San Francisco are ridiculous, like a 50% upcharge if you leave the city. But lets say Uber did implement it. How long until the cartel starts complaining they can't do "surge" pricing?

The truth is the taxis should have used their entrenched market position by pooling their resources and building an e-hailing app, or at least participating in the ones that exist now. Even in SF, try checking out the sites for the major cab companies. Only one has an app, the rest either don't exist or haven't been updated in over a year.

I should note another site does list an app, one that renamed itself over a year ago. That app (Flywheel) has never worked on my iOS device, so I don't know if it works or not.

Instead, cab companies used their entrenched position to keep the supply of medallions so low that people had no choice but to switch to Uber/Lyft/Sidecar. There just wasn't any way to get a cab, especially if you were west or south of Twin Peaks.

Obviously all of this applies to SF, where Uber was created to solve the very problem of not being able to get a cab. However, I'll bet all of this applies well to Paris.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[pecosdave]

Sadly there is something worse than the protection rackets that already exist. Too bad most of these people will just yell "tinfoil hat!".

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[pecosdave]

So the state cleaning it up is the solution instead of establishing a brand with a good reputation?

If I have to call a taxi I'm going to call the one I'm less likely to get out of with a case of fleas.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[PopeRatzo]

I would have the slightest shred of sympathy if taxi unions hadn't used their protectionist racket to provide the nastiest most unpleasant rider experience.

What was the last time you took a taxi, and in what town? Maybe I notice because I drove a cab some decades ago, but I take cabs in almost every city I travel to - and I travel a lot - and I can't remember the last time I had a rude cab driver.

Maybe the reason your experiences (if they're real experiences and not just more bullshit) with cabs are bad is because cab drivers - being human - tend to treat people the way they are treated, and maybe you're an asshole.

In fact, to support this possibility, I'm going to quote from another one of your comments a few levels down from this one:

You have proven to us that the Statists dont give a fuck about the facts, that we have to argue endlessly in circles with you. Go fuck yourselves.

Yep, you're an asshole. I believe I have proven my hypothesis.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[youngone]

I'm old enough to remember the days before the Taxis industry in New Zealand was deregulated. You couldn't hail a cab in the street, the only place they would pick you up from was a taxi stand.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[TapeCutter]

WTF have your shares got to do with your desire to deliberately trash the life savings of millions of taxi drivers in the western world?. They entered into a contract with the government, if the government breaks that contract by changing the law then drivers should definitely be fairly compensated. Business confidence is important, if the government started breaking contracts as you suggest the economy would go down the toilet faster than a new york rat.

Re: Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[cyber-vandal]

Damn statists expecting laws to be obeyed! The nerve!

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[jklovanc]

That is only one small aspect of the reasons for regulations. What happens when all the brands have a bad reputation?

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[TapeCutter]

Melbourne Australia, I worked as a driver for 3 years, cabs are cleaned inside and out twice a day. It is the cab driver, not the owner, who is held responsible. Dirty cabs will receive an on the spot fine and will be forced to spend the rest of their shift getting it cleaned and re-inspected by the transport cops. Random inspections at taxi ranks are common. The number of taxi drivers who "stink" is no higher than that found in the general population who ride in the cab. For example, there were several houses in my area that most drivers (legally) refused to service because of the customers odour. Get someone like that in your cab and the stench lingers for hours after they have gone.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[pecosdave]

If they all have a bad reputation I start the good one, advertise myself as the less-fleas brand and cash in on that market.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Demena]

I was a Melbourne taxi driver while I was studying. My cab, although very worn was always very clean. Most of the time there were fresh flowers in it to provide more than city odour. Before each shift I wold sort out worn notes from fresh and replace worn ones with fresh from a bank. Each note folded to show the denomination. Stupid and anal? Perhaps, but you would not believe the tips I made (as a rule Melbourne people do not tip). The time I spent cleaning, sorting and going to the bank was my most productive earning time despite it did not directly pay a cent.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Eythian]

Well, in NZ the drivers have to have both a passenger license, and a private hire license, which is more than a taxi driver needs. The main issue is that you can either be paid by the hour, agreed before-hand, or you charge using a licensed meter. Uber does neither.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

You quoted one person but attributed it to another person, and that attribution came with it being "proof" that the person you mis-attributed it to was an "asshole."

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you have proven the person you were quoting's point. Statists don't give a fuck about the facts. You will even quote one person, claim that it was another person that said it as a personal attack on that person, and all because you cant support the argument you really want to make. It would of course be easier to support the argument that you want to make if you didnt ignore the facts all the time, but then maybe the facts don't actually help, so carry on with Statist Logic 101.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[PopeRatzo]

Medallion owners bought the medallions with the understanding that they were buying into a limited monopoly.

Maybe it should be clarified here that when you see someone claim that it's not the government charging $200,000 for a taxi medallion, that's just the going price on the secondary market. You know, good old capitalism, where people are bidding up the price of a necessarily limited commodity.

The taxi authority looks at population, traffic flow and transportation needs and comes up with a number of taxis that they think should be on the street. Every year, they add new medallions into the system, usually with a lottery. The idea is not so much to protect the cab drivers (cities don't care about cab drivers. If they did, they wouldn't make the minor traffic fines, like your cab being 10 inches over the line of a designated taxi waiting zone, as much as $500 (which practically wipes out the cab driver's week), but to keep the number of taxis from getting so crazy that you have cabs clogging up city centers, fighting for fares.

Another think medallions are used for is to ensure that someone in an underserved part of the city can get a cab. In my city, certain medallions are required for certain times to initiate or terminate a certain percentage of fares in certain parts of the city.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[drinkypoo]

- Minimum number of cars on the road/company.

A problem that solves itself if you permit anyone to perform as a taxi.

- ratio of handicap accessible taxis.

That actually seems useful. Could better be served by handicapped-specific public mobility services, however.

- standards of cleanliness.

That must be nice. No taxi I've ever been in has been clean. Some have been not too nasty.

- anti-discrimination

False everywhere in the world.

- driving record checks
- criminal record checks

Basically worthless

- frequent vehicle inspections

Everyone should have these based on mileage

- professional driver's licenses

A scam to produce revenues

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Uberbah]

in which they prevented hundreds if not thousands of others from profiting because they worked the system in such a way that guaranteed the laws of supply and demand didn't affect their business?

You mean, because these people actually work for a living? If they were ant-competitive vulture capitalists, then it would not just be okay, but the desired result.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

No one made them invest in a crooked deal provided by the crooked politicians!

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Uberbah]

So the state cleaning it up is the solution instead of establishing a brand with a good reputation?

And when market consolidation means the regulation-free monopoly DGAF about it's reputation, passengers, pedestrians, or you?

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[jklovanc]

A problem that solves itself if you permit anyone to perform as a taxi.

Sometimes the free market fails. For example at 3AM on a Monday morning will be almost impossible to find a taxi.

That must be nice. No taxi I've ever been in has been clean.

Did you lodge a complaint?

False everywhere in the world.

Most countries have something similar to the Bill or Rights. If there is no licensing there is no way to pull a license for discrimination.

Basically worthless

So you think criminals should be able to drive people around? Sorry many don't agree.

Everyone should have these based on mileage

Most taxi inspections are based on months between inspections. It is very easy to see a sticker and ensure that the taxi has been properly inspected. It is very difficult to do that based on mileage.

A scam to produce revenues

Another opinion based on no experience in the industry. Professional licenses have a higher standard than standard licenses. They also require the training to do a proper daily pre-trip inspection. They are also another license that can be pulled if the driver breaks too many rules.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

to keep the number of taxis from getting so crazy that you have cabs clogging up city centers, fighting for fares

Is there really that many people who can't find a cab? If so, there should be more cabs.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[rtb61]

The price of taxi licences comes about from not what you implied, "Drivers spent their entire life's saving enough to buy their own license", a wildly false claim but the from the reality of companies buying up all the licences, limiting availability and lobbying to prevent more licences being issued, so they can pay minimum wage to new immigrants to drive those taxis whilst charging a fortune to customers. Higher insurance comes about because the poor wage slave gives not one crap about the taxi.

So want cheaper more accessible licences, simple law change, ONE PER CUSTOMER (the customer being an operator who must operate that licence and vehicle at least some of the time), get em while their hot. Set a minimum price on that licence and auction them off, when the bids drop below the minimum price no more licences are issued, say $5,000 (used in an industry fund to pay for victims of bad operators). When you no longer want you licence you return it for a refund at the minimum price and it goes up for auction again (you have an initial allocation and more are added every year in set blocks as long as the minimum price is achieved).

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[chihowa]

WTF have your shares got to do with your desire to deliberately trash the life savings of millions of taxi drivers in the western world?. They entered into a contract with the government...

Typically, taxi medallions aren't sold by the government anymore. They're typically sold by their previous holders and the high prices reflect their scarcity and perceived value. The market decides this value (even when they're auctioned off by the state), so there isn't any guarantee that they'll maintain that value. Any contracts that exist say nothing about limiting the supply or compensating medallion-holders for any speculative prices they paid. Buying a medallion for $800k is just as speculative as buying an $800k house or $800k worth of stock. There are no government guarantees that they will maintain value.

tl;dr... The economics of the taxi medallion situation are extremely similar to shares in a company. The "contracts" that you're referring to don't exist (at least in the form that you image).

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[exomondo]

An upstart breaking that system means going back to the bad days when taxis were unregulated.

Then that alone should already be enough incentive for people to use regulated taxis rather than Uber. If I end up with taxis refusing a fare for being too short or telling me they're going to take 30-45mins for pickup then of course I'm going to use Uber instead. The problem is taxis have a protected monopoly so there is no competition to worry about, you can say the regulations mean they can't discriminate on fares and that this will mean there are always enough taxis but the fact is that shit does happen and when you're on the street the ability to have an alternative is a good thing!

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[BradMajors]

According to TPP pushed by Obama and supported by GOP

BTW, Obama is a Democrat.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[PopeRatzo]

Is there really that many people who can't find a cab? If so, there should be more cabs.

Depends on where you're at, and that's the whole point. If you're on Michigan Avenue at 11:30am, you could toss a pebble in the air and it will probably come down on a cab. If your grandmother on the Northwest Side wants to take a cab to the doctor, she might have to wait an hour.

The idea is how to get the right number of cabs, and because of uneven distribution of demand (and supply) it's not something that the "free market" will fix. That's why you find so many more Uber drivers in certain neighborhoods and none in others, even adjusting for property values and crime statistics.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[flopsquad]

Wait a few years when licensed taxis are out of business and there are no taxis on the road when you need them.

This isn't an inexorable death spiral brought on by price warfare. It's eminently fixable by just joining the 21st century. Cab companies, who already have the advantages of incumbemcy, capital, licensed labor force, tailored infrastructure, and favorable regulations, could pretty much close the gap just by creating a decent app and guaranteeing credit card acceptance. It's not about skirting regs to sustain cut rate pricing, it's about convenience.

Wait till there are few if any handicap accessible vehicles and few will pick up certain minorities.

Lol wut?

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[dryeo]

Good, what goes around comes around and here in Canada we've been being sued by American investors for banning poisons and such.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[PopeRatzo]

You're absolutely right. I apologize to Noah Haders for saying that the misattributed quote proved he was an asshole. He's an asshole for other reasons.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[PopeRatzo]

There has been an effort pushed by cabdrivers in Chicago to do exactly what you describe. It has been resisted by the city's Taxi Authority, which despite what people here might think, are definitely not in bed with the drivers. In fact, the city government HATES cab drivers. They make their lives miserable in ways you can't imagine. Minor parking violations can go $800-1500. The city treats cabbies like dirt.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

If your grandmother on the Northwest Side wants to take a cab to the doctor, she might have to wait an hour.

That's just how 303 taxi rolls:
http://www.yelp.com/biz/303-taxi-llc-chicago

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

to keep the number of taxis from getting so crazy that you have cabs clogging up city centers, fighting for fares

Is there really that many people who can't find a cab? If so, there should be more cabs.

See the lemonade stand problem from economics. Also called Hotelling law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling%27s_law

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[thegarbz]

I'm not opposed to changing this agreement, in fact I encourage it, but if you're going to do so you need to compensate who bought the medallions.

I bought shares in a company should I be compensated when the company folds? Every investment carries risk. Leaving my money in the bank in a savings account carries risk too, just a lower risk with a lower reward.

Why are people always entitled to compensation? Why are companies entitled to go bust and get bailed out? What happened to just letting things run its course?

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

If they all have a bad reputation I start the good one, advertise myself as the less-fleas brand and cash in on that market.

Pecos's comments make sense when you realize he doesn't live here on Earth with the rest of us. Pecos apparently lives in near a Jr. High physics class, where ropes and pulleys are massless and frictionless, so for him the entry and exit to capital and labor markets is costless.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are right, then why can't/won't Uber compete legally with medalioned taxi companies?

So we have to argue circles with you? you have been told why
The medallions are of limited supply because those taxi companies, the ones with the monopoly on them, lobby government to keep them in limited supply.

I live in what is, nominally at least, a Democracy. I can't just setup a store front in the middle of a busy street - I'm expected to own the property or other rights to do business and hold licenses that the voters representatives have approved. The voters have decided they do NOT want people like you to be able to hang a shingle called "Surger" and hire yourself out as a surgeon. They want practitioners to have actual medical knowledge - generally at the level called "Medical Doctor" and they've generally agreed that you can't just call yourself one.

So why doesn't Uber buy a medallion from an existing company if they are more fit to use it? You are claiming Uber is a superior Taxi service. Then they should buy a medallion and compete legally. If you want to do away with regulation, be honest and say so, but don't try to operate in the wild west Somalia atmosphere while everyone else is obeying the law. If you prefer regulation free markets, go to Somalia and go Uber yourself there.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[just another AC]

According to TPP pushed by Obama and supported by GOP

BTW, Obama is a Democrat.

He is but both parties are pro-"taking multinational companies $$$". The TPP will pass (barring some kind of major and continued public backlash).

Everyone in every country signed up to this TPP should be asking how much lube they need to be applying to cope with the "benefits" of this agreement passing.

Not to mention the issue of "H1B visas" pales in comparison to some of the clauses, example:
If you are in Australia and work in a trade, you are about to have to compete against chinese "qualified" tradespeople (electricians, carpenters, etc), who can freely come into Australia and start work without having to have their skills checked in any way.

Re: Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with a mutually agreed upon price? Oh, your favored middleman doesn't get a piece of the action. Now it makes sense.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

If "within existing laws" means having a medallion, that simply isn't possible, as there are not enough available. Up until a year or two ago, there were less than 500 medallions total in San Francisco.

That sounds crazy, so I checked. It is crazy:
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/In-the-days-of-Uber-Lyft-some-still-buy-S-F-6038188.php

If you want a medallion, then pay for it. It's no more impossible to buy than a Ferrarri, a beach house or old wine. Or do you think it is also impossible to buy Superbowl tickets and high rise condo's downtown? "Impossible to buy" and "not free" mean different things where I come from.

If Uber wants to run a business that acts as a Taxi service in everything but name, they damn well better obey the existing laws, not the ones they'd prefer to operate under.

Re: Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Bartles]

They didn't disrupt a market. They disrupted a racket. That's why everyone is so upset.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

example:
If you are in Australia and work in a trade, you are about to have to compete against chinese "qualified" tradespeople (electricians, carpenters, etc), who can freely come into Australia and start work without having to have their skills checked in any way.

Or maybe their skills are going to get checked, like this story says?

"The agreement defines such suppliers as a Chinese person "who has trade, technical or professional skills and experience and who is assessed as having the necessary qualifications, skills and work experience accepted as meeting Australia's standards".

The Chinese workers will also need to meet English language standards, have appropriate qualifications and experience and be sponsored by the Australian Immigration Department."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-17/free-trade-agreement-with-china-puts-local-jobs-at-risk-unions/6554460

so if they don't have the skills, they won't even get a visa.

Re: Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Eythian]

No. A mutually agreed upon price is fine too. It just has to be agreed upon before the trip. Don't be so knee-jerky.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

No the State is maintaining their existence as anything more than they are, an imaginary contract designed to limit others in the market. If the market was free to operate, such a contract designed to lock other players out of the market wouldn't exist.

As it stands now, your limited commodity only has value at the point of a State gun.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[awol]

Medallion owners bought the medallions with the understanding that they were buying into a limited monopoly.

Maybe it should be clarified here that when you see someone claim that it's not the government charging $200,000 for a taxi medallion, that's just the going price on the secondary market. You know, good old capitalism, where people are bidding up the price of a __un__necessarily limited commodity.

The taxi authority looks at population, traffic flow and transportation needs and comes up with a number of taxis that they think should be on the street. Every year, they add new medallions into the system, usually with a lottery. The idea is not so much to protect the cab drivers (cities don't care about cab drivers. If they did, they wouldn't make the minor traffic fines, like your cab being 10 inches over the line of a designated taxi waiting zone, as much as $500 (which practically wipes out the cab driver's week), but to keep the number of taxis from getting so crazy that you have cabs clogging up city centers, fighting for fares.

There you go, I fixed that for you.

If the regulators approach to the problem described was the correct one then why can't I get a fucking cab when I want one? There are many more solutions to the problem of oversupply that you identify, indeed one can quite happily argue that Uber actually have one.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[mysidia]

I bought shares in a company should I be compensated when the company folds?

Hey, sure.... your share of any value that is left over after all the higher-priority claimants were paid.

But Taxi medallions are not like shares in a company. The government doesn't have any duty to maintain or attempt to increase their value.

If the local authority sees fit to do so, they can likely issue out 50000 medallions for auction over an X month period, or whatever number they want, to generate more cash for the city, regardless of the affect on market value.

At some point they could choose to start issuing them in even larger quantities if they like, and then, the artificially inflated value would be over.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[afgam28]

On the surface these regulations sound useful, but I've still had a lot of bad experiences in taxis. Not every time I get into a cab, but it's happened a not-insignificant number of times. I've had multiple taxi drivers pretend that the meter is broken, and then try to charge me a ridiculously overpriced fare (which I refused to pay). I've been verbally abused because a driver didn't feel I was travelling far enough to be worth his while. Many drivers smell bad, and have dirty cabs. Female friends have been sexually propositioned, and drunk friends have been taken advantage of.

Since I've started using Uber and Lyft, I've never had any reason to complain. Never mind the lower price; the quality of the service is simply better. Drivers are friendly, and since the payment goes through the app, it's hard to get cheated.

Say what you want about the importance of safety and accountability, and the regulations needed to ensure this. But in my experience, the regulations around taxis don't work as well as whatever Uber/Lyft are doing. I'm guessing that the ratings systems in Uber/Lyft quickly flush out asshole drivers, whereas in the taxi industry you have to go to the effort to file an official complaint. In some cities you need to show up in court to argue your case, which is especially hard when you're using a taxi in a city that you're just visiting, as was the case for me in Sydney.

If the existing regulations don't work, then they're not worth defending. Good luck to Uber.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually true. And sad, and scary. In Europe we are trying our best to block this kind of treaties, we would really appreciate some action from that side of the pond as well.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[cerberusss]

That is pretty darn funny :)

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

This. Around here taxis are clean, the drivers smell nice, the drivers know the streets, the drivers get paid well, the taxis are new nice cars, the taxis are safe, they have good insurances, the taxis have to be available during low profit times, the taxis have to take on anyone (unless threatening, very dirty, etc,), the taxis all cost the same, the rates are regulated (they could charge less if they wanted to, funnily nobody wants to), and finally, they are kinda expensive to ride on. Although at 4:30AM in a stange town I really, really appreciate our taxi system, where I can just call the center, tell them where I am, and a well regulated safe driver WILL show up in no time.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[jklovanc]

Uber has not been around very long. Wait till the drivers have become fed up with the idiots that get in their car and quit. Sure reviews help but for every isiot down reviewed there will be another idiot starting to use Uber. Wait till enough drivers get bad reviews and Uber does not have enough drivers. They will "normalize" the reviews to make everyone look better. Wait till there are no cabs around when you want one because there is little money to be made. Right now Uber is taking the gravy trips from cab drivers. If there are no licensed cabs around there will be few drivers around during low time. If you think it is hard now getting a now cab wait till there are only part time drivers who pick and chose when they drive and only drive when the fares are good.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[dave420]

Here in Germany every single taxi I've used has been spotless. Most were relatively-new Mercedes, with some being extremely new Mercedes. No complaints yet. I've taken plenty of taxis in the US and the vast majority were terrible. One even had me read the map for him because he was lost (after I just got off a 10 hour flight). I have no idea what happens with taxis in the US, but god damn you guys are doing something wrong.

Re: Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn to read, idiot.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Rakarra]

Good, what goes around comes around and here in Canada we've been being sued by American investors for banning poisons and such.

I think the proliferation of bad laws is not something to be celebrated, but always fought against.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Rakarra]

Pecos's comments make sense when you realize he doesn't live here on Earth with the rest of us. Pecos apparently lives in near a Jr. High physics class, where ropes and pulleys are massless and frictionless, so for him the entry and exit to capital and labor markets is costless.

I'm sorry if you find it so hard to start a business that you don't find it to be worth it, but fortunately not everyone thinks that way.

Re: Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Rakarra]

Damn statists expecting laws to be obeyed! The nerve!

A law needs to be justified to be respected. "The law is the law" is not an argument for that respect.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never had a dirty taxi and I've used them all over Europe and a few places in Asia. I've had a few uncomfortable ones (just crappy cars) and a few that smelled like 'new car spray', but never one with any visible dirt.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[N1AK]

WTF have your shares got to do with your desire to deliberately trash the life savings of millions of taxi drivers in the western world?. They entered into a contract with the government, if the government breaks that contract by changing the law then drivers should definitely be fairly compensated.

No they didn't. They bought a medallion off the previous owner. That doesn't mean they have any contractual arrangement with the government. So stop making up strawmen, and attacking others by claiming they are motivated by trying to ruin other people's lives when there is no evidence what so ever to support your hyperbole and lies.

If I buy shares in a Tobacco firms with my pension money and the government passes laws virtually taxing them out of existence it is exactly the same legally as the government removing medallion restrictions (in most cases).

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Kopp]

No, they actually work to pay off the 200k loan they had to make in order to buy that licence.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[umghhh]

An upstart breaking that system means going back to the bad days when taxis were unregulated.

Then that alone should already be enough incentive for people to use regulated taxis rather than Uber. ...

That is not how the world works. There are reasons why commons have been(mostly) destroyed.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[KGIII]

The star rating system. You mean like /.'s moderation system? Yeah. That is effective. An obscene proportion of my posts get modded up. I know I did not say that many witty, insightful, informational, or otherwise beneficial posts.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

>Medallion owners bought the medallions with the understanding that they were buying into a limited monopoly.
Shit happens!

>need to compensate who bought the medallions
Nope! My shares went down in the last crash, noone compensated me!

I agree that in principle that is what should happen under capitalism. However, I also fully understand the taxi drivers that are fighting tooth and nail since in this case they at least have some means to fight back - unlike when shares crash because you can't lobby or protest against that happening. What I didn't know until the whole Uber and Lyft debacles is the medallion quotas - I (naively?) thought that the licensing system just ensured that a background check had been performed on the driver to make sure he/she is medically fit and has insurance but that there's no limit how many licenses can be issued. The current system seems to be an attempt to achieve the desired result (non-discriminating taxi service available everywhere) the wrong way. What might work better is if all taxis are provided by larger companies and the obligations are imposed on them and individual drivers are employees whose remuneration mostly consists of a fixed salary and perhaps a small commission per ride to ensure efficient work (although a company could use GPS to track that everyone is indeed working and not sleeping in their cars). Sort of the same system as we have in the sparsely-populated Nordic countries (I've lived in all of them) where mobile phone operators in order to get a license to serve in the profitable high population density (by our standards) areas must also cover the low density areas with the same pricing.

Addendum regarding capitalism: The constant technological changes to the world of commerce will in my opinion require some drastic changes to capitalism in the future. Capitalism has so far been the most successful system but that doesn't mean a better system couldn't exist - let alone must exist when robots put the 99 % not just out of money but permanently out of work. Unions cannot win the battle to have humans do what robots could (and IMO should) do. In functioning democracies, if 99 % of people have had their jobs replaced by robots and own nothing but can still vote, they will vote in representatives who make what Americans consider extreme tax rates on the wealthy in Europe seem like small potatoes. In countries without functioning democracies, there will either be robotic law enforcement and private security companies (with robots of course) maintaining such a dystopia until a violent rebellion shakes it up - for better or for worse.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[oobayly]

How much would the fare have been? And why is a tip required for a taxi?

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

we have better ways of checking these people now, including star ratings within the Uber app - if the driver doesn't have 5 stars, just reject them.

What!? When specialized marketing companies are already openly selling online reputations and ratings. Soon the fake reviews won't even be written by employed people but computer generated and despite that be indistinguishable from real ones. No thanks, I much prefer having at least a minimum baseline ensured through legislation. Faking or bribing to get that is criminal, faking or buying a reputation is just bad reputation that no one will know about or that cannot be fixed by buying a better one.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[pecosdave]

I've been trumpeting the treaty and it's problems (they're calling it "not a treaty") but all you get is "You're just an Alex Jones listening, tinfoil hate wearing conspiracy theorist!" around here. Then the accuser turns around, turns on the TV and watches a reality TV show, cheers about a rainbow flag replacing the confederate, and drools all over the Jenner story.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Except if you telephoned them, and then they would pick you up anywhere you want. Including on the street.
They just needed an address and you were good to go.
The "cab stand only" has never existed in NZ.
But they did not like the anonymous street-hailing, true enough.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

"The taxi authority looks at population ... comes up with a number of taxis"

Problem in Paris is that there are not enough taxis at all, they are handicaped with stupid regulaitons (For example, a Paris taxis cannot pick up a client in the suburbs), suburbian taxis cannt take clients at the two airports - that's reserverd for the Paris one even if Paris is 30 km away from Roissy Airport etc...

Everyone complains about these stupid rules for 50 years. 80% of people in Paris area never ever take taxis because ther are none in their area, and booking them inconvenient, so there is a massive business potential just by increasing the number of license and flexing the rules - but no, nothing happens, they all want to have things as they were in 1945 when Paris was 5 times smaller.

Now the situation is completely blocked: The same happened 20 years ago when France Telecom, provider of the Minitel, wanted to forbid Internet in France: http://www.numerama.com/f/125606-t-en-1995-france-telecom-voulait-faire-interdire-internet-en-france.html

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[pecosdave]

If there's a "regulation free monopoly" being that there's no regulations I'll upstart as the little guy and advertise not only are my cabs cleaner, we take safety seriously too. Not only that we're proud to say we are not part of big consolidated mega-butt-stench overlord corp and proud of it. I would be the designer cab company while everything else would be the department store cab company.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[houghi]

Are these medaillions sold everywhere for that amount? Because each time Uber is discussed, thise pops up and I am curious if this is everywhere.

If not, why not make Uber legal where there are medaillions and illegal where they do not exist.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[eulernet]

They bought the medallion as it was a diploma, in order to get a job.

You cannot tell them: sorry, your medallion (=diploma) is worth nothing right now.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[wvmarle]

>need to compensate who bought the medallions

Nope! My shares went down in the last crash, noone compensated me!

You buy shares in a company, knowing that the company may go bust or the overall market may go bad (in the latter case you still may receive dividends). You also know that the company may issue more shares in the future.

Taxi medallions are bought knowing there is a fixed supply of them, and that there will not be issued more. This the government has guaranteed those that buy or hold those licenses, this is what gives value to the medallion. If the government suddenly changes its mind and starts issuing new medallions to everyone that asks - or starts auctioning off new supplies - they should compensate losses for value lost due to this change. That's normal practice when a government changes a law that significantly affects the value of certain assets, as basically the government is breaking a law (albeit the legal way). That's also what gives people trust in the government and the rule of law.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Noah Haders]

Uber can't compete with taxis in many markets because they have been frozen out due to the anticompetitive medallion system.

Re: Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

So if someone buys stock in a private company that loses to a competitor, that investor should be compensated? If you bought a medallion for 200k and in five years, it's worth 20 cents, that's just called a poor investment.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[dryeo]

Which is much easier if both parties are suffering from the bad laws, otherwise we get more bad laws as they benefit the more powerful party and repress everyone else.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[quantaman]

Medallion owners bought the medallions with the understanding that they were buying into a limited monopoly.

..and I bought stock in oil reserves with the understanding that I was buying into a limited monopoly. Then Saudi Arabia started dumping oil on the market. Should the government make me whole again, too?

No one ever pledged that OPEC would keep withholding stock.

It seems that you are the victim of a common misconception: That the State is the one selling the medallions that cost so much. Wrong, ignorant fuck.

You miss the point, the state is the one guaranteeing the limited monopoly. One of the things that makes free markets work is that when you give your word you generally keep it (or do your best). That's what gives people the stability to do think like invest in assets like medallions.

Why do you seem to think governments should abandon their obligation to the Taxi drivers without any attempt at recourse?

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Holi]

NO The medallion system is NOT a sign of a taxi cartel. It was created cuz there were too many fucking cabs. stop with the conspiracy. Uber breaks the law. PERIOD. They are competing unfairly.

Working in violation of the law does not make you a good business.

Re: Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

A law needs not to be respected to be obeyed. It only needs to be enforced by those who have the authority and power to do so. Or are you suggesting that a person may choose to obey no law they don't respect?

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Side note. In NJ they do this with liquor licenses. Only a set number of licenses per location. Needless to say, a lot of money involved in this racket. Much different in neighboring NY, but still big money. $50k vs $250k.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

If handicap accessible vehicles are so near and dear to you, I am sure you will pay to have them exist for the needy.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what happens with statists in charge. Progress dies. No competition, state backed violence on a monopoly, only thing important to these companies is bribe officials to keep the gravy train going.

Re: Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[cyber-vandal]

So I can come to your house when you're out any take your stuff because I don't respect property law?

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[dave420]

Did you read the post correctly? He stated there would be too many taxis fighting for the people who want to use them. This is what frequently happens where there is an unregulated taxi system.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Cederic]

Why not?

What's wrong with saying "All medallions expire at the end of the year. Anybody wanting one after that gets its on an annual basis, for $200, after proving they're capable of operating a taxi in my city"

That's kind of how London does it.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[JesseMcDonald]

You miss the point, the state is the one guaranteeing the limited monopoly.

When did the State ever guarantee that they would maintain the medallion program and/or refrain from issuing new medallions? Scarcity of medallions is hardly a natural right, and laws instituting artificial scarcity are subject to change. If anyone over-payed for a medallion under the false assumption that the current state of artificial scarcity was guaranteed to last they have no one but themselves to blame. The only compensation owed here is to those who were unjustly prohibited from operating taxis due to the State's medallion requirements.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[quantaman]

You miss the point, the state is the one guaranteeing the limited monopoly.

When did the State ever guarantee that they would maintain the medallion program and/or refrain from issuing new medallions? Scarcity of medallions is hardly a natural right, and laws instituting artificial scarcity are subject to change. If anyone over-payed for a medallion under the false assumption that the current state of artificial scarcity was guaranteed to last they have no one but themselves to blame. The only compensation owed here is to those who were unjustly prohibited from operating taxis due to the State's medallion requirements.

So you're arguing against regulatory stability?

I'm not claiming they shouldn't leave the medallion system, but I don't think they should simply wipe out the medallions as an asset.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Pecos's comments make sense when you realize he doesn't live here on Earth with the rest of us. Pecos apparently lives in near a Jr. High physics class, where ropes and pulleys are massless and frictionless, so for him the entry and exit to capital and labor markets is costless.

I'm sorry if you find it so hard to start a business that you don't find it to be worth it, but fortunately not everyone thinks that way.

I look forward to your entry into the state of the art chip fab sector and your rapid overthrow of Intel.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[andymadigan]

Sorry, should have checked the number first. There were around 1500 medallions total. More were needed, but the cartel refused to allow more to be issued because it would reduce the value of the existing stock. After Uber proved there was pent up demand (back when UberBLACK was the only option, they were charging more than a taxi and getting plenty of business) the cartel finally relented and allowed about 700 more to be issued.

For comparison, Uber has 11,000 active drivers in San Francisco. The number of medallions isn't even close.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[pecosdave]

I'll stick with the cartel viewpoint thank you very much. It's up to the market to decide there's too many cabs, not arbitrary opinions - unfair competition is competition at the point of a gun - which is exactly what happens with government involvement.

Working a law into competition being a violation does not make a good business or government.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

The idea is how to get the right number of cabs, and because of uneven distribution of demand (and supply) it's not something that the "free market" will fix. That's why you find so many more Uber drivers in certain neighborhoods and none in others, even adjusting for property values and crime statistics.

Is that something you need to fix though? It seems to me that it's a waste of resources to keep cabs in low-demand areas on the off-chance that someone's grandmother wants to use one. Making cab drivers cruise low-demand neighborhoods seems wasteful; you're using gas and time that could be used better somewhere else.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[PopeRatzo]

It seems to me that it's a waste of resources to keep cabs in low-demand areas on the off-chance that someone's grandmother wants to use one.

It might be a "waste of resources" to give your grandmother medical care too, but as a society, we're uncomfortable with people being left out.

When the libertarian caliphate comes to power, then we can let grandma go dangle. Until then, it's probably to our benefit to look out for her.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[exomondo]

The regulations are there to enforce providing a better service, if the resulting system is worse than the alternative - insofar as people choose the unregulated system - then those regulations have failed.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[drinkypoo]

So you think criminals should be able to drive people around? Sorry many don't agree.

It doesn't matter what they agree with, I know two women who have been raped by licensed taxi drivers, taxi licenses don't prevent crime, stop repeating that idiocy.

Most taxi inspections are based on months between inspections. It is very easy to see a sticker and ensure that the taxi has been properly inspected. It is very difficult to do that based on mileage.

No, no it isn't. Put a date and a number of miles on the sticker.

Professional licenses have a higher standard than standard licenses. They also require the training to do a proper daily pre-trip inspection.

The amazingly shitty experiences I've had in amazingly shitty taxis disagree

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[jklovanc]

It doesn't matter what they agree with, I know two women who have been raped by licensed taxi drivers, taxi licenses don't prevent crime, stop repeating that idiocy.

Nothing is perfect. It is a good thing to prevent people who have demonstrated the propensity to harm other to be in charge of vulnerable people. If you are in the back of a moving taxi you are vulnerable.

No, no it isn't. Put a date and a number of miles on the sticker.

How will you see the mileage on the vehicle from outside the vehicle? Anyone standing outside a vehicle can see the date the vehicle was inspected and figure out if it is out of date. Checking mileage requirs seeing the odometer. That is much more difficult from outside the car.

The amazingly shitty experiences I've had in amazingly shitty taxis disagree

Again, nothing is perfect.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

It might be a "waste of resources" to give your grandmother medical care too, but as a society, we're uncomfortable with people being left out.

When the libertarian caliphate comes to power, then we can let grandma go dangle. Until then, it's probably to our benefit to look out for her.

And if it was society's resources paying for the gas and labor, then I would agree with you, but at the moment, you're requiring the cab drivers - who are typically lower-class - spend their own resources. If, as a society, we decide that taxis should be available everywhere, then society should be footing the bill.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[PopeRatzo]

And if it was society's resources paying for the gas and labor, then I would agree with you, but at the moment, you're requiring the cab drivers - who are typically lower-class - spend their own resources.

No, you're not requiring. Cities have lotteries for new taxi medallions every year where they are obtained for a very small registration fee. That's the only way new medallions come into the system.

And after all, isn't spending your own resources in order to start a business that will be profitable what capitalism is all about?

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Unless I'm drastically misinterpreting your quote, you are requiring them to do that:

In my city, certain medallions are required for certain times to initiate or terminate a certain percentage of fares in certain parts of the city.

Now, apparently that still works out for some cabbies, since they still operate, but you are requiring them to spend gas and time they could otherwise spend more efficiently. I would argue that in this case, requirements that primarily target the lower-class (instead of the wealthy medallion owners) might need to be rethought.

Re: Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Rakarra]

A law needs not to be respected to be obeyed. It only needs to be enforced by those who have the authority and power to do so. Or are you suggesting that a person may choose to obey no law they don't respect?

I'm saying we have a rich tradition in the US of civil disobedience over bad laws.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Rakarra]

I'm sorry if you find it so hard to start a business that you don't find it to be worth it, but fortunately not everyone thinks that way.

I look forward to your entry into the state of the art chip fab sector and your rapid overthrow of Intel.

I was unaware that my corner bakery required a state of the art chip fab sector, or that the local chain of shoe stores had to overthrow Intel to be considered successful. Running a successful business doesn't mean you have to compete with the biggest, nor is tech the be-all, end-all. But if we're talking about tech, althought it doesn't apply to Intel specifically, plenty of tech companies were started in garages or as a project between like-minded people on the Internet. We hear over and over that small companies are the true drivers of the economy. If no one started them, thinking they couldn't possibly compete against the likes of Intel, we'd be truly screwed.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[PopeRatzo]

Unless I'm drastically misinterpreting your quote, you are requiring them to do that:

No, my point was that paying hundreds of thousands of dollars is not the only way to get a medallion here. There's a lottery every year when they put new medallions into circulation. The winners get the medallions for just a nominal fee.

Now, regarding the special medallions, those are not the ones that are hundreds of thousands of dollars. They're much more readily available for the cost of a license, and after a certain period of serving the underserved locations of the city, there are ways to get the regular medallion. All of these new rules were put in place long after I was a weekend warrior cabdriver during grad school, so I don't know the exact details, just what I've had hacks tell me when I was in their cabs.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Uberbah]

Wouldn't that require jettisoning the willful Randian ignorance of market consolidation, monopolies, and the 19th Century in general?

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Uberbah]

You mean when the company they work for pays off the loan. Did you remember to pay back your employer for his cost of doing business (out of your pocket) while also remembering to demand all the benefits of membership from your local Chamber of Commerce without paying any dues?

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Ah, fair enough. I didn't realize that the special medallions had the option of converting into regular medallions after a certain period of time.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Rockoon]

So you're arguing against regulatory stability?

You didnt answer his question. The thing is that you refuse to answer because the answer is an embarrassment to your argument. Maybe if you worked on internal consistency, you would be able to face questions that can be proudly answered.

The fact that your argument is not internally consistent makes you wrong. I know that it doesnt feel right to think another way, but feelings dont make your argument right. Internal consistency would.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry if you find it so hard to start a business that you don't find it to be worth it, but fortunately not everyone thinks that way.

I look forward to your entry into the state of the art chip fab sector and your rapid overthrow of Intel.

I was unaware that my corner bakery required a state of the art chip fab sector, or that the local chain of shoe stores had to overthrow Intel to be considered successful. Running a successful business doesn't mean you have to compete with the biggest, nor is tech the be-all, end-all. But if we're talking about tech, althought it doesn't apply to Intel specifically, plenty of tech companies were started in garages or as a project between like-minded people on the Internet. We hear over and over that small companies are the true drivers of the economy. If no one started them, thinking they couldn't possibly compete against the likes of Intel, we'd be truly screwed.

So your first reaction is to agree with me qualitatively and then carve out a niche exception for businesses too small to have viable competition? Your second point is that huge companies started in garages 30 years ago... in the shadow of the breakup of Standard Oil then the shift to busting unions instead of companies, until the slight, temporary swing back for the ATT breakup before the modern titans and patent warchests were even one percent of the size they are now. And then your final argument is to point out how many chip companies have started up and successfully competed with Intel... without naming one.

I'm not saying there isn't a chip firm out there competing with them, I'm just not aware of any that started in the lifetime of a high school student. Closest I can think of is Nvidia, and they are 22 years old. Got a rebuttal for that point? Should be pretty easy if it exists. Arm's 1990 FWIW, and please, no billion dollar spin-offs of another billion dollar firm.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[quantaman]

So you're arguing against regulatory stability?

You didnt answer his question. The thing is that you refuse to answer because the answer is an embarrassment to your argument. Maybe if you worked on internal consistency, you would be able to face questions that can be proudly answered.

The fact that your argument is not internally consistent makes you wrong. I know that it doesnt feel right to think another way, but feelings dont make your argument right. Internal consistency would.

Or rather I did answer but you're so desperate to win the argument that you refuse to see it.

The state didn't promise to never cancel or modify the medallion system, but there was an obvious understanding that they would maintain it as much as possible as is the standard for programs such as that.

Part of that understanding is that of regulatory stability, even without an explicit promise there's an understanding the state will try to maintain regulations or change them only minimally to keep a stable environment for markets to operate in.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Rakarra]

Why are you so fixated specifically on Intel? Why does competing with Intel need to be the be-all, end-all here? Pecos was talking about how one could start a business like Uber to compete with local taxi services, and you started talking about how the barriers of entry for business are too high, then you bring up the difficulties of setting up fab plants to go against Intel. Sure, no one is starting a company anytime soon that will dent Intel's market share, but what does that have to do with Pecos's assertion that someone can start one company to compete with others?

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you so fixated specifically on Intel? Why does competing with Intel need to be the be-all, end-all here? Pecos was talking about how one could start a business like Uber to compete with local taxi services, and you started talking about how the barriers of entry for business are too high, then you bring up the difficulties of setting up fab plants to go against Intel. Sure, no one is starting a company anytime soon that will dent Intel's market share, but what does that have to do with Pecos's assertion that someone can start one company to compete with others?

Because the quantitative difference is clearer when you max out the qualitative portion past the ability of people to "hand-wave" away things by crap like saying "if you work harder than the other guy".

Back to Uber, you are falling for the premise that Uber wants to compete with a taxi services. They don't, otherwise they would follow the laws applicable to a taxi service. They want to engage in arbitrage, where they keep the profit and push legal liability onto "independent" contractors. I want to park wherever I feel like it too, doesn't mean either of us should be able to violate laws the duly elected legislators have passed on our behalf.

Don't like your legislators? Vote. Or kill them if you feel voting doesn't matter and you want to back up your actions. But don't ignore the laws other people are supposed to obey.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, should have checked the number first. There were around 1500 medallions total. More were needed, but the cartel refused to allow more to be issued because it would reduce the value of the existing stock. After Uber proved there was pent up demand (back when UberBLACK was the only option, they were charging more than a taxi and getting plenty of business) the cartel finally relented and allowed about 700 more to be issued.

For comparison, Uber has 11,000 active drivers in San Francisco. The number of medallions isn't even close.

I'm guessing there are more unlicensed weed sellers than pharmacists too, much less other under taxed/reported incomes from illegals and cash economy players. Anytime you flood a market with labor (unlicensed cabs in this case) you drop wages for a sector and the quality players leave. I'd be a teacher if it didn't pay so poorly, but I can make 5x as much elsewhere so... sorry kids.

Uber is illegally flooding a market, and violates numerous laws. Take this clip:
"The city is seeing a big rise in complaints about scofflaw cabdrivers who refuse rides based on the passenger’s requested destination, officials said on Thursday."
If a license taxi does this, you have a legal remedy. Maybe not a great one, but an option exists to eventually address it. If Uber doesn't want to take you, they just don't and you have no option. Meanwhile Uber displaces regular cabs and we are left with only the high profit routes beind served and the overall transportation suffering. That hurts tourism too, since there won't be "regular" cabs anymore.

This is all interconnected and when you only focus on first order effects, you miss out on the reason all these laws were nominally passed in the first place. It's like a class action. Its not supposed to make YOU personally whole, its supposed to punish the bad behavior.

Re:Taxi licenses are crazy expensive

[Rakarra]

Back to Uber, you are falling for the premise that Uber wants to compete with a taxi services. They don't, otherwise they would follow the laws applicable to a taxi service.

I think they do want to compete with the taxi services, but they can't -say- that for the reasons you mentioned. They want to compete with the taxi services while pretending they're a limousine-like service. Most of their users don't know the difference, and I think Uber is totally fine with and encourages the confusion. They want to be known as the upscale, private taxi service because that benefits them, but officially, they'll always be a private car service.

They can't officially compete with taxis because then their business would live or die at the whim of local officials who want to limit the number of "taxis" (branded or not) on the road.

Maybe think things through next time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Like, I get that Uber is trying to fight the vast bureaucracy of protectionism and statism found worldwide, where established businesses pay off corrupt politicians to ensure their over priced and out of date businesses are kept going. But perhaps viva la Socialist Protectionism all government intervention is good France might not be the best place to do so yeah?

Re:Maybe think things through next time...

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not trying to "fight the vast bereaucracy of [blah blah blah]", they're trying to make a fast buck off people and encourage them to break the law in order to do it.

Re:Maybe think things through next time...

[Anonymous Coward]

No they are providing the service people WANT on the terms people choose. Hence why Uber is so popular. We know what cabs are and choose Uber.

Arrest the Rioting Cabbies for burning tires in the road.

Re:Maybe think things through next time...

[Anonymous Coward]

s/Uber/drug dealers/g and it still works.

Flagrantly anti-consumer

[ErikTheRed]

Let's be honest: in most countries, taxis suck and belong in a forgotten age. They're the epitome of tightly-government-regulated industry: slow, filthy, rude, overpriced - assuming you can get one to actually show up. Uber is fast, clean, polite, and - most importantly - reliable. The whole argument here is that some group of people paid the government a stupid amount of money for the special privilege of shitting all over a captive customer base, therefore throw the Uber guys in jail, take or smash the driver's cars, throw rocks at them, riot, jump up and down, scream and shout, and take Courtney Love hostage (OK, that last one I can get behind).

If some government is going to ban Uber, just go ahead and consider yourself a third-world country. If you're going to start piling stupid inconveniences onto my visit, you might as well go ahead and make me boil my drinking water as well.

Re:Flagrantly anti-consumer

[youngone]

The taxis where I live are none of the things you listed, they are clean, and the drivers are (mostly) polite. They also know where they are going.

This has not always been the case, the industry was heavily regulated and protected until the mid 1980's, which made taxis expensive and inflexible (a taxi could not be hailed from the street for instance, passengers could only be picked up from taxi stands).

Then came deregulation, almost completely, and several times a smoking wreck would break down halfway to my destination, (if the driver even knew where he was going) which usually involved shouting and threats.

I don't use taxis as much as I used to, but it sounds like the issue where you live is poor regulations.

Re:Flagrantly anti-consumer

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber are turbo-capitalistic hipster twats who think they can undercut everyone on price, driving safety and social taxes. It's exactly the kind of corporate fascism that needs to be beaten down by government.

If you consider free-running capitalism and corporate fascism "first-world", you need to engage that tiny brain of yours some more.

Re:Flagrantly anti-consumer

[PopeRatzo]

Uber is fast, clean, polite, and - most importantly - reliable.

Except for the Uber drivers who assault, rape, or kidnap passengers.

http://www.people.com/article/...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/uber-...

Re:Flagrantly anti-consumer

[dave420]

You say "let's be honest", then make up some fantasy which doesn't apply to "most countries". Maybe to yours, but not to "most countries". In Germany all the taxis I've taken have been spotless, driven by polite drivers (except one, who briefly complained about having to break a 50), are well maintained, and usually a new(-ish) Mercedes. They turn up when called, or are available to flag down on the street. Germany doesn't want Uber as the taxi service here works well.

Re:Flagrantly anti-consumer

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I agree with grandparent in any way, but a liberal democracy iwht a capitalist economy is pretty much the original definition of the term first-world country.

Re:Flagrantly anti-consumer

[Anonymous Coward]

You say "let's be honest", then make up some fantasy which doesn't apply to "most countries". Maybe to yours, but not to "most countries". In Germany all the taxis I've taken have been spotless, driven by polite drivers (except one, who briefly complained about having to break a 50), are well maintained, and usually a new(-ish) Mercedes. They turn up when called, or are available to flag down on the street. Germany doesn't want Uber as the taxi service here works well.

Every a story like this is posted here I'm reminded of how American /. is. The fact that /. is American is of course posted in the FAQ so I respect that and as a European consider myself a guest here. The entirely different experience of reality Americans have is so evident by how many posters bitch and moan about how the political system is broken and doesn't represent them and praise free market capitalism. Yet all that could be easily refuted by looking at other Western democracies - i.e. those that live up to the name. Regulation can work because it does in Europe. Representatives can listen to their constituents more than to lobbyists because in Europe they do. Probably Australia and New Zeeland fall into that category of countries as well. People from these countries can just shake their heads at what Americans complain about and how they presume it's the same everywhere. And I shake my head even more when I occasionally see ignorant idiots (probably teenagers rebelling against everything) jump on that bandwagon and making the same complaints about their own countries just because it's trendy on a site like this. Without any knowledge of reality around them. And they reinforce the narrow-minded, "it must be just as dysfunctional everywhere" view of Americans. Such a pathetic clusterfuck!

Re:Flagrantly anti-consumer

[oobayly]

Guess what, licensed taxi drivers do that too:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-s...
http://metro.co.uk/2015/02/03/...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/u...

Then there was the case in Dublin where a woman was dropped of by a taxi driver (after first dropping of the guy she was with), driving around the block and raping her. It turned out the taxi was sublet by the plate owner.

Re:Flagrantly anti-consumer

[PopeRatzo]

I can't speak to cab drivers in the UK, but it sounds like you're saying cabdrivers are cabdrivers and Uber drivers should be treated the same as licensed drivers,

Which is all I'm saying.

Re:Flagrantly anti-consumer

[oobayly]

Oh right, I got the idea you'd posted the three links to suggest that Uber drivers are more likely to be untrustworthy, so I just posted another three links to suggest that taxi drivers of every variety can be untrustworthy. In the interest of balance, that's all.

Quite frankly, I'd prefer that licensed taxis drivers were treated like Uber drivers - they get their photo and reg number sent to the customer's phone for posterity.

Re:Flagrantly anti-consumer

[Anonymous Coward]

If this was really true, the market would have forced Uber out. Actually, it's taken several court orders.

Taxi driver is a crap job

[Anonymous Coward]

Driving a Taxi is already a crap job and these jerks are just driving wages further down.

So yeah, jail the executives, the drivers, then extradite the executives from the US to jail them as well.

Re:Taxi driver is a crap job

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Why?

Re:Taxi driver is a crap job

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever considered eating your own turds?

Re:Taxi driver is a crap job

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think driving a taxi is a crappy job, then find something better. That's your own responsiblity.

I do however agree that Uber has to follow the law, just like everyone else. They clearly don't, so the management should be prosecuted.

French citizens should be looking at Greece

[JoeyRox]

To see what their future holds. Over-regulation, anti-competitive policies, protected public worker class, and oppressive taxes. A perfect recipe for insolvency and economic depression.

Re:French citizens should be looking at Greece

[mjwx]

I dont understand France or Greece

There, fixed that for you.

Greece is in it's predicament because of it's endemic corruption. Tax evasion isn't just a national past time in Greece, it's considered an inalienable right. France does not have this problem.

Re:French citizens should be looking at Greece

[Anonymous Coward]

They should have hung the Banksters and shaken down the tax evaders.

Re:French citizens should be looking at Greece

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely ridiculous. Greece is in its situation exactly BECAUSE capitalist pigs were running free in a country that couldn't handle the damage the corporate fascists like Uber and the banks cause.

Unregulated corporate fascism and unregulated financial markets are exactly what leads to the bigger and bigger gap between the rich and the poor and the collapses we see.

Have you already forgotten the real estate bubble that hit the oh-so-mighty USA?

Capitalism, if not regulated by government, is always doomed to grow like cancer and suck the social system dry until the whole system fails.

Re:French citizens should be looking at Greece

[Uberbah]

Or you could pull your head out of Ayn Rand's zombified ass. Just a suggestion.

Re:French citizens should be looking at Greece

[JoeyRox]

France doesn't have that problem? Tell that to all the wealthy ex-pats who left the country after France was proposing a 75% income tax. And you think corruption is unique to Greece? Btw, "There, fixed that for you" went out with Barney 5 years ago. He was the purple dinosaur btw.

Re:French citizens should be looking at Greece

[JoeyRox]

Ironic considering you typed your anti-capitalist rant on a device made possible by the hyper-competitive, capitalist computer industry.

Re:French citizens should be looking at Greece

[Anonymous Coward]

But but but it's warm in here

Re:French citizens should be looking at Greece

[Anonymous Coward]

What part about "unregulated" did you fail to understand?

Pure capitalism can't work. If there weren't customer protection laws, corporations would get away with food that poisons you and it's your own fault for not reading the poison sign, devices that fall apart after a week so you need to buy a new one to increase profits, produced by workers in just bearable enough conditions so they don't die after a week, to maximize their workforce.

Pure capitalism is pure darwinism, something a civilized society should not embrace under any circumstance.

What do you think a law is that says food must not be poisonous? A law that mandates manufacturer warranties? Minimum wage? Union rights? Could it be STATE REGULATION? Why do you think those laws need to exist in the first place? q.e.d.

Re:French citizens should be looking at Greece

[HuguesT]

The problem with Greece is not over-regulation, the problem is endemic corruption. Have you ever been to Greece? It is even next to impossible to get a receipt in a restaurant.

Re:French citizens should be looking at Greece

[complete loony]

Er, no. Greece is in trouble because the Euro doesn't give them any way to handle a crisis. The failure of the euro wasn't just predictable, it was predicted.

Re:French citizens should be looking at Greece

[Renegade88]

You don't know the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance?

Re:French citizens should be looking at Greece

[dunkelfalke]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:French citizens should be looking at Greece

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying that something was predicted doesn't mean much; I predict that just about every possible future has been predicted by someone out there.

Re:French citizens should be looking at Greece

[complete loony]

It's also hard to pay taxes when you are unemployed, which is a much bigger problem.

Re:French citizens should be looking at Greece

[dunkelfalke]

A much bigger problem? Have you actually read the linked page? The Greek grey market is at 24% of their GDP. That means a whole quarter of all business transactions in Greece is untaxed. I bet most of their "unemployed" are actually moonlighting and collecting unemployment benefits at the same time. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever and I don't see why my taxes should pay for that crap. I mean, yes, there are always some freeloaders, I can live with that. But normally they are a tiny minority, not a whole bloody country full of them.

Re:French citizens should be looking at Greece

[complete loony]

Have you looked at a graph of Greece's unemployment? It's jumped from <10% to >25% since the crisis began.

They need to increase the flow of money around the economy to stimulate job growth. During a downturn the velocity of money shrinks, so no free win there. It's unlikely they're going to increase exports, so a trade surplus is unlikely. They won't be borrowing more money from the banking sector any time soon. Which only leaves a government deficit to stimulate the economy, which is prevented by the Maastricht treaty.

Without leaving the Euro, Greece is screwed.

Re:French citizens should be looking at Greece

[JoeyRox]

The difference is immaterial wrt to my argument because the result is the same - the government doesn't get its tax revenue, and both come about from ill-conceived tax policies.

Re:French citizens should be looking at Greece

[JoeyRox]

Right, because in the absence of government intervention no private company would ever fill the void by coming up with businesses that allow people to review products so that others can avoid corporations taking shortcuts with their products. I didn't realize Consumer Reports, IIHS, and Yelp were government-run enterprises.

Re:French citizens should be looking at Greece

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

"Pure capitalism" doesn't mean "no laws ever!!!1!".

Regulations serv cab companies & government

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to free the market. The way things are with licenses serve an elite who skim money off hard working individuals. We don't need unions we need free markets. Regulation is only needed because of other regulations in a lot of cases (certainly some exceptions exist, but most regulations are out of FUD spurred by the interests of elites wanting to control the market for profit).

We need to eliminate all these drivers licenses. Cab drivers should be able to compete with each other and shouldn't be protected from others entering the market. The idea that every hitch-hiker is going to kill you if you pick them up or un-licensed driver is going to be a danger to you is ridicules. There are dangers to getting in a car, but it's not necessarily significantly greater than getting into a car with any other person- or yourself driving. Certainly we can point out examples of bad drivers both cab-drivers and other. However licenses don't solve that problem as can be identified by the fact we already have said special licenses for cab drivers.

Union can act as a form of monopoly and that's not necessarily a good thing. However large corporations also introduce unfair competition into the market. They can undercut smaller players until that competition goes out of business for instance. Companies can release proprietary software that ensures market dominance or bundle packages together.

What we need to do is take reasonable steps to ensure equal opportunity of individuals to participate in the markets and stop instituting policies created out of fear to reduce competition and put in place an elite. Those who know how to work the system should not be able to skim from it as they currently do. I shouldn't need a license in the first place to drive a cab- nor should I need a drivers license to drive a car. It would be better to implement a proper system of reviews (ie as Uber and similar competing companies might do). If you really suck as a cab driver riders will think twice and if one doesn't care or is willing to take a risk- that's a decision for that individual- the rest of us shouldn't get a say.

I have a business and I have to deal with unscrupulous competitors who outright lie about there products (saying things like they're the only ones who care about x and they're the only ones doing y when we've been ding it for 10 years- and then they're not even doing what they claim anyway- so its outright fraud). It sucks- but nobody is going after fraudsters. They're going after legitimate business in the Uber case even if illegal (I'm not suggesting Uber is honest or rightful in its practices, etc, only that the general product is not a scam in and of itself).

Uber has demonstrated contempt for the law

[rahvin112]

Regardless of whether the laws as written are correct (I would argue that the very existence of a "medallion" that costs more than the filing fee is evidence of collusion between the taxi authority and the taxi's) Uber has shown direct contempt for the rule of law. Their CEO's frequently ignore court orders, not only that but they frequently do the exact opposite of what a court has ordered. In Korea the authorities were forced to start fining drivers record amounts, in Germany the authorities had to threaten to seize cars and fines in excess of $25K. None of this should be necessary as Uber should have shut down their platform in the area when the courts ruled against the legality of their service. If they didn't like the ruling they should have complied while challenging the ruling.

I've said all along the only way to get Uber to comply with the law is stop arresting drivers and start arresting executives for facilitating breaking the law. I'm happy to see the French are finally going to follow through at least partly, I doubt targeting these executives will do the trick the Uber corporate executives will simply let them burn, though the seizure of communications may give them the evidence they need to really get the law breaking to stop, that is to issue InterPOL red notices (warrants) for the CEO and heads of Uber corporate. I firmly believe that Uber acts in total disregard of the law because of their CEO and that the only way to get it to stop is directly go after that CEO. Once he's looking at a jail term I suspect Uber will suddenly become a law abiding business.

IMO Uber acts as a corrupt organization with contempt of the law and should be targeted under RICO statutes.

Re:Uber has demonstrated contempt for the law

[ErikTheRed]

So what? Have you seen who writes laws? A bunch of vote-leeching sociopaths that span the moral spectrum between used car salespeople and outright pedophiles... Let's just support the whims of every elected bunch of assholes. War, slavery, genocide, hey, gotta do it! It's the law!

Seriously, this is one of the lamest reasons for anything, ever.

Re:Uber has demonstrated contempt for the law

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I think murdering is ok, it's lame to still follow the law and not murder? I guess it's ok to not follow laws, but it's kinda pointless to then cry about getting punished for not doing so.

Re:Uber has demonstrated contempt for the law

[fgouget]

Regardless of whether the laws as written are correct (I would argue that the very existence of a "medallion" that costs more than the filing fee is evidence of collusion between the taxi authority and the taxi's)

In Paris the taxi medallions are free but there is a 15 to 18 years waiting list. So most drivers either get their medallion on the secondary market where the price was multiplied by about 20 in the past 25 years, reaching about 250 000 €. This financial pressure may be at the root of a lot of misbehaviors like refusing short rides, refusing credit cards (cash makes cheating the IRS easier), refusing to load passenger within a quarter mile from a train station (they can charge more at the train station), etc. There were 12 500 taxis in 1956 and they are now 19 500 (a 0.78%/year increase). There should be more but, besides the obvious lobbying (which I guess you could call collusion), every time the government wants to do so the taxis go on strike and block all traffic like last week (extortion). Some say the government should promise to buy back existing medallions but besides not making very much sense, that would cost well over 4 billions euros. Just for Paris!

So neither side is clean. At all.

Re:Uber has demonstrated contempt for the law

[Holi]

>I would argue that the very existence of a "medallion" that costs more than the filing fee is evidence of collusion between the taxi authority and the taxi's

And that in now way is proof. The medallion system started in NYC due to public outcry. That is fact, not this fairy-tail taxi cartel.

It is also fact that Uber has zero respect for our laws, and that alone should warrant action.

Re:Uber has demonstrated contempt for the law

[Holi]

Damn my inablilty to type.
>And that in now way is proof
should be
And that is in no way proof.

welcome to the sharing economy

[Anonymous Coward]

Just allows more leakage of folks to cheat the system.

Not only are the rich people (corporations), plutocrats, scammers, and celebrities cheating the system, but essentially anyone can with these sharing-economy apps can.

Catch me if you can is the name of the game for these services, which are in the unregulated space currently.

Re:welcome to the sharing economy

[TapeCutter]

The regulations existed long before uber did, "computer dispatch" is so 1970. You can't change those regulations by pretending they don't apply to computers, so ultimately it is uber who will have to change to comply with those regulations, just like every other "get rich quick" scheme that ignores business realities such as compulsory insurance. There's nothing inherently wrong with the uber concept, but flouting the current laws in order to implement it is basically the definition of organised crime.

I know you're trolling

[rsilvergun]

Or at least I hope you are, and you're not just a paid shill/astroturfer (you're a bit too crude for that), but you've also never had a mini-gun pointed at him by private "security" personal because you asked for better pay. You've never had terrorists come in the night and cut your families throats for the same thing (google "Coca-Cola South America" sometime). You have no bloody idea what the hell your talking about. If you did you probably wouldn't be trolling it and you'd go back to goatse and Natalie Portman Hot Grits.

Re:I know you're trolling

[BasilBrush]

So you're saying it's OK to abuse the rights of workers because: business!

What a simple minded sheep you are.

Re:I know you're trolling

[OhPlz]

In this story, which group of people were pulling drivers out of cars and beating them, damaging those cars, holding passengers hostage in the terminals, and lighting tire fires trying to block the entrances to the airport? The parent has a point. They do disrupt commerce and trade. The unions have now taken on the role of mercenary instead of the companies. I don't blame customers for not wanting to get into those vehicles, and prefer something like Uber instead. Do you want to get into a car with your family with a violent lunatic behind the wheel? I don't even like what Uber is doing, but this incident is insane. You challenge stuff like this in the courts, you don't take the law into your own hands and go vigilante like that.

Re:I know you're trolling

[swillden]

you've also never had a mini-gun pointed at him by private "security" personal

There are private security personnel with miniguns? Are they accepting applications? I don't actually want the job, I just want to go through training and shoot the guns.

Re:I know you're trolling

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like the job, find a better one or start your own business.

Re:what a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's hope some Uber hipster who just got his driver's license and wanted to make quick buck in his "free market" leaves you crippled without any insurance money so you can work your crippled ass off to pay for your own disability in your glorious free market.

Fucking muppet.

Absolutely great

[Anonymous Coward]

Now the rest of the world should do the same.

Re:what a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

French Taxi Fascist!

Fucking leftards.

[jcr]

Taxi drivers throw a tantrum, so the French government capitulates and arrests innocent people. Fuck everything about this.

-jcr

Re:Fucking leftards.

[HuguesT]

It is a gesture. However there is a set of laws in France regulating cars with drivers that are not taxis. Uber does not seem to abide by this.

Re:Fucking leftards.

[dave420]

Government decides to curb Uber's activities, as they operate outside of the law. The government refuses to do so, so the taxi drivers participate in the oldest French activity - protesting. The government listens, and decides it should do what it said it would have done. As people are innocent until proven guilty, you'll find most people are innocent when they are arrested. But whatever - you've got your narrative, so stick with it!

Re:Fucking leftards.

[aaaaaaargh!]

They are not innocent. Vice versa, the Uber managers knew perfectly well from the start that their company is breaking the laws. It's not as if these laws and regulations are secret, you know...

Re:Fucking leftards.

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the headline again. The government did not arrest anyone (they can't) and the police did not arrest innocent people. Instead, they arrested two of the leaders of an organisation that routinely breaks the law.

Uber is illegal in France

[HuguesT]

Uber operates outside the bounds of the law in France. This is well documented. There are two sets of law that they do not obey. The first is one regulating car drivers that are not taxis. It is legal in France to operate a car service to drive people from A to B but you need to abide by some restrictions. The car cannot be hailed, only booked. The driver must have some qualification, etc. Uber does not abide by these laws. The second set of law protects the consumer. In particular, data must be viewable and deletable by the consumer, and they cannot be retained indefinitely. Again Uber does not follow the law.

Recently the french equivalent to state department pointed out to Uber that they needed to change some things, so what did they do? They opened service in 5 new cities with no change. This was seen as provocation, and so obviously the top executives were brought in for questioning. The french cannot state on the one hand that something is illegal and on the other let it happen. They had to act.

Now maybe the law needs to change, this is an important debate. In the meantime in a law-based country the law needs to be upheld.

News for nerds, stuff that matters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Slashdot now going to post an article for every criminal that is arrested and interviewed by the police?

Re:what a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Your reply is off-topic. The article is about a criminal organisation that operates in a country that has an economy and is not 'infested' by muslims.

All other taxi companies play by the rules. Uber does not. That is unfair competition. Now you may argue that some of the rules might not be right, but then the proper response is to campaign to have the rules changed, not to violate the law at the expense of law-abiding companies and citizens.

Off with their heads!

[Anonymous Coward]

Execute them! Au nom de la Republique, de la Liberte, l'Egalite, la Fraternite et la merde! Zut alors!

The self-destruction of andymadigan #1/2

[Anonymous Coward]

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

---

YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

I finished YOU WITH IT all above!

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

The self-destruction of andymadigan #2/2

[Anonymous Coward]

"Chrome has thankfully started warning users who try to download it." - by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @03:48PM (#49909947)

Google can try explaining it vs. proof my ware's CLEAN:

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who also has the source & verified it safe too) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

&

It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

* :)

In case you hadn't noticed it, like when you made your PUNY THREATS effetely *trying* to "blackmail me" on Hilton Hotels here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?

(which I could give 2 fucks about, I made the money already on a successfully done large scale project with them on contract)

I SMOKED YOU TOTALLY @ EVERY TURN, & who started it twice here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... AND HERE TOO http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... saying "I should die painfully" etc. - et al?

You failed badly on all accounts.

APK

P.S.=> Especially funny is that you work for CLOUDWORDS (an advertiser affiliate of Marketo) which tips your hand & PROVED YOUR ILL MOTIVES for your stupidity, running away from this most of all -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

... apk

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:What I post's nonsense dave420?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus christ man give it a rest.

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

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

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

Bastiat had a word for this

[stealth.c]

He would call the government and protesters "Sisyphists," since they apparently believe it is better that the consumer has to work harder to get a ride. http://www.econlib.org/library...

Criminal organizations need Jail penalties

[WillAffleckUW]

About time someone realized what needs to be done.

Next up: Bank Execs.

wrong news

[Anonymous Coward]

uber france leaders arrested for providing an app that advertise common people services.

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

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

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

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

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

The self-destruction of andymadigan #1/2

[Anonymous Coward]

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

---

YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

I finished YOU WITH IT all above!

APK

P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

So

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

The self-destruction of andymadigan #2/2

[Anonymous Coward]

"Chrome has thankfully started warning users who try to download it." - by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @03:48PM (#49909947)

Google can try explaining it vs. proof my ware's CLEAN:

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who also has the source & verified it safe too) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

&

It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

* :)

In case you hadn't noticed it, like when you made your PUNY THREATS effetely *trying* to "blackmail me" on Hilton Hotels here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?

(which I could give 2 fucks about, I made the money already on a successfully done large scale project with them on contract)

I SMOKED YOU TOTALLY @ EVERY TURN, & who started it twice here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... AND HERE TOO http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... saying "I should die painfully" etc. - et al?

You failed badly on all accounts.

APK

P.S.=> Especially funny is that you work for CLOUDWORDS (an advertiser affiliate of Marketo) which tips your hand & PROVED YOUR ILL MOTIVES for your stupidity, running away from this most of all -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

... apk