Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday December 20 2017, @05:54PM   Printer-friendly
from the if-it-walks-like-a-duck dept.

After a period of consideration, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has decided that Uber is a transport service, just like any other taxi company. There is lot to say about Uber's use of untrained, non-professional drivers and other abusive practices.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by drussell on Wednesday December 20 2017, @06:35PM (24 children)

    by drussell (2678) on Wednesday December 20 2017, @06:35PM (#612437) Journal

    Of course they are essentially a taxi / limo for hire company.

    They've just been trying to circumvent existing rules and regulations in the latest round of "But, but, but... On a COMPUTER!!!"

    :facepalm:

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday December 20 2017, @07:33PM (3 children)

    by frojack (1554) on Wednesday December 20 2017, @07:33PM (#612473) Journal

    Right, the whole reason uber (etc) exist is because of laws set up long ago to force central dispatch of cabs. And doing it On A Computer was specifically outlawed in many places.

    Had the cab companies jumped up and adopted computerized dispatch with all the features (rejecting some drivers, rejecting some passengers, driver/passenger pictures, payments and tipping, - all the things uber and lyft apps offer) there would never have been Uber or Lyft.

    Instead taxi companies actively lobbied against those things, got them prohibited in regulations. (And hoped to protect their fiefdom and high fares in the process).

    Cities were interested in building in artificial scarcity, so they could charge a lot for a medallion, collect taxes, etc, and protection of citizens was way way down on the list.

    Cab companies were interested in making sure they own the business, keep drivers working on near starvation wages, and limiting competition.

    As a result the single best thing to come along in the history of the Taxi industry ended up being a lightning rod.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday December 20 2017, @08:13PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 20 2017, @08:13PM (#612506) Journal

      And doing it On A Computer was specifically outlawed in many places.

      Citation needed.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 21 2017, @05:32AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 21 2017, @05:32AM (#612702)

      No. Circumventing existing laws does not grant them immunity. Quit trying to apply your american point of view to european point of view.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by kazzie on Thursday December 21 2017, @12:32PM

        by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 21 2017, @12:32PM (#612764)

        Following up on that, in the UK, there are two legal categories for "taxis". Cars that can park in taxi ranks to wait for passing custom, or be flagged down by anyone on the street, are officially known as Taxicabs or Hackney Carriages. Another variety is the Minicab or Private Hire Vehicle, which has to be pre-booked (this could be in the form of a phone call to the firm's booking office, or even the driver's mobile phone). Both categories are licensed by the local authorities (county councils).

        Uber's activities in the UK are closer to Private Hire than Hackney Carriages, but they've generally claimed that they were neither.

  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday December 20 2017, @07:41PM (15 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday December 20 2017, @07:41PM (#612476)

    No, they're *not* a taxi company. But "limo for hire", yes, that describes them pretty closely: limo for hire using a smartphone app.

    The distinction is important, because at least in some jurisdictions, the laws for the two are very different. Uber (and Lyft) gets flak because they don't obey laws for taxi companies, but they are not a taxi company: they do not have a taximeter, and they do not pick up people who hail from the sidewalk. In NYC, for instance, the laws for taxis are different than the laws for limos ("black cars" etc.).

    It may seem silly, but that's the way the laws are. Don't like it? Update the laws, which obviously were never written with the idea of smartphone apps in mind.

    As long as they adhere to the law for limos-for-hire, there really isn't a problem. They're just like any other limo company, except instead of calling them on the phone like in the old days, you use a smartphone app to hire them. And of course the cars aren't really limos, but that's been true of the other limo companies for a long time too, you could get all kinds of other cars, the idea was that you were paying a prenegotiated fee for the ride.

    Obviously, the laws are archaic, because they treated "limos" differently (and more laxly), but that's not Uber's fault, it's the regulators' (and those regulators have had more than enough time to update their laws to account for these newfangled "smartphones"). If Uber followed the taxi laws, they'd have to put an old-style taximeter in the car just like any other cab, and accept hails from the curb; it'd be ridiculous. It's simple: they aren't taxis, so stop thinking of them that way. Think of them as limos for hire.

    So yes, they are a "transport service". No, they are not a "taxi company", just like Amtrak is not a taxi company, nor is Megabus. Yes, they should be regulated as a "transport service". No, they should not be regulated as a "taxi company", just like Megabus and Greyhound should not.

    The simple fact that Uber/Lyft are exposing, that seems to have a lot of people really upset, is that taxi companies are simply obsolete, just like companies that used to deliver milk to your doorstep every morning, or companies that delivered blocks of ice every morning for your cooler. Regulate them as modern, 21st-century car-for-hire-by-smartphone companies, rather than early-20th-century taxicab companies, and we don't need to have this stupid debate.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 20 2017, @07:52PM (9 children)

      by frojack (1554) on Wednesday December 20 2017, @07:52PM (#612487) Journal

      Milk deliver is still a thing in some places. Especially if you have a house full of kids.

      But Taxi Companies have made themselves obsolete by refusing to adopt App based hailing.
      Cities haven't helped by propping up old tech and old rules in the interest of taxing and licensing fees.

      There is still a place for the taxi companies if they would just get on board with the technology.

      There is probably still a case for a slight artificial scarcity in rides, so that people can make a living at it slightly better than a seasonal crop picker.

      I'm waiting for the city that kicks taxi companies to the curb and gives Uber/Lyft a charter with mandated levels of availability, minimum wages, driver background checks, and vehicle inspection, but in most other aspects, just keeps hands off.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 20 2017, @08:04PM (7 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 20 2017, @08:04PM (#612497) Journal

        There is probably still a case for a slight artificial scarcity in rides, so that people can make a living at it slightly better than a seasonal crop picker.

        Sorry, sabotaging important parts of our economies so that a few people can make slightly more, is a terrible idea. The desperation of people willing to work for slightly better than a seasonal crop picker is not improved by destroying the jobs that they seek. And transportation is very important to our economies. We're making everything else in that city worse by making transportation more scarce.

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday December 20 2017, @08:20PM (6 children)

          by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday December 20 2017, @08:20PM (#612512)

          Many cities are restricting cab numbers as an incentive to push people to public transport, have less cars adding traffic around hot spots all day long, and to avoid cabs literally fighting each other over the customers.

          • (Score: 2) by choose another one on Wednesday December 20 2017, @08:28PM (4 children)

            by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 20 2017, @08:28PM (#612518)

            > Many cities are restricting cab numbers as an incentive to push people to public transport

            Um, taxis _are_ public transport.

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 20 2017, @08:39PM (3 children)

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 20 2017, @08:39PM (#612524) Journal

              Nitpicking. Chosen to ignore "have less cars adding traffic", haven't you?
              Let me put forward the "mass transit" substitute for "public transport", a substitute which encompasses "less traffic".

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
              • (Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Thursday December 21 2017, @01:04AM (2 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 21 2017, @01:04AM (#612651) Journal
                Really, taxis should still count as a positive since one taxi can take the place of numerous personal vehicles. And they have the advantage that they are point to point.
                • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday December 21 2017, @01:29AM (1 child)

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 21 2017, @01:29AM (#612661) Journal

                  Really, taxis should still count as a positive since one taxi can take the place of numerous personal vehicles.

                  True.

                  And they have the advantage that they are point to point.

                  Not very much of an advantage in Europe, believe me. You'd be hardly pressed to find "middle of nowhere" places there.

                  The metropolitan areas are packed with mass transit (and murder at rush hours), the "rural areas" are very much like the suburbs I'm seeing in Australian "greater city" areas (except for the mountains): average distance between two neighborhooding villages in the 10-15km range. With at least hourly buses or microbuses between them.
                  You simply don't go shopping using your car: take a stroll for your daily groceries (if you don't grab them on your way from office), 20 mins walk max, 2-5 kilos at max - why buy more if the shops are nearby and you buy everything you need fresh?

                  You need to be quite pressed to use a car to solve your problems, even more so that the population density favor good communication (internet) infrastructure.

                  --
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 21 2017, @01:59AM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 21 2017, @01:59AM (#612675) Journal

                    Not very much of an advantage in Europe, believe me. You'd be hardly pressed to find "middle of nowhere" places there.

                    Most auto transportation in the US is not to and from middle of nowhere. Not every pair of places in Europe have mass transit routes running directly between arbitrary locations. The problem is that it's easy for a massive number of cars to overload a road. When that doesn't happen, cars work fine.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 21 2017, @08:38AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 21 2017, @08:38AM (#612734)

            Maybe in the US.

            Over here in Denmark, taxis are for the rich, the rest of us get to buy our own cars (with 180% taxes). When Uber arrived, we finally had an alternative to drunk driving, but that didn't last long, everyone - taxi companies, politicians, etc - were fighting to have them prosecuted before the Christmas party season. I suspect drunk driving fines is an important source of income on top of the 180% taxes on cars.

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday December 20 2017, @08:53PM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday December 20 2017, @08:53PM (#612531)

        Agreed. I'll also add that cities need to do better in building and operating mass transit. More people should be in trains rather than cars, but that also requires the city to do a good job of planning, building, and operating the train systems, something most of them in this country seem to do poorly at. (By contrast, in Japan, they do a fantastic job of it. No one dies there because a train went 80mph around a turn with a 30mph speed limit.)

    • (Score: 2) by NewNic on Wednesday December 20 2017, @08:52PM (1 child)

      by NewNic (6420) on Wednesday December 20 2017, @08:52PM (#612530) Journal

      No, they're *not* a taxi company. But "limo for hire", yes, that describes them pretty closely: limo for hire using a smartphone app.

      Your attempt at semantics fails because you equate taxi with hackney carriage, but that is only one use of the word. Private hire vehicles are also taxis.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab [wikipedia.org]

      --
      lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday December 20 2017, @08:56PM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday December 20 2017, @08:56PM (#612533)

        Your attempt at semantics fails because you equate taxi with hackney carriage, but that is only one use of the word. Private hire vehicles are also taxis.

        No, that depends on the jurisdiction. Wikipedia is not the arbiter for legal definitions that can be particular to a certain city. Those definitions can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

        It's totally common for private-hire vehicles to have different regulations than taxicabs.

    • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday December 20 2017, @10:27PM (1 child)

      by MostCynical (2589) on Wednesday December 20 2017, @10:27PM (#612590) Journal

      "hailing" a taxi
      vs
      "Pre-booking" a limo.

      Taxis have moved into pre-booking, but you never know if they are going to show up, or even which company will turn up.

      Basically, in most juristictions, limo drivers can't tout for business, or pick-up passengers from the kerb.

      Uber and lyft *are*, by definition, all pre-booked, but, in some cases, only minutes before the trip.
      So, it all comes down to semantics, which is what happens with most legal arguments.

      --
      "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday December 20 2017, @10:48PM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday December 20 2017, @10:48PM (#612598)

        Uber and lyft *are*, by definition, all pre-booked, but, in some cases, only minutes before the trip.
        So, it all comes down to semantics, which is what happens with most legal arguments.

        That's correct: you can pre-book a ride hours or days ahead of time (good idea if you're traveling and need a ride from the airport), or you can look for a ride right now while you wait. It is an issue with semantics, but the law is the law: if the law wasn't written with the idea of a smartphone, and doesn't say anything about how long you have to book ahead of time to be "pre-booked", then the law is on the side of Uber/Lyft.

        The whole thing again just shows that the laws and regulations are badly outdated, and the traditional taxi company business model is totally obsolete. Propping it up with attempts at legislating against Uber/Lyft, or trying to somehow force them to obey laws intended for a very different industry, are not the answer. Regulations aimed at protecting consumers from dangerous drivers, dangerous vehicles, monopolies, etc., are all great and should be done, but too often it seems like regulations are only aimed at protecting incumbent businesses, which is simply corruption.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 21 2017, @05:34AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 21 2017, @05:34AM (#612703)

      thats nice. and americentric. this is europe. next.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 20 2017, @07:51PM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 20 2017, @07:51PM (#612486) Journal

    They've just been trying to circumvent existing rules and regulations in the latest round of "But, but, but... On a COMPUTER!!!"

    You are neglecting the drivers. No regular employer can handle workers just showing up when they feel like it, including taking unannounced vacations that could last months or years, but Uber handles that sort of chaos automatically - which incidentally is a strong indication that Uber drivers aren't employees by the legal definitions since they don't have to show up for work to stay Uber drivers. This is a huge departure from the taxi/limo for hire models you mention.

    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday December 20 2017, @09:01PM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday December 20 2017, @09:01PM (#612534)

      That depends on the definition of "employee" in that particular jurisdiction. There's other industries where workers just show up "when they feel like it", that's nothing new. Uber/Lyft do handle that more gracefully and automatically than older industries (where they might not be given a job that day if too many other people showed up), but not all employers have employees who show up consistently. People who hire day-laborers are a good example here. But this probably doesn't disagree with you: those people who hire day-laborers aren't hiring W-2 employees, having to file IRS forms for them, having to pay FICA taxes for them, etc. (And this is all assuming you're in the US, laws in EU are different of course.)

    • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday December 21 2017, @12:19AM

      by isostatic (365) on Thursday December 21 2017, @12:19AM (#612637) Journal

      Most minicab firms round where I live are owner operators. They pay a "radio" fee, and get to keep most of the fares. They don't want to drive, not a problem (although they may have to give their radio back).

      Uber is no different

  • (Score: 2) by canopic jug on Thursday December 21 2017, @04:41PM

    by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 21 2017, @04:41PM (#612831) Journal

    My own take on Uber is that is not as much a transportation service though I agree fully with the ECJ assesment of it being one. I see it instead as a rather brazen attempt to knock the bottom out of a market, one chosen not quite at random. Uber's riders only pay 41 percent of the full cost of each ride, with investors footing the remaining 59 percent [vice.com]. In other words, without the price dumping, Uber trips would cost more than double [reuters.com] what they do now. They have a time limit. If they can destroy the taxi market before the venture capital runs out, then they win more or less a monopoly. If the real taxis can hang on until the venture capital runs out, then Uber goes away, hopefully taking wannabees with them.

    Anyway in some countries, driving a cab is a respectable profession and pays at least a livable wage. In other countries, neither. Uber brings down both.

    --
    Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.