Slashdot Mirror
'Legacy' London Car Hire Companies Lawyer Up Against Uber
An anonymous reader writes with The Stack's report that: The London Private Hire Car Association (LPHCA) has engaged a major firm of lawyers to present its case against Uber in the UK capital, citing lack of continuous insurance checks, Uber's tax avoidance practices and even 'loitering' Uber drivers as reasons to impose regulations which would eliminate Uber's competitive advantage in London. A lot of Londoners like to have that competition around, though.
Uber wants to play in the UK, it can follow all the other laws which have been built up over centuries using common sense to protect the public. I hope they get heavily fined too for being so obnoxious.
While I do think taxi prices are too high, I still have a couple of problems with the uber approach. The main reason for the high prices are quite a lot of regulations imposed on classic taxi companies. Uber wants to take a piece of the cake without following the rules everyone else has to abide.
What I have read in the independant studies is that Uber drivers with their little GPS systems are just as good cost wise and in most cases drivewise as a full on London Cabbie who has studied "The Knowledge". The key is that while on some journeys the cabbie will be more proficient the extra cost more than evens it out with Uber. Except that because the Uber navigation system is getting better and better even that gap is narrowing. Also most journeys are pretty straightforward. You go out to main road A drive until near the destination, and then pull off main road A to the destination.
Then Uber brings the whole modern technology to bear. The app, the information feedback, etc. So about the only real thing left for the cabbies is to defend their monopoly seeing that they have potentially no natural advantage and thus no defence moored in reality. The problem with bending the rules of reality is that eventually they snap and the further and longer you bend them the worse the recoil will be. So at this point they might be able to modernize, take the hit on their monopoly value, take a hit on their wages and survive. But if they hold uber at bay for a number of years the flood will come in and will wash them away. Quite simply the harder they push back the harder reality will try to find away around. For instance a new batch of politicians might sweep into office with the promise of eliminating their monopoly. Thus on Monday they are safe and on Tuesday there is pretty much only Uber standing.
But the key argument that is used is that because the government granted them this monopoly it is the governments problem if they are ruined by taking it away. This holds no moral water; they thought that they were buying a licence to be able to ruthlessly exploit the people of London. They thought wrong. I have zero pity for what comes next.
Haven't we had this discussion multiple times before?
Yes, Uber gives you a lower price.
Yes, it creates competition.
Yes, they act against almost all local laws.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
Before anyone starts with the whole "medallion" thing, that's not a thing in London. If you want to publicly tout for business (i.e a black caps), you have to do "the knowledge" which is a very extensive and tough test for knowing your way around without a stanav. And no: having a sat nav is not remotely equivalent to actually knowing your way around
To be a vehicle hired otherwise (phone, internet), anyone can set up with the appropriate insurance and a few other bits and bobs. It's not hard and uber is not in any way "sticking it to the man". But surprise, surpirse, the other cabbies get pissed off when, despite the rather liberal regulations which never blocked uber from existing in London, uber still likes it's old unfair competition things like flat-out doing illegal stuff and avoiding tax.
At this point, it's known that uber will do anything for a buck, illegal or otherwise. If you use uber especially somewhere like London, you're part of the problem.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I'm not defending Uber, but what, as a passenger, do I gain by having the wetware in the taxi driver's head do the path-finding instead of the software on his computer? Even if the software is inferior right now it will continue to improve, unlike humans, and if the Uber driver takes longer to get me to where I want to go then I will continue to use his wetware competitors.
Sure, don't obey the law if you don't agree with it. I'm not judging, I'm just stating the facts.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
Before anyone starts with the whole "medallion" thing, that's not a thing in London. If you want to publicly tout for business (i.e a black caps), you have to do "the knowledge" which is a very extensive and tough test for knowing your way around without a stanav. And no: having a sat nav is not remotely equivalent to actually knowing your way around
No, it's better. Google knows where traffic is stacked up in real time. If there's been an accident and a lorry is across all lanes someplace, Google will know about it before a driver with "the knowledge" — it doesn't mean you're bloody omniscient. If you were, you wouldn't go into the cab business, because you'd be able to see that self-driving cars are about to eliminate it entirely and this is just a big wankfest to grab the last few years. Like you'd be an idiot to go into trucking right now, as a career.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Your argument can be transferred to a lot of industries -- fx air transport. You want to provide your own air plane service and people want to use it, you should be free to choose between the regulated offering or do as you wish.
Untill plane with 300 people crashes into ocean like Malasian one did, then everybody screams "regulation!"
It isn't a monopoly, since all the black cabs are not owned by one company. Try again.
Yeah a greedy tax dodging corporation is just the same as someone fighting for people's rights. Fuck off.
There's only one competitor that uses wetware: the black cabs. All the others are private hire companies and they use GPS, just like Uber. It's these private hire companies that are engaging the lawyers in this story, not the black cabbies, as they don't like the private hire companies either.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
What monopoly? If you mean the black cabs, there's far more drivers in LPHCA than LTDA. Mainly because they couldn't do The Knowledge if their life depended on it.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Yeah, self-driving cars in central London. That'll work, with all the roadworks, cyclists, pedestrians, buses, delivery vans, crossings, variable traffic controls based on congestion / time of day / both, road narrowing / widening, etc.. If you'd ever driven in any large town or city in UK (yes, even Milton Keynes) you'd know how silly that idea is.
I'll put it this way: surely you've seen footage of traffic going around L'Arc de Triomphe in Paris, or the Coliseum in Rome (if not, look it up. London has Marble Arch). Do you think a self-driving car, such as we have today or even in the next ten years can cope with that?
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Fact is two people should be able to enter into their own contract
So buy up all the roads you're going to be using, and select anyone you want to drive you along them. Now everyone involved in the contract is in agreement, otherwise...
The rest of us should be able to do as we wish.
...wanting to "do as you wish" with other people's property makes you a thief and a leech.
The excuse for the taxi monopoly
There is no monopoly in London. There are regulations for black cab drivers (which you can hail in the street), and regulations for private car hire (where you call up / use an app / whatever).
So explain to me why a taxi license costs $1M?
This is about London, not the USA.
Yeah, self-driving cars in central London. That'll work, with all the roadworks, cyclists, pedestrians, buses, delivery vans, crossings, variable traffic controls based on congestion / time of day / both, road narrowing / widening, etc.. If you'd ever driven in any large town or city in UK (yes, even Milton Keynes) you'd know how silly that idea is.
The silly idea is that humans, who fuck up driving all the time, are inherently better than computers plus remote human monitoring of exceptions.
Do you think a self-driving car, such as we have today or even in the next ten years can cope with that?
Yep. Why not? The computers are better at following rules than we are.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
How do the people living under the flight path choose which aircraft to allow to fly in the sky above them?
The Knowledge is outdated and is easily replaced by GPS. Of course you need local knowledge but not 30,000 streets.
I rarely use black cabs as London's public transport system is excellent. The only cabs that I have been ripped off in were black cabs. Taking the long route or having no idea where they was going (Heathrow to Twickenham would you believe). The legally required to take you stuff is bullshit and you know it!
The design of a black cab is perfect for the job. Seats 5-6 people with luggage and easy to get in and out of.
No one seems to have picked up the one thing that city hall seems to be worried about, which is real, which is congestion.
In a free market the streets would be extremely full of taxis (broadly defined) hanging around hoping to be closest at hand when someone needs transport, to the point where this is a significant nuisance for everyone else. It is for this reason (at least originally) that most cities limit the number of vehicles allowed to pick up
"street hail" custom. In London (and probably elsewhere in the UK) there is a separate category of vehicles which are allowed to do pre-booked runs (originally you'd have been booking by phone from a landline, so it was really quite different). There is, apparently a phenomenon of professional Uber drivers hanging around near likely pickup points (stations, airports) to the point where it does or might cause congestion, so the same rationale as applied to taxis would argue for somehow restricting this (eg the 5 minute rule would make it more sensible to be parked rather than cruising).
An alternative solution though would be to increase the congestion charge (a generic daily charge for using central London roads) and extend its reach until congestion dropped to acceptable levels. The money could be used to reduce other taxes. Even more extremely, they could just decide the number of vehicles they like in central London and auction off that many daily (or hourly) tickets instead of having a flat charge.
Before anyone starts with the whole "medallion" thing, that's not a thing in London. If you want to publicly tout for business (i.e a black caps), you have to do "the knowledge" which is a very extensive and tough test for knowing your way around without a stanav. And no: having a sat nav is not remotely equivalent to actually knowing your way around
I was going to make a before someone brings up the black cab's "The Knowledge" thing, but you bet me to it. London has always allowed these things called minicabs. You call a number, a minicab arrives and picks you up. These cab are completely different from Black Cabs, which are the only ones that can be hailed on the road. The minicabs drivers have not passed "the knowledge" and do pretty well. They are ubiquitous in london, as much as the black cabs.
Uber is a minicab that uses an app instead of a phone and is completely legal in london.
If you or Uber own the roads then do what the fuck you like, if the roads are public then it isn't a two party transaction.
"explain to me why a taxi license costs $1M"
I find very difficult to believe that a taxi license costs 1M US$... in London.
"At this point, it's known that uber will do anything for a buck, illegal or otherwise. If you use uber especially somewhere like London, you're part of the problem."
Well, said. Look at the comments: doesn't it look suspicious that the percentage of anonymous cowards here seems to be well over average?
The point is: yes, probably taxi regulations are suboptimal and, yes, Uber wants to throw all them off, disregarding if motivated or not, for their own profit, which shouldn't be tolerated.
There's, though, a point that I don't see usually highligthed and it is that, in the end, as Uber says once and again, it is not Uber the once driving the cars. But, still, governments are going against Uber and only against Uber, which shows it's not only Uber the one being greedy here, also governments.
In a sane scencario, governments would be after Uber on their contract relationship with drivers: are they following their due process? i.e.: drivers should be licensed (both to drive a car and operate a public transportation device), are they paying their taxes acording to local tax regulations? etc. *BUT* on the other hand, the onus of in fact being a private contractor and a taxi driver should be on the driver itself, which doesn't happen because government much prefers going after a single company than a thousand drivers and *that* part is unjust against Uber, no matter how is going everything else.
"I'm not defending Uber, but what, as a passenger, do I gain by having the wetware in the taxi driver's head do the path-finding instead of the software on his computer?"
It's been said that "two people should be able to enter into their own contract" as a defense for Uber in a same free-market environment.
But it is also a well stated fact that in such free-market environment, contracts need to be perfected by the two parties being in full knowledge of the transaction. Taxis, by its own nature, make very difficult to set this level on knowledge: you reach a city and take a taxi which, at least for you, is no different than a thousand others, and after your trip, chances to ever see that taxi again are slim: the end result is that the customer is at a huge disadvantage on this relationship so, in order for the service to even operate, it gets regulated to return a fair balance on customer's expectations.
Uber tries to blow off this balance for their own profit in a race to the bottom, and naively thinking that the invisible hand will straight things out is just that: naive.
Someone help, my buggy whip business is being threatened by these new-fangled "automobiles"!!
-Joe Oldguy,
Buggy Whips Ltd.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Never said humans were better. But given the unpredictability of humans, putting self-driving cars in the same busy interchange as humans is guaranteed to end badly.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Plus if that is what they cost, that is what they cost! Explain to me why my house cost so much... Partly because the local government regulates where builders can build so we don't end up with a freaking mess. They strike a balance between what's good for me as a person who needs a house, the builder, and the society at large. With cabs, the government has also done the same thing. They set the number of cabs on the road that they feel will be balanced between cab riders, cab companies, and the others that need to use the road. The price is just a number that is decided by the market. There is no conspiracy there. Cab drivers usually get a job with someone who owns a license and work to pay off a part of it, or all of it.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I'm not asking why we have regulation. I'm asking why the Londoners have regulation that requires taxi drivers to memorize the entire city map.
>I'll put it this way: surely you've seen footage of traffic going around L'Arc de Triomphe in Paris, or the Coliseum in Rome (if not, look it up. London has Marble Arch). Do you think a self-driving car, such as we have today or even in the next ten years can cope with that?
Excellent point, and one I've made repeatedly to no avail. People here on slashdot want self-driving cars soooooooo bad that they'll ignore anything that might harsh their buzz or introduce some of that goddamn reality into their wet dream of self-driving cars.
In my opinion the only way you'd ever get a self-driving car to navigate the L'Arc de Triomphe safely is if they were all self-driving cars in that traffic nightmare.
I've also mentioned the problems with roadworks, cyclists, pedestrians, buses, delivery vans, crossings, variable traffic controls and the like, but I'm usually shouted down and told that "smarter software" will deal with all that stuff. Somehow I doubt it.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
People have moral responsibilities, not corporations making millions of dollars!
Plus, part of accepting a moral responsibility is accepting the punishment for that. Rosa Parks knew fully well that they might go to jail, but she was fully willing to accept the consequences of her actions knowing that it would spark a discussion. Now will Uber?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Only the lives of the rich matter,as for the rest of us our lives only matter for the money we make for the rich and the services we provide for them. Anti regulation types (particularly USians) are just slaves working against their own interests
Listen, this is the way that the society you live in was built. People come up with laws to make the society better for everyone and people are expected to follow those laws. If you don't like those laws you are free to fight them using the same process. One such set of laws are the ones governing the taxi industry. They ensure there aren't too many cabs on the road so that it doesn't become dangerous, people can access cabs fairly in the eyes of the law even if they are challenged in doing so, and that the people and driver are adequately protected. These are good things. If you don't think these are good things then fight the law and good luck to you, but don't just ignore the law because then you're screwing over people who like laws that protect public safety.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Well... I don't know where you live or how much your house cost, but in most places, almost none of the cost is due to regulation. It is mostly property value and arbitrary markup so the builders and the dozen executives that work for them can all be multimillionaires. I say that because my father in law is one of them.
Build em cheap and price them high... daddy gotta get a new King Ranch.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
So does this mean those cursed with more oppressive governments deserve less freedom? Because I'm pretty sure the consequences of running your mouth about Obama (or Bush, or Clinton, Or Raegan, or...) in the USA and Kim Whatever in North Korea don't require quite the same level of courage to face.
So, if you're willing to go to jail (or die) for your cause, then obviously believe in it a lot, but even if you aren't doesn't mean you're wrong. It just means you have less commitment (and are thus less likely to win).
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
You know what pisses me off? Half these Uber-defending-jackasses self-identify as Libertarians. It's because of this that I can understand the confusion on the part of sane people everywhere. I'm truly at a loss and really do think it's time to start with the new moniker. People, people are the damned problem. Give them something good and they'll shit on it, set it on fire, or otherwise ruin it. I guess I can live with that. It's when they complain and throw a temper tantrum afterwards, blame others for their behavior, and insist they be given a new toy because they still believe they're correct and unaccountable.
It's not even an age or generation thing. It's just people. I hate people. I'm glad I'm not one of them.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Yeah but in my experience the Knowledge seems to get us very little in practice. I have never been able to jump in a cab and not had to provide directions at some point during the journey. Capped off recently when the driver was Tweeting on his dash-mounted phone while driving down Euston Road. I don't like Uber, but the taxi drivers don't help themselves either.
Can I buy a used black cab, do you know? I'd seriously buy one and have it imported and I'd be willing to pay pretty well for it. I'd almost certainly have to get it antique in order to register the thing as I refuse to own a trailer queen. I absolutely adore them but I've only been in one twice and, I must say, it was a number of years ago but the service was exact and perfect. I had no idea what the street was where I was (either time) and I simply flagged down a passing cab and told him my hotel name. He didn't ask any additional information but was very polite - including vast stores of cultural knowledge (or so it appeared to me).
It was pristine, in a way, and something I truly appreciate. I've since watched a documentary about their testing process (The Knowledge or something akin to that) and saw why he was as good as he was. This experience was repeated twice, I've only needed the service twice, but was impeccable. I can neither complain about the price, the service, or the server.
The vehicle was awesome. The second trip was interesting, we were on a small side street (I had been to a pub in what used to be a 'gin house' I understand) and not far from that old, round, theater that had something or other to do with Shakespeare. Anyhow, he did a U-Turn in the street while it looked to be much too small to do so. We're talking Moog style, or Subaru style, turning radii here. That was where I noticed how tight the suspension was and how well the vehicle must be maintained because it didn't appear to be new but was still in very good repair and was extremely well kept.
I didn't have much time (or think to) ask much about it but I did notice how well the vehicle appeared to be maintained and I can imagine that they see a lot of fairly rough usage.
What would be awesome is if you got a *something* if you manage to stump the driver (within reason). I seriously think those guys could compete with an optimized GPS and have the added benefit of not losing the signal when around tall buildings. However, if you stump the driver then you should get a t-shirt or something. Or a free fare. If such were the case then I'd do my best and try this out the next time I get the chance to visit. I'd take multiple rides just to see if I could stump the driver. I've not been back in nearly 15 years, that might almost be enough to make it a definite choice for an overseas adventure.
Anyhow, I'm not generally inclined to protect any sort of business and this really isn't the group targeting Uber or anything so it doesn't really apply, but it would be a shame to lose this service and rich history. I do hope they continue to remain in business and that the turmoil doesn't affect them. I don't know if they're even allowed to use a GPS? They certainly did not when I was able to use their services and that was part of the experience and charm.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
No, it's better.
Yes better, because it's better to have a bunch of people staring at satnavs rather than at the road. Brilliant idea!
Google knows where traffic is stacked up in real time.
My goodness! That's so completely new that I bet no one has thought about broadcasting real-time traffic information before over this thing I like to call "the radio". In fact the only part of london I ever knew by name as a kid was "the Hangar lane Gyratory" because whenever the radio was on, the traffic update would mention tailbacks at the Hangar lane Gyratory. Look seriously, taxis have had access to traffic information pretty much in real time for years and years and years. You've been even able to get it by text mediums broadcast as well.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Black Cabs, which are the only ones that can be hailed on the road
One of the complains is that the uber drivers are touting for business, which means they're illegally trying to be the equivalent of black cabs.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The point is: yes, probably taxi regulations are suboptimal and, yes,
I don't think they are. London's had a thriving taxi and minicab business for years.
There's, though, a point that I don't see usually highligthed and it is that, in the end, as Uber says once and again, it is not Uber the once driving the cars. But, still, governments are going against Uber and only against Uber, which shows it's not only Uber the one being greedy here, also governments.
How is the government being greedy here? If uber drivers are systematically causing problems then uber is at fault. Playing silly games with "oh they're not contractors its not OUR fault" doesn't cut it, because everyone realises that uber are in fact the problem and having contractors doesn't absolve you of responsibility.c.
*BUT* on the other hand, the onus of in fact being a private contractor and a taxi driver should be on the driver itself
Why? If uber is creating this situation, then they're responsible for it in every moral and ethical way.
Finally, will your opinion on the above if uber drivers are ruled to be employees?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
That is the complain from the black cabs, no one else in any news article (before today) has claimed this. I prefer to take this with a pinch of salt, no thanks.
Legacy? come on. how about License regulated taxi drivers lawyer up against illegal gypsy cabs.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
This bigger picture isn't about Uber specifically. It's about the system being set up to legally rip people off in favour of some large cab companies that made barrier to entry cost prohibitive in many areas. Their actions are inherently anti free market, and what's happening is people are trying to force a free market back into the system, and there's a lot of kicking and screaming by the old guard who are using unjust laws as their shield.
Fact is two people should be able to enter into their own contract without a jealous third party getting shitty that the buyer isn't forced to buy from their shitty overpriced monopoly. You want to go classic taxi? You are free to do so. The rest of us should be able to do as we wish.
Uber rides are NOT two people entering their own contract. Uber contracts with drivers. You contract with Uber. Uber pairs a rider and driver. The rider pays Uber. Uber pays the driver. It's as much a "two person contract" as when I buy milk at the grocery store and the checkout lady rings up the price.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
... it is a minicab company.
If Uber was a ride sharing company then the sharer would share - which means not charge at all, or at most charge for half the petrol used.
As soon as you charge more than that you are not sharing anymore, you are a taxi (do the knowledge in London) or a minicab (stick to the regs) or illegal.
I can see no problem with most of the regs - you want to know the driver can drive, has not been disqualified, passes basic pnc checks (not a wanted criminal), the car is safe and has proper insurance and you wont get ripped off on the fare.
Uber's reasonable complaint imo is that the TFL is under pressure to set a minimum 5m wait time.
Taxis are a quasi public service in most regions. The gov't requires taxi drivers to take fares that are virtually impossible to do profitably. Either the fare is so expensive that no rider could afford to pay (Think $300 to get home) or there are no drivers because there's so few fares at that time that the fares don't cover operating costs. You could argue that this is the way it should be, but only if you ignore that reality you like so much. How many of these late night fares are from folks that would otherwise be driving drunk?
The other bit of reality that Uber likes to ignore again rests on the quasi public nature of our civilization. Specifically we base the quality of life on several job perks Uber is actively trying to get out of (Minimum Wage, Health Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, Taxes to pay for social services, Business and Drivers Insurance, etc, etc).
Basically, Uber is only profitable when they externalize their costs, similar to what Walmart is doing by paying their employees so little they qualify for food stamps and local gov't's free healthcare. We could tax Uber to make up for this, but it's almost impossible with all the tax shelters unless we're willing to start making direct attacks on our Ruling Class (good luck with that).
Uber will go one of two ways: Either the whole house of cards will fall when people decide they have to uphold their end of the social bargain or an entire generation of workers will be driven into abject poverty by the race to the bottom.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Most roads around here (Ventura County, USA) do NOT have real-time traffic information or any information about constructions, closures, etc. Just the main highways. Likewise in Los Angeles. Get off the freeways and major highways and you'll get a map - and that's it.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
During my evening commute in SIlicon Valley, the "real time" data shown in the Google maps app on my Android phone is useless. It's so inaccurate that it provides no value.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Awesome. Bookmarked - thanks. I'll look into it when I return home from my travels.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
The government doesn't charge $1M for the medallion; that is the private-party sale price. Its the artificial scarcity that makes them worth that much. I wonder why they weren't made non-transferable (at the time they were implemented) and implement something like a waitlist to get one.
You've fatally misunderstood Uber's business model and why they do what they do.
Uber is not anti-regulation and does not engage in a "race to the bottom" where they ignore the fact that some cab drivers are crappy.
Rather, Uber is the regulator and prevents the race to the bottom in entirely different and more modern ways. Instead of using the (literally) steam-era approach of forcing cab drivers to memorise street maps, they use GPS. Instead of setting high and constant fees with mandated pickup to make prices predictable, they use global knowledge of supply and demand to show you a price ahead of time. Instead of attempting to judge a cabbies integrity and character through some bullshit interview process they gather real time feedback from actual riders.
To see Uber as anti-regulation is to miss the point. They are merely a much better regulator that uses 21st century tools.
Also, I've known many people who have moved into areas without paved roads or sewer systems and if the municipality wants to put in one of these things guess what?? It comes out of the homeowner's pocket since they are getting a feature in their neighbourhood that they will be using. It doesn't matter if they want it or not! That's life.
I'm thinking whomever doesn't think regulations don't affect house prices must be living in their parent's basement.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
"So does this mean those cursed with more oppressive governments deserve less freedom?"
That's just the way life works dude, get over it. They don't "deserve" less freedom, but they won't get it unless they fight for it just the same.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I think it might be helpful to point out exactly how customers might be disadvantaged by Uber in the London taxi market in relation to pricing.
The pricing problem passengers have always faced in taxis is that unscrupulous operators will overcharge after the fact, ie once the booking has started.
So the London system is set up to provide customers with a choice between two fundamentally different pricing systems, while ensuring they don't get ripped off:
1. Black cabs have a meter, with rates regulated by law, and with drivers (and cars) subject to extensive regulation. So as a passenger, you can hail a black cab in the street, jump in, and be broadly confident you'll be taken to your destination having paid the same amount you would have paid if another black cab had picked you up. There's a risk the driver might take you the long way round, but that's why the regulations exist -- to reduce that risk of being ripped off. So you don't know the bill at the start of the trip, but you do know it's going to be fair.
2. The private hire firms don't have meters. They've got to give you a price in advance, so you can choose for yourself whether you think it's a ripoff before you're committed. Then they've got to stick to the price even if they get stuck in traffic or need to take you the long way round. And you can book a private hire car in advance (and it will hopefully show up on time).
Because the former is more highly regulated than the latter, black cabs are given some specific advantages in the market: in particular, they can ply for hire (but they can't choose their fare).
Now, along comes Uber, and they want to provide you with a taxi service without playing by either the black cab or the private hire pricing rules.
They want to have the following advantages of a black cab:
- charge you an unpredictable amount
- ply for hire (in effect)
- no need to allow passengers to book in advance
And they want to have the following advantages of a private hire:
- set their own pricing structure, and have it vary unpredictably and be opaque to customers
- use vehicles that are not accessible, cannot complete a turning circle in 25ft, etc
- turn you down as a fare
Any way you look at this, it is a move to increase pricing power of the taxi company at the expense of the customer. If they wanted to solve the problem in London, they could achieve most of it in a heartbeat, by making binding legal commitments to TfL, subject to oversight, that pricing would never exceed the black cab metered tariff, that passengers would never be turned down by a driver, and start providing advance booking. Fat chance of that happening, though.
Incidentally, because my wife and I shared a home address and credit card account and both had Uber accounts, they arbitrarily decided to suspend each of our Uber accounts because they thought this was a security risk. How it makes any difference to them who pays an account so long as my money was good is a mystery to me. They then told me I could unsuspend the account if I scanned my passport details and emailed it to them! I told them to go whistle.
Just out of curiosity, does the navigation app pass "the knowledge" test?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
"Finally, will your opinion on the above if uber drivers are ruled to be employees?"
Will... change, I suppose you mean. My opinion wouldn't change but, since the situation changes it would also change the output required from my opinion: there wouldn't be a private contractor, therefore the only entity that have to be looked after would be Uber.
Note I'm not against Uber drivers being contractors -as long as they are not hidden hires, or employees. In any case, proper legislation applies.
"To see Uber as anti-regulation is to miss the point."
It dismisses regulations for their own profit no matter how intelligent your argument seems to you.
"They are merely a much better regulator that uses 21st century tools."
and naively thinking that the invisible hand will straight things out is just that: naive.
Untill plane with 300 people crashes into ocean like Malasian one did, then everybody screams "regulation!"
This is pretty much how we ended up with taxi regulations.
With unregulated taxi services you quickly reach the problem of oversupply. There are only really two ways of dealing with oversupply, 1) regulation or; 2) violence. Having lived in both a well regulated developed, western city (in Australia) and a developing, unregulated city (in both Thailand and the Philippines) I can say that regulation with all its prices and pitfalls are better than armed taxi gangs enforcing their turf.
Western nations experienced the problems with taxi gangs many generations ago, this is why we have regulations and people who've never lived in place like Phuket have no idea how bad it gets. Thailand manages to do public transportation very well, from the highly organised system of Bangkok to the ad-hoc Baht buses prevalent in smaller cities and towns, however in Phuket there is practically no public transport because whenever the government attempts to set up any municipal buses. the taxi gangs (AKA tuk tuk mafia) stop them, pull them over and beats the shit out of the drivers (if they're lucky, it ends at a beating). This is the kind of system that exists without regulation.
Having experienced both, I'd definitely prefer an over-regulated system to a non-regulated system.
Uber however is a self correcting issue. In a place like Australia all we have to do is wait for them to have an accident. Regulations protect taxi companies from being bankrupted by insurance claims by limiting their liabilities, the government will extend no such courtesy to Uber as they have chosen to ignore regulations. So as soon as they have 1 serious accident in a place like Australia, England or Germany the insurance companies will tear Uber to shreds. Their war chest might be enough to survive one such encounter, but two will kill them.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Show me these "independant studies" or GTFO.
In plenty of countries they don't cost that much. Also in some places (these places) real taxis are cheaper or at worse the same price as Uber.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
The knowledge doesn't just help the driver navigate, but gives them such an extensive knowledge that partial or even flat-out contradictory addresses can be resolved to real places, and the journey can continue. Falling drunk into the back of a black cab and muttering your street name and/or a bit or two of postcode, only to fall asleep and be woken outside your flat by a driver asking for a very fair price is simply not possible with Uber.
The whole point of sapience is being able to judge how life works against how it might work. "Getting over it" means becoming a mere animal reacting to its immediate surroundings on instinct. But, whatever works for you, ya dog.
So do you or do you not consider it a "moral responsibility" to submit to punishments demanded by unjust laws?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Fine, then lets tell an oppressed group of people in a third world country in a dictatorship to just get over it. Just sounds kind of ridiculous that's all. You cannot compare fighting laws for reasons of humanity... to this. The taxi laws aren't preventing anyone from operating a taxi, they are merely stipulating the set of rules that everyone is abiding by. You can't have one person on one side of the board playing monopoly and the other person playing backgammon, because they'll just end up punching each other in the face. So everyone is playing monopoly; a million people together, and now Uber comes along and wants to play checkers. They're the bad kid in the school yard.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.