That is how things are, but it doesn't mean it's a great system. The free market has a way of sorting these things out.
The free market may have a way of sorting these things out, but that doesn't mean it's a great system.
Regulation of things like a taxi service exists largely for the protection of the public, which you've said you support - not necessarily for the service of the public. There are stories floating around (which may or may not be true) where taxi drivers have kidnapped unsuspecting members of the public and then committed horrific acts of violence to them. Do these things actually happen? It's not far-fetched. Would they happen with Uber? Again, not far-fetched.
The difference between Uber/Lyft/etc and a regulated taxi service is the paper trail that is left behind. If something goes horribly wrong, there's a way to determine the guilty party and pursue remedies. With government regulation, if the guilty party escapes (whether through failure to identify or absconding before apprehension) there are systems in place to provide the victim(s) with some sort of compensation for their experience. Society as a whole takes a hit from the bad actor, but the damage at an individual level is somewhat mitigated.
With the free market, if the guilty party cannot be located, brought to trial and forced to compensate the victim adequately (each step of which will be vigorously defended by the offender), the people harmed get bupkis. The guilty party and their associates may or may not suffer reputational damage, depending on their ability to distort information in publicly-accessible media.
Neither system is perfect. As a society, do we want to lend a helping hand to those in trouble, or offer a "sucks to be you" condolence?
What you are talking about now is civil liability and criminal liability. None of it has anything to do with regulation. Regulation is not going to stop criminals. There is always a fine line in these things. Building codes and zoning restrictions? Probably a good thing. Building standards for public projects? Absolutely a good thing. But when it comes to policing uninsured drivers and holding a company responsible for them in all circumstances? I’m not sure that’s a good thing at all.
You know that Ron Swanson was a comedy character and not someone to build your belief system around, right?
Uber is full of it. Their business model was always centered around not having to follow the same laws and regulations that other companies in the same market were required to follow. Their excuse for not following them was simply "our customers use an app" and nothing else. Personally, I find it bizarre that they got away with it as long as they did.
I basically agree with you. However, Uber and similar services legally take advantage of differences in the way pre-booked car services and cars picked up on the streets are regulated in many countries. To say "our customers use an app" is just shorthand for saying that the service is not a taxi service but a car hire service. In some places, the high cost of entry (through expensive "medallions" etc.) made taxi service way too expensive and ripe for some kind of competition. In a free country, why shouldn't a person be able to transport someone else for a fee? Should you need permission from the government to do anything? If you're not in a free country, you have bigger problems than this.
I lived for several years in a sort of crap-hole country where cabs coexisted with people more often just hailing random cars to get places. You'd put your hand up and some car would stop, you would tell the driver where you're going and negotiate a price if they're willing to take you there. This was very common but in retrospect rather dangerous. A service like Uber or Lyft is probably much safer (I read the article, so with caveats.) I lived in another place where the cab drivers are very professional (uniforms and everything) and maybe on a salary - no tips expected. uber or Lyft might wipe them out and I think the government basically put an end to them. Last time I was there the Lyft (or Uber?) app would book you a taxi.
So you’re suggesting the UK should follow the example of “crap-hole” countries? Isn’t the lack of structure & regulation the reason they’re “crap-hole” countries in the first place?
Sucks for London, my trip there this summer would have been way more difficult to get around without it. I'm sure Uber and London will figure something out.
Why? Literally everywhere in London is served by the tube, if not a 5 minute bus ride. Unless you want to go literally door to door without a 5 minute walk to the tube, getting about in London is not difficult.
I agree. The only times I use a taxi on my trips to London is from and to the airport, because I do not want to lug my luggage around.
In London, the Underground is the best mode of transport, with buses coming in second.
Any ride for money/reward has to have the correct insurance for so many reasons. Realtors in the US have strict licensing and insurance requirements for driving a prospective buyer around for example. If an uninsured Uber driver got into a crash law suits would be flying in several directions and there could be a lot of grief involved.
I don't understand anyone on this forum objecting to a legislative body be it a city or a state or even a country insisting on Uber drivers carrying the correct license/insurance before they are allowed to operate. It would be insanity not to and getting to silly discussions about this being about tyranny etc. is beyond ridiculous.
That is how things are, but it doesn't mean it's a great system. The free market has a way of sorting these things out.
The free market may have a way of sorting these things out, but that doesn't mean it's a great system.
Regulation of things like a taxi service exists largely for the protection of the public, which you've said you support - not necessarily for the service of the public. There are stories floating around (which may or may not be true) where taxi drivers have kidnapped unsuspecting members of the public and then committed horrific acts of violence to them. Do these things actually happen? It's not far-fetched. Would they happen with Uber? Again, not far-fetched.
The difference between Uber/Lyft/etc and a regulated taxi service is the paper trail that is left behind. If something goes horribly wrong, there's a way to determine the guilty party and pursue remedies. With government regulation, if the guilty party escapes (whether through failure to identify or absconding before apprehension) there are systems in place to provide the victim(s) with some sort of compensation for their experience. Society as a whole takes a hit from the bad actor, but the damage at an individual level is somewhat mitigated.
With the free market, if the guilty party cannot be located, brought to trial and forced to compensate the victim adequately (each step of which will be vigorously defended by the offender), the people harmed get bupkis. The guilty party and their associates may or may not suffer reputational damage, depending on their ability to distort information in publicly-accessible media.
Neither system is perfect. As a society, do we want to lend a helping hand to those in trouble, or offer a "sucks to be you" condolence?
What you are talking about now is civil liability and criminal liability. None of it has anything to do with regulation. Regulation is not going to stop criminals. There is always a fine line in these things. Building codes and zoning restrictions? Probably a good thing. Building standards for public projects? Absolutely a good thing. But when it comes to policing uninsured drivers and holding a company responsible for them in all circumstances? I’m not sure that’s a good thing at all.
You know that Ron Swanson was a comedy character and not someone to build your belief system around, right?
You realize ad hominem attacks aren't allowed, right?
Uber is full of it. Their business model was always centered around not having to follow the same laws and regulations that other companies in the same market were required to follow. Their excuse for not following them was simply "our customers use an app" and nothing else. Personally, I find it bizarre that they got away with it as long as they did.
"The same laws and regulations" means "participate in the government-controlled monopoly." This is not about being "fit and proper." Nor is it about safety. It's about money. Government sets onerous licensing requirements with huge fees. Once they are in bed with the service providers, they, in turn, block out all competition. The same has happened in the United States, with taxi medallions. This is no different than the mafia controlling the trash business. The only real difference is it's government doing the leg breaking.
Oh look, more anti-government conspiracy-theorizing...
No one is having their legs broken by governmental regulating bodies.
It happens (for the most part, figuratively) all the time.
Uber is full of it. Their business model was always centered around not having to follow the same laws and regulations that other companies in the same market were required to follow. Their excuse for not following them was simply "our customers use an app" and nothing else. Personally, I find it bizarre that they got away with it as long as they did.
"The same laws and regulations" means "participate in the government-controlled monopoly." This is not about being "fit and proper." Nor is it about safety. It's about money. Government sets onerous licensing requirements with huge fees. Once they are in bed with the service providers, they, in turn, block out all competition. The same has happened in the United States, with taxi medallions. This is no different than the mafia controlling the trash business. The only real difference is it's government doing the leg breaking.
Huh? They already get fees. The issue is un-insured drivers being able to drive via the app. I'm sure if an uninsured driver crashed and broke your legs, you'd be quite upset that the regulatory body allowed uninsured drivers.
Or, I could take responsibility for myself. Caveat Emptor.
Then take responsibility for your irrational antigovernment commentary and corporate bootlicking. Learn about the real world and stop acting like it should be made to arbitrarily conform to your impractical libertarian theories.
Again, I'll remind you that ad hominem argument is not allowed. Please do everyone a favor and don't get the thread shut down.
As for me, I'm not a pure libertarian. On the US political spectrum, I'm conservative on most issues (particularly fiscal), libertarian on others. I'm not sure where you're getting "corporate bootlicking" from. I've said nothing positive about Uber. I don't have any disdain for corporations in particular, thought it seems like you have a Bernie Bro streak in you, hmmm? That's my impression.
I do find your comment about the "real world" pretty hilarious. I somehow doubt your understanding and experience in the "real world" compares to mine, but then again, I don't know you. For what it's worth, I've had quite a few interesting experiences in my life that I think give me a broad experiential background. I won't get into them here, so you're welcome to dismiss me as some Ron Paul nutter.....it doesn't bother me. Enjoy.
Uber is full of it. Their business model was always centered around not having to follow the same laws and regulations that other companies in the same market were required to follow. Their excuse for not following them was simply "our customers use an app" and nothing else. Personally, I find it bizarre that they got away with it as long as they did.
"The same laws and regulations" means "participate in the government-controlled monopoly." This is not about being "fit and proper." Nor is it about safety. It's about money. Government sets onerous licensing requirements with huge fees. Once they are in bed with the service providers, they, in turn, block out all competition. The same has happened in the United States, with taxi medallions. This is no different than the mafia controlling the trash business. The only real difference is it's government doing the leg breaking.
It may be about money, but when there is a system in place in the form of laws and regulations you have to follow them. Uber, Lyft, the various scooter companies, VRBO, HomeAway, etc made the decision to steamroll cities and then get the regulations adopted for them. The cities sat on the sidelines until they were inundated and now have to go back and fix the problems.
As for medallions you are talking serious money. In NYC you have to have one to operate a cab (transport people) and they are costly and the system is dependent upon selling them to someone else when you retire. Prior to Uber/Lyft I never had a problem getting a cab within a minute or two in NYC as was more than satisfied with the service so there was no need for Uber/Lyft and all they have done is flood the city with more cars. Their model makes sense in areas without public transportation of any type. Of course neither of them have turned anything close to a profit and most likely never will at the rate they bleed cash. Going public was a lifeline of cash as they could not raise anymore private equity. What we will most likely end up with is a mess to clean up when they go under with the cab service crushed and no one to take us where we need to go.
I obviously support following regulations, though the nature and wisdom of this regulations is up for debate. The problem is government never keeps up with the market and technology. Government taxes hotels, for example. But do they have a right to tax me renting my house for the weekend? Why do they get to tax the company helping the transaction? I don't have the answers.
You renting your house is considered income, and is taxed as such, if you report it of course. Don’t forget that you really don’t own your property either, in the US at least. You merely rent it from the State government. If you don’t pay your property taxes for a long enough period, they can confiscate it from you.
I can't let this go unchallenged. Property ownership is fundamental in the US (at least). You don't "rent" your property from the government. Yes, if you don't pay your taxes they can take your property as compensation for what you owe, but to suggest that this means that everyone is a renter is disingenious and misleading.
I tend to agree this is mostly about show me the money both for Uber and the government.
However, in London they have a very high standard for their taxi drives. To drive a taxi in London you have to take classes for 2 yrs, you need to demonstrate by memory the shortest path between two points and the answer could be different at different times of the day. London requires drive to get someone on from point A to point B in the shortest and quickest possible way. Uber only requires you have a divers license, access to a car which is less then 10 yrs old and have cell phone. Does not mean you are getting the best driver or someone who knows and understands the city. At least London can claim they are trying to uphold the higher standard that most people in London have come to expect. Can not say the same in other cities.
So, out of date and costly standards. Just what a good mapping App does. I would much rather have an affordable service such as Uber’s than a costly archaic one.
This isn't about tube vs Uber, it's about having options and not being able to use Uber is a major loss for people who rely on it. I used the tube plenty when I visited London, but I didn't use it for every ride because it wasn't always convenient to use depending on a variety of factors, some being time or day, location to the tub, and/or weather.
Calling this a “major loss” is a stretch. There are still 2000 legal taxi companies to choose from in London. Many of Uber’s drivers also work for Uber’s rivals so there won’t even be a drop in capacity.
So speaking as the only Londoner on this thread, people here are annoyed by this.
Fastest way around London is the tube, but there are few lines south of the Thames and Outer London is sparsely covered: though it's still probably the most coverage for any city in the world. The night tube, 24 hours, only runs Friday and Saturday night.
Only tourists take black cab taxi's, as they don't realise how ludicrously expensive these are. Banning Uber is a sop to the taxi driver's Union by our socialist mayor.
Licensed mini-cabs are more widely used, these have to be prebooked and can't be hailed in the street.
Finally there are unlicensed mini-cabs that tout for fares on the street in competition to black cab taxis. These can be dangerous and aren't recommended but with Uber gone and back cabs too expensive people will start using these again.
So the overall effect of the mayor's actions is to put more people at risk of being mugged/ raped by unlicensed cabbies.
So speaking as the only Londoner on this thread, people here are annoyed by this.
Fastest way around London is the tube, but there are few lines south of the Thames and Outer London is sparsely covered: though it's still probably the most coverage for any city in the world. The night tube, 24 hours, only runs Friday and Saturday night.
Only tourists take black cab taxi's, as they don't realise how ludicrously expensive these are. Banning Uber is a sop to the taxi driver's Union by our socialist mayor.
Licensed mini-cabs are more widely used, these have to be prebooked and can't be hailed in the street.
Finally there are unlicensed mini-cabs that tout for fares on the street in competition to black cab taxis. These can be dangerous and aren't recommended but with Uber gone and back cabs too expensive people will start using these again.
So the overall effect of the mayor's actions is to put more people at risk of being mugged/ raped by unlicensed cabbies.
You’re not the only Londoner in this thread, black cabs aren’t just used by tourists (ask anyone with a pram or in a wheelchair), the mayor is a liberal not a socialist and there’s still plenty of alternatives to unlicensed mini-cabs (e.g. Kapten and Bolt).
Folks, I know some brought up the insurance issue in London for Uber drivers this is not a sole issue. I read a more complete article on this topic, which tends to be a rare event today with media.
This article got into all the reasons this happen. It appears the primary reason is Uber Drivers are giving out their log in credentials for the Uber app to allow anyone to use their account. When the account is loaned out, the person using it will upload their picture so when they show up to pick someone up the Uber user will not know they are not the correct person. They said there was 14,000 rides given by people who were not authorized by Uber to give a ride. The London Authorities said a number of these unauthorized people provide rides are criminals, or do not have a driver license and the list goes on. In some cases a person with a clean record signs up for the account and then turns it over to criminals to use. It like a straw gun purchase in the US
Uber has acknowledge this is happening and they trying to prevent it, but it is still happening. This is happen everywhere, not just London. They said the problem is just as bad in San Francisco, LA, NYC and other large US cities.
When I learn this, I told my wife who uses Uber most times when she travels to stop using the App when she is in large cities. I know Uber tries to vet people and keep the less desirable out, but what happening in London shows they are unable to stop it. London gave them the opportunity to rectify, but Uber failed.
Comments
I agree. The only times I use a taxi on my trips to London is from and to the airport, because I do not want to lug my luggage around.
In London, the Underground is the best mode of transport, with buses coming in second.
I don't understand anyone on this forum objecting to a legislative body be it a city or a state or even a country insisting on Uber drivers carrying the correct license/insurance before they are allowed to operate. It would be insanity not to and getting to silly discussions about this being about tyranny etc. is beyond ridiculous.
You realize ad hominem attacks aren't allowed, right?
Again, I'll remind you that ad hominem argument is not allowed. Please do everyone a favor and don't get the thread shut down.
As for me, I'm not a pure libertarian. On the US political spectrum, I'm conservative on most issues (particularly fiscal), libertarian on others. I'm not sure where you're getting "corporate bootlicking" from. I've said nothing positive about Uber. I don't have any disdain for corporations in particular, thought it seems like you have a Bernie Bro streak in you, hmmm? That's my impression.
I do find your comment about the "real world" pretty hilarious. I somehow doubt your understanding and experience in the "real world" compares to mine, but then again, I don't know you. For what it's worth, I've had quite a few interesting experiences in my life that I think give me a broad experiential background. I won't get into them here, so you're welcome to dismiss me as some Ron Paul nutter.....it doesn't bother me. Enjoy.
Fastest way around London is the tube, but there are few lines south of the Thames and Outer London is sparsely covered: though it's still probably the most coverage for any city in the world. The night tube, 24 hours, only runs Friday and Saturday night.
Only tourists take black cab taxi's, as they don't realise how ludicrously expensive these are. Banning Uber is a sop to the taxi driver's Union by our socialist mayor.
Licensed mini-cabs are more widely used, these have to be prebooked and can't be hailed in the street.
Finally there are unlicensed mini-cabs that tout for fares on the street in competition to black cab taxis. These can be dangerous and aren't recommended but with Uber gone and back cabs too expensive people will start using these again.
So the overall effect of the mayor's actions is to put more people at risk of being mugged/ raped by unlicensed cabbies.
This article got into all the reasons this happen. It appears the primary reason is Uber Drivers are giving out their log in credentials for the Uber app to allow anyone to use their account. When the account is loaned out, the person using it will upload their picture so when they show up to pick someone up the Uber user will not know they are not the correct person. They said there was 14,000 rides given by people who were not authorized by Uber to give a ride. The London Authorities said a number of these unauthorized people provide rides are criminals, or do not have a driver license and the list goes on. In some cases a person with a clean record signs up for the account and then turns it over to criminals to use. It like a straw gun purchase in the US
Uber has acknowledge this is happening and they trying to prevent it, but it is still happening. This is happen everywhere, not just London. They said the problem is just as bad in San Francisco, LA, NYC and other large US cities.
When I learn this, I told my wife who uses Uber most times when she travels to stop using the App when she is in large cities. I know Uber tries to vet people and keep the less desirable out, but what happening in London shows they are unable to stop it. London gave them the opportunity to rectify, but Uber failed.