How was your week? Was it as bad as Uber's? Here's what happened You ever have one of those weeks where nothing seems to go right? Maybe the train runs late in the rain. Or the lace on your boot breaks as you're walking out the door. Or maybe four major cities across the planet line up to sue you. Yeah, Uber just had a week like that – just days after it was injected with $1.2bn of funding …
If I understand correctly (and please let me know if I don't) User uses freelance drivers with cars that are not controlled as vigorously as taxis that operate without a taxi permit (how do you even know they have a licence? Or insurance?) and operate outside the laws that are set up to protect customers (in Amsterdam there are price protections for customers to stop rouge drivers ripping people off).
WTF? If you want to set up a business to go into a market and shake it up, brilliant! But you do it in accordance with the laws within you operate. You don't just say we're an Internet business andnso rules don't apply to us.
Exactly. You don't know if your driver has a road-worthy car (or at least MOT), insurance, or even a driving license for that matter. Sure you can ask them to produce these documents, but by the time they arrive you already have a "contract" for the ride with Uber.
There's virtually no screening at all for Uber drivers or their vehicles (wait, maybe it's not even their vehicle they come to pick you up with...)
I wouldn't want my children or my wife to hitchhike. How is Uber any different, except that they pay for it?
*Rouge* is what you put on your cheeks to make yourself look fabulous. A *rogue* is the person who steals your rouge because they want to look fabulous too.
I'm sorry, AC. I normally don't do nitpicks but that one drives me nutsy. If it's any consolation, I do agree with you.
@AC
Well, what they are doing is operating in a kind of grey-area that has not been fully tested.
It is indeed a bit of a 'shake up' of the market but part of that is because of this grey-area and the continuing questions and now lawsuits show that cities have not been quick enough to rule one way or the other.
It should be simple - setup different categories of service (licensed taxis, hire cars, limo services, etc...) and then make clear, unambiguous rulings on exactly what the requirements are for each and when you fall under one classification or another.
It is my opinion that if you have a meter, then you are bound by the taxi regulations. One problem in London - not necessarily for customers - is that it is not clear exactly what constitutes a 'meter'. Uber does meter (v) the fare but do so via a phone app and GPS.
The current thinking is that this is enough of a distinction to exempt them from the normal taxi regulations, though this appears to be far from final.
Set clear, unambiguous regulations using clear, unambiguous and technologically up-to-date definitions (such as what constitutes a meter) and have at their heart - as the primary concern - the protection of customers, both in terms of their rights and their safety.
Then I'm glad I live in a country with clear regulations. Charge for personal transportation = taxi. Limo, wedding cars etc all fall under that category and have to adhere to the same rules (car inspection, licence etc).
Seeing as private hire cars in the UK need to be licenced and have plates with their info, drivers need at the very least real insurance to carry pay passengers and in some cities you need a taxi licence too I would be surprised if this is in any way a grey area. More a "we just got 1.5 billion to pay top lawyers, sue us of you dare" area.
@AC
'Private hire cars' or 'minicabs' in London (other councils can invoke their own regulations) do need to be licensed and they do have plates and the driver does need to have real insurance. They also have to agree to a fee up-front and cannot be metered.
THIS, at least in London, is the big area of dispute.
Tfl has this to say:
"The rapid pace at which smartphone based technology has been developing in recent years has led to a need for clarity about what is required in order for apps to comply with the regulatory framework in London and to ensure there is a level playing field for all operators."
There is a "need for clarity" because it is not clear. Directly taking the words of Tfl:
"On the issue of taximeters, the law is unclear and we have taken a provisional view. We will be asking the High Court to provide a binding ruling. This is the sensible approach, and we hope that London's taxi drivers and private hire drivers and operators will work with us to bring clarity on this issue."
That was Leon Daniels - Managing Director of Surface Transport at Tfl.
This referral to the High Court has been delayed due to pending legal action but the fact remains that Tfl have admitted that, though they are of the opinion that method of metering trips used by Uber does not fall under the definitions of a taximeter, the law is "unclear'.
That is what one would call a 'grey area'.
Whether any particular person likes/loves/loathes Uber or supports the Black Cabbies or want to see them brought down a peg or just wants cheaper trips - the fact is that the law is not clear and thus it has been referred to the High Court.
Wow, the UK really is useless! Glad I left! (Where I live isn't perfect, but is so much better!)
Surely a metered ride where you pay is a metered ride where you pay? Just how badly are the local laws written where a weasel of a company / lawyer can argue the point that because it's an app it doesn't count?
And surely the insurance is even simpler. Social domestic pleasure use means you are uninsured if charging for a ride. Even business use does not cover that. So unless the drivers have real public travel insurance they are driving illegally regardless of the meter...
@AC
This is what being disruptive to the market means - doing things differently and testing it out. the problem comes when the authorities in charge of regulating things doesn't act quickly enough. In this instance, Uber is now valued at >$40bn USD and has the backing of several very wealthy and very well connected groups. who will do everything they can to make sure that their investment doesn't go south.
Again, none of this is to comment, personally, on my opinion of Uber because I really don't have one as I rarely take taxis.
However, the strict regulations that exist for taxis nearly everywhere has meant shaped the market and so to have a company come in and to effectively operate as a taxi without having to adhere to the same regulations (they have regulations, sure, but different ones) is understandably an issue that needs to be sorted.
What it amounts to is a company that is able to undercut the existing offering because it has been able to avoid the same regulations due to a technicality (what constitutes a 'taximeter'). Whether that technicality is valid or not or needs to be re-defined, well, we'll wait and see.
Tax Law http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/google-tax-avoidance/
Competition Law www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/21/european-parliament-break-up-of-google
Equality Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Reid_%28computer_scientist%29
Accessibility Law http://www.hassellinclusion.com/2013/08/web-accessibility-ruinous-obligation/
Privacy Law LIKE EVERYTHING THEY DO!!!!!
... basically if you can find a law chances are Google and Facebook broke it at some point.
why are the authorities going after uber? they aren't actually in those countries violating their taxi laws, their drivers are... if the police order a taxi from uber then arrest the driver for operating an illegal taxi service and national media start reporting that uber drivers are going to goto prison... they don't need to arrest a second driver, because uber won't have any left...
Not quite. If the Uber app was a standalone application, you *might* be correct. But it's not: Uber (the company) acts as a middle-man and sets up the "contracts". In other words, Uber thus has "presence" in those countries/cities and thus must obey local laws and regulations.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
