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) 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.