Uber Raided By Dutch Authorities, Seen As 'Criminal Organization'

An anonymous reader writes: Uber offices in Amsterdam have been raided by Dutch authorities, as reported by several local media sources (Google translation of original in Dutch). This follows intimidatory deterrence practices earlier in The Netherlands, with Uber drivers being fined in the past months, and fresh allegations that the company would act as a "criminal organization" by offering a platform for taxi rides without license (read: without the authorities earning money from the practice). Time for tech companies to consider moving their European offices elsewhere? Uber's lawyers must be incredibly busy. Proposed regulations in London would effectively end the company's service there, while the mayor of Rio de Janeiro said he would ban Uber's operations outright. They're receiving mixed messages from Australia — just a day after running afoul of regulations in New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory is moving to legalize it.

Comments

Re:Without government...

[GrantRobertson]

... who would clean your dead body out of your apartment after someone killed you for your pizza.

Yeah, fuck the gubment and all their silly rules.

They are enabling criminals

[Anonymous Coward]

It is currently not allowed to offer taxi services without a permit (and related stuff: insurance, markings on the car etc. depending on EU-country).
Work to change the law before you start the business.

There are lots of things you can't do without certification/permits/etc. If your plan is to fuck it all then you ARE working outside of the law. (car analogy: building your own car and not approving it - or in tax-insane Finland: paying car import tax on the burocrat-estimated worth of your self-built car).

Re:They are enabling criminals

[Anonymous Coward]

Work to change the law before you start the business.

This argument has served us well for a while in Governing practice, but I don't think it is justifably valid anymore. It ends up putting the lobbying efforts of ingrained business interests, against, what I would argue, are the natural developments of a rapidly technologically changing world. The simple fact is, if new and unfounded business oppurtunies waited entirely until they were authorized to operate by Government, you're looking at an stagnation of growth across every economic sector.

And while there is an argument to be had, about liability, taxes, and Uber as a service, that the outright damnation of it from entrenched businesses, and elected officials alike, shows just how out of touch they really are when it comes to an emerging markets. Perhaps it is about lobbying, and these are the results, but at some point, social and economic evolution has to move beyond the interests of the few, and entrenched business practices. I don't know if Uber should have been 'test case' , but I don't think they deserve the scorn they're getting across the board. There is a market waiting to be tapped there, that the long held 'taxi system' isn't satisfying. And it seems everyone in power is determined to stifle it off. That isn't what progress is about, and I'm betting everyone who has ever ridden in a taxi, or used Uber, would agree.

Re:They are enabling criminals

[BradMajors]

BTW, Why is your state such a strong advocate of homosexual relationships? I would have thought that such an anti-heterosexual law would be unconstitutional.

Re:They are enabling criminals

[Anonymous Coward]

You shouldn't be forced to do anything, but don't be pissed if about the repercussions if you're breaking the law. Whether you do or don't agree with that law. Why does your issue receive special attention over others? Is it the only law that should be changed? Do things properly and wait your turn, or end up like Uber.

Re: They are enabling criminals

[Applehu Akbar]

Have fun using your medallion as a coaster, buddy. That's all it will be good for in the future.

Re:They are enabling criminals

[parkinglot777]

You seem to be an anti-government person from what you replied. One point of view I want to point out because you seem to have no idea. Governments earn money is NOT A BAD THING (could be good or neutral). However, governments spend money a wrong way IS A BAD THING. These two ARE NOT the same.

Re:They are enabling criminals

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

It is about the slapping down competition to entreched interests, in and out of government. "Safety" and "insurance" are red herrings to distract the distractable.

South Korea proved this by outlawing Uber, then giving their business model to cronies of government officials.

Follow the money. Never fails. London, New York, Netherlands.

Re:They are enabling criminals

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

This is why I am in favor of a constitutional amendment requiring all laws to be reauthorized every 5 years.

Takes the "winning the dictator" feel out of elections and politics.

You would naturally design a deliberate review system in from scratch. What we have is asinine dictatorship power dynamics leftoverz.

Re: They are enabling criminals

[rjstanford]

Well, for one thing, taxis are required to give rides to everybody, even people of different faiths/colors/nationalities. They're required to provide services to handicapped passengers, for another. And they're required to go basically anywhere the passenger wants to go. The last two issues often increase costs, which are then leveled across all customers - making it "easy" to compete if you only take the juicy fares, leaving the other ones stranded. Additionally, there are penalties in place for drivers who take meandering paths, not just a changeable "company policy" against it.

We've tried deregulating taxis before. Almost everywhere has. Its a great idea, but in practice it never works - at least, it never has before now. Why should we expect this time to be any different?

Re: They are enabling criminals

[SethJohnson]

If the driver has a drivers license...and insurance, what's the problem?

Well, a taxi driver is required to have a chauffer's license which has much more stringent qualifications than a basic operator's license. Also, the taxi must be covered by commercial insurance, which provides much greater amounts of liability coverage to someone injured by the vehicle.

I agree with all the other posters here acknowledging UBER is operating as a criminal enterprise. Millions of other people around the world have thought, "Well, I'll just start my own cab company and drive people around for money." Then they realized the industry is regulated in ways that protect the public as well as the existing taxi providers. So, those millions of people have decided not to pursue this. Then UBER comes along and says, "Screw the regulations, we're doing this anyway." They are profiting handsomely from having disregarded the existing regulations that inhibited law-respecting players from having entered the industry.

This is similar to the travesty committed by Volkswagen with their fraudulent emissions trickery. Other companies like Mercedes were quite poised to deliver diesel consumer vehicles to the American market, but realized the EPA regulations made it too difficult for them to develop a compelling diesel vehicle product that would be competitive with gasoline vehicles in the USA. It's strange Mercedes didn't scrutinize Volkswagen's ability to satisfy EPA regulations with their popular TDI line of vehicles. Their management should have been hitting Mercedes engineers over the heads saying, "Why can't you create a vehicle like Volkswagen?!?!?" Then their engineers would say, "Volkswagen must be cheating the emissions tests!"

Re: They are enabling criminals

[cayenne8]

Well, UBER doesn't seem to have any of these problems....you use the app, you get the price ahead of time, no big deal on meandering paths, etc....

I've not heard of anyone being 'stranded' like you mentioned...they seem to be fair in that it is a private business transaction between consenting adults, so where's the problem? I don't see it?

So far, UBER to me has it 101% better than the entrenched taxis...at least in my area of New Orleans.

Re: They are enabling criminals

[Grishnakh]

Well, for one thing, taxis are required to give rides to everybody, even people of different faiths/colors/nationalities.

Then why don't they? It's common knowledge in NYC that taxis won't pick up black people, and lots of black people have sung the praises of Uber because they can get an Uber ride while yellow taxis will drive right by them.

And they're required to go basically anywhere the passenger wants to go.

Then why don't they? It's common knowledge in NYC that cabs won't go to certain parts of the city (which is also the main reason they won't pick up black people).

Additionally, there are penalties in place for drivers who take meandering paths, not just a changeable "company policy" against it.

But this is never enforced. I've seen this myself. Cab drivers take you some weird, back route way that takes twice as long, and they don't even have a GPS. Uber drivers use Google Maps and take you the shortest route possible.

What you're touting sounds good in theory, but in practice it's never, ever enforced. This is why everyone likes Uber so much: it gives them the things they should have gotten with cabs, but didn't.

You don't need to deregulate taxis, you just need to change the laws and do some political maneuvering to push Uber into being a giant taxi company. It's a lot easier for the government to regulate a big, rich company (=deep pockets) rather than a bunch of small companies.

Re: They are enabling criminals

[Nehmo]

Well, for one thing, taxis are required to give rides to everybody, even people of different faiths/colors/nationalities...

If you make a statement about legal requirements like that, you should identify the jurisdiction you are referring to. A brief search just now showed there is no universal answer.

In reality, the laws don't matter much in this instance. Taxi drivers choose who they pick up. If confronted on a refusal, to avoid legal repercussions, they wouldn't admit the reason they didn't pick up the fare was because he was black.

Re: They are enabling criminals

[Nehmo]

Well, for one thing, taxis are required to give rides to everybody, even people of different faiths/colors/nationalities.

Then why don't they? It's common knowledge in NYC that taxis won't pick up black people, and lots of black people have sung the praises of Uber because they can get an Uber ride while yellow taxis will drive right by them.

And they're required to go basically anywhere the passenger wants to go.

Then why don't they? It's common knowledge in NYC that cabs won't go to certain parts of the city (which is also the main reason they won't pick up black people).

Additionally, there are penalties in place for drivers who take meandering paths, not just a changeable "company policy" against it.

But this is never enforced. I've seen this myself. Cab drivers take you some weird, back route way that takes twice as long, and they don't even have a GPS. Uber drivers use Google Maps and take you the shortest route possible.

What you're touting sounds good in theory, but in practice it's never, ever enforced. This is why everyone likes Uber so much: it gives them the things they should have gotten with cabs, but didn't.

You don't need to deregulate taxis, you just need to change the laws and do some political maneuvering to push Uber into being a giant taxi company. It's a lot easier for the government to regulate a big, rich company (=deep pockets) rather than a bunch of small companies.

I've never used Uber, and I seldom use traditional cabs. On the occasions that I have, I've sometimes been overcharged. Thus, I applaud a new system.

But I'm just giving those details to identify my bias. What I wanted to say is that the above comment applies to places beyond New York City. In Kansas City, Chicago, and even in Tucson, taxi drivers won't pick up black guys in the slum. The drivers simply don't want to be robbed.

Re: They are enabling criminals

[hucker75]

A taxi driver should be allowed to take whatever fares he wishes. Someone might look violent, or unable to pay etc. Plus if he doesn't like Muslims then he shouldn't have to serve them.

Re: They are enabling criminals

[Grishnakh]

I'm not saying the drivers don't have rational reasons for discriminating. But the OP claimed that taxi drivers can't discriminate, when in reality, they do constantly; they're infamous for it.

At least with Uber, it's normal for you to punch in your destination on the app, so the driver can see immediately where you want to go and decide if he wants to take you there. So a black guy in Manhattan who just wants to go from Midtown to the Upper West Side won't have any problems getting an Uber ride, while taxis will pass him by and refuse to pick him up (because the taxis think he's going to the Bronx).

What the fuck is wrong with you guys

[Anonymous Coward]

Like it or not every gad damned fucking country has it's own fucking laws.

You have three fucking options:
1. Obey the fucking laws
2. Try to change the fucking law
Or
3. Fuck off!

Stop fucking whining.

Re: What the fuck is wrong with you guys

[Anonymous Coward]

Btw. If an fucking organization break the fucking criminal laws it wil be fucking treated like a fucking criminal organization.

For fucks shake, stop fucking complaining.

Re:What the fuck is wrong with you guys

[Anonymous Coward]

That's one philosophy. Another is that it is immoral to obey an unjust law.

Re:What the fuck is wrong with you guys

[jeremyp]

4. Go to fucking prison

Re:What the fuck is wrong with you guys

[Nutria]

Another is that it is immoral to obey an unjust law.

What's so unjust about ensuring that a car used for fares has adequate insurance of the right type?

Re:What the fuck is wrong with you guys

[Grishnakh]

That's really not the problem. Supposedly, Uber insures cars used by its drivers while they're on calls anyway.

The problem is the whole corrupt medallion system which limits competition. Limiting competition does nothing but drive up prices. That's what Uber was getting around; somehow they're able to pay people to drive their personal vehicles (and they only allow people with *nice* vehicles too, nothing more than 10 years old) and still deliver rates to the customer that are half as much. That's probably partly because of excessive regulatory costs (the $1M medallions and the like), and partly because the taxi companies have formed cartels which have driven up the prices. And also partly because in some places, the drivers take meandering routes; Uber never does that since their drivers all use GPS mapping.

Re:What the fuck is wrong with you guys

[Nutria]

The problem is the whole corrupt medallion system which limits competition.

The Uber should sue on antitrust grounds instead of blatantly breaking the law.

Re:What the fuck is wrong with you guys

[david_thornley]

That argument applies where there's a medallion system in place. From what I've read, the Netherlands doesn't have a medallion system, and Uber's still violating the law. If Uber were simply violating anti-competitive laws, I wouldn't mind nearly as much.

Re:What the fuck is wrong with you guys

[Grishnakh]

Yeah, things are different in different regions/markets/jurisdictions, and I think a lot of people are arguing for or against Uber based on their personal experiences, which are going to vary wildly from place to place. In my experience, Uber was wonderful, but that's because the taxis in northern New Jersey are simply horrible, but that's the only place I've used it. So to me, in NNJ, Uber was a giant improvement over the existing services and I'd use them any time. But for someone in Netherlands, maybe it's not such a huge improvement, or an apparent improvement at all, only cheaper.

Re:What the fuck is wrong with you guys

[Grishnakh]

Companies can't carry out expensive lawsuits unless they have lots of money to do so. A start-up with no customers at all isn't going to get anywhere with that kind of thinking. No VC is going to throw money at a start-up whose business plan is to start suing the government (since the existing taxi situation is the product of collusion between local governments and taxi companies). Now that Uber's flouted the law and made lots of money, they *can* do this, so maybe that's their plan.

Re:What the fuck is wrong with you guys

[Nutria]

No VC is going to throw money at a start-up whose business plan is to start suing the government

They would if they thought they had a chance of making money.

Now that Uber's flouted the law and made lots of money

But that money is ill-gotten gains. I'm not sure how that works out.

'criminal organisation' is Uber's business model

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the scare quotes around 'criminal organisation'? Uber's business model is to break the laws of every country they operate in and then hoping that the authorities are too timid to crack down on them. That by definition makes them a criminal organisation.

Oh, and nice bit of LOLbertarian bias in the summary.

Re:Without government...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck the taxi cartels and the governments that support them.

Yeah! I bought some Chicken Tonight but I'm going to have it tomorrow! Smash the system! Occupy.. something!

Uber is as safe as taxis

[Okian Warrior]

In an attempt to cut through the bullshit of what *might* happen and work directly from evidence, I came across a report of a Cato institute study:

A Cato Institute study shows key differences between rideshare services and taxis, but passenger safety isn't one of them.

The other differences are not as important and will probably get solved by other means. For example, cleanliness of the ride, courtesy of the driver, and gypping the customer can be handled by the Uber feedback system.

The economists here are quick to point out the importance of liquidity, and Uber adds much needed liquidity to the taxi system.

Can anyone justify the expense and bureaucracy of taxi medallions when passenger safety isn't an issue?

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[Richard_at_work]

The taxi medallion issue comes up frequently here on Slashdot, especially in support of Uber - except many countries dont have medallions or the costs associated with them. Here in the UK, to become a licensed taxi in my local area, it will cost you less than £3000 in fees every four years - wheres the excuse for Uber to be operating unlicensed in the same location?

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[Okian Warrior]

that report does not address the issues of the differences in inspection requirements, insurance requirements or in some places licensing requirements.

Which is, in essence, my point.

Stop talking about what *might* happen, and cite facts about what *does* happen.

Give us data on how Uber, in flaunting these regs, is worse than taxis!

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[KGIII]

Well, it would appear they're criminals by default in a variety of countries. I'd say that's worse than taxis.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[fahrbot-bot]

A Cato Institute study ...

You can probably stop there. The Cato Institute was founded by Charles Koch and while it proposes to be solely Libertarian it often leans Right. Any "analysis" they perform must be taken with a grain of salt. I'm not saying they're wrong, but what they publish cannot be detached from their public and, more importantly, private agendas.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[Harlequin80]

Yes and that is that taxis are part of a municipal areas public transport planning. It is taxi stands and rules against refusing a fare. It is fixed prices and centralised complaint procedures. It is holding them to a higher standard than a piss weak feedback system.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[N1AK]

Can anyone justify the expense and bureaucracy of taxi medallions when passenger safety isn't an issue?

Medallions are an outdated system that may have made sense at that time. However what we're talking about here (the examples of Ubers illegal practice in this article) isn't medallions. So no I, and I doubt many others, would even try and justify the medallion system but that doesn't mean that licensing on some level can't be justified on reasons beyond passenger safety.

Some examples of things that it might be justified to control via licensing (other than passenger safety):
Driver insurance
Passenger insurance
Pedestrian safety
Emissions
Traffic Control
Availability of transport for the disabled/elderly
Availability of transport to/from less popular locations
Quality of service (especially in high tourist areas)

I'm glad services like Uber exist as they bring more competition, but that doesn't mean that I agree with Uber's desire for an unregulated free for all.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[getuid()]

It's not only about perceived safety from driver abuse, safe driving etc. Regulations are there -- at least in some european countries, like Germany for example -- to ensure a standard of operating safetey, both from technical and commercial point of view.

For example, regulated taxis have stricter requirements with regards to technical maintenance. This is something you generally want! Just think about that for a moment: every time you take a ride, you're otherwise getting into some stranger's car, which could have been checked as long as 23 months ago for technical flaws, and may have been driven for 200.000 km or more during that time (he's a professional driver, being on the streets for a living). May have working safety belts or not, may have working airbags or not, bad tires... Hell, it may not even have properly working brakes for all you know! Not good.

Authorities actually go a long way to ensure that taxis adhere to more reliable technical standards.

Then there is the insurance issue: regardless of how safe, sooner or later an accident will happen. May not be with you in the car, but somebody else... but it's still happening. In that case, you want to be certain the driver is properly insured, and his insurance policy will cover any damage that may occur to you (life-long wheelchair for example?).

This is something that a taxi licence in civilized countries will ensure. Not happening outside the regulations, though.

Want to drive people around? Fine. Check your car as often as required by regulations, buy the proper insurances, respect any other passenger safety measures *and* *document* *that* *process*, then you're good to go. Oh... that costs money? Can't compete with taxis then? ...well, guess why!...

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[jklovanc]

How about these requirements that taxi companies have to adhere to.
- Availability of handicap accessible vehicles.
- Minimum number of cars on the road.
- Minimum wages for drivers.
- Vehicle inspections. I know safety may not be an issue now but give it a few years when Uber drivers wear out their current cars but can not afford a new one.
- The requirement to pick up anyone regardless of race, colour, gender, etc.
- A company responsible for the behavior of the driver. Uber is not as they say their review system will handle it. It may in the long run by there is no one to make drivers clean up their act.
Right now Uber is in a honeymoon state. Most of their drivers are happy and courteous. Wait about ten years when drivers have been jaded by low fares and bad customers. Then there will be even worse problems finding a cab. Today's regulations didn't just spring out of thin air. They were built up over years to deal with issues in the industry. Uber ignores those regulations and therefore their costs are lower.

For example, cleanliness of the ride, courtesy of the driver, and gypping the customer can be handled by the Uber feedback system.

It works until Uber gets too many complaints and they can not keep enough drivers on the road to service their customers. When making a choice between minor complaints and not enough drivers Uber will probably ignore the complaints.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[Cyberax]

I've been in many, MANY poorly-maintained taxis, often with egregious flaws. In one case a door came unlatched on a highway, in another case seat belts were visibly torn.

I've yet to see an Uber car that is even close to this level of disrepair.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[henni16]

I've been in many, MANY poorly-maintained taxis, often with egregious flaws.

In Germany, as was parent's example?
Otherwise I would assume that there aren't such regulations/requirements or they aren't enforced.

I've yet to see an Uber car that is even close to this level of disrepair.

Give it 5-10 years or whenever the current Uber drivers have to get a new one.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[Cyberax]

The unlatched door was in Paris and the torn seatbelt in New York. German taxis were generally above the US average.

Give it 5-10 years or whenever the current Uber drivers have to get a new one.

It doesn't work like this - Uber driver's car actually has to meet Uber's standards, a bad car will be quickly banned from the system. By now it's been two years since Uber got big and I don't see any deterioration in their car quality, and I use Uber a lot in different cities in several countries.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[iserlohn]

Liquidity is way overrated. This obsession with liquidity led to financial innovation like CDOs. Often a focus to increase liquidity mis-calculates risk and overlooks the trade-off.

For a local transportation services, I'd prefer price consistency over a step-improvement in efficiency by liquidity measures like surge pricing. Dual-rate peak pricing is only acceptable because it is consistently applied at a fixed schedule.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[Lennie]

The prices of a taxi medallion I've seen from the US don't seem to apply to the Netherlands.

"In Boston, taxi medallions average $700,000, and similarly-inflated prices exist in other cities"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sc...

But Amsterdam is the most expensive and I believe far above every other city in the Netherlands:
In 2013: € 7.960,00 for 3 years (8,928.64 USD)
In 2014: € 11.880,00 for 3 years (13,327.58 USD)

The city claims that this is the real cost of what they need to do (whatever that is).

In Dutch:
http://m.taxipro.nl/straattaxi...

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[dave420]

And that provides absolutely no benefit above the current German system. Not all the world has as terrible taxis as the US. I've never been in a poor German taxi - they're usually always recent Mercedes, clean, working well, and the drivers are well insured and well trained (including basic medical training). If Uber has found fault in any country's system, they should fix the system instead of stomping around like a petulant toddler demanding the whole world bows to its demands, screaming when they are told to calm down.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[TheRaven64]

The unlatched door was in Paris and the torn seatbelt in New York.

Did you report them? Every taxi that I've been in in the UK and USA has a prominent sign inside giving the taxi registration number and the contact details for the regulatory authority. At least in the UK, if you report a taxi then they will inspect it and if it doesn't meet the requirements then they will fine the owner and, in worse cases, remove their license. Most authorities also do spot checks, but often a taxi can slip through the cracks of those.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[AK Marc]

So Medicare will try to collect against the driver (even if the other driver is at fault) and if your driver is not insured "properly" Medicare will refuse to cover your injuries? I could find nothing that would support your assertions.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[DoofusOfDeath]

That's an argument for reading reports critically, but I would think that advice applies to any document.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[IRGlover]

Where I spend most of my time (Sheffield and Manchester), Uber don't operate as taxis (black cabs), but as mini-cabs. This means that they must be prebooked and can't just pick people up off the street. I'm not a fan of Uber as I think, in the main, the mini-cabs around here are well operated and regulated and don't like the idea that money is being siphoned directly to a dodgy foreign company that is trying to displace established local firms, however the main difference I see is that the cars say Uber on the side rather than another company.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[drinkypoo]

Can anyone justify the expense and bureaucracy of taxi medallions when passenger safety isn't an issue?

Why did anyone ever think it would be, anyway? Taxi drivers either don't get punished for their crimes like anyone else (especially rape) or they do get punished for their crimes like anyone else... but only after they harm someone! And background checks don't work. Anything less than an FBI-level check is going to miss basically everything. So medallions do nothing whatsoever to make people safer from malicious taxi drivers... absolutely fucking nothing.

It's far more dangerous to be a taxi driver than it is to be a taxi passenger. And Uber at least provides a mechanism by which someone might figure out who a fare was. A normal taxi can be hailed or boarded at a taxi stand, with not even falsified records of identity to go by. I note nobody gives a shit about protecting taxi drivers.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[drinkypoo]

I'm glad services like Uber exist as they bring more competition, but that doesn't mean that I agree with Uber's desire for an unregulated free for all.

Uber is not proposing to eliminate all motor vehicle laws, so your description of their desire as being for an unregulated free for all is FUD. Can't you do better?

Normal inspections and licensing procedures should allow for all of the things on your list, except for additional insurance while transporting a fare, which is already provided by Uber. If your country's normal process doesn't cover all of those other things, then it is broken. You want to fix it through a taxi licensing system? How's about just fixing it to begin with? There's a lot more non-taxis than taxis on the road, I wouldn't focus on taxis. That's stupid.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[bluegutang]

Can anyone justify the expense and bureaucracy of taxi medallions when passenger safety isn't an issue?

Yes - traffic congestion. According to Uber's own study, Uber operations in central Manhattan have decreased average traffic speeds for all vehicles by 8%.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[Richard_at_work]

What you are describing is the difference between a taxi that can pick up from ranks and off the street, and a taxi that is pre-booked only (also called a private hire vehicle). Both still need to be licensed in all locales in the UK.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[edtice1559]

I've never seen an argument that the current taxi laws are ideal although feel free to prove me wrong with a link to a -1 comment. The argument is that you change commercial laws through the political process, not by ignoring them. The usual comparisons to Rosa Parks come up. But it's not relevant at all. She didn't claim that what she was doing was legal. She thought it was a social injustice and was willing to go to jail to prove her point. Uber claims not to be a taxi company, but they are a taxi company. If you torture the Rosa Parks analogy it would be the equivalent of her sitting at the front of the bus while insisting comically that she was indeed in the back. If Uber execs stood up and said that they were operating an illegal taxi company in order to make the world a better place and that (a) they were willing to go to jail and (b) would operate as a non-profit and take no salary, they might have a leg to stand on. They're a business that openly ignores the law where they operate and it's a terrible indictment of our society that they've gotten away with it for so long.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Here in the UK, to become a licensed taxi in my local area, it will cost you less than £3000 in fees every four years - wheres the excuse for Uber to be operating unlicensed in the same location?

The excuse is simple: people like me like to ride Uber in preference to taxis. What other "excuse" is needed?

Uber has made travel much more pleasant. I don't have to worry about how cabs work at your ass end of the world, or whether your dinky little town's cabbies make a habit of ripping off tourists. I can get information on the driver and the car before I get into someone's vehicle. And I don't have to carry cash either.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The Cato Institute was founded by Charles Koch and while it proposes to be solely Libertarian it often leans Right.

Libertarianism means free markets, freedom of association, and individual liberties. Yes, in the US these days, that means "leaning right", because the American left has abandoned those principles. FFS, we have a self-declared socialist running as a serious Democratic candidate.

I'm not saying they're wrong, but what they publish cannot be detached from their public and, more importantly, private agendas.

Do you have any evidence that they have a "private agenda" separate from their public agenda?

And what source of funding do you think doesn't come with an "agenda"? Do you seriously believe that, say, academics don't act in their own economic and political interests, as well as that of their funders, when they publish studies?

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Well, and if you like the "higher standards" that city-licensed cabs provide, you are welcome to pay for them. Your preferences are no justification to force me to pay for them. Personally, I have always disliked the official taxi cabs; I'm actually willing to pay extra for Uber just to avoid the publicly licensed taxi cabs.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[LoyalOpposition]

As we know Libertardism is known for its followers unbiased and open approach to reality and civilized discussion. We also know that people who funded it are known for their honesty and openness too as they openly live by "me first, rest fuck off' and die" principle which is as open and honest as it can possibly get.

As it happens, there is no Charles Koch exception to argument evaluation in logic and rhetoric. (See logic.) To argue otherwise is to commit the ad hominem fallacy, and fallacies in general are not acceptable argumentation. (See fallacy.) In fact, I think I could make a good case that you've committed the Poisoning the Well fallacy. (See Poisoning the Well.)

If the Cato Institute has made an error in either their premises or their warrants then it should be relatively easy for you to argue in favor of your beliefs.

~Loyal

p.s. Do you see any irony in your complaining about The Cato Institute's "unbiased...approach to...civilized discussion?"

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[larkost]

You are going to have to provide some evidence that "the left" has moved farther to the left. Most of the policies currently being advocated by the mainstream Democratic candidates are similar to ones advocated by President Regan:
- first act on being Governor of California was to raise taxes to cover a budget shortfall, mostly on businesses and the wealthiest
- raised the federal top-level taxes eleven times while in office... to about where current Democrats want them
- increased the absolute size of government (Clinton then shrank this to about what we have now), size relative to population has been falling for a long time.

So there is good evidence that "the right" has moved much further right, and some evidence that so has the left. There is little evidence that either has moved to the left. Even the Affordable Care Act was a much more right-leaning approach to healthcare reform than what the Clintons were trying to achieve current the Bill Clinton presidency.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[Richard_at_work]

None of that is an excuse for Uber vehicles being unlicensed as taxis in the UK.

The medallion argument is one of a high cost of entry, which doesnt exist in the UK - so why are we seeing more illegal and unlicensed Uber carriers here?

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[Toshito]

Wait about ten years when drivers have been jaded by low fares and bad customers.

Or wait about ten years when the mob has taken control of ridesharing, and then if you take a passenger in their neighborhood you'll receive a warning or a beating, depending on their mood.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The medallion argument is one of a high cost of entry, which doesnt exist in the UK - so why are we seeing more illegal and unlicensed Uber carriers here?

Uber is a global brand name and the service works the same way everywhere; I have the same customer service, the same payment mechanism, an English language app that communicates with the driver, and the same kind of information on drivers and service.

Local government-licensed taxi service may or may not be good. But for a traveler, it's hit or miss. Frequently, it's a rip-off or even a fraud. I simply have no interest in dealing with that local b.s. It's the same reason why, when I'm on business travel, I don't go to a lot of quaint local restaurants: it's not worth the risk or cost.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

You are going to have to provide some evidence that "the left" has moved farther to the left.

Where did I say it had "moved further to the left"? I said the "American left" has abandoned "free markets, freedom of association, and individual liberties". In fact, I think the American so-called "left" has actually moved more in the direction of fascism. Of course, in practice, and from a libertarian point of view, fascism and socialism are pretty much equally bad: both deny individual liberties, individual choice, and free markets. That is, from a libertarian perspective, it really makes little difference whether Democrats have "moved left" or "moved right". What matters is that Democrats have become a lot more statist and a lot less liberal. Republicans have simply stuck with their theocratic leanings, but at least some minority faction of Republicans still pays lip service to the benefits of free markets and capitalism.

Political positions are multi-dimensional. If you need a simple space to imagine this in, use the 2D space from the "World's Smallest Political Quiz":

http://www.theadvocates.org/qu...

Most of the policies currently being advocated by the mainstream Democratic candidates are similar to ones advocated by President Regan:

You're absolutely right. And libertarians like neither Reagan, nor Democrats that channel Reagan.

http://www.cato.org/publicatio...

Even the Affordable Care Act was a much more right-leaning approach to healthcare reform than what the Clintons were trying to achieve current the Bill Clinton presidency.

From a libertarian point of view, the ACA is just as much of a disaster as single payer health care would have been. Note that neither the Cato institute nor other libertarian publications had anything good to say about it.

http://www.cato.org/bad-medici...

If the ACA were "more right leaning" and libertarians were "right leaning", they would have to say something good about it, no? Of course, the way Democrats get out of that logical conundrum is simply to attribute the well-deserved vitriol libertarians and free market types heap upon the ACA to racism and partisanship.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[Richard_at_work]

And yet we still don't have a reason why we are seeing Uber cars operating unlicensed in the UK....

They may be the best thing since sliced bread, that doesn't mean they can operate unlicensed - especially as the license costs are no barrier to entry here.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[Richard_at_work]

The local licensing authorities handle complaints and vehicle inspections, keeping illegal cars and drivers from carrying passengers in licensed vehicles.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[dywolf]

Statements that prove you are clueless:

-I said the "American left" has abandoned "free markets, freedom of association, and individual liberties".
-In fact, I think the American so-called "left" has actually moved more in the direction of fascism.
-(using the word 'statist')
-Republicans have simply stuck with their theocratic leanings
-(linking to CATO)

And of course theres just blatantly ignoring that clearly illustrated success of the ACA (single payer would be better, but the uninsured rate is going down, costs are rising slower, etc) what exactly is this well deserved vitriol that exists in your fantasy version of reality? I suppose Carson calling it 'worse than slavery' had nothing to do with racism and partsinship?

you're an idiot, like most 'libertarians'
(little 'l', in quotes, as opposed to Libertarians, which are slightly more intelligent)

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[dywolf]

and I forgot....there also the little matter of the blatant ignoring that the entire ACA originated within fellow libertarian group the Heartland Institute, several years ago. so yeah. whatever. same ol same ol, now that the left took it and ran with it, you buffoons disavow any knowledge of it.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

and I forgot....there also the little matter of the blatant ignoring that the entire ACA originated within fellow libertarian group the Heartland Institute

Here is what the Heartland Institute said about ACA:

Health care policy experts at The Heartland Institute and those affiliated with other think tanks warned during the debate leading up to Obamacare’s passage that the law would be a disaster for patients, doctors, and taxpayers. For example, in 2009, Heartland published a series of reports documenting how Obamacare would dramatically raise insurance premiums in the following states [...]

The idea that the ACA is a "libertarian" or "conservative" health care plan, or a compromise, is a blatant lie. Libertarians strongly opposed it, and no Republican voted for it.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

And yet we still don't have a reason why we are seeing Uber cars operating unlicensed in the UK....

The reason is that people like me use them in preference to government licensed taxis. That's also the excuse.

that doesn't mean they can operate unlicensed

Whether they "can" operate unlicensed is a practical and legal question. You were asking for a reason and justification ("excuse").

Uber in the UK is operating like a black market in a communist country. I think the latter is a good thing, so I don't see why I should have any problems with the former.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[Richard_at_work]

You keep using that word in a manner which makes me think you don't understand its meaning.

And you seem to have also deliberately misunderstood my post - but then again, going by the use of that word in the way you have, I don't think you really care for reality.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[swalve]

Uber isn't operating a taxi service, nor are the drivers. You can't walk into the street and hail an Uber car. It is one private citizen giving rides to other private citizens, mediated by a website. Am I operating an unlicenced taxi if a friend kicks in gas money on a road trip?

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[swalve]

The democratic party has been the party of civil liberties since the Dixiecrats ran into the open arms of the GOP. And I think you'll find that Democratic presidents have done more free-market, small-government things than Republicans have when you balance things out. A hearty chunk of the debt incurred during the Obama administration is due to the actions of Bush and his lapdog congresses. (Wars, Medicare Part D, tax cuts when there is a deficit, etc.) There is nothing free market about giving the current citizens the benefits while pushing the costs out onto future generations.

Re:Uber is as safe as taxis

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

We aren't talking about which party is preferable from a libertarian point of view. We are talking about why the libertarian party appears to be "leaning right". And the reason is simple: a substantial minority of Republicans today pay lip service to some of the principles libertarians favor, namely free markets and individual liberties, while few Democrats do. But in neither party are libertarians in the majority. The actual Republican and Democratic presidents we have had since Reagan (and including Reagan) have been about equally bad: corrupt, war mongering statist.

From a libertarian point of view, both Democrats and Republicans have sunk more towards the bottom of the diamond over the last few decades: http://www.theadvocates.org/qu...

Still, unrelated to libertarianism, I'd like to point out:

The democratic party has been the party of civil liberties since the Dixiecrats ran into the open arms of the GOP.

No, the Democratic party has been the party of civil rights; there's a big difference: civil liberties are negative rights, while civil rights are positive rights. Furthermore, the "civil rights" policies of the Democratic party are just a variation on its previous racist policies, repackaged to appeal more to minority voters. The underlying belief didn't change, namely the belief that blacks are generally incapable of succeeding on their own and need some form of (physical or legal) segregation and special support from the state.

A hearty chunk of the debt incurred during the Obama administration is due to the actions of Bush and his lapdog congresses. (Wars, Medicare Part D, tax cuts when there is a deficit, etc.)

And instead of fixing these issues when he had a chance to and his own lapdog congress, Obama just piled massively on top of them. I used to think that Bush would be one of the worst presidents of my lifetime, but Obama really has turned out to be a credible rival for that position.

wtf

[bloodhawk]

"Time for tech companies to consider moving their European offices elsewhere?"

how about, Time for tech companies to stop thinking local laws don't fucking apply to them. Either obey the law, fight to get the laws changed or get the fuck out of the market. NO company should get to decide what laws they will and won't obey, that is a slippery slope that no one wants to be on.

Re:wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

This, and how about Uber stop calling itself a tech company just because it brought out an app, and start calling itself a goddamn taxi company?

Re:wtf

[bloodhawk]

because people tend to be sheep when it comes to corporate welfare & protection laws. everyone likes to drag out the image of the poor uneducated taxi driver trying to make ends meet, not the corporation that actually owns his license and rents it to him.

They certainly are, the amount of sheep running out to protect Uber is absurd. They need to remember this next time a company they don't like decides the law shouldn't apply to them, you can bet they will be bleeting like sheep for the government to step in.

Re: wtf

[jemmyw]

Can we not take each situation on it's merits, rather than throwing around sheep of various types? I feel ambiguous about Uber, I understand that government regulations are supposed to be for my protection. And yet Uber offers a better service. I think the regulations probably need an overhaul. I can't help but think that the furore is mostly sour grapes from a taxi industry that doesn't want to be challenged.

Re: wtf

[bloodhawk]

Can we not take each situation on it's merits, rather than throwing around sheep of various types? I feel ambiguous about Uber, I understand that government regulations are supposed to be for my protection. And yet Uber offers a better service. I think the regulations probably need an overhaul. I can't help but think that the furore is mostly sour grapes from a taxi industry that doesn't want to be challenged.

No I don't believe we can. Companies don't get to make decisions on what laws to obey, I don't believe their is any fuzzy or grey area here. Not saying I agree with all the various laws and regulations but the way for a company is to go to the courts, go to the politicians or appeal to the public to partition the politicians for them to change the laws/regulations or decide to obey the laws or don't do business in that country.

Re:wtf

[umghhh]

Wait and see how this all changes when TTIP and some other agreement will be signed over our heads.

Re:wtf

[FlyHelicopters]

Either obey the law, fight to get the laws changed or get the fuck out of the market.

That would be fine, if it were a reasonable level playing field without unions and lobbyists mucking up the works.

Often times laws about things have less to do with "the public good" and more to do with who is funding elections.

Fighting such laws can take years, a whole crap load of money, and still not succeed due to the elected officials being in office for sometimes decades and being married to the existing companies.

Re:wtf

[AK Marc]

A reasonable reading of the laws generally puts Uber into a livery service, They are not a Taxi under any reasonable reading of most taxi laws. They do not respond to hails. And, as taxis (and you) note, they don't obey the taxi laws. That should be proof they aren't taxis.

But the law makers don't seem to want to define what they are, but state that because they aren't sure, they'll apply laws to them which may or may not apply.

In short, it's easier for the government to declare them outlaws, than to define them. Yet, everyone agrees they aren't taxis.

Uber is breaking the law, period!

[ebusinessmedia1]

What doesn't Uber understand about municipal codes? Yes, taxi service sucks, but just because I think I want to get to work faster doesn't mean I can break the speed limit. We have laws for a reason; if Uber wants to compete,it has to compete according to the LAW. If it wants to change the law, the ballot is where that should happen. After all, Uber is lining the pockets of politicians now, anyway - to let them help Uber break the law. It's absurd.

Re:Uber is breaking the law, period!

[tippen]

So where do you stand on copyrights on music? Do you download music regardless of what the law says? After all, the law is the law...

All about Taxi Laws

[msh104]

In the Netherlands we mostly have a mix of semi free market and government regulation.
The government sets the ground rules and free competition is possible within that platform.

Taxi drivers have to obey by many strict laws. Uber "taxis" do not.
The current position of the government is that Uber poses unfair competition as Uber users do not comply with the regulation required for Taxi drivers while essentialy offering the same services.

Technically, if Uber can make their drivers comply to the Taxi driver rules the app would be no problem.
Much of the advantage would be lost in the process though..
And it's a bit of a killer for innovation and keeps prices high.
Personally i like the sharing culture Uber promotes.
But i don't think the attitude towards Uber taxis will change anytime soon.

Re:All about Taxi Laws

[ziphnab]

Personally i like the sharing culture Uber promotes. But i don't think the attitude towards Uber taxis will change anytime soon.

And you might change that opinion if you are ever in an accident while being a passenger in an Uber 'taxi' and it turns out he's missing all the liability insurance that are requisite for any form of public transport company in the netherlands and it turns out his personal insurance doesn't cover 'professional services' as every consumer car insurance policy in the Netherlands does.

Re:All about Taxi Laws

[jklovanc]

Personally i like the sharing culture Uber promotes.

Uber is "ride sharing" in the same way pizza delivery is "food sharing". Namely it is not. With Uber you hire a vehicle and driver to take you from one location to another. There is no "sharing" involved. Sharing would be if the driver planned to go from A to B and picked up someone else who happened to be going the same way. For example, many non-profit commuter services are ride sharing as do just that. That is not what Uber does.Being an Uber driver is a part time job and nothing else.

Re:All about Taxi Laws

[Malc]

Yes, in most cases ride sharing is free at best or the cost of it is shared equitably. Uber drivers are in it for a profit and make a living from this, which is a totally different concept.

Re:All about Taxi Laws

[Chris Johnson]

People working as musicians and sound engineers know 'sharing culture' as 'we will never get paid again, because mp3s replaced all the superior media people used to pay money to have'. These things cut various ways, and while your classic Stallman type 'code ideas are free' sharing is clearly about promoting understanding and collective knowledge for the betterment of all, in a capitalist system that is only one of many values to be weighed.

Get rid of money and you'll see 'sharing culture'. Using 'sharing culture' to help a psychotic corporation obliterate the world's applecart as far as livery services, is an exploit and has nothing to do with the 'collective knowledge' thing anymore.

Re:All about Taxi Laws

[hackertourist]

The Netherlands have taxi laws because every time we tried deregulating taxis, the deregulated taxi services cropping up were a bunch of criminals who wouldn't balk at overcharging and intimidating and/or assaulting their passengers and other drivers.

Re:All about Taxi Laws

[drinkypoo]

'we will never get paid again, because mp3s replaced all the superior media people used to pay money to have'.

mp3s are superior because people can use them the way they want to. if we had infinite storage space, then FLAC would be superior. Records, tapes, vinyl, CDs and so on would all still suck balls.

Re:All about Taxi Laws

[jandrese]

Musicians didn't get paid for those "superior" medias either. They're pretty much in the same boat they've always been in. The big difference is that they don't have a bunch of corporate dependents.

Re:Without government...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who would stop people from buying superior transportation services on a voluntary basis?

Fuck the taxi cartels and the governments that support them.

-jcr

Cartels?, call them what they are: crooks.

Strange but true...

Local Drug Barons make money from drugs
invest said drug money in local taxi firm (as well as pubs, housing etc)
rival firms either sell up to them or suffer mysterious fires (ditto wrt pubs)
money from taxi firms (and drugs and pubs and rent from properties) buys local bus firm
other local bus firms then sell up to them or suffer mysterious garage fires.
money from local bus firms (and other sources detailed above) buy regional bus firms and taxi businesses

You get the picture..they've even bought into a football (aka soccer to USians) team.

(and yes, the authorities do know, yet are strangely reticent about tackling these gents..)

Uber vs Existing taxi firms? Meet the new boss...

They certainly are a criminal organisation...

[Rick in China]

...in some countries. They're openly breaking the law. However - where regulations are faulty or problematic hampering the freedom of providing a valued service to the populace, this type of disruption is the only way to drive forward new growth markets and change 'the way' it is. Just because something is averse to a current corporate/government structure doesn't make it bad, although it is in many cases criminal.

I'd be curious about stats of Uber users - is it just a loud minority who aim their sites at the company? I'm guessing it is. Everyone I know who uses Uber loves it, and while I feel for the taxi drivers who pay into medallions or permits to drive cabs, markets....get.....disrupted......and this is a f'n good disruption.

Re:They certainly are a criminal organisation...

[Chris Johnson]

Taxi medallions costing hundreds of thousands of dollars aren't an idea, they're the free market. If you don't like it, that might be a hint that you've learned something about the free market, and don't like that as much as you thought. It's nothing more than the natural setting of a price for a situation that's otherwise restricted. From Slate:

Things weren't always this way. When New York City first issued taxi medallions in 1937, they were just licenses, worth $150 in today’s terms. In the years after, life was pretty good for cabbies, as it was for many low-skill employees in postwar America. Some drivers owned their cabs. The rest were unionized employees who worked on commission and received a full slate of employee benefits.

Crucially, the owners were in the taxi business and took on the risk that entailed. If gas prices went up, that came out of the owners’ pockets. If drivers had a bad shift, the owners did too.

All that began to change in 1979. That year, New York’s Taxi and Limousine Commission changed its rules to allow medallions to be leased out for 12-hour shifts, making cabdrivers “independent contractors” under federal labor laws. The move cost such drivers their benefits, but the real fallout was far more profound. Even for medallion owners who operated their own taxi fleets, the economic value of the right to pick up fares was now severed from the value of actually doing so.

Uber is nothing more than a replacement medallion system in which capital interests lobby the system to get what they want. It hangs the drivers out to dry as much as Great Depression taxicabs ever did, and replaces private medallion ownership as a speculative investment with corporate market domination as a mode of disruption. It's not an alternative to the medallion system, it's a consolidation and doubling down of the mechanisms that made the medallion system what it is.

Re:They certainly are a criminal organisation...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a stupid argument. Would you use Uber if you didn't like it? I can't stand Uber, and I don't use it. It is logical that others who think as I do also don't use Uber. Therefore those opinions aren't represented in your self selected sample of people who like Uber. Hence, it's a stupid argument.

Uber users seem to think that 'on the Internet' or (worse) 'on a smartphone app' automatically means that laws shouldn't apply to whatever it is. I am not a 'law and order' kind of person--we have a lot of stupid laws. We also have a lot of good ones. Taxi laws are a bit of a mix, but nobody's even attempted to change them. Instead, you have one set of companies that are playing by the established rules and another that thinks they don't have to because they've found some magic wordsmithing that resonates with a certain group--despite that the "distinction" between Uber and a taxi company is meaningless. Uber's entire advantage is not obeying the law, because that allows them to externalize costs and essentially freeload on other peoples' cars, other peoples' insurance, and frankly their passengers' risk taking. Make them actually pay for what they use and that disappears real quick. I'm an advocate of making companies pay for the things they use.

This kind of imbalance can't be permitted to go on, and I'm disinclined to see this particular situation resolved in favor of the lawbreakers.

Re:They certainly are a criminal organisation...

[drinkypoo]

Taxi medallions costing hundreds of thousands of dollars aren't an idea, they're the free market.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHA

and also

AHABAAHHAHABAHHAHAHAHHAA

There is nothing "free" about a market with high artificial barriers to entry. That is, in fact, one of the signs that a market is not free.

Re:They certainly are a criminal organisation...

[Chris Johnson]

More like the high cost of medallions is the free market assigning value.

Back when there was no limit on the number of taxis, there was thirty thousand taxis in New York, all breaking down and crappy. The medallions are literally about fixing the number of taxis, because when the free market decided how many taxis there should be, it clogged all the streets with taxis and New York City broke.

I realize it's a scary and new thought that the free market can cough up a totally wrong answer, but that's what happened. More often than not, the free market coughs up a hairball rather than an optimal answer, mostly because it cannot cope with externalities: it's short-term like the stock market.

How many times do we have to go through this nonsense? I'll give you this, however, it's good at 'disrupting'. Too bad that's not long-term useful.

Re:They certainly are a criminal organisation...

[edtice1559]

No it's not. We have an entire political process. You can write to your local officials, protest outside their offices, donate to their opponents. There are a whole myriad of ways to get regulations changed. This is a false argument. Stop operating an illegal taxi service until you're done with the political process. And sometimes you don't get your way.

Re:They certainly are a criminal organisation...

[Rick in China]

We have an entire political process.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..wait...

HAHA Oh my, that was a great one, thanks mate much needed, belly aching.

Re:They certainly are a criminal organisation...

[edtice1559]

I take it you've never tried to participate. Have you ever gone to a town meeting? That's where most of this stuff gets handled. Have you ever worked on a political campaign? I'm assuming not. And the responses will be something to the effect of the process being 'owned' by corporations. Which of course supports my original point that Uber is a corporation and has access to the process.

Re:They certainly are a criminal organisation...

[Rick in China]

You'll note my name is 'in China' - I'm an expat, but as far as I know, there are no 'town meetings' here. Nor political campaigns, at least, not public ones. You're right that Uber is *now* a corporation and has access to the process, and now has the funds to start to engage strongly - hence "buying" politicians to change the rules. However, without essentially breaking the law in the first place, or at least walking a very gray line, you can't possibly imagine they'd have that sort of clout or be able to have any impact whatsoever which would allow them to create the market they have since created.

Apropos of nothing...

[Okian Warrior]

Doesn't matter. A law is a law. Period.

Apropos of nothing, how do you feel about Rosa Parks not moving to the back of the bus?

Re: Apropos of nothing...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know. How do you feel about Mafia during prohibition? Looks like a better fitted analogy.

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, cool analogy. But bad analogy. Because Rosa Parks wasn't treated as an equal. Uber on the other hand does not want to be treated as other transportation companies and thinks laws and regulations doesn't apply to them. I would say that these two cases are pretty much diametrically opposed.

When Uber start fighting to be treated as a taxi company, I will support your Rosa Parks analogy... Oh, wait, that will never happen!

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[Okian Warrior]

Yeah, cool analogy. But bad analogy.

Unfortunately, this discussion is being fought on the field of emotion, and not with facts or analysis.

A swarm of angry taxi drivers are littering the discussion with "fukin' law-breakers" comments, so I have to tap into the big stores of emotional reserve to have any effect.

You're right, of course. It was a cheap shot, but an easy one. :-)

Re: Apropos of nothing...

[stafil]

Meh... I think the emotional response was due to the extreme bias on the story summary.

As a consumer I would use Uber. As a citizen I would say, if they are breaking the law lock them up.

Re: Apropos of nothing...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know. How do you feel about Mafia during prohibition? Looks like a better fitted analogy.

Not really, The argument given was "Period.", that doesn't leave room for pick'n'choose.
Regardless of if it was intended or not that comment essentially argued for North Korea laws being just.

You have to be pretty damn ignorant to think state a tautology like "a law is a law".
Either you mean it literally, and then it is just as useful as saying "a car is a car", or you mean it in the sense of that laws always are just, and in that case you claim that there is no distinction between laws and ethics which clearly is incorrect.
Ending it with "Period." is just the cherry on the top. People who are right never states "Period" or slam doors, they have actual arguments so they don't need to.

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[N1AK]

Yeah, cool analogy. But bad analogy.

No, it was an excellent analogy to rebut someone's argument that "A law is a law. Period". The entire point of the Rosa Park counter is to highlight that something being a law in no way, just by that fact, justifies a position.

What Uber is doing is wrong not because it's against the law, but because the laws it breaks are laws that the population in general see as being at least acceptable. If a state made giving lifts to abortion clinics illegal then I'm sure plenty of people would be raving about their principled stand if Uber refused to stop doing it.

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you admit to trolling the forum? "Fighting emotions with emotions?" Then you are no better than the people you are trying to fight.

If you want to fight with facts or analysis, don't come up with cheap shots, come up with facts and analysis by yourself.

Speaking of facts: how do you know that these "fukin' law-breakers" commenters are angry taxi drivers? Perhaps they are just like me, EU citizens that don't like that a foreign company come over here and piss all over our welfare system (yes, the one giving me education and healthcare, that is paid by taxes, the same taxes Uber et al are trying to skirt with their "disruptive technology") because they want to make a profit. Anyone can undercut someone else if they stop worrying about laws, regulations or moral consequences, there is nothing new about that. Where I live taxis are plentiful and unless a special event is happening, getting a taxi is as easy as picking up your phone. The cab is there before I can get my jacket on and walk down to the door. Most big taxi companies here already have their apps, so you don't have to worry about using your phone to make an actual call to a living person. What does Uber offer me? Cheaper rides. There are already illegal cabs offering that service if the price is all you care about. Still, Uber is trying to get into the scene by not employing drivers (thus not paying taxes/healthcare for them) because it will be more profitable for them. But not for the city I live in and it's inhabitants.

I find forums like these are equally filled with Uber fanbois unquestionably hailing the new economy and thinking other cities/countries should bow down to the Uber overlords that has given us backwards living cavemen the illumination of divine insight. These fanboys were here long before the "fukin' law-breaker" commenters started showing up and those with Uber-opposing views were quite moderate in their choice of words when criticising Uber. Might one have given birth to the other? I too get fed up when I hear the same things over and over again. I understand that some people finally stop trying to be civil and start using explicatives.

Some laws and regulations might be wrong, but as a company you either adhere to them or face the consequences, which Uber now is doing. And while on the subject of civil disobedience, facing the consequence IS the desired effect. As an individual you can oppose the law with the intention of being brought to justice, hoping that the judicial system will expose the unjust laws and change them. This is allowed since you yourself are willing to take the risk. If you are found right, laws are changed and you are potentially freed. If wrong, you face the consequences of breaking the law.

If you do "civil disobedience" and have no intention of getting caught/changing the system, you are just a law-breaker that thinks the laws are dumb and cannot call the "civil disobedience card".

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, cool analogy. But bad analogy.

No, it was an excellent analogy to rebut someone's argument that "A law is a law. Period". The entire point of the Rosa Park counter is to highlight that something being a law in no way, just by that fact, justifies a position.

No, it is still a bad analogy since Rosa Parks has nothing to do with Uber. So comparing her actions to Ubers are inappropriate use of analogies.

Using Rosa Parks to counter someones argument that "A law is a law. Period" might be correct if you are speaking about laws in general. But in this thread, started by a very biased summary, we are discussing Uber, for the umpteenth time. And still Uber are not doing something for the greater good. They are trying to undercut existing companies by offering a "new" service, without getting appropriate permissions, paying taxes and taking a healthy (for Uber) profit on top of that. What part of the laws and regulations concerning Uber are you thinking is being unfair? And as others have already pointed out, as a company, you cannot call upon civil disobedience, which Rosa Parks did. As an individual, you can do it but it is not defying the law that is the point, it is being procecuted and in that process showing how unfair the law is, thus changing the law in the process.

Show me what admirable principles Uber are standing behind and I might be convinced to agree with you. I dare you to find such, since I am firmly convinced neither you, nor anyone else can at the moment.

Re: Apropos of nothing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really a better analogy.

No one is stopping anyone using taxis in this case.

You've got legitimate taxi companies, who comply with the laws, and then you've got Uber, who doesn't.

It's more like someone opening up a bar, not getting the correct permits, and when folk complain, saying "WTF, we're not a bar, we just serve booze in exchange for money. We don't need no stinking permits."

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone requiring a license for taxi service is not discrimination.

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[dbIII]

She started something that got the law changed.

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[serviscope_minor]

A swarm of angry taxi drivers are littering the discussion with "fukin' law-breakers" comments,

You are actually claiming that taxi drivers make up a significant enough proportion of slashdot to litter this thread.

[citation needed]

Just by the way, not everyone who disagrees with you is an angry taxi driver.

You're right, of course. It was a cheap shot, but an easy one. :-)

IF by "easy" you mean it "easily" made you look a bit of a fool for equating such wildly different things, then sure.

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[Attila Dimedici]

Doesn't matter. A law is a law. Period. Apropos of nothing, how do you feel about Rosa Parks not moving to the back of the bus?

I see that a lot of slashdot readers fail at reading comprehension and at basic logic. The above poster is NOT comparing Uber to Rosa Parks. They are pointing out that the argument "A law is a law. Period." applies against the actions of Rosa Parks as well. Or in other words, you have to explain why what Uber is doing is wrong, but what Rosa Parks was doing was not (unless of course, you think that what what Rosa Parks did WAS wrong).

There are others on here who ARE making arguments about why what Uber is doing is wrong (not everyone agrees with those arguments, but they are legitimate viewpoints nonetheless), but this particular argument ("A law is a law") has no merit.

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[stove]

I don't know, did she:

1. Deny the validity of the law on its face, but accept the consequences of "breaking the law" until the law itself could be changed?
2. Get upset at the inconvenience of being arrested, tried, all for something that "wasn't breaking the law, so why arrest me in the first place?"

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[umghhh]

where are the mod points when one needs them...

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[SpinyManiac]

Doesn't matter. A law is a law. Period.

Apropos of nothing, how do you feel about Rosa Parks not moving to the back of the bus?

She was not legally required to.

According to the law, no passenger would be required to move or give up his seat and stand if the bus was crowded and no other seats were available. Over time and by custom, however, Montgomery bus drivers adopted the practice of requiring black riders to move when there were no white-only seats left.

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[jeremyp]

Technically, Rosa Parks didn't break the law and even if he had, it would probably be ruled uncionstitutional today.

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, a lot of slashdotters read this in the context of Ubers actions regarding to law and not being to literal. Yes, the poster could have been more eloquent and nuyanced. I would welcome people being more nuyanced and express themselves better online. Also I want world peace and a cure for cancer. In the meanwhile I try to not insult other peoples reading skills or logic abilities, that would be as stupid as insulting someone for the lack of understanding the context in which the current discussion is being held.

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[BlueStrat]

Over here, taxis are for the rich, busses are for the poor, and everyone else drives a car. And yet, our government is also trying to figure out what to do about those lawbreakers that have the gall to try to break the taxi monopoly by providing an option relevant for the 90%.

The 90% you say?

Let them eat taxi medallions!

Strat

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[N1AK]

Bollocks. Uber pricing is in line with or higher than Taxis in a number of cities. Even in cities where Uber is more competitively priced it isn't by enough that Taxi prices are for the 'elite' yet somehow Uber prices are ideal for the masses.

If you want transport for the masses then do something about your shit public transport (or wait for autonomous vehicles) rather than naively expecting any private driver / private car to be cheap.

Re: Apropos of nothing...

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I don't know. How do you feel about Mafia during prohibition? Looks like a better fitted analogy.

Prohibition was primarily targeted against poor working class people, while the rich had cellars full of alcohol. So, I think it's a good thing that smugglers broke the laws of prohibition, just like I think it's a good thing that there was an underground railroad.

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[Antique Geekmeister]

> The rightness or wrongness of an act is not dependent on what "the population in general" believes.

Oh? Is it alright to drink alcohol on a public street? Open a grocery store on a Sunday? Drive on the left side of the road? Pay a restaurant bill without leaving a tip?

What the population in general believes is a critical part of how morals or customs get made, and can vary profoundly from location to location.

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

What the population in general believes is a critical part of how morals or customs get made, and can vary profoundly from location to location.

Your response underlines again the cause of the problem: you are confusing "customs" and "morality". Customs are a statement about what the majority does. Morality is a statement about an individual judgment of right and wrong.

Customs depend on society, morality does not. My view that goat fucking is morally wrong doesn't change just because I travel to a place where it is an accepted custom and the majority of people view it as morally right.

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[bluefoxlucid]

What eventually broke the back of the drug war against weed?

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[bluefoxlucid]

Rosa was a chick, she got arrested for not following the laws.

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[Attila Dimedici]

No, the above poster merely pointed out that if your argument against Uber consists of "a law is a law, Period." then you are also arguing against Rosa Parks actions and the actions of others whose actions consisted in breaking the law in ways which are currently considered a good thing.

He in no way said that Uber's actions were equivalent to Rosa Parks, BUT the argument being used (a law is a law) applies equally to Rosa Parks as it does to Uber.

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[Grishnakh]

Where I live taxis are plentiful and unless a special event is happening, getting a taxi is as easy as picking up your phone. The cab is there before I can get my jacket on and walk down to the door. Most big taxi companies here already have their apps, so you don't have to worry about using your phone to make an actual call to a living person. What does Uber offer me?

Well here in America, it offers me an app so I don't have to try to figure out where the nearest cab company is. We never had that before Uber, in most locales. Our taxi companies are absolutely backwards here; they don't use GPS, they take meandering routes to increase fares, they don't stop for black people, their cars are filthy, I could go on and on.

If taxis are great where you are, then fine--count yourself lucky. Here in the US, they're miserable, and that's precisely why Uber has done so well here.

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[Antique Geekmeister]

> Customs depend on society, morality does not.

On what basis do you form this opinion? Given the culturally determined morality of the following behavior, the idea that morality is some kind of axiomatically derivable system. Specific "moral" behavior includes:

* manumission and slavery.
* death by exposure for weak infants and old people
* religious proselytization
* working or eating on a holy day
* capital punishment
* marital monogamy

It's very difficult to claim that any of these are not "culturally determined".

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

On what basis do you form this opinion?

It's not an "opinion", it's simply what those terms mean.

It's very difficult to claim that any of these are not "culturally determined".

How can they be "culturally determined" when, within each culture, many people disagree on which of these are right and wrong? Cultures do not make moral judgments in any consistent sense, only individuals do.

But that's not even my main point. My main point is morality simply cannot be established by majority vote. Take mathematical truths as an analogy. "The majority of Americans believes that the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is about 3.1" is not a mathematical statement or argument, even if it's true; a mathematical statement looks entirely different. Likewise, "The majority of Americans believes that the death penalty is morally right." isn't a statement about right and wrong, it's simply a statement about a poll result.

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[Antique Geekmeister]

> isn't a statement about right and wrong, it's simply a statement about a poll result.

Like most moral standards, yes, it is. Morals can't be completely derived from axiomatic beliefs. Even the most rigid of mathematics now admits the possibility of completely distinct mathematical structures being consistent and reliable, but formed from different axioms. It doesn't mean that one is more "correct" or "mathematical" than the other. That was actually the problem with Euclid's Fifth Postulate, and the source of Gaussian and Riemannian geometries. when mathematicians realized that you could derive fundamentally distinct geometries from different postulates.

I'm afraid that moral conduct has _always_ been a matter largely of local opinion. Can you find any society or culture, or even people, where it is not?

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I'm afraid that moral conduct has _always_ been a matter largely of local opinion. Can you find any society or culture, or even people, where it is not?

My moral judgments don't change just because I move from place A to place B. If I don't have any moral objections to Uber in the US, that view doesn't change when I travel to the UK just because a majority of UK voters may disagree with me.

You're saying that certain moral judgments statistically prevail in certain regions. That's true, but it isn't defining of morality, it's merely an sociological phenomenon.

Morals can't be completely derived from axiomatic beliefs.

The axiomatic beliefs of morality are called "values"; that's what people differ on. Moral reasoning connects values with moral judgments in more complex situations, just like mathematical reasoning connects axioms with theorems.

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[Antique Geekmeister]

> The axiomatic beliefs of morality are called "values"; that's what people differ on. Moral reasoning connects values with moral judgments in more complex situations, just like mathematical reasoning connects axioms with theorems.

Oh, my. I'm uncertain at this point whether I'm being trolled, or whether you're actually convinced that "moral reasoning" can actually generate a complete set of morals _without_ social involvement by other people.

                  The first of these is moral sensitivity, which is "the ability to see an ethical dilemma, including how our actions will affect others"

That's not defined by axiom in a social vacuum. That's rooted in the _opinions_ of others, and it's at the level of "axioms" in mathematical reasoning. So please, if you can think of a single moral axiom by which you mathematically derive a moral stance. let's explore it and see where moral reasoning has led to an outrageous or even contradictory stance.

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Oh, my. I'm uncertain at this point whether I'm being trolled, or whether you're actually convinced that "moral reasoning" can actually generate a complete set of morals _without_ social involvement by other people.

We are discussing this statement:

What Uber is doing is wrong not because it's against the law, but because the laws it breaks are laws that the population in general see as being at least acceptable.

And I'm simply saying: what "the population in general" believes to be right or wrong is irrelevant to my moral judgments. In particular, as an American traveling to the UK, I may decide to respect UK law for practical reasons, but otherwise the majority beliefs of UK voters are completely irrelevant to me.

The fact that the society I grew up in influenced my moral judgments doesn't change that. And, in fact, the way the society I grew up in influenced my moral views wasn't by having me adopt the majority opinion either, but by rejecting that majority opinion in many areas.

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[swalve]

As if they could speak English.

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[swalve]

Uber is usually more expensive than taxi, no?

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[swalve]

Still, Uber is trying to get into the scene by not employing drivers (thus not paying taxes/healthcare for them) because it will be more profitable for them. But not for the city I live in and it's inhabitants.

Uber doesn't employ the drivers anywhere. They are a referral service and payment processor mostly. If the driver or the passenger don't pay their taxes properly, how is that Uber's fault?

Re:Apropos of nothing...

[Antique Geekmeister]

> And I'm simply saying: what "the population in general" believes to be right or wrong is irrelevant to my moral judgments. In particular, as an American traveling to the UK, I may decide to respect UK law for practical reasons, but otherwise the majority beliefs of UK voters are completely irrelevant to me.

So, what the population believes moral is irrelevant to your moral judgment.

> The fact that the society I grew up in influenced my moral judgments doesn't change that. And, in fact, the way the society I grew up in influenced my moral views wasn't by having me adopt the majority opinion either, but by rejecting that majority opinion in many areas.

Except that it is completely relevant to your moral judgment.

Please, I have to ask: Doesn't it _hurt_ when your logic gets reversed that fast?

Ueber's Janus face, a taxi sweatshop

[Anonymous Coward]

Ueber likes to promote itself as a happy camper ride along service, but is morphing more and more into a global taxi sweatshop.

No longer is it just take on somebody for a ride, but exploiting legal loopholes to employ taxi drivers without any benefits, dodging taxes etc, and keep full control over them.

Re:Ueber's Janus face, a taxi sweatshop

[dbIII]

Ueber likes to promote itself as a happy camper ride along service, but is morphing more and more into a global taxi sweatshop.

That's jut the PR wearing off. It never was anything other than a cheapskate taxi service.

Re:Ueber's Janus face, a taxi sweatshop

[halivar]

Totally off-topic: there is no umlaut in Uber, and therefore spelling it as Ueber is both needlessly pretentious and incorrect.

Re:Without government...

[Malc]

Err, why do you think that Uber is superior? Surge pricing during a Tube strike is a real bitch, as is the difficulty in arranging for a guaranteed 5am pick-up for the airport arranged the night before.

As a cyclist in London I've been having a lot of trouble recently with bad drivers all in Toyota Priuses with mobile phones on their dashboards. Simply coincidence that this has happened and got worse with the rise in popularity of Uber? These drivers are worse than the dickheads in the black Addison Lee vans. I'm all for some government regulation and taxation for these arseholes.

Re:Without government...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck the taxi cartels and the governments that support them.

You mean fuck the Dutch government for abolishing the taxi cartels in 2000 ?

Uber is as always trying to avoid the costs of running a business by skirting around proper insurance, standardised equipment and related local laws. Even if there was an artificially high cost of entry into the market (which I could find no hint of) it would be hard to keep an international giant like Uber from operating legally.

Re:Without government...

[Anonymous Coward]

Happens everywhere. I learned at a recent local meeting that a meth dealer bought a local trailer park with his meth proceeds. That's how it always worked. Kennedy family? Bootleggers. Smart organized criminals always bootstrap into legal businesses. "I'm a legitimate businessman". They find ways to make it happen.

An argument

[Okian Warrior]

How about, Time for tech companies to stop thinking local laws don't fucking apply to them. Either obey the law, fight to get the laws changed or get the fuck out of the market.

How about, "Time for taxi drivers to stop posting drivel and stop using "fuck" in every sentence?

The basis of law is justice. When laws are seen to be unjust, they are often struck down through the efforts of concerted civil disobedience. Prime examples are Rosa Parks not moving to the back of the bus, Martin Luthor's sit-ins, and the Boston Tea Party.

There, see that above? The section in bold? That's called an argument.

An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

You want abuse - that's room 12.

Re:An argument

[Anonymous Coward]

COMPANIES have no right to commit civil disobedience, only individuals can do that. For a company that just makes them a criminal organization.

Re: An argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Another example is Mafia during prohibition.

You are insulting MLK and Rosa Parks by comparing them to Uber. Mafia is much more appropriate comparison.

Re:An argument

[bloodhawk]

that is a fallacious argument. You have incorrectly associated an individuals right to civil disobedience with the rights of a company. A company is not a citizen and as such it cannot commit civil disobedience. The world would be a very bad place if companies got to decide on laws, companies don't have the individual consequences associated with civil disobedience.

Re:An argument

[Okian Warrior]

that is a fallacious argument. You have incorrectly associated an individuals right to civil disobedience with the rights of a company. A company is not a citizen and as such it cannot commit civil disobedience. The world would be a very bad place if companies got to decide on laws, companies don't have the individual consequences associated with civil disobedience.

Hmm...

So by that logic, the New York Times shouldn't have published the Pentagon Papers, and the Guardian shouldn't have published Edward Snowden's revelations.

Both of which were classified at the time.

Re:An argument

[KGIII]

I seem to recall them bitching about VW's antics in a recent thread. Odd... That's a pretty good analogy if you ask me. A company willfully violating the law in the name of profits? I don't think I can support that. What *is* disturbing is how many people will trot out Rosa Parks as an example. Funny, I never see them trot out Pablo Escobar or MS13.

Re: An argument

[stafil]

I'll just leave this here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

Re:An argument

[bloodhawk]

So you jump from one fallacious argument to another one to try and justify the behavior. Freedom of the press is not the same as civil disobedience which is not the same as a company ignoring laws.

Re: An argument

[stafil]

Oops. Meant to be a link to false analogy.

Re:An argument

[Malc]

The world would be a very bad place if companies got to decide on laws

Isn't this precisely what people are suggesting some of the provisions in the TTIP deal will allow, where corporations will be able to sue governments despite their democratic mandate?

Re:An argument

[Hognoxious]

Martin Luthor's

... brother Lex was always the naughty one.

Re:An argument

[Chris Johnson]

Yes, indeed it is. Uber will be able to sue Germany, and so on, and countries will not get to function democratically and make their own rules within their borders.

Uber clearly is getting a running head-start on how they'll act on that day, which is predictable.

I doubt they'll do the most damage, but it's fascinating to see how libertarian fantasies of 'disrupt everything!' play out in reality.

Re:An argument

[drinkypoo]

Freedom of the press is not the same as civil disobedience

The only potential difference is the purpose. But remember, we live under capitalism. Making money is a necessary activity if you do not want to be relegated to nonperson status. Laws which stand in the way of making money but to no good end are effectively an assault. I'm all for more socialism, but let's not pretend we aren't living in the system we are living in. It is corrupt, it is based on who has the most money and power, and it doesn't give a fuck about you.

which is not the same as a company ignoring laws.

If the laws are bad laws which harm the people, then while the motivation may be different, the outcome is the same for us. Better, actually, because they take the risk.

Re:An argument

[drinkypoo]

I doubt they'll do the most damage, but it's fascinating to see how libertarian fantasies of 'disrupt everything!' play out in reality.

What's more disruptive than nations? Every major war has been carried out by a nation. I'm not proposing that corporations wouldn't make war if they could, of course. If you eliminated nations tomorrow, something else would rise up to replace them, and only corporations are so organized as to make it happen.

Re:An argument

[drinkypoo]

The world would be a very bad place if companies got to decide on laws, companies don't have the individual consequences associated with civil disobedience.

IF? What color is the sky on your planet? On this one, the corporations buy legislation. Any free space over there?

Re:An argument

[edtice1559]

Again Rosa Parks openly admitted that what she did was illegal. She didn't do it for profit. And she was willing to go to jail. If Uber did those three things (with the execs going to jail, not the drivers), you would have a point. Rosa Parks acted to improve society. Uber acts to improve their bottom line. The two are not comparable in any way.

Re:An argument

[david_thornley]

Bad examples, as in the US publishing classified materials you received through no wrongdoing of your own is legal.

You might want to look at journalists going to jail to protect sources, and their employers doing their best to assist and support them.

Re:An argument

[thegarbz]

COMPANIES have no right to commit civil disobedience, only individuals can do that. For a company that just makes them a criminal organization.

Companies are a person don't you remember?
I like the way you say someone does or does not have the right to commit civil disobedience. It's almost like the whole point of the law in the first place means that no one has that as a "right".

Re:Without government...

[Anonymous Coward]

Err, why do you think that Uber is superior? Surge pricing during a Tube strike is a real bitch, as is the difficulty in arranging for a guaranteed 5am pick-up for the airport arranged the night before.

As a cyclist in London I've been having a lot of trouble recently with bad drivers all in Toyota Priuses with mobile phones on their dashboards. Simply coincidence that this has happened and got worse with the rise in popularity of Uber? These drivers are worse than the dickheads in the black Addison Lee vans. I'm all for some government regulation and taxation for these arseholes.

Because the alternative to Uber and surge pricing is nobody being there to pick you up... ...due to artificial scarcity of "government approved" taxis

Now rong utterly wrong

[aepervius]

" (read: without the authorities earning money from the practice)" no that is called breaking the law. You may not like the law, but it is the law.Work to have it repelled or Stuff up. Break the law ? Then get what's coming at you. How worked up would you be if companies started seeing EPA or FDA rules as "stuff the authorities made up for earning money from the practice" ? Like for example checking for salmonella in peanut butter and withdrawing it from circulation if contaminated ? Same difference, the dutch have law. respect them or GTFO.

Re:Now rong utterly wrong

[Daetrin]

I agree with your sentiments entirely! Your punctuation, or more particularly the use/non-use of white space around the punctuation... not so much.

Re:Without government...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more than that, and you know it. Uber are choosing to have their drivers operate outside the local rules. Their drivers do not have insurance for passengers, and they do not have full background checks performed. So fuck yourself instead, moron.

Uber are more than welcome to compete, but like all the other companies, they have to adhere to the local laws. They have a system that works, they merely need to play by the rules.

Don't like the laws? The fuck off back to Murica, you won't be missed.

Re: Without government...

[Malc]

Maybe in your area, but that's not my experience. Their prices and availability are so random that it's not reasonable to make plans around them. I can imagine how much worse they'd get if they didn't have to compete with regular taxi and private hire car firms.

a law bad ior good is a law

[aepervius]

I felt she went the correct way, protested, then the law was repelled by ballot. Now it is up to ubber. If they want to pretend doing civil right, good for them, but they WILL get the law punishment. Up to them to prove in appeal court it was a civil right matter or a civil protest. good luck on that one. Civil protest means that you are intentionally breaking the law and accept the consequence. Good for them. But it is still breaking the law.

Re:Without government...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whilst about it, we should also give Volkswagen a break.

Re:Without government...

[N1AK]

Who would stop people from buying superior transportation services on a voluntary basis?

For every example I hear of of government/'the taxi industry' trying to unfairly crush Uber there's another example of Uber blatantly ignoring safety/insurance etc laws that seem to be pretty widely supported. Maybe they'd get more sympathy when unfair things happen to them if they weren't dicks half the time.

Also, as frustrating as the occasional anti-Uber posters are they have nothing on the pro-Uber zealots who jump on anything that doesn't go exactly how Uber wants as part of some unfair global conspiracy and government interfering.

Why don't they offer B2B services?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been wondering for about a year now, what is holding Uber back to go out to Taxi companies and offer their service to them? Seems like a huge win-win-win as all the normal Taxi backend services suck... And the law issue would be solved.

"without the authorities earning money from it"

[Anonymous Coward]

> read: without the authorities earning money from the practice

Nice bit of editorialising there.

Re:Without government...

[Zorpheus]

You can't just go into countries and ignore their rules with your service. Especially ignoring the safety rules does not make you friends, and that taxi cartel story is also only true in half of the countries.

Lovely flamebait in summary...

[denzacar]

and fresh allegations that the company would act as a "criminal organization" by offering a platform for taxi rides without license (read: without the authorities earning money from the practice)

Nice one there.

Get the anti-gubermint crowd by emphasizing the criminal organization definition of Uber.
(YEAH! Fuck you Holland and your German laws! You don't get to decide what constitutes a legal definition of a criminal organization in your country!).

Then get the pro-regulation crowd by insinuating that paying taxes, tariffs etc. and submitting to regulation is somehow just a legal racket by "the authorities".
(YEAH! Fuck you regulatory gubermint bodies! I WANT to live in a Blade Runner-like dystopia. Minus the tech, replicants, flying cars, Vangelis soundtrack and unicorns.)

It's almost as if both the "anonymous reader" and Soulskill love watching their mom being double-teamed so much they just can't get the idea of getting it both ways out of their head.
What? It's a flamebait story and topic.
Decorum and protocol dictate the mention of management's and submitters Nazi whore mothers.

Re:Without government...

[Zorpheus]

You just call the taxi company the day before and they will be there. If you tried to book it right at 5am you could hit scarcity.

Greenwheels comply with the law

[Anonymous Coward]

Dutch Taxis don't suck, it's a well regulated market, they're clean, consistent and safe.They're also well integrated into the public transport system. And Netherlands has a bunch of laws you have to comply with.

Uber has its own rules, and its own codes, and surge pricing and fake maps and god view spy app, and so on, and none of this fits in within the laws of the Netherlands.

There are car sharing companies that comply with Dutch law, e.g. GreenWheels is all across Holland. Uber just needs to stop behaving like babies and comply with taxi laws for their taxi service. (And lets not pretend that it isn't a taxi service, because no judge will be followed by that).

https://www.greenwheels.com/global/

Re:Greenwheels comply with the law

[ziphnab]

I agree. When I compare the actual service I get in the average taxi compared to before 2000 (when the current regulation was instated) things have improved markedly, at least here in Amsterdam. It's expensive, but then, it always was, even before the current regulations, at least now there's some associated costs that justify the price.

Common Carriers

[MrKaos]

We've all been through it - can't get a cab. It's sometime AM, you need a cab and the driver refuses to take you. From my understanding of 'Common Carrier' law it is illegal for them to refuse a fare, just as much as it is illegal for Uber to operate.

Taxi operations are used to having all of the power and now that Uber has come along (despite some minor reservations I have with the service) I'm glad they are kicking the Taxi industries ass. I've noticed that now Taxis have improved their service because Uber is here.

I suspect that once Uber is gone - Taxi services will become much worse. If Uber is going to be banned then I would like to see the penalties for the Taxi industry increase because if they did what they were supposed to do, then Uber would not exist.

Re:Common Carriers

[drinkypoo]

We've all been through it - can't get a cab. It's sometime AM, you need a cab and the driver refuses to take you.

Or you call a cab, and they refuse to send one, because you're only going halfway across town and they have larger fares to hunt. It happened to me twice in Santa Cruz that they wouldn't send me a cab. I called, I asked for a cab, they literally said "no" and hung up. Taxis are shit and people who defend them are idiots as the licensing schemes do absolutely none of the things they are supposed to do.

Re:Common Carriers

[rjstanford]

And if you log and report that, they will be fined - seriously. And then they'll be less likely to do it again. Of course, complaining about it on /. doesn't actually help much.

Re:Common Carriers

[MrKaos]

And if you log and report that, they will be fined - seriously. And then they'll be less likely to do it again. Of course, complaining about it on /. doesn't actually help much.

Ok, that's interesting, so I did check it out and you are right there is a taxi complaint hotline in my city.

Re:Without government...

[jklovanc]

Because the alternative to Uber and surge pricing is nobody being there to pick you up...

That sounds much the Yogi Berra saying "Nobody goes there because it is too crowded".

Biased, are we?

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough of this bullshit. I don't care if Uber is the best thing since sliced bread -- they are breaking laws and deserve to be punished for it. They're not engaging in civil disobedience for the sake of human rights, they are unfairly competing with law-abiding businesses for the sake of profit. Laws need to be changed in the courts, not the streets.

Just because you like the service is no excuse to leave logic on the table and whine about the evil government interference of corporate greed.

Re:Biased, are we?

[tippen]

Like copyright laws? How many of you whining about Uber download music without paying for it? Do you argue so strongly that copyrights should be respected and music has to be paid for until the law is changed?

Re:Without government...

[Cyberax]

Lol! I've missed planes several times because taxi companies were not able to provide transportation, even though I arranged it well in advance. And they are not responsible for anything - after all, what are you going to do?

It's so sad

[Roodvlees]

Government has been struggling and failing miserably to organize taxi's in a decent way for so long. Now a great way to organize comes along and what do they do? Makes you think all that struggling was just to sell taxi licenses. The best solution would obviously be to buyback all the licenses and let everybody work through an Uber-like system. But that would cost money...

Re:Without government...

[ziphnab]

Mostly, the 'taxiwet' (cab law) was instated as a quality assurance mechanism. A way to ensure that a driver actualy knew his way around town and wouldn't (at least inadvertently) rip off his passengers. Currently, the law is being changed to allow for companies like Uber to compete effectively, but there's still a prequisite for drivers to hand over a 'VOG', which is wat for an employer to check if a (possibly future) employee has broken any laws in their field in the past, it costs a whooping 25 euro's and can only be requested by the individual themselves as a security measure.Taxi drivers also need to pass a competencytest, something Uber has stated that they would do, but has been trying to circumvent ever since by running a 'darknet' version of Uber limiting the people who could actualy use it to avoid being caught circumventing this requirement.

Re: Without government...

[Asha2004]

Actually the Dutch taxi market is pretty open nowadays, with several thousand not affiliated taxis in Amsterdam only. But the Netherlands is a pretty regulated country. For driving a taxi for example you need a license (easily obtainable) and there are fixed tariff regulations. Obviously Uber drivers have no such license and don't comply with the tariff regulation. I don't know any democratic nation where an organization which actively organizes and supports activities which don't comply with the law is not seen as a criminal organization.
Doesn't mean that Uber won't be seen as a kind of emancipationary club somewhere down the line. But now...

Re:Without government...

[radja]

Uber is allowed to operate in the Netherlands. It's only the UberPop services that are illegal, other parts of uber are not illegal or contested.

Re: Without government...

[Anonymous Coward]

Murder yourself AND bury yourself. It's called "initiative" and "self-reliance". Do you seriously believe someone should do the murdering and burying for you?

without Europe

[harvey the nerd]

Europe is going extinct or replaced by real throat cutting criminal species. Who cares.

Re:without Europe

[nikkipolya]

Ireland, Greece have gone bust. Italy, Portugal, Spain are all on the brink. Other's are in line... I do not know of one serious large tech company from Europe. SAP is the biggest low-tech company at around $20 Billion. That is immediately followed by Dassault at $3 Billion. If you ignore CapGemini which is actually an IT sweat shop. That's it. over.

Re: without Europe

[bohmt]

ARM?

Re:without Europe

[Maritz]

Other's are in line...

Clearly, you know what you're talking about and should be taken seriously.

Re:without Europe

[KingMotley]

VW at 220m, ING at 150m, Diamler at 148m, Fiat, BASF, BMW, Nestle, Deutsche Bank, Vodaphone, Bosch, Barclays, Renault, Nokia, Bayer, Volvo, Philips, Ericsson, Christian Dior, Michelin, Accenture are all pretty big too.

Re:without Europe

[KingMotley]

Sorry, that should have been VW at 220 billion, and ING at 150 billion, and Diamler at 148 billion, my bad.

No 13...

[denzacar]

people will trot out Rosa Parks as an example. Funny, I never see them trot out Pablo Escobar or MS13.

This is Slashdot.

There's no 13 and MS is spelled M$. Tagged with a "Billgatus of Borg" icon.
In a story about M$ "just practicing civil disobedience". You know... like Mussolini.

HA! You thought I was gonna say Hitler.

Re: Without government...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, we should. Before it gets out of hand, we need some realpolitik thinking. Volkswagen is simply too big to fail and destroying the German car-manufacturing industry would strangle in the cradle any hope of recovery for Europe. By all means put an end to the shrill, childish tantrums and listen to reason: we cannot afford the financial backlash and the army of unemployed, not to mention the billions in lost tax revenue. Unless you want the EU to turn into an impoverished wasteland of course, which may well be the goal of American policy.

Re:Without government...

[Zorpheus]

Ok this surely differs between countries. We still have competition between different taxi companies in UK and Germany, so I think this does not happen too often. Where you from?

Re:Without government...

[gnupun]

But since the existing taxi companies and governments have zero interest in improving taxi services, doesn't that mean we'll have no innovation in transportation for hundreds of years? What procedure does the govt offer for new companies to test and sell their services. They should create a quota to allow new, innovative transportation services to come into existence.

"Without the authorities earning money"

[Exitar]

Why should they be allowed to not pay taxes?

Re:Without government...

[dbIII]

You can't just go into countries and ignore their rules with your service.

That is exactly what they have done and making friends with the top end of town in each place is how they have done it. It's a bit much seeing them act like everywhere is a third world shithole with easily bribed officials, and even worse when it seems to be working.
It's not so much capitalism at work as medieval style oligarchy - if it were possible to have dozens of Uber clones instead of this thing bulldozing it's way through that would be actual capitalism with real competition and nothing to worry about.

Perfect Timing

[JimSadler]

This comes the same day as Amazon announces an Uber like service for package deliveries to the home. Want something from Wall Mart? It will be waiting for the Uber driver to deliver it to your door.

Re:Perfect Timing

[GlennC]

Want something from Wall Mart? It will be waiting for the Uber driver to deliver it to your door.

Want it delivered in one piece? That will be an extra charge.

Re:Perfect Timing

[plopez]

Amazon Flex won't release their contract. My email exchange with them resulted in this reply:

"When you come to our onboarding session and download the app, you can review the Terms of Service. "

Why should I make any sort of commitment before seeing the contract? What if I have to sign an NDA so I canot share the information? They could easily post it on their website, after all they are a tech company. I feel like they do not want to deal on a level playing field with me.

Re:Perfect Timing

[jcr]

I'd take Uber over the USPS any day of the week.

-jcr

Re: Without government...

[Anonymous Coward]

This, a thousand times over. We Europeans above all should understand the need for rationality over appeal to emotions. Responsible adults do not listen to children tantrums when deciding what's best for the family: they know what the priorities are. In this case, we must ignore the children states of Europe (Italy and Greece in particular) and refuse cooperation with the US authorities. We cannot allow the US to dictate EU policy. This is obviously a move to punish Germany and to instill fear in the EU governments and institutions by threatening to damage our industry. It is imperative to immediately silence the press and stop any further attempts to influence public opinion. Democracy is about giving people what they really need, not what they want: in this case, they need a working economy and jobs. Harming the German car industry is counterproductive to the EU populace's interests, and that's that.

This is why we can't have nice things

[dbIII]

I see Uber as some pricks driven by greed who are going to inspire laws that will make it illegal for passengers to put in for fuel money on long trips.
Ride sharing has been around for a very long time (even via the net) and has been fine, until now some leeches are getting involved, taking a cut and deliberately stirring up governments.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things

[dave420]

Something I feel should be pointed out: there is absolutely nothing in common between ride sharing and Uber, except a car and more than one person is involved.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things

[dbIII]

They are using the illusion of ride-sharing to do an end run around taxi regulations.

Re:Without government...

[tlambert]

Err, why do you think that Uber is superior? Surge pricing during a Tube strike is a real bitch, as is the difficulty in arranging for a guaranteed 5am pick-up for the airport arranged the night before.

Quit having 'tube strikes'?

Problem solved.

If bribery works for anyone...

[tlambert]

It's a bit much seeing them act like everywhere is a third world shithole with easily bribed officials, and even worse when it seems to be working.

If bribery works for anyone... then they are right, and your country is a third world shithole.

Instead of arguing about whether or not you live in a third world shithole, fix it.

Re:If bribery works for anyone...

[SpinyManiac]

Bribery works everywhere. Every country can't be in the third world.

Re:'criminal organisation' is Uber's business mode

[Anonymous Coward]

The criminal business model is indeed one of the essential features of a criminal organization in the Netherlands, but that classification (art. 140 of the criminal code) has individual consequences only, as partaking in one carries a max jail sentence of 6 years (or 8 years for leaders).

The fact that Uber is incorporated is irrelevant for that classification (which may apply to anything from motorcycle gangs to taking part in Facebook-organized riots), although it will surely be prohibited for being an essential part of that criminal organization. First we will have to see whether the courts agree with this application of art. 140.

No federal shield law.

[tlambert]

Freedom of the press is not the same as civil disobedience which is not the same as a company ignoring laws.

Point of order: there are no federal shield laws for journalists in the U.S.. Just because there is freedom of the press written into the bill of rights, does not mean that you can not be held legally accountable for what you print.

The common argument is "yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater", which is commonly misinterpreted as stating that the yelling itself is illegal; it is not, it is protected by "freedom of speech"; the consequences *may* however be something you can have your ass thrown into jail over.

A freedom to do something is no protection from social enforcement of the consequences of you exercising that freedom. That is pretty much the very definition of "civil disobedience".

Rosa Parks was, in fact, arrested for her act of civil disobedience on 1 December 1955.

Re:No federal shield law.

[JesseMcDonald]

A freedom to do something is no protection from social enforcement of the consequences of you exercising that freedom.

Ridiculous. By that argument, everyone has the freedom to do absolutely anything they want—they might just get thrown in jail if it happens to violate a law. This makes a mockery of the very word "freedom".

If the law says that an action can lead to you being put in jail, fined, or otherwise deprived of your legal rights, you aren't free to do it. "Free" means "no strings attached". Within the legal domain, naturally; the freedom of speech has never included protection against possible social consequences. Others have every right to respond with speech of their own, or to withhold their support or association depending on how they feel about what you've said.

It's funny how everyone turns to the "fire in a crowded theater" case when discussing the limits of freedom of speech, because in addition to being logically unsound, that ruling was politically motivated with the clear intent of suppressing political speech by war protesters (Schenck v. United States). In other words, exactly the opposite of what freedom of speech is supposed to stand for, even by the strictest standards.

If the speech is false, and deliberately intended to manipulate others as tools for causing harm, not by their choice but by the choice of the speaker, and the actions these others chose to take based on the speech would not have been harmful if the speech had been true—then we can discuss whether a punishment is justified, not for the speech per se but for the harm that the speaker deliberately set out to achieve. But "(falsely) shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" is not that case. Whatever the speaker's intent, the actions of the listeners were not reasonable or justified even by the standard of what they believed to be true, and it is those unjustifiable actions which resulted in the harm, not the false speech.

Re:No federal shield law.

[tlambert]

A freedom to do something is no protection from social enforcement of the consequences of you exercising that freedom.

Ridiculous. By that argument, everyone has the freedom to do absolutely anything they want—they might just get thrown in jail if it happens to violate a law. This makes a mockery of the very word "freedom".

Nevertheless.

Daniel Ellsberg with conspiracy, espionage and theft of government property for his disclosure of the Pentagon Papers. Ellsberg later got off on a procedural technicality resulting from disclosures by the "Plumbers" group members during the investigation of the Watergate scandal.

If you want similar cases where journalists have been jailed for what they've published, look no further than Josh Wolf, Judith Miller, Jim Taricani, Vanessa Leggett, Timothy Crews, James Risen, Glenn Greenwald, Janine Gibson, Eric Lichtlau, and so on (some were merely threatened with censure; others were actually jailed -- all of them since 2000.

The thing that's currently protecting Glenn Greenwald is the backlash that the government would suffer now that he's won the Pultizer.

There's a big difference between "can lead to negative consequences" and "will lead to negative consequeces", or even "would a reasonable person *expect* it to lead to negative consequences -- which is the actual measure taken by the courts.

Yeah, there should be shield laws. There are some at the state level, but for the most part, journalistic speech is *not* protected from government suppression.

Re:Without government...

[Shadow of Eternity]

Don't forget Uber does behave like an outright criminal organization with the way they intentionally sabotage competition.

Re:Without government...

[Dr_Barnowl]

Huh?

Both private hire cars and black cabs are required to display an ID number for exactly the same reasons. A complaint can get their license suspended.

It's just easier to do it to an Uber because you can do it right from the app.

> Rates are fair

The rates for standard taxis are strictly regulated and controlled. Uber rates vary when Uber thinks they should (e.g. surge pricing during tube strikes).

Re:Without government...

[thegarbz]

This. I'm in support of some of the rules Uber is skirting. But tax evasion and misclassification of workers so they don't need to pay entitlements is the point where I say screw em.

Re:Without government...

[gsslay]

People on slashdot go all moist about Uber because they love the technology it uses. They don't care that Uber also ignores all the laws put there to protect passengers and drivers.

The solution is for proper taxi firms to use the same technology. It's not unusual for the established organisations to be slow off the mark on these things, and for an upstart new-entrant to make the running. If Uber was just adding tech to the business that would be great, but they also decided to break the regulations that are there for good reason. And why are they doing that? Not for anyone else's benefit. But because it's cheaper and easier for them to pretend the rules don't apply to them.

Re:Without government...

[jeremyp]

Uber cars ... don't try to cheat you at every step.

Right....

http://justanotherpointstravel...

Re:Without government...

[cmdr_tofu]

I don't think the Dutch police raiding Uber offices qualify as hippies. I think requiring drivers to have licenses is a good thing. The same with restaurant owners, and taxis. And if they don't play by rules their licenses get revoked.

In my state one of the requirements of getting a taxi license is that you have been driving (with a driver's license) more than 60 days and that you have a clean criminal record. Further you have to take a class that shows 1) you know how to read a map 2) you know are familiar with the region/geography 3) you know defensive driving techniques 4) you know how to provide emergency aid in an accident.

OMG this bureaucracy is hurting innovation!!! I want to be able to have criminals who don't know how to drive or read maps give me a ride! That will invariably work better, because when you have a surge of incompetent taxi drivers congesting your city streets, "the market" will cause people to leave your city and move some place where they have decent regulations.

Shooting the messenger?

[dbIII]

It is being fixed where I live and Uber is getting fined and forced to play by the rules or get out so your insult is misplaced.
What was the point of your insult anyway? If you are just doing it to try to prove you are better than some stranger on the internet then that is a very pitiful state of affairs.

Re:Shooting the messenger?

[tlambert]

It is being fixed where I live and Uber is getting fined and forced to play by the rules or get out so your insult is misplaced.
What was the point of your insult anyway? If you are just doing it to try to prove you are better than some stranger on the internet then that is a very pitiful state of affairs.

No, the point was to correctly place "bribery works" as a measure of "shithole-ness" in context relative to the designations "first world vs. second world vs. third world". Being in the "third world" doesn't make some place a "shithole"; bribery working there as a normal part of the process *does*, most assuredly, make some place a "shithole".

Re:Shooting the messenger?

[dbIII]

Yet it was done by putting down where I live instead of addressing the issue in any way at all. Is your life truly that pathetic that you feel a need to express dominance over strangers in that way?

Re:Shooting the messenger?

[dbIII]

Let's turn that back on you - is Uber violating the law where you live but no action has been taken against them? What does that make where you live by your own (very stupid) definition?

Re:Shooting the messenger?

[tlambert]

Let's turn that back on you - is Uber violating the law where you live but no action has been taken against them? What does that make where you live by your own (very stupid) definition?

No, Uber, the B2C *ride sharing* negotiation service, which takes a cut from the *contractor* offering to *share* their car for $$$ via the Uber *negotiation service* is /NOT/ breaking the law in San Francisco.

Or San Francisco would be collecting $100 a pop for any Uber logo'ed car with passengers other than the driver, because that the fine for operating a gypsy cab in San Francisco.

Therefore, the city of San Francisco is /tacitly stating/ that Uber is /NOT/ a Taxi service.

And believe me, the traffic and parking enforcement people in San Francisco are greedy bastards; if they felt they could legally collect those fines -- they'd do it. An expired parking meter costs you $76 + fees (which are not cheap): https://www.sfmta.com/sites/de...

Re:Without government...

[Talderas]

I'll be honest. I don't think I would particularly care who cleans my dead body out of my apartment. I'm dead.

Re:Without government...

[Ayanami_R]

The new service can go talk to them. Pretty simple.

Re:Without government...

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Err, why do you think that Uber is superior? Surge pricing during a Tube strike is a real bitch, as is the difficulty in arranging for a guaranteed 5am pick-up for the airport arranged the night before.

Well, if surge pricing and guaranteed 5am pickups are "a bitch", then why don't you use regular Taxi service? Nobody is forcing you to use Uber.

Re:Without government...

[Luckyo]

I'm European, specifically a Finn. I've never had taxi miss a reserved time. Their responsibility if they do is in fact written into the law, and I have a right under customer protection legislation to demand recompense if they clearly accepted the order.

Of course, around here taxi companies are considered part of public transit infrastructure, and are also tasked with things like driving children in sparsely populated rural areas to schools, ferrying elderly and disabled and so on. They're expensive, but you get the quality you pay for.

I suspect the reason why you have these complaints is because there isn't enough regulation on taxi services in your country.

Re:Without government...

[Luckyo]

How dare working people have any rights.

Re: Without government...

[Luckyo]

Most European countries have some sort of a scheme that mandates that employers pay at least a part of employee's healthcare.

That's one of the rules Uber typically doesn't follow.

Re:Without government...

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The rates for standard taxis are strictly regulated and controlled. Uber rates vary when Uber thinks they should (e.g. surge pricing during tube strikes).

If you like the pricing and quality of regular Taxi service, great, just use it! How do your preferences justify outlawing the kind of transportation service I prefer?

Re: Without government...

[Luckyo]

Problem with VW, is that it doesn't play by European rules either. No shiny knight BS here. It's going to get nailed for its shenanigans in Europe just as much as it will in US.

Here in Finland, customer protection laws are so strong that they may require VW to actually buy relevant cars back from customers if they cannot provide appropriate compensation.

Re:Without government...

[TapeCutter]

jcr, you're a regular poster as am I, you're a level headed guy, but as an ex taxi driver I have to say you have your head up your arse on this one.

IMO Uber are the worst kind of rent seeker, the kind that prey on people who are desperate enough to sign up as a driver. Uber's over-inflated "market value" has to collapse because at some point the "market" will become bored with the legal battles over 'freedom' and want a real ROI. I don't have any pity for the investors, just the honest drivers who go in with a reliable car and no money, and come out a year or two later with an unroadworthy clunker, and still no money.

If you think I'm exaggerating, the oldest taxi I ever drove was 5yrs off the showroom floor, it had 1.1 million kilometers on the clock, only the body work was original, even the seat sliders had been replaced at least once. Unless the Uber driver is also a mechanic, it would be cheaper for them to buy a 'runout-model' used car once a year. Most taxi's are a one man / one car operations, they lease/rent it to another regular driver or two to keep it on the road 24X7, and buying a 'new' car once every year or so is how they handle the entropy problem. They don't earn a lot of money, the 'plates' (medallion in the US) is the taxi owner's superannuation. The "hidden costs" are the reason Uber refuses to play by the rules, driving a cab doesn't pay enough to satisfy them so they insert themselves in the middle, they even "generously" offer to pay the drivers fines while at the same time offloading all the real costs onto the poor sap.

Also they are not a 'taxi' company as they would like you to think, in most places they are a traditional 'limo' company using sub-contractors, fuck me they were around when I was driving in the 80's, nobody had heard of the internet but we did have phones. Limos can't be flagged down, nor can they use taxi rank infrastructure. Using sub-contractors and ordering it on a computer is hardly revolutionary, so it's not the regulations that are broken, it's Uber's business model. For good reasons it was illegal before the internet was born, "on a computer" doesn't change that.

Again, I'm genuinely surprised you have swallowed Uber's 'hipster' marketing.

Re:Without government...

[drinkypoo]

People on slashdot go all moist about Uber because they love the technology it uses. They don't care that Uber also ignores all the laws put there to protect passengers and drivers.

There aren't any of those which are meaningful in most countries. Driving taxi is more dangerous for the driver than for passengers, and most of us have experienced taxis and taxi companies breaking the law and they don't generally get punished for it.

Re:Without government...

[drinkypoo]

Their drivers do not have insurance for passengers,

Uber provides such insurance while a passenger is being carried

and they do not have full background checks performed

Neither do real taxi companies, in most cases. They use shitty background checks that are fucking worthless. People still get assaulted by taxi drivers... only far less than taxi drivers get assaulted by fares. It's far more dangerous to be a driver than to get in a car with one.

Re:Without government...

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

People on slashdot go all moist about Uber because they love the technology it uses. They don't care that Uber also ignores all the laws put there to protect passengers and drivers.

Uber "ignores" nothing; they are a broker between private riders and private ride providers. Everybody knows what they are getting and that the usual "protections" from a government-licensed taxi service don't apply.

The solution is for proper taxi firms to use the same technology.

No, "the solution" is what we already have in effect in many places: that government licensing of taxis is voluntary. If the government licensing is worth anything, ride operators will all want to get it because their customers demand it. If the taxi licensing is useless, people will simply ignore it.

break the regulations that are there for good reason

You haven't named a "good reason" yet.

Re: Without government...

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is outlawing Uber. That is a false allegation. Uber is, and always has been, an illegal service. They knowingly and willingly disregarded the laws applying to pretty much every aspect of their business, and now are playing the unjustly persecuted role because those laws are being enforced after repeated warnings that they would be.

Re: Without government...

[GrantRobertson]

Whoosh.....

Re:Without government...

[Antique Geekmeister]

The "Fittest" would set up a government within about 30 minutes of the Anarchic revolution, to stabilize and protect their immediate family, clan, city, state, etc.

Re: Without government...

[TapeCutter]

Do you seriously believe someone should do the murdering and burying for you?

Yep, I've seen a lot of mafia movies, and I have "dug ditches" for a living as a young bloke. Digging your own grave looks like hard yakka to me, so fuck it, just shoot me, I'm not going to work for you at gunpoint.

Re:Without government...

[gsslay]

Everybody knows what they are getting and that the usual "protections" from a government-licensed taxi service don't apply.

Really? I don't believe this to be true, and your argument from this point on fails because of it. Everyone doesn't know that they are not getting the protection of a licensed taxi. Maybe they don't know anything about Uber other than it provides what they understand to be taxis. Maybe their friend ordered the car and they think they're getting in a taxi?

And there are many regulations that people are legally not allowed to "opt out" of. For instance, I'm sure that many would be happy to build their house without following building regulations. Much cheaper. But they're not given that option. Many would be happy to accept a supply of gas from an unregulated supplier. All those rules add to the cost, and if you're prepared to accept the risks why not? Except the law is sometimes there to protect people from their own folly.

Re:Without government...

[tburkhol]

Uber "ignores" nothing; they are a broker between private riders and private ride providers. Everybody knows what they are getting and that the usual "protections" from a government-licensed taxi service don't apply.

Uber uses software to allow them to behave like taxis while being legally characterized as "black cab," "car service," or "limosine." Drivers in these legal categories have to meet different requirements and have different limitations on their business freedom, some of which could be considered relics of technologically different times. Uber is disruptive because it performs the on-demand function of a taxi while holding the business flexibility (ie: flexible rates, passenger screening) of a car service.

Eventually, regulations will catch up with the technology. Uber will be absorbed into Taxi-like classification and allowed to pick up airport passengers, or the distinctions among small, for-hire transport will be reduced, and these entities will be able to compete fairly.

Re:Without government...

[Anonymous Coward]

And there are many regulations that people are legally not allowed to "opt out" of. For instance, I'm sure that many would be happy to build their house without following building regulations. Much cheaper. But they're not given that option.

Yes, another rip-off by which a politically well connected group of businesses enriches itself, responsible for needlessly driving up housing prices and putting people into poverty. And the irony is, of course, that wealthy people are least affected by that, while poorer people are forced to ignore the regulations but essentially end up as law breakers as a result.

Oh, cut the crap already. Building codes putting people into poverty? Seriously? Haven't you ever seen on the news stories about apartment building collapses in less-developed countries? Hundreds killed in nightclub because sprinklers weren't up to code? Let's put aluminium wiring throughout our house because it's cheaper than copper! Let's build our house with straw for the first floor and stone for the second and just hope it doesn't collapse and kill us?

Re:Without government...

[Cederic]

It's far more dangerous to be a driver than to get in a car with one.

Yes, but I'm not going to assault a taxi driver, and I'm not a taxi driver, so the risk to them is entirely fucking irrelevant to my choice of transportation. The risk to me on the other hand is not.

Re:'criminal organisation' is Uber's business mode

[xaxa]

Oh, and nice bit of LOLbertarian bias in the summary.

The best bit FTA "A leaked copy of the rules for consultation"... which is available online, at https://consultations.tfl.gov.... , TfL

Re:Without government...

[iwbcman]

For those of you on slashdot who would have the audacity to not be familiar with how things in America are:

1) 3/4 of Americans have probably never ridden in a Taxi. Unless you live in one of a handful of major metropolitan areas chances are you have never used a taxi service. Most American cities do not have Taxi stands, if they have one it is at the airport, this is in part because most American cities have virtually no pedestrians, other than those Other people. Taxis in most American cities are highly unreliable and one cannot simply hail a Taxi.

2) 3/4 of Americans do not use any form of public transportation. With very few exceptions American cities have the worst public transit accommodations in the civilized world. 200 of 330 million Americans do not live within 50 miles of passenger train service, and if you count frequent passenger train service access you can bump that number up to 250 million people. Less than 50 million people live in cities which have subways, trams or trolleys. Public transportation is the city bus, and those are only for those Other people.

3) The vast majority of Americans rarely walk anywhere except to and from their cars, except for the occasional walk in a park. Housing is situated such that there are no local businesses and one must compete with 6 and 8 lane wide intersections, and god forbid you ever try to make use of pedestrian crossing light/zone. Most residential areas built in last 30 years don't even have sidewalks, zero public transportation, and no bike routes.

4) Those Other people are not "real Americans"(TM). They are inner city urban dwellers, they are poor, don't have cars, or money for gas or insurance and must walk ungodly amounts in maintenance of their daily lives. The only europeans who have have ever walked as much as those Other people are people who have gone on pilgrimages.

"Real Americans"(TM) have cars, live in the suburbs and have a deep abiding disdain for any and everything public. Luckily the under 35 group is starting to challenge some of what has been described here, and perhaps before I die, they will actually change things.

America, land of the free, home of the brave, where sociopathy is more than just a way of life.

Re:Without government...

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Eventually, regulations will catch up with the technology. Uber will be absorbed into Taxi-like classification and allowed to pick up airport passengers, or the distinctions among small, for-hire transport will be reduced,

True, that is what will happen.

and these entities will be able to compete fairly

What you call "fair competition" is simply a compromise between free market choice and crony capitalism.

Re:Without government...

[rickb928]

Yeah, fuck the gubment and all their silly rules.

That I can support.

Re:Without government...

[rickb928]

"Err, why do you think that Uber is superior? Surge pricing during a Tube strike is a real bitch"

Ah, so Uber functioning despite a Tube strike is a real bitch?

Only now, as a cyclist in London, you're having a lot of trouble with cars? Consider taking the Tube? Yeah, I know why not. Try being a cyclist in Manhattan.

Re:Without government...

[GlennC]

...my first-hand experience tells me that they beat taxis all to hell.

That comment also appears to say that you don't care about anything but your immediate needs.

It's the typical "I want what I want, when I want it, fuck everyone else and damn the consequences" point of view.

'sharing culture'

[whoever57]

'sharing culture' is one of the most ridiculous terms used today. Uber drivers are not "sharing" their cars any more than a pizza delivery driver is "sharing" his/her car. Uber drivers are selling rides. They are selling their own time, and the running costs of their cars.

Re:I Continue To Be Baffled

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

It could be their business model is to spread like wildfire and make millions, then bail as laws clamp down, of course.

Threatening the cronly capitalism and rent seeking so prevalent in theoretically free societies (which means more than just freedom of speech, it means freedom to pursue earning money). Do they hurt anything besides entrenched interests?

Not really, no. Insurance and a license (the latter of which should only test compency, for an nominal fee, and not be limited in numbers, see freedom concept) are minor issues the entrenched are using as battering rams for the "useful idiots", as Stalin used to say. Look it up.

Re: Without government...

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

And the evidence that building codes are a necessary and effective way of preventing such disasters is... where? Where is the evidence that the bulk of our building codes are actually anything other than crony capitalism?

Most of the disasters you hear about abroad are in countries that do have building codes.

A large part of the cost of housing in the US these days is due to codes. Yes, that is a big drain on the economy and a big obstacle to housing affordability.

They Overcharge

[Sir Holo]

I've taken Uber three times. First one was free.

Second ride had an estimate of $6 - 8. It was $35.

Third ride way under-estimated, too, with a similarly high charge.

A REAL TAXI would have been cheap for these short trips.

Re:Without government...

[Minwee]

Any resemblance to an armed gang of looters would be purely coincidental.

Re: Without government...

[Minwee]

And to wear loose-fitting underwear for easy security access.

Re:Without government...

[Coren22]

https://wallethub.com/edu/ride...
citation for Uber's insurance.

https://www.uber.com/safety

Uber uses background checks in the US, not sure about other countries.

Re:Without government...

[Coren22]

Uber blatantly ignoring safety/insurance etc laws that seem to be pretty widely supported.

What laws? Uber insures the drivers while they carry a passenger. They also do background checks on all drivers, at least in the US.

What they don't do is pay for licensing as a cab, because they aren't the same thing as a cab.

Re:Without government...

[Minwee]

>tax evasion I don't mind paying taxes, because it is for common good and supports the really poor. But when the traitor government starts giving welfare to everyone, starts brining immigrants here and gives them more than poor local people have, ... then I say: screw government.

I'm pretty sure that marinating immigrants in salt water would be a serious problem.

Do you have any evidence to support your allegations of brining?

Re: Without government...

[Minwee]

A large part of the cost of housing in the US these days is due to codes. Yes, that is a big drain on the economy and a big obstacle to housing affordability.

You said it. If only big government would let people who clearly know what they are doing take care of hooking up their own gas lines, stop having so-called inspectors shut down private homes because they "smell funny", not harass honest builders over which materials they use in construction, and allow small busineses to take care of maintenance on their own, then life would be much better.

Think of all the money that could be saved!

Re:Without government...

[Malc]

Only now, as a cyclist in London, you're having a lot of trouble with cars? Consider taking the Tube? Yeah, I know why not. Try being a cyclist in Manhattan.

Since 1996 I've lived and cycled as a way of life in Denver, Toronto, Shanghai, Melbourne and London, amongst other places... North American drivers are just utter shit. It starts with ridiculously easy driving test. I have less space and more traffic in London yet I feel the drivers know I'm there and know how to drive pass me (although most of the time I'm passing them in this city ;) ) And damn, the Tube is too slow compared with cycling, and forget driving if you're in a rush because it will take 2x longer than the train.

Re:Without government...

[SumDog]

I got a regular cab instead of an Uber during the tube strike. It was 58 GBP to get to, not the airport, the automated above ground lines to London City Airport...the only lines still running. I heard everyone bitching about the tube drivers too, which was stupid. They weren't even asking for more money. They didn't want to work 7~14 week night shifts. The transport board knew they couldn't afford night tubes, the city wouldn't give them more money, so they set up the tube drivers to strike so they could blame everything on them. Fucking transport board.

Also, the drivers should have run the trains and convinced the ticketing unions to open all the gates. Then everyone wins! You make the city lose money and regular joes don't spend insane amounts on taxis. It works in France.

Also, fuck London.

Also- preventing oversaturation of service

[SethJohnson]

Everything rjstanford is saying is accurate and true. I'd like to add on that these regulations serve the interest of preventing the streets from being clogged with taxis. Most cities limit the number of taxis that can operate on city streets. This is valuable because:

1. Too many providers lowers pricing making it unsustainable for providers to make a living wage.
2. Creates congestion (traffic)
3. Reduces incentive for people to use public transit

Re:'criminal organisation' is Uber's business mode

[scamper_22]

It's really interesting actually.

Is Uber technically illegal in many jurisdictions? Probably.

Yet, there are many ways to change the law and one of the ways is for a lot of people to just ignore it. That's what people do with laws they don't actually consider valid (drugs, various traffic laws...)

Heck, even governments just ignore the 'law' when they consider the courts too timid to intervene. Oh we can have a living constitution or reread the law in a different light to allow what we want to happen.

What Uber is doing is not that crazy relative to what goes on in most countries with all sorts of laws.

You can sit there are demand that UBER change the law and then operate. Well the same can be said about ObamaCare, drug laws, national security... Why don't these damn politicians change the laws clearly or amend the constitution before going ahead with their programs? That's the whole purpose of an amendment. Yet, rather than follow the process, they just proceed with their program knowing the courts are too timid to really enforce it or that they've decided to reinterpret the law to let it happen.

I like to see how this plays out, but I don't think Uber's approach is really all that different to how many of us (people, politicians, companies) approach regulatory type laws.

We tend to just ignore them and see how the powers that be respond. Heck, lots of people do drugs knowing the police won't really prosecute them unless something else happens.

Good on Uber I say. It kind of forces the government to change regulation to deal with it or turn a blind eye.

Re: Without government...

[Luckyo]

Not really. As big as VW is, it's nowhere near big enough to cause more than a small dent in European economy.

Remember this is the region which had the power to actually do something that even US didn't dare to do - actually fine microsoft for illegal monopolistic actions after finding them guilty.

That said, it's fairly obvious that this is not going to "bankrupt" VW even at it worse. Get a grip. The company is huge and will be able to absorb the costs. The problems are the long term damage to VW brand, long term damage to "made in Germany" brand (big subject of debate right now in Germany) and generally having to take a harder look at how multinationals like VW operate in EU.

Disinterested Observer Said...

[r-diddly]

Uber customers are mobility-impaired cows. Cows say moo, moo say the cows, YOU UBER COWS, etc.

Re:Without government...

[tlambert]

How dare working people have any rights.

How dare publicly funded services, such as transportation, or hospital emergency rooms, go offline for mere economic enrichment of a few individuals?

Re:Without government...

[david_thornley]

Except that Uber doesn't always work with drivers that can be legally characterized as anything. Some of their services are legal, and if they're disruptive that's how the economy works. If they really have a better business model, they should be able to profit from it everywhere they can find a legal role. Like the Netherlands.

Re:Without government...

[david_thornley]

What happens if an Uber driver is going to pick someone up and hits me while I'm going across the street with the right of way? From what I've heard, Uber won't cover it, the driver's insurance company is going to refuse to pay if the driver doesn't have commercial insurance, and the driver's likely to have nothing worth a lawsuit. I get to absorb all medical costs, loss of earnings, pain, etc., myself. If Uber was going to make sure that their drivers always have appropriate insurance, I'd withdraw that complaint.

Re: Without government...

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Re:Without government...

[TapeCutter]

first-hand experience

I don't know anything about that, but I know what you're doing with your other hand. ;)

Edit

[TapeCutter]

/s "doing" "beating"

Re:Without government...

[Luckyo]

Hospital emergency rooms go offline during strikes?

How to recognise a dumb shill - he will use an utterly ridiculous hyperbole.

Nothing mixed about "Obey the law!"

[dsmatthews9379]

The message from Australia is "operate within the law" and each state has a right to pass different laws covering the operations of such services. To suggest that Uber are unaware of this or unable to adapt their systems to work within the differences between jurisdictions is dishonest. They have a right to lobby governments, as every other company and special interest group does, but they don't have the right to defy a government and it's laws. What is their game, Anarcho-capitalism? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Without government...

[tlambert]

Hospital emergency rooms go offline during strikes?

How to recognise a dumb shill - he will use an utterly ridiculous hyperbole.

How do you *get to* the hospital emergency room, when your only transportation is public transportation?

How do you *get to* the hospital emergency room *in time* when the French Taxi drivers go "on strike" by way of intentional traffic jams for everyone, because they are pissed that no one wants to ride in French Taxis, if there is any reasonable alternative, whatsoever?

How to recognize a dumb shill: they answer only your direct argument, out of context, rather than taking the consequences of the situation into account.

P.S.: During the 1979 nurses strike in Montreal, Canada, several hospitals had to close their emergency rooms to incoming patients. The Baton Rouge General Medical Center’s mid city emergency room was closed at 7AM on 31 March of 2015 due to a strike by doctors and nurses.

P.P.S.: Why don't you do a google search before you call something "hyperbole" next time?

Re:Without government...

[Antique Geekmeister]

> But since the existing taxi companies and governments have zero interest in improving taxi services

Actually, they do have interests. Many of them would _love_ to switch to Uber or Lyft style phone apps. But it's a regulatory nightmare for them, and they have a great deal of sunk cost in their existing infrastructure. They also have to pay drivers who are idle, and take fares without smart phones.

Re:Without government...

[Antique Geekmeister]

> Hospital emergency rooms go offline during strikes?

During a nursing or doctor's strike, emergency rooms sometimes close due to inability to handle the flood of patients who aren't treated through more normal venues. The quality of care in the ER, even if it's open, can also degrade markedly.It's a very real concern for hospital staff and for the people who need medical help.

I mean the rules

[Roodvlees]

Ok, correction: they organize the taxi brance.

Re: Without government...

[dywolf]

your fallacy is that you're an idiot.

Re: Without government...

[dywolf]

the evidence is that in the time BEFORE building codes, or when codes were ignored, PEOPLE DIED.

-Fire is a big one. It's a big reason for a lot of the electrical installation code. every year there are thousands of fires, many with total destruction of the house, because of substandard electrical work (typically done by some not qualified DIYer).

-Speaking of electrical, there's also electrical shock, another hazard.

-Back to fire, fire abatement and prevention in buildings is why fire doors exist and are called for in the code. as well as fire preventative coating on structural members. Though it should be noted this once led to the use of asbestos, until we learned about its ill effects, and now that's another part of the code, cause again, its about saving lives.

-structural strength, member design, and stardand shapes, factor of safety, etc, all come into play, and all are part of the code. you design a building, a garage say. you're cheap, so its barely 1:1 factor of safety. you sell it. next comes along, he puts more stuff on the walls, or hangs a hoist from the ceiling. it overloads the members, everything falls down, he dies. commercial structures are frequently overdesigned for reasons exactly like this: you cant predict the future tenant and what he will do. code covers all parts of building strength, from wind loading and its effect on the buildings sway (fatigue cracking of central support columns leading to pancake collapse), to mounts that retain the building glass in the frame on a skyscraper (several times where glass panes have fallen out, several hundred feet down onto people on the sidewalk, usually fatally, because of improper installation)

this is but a very short list of examples of why building codes exist.
crony capitalism? hardly. (also you apparently have no clue what the definition of crony capitalism is, or what it entails)

you are precisely the kind of 'libertarian' that makes libertarianism look idiotic.

Re: Without government...

[dywolf]

here, a brief history: http://www.eesi.org/papers/vie...

B. Brief History of Building Codes

"Over the centuries, building codes have evolved from regulations stemming from tragic experiences to standards designed to prevent them." - The Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS)

  The Code of Hammurabi (1800 B.C) is generally recognized as the world’s first building code, although this code was essentially a criminal statute that included capital punishment for shoddy workmanship that resulted in death. The great fires of history including Rome (64 AD), Boston (1631), London (1666), Chicago (1871), Baltimore (1904) and Cleveland Clinic (1929), led to soul-searching and new regulations.

  The beginning of modern codes can be traced to the 1897 publication of the NFPA’s National Electrical Code® (NEC®). (Today, the 2014 NFPA 70®: NEC® covers the latest requirements on electrical wiring and equipment installation issues, including provisions for the use of connections, voltage markings, conductors and cables). Early attempts to prevent fires -- predecessors of today’s zoning laws and safety codes -- included requirements for wider streets, limitations on building spacing and height, and elimination of thatched roofs and wooden chimneys in cities. Sanitation concerns were the moving force behind some early codes and over the years, have led to plumbing standards, light and ventilation requirements, minimum room dimensions and other health and safety requirements we take for granted in today’s building codes. Tragic fires at the MGM Grand in 1980 and the Station Nightclub in 2003 led to more recent requirements for fire protection, including sprinkler systems, exit lighting and limits on explosives and pyrotechnics.

  Natural disasters also lead to code improvements. Hurricane Andrew in 1992 resulted in the development of more stringent construction standards. The storm that destroyed South Florida revealed a serious deficiency and led to Florida’s first statewide code system. Seismic code provisions appeared first in Italy and Japan in the early 20th Century and in the United States as an appendix to the Uniform Building Code in 1927. Research programs have increased our understanding of earthquakes over the years, and serious research programs beginning in the 1970s led to code upgrades following the Northridge Earthquake in California in 1994. Specific provisions within the IBC, IRC and IEBC are intended to ensure structures can adequately resist seismic forces during earthquakes. These seismic provisions represent the best available guidance on how structures should be designed and constructed to limit seismic risk. FEMA officials, however, say some jurisdictions have been slow to adopt the latest code editions with seismic safety provisions. They warn new structures in these communities will "probably not provide the current minimum level of protection from earthquake hazards." FEMA also is concerned states and local jurisdictions with "high levels of seismic hazard" that have adopted model codes have weakened or excluded seismic provisions.

But then, Hammurabi was a crony capitalist too in your fantasy world I guess....

And look, more about fire and electrical. Like the great London fire, and several others, back when buildings were mostly wood and butted up right against each other, so a fire could destroy an entire city instead of just one home. and they solved it by....legally requiring them to be more spaced out...in a building code...

another important part of the code, sewage and sewage hookups. because who wants to repeat the great cholera epidemic, again in London, caused by a single dirty diaper being disposed of in a cistern that fed drinking water to half the city.

again: you're an idiot

Re: Without government...

[dywolf]

and again with the fire, since its so easy:

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

the fire destroyed 345 buildings in Lower Manhattan in New York City and caused $5 million to $10 million in damage, as well as killing 4 firefighters and 26 civilians. The 1845 fire was the last of three great fires that affected the heart of Manhattan, including fires in 1776 and 1835. The 1845 fire was very destructive, but it affected mostly older wood-frame construction in a confined section of the city. This proved the efficacy of the fire-resistant building practices that had come into play in surrounding areas of the city in previous decades

But nah, building codes are just to make people rich......and serve no justifiable purpose....somehow....

Re: Without government...

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

But then, Hammurabi was a crony capitalist too in your fantasy world I guess....

Hammurabi's "building code" is not a building code at all; it holds a builder liable for his actions, whatever they may have been. That kind of liability is a good thing, far better than building codes.

And look, more about fire and electrical. Like the great London fire, and several others, back when buildings were mostly wood and butted up right against each other, so a fire could destroy an entire city instead of just one home. and they solved it by....legally requiring them to be more spaced out...in a building code...

Setback requirements are not part of building codes, they are part of zoning or municipal ordinances.

another important part of the code, sewage and sewage hookups. because who wants to repeat the great cholera epidemic,

Sewage hookups aren't part of building codes either. Furthermore, of course, the sewage company should be able to impose requirements on its customers as part of the contract.

again: you're an idiot

You apparently don't even know what a "building code" is.

Note that opposition to building codes doesn't mean opposition to strict rules for how buildings are constructed, it means opposition to how those rules are arrived at. Building rules arrived at as part of HOA-like arrangements are overall stricter than building codes, but omit the corrupt portions of codes.

Re:Coren22 CRUSHED & dominated (by facts)

[Coren22]

What does this have to do with Uber?

Going offtopic to continue an argument you already lost is just sad.

Re:Without government...

[gsslay]

The evidence of history (and present day developing countries) is that an absence of building regulations (or enforcement of them) results in "politically well connected group of businesses" building sub-standard housing on the cheap, which are then crammed with "poorer people", who are the ones who suffer the slum conditions and disasters that befall them

So the exact opposite of what you suggest. It's the poorest who benefit most from these regulations.

Re:Without government...

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The evidence of history (and present day developing countries) is that an absence of building regulations (or enforcement of them) results in "politically well connected group of businesses" building sub-standard housing on the cheap

In the absence of building codes, you don't need to be politically connected in order to build "sub standard housing"; anybody can build "substandard" housing. So, that part of your statement is bullshit.

which are then crammed with "poorer people"

Yes, of course, poorer people will have houses built to poorer standards. But they will have places to live, which is a lot better than being homeless or being forced to spend an excessive percentage of their income on housing. Most of the "substandard" housing that poor people would be getting without the draconian building codes we have would simply be housing that would have been state of the art a few decades ago anyway.

In fact, the vast majority of people live in "substandard" housing anyway, since old housing is usually grandfathered in. Building codes mostly affect new construction and drive up the cost of new construction. I spent most of my life living in "substandard housing", and chances are you did as well.

who are the ones who suffer the slum conditions and disasters that befall them

You're confusing cause and effect. People live in slums because they can't afford regular, high-cost housing that complies with government regulations. If you go in and try to enforce code in "slums", you don't help the slum dwellers, you simply end up driving them out of their homes again.

So the exact opposite of what you suggest. It's the poorest who benefit most from these regulations.

No, the poorest don't benefit at all. The poorest are simply driven to violating building codes and living in slums. That is, in addition to not getting what the building codes promise, they now also have to deal with the risk and cost of code enforcement, having their homes taken away or condemned by government, and having no legal recourse against builders at all because the only builders they can choose are black market builders.

NAPSTER

[mundlapati]

What's difference between Napster and Uber?

Re: Without government...

[lsatenstein]

Actually the Dutch taxi market is pretty open nowadays, with several thousand not affiliated taxis in Amsterdam only. But the Netherlands is a pretty regulated country. For driving a taxi for example you need a license (easily obtainable) and there are fixed tariff regulations. Obviously Uber drivers have no such license and don't comply with the tariff regulation. I don't know any democratic nation where an organization which actively organizes and supports activities which don't comply with the law is not seen as a criminal organization.
Doesn't mean that Uber won't be seen as a kind of emancipationary club somewhere down the line. But now...

In Québec, Canada, taxis are a service and services are taxed. As well, for income tax purposes, incomes of drivers are recorded, as well as their expenses. And taxi's have compulsory insurance for passengers. Drivers are vetted to insure they are healthy (no recent DUIs and no health problems that can cause accidents or infect passengers).
Majority of taxi drivers work split shift... 5am to 10am, and 5pm to 10pm. -- when people travel to and from...
So, I don't mind paying the going fare. Its about 1/3rd more than Uber's. And yes, Quebec wants Uber to collect income tax from Uber and from the drivers, who it sees as Uber employees.

Re:Without government...

[jcr]

I'm the customer, you guilt-peddling moron.

-jcr

Re:Without government...

[jcr]

Oh, how very clever of you. Yeah, that sure makes me sympathetic to your obsolete business model. I'll delete the Uber app and put up with shitheads like you driving me around from now on.

-jcr

Re:Without government...

[stoatwblr]

In a lot of countries, if you book a taxi whilst stating that you must catch a plane/train/etc and the taxo doesn't show, or is late or gets you there late, the company is on the hook for rebooking you - they may squirm a bit (especially in the UK, where blanket denial is standard policy) but when it hits the courts it's a slamdunk.

UK airlines also avoid their responsibilities under EU law for passenger compensation. One incident I can recall had a bunch of passengers arrive at Gatwick 6 hours late and Easyjet staff hid in the toilets rather than face them (even the airport manager couldn't get them to come out).

Re: Without government...

[stoatwblr]

"Uber is, and always has been, an illegal service"

in the UK, Uber is a private hire car service (aka "minicabs" in UK parlance). Drivers are required to be licensed and insured accordingly.

Pot, kettle, black?

[dbIII]

Are you sure there is no chance of something going on under that table? It looks a lot like me that in San Francisco Uber are doing something an individual would be fined for if they tried it. When a law is IGNORED for some and not for others that's a bit of a sign isn't it?
Where I am Uber has been hit with $1.7 million in fines so far and are just treating it as a cost of business - exactly as if they were paying bribes in a third world shithole. Such contempt for the law that others have to follow is annoying.

we located the issue

[ChadMcCurdy]

They want. ........a shrubbery!

Re: Without government...

[JoostT]

Really, that is why my wife always warns me when I am in the USA not act around the police like I am used to in the Netherlands. Like asking for directions and getting them...

Re: Without government...

[RockDoctor]

who it sees as Uber employees.

And that is probably the ultimate rub. Uber really, really don't want to have obligations to their staff. Anywhere in the world. Any obligations.

Re:Without government...

[Luckyo]

1. Ambulance
2. Striking taxi drivers typically make a point of getting out of the way of ambulances. Professional courtesy. Kind of like it's your professional courtesy as a shill to insult anyone who dares to oppose your opinion.
3. How is American BS in any way applicable to Europe?

Re:Without government...

[Luckyo]

Obviously. Quality of care in ER will change according to environmental factors. Ever tried getting care in the middle of influenza season?

Doesn't mean they shut down, as shill above tried to suggest.

Re:Without government...

[Antique Geekmeister]

Except when they do close, I'm afraid. Hospitals don't like to publicize it, and often don't "close" the emergency but stop accepting new patients in crisis situations. The result is the same for people needing emergency treatment, or those desperate for chronic care they cannot get due to the strike.

Re:Without government...

[Luckyo]

Yes, like those times when those evil doctors rape babies and don't tell the parents.