Europe's Top Court To Decide If Uber Is Tech Firm Or Taxi Company 193
An anonymous reader writes: A Spanish judge has requested that the European Court of Justice determine whether or not Uber is a generic "digital service," as it claims, or a "mere transport activity." If the court rules that Uber is a transportation firm the company may have to follow the same licensing and safety rules as taxis and other hired vehicles. "Today's news means that the European Court of Justice will now determine if the national rules currently being applied to digital services like Uber are legal and appropriate under European law," said Mark MacGann, Uber's Head of Public Policy for EMEA, on a conference call with journalists.
Taxi company (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a taxi company
I can order a taxi online already. Why would a particular implementation of ordering transport online suddenly make it something completely different?
If you take away the cars, Uber no longer has anything to sell. If you take away the online app, they could switch to some other channel and continue.
Re:Taxi company (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I can tell, because Uber wants it to be.
Which, also as far as I can tell, is a complete lie as the company seems to think they stepped in unicorn poop and can now make up their own definitions and decide what laws apply to them.
Re:Taxi company (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as I can tell, because Uber wants it to be.
Pretty much. It's a lot easier to not have to pay things like chauffeurs licensees and have the minimum required amount of insurance for liability that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could order a taxi online before Uber.
Re: (Score:2)
You could order a taxi online before Uber.
Didn't know that . I live in the Amazon jungle.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm absolutely no fan of Uber, but let's not play this game. They did bring something considerably different to the market - the ability to track reviews of specific users, and with it the ability to jettison anyone who didn't behave in accordance with their desires. It also encompasses many different geographical regions under one umbrella, as opposed to the frequently-disparate online offerings before.
There is enough rope to hang Uber without having to make stuff up ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So having a nice interface is novel? You must work for the US Patent and Trademark Office.
::patent attorney chortle::
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can order a taxi online already. Why would a particular implementation of ordering transport online suddenly make it something completely different?
Because it's not a Taxi, and that makes it different. A taxi is a generic hire car which is not also a personal vehicle. These are personal vehicles which are also available for hire. It's directly analogous to a torrent site, except Uber gets a cut. Torrent sites don't try to monetize because that is clearly illegal. It is not clearly illegal to hook riders up with drivers, so there's no reason not to profit.
If you take away the cars, Uber no longer has anything to sell.
The cars don't belong to Uber, so you can't take them away from Uber. This is you insisting that pe
Re:Taxi company (Score:5, Informative)
If we're using ownership of cars as the threshold, then I'm afraid to tell you in many places the cab driver owns his own car.
So, I'm sorry to tell you, but once again the ways people defend Uber as being inherently different from a cab company are completely bullshit.
A cab is a commercial vehicle for hire. Uber is just a bootleg cab company playing a shell game with the definitions for their own purposes.
Your definition of a taxi not also being a personal vehicle is not real. It may apply in some places, but it most certainly is NOT the actual definition.
I'm betting there's lots of places where the cabs are owned by the drivers. And they sill fall under the regulations around taxis, commercial cars for hire, and the license and insurance required to do that.
Sorry, Uber is a cab company, no matter what they say.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, Uber is a cab company, no matter what they say.
I'm not a fan of Uber but I'm not certain this is true, in my understanding a typical cab will drive around looking for random people to wave it down and potentially wait at certain high pickup locations.
An Uber (or Lyft) vehicle will only respond to a request from the webapp, it strikes me as more analogous to a Limo service or other hired vehicle. Are those considered taxis? (not rhetorical, I'm actually curious. For tax purposes it appears they are [cra-arc.gc.ca]).
Re:Taxi company (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, Uber is a cab company, no matter what they say.
I'm not a fan of Uber but I'm not certain this is true, in my understanding a typical cab will drive around looking for random people to wave it down and potentially wait at certain high pickup locations.
An Uber (or Lyft) vehicle will only respond to a request from the webapp, it strikes me as more analogous to a Limo service or other hired vehicle. Are those considered taxis? (not rhetorical, I'm actually curious. For tax purposes it appears they are [cra-arc.gc.ca]).
I live in a city in the Midwest, and have traveled for work to many other cities in the Midwest. Nigh universally, there is no such thing as a taxi that drives around looking for fares. You call a taxi company, or use their website, to request a taxi be dispatched to your location.
Rarely, in some cities, there are designated areas called "taxi stands" located in or near neighborhoods with a high density of bars. Taxis can sometimes be found idling there, waiting for inebriated folks to stumble their way. This is far from a ubiquitous practice, and even where the taxi stands exist, generally only contain taxis on Friday and Saturday nights.
Perhaps taxis continually circle or wait around high-traffic locations in very large cities. However, even on my trips to Chicago, I've seen only the dispatch request model.
Responsibilities (Score:2)
No, the drivers are the cab companies. Uber is a dispatcher or facilitator.
And its realistic, in that scenario, to expect that Uber is dispatching to drivers who have the necessary license and are enough covered by insurances.
How would you react if, when asking a hotel to book you a taxi, the receptionist call a shady thing (the boss' cousin's neighbours who just happens to own a car) instead of a legit and recognized company ?
I would similarily expect Uber to do a minimal check to make sure that the driver is following local rules.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure where you got the definition that taxis are not also personal vehicles. Where I live in South Carolina, there is a limited number of taxi licenses by law -- and those licenses are owned by only a few families. The vehicles are most certainly owned by the drivers and are random makes and models with a simple TAXI light on the top. They also use those cars as their personal vehicles around town. I know because I've ridden in many of them and I've spoken with the drivers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Taxi company (Score:4, Insightful)
It is not clearly illegal to hook riders up with drivers...
If the driver was not intending to go to the rider's destination until the passenger stated the destination, then the driver is soliciting for passengers.
If the driver is soliciting for passengers and does not possess the required commercial licenses and insurance, then it is clearly illegal.
I know you and your buddies are all "Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist" and such, but the fact that Uber is encouraging people to engage in illegal commerce doesn't go away just because you want it to.
Re: (Score:2)
I can order a taxi online already
Yet Uber and Lyft are much more popular, so you've proved their point. But why? Because they're tech companies and people like their tech (reputation systems, scheduling systems, payment systems, etc.) If you got rid of their tech, they'd be nothing. If you got rid of their cabs ... wait! They don't have any cabs!
They specifically enable private drivers to _not_ need a taxi company. "So they're a taxi company?" Yeah, like eBay is a department store.
Re: (Score:3)
Yet Uber and Lyft are much more popular, so you've proved their point.
Where did you get THAT bizarre idea? Uber claims 140 million rides/year WORLDWIDE. NYC taxis do 236 million rides/year just in NYC.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet Uber and Lyft are much more popular, so you've proved their point.
What point? Uber and Lyft being popular just means that people like what they're selling. It doesn't change what they're selling is practically a taxi service.
But why? Because they're tech companies and people like their tech (reputation systems, scheduling systems, payment systems, etc.)
Tech that functions as a taxi service. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
When people pay Uber money, they're not paying for "tech". They're paying for a ride. The "tech" just facilitates that ride. Without a ride at the end, all the tech is useless. Uber's "tech" is akin to taxi company's call center. You call in and ask for a ride, and th
Re: (Score:3)
It's a taxi company
I can order a taxi online already. Why would a particular implementation of ordering transport online suddenly make it something completely different?
If you take away the cars, Uber no longer has anything to sell. If you take away the online app, they could switch to some other channel and continue.
Uber is just a clearing house for dispatching and processing payments for taxi rides. They are neither a tech company, nor a taxi service.
However, this is NOT to say Uber drivers shouldn't be required to follow the existing laws for Taxi services. Uber drivers should be required to meet all the same legal requirements as the local taxi services, commercial licenses, commercial insurance, etc Where Uber is not bound by these rules, they should make it clear that their drivers ARE bound by the laws in their
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like it is not a taxi company if you can take away their taxis (cars) away and they can do something else.
How it that different from any other taxi company?
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like it is not a taxi company if you can take away their taxis (cars) away and they can do something else.
How it that different from any other taxi company?
Uber doesn't own the cars, and the taxi company owns the cars. Since, you know, they could dispatch people with mules instead of people with cars; are they now a drayage company, as well?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Sounds like it is not a taxi company if you can take away their taxis (cars) away and they can do something else.
How it that different from any other taxi company?
Uber doesn't own the cars, and the taxi company owns the cars. Since, you know, they could dispatch people with mules instead of people with cars; are they now a drayage company, as well?
Many taxi companies do not own the cars, they are owned by the taxi driver/license owner. Exactly like Uber. And many taxi companies have app solutions for booking taxi. Exactly like Uber. Don't get me wrong, I like and use Uber myself, but the competition playing field should be equal. Where I live Uber Black use licensed, trained and insured limo drivers, so legal and fine.
Re:Taxi company (Score:4, Informative)
That only means that Uber's workers are more likely to fall under the classification of independent contractors instead of employees, it has no bearing on whether Uber is a taxi company or not. There is nothing inherent to being a taxi company that prohibits hiring independent contractors, who typically supply their own tools and equipment to perform a job. and any such prohibition on the part of the company, while certainly entirely permissible for a company to do, is a reflection of an employer-employee status being more likely to be applicable, and not indicative of whether it is or is not a taxi company.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber doesn't own the cars, and the taxi company owns the cars.
Nowhere near true in all cases. Many drivers own their own cars and/or operate independently. I believe in NYC, for example, something like 1/4 or more of taxis are owner operated. They actually have a certain number of medallions set aside which can only be used by independent operators.
And in cases where the cars are owned by the company, the driver generally leases the cab. By your logic, if someone uses a leased vehicle for "ride-sharing," does that make the car dealership (which still owns the ve
Re: (Score:2)
How it that different from any other taxi company?
Uber doesn't own the cars, and the taxi company owns the cars. Since, you know, they could dispatch people with mules instead of people with cars; are they now a drayage company, as well?
Well, this is about Europe and maybe they have standardized laws across all the EU, but here in the US, many taxi companies often down't own the cars. The medallion or license owners own the cars, which they lease to the taxi company, which leases them to the drivers.
Re:Taxi company (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe its a typo, and should be spelled brayage
mules bray don't they?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
when both right and wrong are given equal consideration, this is how you figure out what is what
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand how Uber is a taxi service. They don't take street fares. At best Uber is a car service.
This. The ability to be hailed from the street (and in some places, use special lanes/stands at public transportation hubs) is what makes a taxi, what requires a medallion [wikipedia.org], etc. Uber, Lyft, and friends cannot be hailed from the street, so they are not taxis in the strict sense--they are a car service that utilizes personal-use vehicles.
/.er outrage, there is no practical difference. For instance, the need for adequate insurance applies to both taxis and car services.
Although for the purposes of some
Re:Taxi company (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet, Uber drivers *should* be required to follow the local laws, no exceptions.
Where I don't necessarily think that all laws are good things, you don't get to choose which ones you agree with and will follow. If you break the law, you risk paying the prescribed price when that law is enforced.
Now if Uber wants to lobby for changing the law, or organize their drivers to lead grass root efforts to get the laws they don't like changed, power too them. However, until you change the law, you live by the law... Uber wants to be above the law, or at the very least, encourage their drivers to break the law. This is not an ethical way to do business.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber wants to be above the law, or at the very least, encourage their drivers to break the law. This is not an ethical way to do business.
I agree that if you break the local laws wherever you are, you will be subject to the prescribed penalties. I also agree that not all laws are good things. For different reasons I agree that there are instances of Uber acting unethically (fake hailing Lyft rides, for instance, or misusing customer information).
I disagree that disobeying one or more regulations is, by definition, an unethical way to do business. There are cities where Uber is not allowed to pick up at the airport. And yet, when Uber d
Re: (Score:3)
You can do what you want, but if you break the law and it is enforced, don't come crying to me about how unfair it is. Of course, one could use this "getting caught" tactic as a PR move as well, but in that case you WANT to be caught and are breaking the law with a purpose. I'm OK with that, but you had better be willing to pay the full price of breaking the law when you enguage in this civil disobedience thing.
Uber doesn't act ethically. They encourage others to break the law, then hide behind this "we
Re: (Score:2)
The latter is starting to look like a good way of achieving the former, though. When you finally give people a decent transport service, all of a sudden they start giving a shit about the regulations that could make it illegal.
Whereas, come at it from the ground up and say "Hey, we're a no-name startup, please change your laws protecting a powerful
Re: (Score:3)
According to the German laws, a taxi is for-profit passenger transportation which is not line operation, not an tourism ride and not a rental car/bus ride.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends where you are. In large cities taxis are hailed. In small cities taxi rides are pre-arranged and not hailed.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends where you are. In large cities taxis are hailed. In small cities taxi rides are pre-arranged and not hailed.
you've never been to brooklyn, which is not a small city
Re: (Score:2)
Sure the local authorities CAN go after local small businesses if they choose. They can very easily find and prosecute drivers who flaunt the local law.
The question is will they choose to do this? I'm guessing that's a political question.
I remember when file sharing was all the rage about 10 years ago. MP3 sharing was literally everywhere. People said the same kinds of things.. Ah, nobody is coming after ME for this, I'm just a small fry. Fast forward a decade and tell me where we are now? File sha
Re: (Score:2)
They can very easily find and prosecute drivers who flaunt the local law.
Hello, this is the Anonymous Pedant bot (build 0.0.4.0.2). I think the word you're looking for is flout [quickanddirtytips.com].
:(
To flaunt the law is to parade it around like a new pair of bosoms. To flout the law is to disregard it like an artificially intelligent grammar bot whose programmer left it for some vapid neural netwich named Sheila42.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, Sister Mary Ellen....Pardon my incorrect usage, here are my wrists for your ruler. Shall I stand at the board and write the sentence correctly 100 times now so I won't ever forget and flaunt my ignorance of the word flout for all the world to see?
Re: (Score:3)
The only companies that are actual tech companies sell technology products or possibly technology consulting services to others. It doesn't matter if that technology company internally moves product or materials around on truc
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:My family learned the hard way about licenses (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In absence of a licensing regime, a hairdresser could pretend to be a surgeon and you wouldn't know.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That is the problem. Licensing should just be compliance, not barrier of entry.
Re: (Score:3)
That is the problem. Licensing should just be compliance, not barrier of entry.
And updated to eliminate unsafe methods to keep the licensed operating safely.
Re: (Score:2)
We see this in the ISP field, just to name one. Even with net neutrality enshrined as a rule, we still have large swathes of the country with second or third rate service, even in major metropolitan areas with dense population. You can see the difference when Google comes to a ci
continuous training (Score:2)
Turned out that the man hadn't bothered to do much to update his knowledge of his specialty in about 15-20 years.
And in some countries this *IS* considered a problem.
Medical Doctors are required to attend conferences, etc. just to keep up to date.
Why does the question even come up? (Score:4, Insightful)
Easy way out for Uber (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Not quite, if Uber doesn't want to be a taxi company it shouldn't be placing so many (or any) restrictions and rules on the "independent" drivers who work for it.
That's where the problem lies, if Uber wants to be a digital distributor of taxi companies, that's all it should be doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're taking a jab at the taxi industry in some locations, and that tickles me some.
But... isn't prevening that exactly the sort of thing - via user reviews and such - that is part of Uber's appeal?
Every rusted heap with smoke billowing out the hood would quickly garner negative reviews (for that particular car, for the company that sent it, maybe both), and people
Re: (Score:2)
Court should refuse to rule (Score:2, Interesting)
This is one of few instances when courts would be wise to do nothing and refuse to rule on the question.
The question is meaningless the same way it is meaningless for the court to rule whether the boiled egg needs to be cracked at the sharp end or the rounder end.
I would also like to remind the famous French Candle makers' petition asking the lawmakers to intervene:
"We (French candle-makers) are suffering from the ruinous competition of a foreign rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior t
Re:Court should refuse to rule (Score:5, Insightful)
First, in the candlemakers' appeal, the requst is to kill the competition. In the Uber case, the question is which body of law to apply. These are not parallel questions.
Second, Bastiat's appeal is fictional and based on satire and oversimplification to make a point; the Spanish judge's request is based in actual events and law, which are much more complicated.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the distinction is meaningless.
If I use a phone to call, text, or use an app in order to have someone provide me with personal transportation to another location for a fee, I'm calling a taxi. I have expectations of being picked up in a reasonable amount of time and to get to my destination in a reasonable amount of time for a reasonable fee.
Uber drivers ARE Taxi drivers. They aren't casual drivers picking up hitchhikers and asking for voluntary, optional donations.
The only questio
Abacus or Typewriter (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Abacus or Typewriter (Score:5, Insightful)
A taxi company screaming "I am not a taxi company" is not a reason to change the laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What a bullshit. They should instead adapting the law to the changing times. This is like deciding whether a computer is an abacus or a typewriter.
Courts do not adapt or change or add or delete laws. They rule based on existing law, they can interpret where things are not clear, but that is all they should and can do. So, in this case, court is doing exactly what they should do, and that is rule on the applicability of taxi laws to Uber.
Lawmakers will change the laws when there is enough motivation to do so, be it public demand, pressing social issue, etc. Sometimes lawmakers wait for court rulings such as this one to help determine what needs to b
Factual record (Score:2)
This should depend greatly on the factual record.
Surely it should be possible that a company arranges for people to get rides from private persons. Any other ruling from the Court would be dreadful. Whether Uber is really just helping people to find a driver (or a rider), or whether it is really holding itself out as a taxi service is another matter. Similarly, it is possible that Uber could use truly independent contractors; whether Uber's current arrangements with its drivers qualifies as an employment re
Re: (Score:2)
If the court decides Uber isn't a taxi company, then I hope it decides the drivers are, and are subject to the same licensing requirements as other taxi companies.
Re: (Score:3)
Surely it should be possible that a company arranges for people to get rides from private persons. Any other ruling from the Court would be dreadful.
Nobody says a company cannot arrange for people to get rides from private persons. For example, that has been done for more than 20 years in Germany. If you want to travel from Bremen to Munich, you find a Mitfahrzentrale which will find a person who wants to drive that way anyway and takes you with them.
Uber however arranges from people to get rides from legally professional drivers, who drive their car specifically from the place where you want to leave to the place where you want to go, for hard cash.
Re: (Score:2)
Your crazy if you think the medallion system was put in place to "protect incumbents". In fact I have yet to see anyone offer any proof of any "taxi cartel". New York at one point had more the 30,000 cabs on the street, it affected safety and that is the reason the medallion system no restricts the number of cabs on the road to a bit over 16,000.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. I think a fair number of people making the argument,
"This should be operated with minimal rules so the market can decide how best to handle things! Bad solutions will fail and the best solution will prevail!"
are shall we say innocent of history. Typically a system like the NYC medallion system exists because at some previous time, the looser 'freer' system was in place, and it persistently led to catastrophic results. The 30,000 cabs on the street fighting for fares was not an accident, it was the n
Re: (Score:3)
That depends on the extent to which cities and road systems (something created and designed by people, except in the case of Boston which was designed by cows) serve a social function as an indispensable part of that society.
If democratic society functions completely the same no matter what transportation does, then sure. Transportation can do what it likes as it doesn't matter.
If systems like cities absolutely require a transportation infrastructure, then society itself has a vested interest in dictating h
The software is a tool, the service is the product (Score:2)
Really, not much more can be said. A 'ridesharing' service could still exist without their software, but their software couldn't exist without a ridesharing service.
Re: (Score:3)
Spain has a history of doing stupid things... (Score:3)
Spain has a history of doing stupid things involving the Internet.
Their "unintended consequence" to forcing search services to not list headlines from news services unless payment for the content happened, was that they got delisted from news.google.com and other Google search results.
"We wanted you to pay us, not delist us!" was a stupid response to the delisting.
The unintended consequence in this case, should the court agree to hear it, is that there will be a single law on the books regulating taxi companies in all EU countries as a result.
This "cure" will likely be worse than the "disease", in terms of overall fallout.
Re:Spain has a history of doing stupid things... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know about Spain but in France, the Taxis want nothing less than for Uber to be outlawed plain & simple.
Their reasoning is that:
- In France, everyone MUST buy a Medallion to be a legal Taxi & to pick people up off the street.
- The number of Medallions is limited, the Medallions are thus very expensive (North of 200K€ a few years ago). It wasn't this way a few decades ago but local governments were pressured into not expanding the number of medallions for diverse reasons, among them olde
Re: (Score:2)
>"Kill them all, God will sort out the inocents" was uttered by a French general
Is it supposed to have been said by the papal legate Arnaud Amalric during the Albigensian Crusade in 1209. Calling him a French general is quite a stretch and any link to the current french population is doubtful at best.
Poor man's limo service (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You make a fair point. However, if the only difference is whether a TAXI diver is actively scouting for service or waiting for a service to assign a job, then it's a really grey area. After all, Uber does its best to advertise itself. Wouldn't an Uber driver parked at an airport waiting for the App to signal the fare be the same as a TAXI driver waiting for a pedestrian to signal for a fare? Why would TAXIs need to advertise their service if the app can advertise for them? - especially if UBER buys a
Re: (Score:2)
If they invent a way for me to "call" a taxi using an electronic device with a dial, that's connected by wires to a network using an area code and seven numbers, does that mean it's not a taxi company?
You can get booze in an Ub
Re: (Score:2)
Try the same thing at Heathrow airport. You can take a metered taxi from the airport, but you can also request a private hire vehicle from the airport or (as I just did) book a car in advance to meet you in arrivals. In the US you might call that a limo service, but that usually implies a certain higher standard of car. In London we'd still call them taxis or cabs. We're talking about services that are significantly cheaper than private hire and cheaper than Uber as well based on the numbers I looked at.
Ube
What else could Uber not be? (Score:4, Funny)
Uber could not be a pimp, they just facilitate the matching up of hookers and johns, process the payments and take a cut.
Uber could not be a slave trader, they just facilitate the matching up of slaves and slave owners, process the payments and take a cut.
Uber could not be a murder for hire company, they just facilitate the matching up of assassins and people who need someone dead...
Don't worry, it's just digital services, nothing illegal going on at all!
I'm an Uber and Lyft user, here's why (Score:3, Insightful)
1) I have yet to meet an unsafe driver. These people driving for both services care about what they're doing unlike Taxi drivers. I've been nearly killed more times than I care to count by Taxi drivers who are working a long shift or who got their licenses in cracker jack boxes.
2) If there's a problem, it gets resolved quickly with Uber or Lyft. With a Taxi company I have to deal with a local government bureaucracy who rarely follow up or actually deal with the complaint. I'm talking about you DC Taxi Commission.
3) I travel frequently on business, I get one set of bills and it's concise not scribbled out and also not billed to some third party company you've never heard of.
4) The pricing is consistent and easy to understand, not some byzantine billing scheme where just getting in the cab can cost you an arm and a leg. I also don't get taken for a ride so to speak, you know when the driver pads the meter.
5) Obtaining a ride and tracking it is easy.
Uber and Lyft can be put out of business very quickly if the protected monopoly of Taxi companies and various commissions just started offering a more competitive environment; that's the big threat here. You have a service that comes in and undercuts a cash cow for governments and for license holders. They don't like it because it threatens their bottom line and that's a valid argument but instead of being more competitive, they protest and burn things (like in France recently)
I also agree that whoever is driving me should be screened, a safe driver and the vehicle I'm in should be safe and reliable but I'd argue that a lot of Taxis at least in the US don't meet that criteria regardless of the litany of bureaucratic organizations that are supposed to make sure that it is. I also want these services not to use me as a mined resource for further profit. If I can get all of that from a Taxi cab, I'll use them more.
Re: (Score:2)
6) I only look at what I can get now and not what things will be like ten years from now.
Uber is new and shiny. The drivers and the cars they have bought to do Uber are new and shiny. Give it ten years and a lack of a taxi industry to 'shine' over and they will be worse then the current taxi industry I assure you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yeah your one data point is more meaningful than all of the other collected information
woo woo
Re: (Score:3)
It's easy to provide a cheape
They will converge (Score:2)
In the medium run the losers are t
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked, Europe didn't border the Pacific Ocean, save a few miscellaneous islands owned by Britain and France.
Re: (Score:2)
GP is probably talking about TTIP.
Re: (Score:3)
What can you do with UBER, as a user? You may request a cab and pay for the ride. What about a driver? You get ride requests, payments for the rides and incentives to buy your own car. The final service: take passenger from point A to point B.
As a user, you can't request a taxi; taxi's are run, at least in France, by a monopoly; you can request a driver with a car, and pay for the ride.
As a DRIVER, you can request a car and pay for a ride as well.
Isn't this exactly what the "cab unions" have been doing for decades with voucher systems and a telephone central?
No. Uber also adds "actually showing up" because of their ratings system, and "not obstructing traffic every time the Uber contractors decide to get pissy about something". Both of these are substantial benefits that taxis don't have.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you've slightly misunderstood one small detail.
Uber certainly does not add 'actually showing up' because of the ratings system. It adds 'firing drivers' because of the ratings system, which one might call 'churn'.
If you figure Uber's normal operation is stable employment, I think you're not quite understanding what Uber is: it's all about churn. There's nothing persistent about it, it's a 'cloud' of transportation. (if they start using that, especially in court, I want them to pay me)
As such, by des
Re: (Score:2)
Uber also adds the "Showing up, but then refusing you a ride if you have a service animal" and other serious issues that keep cropping up.
Well that shit clearly needs to stop. A company practice of refusing access to the disabled or their service animals is unacceptable, as is deliberately underserving those with disabilities. If that is occurring at a high level, nail em to the wall.
However, while I support universal service animal access, I'm more sympathetic to the individual driver with cloth seats who knows that dog hair can be hell to clean out (and will get all over your next fare).
All that adds up to requiring (at penalty of l
Re: (Score:2)
The outrage here should be why the state is spending trillions of eurodrachmas
gosh, let's pretend that they are, and then we can get angry about that
Re: (Score:2)