Slashdot Mirror
Uber Drivers Arrested By Undercover Cops In Hong Kong
The Stack reports that local police have raided Uber's Hong Kong office, "after several officers posed as Uber customers and arrested drivers on Tuesday morning in an attempt to put an end to illegal taxi services. Five drivers who had offered their services across the taxi-hailing app were arrested on suspicion of illegally carrying passengers and driving without third-party insurance. The men are being held for further investigation." Are local police quite this concerned in your city with car-sharing dispatch services?
There's nothing at all related to "sharing" about services like Uber.
I'll never forget the last thing grandma said to me before she died: "What are you doing in here with that knife?!?"
Are you taking the trip with them because you both happen to be going to the same destination, or are you simply driving them to the destination to get the money - and not just gas money, but an amount much greater than your total costs, to compensate you for your time?
Trust me, courts are not so stupid as to not see the difference between A) sharing the costs of an activity, and B) performing an activity as a for-profit for-hire service.
I'll never forget the last thing grandma said to me before she died: "What are you doing in here with that knife?!?"
This is a loaded question to which you already know the answer. If I'm already going someplace, I'm allowed to take a friend or colleague with me. They can be nice enough to offer me some gas money. If I drive them somewhere that I didn't intend to otherwise go, I'm running a taxi service. There are grey areas all the time with people personally known to you that might run afoul of some interpretations of taxi regulations. When you start driving strangers to places that you wouldn't otherwise be going in exchange for money, it's a clear violation. The fact that some grey area may exist doesn't in any way make blatantly illegal activities any less illegal.
Odds are is they their drivers are breaking the law. Commercial insurance is required to take passengers, no different than a limo service. I would bet that a very small number of Uber drivers are properly insured.
If I sign up, using my own car, how am I not sharing the car that I have with others?
Sharing does not imply I'm doing so for free; just that I am willing to let someone else use resources I own and could otherwise deny the use of...
We're you headed the same way they were when you gave them a ride? No, you specifically drove with the intention of picking up someonand drive them around for money? Then you are operating as a taxi.
Plenty of people borrow boats and cars in return for beer or pizza or other favors. That's sharing too. So too is Uber, even if it's more formalized and at a larger scale.
So if your friend want's to borrow your boat for the weekend, do you say "sure, but I have to drive the boat around for you"?
You'd think Slashdot of all places would hold people understanding how others can use technology to share what they have at a larger scale than possible before...
If you are giving/loaning something to someone for the express purpose of receiving money from them in exchange, you aren't sharing. You are selling (whether it be a good or a service).
Compare the definition of sell:
to exchange (something) for money
with share:
: to use, experience, or enjoy with others
There is a pretty big distinction between the two.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I mean can I get a ride from them, without paying, and in return in the future give a ride to somebody else? No.... If I could, I would be first in line defending them.
It's a damn taxi service with an app......that is all it is. And currently, the reason they can offer lower prices than most local taxi services in the West is because they don't pay the limited and expensive taxi plates, their drivers aren't tested and given a taxi license (that is usually more expensive than a regular license), they do not belong to some sort of taxi association (which gives you access to their territory, get hails etc.), their cars do not go though taxi inspections.......Which is not to say that normal taxi service is more secure or anything, these are all just hidden forms of taxation who's costs are passed along to the clients.
They are competing unfairly and all profits go to Uber....we the taxpayers get screwed in the end because Uber is not paying their fair share......
Why was it made illegal again? To protect the taxi industry. That's it. Safety, insurance, etc were tacked on later, but the scarcity was created solely to protect the taxi industry - not the drivers, the plate holders
Do you see any other path to breaking the taxi industry monopoly other than disobedience? How?
The law is a living thing and constantly subject to interpretation and modification. Laws come and go, what is illegal comes and goes. Often, very often, the ONLY way to change the law is to break it first, making breaking it popular, and the lawmakers will come around.
Is it still illegal for woman to vote? Smoke a joint?
Taxis used to be like the wild west. You sometimes didn't even know the fare before the trip started. And the vehicles weren't maintained. Another - still valid - reason in large cities is to artificially limit the supply due to a finite amount of roadway. This is a legitimate reason. This is a classic example of "tragedy of the commons." Yes it's a tax. The same as a carbon tax or a parking tax or any of the other things that could be free but we choose to tax because it makes society as a whole better off. Now it may be that our current regulations are outdated now and we need to revise the regulatory system. Another way to break the taxi industry monopoly is self-driving cars and a structure like ZipCar. You just summon your self-driving car from the pool. Of course this brings back the problems of streets being clogged with self-driving cars. And there is exactly one solution. Tax them until the price rises so that demand = supply of roadway. Of course in my solution, you can tax parking more heavily freeing up additional traffic lanes Breaking the law as a means of protest is valid. But there are consequences. Primarily you go to jail and then a sympathetic press publicizes your case and public opinion changes. Then the law changes. I don't see any Uber execs turning themselves into police, asking to be taken into custody in order to draw attention to the issue. If you think that the right to have unregulated taxis is in any way similar to things like universal suffrage, though, there's probably not an intelligent conversation to be had.
If I sign up, using my own car, how am I not sharing the car that I have with others?
So, generally, by your logic if I show up to work with my own tools I'm now in a tool sharing business?
For example, how is a home renovation contractor not in the "tool sharing business"?
Actually even more generically, this sounds like all jobs. The fry guy at mcdonalds. He's big into the the time sharing economy. He has spare time, he arranges to share some of it with mcdonalds in exchange for money.
Do you really you think an Uber taxi monopoly is somehow better than a local government one...
You are incorrectly assuming Uber will be a monopoly, possibly just because the taxi cartel was one. Uber already has competition in this very same marketplace from Lyft. Furthermore, just because the taxi companies' current monopoly would be broken doesn't mean the taxi companies simply go away. They can adapt their model to compete with Uber and Lyft. There's room for more than one revenue model in the marketplace, but the government needs to back down the level of regulation so that people have room to innovate and try new ways of doing things.