Uber is officially a cab firm, says European court

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42423627

by chrisper • 9 years ago

340 427 9 years ago

bluewave• 9 years ago

About time the greedy corporation start paying their drivers a living wage. Good to see Europe fighting back as US is regressing further into plutocracy.

blocked_again2• 9 years ago

Uber drivers in Banglore makes around 50K rupees profit each month. This is higher than many government jobs and similar to the salary of many software developers in India.

darklajid2• 9 years ago

I've only ever ridden Uber over a period of two weeks - the last two. In India, in Pune.

The drivers more or less all complained about Uber cutting the incentives and margins, stating that they are making a low amount of money. Ola seems to be a contender that many local drivers flock to?

Yes, these drivers might've lied to me. I'm just putting this anecdote against your statement of 50k INR of profit/income: That's certainly not the impression I got when I had discussions about just that on my rides.

chx4• 9 years ago

How much does gas, maintenance and the car itself cost? Let's not even mention the higher risk of injury from being in a car all the time.

schrodinger4• 9 years ago

In my opinion, it’s hard to blame just a Uber. It would be different if they were making tons of money off the backs of their drivers, but they’re not. The real problem is that customers aren’t willing to pay what it “should” cost.

TeMPOraL9• 9 years ago

They are. Every other company is charging around what it "should" cost. It's just Uber who undercut them all, which was possible because a) they decided laws don't apply to them, so they can save on following regulations, b) they started to subsidize ride costs with VC money even more directly.

bdz• 9 years ago

Court press release

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/201...

The full ruling is atm only available in spanish and french

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-434/15

tom_mellior2• 9 years ago

At this moment, I count the full ruling in 18 languages, including English, though that version is marked "Provisional text". Possibly working direct link: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc...

maephisto• 9 years ago

Looks like the "Regulate Uber everywhere" trend is confirmed. Edit: I did not mean this as a bad thing, but as something that's normal and welcomed.

Marazan• 9 years ago

I don't see how classifying Uber as a minicab firm amounts to banning it?

nielsbot• 9 years ago

"Banning" -> "Regulating"

throwawayReply• 9 years ago

Banning companies which subvert or break laws or regulations to gain competitive edge over those who follow laws and regulations is not and should not be controversial.

Kurtz79• 9 years ago

More like: "Uber should follow the same laws as other companies that want to operate in Europe".

I hope they do, since I consider the system far superior to traditional cabs, and would probably still use it if they had higher fares.

CaptainZapp2• 9 years ago

"However, millions of Europeans are still prevented from using apps like ours. As our new CEO has said, it is appropriate to regulate services such as Uber and so we will continue the dialogue with cities across Europe. This is the approach we'll take to ensure everyone can get a reliable ride at the tap of a button."

This company is so full of shit!

djsumdog3• 9 years ago

This is good to hear. A few weeks ago we saw the recording breaking loss, showing Uber is really undercutting everyone and operating way under costs (while slashing drivers pays and yada yada).

Uber is big, really big. But I don't think it's too big to fail. And I think a failure will be colossal.

Has anyone noticed Lyft prices have gone way up? Like, almost standard cab fair prices in some cities? I wonder if Lyft is banking on the fact a lot of people use them so they don't use Uber, and noticing their prices are just slightly less than a regular cab. They could put them in a place where they're profitable, and charge a more traditional rate.

In the early days I knew Uber drivers who use to be cab drivers who claimed they made a ton more money than with their cab company. I doubt that's as true anymore, but once Uber fails, I bet we'll see a huge re-emergence of Cabs -- possibly alternative ride sharing apps that will put more money in the hands of drivers (where it should be).

It's really weird being in American cities today, because the number of cabs is significantly lower and noticeable. I saw a woman with her hand up, actually hailing a cab, and thought that was so weird. You rarely see that now. I mean it's probably better that cabs are more efficient with apps, going directly from pickup to pickup instead of burning fuel driving around, but there is still something lost with not being able to raise you hand or go to a taxi stand and get a cab in a city.

CaptainZapp2• 9 years ago

  I don't think it's too big to fail

Please stop with this "too big to fail" nonsense. This is a pretty specific term for companies which pose a systemic risk if they fail. Notably that's mostly banks or other financial institutions who could drag an entire economy down if they go down.

There's no systemic risk in Uber failing.

schrodinger4• 9 years ago

I think that in this case, “too big to fail” would mean that investors would bail them out rather than let them go under.

dguest2• 9 years ago

I don't think it's too big to fail.

My gut reaction: There's no company the size of Uber that could die more quietly. The world's reaction would be a muffled "meh".

Uber doesn't even own their most important asset, which is their drivers, and if they collapse catastrophically their drivers will simply turn off the Uber app and download one of a half dozen competitors' apps (if they don't already have it). For Uber customers, the transition will be even easier.

Maybe I'm missing something: This isn't like a car company that owns and manages factories, or like a tech company that has labs or does significant R&D, or even a bank that has lots of employees and owns other assets.

So genuine question: what do we loose if Uber vanishes tomorrow?

(Don't get me wrong, I'd be sympathetic to their employees who need to find new jobs, but my guess is that their skills are in relatively high demand.)

beberlei• 9 years ago

it could have a massive effect on tech valuations in general. so from a real economy perspective you may be right, but the stock market and VC market might start to see this as an event to re-evaluate everything.

btbuildem• 9 years ago

Yes exactly. The only ones who stand to lose if uber fails are the investors who put money into it. Oh boo.

nunez• 9 years ago

Note that in many areas within the US, the only competition to Uber is Lyft and taxi cabs.

CamTin• 9 years ago

I think you're 100% right, and there was even natural experiment confirming this when Uber (and Lyft) left Austin temporarily. Basically the city council wanted rideshare drivers to do City background checks. There was a public referendum, and Uber/Lyft said they'd leave if it passed. Then it passed, and they left. Pretty much overnight there were 3-4 Austin-centric Uber competitors. Riders and drivers just switched apps. Colloquially, people would even still say "get an Uber" while using these other apps.

Eventually this was superceded by a Texas law, and Uber/Lyft came back, but the rideshare apocalypse that was predicted never came to be because there are very few barriers to entry in this market: build a relatively simple app, paste up some fliers or billboards advertising your new company to drivers and riders, and you're in business.

Admittedly, Austin has more ambitious app coders than most other random cities, so it might not be literally overnight like it was here, but it won't take that long for somebody to do the same in the rest of the country/world. On the other hand, those places likely won't lose Lyft at the same time like Austin did, so it may be a wash.

kamaal2• 9 years ago

>what do we loose if Uber vanishes tomorrow?

VC(s) will have to write off several billion dollars worth of investment. Its will be lost permanently to never return back.

astrosi• 9 years ago

In the early days I knew Uber drivers who use to be cab drivers who claimed they made a ton more money than with their cab company. I doubt that's as true anymore

As (one piece of anecdotal) evidence, I was talking with a guy that drives for both Uber and a local cab company. The cab company pays more, but he still prefers driving for Uber as he is put in far fewer sketchy situations by them.

majewsky2• 9 years ago

Define "sketchy situations", please.

yomly• 9 years ago

From my Uber conversations I was able to piece together that one of the sweetest benefits was that you could be paid instantly for your work, equivalent to cash in hand rather than waiting up to a month for a payslip.

The other was that 2-3 years ago one Uber driver claimed he was grossing up to £7000 a month working 16 hours a day 7 days a week.

misun78• 9 years ago

[Disclaimer: Uber employee]

Unfortunately for your argument, if there is one thing to deduce from Uber's year of hell, it's that Uber's not going anywhere. I could list around 50 groundbreaking events this year, each of which in itself could have taken a relatively young company like Uber down. Instead, Uber GREW 17% in ONE quarter let alone slow down - http://www.businessinsider.com/ubers-losses-grow-in-q3-but-b...

You could attribute this growth to artificially reduced prices but that's incorrect. The price reduction comes from competition with other ride-sharing (Ola, Lyft, Grab etc) over an ever-increasing pie, not against existing taxi options. This is evident from mature markets like New York where prices are stable and yet growth is strong.

Hence, outside the realms of people wanting to protect existing taxi options + users turned off from Uber's scandals, Uber isn't too big to fail due to government or VC protections but it's simply too valuable to far too many users for it to fail. These users include:

1. For drivers that fall in the full-time category, it's significantly better than old taxi options that forced expensive medallions, fees for the privilege of working that causes them to not even break-even on days, and ultra-long shifts. It's sad to see my fellow HN'ers yearning for such a regressive and exploitative cartel-driven taxi system. For more context, read https://priceonomics.com/post/47636506327/the-tyranny-of-the... before romanticizing an old system out of spite for a large tech company.

2. For part-time drivers, it provides opportunities that simply did not exist before. Earning $x dollars an hour during idle time is such a powerful force that it can alleviate macro-level recessionary pains. See https://www.timeslive.co.za/sunday-times/business/2017-12-03....

3. For users, it's essentially a daily-used verb at this point.

It's unfortunate and sad that this value add is overshadowed by a never ending list of scandals but Uber is planning on owning up and creating positive change going forward. I wouldn't be there if it were not the case. Best I can do for now is help HN understand the value Uber provides and the company changes will slowly and surely fall into place.

martin_andrino• 9 years ago

These are good news. Taxi sector is beyond screwed, we need better and cheaper services. I’m happy to see a successful and respectful company like Uber being the one leading the movement.

djsumdog3• 9 years ago

They provide that service by undercutting Taxis at a loss. I hope you're being sarcastic. Uber is anything by respectful .. and successful I guess in size, but not looking at their bottom line.

pishpash4• 9 years ago

Undercutting taxis and at a loss are two separate issues. Taxis are overpriced in the US with or without Uber.

briandear2• 9 years ago

Taxis earned their plight.

I am still waiting for €50 refund for a pre-paid train station taxi booked through SCNF that never arrived. This whole nasty and violent attitude from French can drivers is also unacceptable. During their protests they actually attacked people with rocks and set cars on fire — while still trying to scheme and cheat passengers whenever possible.

I hope taxis all fail.

gaius3• 9 years ago

I can't tell if this is sarcasm

xxs7• 9 years ago

Of course it is. Hackernews tends to be extremely bad at telling so. Usually ends up with tons of downvotes.

Stefstefstef• 9 years ago

Does that mean Uber now has to listen to all taxi rules and regulation in all of Europe?

jopsen4• 9 years ago

Taxis are regulated locally, country by country, sometimes at municipality level.

I think most countries have already been of the opinion that Uber was a taxi service. And hence, prosecuted any violations they've made.

I know Uber have been shutdown in multiple places. Because regulators simplify declared that they considered it illegal.

So no, I don't think this will change much. This was probably a futile move by Uber trying to argue regulation didn't apply.

ccozan• 9 years ago

In Bucharest the city council just ruled that every taxi ride must go thru a central dispatch. This made all the apps/agregators illegal, Uber included.

Some legal taxi companies say will complain, because they can't imagine that we go back to '80s phone dispatch system, and the customers shall be able to use their apps to book the nearest taxi based on location, what a dispatch will not be able to do.

senko• 9 years ago

[The] ECJ said that a service whose purpose was "to connect, by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration, non-professional drivers using their own vehicle with persons who wish to make urban journeys" must be classified as "a service in the field of transport" in EU law.

It added: "As EU law currently stands, it is for the member states to regulate the conditions under which such services are to be provided in conformity with the general rules of the treaty on the functioning of the EU."

It didn't say it was a cab firm, but it did say it's a transport service, not a "digital service". To me as a layman, that makes perfect sense. With all kinds of services being improved using digital technology, the term "digital service" can be applied to almost anything.

alkonaut10• 9 years ago

And again: "Taxi company considered by a court to be a taxi company". And this is news.

And no, dear US, "taxi" does not mean "ride service that has a monopoly on picking up people on the street, enforced by the use of medallions or similar". Taxi means "A car that takes you somewhere without a preplanned route, for money". This is why this is so bloody obvious.

In any place without a mediallion system or other enforced monopoly, there is NO innovation in what Uber is doing! An app or surge pricing is what everyone does. Ubers sole innovation is pretending that they aren't a taxi company so they don't need to hire and pay their employees properly. And honestly we can do without that innovation.

dantheman2• 9 years ago

That's not what taxi means unless you consider all ride services such as black cars taxis -- which I don't think anyone does.

Also taxis don't hire people, people rent taxis and then drive them.

djsumdog3• 9 years ago

Uber's argument is that they're more like a limo service in the sense that you call and book a driver. But you do this with Taxis too. It's just in most cities, taxis can also take immediate bookings on the street or from a taxi stand.

Technology really blurs the line, and for most purposes, they act and fulfill the market that is provided by Taxis.

boffinism• 9 years ago

Well, if we're nit-picking the ruling made was simply that Uber must be considered 'a service in the field of transport', not a taxi specifically. I think it would be hard for anyone who wasn't an Uber lawyer to deny that one.

alkonaut10• 9 years ago

That's not what taxi means unless you consider all ride services such as black cars taxis -- which I don't think anyone does.

No that's what I mean. You can put a label on then depending on local regulations for monopolies which is why in some cities there are lots of silly distinctions such as cab/minicab/"black car" or whatever.

But all those distinctions have just appeared because of the local monopoly - not becasuse they are inherently differnent. From an insurance/employment/etc. standpoint they are "cars that take people from a to b for money" - and whether you call that "cab firm" or call it "ride service" or something else is irrelevant.

Also taxis don't hire people, people rent taxis and then drive them.

Again - this is a local phenomenon. There are places where cab firms are one man businesses, co-ops, owned cars/rented cars etc. It doesn't really matter either.

phillc73• 9 years ago

Using the UK, as an example, there are two very distinct types of taxis:

1. Those hailed on the street or found waiting at a taxi stand/rank. These are metered services. They drive you somewhere and you pay the amount shown on the meter. In London, and some other parts of the UK, these are known as Black Cabs (because the vehicles have traditionally been painted black).

2. Pre-booked services. Essentially a passenger phones to make a booking, informs the service of the pick-up address and destination, agrees a price, then waits for the taxi to arrive. These are known as Mini Cabs.

Both these services are licensed and regulated in the UK.

Uber very clearly falls into the second category. They're just a Mini Cab firm with a fancy app.

Scarblac• 9 years ago

Also taxis don't hire people, people rent taxis and then drive them.

Over here they very much do hire people, taxi drivers are normal employees. The same company is also contracted for temporary work by the local bus company and by the municipality for bringing disabled kids to schools, that sort of thing; it's all the same drivers.

Things are not the same everywhere.

brepl• 9 years ago

And again: "Taxi company considered by a court to be a taxi company". And this is news.

Any info on how much it cost European citizens to establish this stunning revelation?

objclxt• 9 years ago

I think you've fundamentally misunderstood how courts and civil justice works.

golergka2• 9 years ago

An app or surge pricing is what everyone does.

In 2017, yes. But despite the fact that in some countries, Uber clones appeared before Uber did, Uber was, as far as I remember, the first to implement such a model.

And everyone who remembers ordering a taxi in advance and waiting for 20-30 minutes for a bad, rude driver, for 2-3 the money that taxis cost now, can appreciate the innovation.

ant6n• 9 years ago

And everyone who remembers ordering a taxi in advance and waiting for 20-30 minutes for a bad, rude driver, for 2-3 the money that taxis cost now, can appreciate the innovation.

A cab company with a rating system?

alkonaut10• 9 years ago

And everyone who remembers ordering a taxi in advance and waiting for 20-30 minutes for a bad, rude driver, for 2-3 the money that taxis cost now, can appreciate the innovation.

I think what people are confusing here are the effects of a removed monopoly and technical innovation.

The solution isn't removing employment safety, the solution is just removing the monopoly in cities where there are taxi monopolies. All Uber did was simply circumvent the monopoly regulations.

Try a non-uber taxi in a city without taxi monopoly and it's exactly like uber.

46844993• 9 years ago

I may need you to provide the definition of innovation. Uber enables me to call a cab even before I leave the building, it suggests a price for me, it shows me cab's location, it sends my request to more than one cab.

TeMPOraL9• 9 years ago

That's how a taxi works, yes.

The only potentially new thing here (though not necessary invented by Uber) was "shows me cab's location", but the remaining three? All of them were supported since people invented telephones and portable radio transmitters.

Uber's primary innovation is, and always has been, their operations playbook, which allowed - and still allows - them to grow a billion-dollar business while routinely breaking the laws in front of everybody and not even trying to hide it much.

alkonaut10• 9 years ago

I may need you to provide the definition of innovation. Uber enables me to call a cab even before I leave the building, it suggests a price for me, it shows me cab's location, it sends my request to more than one cab.

If there are regulations that would prevent taxi companies from doing that, then that's the problem.

If there is a monopoly so they don't have incentive to do that then that's a problem.

I can use an app to pre-book, pre-pay and track a taxi using any of the local taxi companies (of which none has a monopoly). The problem is solvable...

tluyben22• 9 years ago

Not to mention not mess around with cards or cash. No cash is a distant dream for me using non Uber rides. Innovation I do not know but all things you mention work conveniently well in Uber and badly or not at all in most half baked attempts by (for instance the city of Barcelona) taxi service apps.

sveme• 9 years ago

That's exactly what taxi companies in germany do as well. myTaxi.com being one provider of such services, for example.

So in comparison, suddenly the only advantage uber has left is being unregulated.

ionised3• 9 years ago

My local taxi place does all of this too, and has done for a few years.

xxs7• 9 years ago

I have been using taxis a lot -- even as primary city transport service. Early 2000: pretty much I used to go to work and back by taxi.

I could call, they'd know the calling phone location (land lines, so that was fixed). Alternatively I'd have to tell where I was and where I'd like to go to. Either they would tell how much time it'd take, plus the car number picking me... or call back with the same info, if no immediate taxi was available.

The meters were a must - both distance and time and you got a receipt at the end. That's like 17-18y ago.

captainmuon2• 9 years ago

Exactly, people conflate "taxi medallions" with "special driver licenses for transporting people for money", and I think Uber is encouraging this confusion. I would happily get rid of the first, which gives established taxi drivers a quasi-monopoly - or at least change how limited taxi rights are distributed, if you find they are necessary. I am very glad that the special driving licenses exist, though.

In Germany for example, we have both requirements. But for years there have (legally) been companies who don't have "taxi rights", and label themselves as "rental cars with driver". They are cheaper than regular taxis, but they are not allowed to park in taxi spots, and you can't hire them from the roadside I think. But the drivers still have to pass the same tests as regular taxi drivers (health tests, background tests, knowledge of the city, ...). I think this is a really good model, it gives the customer a cheaper option if they are a bit more flexible with their pick-up spots.

Uber should do exactly this, but instead they want to skirt the person transport license requirements and hire "untrained" drives. They purposely mix the issues of licenses and medallions, hoping to use people's hate of monopolies and high taxi prices to steer public opinion in their direction.

Also, Uber sometimes claims to be a ride-sharing service. Just private citizens who share their car and get compensated, not professionals. Well, every Uber I have been in, anywhere in the world, was very professional. You can't tell me this is just their side hobby. And if they really wanted to offer just ride-sharing, this exists legally in Germany as well. People can connect on car-sharing websites with strangers, and pay the driver their share of the expenses. It's a popular way to cheaply get around. And if the driver only does it for compensation, not as a job, no license is required.

woolvalley2• 9 years ago

The arguments against special taxi licences are the same arguments against occupational licensing in general.

Do you want every entry level job to require a license and put up barriers to getting these jobs for immigrants? Do you think nail technicians, hairdressers and waiters should require a license to do their job too?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_licensing

paul7986• 9 years ago

Totally agree and I love innovation and shaking up the establishment.

But Uber's story is full lies, deception, sexism, corruption, theft, etc, etc, etc...

AlexandrB• 9 years ago

It's like how Apple managed to pass off Apple Pay as a huge innovation because the US has such outdated payment processing infrastructure. When I go to the states chip & pin is still considered exotic - I'm signing a receipt about 50% of the time. Meanwhile Canada has had "tap to pay" credit cards since at least 2009 [1].

[1] https://www.itbusiness.ca/news/contactless-payments-set-to-t...

woolvalley2• 9 years ago

Apple pay is more about the credit card being in your phone, not about how its an NFC payment option.

I think practically the USA will just skip over chip & pin and go pure NFC payments, kind of like landlines vs cellphones in developing countries.

forrestthewoods2• 9 years ago

As long as Uber driver count isn’t artificially constrained with $500,000 “medallions”.

How do sick days and benefits calculate when “employees” are free to work as few or as many hours as they want? What happens if an “employee” chooses to drive more than 40 hours in a week or 8 hours in a day?

It still seems like there needs to be a new classification for “gig economy” workers. They’re neither normal employees nor are they independent contractors. It’s definitely something new.

lhopki013• 9 years ago

$500,000 medallions seems to be a US 'innovation'.

Sick days and benefits will be calculated pro rata just like they are for people who work part time. It's not a hard system to create considering most companies have to do it already. There will be a contract that specifies that if you work a 40 hour week you get his much and if you work less you get that fraction of it. I would guess the contract would specify that overages don't accumulate more benefits but that's up to Uber to write into their contract.

The gig economy are exactly that, normal workers. Just because your work doesn't have regular hours doesn't mean we need an entirely new classification system.

3157132• 9 years ago

The gig economy is for people who can decide how much to work, rather than accept how much to work. What you seem to be asking for is merely a functioning social safety net ("benefits"). If you want the government to mandate such things then just get the government to provide them and be done with it.

briandear2• 9 years ago

Do people that sell things on Amazon need to be provided benefits from Amazon? How about AirBnB hosts — should that company provide sick days? How is an independent person with a car selling a transportation product any different than someone selling widgets through Amazon? Perhaps the difference is that Uber sets prices?

I would offer that a free market solution to Uber is to allow drivers to set their own rates — that would result in a far more efficient market. Taxis ought to be able to set their own rates as well. It’s better than this price floor/ceiling situation we have now.

forrestthewoods2• 9 years ago

What if I work a 60 or 80 hour work week? Do I accumulate sick days faster? What about states that mandate 1.5x pay for every hour over 40 in a week or every hour over 8 in a day? Can I force minimum wage waiting around at 5am in areas with insufficient passengers?

There are no companies that "have to do it already" where employees also have complete and total control over the number of hours they work and in what location they work.

pishpash4• 9 years ago

They are most definitely independent contractors. In what way are they not?

kahnpro• 9 years ago

For starters, there is no contract negotiation and they have no say in it. Everything is dictated by Uber as if they were the employer.

They're part-time employees with flexible/voluntary scheduling.

gaius3• 9 years ago

They’re neither normal employees nor are they independent contractors

They are perfectly well covered by the existing laws, they are simply part time shift workers. But they are employees for tax and benefits purposes. That's the bit that Uber are trying to dodge.

jopsen4• 9 years ago

I'm not surprised that the American model of classifying your workers as "self-employed sub-contractors" isn't going to work out in Europe.

On topic: Yes, taxi laws needs to be revised. But that's a political issue.

fergie• 9 years ago

Yes, taxi laws need to be revised, but there are sound reasons for licensing taxis operating in a city:

- Limiting the amount of traffic on the roads

- Ensuring that vehicles are nice enough (that there isn't a "race to the bottom")

- Ensuring that drivers are nice enough (qualified, not scary violent criminals)

- Ensuring that drivers are compelled to pick you up and drop you off no matter who/what you are, and where you are going.

- Ensuring that there is a central point of contact for hailing a taxi.

- No ambiguity about who and what is a taxi with regard to parking etc.

To be sure, a lot of licensed taxi services are pretty terrible. But thats not to say that the idea of licensed taxis is bad- its actually pretty reasonable.

Its worth noting that San Fransisco and the Bay Area was the "perfect storm" for creating Uber about 5 years ago- you had a fairly car-dependant transport network, an absolutely abominably terrible licensed taxi service, a lot of local skill in making web services, access to venture capital, (relatively) lax regulation, a healthy disregard for the working classes, and a naively/cynically optimistic view on self driving cars. But try to transfer those conditions to, say, a European city, and Uberization suddenly becomes a lot more difficult.

jopsen4• 9 years ago

The only argument I've heard for licensing is coverage of rural service area.

Most of the others can be fixed by regulation of ride-sharing services.

ccheng_app• 9 years ago

for god sake, ppl are stupid. Uber just left, let those ppl use the old fancy taxi service, they will like it!

hug7• 9 years ago

I take a bunch of ubers, by which I mean I take maybe 4 or 5 ubers a week. Before I took ubers, I didn't take cabs, I took the train. I walked five minutes to get on a tram to the train station, I switched to a train, and then I walked ten minutes home.

I never, really, took cabs. I can explain the multitude of reasons: Cab drivers with shitty attitudes, refusing to unlock the doors and just cracking open the window to ask how far it was you were planning to go: Too short? Don't want to take you, fare is too small. Too long? Don't want to take you, won't get a fare back. I mean, y'know, cab drivers are legally obliged to take you on any distance journey but the lack of accountability meant that they wouldn't. Sometimes there were no choices: Cab home or you won't get there. In those cases, I'd take cabs. The cab driver would be rubbing his eyes, swerving all over the road, tired after working a 16 hour shift, while talking on the phone to, I guess, whoever would listen. Doing anything they could not to pay attention to driving, apparently.

And now I take ubers instead. It's not because I like uber. It's not because I think that the laws around the cab drivers should be ignored and uber should be allowed to flaunt that however they like. It's because I think that, at least right now, uber works better than laws. At least right now.

Is the contractor thing a little bit on the suspicious side? Definitely. Should they pay their "driver partners" more? Definitely. Do I think that this problem is uber's fault? Most definitely not.

I don't have lyft available to me. If I did, I'd probably use lyft. I'm happy with being slightly conscientious and paying a bit more, knowing that I'm not ripping off some guy who can't do any better. Anecdotally, most of my friends think the same thing.

But what I won't do is support the existing cab industry.

madsbuch• 9 years ago

According to this ruling, you support the taxi industry by using Uber in EU. Probably the Uber drivers will also start acting like you have described. After all, they are ordinary taxi driver now.

So I guess: Back to trams and walking?

hug7• 9 years ago

You know what used to happen if I got upset about a taxi driver driving irresponsibly?

I'd call up. I'd complain. They told me they'd take the feedback onboard, and they'd definitely do something.

And then, of course, they hung up and went back to doing whatever it is they did rather than providing customer service.

I can only assume this is because it wasn't worth it to them to bother, but I also know it's why there's a value proposition that supports uber, at least for my use case.

I don't know if uber drivers earn less than cab drivers, but I do know that uber drivers they tell me they earn more that their former cab jobs. I don't know if uber is a horrible company or not, but I do know that when I complain, they promise I'll never see that driver again.

I know that uber will actually show up to pick me up.

I know that the drivers are held accountable.

That's worth a lot. Worth enough to you? I don't know. Worth enough to me that I'd pay more than the going taxi rate, though.

icebraining2• 9 years ago

According to this ruling, you support the taxi industry by using Uber in EU

Transportation service, not taxi.

badestrand• 9 years ago

Same for me. I absolutely understand the criticism of Uber but saying that they are just a taxi app doesn't cut it.

To add more advantages to the list: Full price transparency, pre-agreed price so you don't need to worry that you drive in circles, no driver searching for change for several minutes until you let him keep it.

And, like McDonald's did for fastfood, it creates a world wide standard for taxi services. I had a driver in India that took me to tourist stores instead of my destination and in Mexico City they warn you about taxi drivers robbing you - all not happening in an Uber.

gaius3• 9 years ago

The local cab firm that exists only in my small home town has all these "innovations" too.

freeflight2• 9 years ago

all not happening in an Uber

I'm pretty sure similar [0], and worse [1], is also happening on Uber/Lyft, just not to the same scale yet because of taxis services being far more established around the world.

But I don't see any reason why cab drivers would be any more criminal than ridesharing drivers. Unless ridesharing services do some extra deep background checking on their drivers, which I doubt is actually happening.

[0] http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/h...

[1] http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/rideshare-incidents

coldtea3• 9 years ago

Same for me. I absolutely understand the criticism of Uber but saying that they are just a taxi app doesn't cut it. To add more advantages to the list: Full price transparency, pre-agreed price so you don't need to worry that you drive in circles, no driver searching for change for several minutes until you let him keep it.

None of the above are impossible to have in regular cabs + app.

In fact tons of countries already have just that.

deadbunny3• 9 years ago

pre-agreed price so you don't need to worry that you drive in circles

This isn't the case in the UK, it's always an estimate and I've had plenty of shitty drivers who don't know how to drive in London which have added 10 mins to a surge price journey because they've missed turnings, driven round in circles or taken the wrong bridge.

DanBC2• 9 years ago

Full price transparency, pre-agreed price so you don't need to worry that you drive in circles,

In UK you either get a taxi which uses a calibrated tamper-proof taximeter and published rates per mile, or you use a cab which must offer the option of pre-agreed fee.

This dual system existed decades before Uber.

te_chris3• 9 years ago

Which is another reason why the EU would want to class uber as transport. In switching from PT to Uber you create congestion, which cities will want to regulate.

hug7• 9 years ago

I hope that what I said didn't come across as supporting a lack of regulation. I'm pro-regulation. I'm anti-luddism, though, and sometimes it's hard to figure out where on the line I should stand.

The point is not that uber is good for ignoring regulation, the point is that the current regulations, borne from an age where things such as uber could not have existed, don't quite hold up in the age where things such as uber do exist.

If the choice for me is "behave according to inane regulation", or "break the regulations", or "update the regulations to reflect the reality of the situation" I will, in every case, like to see what's behind door number three.

Phrasing the uber-versus-taxis debate without the third option is just suffering under the yoke of bureaucracy. We can do better.

wnoise• 9 years ago

The sane way to handle congestion would be to have a congestion fee (as London does) for driving in the urban core. Make it apply to taxis as well as private cars, and the created incentives will balance uses well.

rovek• 9 years ago

Same. If Uber were to stop operating in London I would just take the Night Tube home or not go out (weekdays).

pmlnr3• 9 years ago

Win-win. Less pollution and you spend less.

chrisper• 9 years ago

But compared to tram and train, Uber is much more expensive, is it not?

Maybe it depends on the country you are from.

hug7• 9 years ago

Sure. I pay twice as much, on average, to get home in a lot less than half the time.

I also support public transport. I pay for a monthly pass, every month. Do I want that to be my only option? No.

deadbunny3• 9 years ago

I'm kinda the same as GP. I used to get train then tube, not I get train then Uber. For me it's about 2x as expensive but 5 minutes shorter journey without having to deal with this[1] on 4 tubes a day. This also means I avoid this[2] at least twice a month when the tube inevitably breaks down.

It doesn't avoid the misery of the train which suffers from overcrowding every day and frequent cataclysmic failures adding anything from 30 mins to hours to your commute.

If only more companies would get on board with remote working. There is literally no need for 90% of people to be in the office 5 days a week.

1. https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/tube-596...

2. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/08/05/17/2B201BF40000057...

paulie_a• 9 years ago

Uberpool was usually equivalent to Chicago public transportation personally. Some days it was roughly 20% more, but if my gf rode with me it was actually cheaper and was generally faster or aleast equivalent.

Erwin• 9 years ago

My local (Denmark) taxi company has an app that is pretty much like Uber: I enter start and end address and can prepay. But, they do obey the law unlike Uber.

I suppose Uber's ease of use has inspired other companies, so it's great there was some competition. But now if Uber wants to return to Denmark, they must also obey the law.

I think in Europe we prefer to not have too much "disruption" and "lobbyism".

The big ongoing corruption case in Denmark right now is an IT company that paid for a $50,000 Dubai "research" trip with IT-bosses from the the local government (in hope of making it back for selling too-expensive IT equipment to the state)

There's a lot of people involved -- so far, a government employee has received a 4 month non-suspended prison sentence for receiving about $7,000 worth of iPhones etc.

mattmanser3• 9 years ago

We had app ride hailing in Nottingham, UK before Uber was even founded. It was an inevitability everywhere.

Rather funnily, we had a Twilio in Nottingham too many years before Twilio was founded.

The difference between EU and American startups is that there are VCs investing huge sums in US companies so they can do mass advertising.

mikkelam• 9 years ago

What's the name of this app?

jjkk0101• 9 years ago

Came here to say that, fellow Dane. You don't need to bypass regulations to provide a quality service.

brailsafe• 9 years ago

I was going to say "Ironically, Uber has a non-trivial office in Aarhus", which is true, but turns out they have many offices all over the world which is for some reason surprising. Might be one of the larger ones though.

coldtea3• 9 years ago

I never, really, took cabs. I can explain the multitude of reasons: Cab drivers with shitty attitudes, refusing to unlock the doors and just cracking open the window to ask how far it was you were planning to go: Too short? Don't want to take you, fare is too small. Too long? Don't want to take you, won't get a fare back.

None of the above is a problem when ordering cabs from a cab company's app. You don't need Uber to get accountable cabs, or to not have to haul them on the street.

hug7• 9 years ago

You don't, but I do. All of the above continue to be a problem on the incumbent taxi provider apps.

(For reference, I'm in Australia.)

mattmanser3• 9 years ago

You could have phoned a private hire firm? They're the same taxi drivers you're paying, they're just using an app now.

Bit of a silly stance and rant in my opinion.

hug7• 9 years ago

Find me a private hire firm, operating across the entirety of metropolitan Melbourne (Australia), with a pickup time of under 30 minutes, with a rate that is available to someone you wouldn't describe as "independently wealthy".

I'll wait.

Of course, I've tasked you with an impossibility. You're saying I should use a service that doesn't exist. The only way that services like the one we're talking about work is by having a surfeit of vehicles available, and the only service that has that in Melbourne is uber.

You can call what I was saying a "silly stance", but you're saying that from a position of ignorance.

Perhaps, for a moment, you should consider the outside perspective.

On the other hand, if you do find the service I described, please let me know. I'd like to use it.

hrktb• 9 years ago

There’s a threshold where the service fundamentally changes.

Phoning a cab here is looking for the local cab company number, getting shitty call quality, argue with an operator where you are, wait who knows how long for a cab you don’t how it looks like, explain the driver where you’re supposed to go, do the “fucking let me pay by card” dance.

Even trying one of the national cab company’s app only reduced that shittiness by half. It can be the same drivers at the wheel, the delivered service difference is still night and day.

alkonaut10• 9 years ago

Cab drivers with shitty attitudes, refusing to unlock the doors and just cracking open the window to ask how far it was you were planning to go: Too short? Don't want to take you, fare is too small. Too long? Don't want to take you, won't get a fare back. I

You are citing some problems that aren't "uber vs taxi" but seem to be due to a lack of competition among taxis.

- Taxis shouldn't be allowed to reject you

- Taxis should all take cards, and preferably pre-payment

- Taxis should be bookable with apps

- Taxis should compete for service meaning a nice attitude and a nice car will be common.

So this isn't about "uber vs taxi" this is about monopoly taxi vs. non-monopoly taxi. Once the monopoly is out, Uber will just be like every other taxi company. And better still, all the taxi companies will be like Uber.

It might be that "taxi" in a lot of cities, especially US cities, are monopolies, have shitty cars, no apps, rude drivers etc. But that isn't because they are taxis, it's because they are a monopoly. Uber should be considered a taxi company, because they are taxi. But they should of course be allowed also to operate as a taxi, everywhere they want.

scrollaway• 9 years ago

So this isn't about "uber vs taxi" this is about monopoly taxi vs. non-monopoly taxi.

But that's not true. Uber doesn't fix these issues by being an "alternative", it fixes them by switching the incentives around. What this is about is "order a cab" vs. "hail a cab". By letting drivers opt into a ride, all of GP's issues disappear.

Of course you still do need competition once you're past that layer, yeah; taxi monopolies do sometimes offer cab-ordering services but those services still suck (Only available by phonecall with waiting time, no notifications, no prepayment etc). Simply removing the monopoly would not fix the issue entirely.

lucaspiller• 9 years ago

Once the monopoly is out, Uber will just be like every other taxi company. And better still, all the taxi companies will be like Uber.

That is pretty much how things are here in Lithuania. The system works well, you don't really come across drivers or cars with issues, and there isn't really any kind of monopoly. There aren't many true taxis, because being a 'taxi' vs a 'private driver' means you pay more effectively just to be able to drive in bus lanes.

Historically people would phone up to book (and a car would turn up in under 10 minutes), but now you can use a single app to book and pay by card with all the different taxi companies (and get whatever car is quickest or cheapest). Uber were late to the game when they entered the market in 2015, and their launch has gone pretty much unnoticed.

optimuspaul3• 9 years ago

What monopoly? There is no taxi monopoly that I'm aware of. If anything much of the problem with Taxis is because of the heavy competition racing to the bottom.

watwut2• 9 years ago

I never had such huge problems with taxi. Just about the only one I can relate to is them taking only cash.

When I call for taxi, they ask where I want to go, so the whole window situation never happen.

richev• 9 years ago

So, Uber is giving you the taxi cab service you always wanted? That's great, and that's why they should be regulated as such.

eddieroger• 9 years ago

One could make the argument that regulation got regular cabs to the position they're in today, and applying that to Uber would ruin the service. A functioning system would have been more resistant to disruption. Perhaps the regulations cabs already have aren't enforceable?

jasonkostempski• 9 years ago

It works better than law mostly because of the amount of privacy both employees and customer have to sacrifice. Most things would "work better" with that trade-off.

Edit: Does this mean people can now hail an Uber without needing an account or the app?

candiodari2• 9 years ago

And the tax evasion (executed by the driver, on behalf of Uber). Without that, would there even be uber ?

jordache• 9 years ago

all the superficial issues you've described simply reinforces how similar new car hailing service are to legacy cabs.

Your argument is akin to arguing juciero is not a juice machine. it's a connected juice delivery experience that is uniquely distinguishable from the act of making juice from solids.

OJFord• 9 years ago

I didn't take cabs, I took the train.

And then a new cab company came to town, and were sufficiently innovative in the market to convince you to stop taking the train, and take their cabs.

collyw7• 9 years ago

Yours seems like a fairly usual reply when either Airbnb or Uber are discussed - "it works for me". Great that it works for you.

I have never had a problem with the cabs where I live (and Uber is banned)

Anyway to add my anecdote as a counter to yours. I was back home in Scotland at Christmas last year. Private Cabs were all busy, so we tried an Uber wanted to charge nearly three times what the monopolistic black cabs (the ones you hail from the street) charge. My one and only experience with Uber and it didn't seem good.

baby2• 9 years ago

Cabs are shit in most places around the world. What's great with Uber is that you will avoid that while traveling.

w0m• 9 years ago

Pre-Uber, cabs near me worth horrendous. I'd book a cab to go to the bar on St Patties day a week in advance, and they'd just not show; they found someone else on the way and that maximized their profit so they grabbed that fair. So 30m after I'm supposed to be inebriated; I call company, they say they sent another, and 30m later it also never shows. One of us then bite the bullet and play DD for the night (group of 5 congregated to share the cab and hitchhike back).

I think 'Cabs Suck' was pretty ubiquitous comment in many many areas of the country pre uber/lyft; it's an industry that needed to be disrupted badly.

Tloewald2• 9 years ago

Surge pricing is actually a great feature. It’s the low base bay, lack of benefits, and screwing with liability that are loathsome.

You had a choice of NO CAB or an Uber at triple rate. Didn’t want to pay? Clearly someone else did. Economics at work.

One of my early experiences with Uber was much the same, trying to get my family home from the national zoo in Washington DC in a sudden rain storm. Cabs — not available. Uber — surge pricing. Totally worth it.

That said I use Lyft exclusively now because of Uber’s moral vacuum.

rusk• 9 years ago

I agree, but this experience can be delivered without the dodgy business model.

Hailo did this, all within the bounds of the standard regulatory framework by joining independent drivers to customers with all of the advantages that you provide.

They never annoyed anybody.

Sadly it seems they tried and failed to take on the less regulated markets and this was their undoing.

I miss Hailo and I hope somebody comes along with a credible replacement soon. MyTaxi is just plain awful and is probably the best marketing for Uber round these parts there has ever been!

There really isn't any critical intellectual property or secret sauce that should stand in the way ... just pure graft required.

Hopefully this will do the trick http://www.whistletaxiapp.com/

CapacitorSet• 9 years ago

Is the contractor thing a little bit on the suspicious side? Definitely. Should they pay their "driver partners" more? Definitely. Do I think that this problem is uber's fault? Most definitely not.

The contractors thing is a tax avoidance scheme at the sole advantage, and responsibility, of Uber.

allengeorge2• 9 years ago

“Is this contractor thing a little bit on the suspicious side? Definitely. Should They pay their “driver partners” more? Definitely. Do I think that this problem is Uber’s fault? Most definitely not.”

What?

Uber is the sole party that structures the relationship with its drivers and determines the rate it would pay them. Why is it not their problem or fault? And, if it’s not their problem, whose is it?

brixon5• 9 years ago

If you had the option to hire one of two people that will do the same job at the same performance level and one costs you $10 an hour and the other $20 an hour, which one do you choose? Is it the company to blame for picking the $10 an hour person?

kbutler2• 9 years ago

"Uber is the sole party that structures the relationship with its drivers and determines the rate it would pay them. Why is it not their problem or fault? And, if it’s not their problem, whose is it?"

The driver is the sole party who decides each day whether or not the offer from Uber is worth it.

If drivers don't think it is worth it, they won't do it. If they do think it is worth it, why should I get in the way of their choice?

If Uber raises the rates they pay drivers, rates to customers will also rise. Economics suggests more people will be drivers at the higher rate, but fewer people will buy rides.

More supply and less demand probably won't make drivers happy, either.

And competitors can come in and undercut, as long as drivers are willing to accept the pay provided.

scott00• 9 years ago

There was actually an interesting paper written about this recently: http://john-joseph-horton.com/papers/uber_price.pdf

Essentially, when Uber raises fares it increases earnings in the short term, but not long term, because more drivers enter the system and push their earnings back down as each driver gets fewer rides.

Uber could solve this problem by limiting the number of drivers. But that of course turns some underpaid Uber drivers into unemployed ex-Uber drivers. Which doesn't sound like a desirable outcome either.

Nursie5• 9 years ago

You take cabs.

You take cabs with a company who have a history of all sorts of shady dealings, a history of evading laws, evading employment rights, evading inspections, avoiding taxes, duping inspectors, not cooperating with police and a ton of other stuff.

But it's OK because you don't like the way other firms operate a service you think is a bit shabby.

You might want to take more of a look around at what you're supporting. Lots of stuff can work better without the laws, until it doesn't and you realise the laws were there for a reason.

tombrm• 9 years ago

So Uber is a better cab service, than the original one. Hopefully the upcoming regulations will result in only slightly increased pricing and a more sustainable system (keeping the drivers in mind).

bdcravens• 9 years ago

Cab drivers with shitty attitudes

Not always rosey with Uber drivers. My first was in San Diego a few years ago: driver had been in town 2 days, asked us for directions, and spent the entire drive asking me about sexual activities he could find on Craigslist that was illegal in his country. Presumably it could have been a fraudulent situation and he was driving for someone else, which would likely get that person removed from Uber, but still, not a great intro to the service.

malandrew2• 9 years ago

My understanding is that Uber and Lyft drivers earn about the same. Lyft pays more per trip, but Uber is more efficient at getting drivers a greater number of trips per hour. The end result is that they both pay about the same on a per/hour basis.

Artlav2• 9 years ago

I still wonder why Uber is a thing. It makes no sense, it does not feel like something capable of reliable service and it got almost no use cases.

Is it just a passing fad of some sort, like fidget spinners?

rmc• 9 years ago

VC money is try to see how far you can go by ignoring existing laws

mavidser• 9 years ago

it got almost no use cases

You don't think calling cabs to your location, paying with your stored card, knowing the fixed cost beforehand is a valid usecase?

ionised3• 9 years ago

Uber didn't invent these things. My local taxi places have been doing them for years.

Artlav2• 9 years ago

I just can't imagine that random people who play what is essentially a glorified computer game would be reliable enough to show up at 4AM and get me to the airport safely.

Or provide a reliable service in any other emergency or inconvenient situation - you don't use a taxi to go to the grocery store or to commute to work, you use it in emergencies.

I can see how an app to call a taxi and track rides is a good thing, but i can't see how having random people provide the actual rides is a good idea.

icebraining2• 9 years ago

It's a cab company. What's there to understand?

TeMPOraL9• 9 years ago

I think GP is trying to understand why it has so much media exposure.

It has so much media exposure because on the one hand, it spends a lot of money on aggressively marketing itself (thus people talk about them), and on the other hand, in many places their business is entirely based on breaking local laws (thus people talk about them). Plus, they're beloved Silicon Valley unicorn (more talking) known for pulling off shady shit left and right (even more talking).

But beyond that, they're just a taxi company with a nice app and shitty attitude.

DanBC2• 9 years ago

It's just a cab company. Depending where you live it might be better than the existing cab companies.

It's cheaper than some cab companies, but that's because it doesn't always comply with local regulation and because it's burning money from capital investors.

Uber doesn't make much sense in the UK, where you have the choice of taxis (can pick up from the side of the road, must use taximeters for pricing) and cabs (can't pick up from side of road, can pre-arrange a price).

chx4• 9 years ago

It's a company built to exploit people's ignorance of how much it costs to drive your own car.

user59944615• 9 years ago

I am certainly surprised to not hear more about this and there has never been any study. It should be fairly easy to compare the income with the costs of running a car.

That being said, regular taxis used to be ripped off by the medallion and the car rental, so they might not do better.

marenkay3• 9 years ago

Considering how Uber was apparently wanting to evade to be considered a transportation service this is IMHO a correct decision.

Just because you're a startup/funded/unicorn does not mean that laws do not apply.

This is pretty much the biggest thing that will change the "new economy". The market has reached a point where rightfully so people start to wonder why IT startups should be evading laws. They should not.

Running a business comes with duties for everyone. That is in the end in the interest of all consumers.

chewz• 9 years ago

I agree 100%. All this "disruption" thing is mostly about being in a grey zone where you can cut corners, avoid paying taxes and not respect regulations. The legal system will slowly catch up and the initial advantage will disappear. In the end this is how economy works.

AirBnB is next I guess.

alkonaut10• 9 years ago

AirBnB is next I guess.

I think it already started. If you sublet your apartment you are either a landlord or a hotel service, and have to follow all the safety/fire/health/ regulations for one of those. It's pretty obvious you aren't supposed to be allowed to just "share" your apartment for a fee, where some startup unicorn takes a nice cut because they cornered the market with a web site.

So yes. Uber and AirBnB are innovators in the sense that they aggresively invade legal gray areas. I think they will fundamentally change markets (e.g. will cause taxi monopolies to be removed, or reduce the red tape hotel businesses) - but they won't exist in a decade doing what they do now.

thisisit• 9 years ago

The important question is - what implication does it have beyond the classification? Does Europe have different standards for cab firms to meet? Like employment, fare rules?

DoveBrown2• 9 years ago

If you are digital services company then the only regulation you need to follow as those of your home jurisdiction. All relevant EU law is included in those regulations.

Transport services are specific exception to the single market where local jurisdiction can have different regulations and you need to follow the regulations in any jurisdiction your customers are present in.

ainiriand2• 9 years ago

Specific passenger insurance the first thing. You don't have that in Uber. Another special regulation is that taxis pay to the city council to operate. Uber drivers don't do that.

kwhitefoot• 9 years ago

Fares are regulated and in many cases the start, per kilometre, and waiting charges are listed on a label inside the taxi.

dronemallone• 9 years ago

By this logic, all stock traders should be considered employees of the stock exchange they use. Uber is just like a stock exchange - a match making service.

* Traders/riders on a transaction/ride pay the exchange/Uber for this service.

* Traders/riders are free to trade/ride as much they want to, at any hour of the day, provided there's enough liquidity in the market (surge pricing etc.)

* If a trader doesn't cut a profit on a trade, it's the trader's problem not the exchange's

* If an Uber driver doesn't drive enough to earn a living wage, it's the driver's problem not Uber's.

simion3146• 9 years ago

The problem in your logic is that different industries have different regulation, like food industry has different rules then electronics, this regulation were created probably after bad things happen. As a user of Uber or classic taxi you should have same protections. Try imagine Uber for food, you put in an app what food you want to eat and some random person will bring you the food he cocked, the person is not qualified, the startup did not made enough background checks, maybe he cokes in a place with rats, if you get sick you can 1 star the person. My point is that analogies do not work that well when you change industry, P.S. I did not downvoted you

saint_fiasco5• 9 years ago

I would totally buy the food from the random person if it was cheap, convenient and had good user ratings.

People who can afford to only buy things with background checks and quality control and insurance should be free to buy those things, but it's a little mean to decide for everyone else. Some people can only afford the shitty version.

paulus_magnus2• 9 years ago

In countries like Morocco, Egypt, China etc EVERYONE is a taxi driver. Stick your finger up and they'll drive you a few km/miles for a few bucks.

Uber incorporated / centralised that. It's not some vague digital enabler marketplace. They know the route, micromanage both the driver and passenger, collect money based on route, unilaterally set prices. How someone can think they're not a taxi company is beyond me.

pmlnr3• 9 years ago

This. If this wasn't the case I would not have been able to get off from one of the mountains after dark a few years ago.

Symbiote• 9 years ago

You can probably hitchhike from a mountain in Europe, as most mountains are in remote or fairly remote areas.

ainiriand2• 9 years ago

Yes, some taxis are a pain in the ass. But that doesn't mean that Uber should not be playing under the same rules as everybody does, isn't it?

mickeythug• 9 years ago

bbc.com does not have SSL? :O

deusofnull• 9 years ago

I dont overly care what regulatory framework we place Uber into, I care that they dont misclassify their workers as independent contractors. The whole gig "economy" is a scam, people smarter than I have broken down the numbers about the cost of maintaining your vehicle (in uber's sake) and the tax bill due in april exceeding the pay. Not to mention theres little to no job security or benefits. Pay Your Workers.

Eridrus• 9 years ago

You can get vastly different analysis results depending on the assumptions you make about the marginal cost to run a vehicle - If someone is leasing a high end SUV they wouldn't otherwise need the pay is far worse than if someone is driving around in a 5 year old car they already needed. It also makes a huge difference if they are doing this as a full time job or only during peak times.

And all of these factors are in the driver's control, rather than Uber's.

Hasz• 9 years ago

What's worse, Uber's interests and and "independent contractors" interests are not fully aligned. When Uber wins, there's plenty of drivers on the street and no surge pricing. When drivers win, it's surge pricing all day long. This adversarial relationship is inevitably going to produce bad results for the drivers, who are undoubtedly the weaker party.

indubitable• 9 years ago

Can you clarify what exactly you think is a "scam"? People are free to drop in or out of the 'gig economy' at their discretion. For things like Uber there are services available to rent cars with time frames as low as by the hour, to help drivers determine if the wages and work are what they're really looking for. At worst, they could simply chat with another driver for the service.

andonisus• 9 years ago

You should care. Uber has lobbied in my state to not be classified as a taxi (or common carrier), and their drivers are classified as independent contractors. They were able to successfully lobby for this classification by guaranteeing a $1,000,000 liability insurance policy for injury caused by their drivers.

If your injuries due to driver negligence exceed this amount (which is very possible if you are severely injured and become disabled for the rest of your life, unable to work), you have no recourse. You cannot currently go after Uber because they are not classified as a common carrier. You are screwed.

zethraeus5• 9 years ago

Taxi drivers are usually independent contractors.

flexie• 9 years ago

And how ridiculous is it that it would take half a decade to state the obvious while this company funded by tech billionaires competed on unfair terms with tens of thousands of tiny taxi companies that followed rules and acquired licenses, expensive mandatory equipment etc.

I would love for the taxi industry to be liberalised but just not for the benefit of a few Silicon Valley billionaires with complete disregard of legislation.

optimuspaul3• 9 years ago

What would it mean for the taxi industry to be liberalised?

simias3• 9 years ago

At least in many places in Europe (but I think it's also the case in some cities in the USA) you need to get a taxi license to operate which is pretty anti-competitive. I agree with the parent that I would prefer if we had some stringent regulation for taxi businesses but the license system would be phased out to open the market to competition.

Unfortunately taxi drivers can resell their licenses, and they're pretty damn expensive (in the hundreds of thousands of euros in Paris IIRC) so the license owners obviously very staunchly defending their investments and taxi companies their de-facto monopolies. Besides taxis can basically shut down all traffic in the capital (and they're not particularly civil about it either) when they go on strike so the status quo endures.

ErikVandeWater2• 9 years ago

competed on unfair terms

Albeit the taxi companies created the unfair terms. Obviously it is not necessary to have a medallion to drive someone around. HN is generally anti-lobbying to protect corporate interest, but now that Uber is big there is some regret...

I would love for the taxi industry to be liberalised but just not for the benefit of a few Silicon Valley billionaires

And the consumer...

donatj2• 9 years ago

I’d say the major dip in drunk drivers has benefited humanity at large.

cat199• 9 years ago

Obviously it is not necessary to have a medallion to drive someone around.

It is when that's the law..

The fact that these people have been able to profit with high visibility and applause when basically the source of their advantage is breaking the law is mind boggling.

Are taxi regulations ridiculous? yes. But that doesn't mean that rampant illegal behaviour is the answer.

rhino3695• 9 years ago

Albeit the taxi companies created the unfair terms. Obviously it is not necessary to have a medallion to drive someone around. HN is generally anti-lobbying to protect corporate interest, but now that Uber is big there is some regret...

This myth of the taxi companies lobbying to avoid competition doesn't seem based in reality. Taxis didn't seek out regulation to protect themselves. Cities began regulating fares, service areas, and the business model. Cities put rules on them for the public good. The medallion is there is to balance out the price regulations placed on taxi companies and to ensure that the rules didn't make the taxi business unprofitable.

I've never seen any indication they sought out these regulations.

Really it smells like a smear campaign to make a bunch of immigrants driving cars 12 hours a day the bad guys and to make the 60 billion dollar corporate titan the underdog.

phicoh2• 9 years ago

The Netherlands tried the experiment to, from one day to another, just remove almost all requirements to operate a taxi. Basically, the only requirements were that you had to have a vehicle that passes inspection, a valid drivers license, and register with the city government that you operate a taxi.

In Amsterdam, the result was absolute chaos. Ignoring for the moment the unhappy existing taxi drivers and companies (that was complete mess, way beyond what the police were able to control), many new entrants behaved less than professional. I.e., competing aggressively for the lucrative rides, being poorly equipped to actually deliver a taxi services.

The situation got so bad, that the old taxi company that everybody hated, was now suddenly was the most reliable taxi service.

The question then becomes how you view the taxi market. Is it a market where anything goes. Where sometimes, in the middle of the night, there is just no taxi that wants to take you (home) for a price you can afford. Where taxi drivers claim that tourists agreed to pay an insane amount of money per person for a short ride from the airport to a nearby hotel.

Or do you want something that is mostly predictable. Maybe not very efficient, certainly not nice. But with reasonable expectation that if you order a taxi, one will show up and take you where you need to go?

Barrin92• 9 years ago

And the consumer...

Sorry, but as a consumer I welcome this. I will gladly pay a few bucks more or wait five minutes more for a taxi than having every industry taken over by the absentee landlord class that is the tech industry. In the case of Uber spying on their employees, having no obligations any other employer has, paying no taxes and misusing the data of their customers and drivers.

From time to time people would do well do understand that everybody is not just consumer but also a worker, or in the end you'll end up in a bad spot yourself.

One just needs to look at the fact that these businesses have customers and drivers rate each other, which is nothing but undignified and gamified surveillance. Don't give up essential freedoms for the sake of convenience.

Kalium4• 9 years ago

I was in San Francisco, the birthplace of Uber, in 2009/2010. If you wanted a taxi pickup, you generally had to call two or three taxi companies and wait 30-45 minutes for a two in three chance of a taxi showing.

That doesn't happen anymore. Not after Uber.

Aunche2• 9 years ago

I don't want Uber to disappear, but they brought this ruling upon themselves. A lot of taxi regulations are stupid. However, Uber chose to ignore the reasonable ones as well with the "we aren't a taxi company excuse." If they weren't as blatant with subverting the law, I would have more sympathy towards them.

cryptonector• 9 years ago

This attitude that it's terrible that some people get rich is silly at the very least -- destructive at its very worst. And in particular as to ride-sharing services. The net benefit to the consumer has been unbelievably good, and it points to a future where there are fewer personal vehicles and more vehicles for hire, which in turn will have (I think) significant benefits for traffic, city planning, etc. For example, as the number of private cars in NYC goes down, it might be possible to ban parking on more streets, thus increasing their traffic carrying capacity and alleviating traffic problems.

But no, some people got rich doing this. And monopolists got hurt (we're really going to feel sorry for them?!). What a crock. Imagine missing out on all this dynamism and sticking to a measly 13,000 taxis in Manhattan (none in the boroughs, not really) because those millionaires who own taxi fleets and multi-million dollar medallions might suffer while some people in SV make billions. The story is the same around the world.

No, I won't feel sorry for the taxi medallion owners, nor the banks that lent to them that lost money when medallion prices crashed.

sedtrader2• 9 years ago

Calling Uber a tax firm is akin to calling personal workout equipment a gym. Or calling a bed and breakfast a hotel. Don't get me wrong Uber should pay its fair share of taxes/fees, but bunching apples and oranges together for the sake of policy simplicity comes off as non-progressive in my view.

kaeluka• 9 years ago

I don't follow your examples. How is workout-equipment:gym like uber:taxi-firm?

non-progressive

I'm not sure what you mean by progress, exactly, but policy simplicity is progress IMHO.

acdanger• 9 years ago

Do Bed and Breakfasts usually operate under contracts with larger corporate entities that set service standards and reap a share of the profits? I'd assume most are small, family run businesses.

foepys• 9 years ago

Calling Uber a tax firm is akin to calling personal workout equipment a gym.

You got that exactly right. If I let people pay to use my personal workout equipment, then I'm operating a gym. Uber let's people pay to be driven around and is thus called a taxi service.

moogly• 9 years ago

"Uber was founded in 2009 as UberCab" - Wikipedia

sebleon• 9 years ago

For consumers, Lyft/Uber/etc = best things to happen in years in transportation.

Private car experience at the price of a subway ticket is great, while making car ownership optional in places with lousy public transit. Surprised you care more about people following the rules than enjoying the benefits of VC-subsidized rides :)

QAPereo• 9 years ago

Maybe they just remember the same arguments made about Google, FB, etc... and worry about the future?

matte_black• 9 years ago

For the benefit of who then?

dumbfounder• 9 years ago

That legislation isn't going to change itself. It needs to be challenged. Kudos (from me), and money (from willing consumers, including me), go to the companies that challenge it. I see no problem with this whatsoever.

pwaai• 9 years ago

I agree. But this is the new form of economic imperialism--nobody suspects a bunch of nerdy billionaires under 40 with multi-national employee pool linked to target countries elite educational institutions...good luck telling your best and the brightest why they shouldn't take that 7 digit salary from Americans, especially when no other domestic enterprises exists or willing to absorb that many new graduates.

jister• 9 years ago

Sure it was sugar-coated but I thought this was obvious from the beginning?

PeterStuer• 9 years ago

Surprised as the current EU administration is usually quite keen to support the race to the bottom.

tekkk2• 9 years ago

Here's a second-hand account of why Uber is terrible and should be regulated heard from a finnish taxi driver a week ago:

1) Probably all of the Uber drivers are uninsured in the case of accident. Good luck getting your hospital bill covered if that happens and insurance company finds out you were taking an Uber.

2) There is no background check whatsoever for Uber drivers he told. They recently added a clause that requires Uber drivers to have taxi permit (or something similar) which is required by law but they do not actually check it but now the legal responsibility is out of their hands. He said something in the lines of that "bad apples" can start driving and remain much longer in Uber's system than while driving regular taxi.

3) There has been cases in which Uber drivers haven't paid any taxes and actually have been taking unemployment checks while driving. Sure not directly Uber's fault but again if their drivers were regulated I'm sure it would make checking their taxes much easier and Uber would pay pension etc. from the pay.

I think those were his main points if I recall correctly. In Finland regular taxi is well-respected and regulated so Uber has had little luck in succeeding to gain market share. Mostly foreign people use and drive Uber here.

rockinghigh• 9 years ago

#1 is false. Uber has an insurance: https://www.uber.com/newsroom/insurance-ridesharing-uber #2 is also false. There are background checks: https://help.uber.com/h/6970e704-95ac-4ed3-9355-e779a86db366

tekkk2• 9 years ago

@rockinghigh #1 In paper yes it seems so. But quick googling shows me this page http://jukka-pekkakukkonen.puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/223502-u... In which the guy goes through finnish Uber TOS which states that Uber is not liable of any damage to you or losses caused by the driver. Also because Uber drivers have the basic insurance for personal use but not for professional the insurance companies might decline compensation because it's against the terms of agreement.

#2 Also I think the point the taxi driver and (consequently I) was trying to make that Uber does not check can you actually be a professional driver. They might check your crime record but do you think that's all what it takes to be a taxi driver? Granted it might differ in your country but in Finland taxi drivers are well-respected because they behave like a customer servant should. And from what he said it seemed that Uber's process seemed a bit flaky "fill a form and you're an Uber driver" or something like that.

Have you no trust in me? :) If you show me a non-Uber source that debunks my claims please go ahead.

yalogin• 9 years ago

Wow. Uber single handedly made folks on ycombinator pro cab industry. The hatred I saw for the cab industry when Uber was announced or becoming successful was so strong that I am amazed at how grandly Uber fucked it up.

Practically though, Uber is still doing great and probably will be just fine even after this ruling. The traditional taxis are still bad and have never reinvented themselves.

heedlessly22• 9 years ago

that doesn't make sense.

HN is pro Lyft but also pro cab?

I just think HN doesn't like Uber

grzm• 9 years ago

Please don't do this. HN is a diverse community, and you choose to be a part of it. Casting all of HN in one bucket does a disservice to everyone.

fuscy• 9 years ago

This ruling is pretty disastrous for Uber in some countries where there is ingrained corruption through regulation.

Take România for example: licenses are needed to operate, there is a limited number of them, winning licenses is a black box, there is a maximum limit to the price per kilometer, a phone operator service is required, physical systems that monitor the ride, no credit card taxi support legislation, no legal tipping, cars must be licensed for taxi, drivers need special taxes and tests (some are part time weekend drivers).

In short there is a lot of improvements that Uber brings but the legislation doesn’t cover (like GPS use) and there is no way to change those without hurting the real taxi drivers.

b3b0p• 9 years ago

I have never used an Uber, Lyft or any ride share.

If any rule or requirement is needed for any and all ride sharing companies, including taxi services and even bus drivers is they take a road test to at least confirm they understand basic rules of the community or area they service.

I bike or walk everywhere. I don't have a car. The problem I see and have is almost every few minutes while biking in the bike lane in Austin, a Lyft, taxi, or other ride share stops right in front of me in the bike lane to either drop off or pick up people. I've even had honk at me from behind while I'm in the bike lane because they want to use it or make a right turn.

I've talked with a couple people about this and even seen police pull these people over. So, I am pretty sure it's not legal. I wish 2 things: 1) These drivers are required to confirm they know the basic/general rules of the road and 2) Police start enforcing these rules. I won't even bother mentioning that every single driver I see pass me is texting or talking on their phones (not hands free style).

Uber is officially a cab firm, says European court

Related Stories