No competition please, we are French

[Loren Pechtel]

IF France wants to regulate these platforms, such as force them to have a min % of full time drivers, min fares, etc., then that could be reasonable, especially as a transitional strategy. But an outright ban is an extremist stance against liberty and progress, and the welfare of most people, including future drivers that in the long run would be better off, able to essentially work for themselves or at least have multiple platforms competing for their services.

I can see no need of a minimum number of full-time drivers or minimum fares. Those aren't things the government should be regulating.

The government has a legitimate say in the qualifications of the drivers--generally you need a higher class of license in order to take passengers for pay but that's about it.

 

[whichphilosophy]

IF France wants to regulate these platforms, such as force them to have a min % of full time drivers, min fares, etc., then that could be reasonable, especially as a transitional strategy. But an outright ban is an extremist stance against liberty and progress, and the welfare of most people, including future drivers that in the long run would be better off, able to essentially work for themselves or at least have multiple platforms competing for their services.

I can see no need of a minimum number of full-time drivers or minimum fares. Those aren't things the government should be regulating.

The government has a legitimate say in the qualifications of the drivers--generally you need a higher class of license in order to take passengers for pay but that's about it.

In the UK we have licenced taxis who can pick people up from the street or through phone bookings and minicab companies who can only pick up people through phone bookings. Both must be licenced by the department of transport.

 

[ZiprHead]

Uber Driver Requirements/

 

[whichphilosophy]

Uber Driver Requirements/

I see the problem here, as I am clearly behind the times.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/29/uber-taxis-legal-battles-london-black-cab-drivers



London's black-cab drivers are to launch private prosecutions against minicab drivers who use Uber, the booking software that allows smartphone users to hail private-hire cars from any location.

The legal action emerged a day after Travis Kalanick, Uber's chief executive, confirmed the Silicon Valley company, which has rolled out its service to 115 cities globally, was set for a "record breaking" private fundraising that could see it valued at close to $17bn (£10bn).

The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association is issuing summonses to six Uber drivers on Thursdayon the grounds that it is illegal for private-hire vehicles to be fitted with meters.

The test cases hinge on whether the app comes within the definition of a meter and could affect hundreds of Uber drivers operating in the capital and Manchester, where it launched this month.

 

[Derec]

The French have a much different view of the role of economics and commerce in society than we do.

It's not to provide goods and services?

IMO, they view it much more as more intimate social connection than we do.

Not according to the new Hollande government law! You can't mix "intimate connections" with "economics and commerce" any more.

When a group goes on strike, they tend to get support from other sectors in the economy.

What do you mean "when"? There is at least one group on strike in France at any given time. But this was no strike. In a strike, the striking workers withhold their labor. Here we have taxi drivers blocking roads, damaging cars, assaulting people. And the government rewards such behavior by taking their side against uber.

As for banning things for ideological reasons, that is simply a tautology. The banning of any item, activity or person can always be reduced to some ideological reason.

You hear the same argument from the religious right that any law is "legislating morality". I disagree. There are laws that have a rational basis, and then there are laws whose only raison-d-etre is a particular religious and/or ideological commitment.

 

[Derec]

So, I am guessing you'll want to vote out all Republicans in the next election since they are the primary forces behind the same prostitution bans in the US, plus bans on use of drugs, gay marriage, flag burning bans, book bans (yeah they still do that), and 90% of what FCC bans on speech and other television content.

I already mostly vote Democratic, because Republicans these days tend to be quite crazy, especially in my state (i.e. lesser of two evils strategy). However, when it comes to prostitution Democrats are at least just as bad as Republicans. In fact the only state with legalized prostitution in the US (Nevada) has a Republican governor (Brian Sandoval) and the Democratic US Senator from that state (Harry Reid) wanted to pressure Nevada into banning it.

 

[Derec]

banning

Wow! Just wow. In a taxi discussion.

Yeah. It's perfectly legitimate to mention other stupid laws a particular government has passed when claiming that a government has passed a stupid law.

 

[Derec]

But do taxi drivers have overhead that uber drivers do not?

Well all those gallons of hideously smelling air "freshener" add up.
Seriously though, why should they be mandated to be the only model? If equivalent (or better) service can be provided with less overhead it should be allowed to compete.
I mean why would anyone not want to take a ride with such friendly cab drivers as this one.
Italian taxi driver charges 24 stone passenger more than double the fare after blaming puncture on man's weight

- - - Updated - - -

Whom would you vote for, to avoid that problem?

Neither of the big parties. But at least with proportional representation one has legitimate smaller parties to choose from.

 

[Derec]

: Uber means real cab drivers who use their position to support themselves and their families will be out of work.

What makes them real cab drivers? At least in London they require the "Knowledge" but that still doesn't mean they should have a monopoly.
If uber drivers can provide equivalent service (get you from A to B in a timely fashion) and can do it at a cheaper price then they are every bit as "real" as traditional cab drivers.

 

[whichphilosophy]

: Uber means real cab drivers who use their position to support themselves and their families will be out of work.

What makes them real cab drivers? At least in London they require the "Knowledge" but that still doesn't mean they should have a monopoly.
If uber drivers can provide equivalent service (get you from A to B in a timely fashion) and can do it at a cheaper price then they are every bit as "real" as traditional cab drivers.

The courts will have to establish whether Uber is breaking the law by picking up people in the street. I would think if this is effective, both black cabs and other cabs will also use Uber type software in future.

 

[credoconsolans]

But do taxi drivers have overhead that uber drivers do not?

Is the playing field the same from a tax and regulatory perspective?

I don't know, I'm asking. I assume there is some way to track tax-wise the money paid to uber drivers, that uber drivers have background checks to make sure customers aren't getting into a car with a serial killer or rapist, that they have the same sort of liability insurance for passenger safety, etc. etc.

 

[Juma]

What makes them real cab drivers? .

Them being licensed. And thus is possible to de-license if he/she doesnt follow regulations.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is the playing field the same from a tax and regulatory perspective?

I don't know, I'm asking. I assume there is some way to track tax-wise the money paid to uber drivers, that uber drivers have background checks to make sure customers aren't getting into a car with a serial killer or rapist, that they have the same sort of liability insurance for passenger safety, etc. etc.

The background checks seem to be ok, the problem I have is they don't hold drivers to the standards of commercial driver's licenses.

 

[ronburgundy]

IF France wants to regulate these platforms, such as force them to have a min % of full time drivers, min fares, etc., then that could be reasonable, especially as a transitional strategy. But an outright ban is an extremist stance against liberty and progress, and the welfare of most people, including future drivers that in the long run would be better off, able to essentially work for themselves or at least have multiple platforms competing for their services.

I can see no need of a minimum number of full-time drivers or minimum fares. Those aren't things the government should be regulating.

Those are things the government should regulate, especially in a context like this one where not doing so will suddenly throw many thousands of people out of work and incapable of meeting their basic needs via the only profession they have been in their whole life. Their are massive cost to the community at large in that happening, so it is highly rational for them to take steps to prevent it. Economic activity is not private behavior.
One could argue that in the long run it makes more sense to have the bulk of such transport services provided by people doing so part time and making more efficient use of their existing dormant resources (their cars). But that doesn't mean that they should do nothing to soften the transition and just allow a whole industry is blown up over night. The regulations could allow the transition to be phased in so that new people do not enter the old format of the industry but the existing people are allowed to phase out and not be thrown onto the public welfare ranks.

Those things are far more legit for the government to do than things like bail out banks and corporations, without taking enough control to force the changes that would prevent the exact same crises from emerging again.

 

[ronburgundy]

So, I am guessing you'll want to vote out all Republicans in the next election since they are the primary forces behind the same prostitution bans in the US, plus bans on use of drugs, gay marriage, flag burning bans, book bans (yeah they still do that), and 90% of what FCC bans on speech and other television content.

I already mostly vote Democratic, because Republicans these days tend to be quite crazy, especially in my state (i.e. lesser of two evils strategy). However, when it comes to prostitution Democrats are at least just as bad as Republicans. In fact the only state with legalized prostitution in the US (Nevada) has a Republican governor (Brian Sandoval) and the Democratic US Senator from that state (Harry Reid) wanted to pressure Nevada into banning it.

Prostitution isn't truly legal in NV. The only thing that is legal is brothels, of which there are only 19 in the State and about half those are just branches under the same owner. Despite being categorized as "independent contractors" without any benefits, unemployments, health insurance, etc.. the restrictions create a virtual monopoly where the owners have total control. In addition, most counties have many absurd laws that strip prostitutes of many basic liberties, such as being unable to own vehicles, unable to leave the brothels after dark, unable to have children living in the same county, forced to work for a minimum number of consecutive days living at the brothel the whole time, forced to only work part time and often to leave the county when they are not working at the brothel, etc..

Also, the current Republican governor has nothing to do with the 150 year old tradition of NV laws allowing more prostitution than other states.

IOW, those examples amount to meaningless anecdotes that reveal nothing about how the parties differ overall on the issue of legalization of prositution. What tells us about that are the polls that show that legalizing prostitution is supported much more by self-identified "liberals" (56%) are than "conservatives (32%), and much more by "Dems" (42%) than "Republicans" (26%)


https://today.yougov.com/news/2011/08/25/68-favor-legalized-gambling-39-would-legalize-pros/

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I can see no need of a minimum number of full-time drivers or minimum fares. Those aren't things the government should be regulating.

Those are things the government should regulate, especially in a context like this one where not doing so will suddenly throw many thousands of people out of work and incapable of meeting their basic needs via the only profession they have been in their whole life. Their are massive cost to the community at large in that happening, so it is highly rational for them to take steps to prevent it. Economic activity is not private behavior.
One could argue that in the long run it makes more sense to have the bulk of such transport services provided by people doing so part time and making more efficient use of their existing dormant resources (their cars). But that doesn't mean that they should do nothing to soften the transition and just allow a whole industry is blown up over night. The regulations could allow the transition to be phased in so that new people do not enter the old format of the industry but the existing people are allowed to phase out and not be thrown onto the public welfare ranks.

Those things are far more legit for the government to do than things like bail out banks and corporations, without taking enough control to force the changes that would prevent the exact same crises from emerging again.

I don't think the government should be in the business of protecting industries from competition.

In this case in particular the demand for taxi services is highly variable. Part timers are better at meeting this than full-timers.

 

[Toni]

I don't know, I'm asking. I assume there is some way to track tax-wise the money paid to uber drivers, that uber drivers have background checks to make sure customers aren't getting into a car with a serial killer or rapist, that they have the same sort of liability insurance for passenger safety, etc. etc.

The background checks seem to be ok, the problem I have is they don't hold drivers to the standards of commercial driver's licenses.

What about safety standards of vehicles used by uber and liability coverage?

Those seem to be kind of important.

The Uber model forces all such costs on the drivers, while Uber rakes in profits for????? what? being cool?

- - - Updated - - -

Those are things the government should regulate, especially in a context like this one where not doing so will suddenly throw many thousands of people out of work and incapable of meeting their basic needs via the only profession they have been in their whole life. Their are massive cost to the community at large in that happening, so it is highly rational for them to take steps to prevent it. Economic activity is not private behavior.
One could argue that in the long run it makes more sense to have the bulk of such transport services provided by people doing so part time and making more efficient use of their existing dormant resources (their cars). But that doesn't mean that they should do nothing to soften the transition and just allow a whole industry is blown up over night. The regulations could allow the transition to be phased in so that new people do not enter the old format of the industry but the existing people are allowed to phase out and not be thrown onto the public welfare ranks.

Those things are far more legit for the government to do than things like bail out banks and corporations, without taking enough control to force the changes that would prevent the exact same crises from emerging again.

I don't think the government should be in the business of protecting industries from competition.

In this case in particular the demand for taxi services is highly variable. Part timers are better at meeting this than full-timers.

On what do you base this conclusion?

 

[ronburgundy]

Those are things the government should regulate, especially in a context like this one where not doing so will suddenly throw many thousands of people out of work and incapable of meeting their basic needs via the only profession they have been in their whole life. Their are massive cost to the community at large in that happening, so it is highly rational for them to take steps to prevent it. Economic activity is not private behavior.
One could argue that in the long run it makes more sense to have the bulk of such transport services provided by people doing so part time and making more efficient use of their existing dormant resources (their cars). But that doesn't mean that they should do nothing to soften the transition and just allow a whole industry is blown up over night. The regulations could allow the transition to be phased in so that new people do not enter the old format of the industry but the existing people are allowed to phase out and not be thrown onto the public welfare ranks.

Those things are far more legit for the government to do than things like bail out banks and corporations, without taking enough control to force the changes that would prevent the exact same crises from emerging again.

I don't think the government should be in the business of protecting industries from competition.

Reasonable people (i.e. not conservatives pretending to be libertarians) think that government should be in the practice (its not a "business" as many things are not and should not be) of protecting society from threats to safety and general well being, which requires providing and protecting a quality welfare system. That means preventing many thousands of Parisians from being thrown out of work overnight due to others who already have full time jobs and can afford a car taking their jobs. I am not arguing for Uber not to be allowed. I am arguing that Uber and any other platform be allowed, but various added restrictions be put into place (at least on a phase-out basis) related to how they and those that drive for them operate. The goal would not be to protect existing cab companies from competition but to protect individual workers from sudden unemployment (and thus protect the community from the fallout of that).

In this case in particular the demand for taxi services is highly variable. Part timers are better at meeting this than full-timers.

Like I said, if it is true that mostly part timers (who already have other full time jobs and thus won't be on welfare) is what makes sense, then that can be transitioned toward via phase-out style regulations. But the regulations are required to make that transition gradual and thus prevent the very real economic and public safety harms to the community that would otherwise result.

As to whether your claim is true, that is debatable. First, your point about demand being variable is largely irrelevant. Demand for rides is variable and yet highly predictable and consistent in how and when it varies. Most drivers could still be "full-time" (getting a min # of hours/fares per week) and yet the number of drivers on the road at any time could be systematically varied to match those fluctuations. There are multiple methods of doing this and the cab companies probably already do it to some extent. Also, Uber type platforms can easily be used in such a way. Also, "part-time" drivers don't actually help much with unpredictable variance in demand. If they are not "at-the-ready" waiting for calls, then they aren't mush good to the rush of people waiting at that moment for a ride. So, part-time drivers also need to be able to predict demand variability to meet it. The uncertainty about it is another benefit of the transitional regulations in which the min % of full timers required is gradually lowered and phased out. It would provide the empirical data to address the issue. Full time employment and effective transportation systems are both major concerns of any reasonable government concerned with the welfare of the public.

 

[ksen]

any reasonable government concerned with the welfare of the public.

To too many that would be considered socialist and must be fought against tooth and nail.

 

[dismal]

Does it ever occur to the regulatory fetishists that if the government standards are so vital to maintaining a safe and efficient livery service Uber is doomed to fail?

And conversely, if Uber is being successful and must be banned to be stopped that perhaps the government standards that are so vital to maintaining a safe and efficient livery service are not actually all that vital after all?