It's all Uber! France ends its love affair with ride-sharing app Ride-sharing app Uber announced on Friday that it was ditching its French service. Following a week of increasingly violent clashes with traditional taxi drivers, the San Francisco-based company announced that its popular Uberpop service would be suspended from 8pm tonight and would no longer appear on users’ app lists. “In …
Quote: "Are you implying that traditional taxi companies as a general rule vet their drivers?.
No, not the taxi companies, but when the prospective driver applies for a license to become a taxi driver, they do get vetted at that point.
If Uber required their drivers be licensed taxi drivers, then I suspect much of the issues they face, would go away.
And the laws typically require that drivers and taxi companies be licensed, have the required insurance etc. And as far as I know fares are also regulated in most cities. How is it fair that taxis have to abide by all the rules, pay all the fees, be restricted in what they can charge yet uber can do as they please and charge what they want?
If uber had to follow all the same rules then their business pretty much falls apart, if cabs were released from all the overhead and restrictions then again the uber business suffers. Basically uber can only succeed because of unfair advantages.
In Germany it is the same, the local council sets the per kilometre and per minute (standing stationary in traffic, for example, or waiting while the passenger goes into a shop etc.). The taxi company have to display the official rates and they have to have a calibrated meter (it needs to be recalibrated on a regular basis) and taxi inspectors make spot inspections at taxi ranks etc. to ensure the vehicles are in good working order, the driver is licensed etc.
I haven't heard of passengers being assaulted here in Germany, but drivers get attacked now and again.
Uber have the similar problems in Germany. Their drivers are for the most part illegal and how they are driving is illegal: they have to have a professional driving license in order to drive a taxi (and Uber is classed as a taxi service), Uber doesn't ensure their drivers have the proper driving license AFAIK and without that, they cannot get insurance for their vehicle - if they are caught carrying passengers (or have an accident whilst carrying a paying passenger), then their insurance is null and void, which means a heavy fine and, in the event of an accident, carrying the liability for all repair costs and personal injury claims.
That is why they are banned here, although it doesn't seem to stop them trying to do business. In their current form, there is no way I'd risk riding in an Uber and I just hope the drivers are never involved in an accident, because it will be a real struggle for the other parties to get restitution.
Bingo. Same here in Edmonton. Local council sets "maximum" rates (to which all cab companies align) and those rates must be displayed. This comes in the form of a sticker on the window. Cabs are calibrated regularly, inspected regularly, and all the drivers must have a commercial license and insurance. I believe - but am not 100% sure - that criminal records checks are enforced for cabbies too.
There is no medallion system here. Cab companies can field as many cabs as they want, but there is a limit to what's practicable. Anyone can start a cab company, but you'll be ruthlessly driven out of the market or bought by one of the big three if you try. (Though that was "the big two" 15 years ago...so entering the market is in fact possible.)
All the Taxi companies here have apps. In fact, the biggest one, which has several sub-"brands", has one for each brand. (Not ideal, I know.) They're all made by the same developer. *sigh*
Uber and Lyft are easier to use in that you can sit there and stare at your mobile and tap your feet and wait for the cab to arrive. But in every other way the local council-regulated taxies are better, sfare and more predictable.
When I took a job as a taxi driver several decades ago, I was fingerprinted, photographed, and had to buy the taxi driver's license. And I also had to have what was called a 'chauffeur's' driver's license to begin with. The shared economy should come into play as a reaction to economic hardship. It should not be a cause of it. If you don't want to pay for a taxi, take the bus.
vetting is bullshit, just means the persons never been caught. Such as the
However having all the drivers details provided to you in a rather permanent fashion (which I believe can also be sent to a third party) is far more worthwhile then vetting.
Just take a look at black cab drivers, David Perry and Worboys were vetted.
I'd say it''s less to do with the vetting of drivers and more to do with the licensed taxi drivers attacking Uber drivers, and no doubt the arrests played a part, but right now in my eyes France and there taxi mob look like they're in bed and slow f**king everyone that would cab in the ass. I guess I've had better experiences with Uber than with a cab driver, but I have a feeling, I'd just be a pitiful American, who doesn't know anything.
I think you find it's more to do with:
a) only licensed people can be cabbies
b) licenses are payable to the government for £XX,XXXX.XX
existing cabbies hate the idea of unlicensed because it means tens of thousands in costs they were forced to spend are 'lost'
government hates it because it loses a steady revenue stream
In Spain cab licenses cost many thousands of euros and have to be renewed often, as a result it's not just Uber that causes anger, almost anybody picking up somebody from an airport that isn't a cab gets looked at very carefully and often angrily by the cabbies. If they suspect for just a second that it's not a FoF then things get very ugly very quickly.
Seriously, I've seen people dragged out of cars.
"licenses are payable to the government for £XX,XXXX.XX"
Not everyone uses a medallion system. In fact, globally, they're kind of rare. So no, in most jurisdictions it doesn't cost tens or hundreds of thousands to license a taxi. It costs you a commercial driver's license, commercial insurance and then you have to pay for inspections every X months at a licensed facility.
But hey, keep assuming that every single jurisdiction and every single economic influencer is the same everywhere. You'll go far that way.
Uber does vet all their drivers. Which is part of the reason why you're several orders of magnitude less likely to be assaulted (in any way) by an Uber driver than by a regular cabbie. The other major contributor to that is of course that a crim would have to be mad to assault someone when there's as clear an electronic trail as Uber leaves.
Missed opportunity for a cheesy headline, should have read "It's all Uber Now".
(Which as all us 80s kids know is an amusing reference to the famous Insigna advert. What? The *what* Stones....? Oh, I think I heard of them, they were Mick Jagger's old band before he left and got famous for that "Dancing in the Street" song with David Bowie, weren't they?)
...that the decision makers at Uber HQ are sleazy scum with little ethical instincts. That's just the impression I get; not sure why. Perhaps it's their behaviour.
So, shut 'em down. Use the Uber app to beckon the Uber drivers, and have them drive the client / undercover agent to the impound yard. Seize the car, auction it off.
Simplest thing on Earth to shut down. Two weeks. Done.
Operation Squish Uber pays for itself by the auction of seized cars.
Uber cars were a damm sight better than any Paris taxi I have had the misfortune to step into.
Last time from CDG the driver from the cab rank had no idea where he was going, the cab had a smashed windscreen, no aircon, and I suspect the car had been to Venus and back several times.
The uber car as with me in 2 minutes, cheaper for the same journey, air conditioned and he knew where he was going, even if using the Sat Nav.
Of course the Uber car would be cheaper, they didn't pay for a taxi license, and likely don't have proper insurance either.
And that, in one line, is the real problem with Uber. Sure, the licensing process can sometimes degenerate into money milking, but the core idea of a taxi license is setting up some much needed frequent checking on drivers, their cars and their insurance, and Uber was simply seeking to make money off the black market of unlicensed facilities. They were warned, repeatedly, and did what apparently every US business appears to consider SOP: they ignored the law until it caught up with them.
Well, I'm not feeling sorry for them.
> the core idea of a taxi license is setting up some much needed frequent checking on drivers, their cars and their insurance
And what if I just don't care? When I was hitchhiking, there was no checking on drivers, their cars and their insurance either. I took the risk and it was my business to do so.
I am not defending Uber specifically, just saying the reasoning something must be regulated because it must be regulated because it must be regulated... is just nonsense.
You say "I am not defending Uber specifically, just saying the reasoning something must be regulated because it must be regulated because it must be regulated... is just nonsense."
Paris taxi drivers like beating up Uber drivers. Why should the police interfere? I am not defending the taxi drivers specifically, just saying that the police must protect Uber drivers from being beaten up because they must be protected... is just nonsense.
Really. If you don't accept that Uber has to obey the same laws that everyone else must obey, how can you argue that they should get protection of the law the same as everyone else gets protection?
Yep.
It's a matter of degree. If Uber had a handful of users, it would be a simple lift-sharing app. The trouble is, it has grown. And when a lift-sharing service hits a certain critical mass in terms of size and level of sophistication, it spontaneously becomes a minicab service, and thus worthy of the effort of official regulation.
No good would come of requiring everyone who gives a friend, family member, co-worker or even a stranger in distress to be licensed and insured as a taxi driver; but even less good would come of taking the Extreme Libertarian position and allowing anybody to tout for fares anywhere with no oversight nor right of redress for passengers besides a bigger gun than the driver.
And if the courts decide that Uber are running a full-blown minicab service, then it is only fair for them to be subject to the same laws as anyone else running a minicab service.
"the core idea of a taxi license is setting up some much needed frequent checking on drivers..."
That'd be fine if that is what actually happened. Parisian taxis are a ripoff and might as we'll be unregulated. They are run by a cartel that, using unions, strong arms government.
Let's put it another way. Uber started with an idea and got investors coming up with an amount of money that gives Uber an estimated valuation of $50bn. Even with that money, they have no chance of competing with the established taxi companies if they follow the legal rules that everyone else has to follow.
So the course of action is clear: Spend lots of money on lobbying to make it possible to go around legislation. Run the business without bothering observing any existing legislation, hoping to cause so much damage to law abiding companies that they go out of business. In China, they were caught with their pants down using their investors' money to pay so much money to the drivers that drivers invent fake customers, pay the driving fees out of their own pocket, and get so much money from Uber that they make a profit!
"However the service is in fact illegal in France and last week Pierre-Dimitri Gore-Coty, general manager for Western Europe and Thibaud Simphal, general manager of Uber France, were arrested. They will have their day in court in September."
It's true that both blokes have been arrested, due to insane political pressure, that was deemed (source: Le Canard Enchaîné, 01/07/2015, page 2) as overkill by police insiders.
However, it is not true the service is illegal in France. This is up in the air at courts.
Taxis are actually angry because they buy their licence at 200 000 Euros which puts them much at debt, unlike Uber, due to, it seems, a legal loophole. Of course, Uber can have prices totally lower than taxis due to lacking this huge racket/tax, so we have unfair competition, here.
You are making a mistake here. If someone goes to court for burglary, then the person might be innocent, but we know that burglary is a crime. Same here; the two general managers who got arrested might be innocent although I don't know how, but the service they are running is illegal.
"However, it is not true the service is illegal in France. This is up in the air at courts."
Although I am not very familiar with legal systems based on the Napoleonic Code, I'd think that this statement is probably wrong. Uber *is* illegal in France; the courts might eventually decide that it must be recognized as legal, but until they do so, it is, in fact, illegal. Laws are valid until actually annulled and the existence of a lawsuit seeking to annul the law does not invalidate the law and does not prevent its enforcement (unless the courts issue an injunction preventing enforcement).
ANY taxi can have their prices lower than the competition. Regulated taxi fares are a CEILING not a floor.
I don't know about where you live, but here in Germany, it is not a ceiling, it is the price and the taxi meter is calibrated by the local authority and sealed, so there is no fiddling with the price.
If a driver is caught with a tampered meter, then they are in big trouble, will face a hefty fine and possibly lose their licence.
"If a driver is caught with a tampered meter, then they are in big trouble, will face a hefty fine and possibly lose their licence. "
Which is all not a problem for Uber, because the driver doesn't have a meter that they could tamper with, and they don't have a license that they could lose.
@gnasher729 which is a problem for Uber drivers, because they don't have a meter at all... Without a calibrated and sealed meter they cannot carry any passengers for profit.
There is a loophole, you can carry a paying passenger from A to B, as long a 1) you were going from A to B yourself or that A and B are on that route and 2) that you do not charge any more than their share of the fuel used on the journey.
"However, it is not true the service is illegal in France. This is up in the air at courts."
It was found to be an illegal business practice in a court of law.
Uber appealed to a higher court.
It was again found to be an illegal business practice in a court of law.
Uber are appealing AGAIN to a yet higher court.
This smacks of "keep spending until we get the right answer".
You've obviously never read it past the front page headline puns.
Le Canard may have a silly name, but they're one of France's most reputable newspapers. They have extremely well informed sources at the highest levels of politics and industry, have unveiled quite a number of big scandals over their 100 years of existence, and are hardly ever proven wrong.
They want unregulated, unlicensed, uninsured taxis. The state does not allow it.
There, fixed that for you. Personally, I beleive that the state should not allow you that particular consumer choice.
Certainly as a road user, I don't want any uninsured vehicle in my vicinity. If they cause an accident, then I am left to sue them for the repair of my vehicle and personal injury, which means they will probably just file for personal bankruptcy...
"If they cause an accident, then I am left to sue them for the repair of my vehicle and personal injury, which means they will probably just file for personal bankruptcy..."
You claim on your own insurance and they try to get it back from the other driver. Your loss is higher premiums, not the cost of a written off car and medical bills.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
