SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The ruling (PDF), issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union this morning, will increase pressure on the not-a-taxi biz, and follows a decision that saw its services classed as transport, not digital.
The case relates to charges French authorities want to bring against UberPop - a ride-sharing service that links non-professional, unlicensed drivers with people in need of a lift - and whether it is an information society service. Uber France is trying to slip out of the regulatory net by arguing it is an information society service, which would mean it fell under rules set out in an EU directive on technical standards and regulations. This directive (PDF) stated that member states have to tell the European Commission about any draft rules or legislation that set out technical regulations of information services or products - the idea being to allow Brussels to ensure national laws comply with digital single market rules.
The French authorities didn’t do this for the criminal legislation they are trying to use to charge Uber, and so, as the ECJ noted in its judgement “Uber France infers from this that it cannot therefore be prosecuted on the charges”.
However, the ECJ was not persuaded. It reminded Uber it had last year ruled that the UberPop service offered in Spain was a transport service - not a digital one. The two countries’ services, in the court's view, are “essentially identical”.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 12 2018, @01:17AM (32 children)
How about we just eliminate all regulations regarding the driving of taxis that go beyond any other human driving a car?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 12 2018, @01:32AM
I certainly don't see that happening. Someone, somewhere, is going to worry over tax revenue that may or may not be paid, whether on the federal, state, or local level. I fully expect that sooner or later, all taxi services will require possession of a CDL. Apparently, the cutoff for that requirement is the driver plus 15 passengers - https://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/taxi-drivers-and-chauffeurs.htm [bls.gov] DHS and the anti-terrorism crowd are sure to pick up on this little loophole. A terroristic taxi driver is unregulated by the Federal Government!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday April 12 2018, @01:37AM (10 children)
No background checks for taxi drivers, you reckon? No driving experience checks or history of past accidents?
People will learn pretty quick that asking for a taxi from a person you don't know and there's no check on them may be a risky business.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 12 2018, @01:40AM (6 children)
So? Risky Business was a damned fine movie. Why you gotta go hatin on Tom just because he's nuttier than squirrel shit?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Thursday April 12 2018, @01:51AM (5 children)
Just from curiosity: are you still able to perceive a difference between the reality and a Hollywood movie?
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 12 2018, @01:56AM (4 children)
Ask me when I've got a bit less whiskey in me.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @03:47AM (3 children)
It was Fox News and Breitbart from Reality, since why would TMB be watching anything from those filthy liberals in Hollywood? I mean shit they wanted to elect CLINTON! *smirk*
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 12 2018, @11:02AM (2 children)
That's an example of a "thought" for you? It all becomes clear now...
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 12 2018, @11:45AM (1 child)
Does this mean the whiskey is wearing off?
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 12 2018, @11:58AM
I'll let you know after the coffee kicks in.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday April 12 2018, @01:48AM (2 children)
They will also want to check drivers of all cars that they are going to come close to during the trip.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 12 2018, @01:56AM (1 child)
For the later, prevention (to a point) and mitigation strategies for those kind of risks are already in place in civilized countries, as a service provided by the local (traffic) police.
Try behaving erratically on a public road and you'll know what I mean.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @07:58AM
Over here, the politicians are so fixated on teaching drivers that speeding is the cause of every accident that they are convincing more and more people that as long as you stay under the speed limit, you can pretty much ignore traffic regulations. And the police are of course doing a pretty good job to deliver the message.
Run a stop sign? The other person was 2 MPH over the speed limit, so he's at fault for the accident.
Heck, I've seen people so convinced of speeding being the cause of everything that they blame speeding for accidents caused by drunk driving.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @01:44AM (13 children)
Yeah but Europeans aren't retarded and brainwashed into believing "eliminating regulation" will improve people's lives.
Go back to watching your Sinclair media propaganda Cletus.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 12 2018, @02:01AM (12 children)
Just to be clear then: you believe that if Person A gives Person B a lift for free all's good but if the same Person A charges the same Person B money you should regulate and tax the fuck out of them?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Thursday April 12 2018, @05:17AM
Yes!
What's so hard about that?
Thinking about it, though, most developed countries have a lot of regulation relating to privately owned cars that are not used for any kind of taxi service. They have inspections to ensure that cars on the road are safe. Real inspections that do things like test the efficiency of the brakes, the wheels are not going to drop off, make sure the lights are working and that rust hasn't compromised the structure of the car, etc..
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday April 12 2018, @06:46AM (7 children)
Replace "gives a lift" with "builds a house", "cooks some food", "cleans", "teaches" ...
All of civilization is based on making sure people get what they pay for, safely, and paying for the overhead that makes it possible.
Unless you prefer individual contracts unhindered by a Violently Imposed Monopoly ? (grin)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 12 2018, @11:07AM (6 children)
No, all of civilization is not remotely based upon that. That is a fairly new idea that has never really worked to do anything except ensure that there is no competition for entrenched players in whatever industry is being regulated.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Thursday April 12 2018, @04:17PM
> fairly new idea
You need more coffee.
Tribal councils, nobles or kings, settling disputes between two parties is at least a couple orders of magnitude older than the USA.The fact that they settle them based on expected (non-written) standards for a job is a given, and having people pay taxes for the infrastructure that supports the people who aren't producing food or goods because they spend their time overseeing others is older than the pyramids. Your ability to compete with others was long restricted by your skills (did daddy do that job?), the cost of entry, and your knack at dealing with both customers and whatever authority didn't want to be disturbed by the consequences of shoddy work.
The only (maybe) recent thing is that every transaction is individually taxed.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @05:18PM (4 children)
Yeah regulation on trade and services is such a new idea. Only a few thousand years old:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp [yale.edu]
That said this civilization stuff is fairly new too. Only a few thousand years old. Oh wow what a coincidence.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 12 2018, @10:52PM (3 children)
Exactly.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 13 2018, @03:46AM (2 children)
These regulations and others came hand in hand with civilization. As a civilization grew so did its rules and regulations.
In small village you don't need as many rules to deal with strangers that you might never meet again. In a town or city it becomes more efficient to have more publicly known laws and regulations dealing with such interactions. Even more so when you start having inter-city trade.
It's the difference between playing a game with your friends in the village vs strangers playing a game with each other in the city.
In the village friends scenario you could change the rules, you might not need that many rules - you're friends after all and you all want to keep playing with each other, there's not that many others to play with. You could do Calvinball and everyone might even enjoy it.
Not so true and efficient when you have thousands of strangers playing the game and many playing for keeps and having the option to run away to hide in another city.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 13 2018, @10:51AM (1 child)
It's a whole lot less new than regulatory capture is.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14 2018, @01:41PM
Tsk tsk. You're moving the goal posts.
You said: "you believe that if Person A gives Person B a lift for free all's good but if the same Person A charges the same Person B money you should regulate and tax the fuck out of them?"
Bob said: "All of civilization is based on making sure people get what they pay for, safely, and paying for the overhead that makes it possible."
And you said: "That is a fairly new idea that has never really worked to do anything except ensure that there is no competition for entrenched players in whatever industry [emphasis mine] is being regulated."
(emphasis to show that you yourself weren't talking about a very specific case of regulation).
Your claim that it was a new idea was shown to be wrong. So now you disingenuously try to change to something else. Not going to waste my time on someone intellectually dishonest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @08:20AM
Over here (Denmark, also in the EU), you are allowed to share the cost. We even have a tax rebate for driving to/from work, and if you share the ride, both get the tax rebate.
But if you use an app to find someone going the same way, you get a huge fine for providing taxi services without permission.
Oh, and btw, taxis are so expensive that they must be intended for the rich only. I'm pretty much convinced they are artificially limiting the number of taxis to prevent taxis from cutting into the state income from drunk driving fines.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Thursday April 12 2018, @06:42PM (1 child)
Yes to the regualtion bit, and yes to taxation like any other business (not "the fuck" bit though).
People who give me a lift for free are people I already know. In fact I would refuse a lift from a couple of them because they are bad drivers. With a taxi driver I only have their certification to rely on.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 12 2018, @10:55PM
So it's perfectly okay for the friends you wouldn't trust to drive you to be on the road with their regular old driver's license but adding money into the equation suddenly makes them a much more dangerous person?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Thursday April 12 2018, @06:05AM (5 children)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 12 2018, @11:11AM (4 children)
What's that got to do with the price of feet in China? You think using regulatory capture to eliminate competition and inflate prices for a guild in any way makes people safer?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday April 13 2018, @07:43AM (3 children)
No sure about where you live, but here the majority of the taxi regulations relate to vehicle and driver safety. They enforce minimum standards on vehicle maintenance and require inspections to confirm it, they require ID checks and certification for drivers (including a check that they have a valid driving license), and they require that the drivers are insured to operate a commercial vehicle. Remove those regulations, and there's nothing stopping a taxi showing up that has improperly maintained and isn't insured for commercial use. It hits a pedestrian while carrying you, the driver is liable, but their personal insurance won't pay (it doesn't cover commercial use of the vehicle) and so they go bankrupt. They are acting as your contractor and, in the absence of government regulation it's now your responsibility to ensure that they were competent and insured while working for you. You didn't, so now you're liable.
Again, it may be different where you live, but here the taxi industries were regulated because of safety issues with unregulated taxis. If you want to go back to that state, I suggest that you visit some parts of the world with unregulated taxi companies first. It's quite an exciting experience, but not one that I'd want to repeat.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 13 2018, @10:54AM (2 children)
We already have those checks here in the US. You know, the laws that say everyone driving must have a valid driver's license and insurance?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Touché) by TheRaven on Saturday April 14 2018, @10:13AM (1 child)
Everyone must have valid insurance for operating a commercial vehicle? I doubt it. Every private car insurance policy covers commercial use? Nope. Every driver must pass a criminal background check? Nope. Every vehicle on the road must be maintained to such a standard that you'd be willing to get in a random stranger's car and consider it safe? Possibly, but it varies from state to state.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday April 14 2018, @10:54AM
Everyone must have valid insurance for operating any vehicle. Commercial in this instance only means "these guys are making money at this so we can get away with charging them more".
You're falling into the ancient trap of "I'd rather have the illusion of safety than actual liberty". Franklin warned us about that shit hundreds of years ago and yet fools still choose poorly every single day.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.