31–40 of 88 posts
I am astounded that the French government is doing exactly what the violent Taxi protesters (rioters?) wanted. This sends a clear message to any other groups: burn enough cars and blockade an airport and you will get what you want. I thought the Taxi drivers would be condemned by politicians and the French public.
I am astounded that the French government is doing exactly what the violent Taxi protesters (rioters?) wanted. This sends a clear message to any other groups: burn enough cars and blockade an airport and you will get what you want. I thought the Taxi drivers would be condemned by politicians and the French public.
Petitions in support of Uber are being run very successfully at the moment, and most people around me (working in tech) have vowed to never ever take a taxi again after what happened, but I'm not sure the general public cares that much :(
> The standoff reflects larger tensions in France over how to regulate fast-moving technology and stay globally competitive while ensuring labour protections. This kind of biased journalism just pisses me off. Uber has nothing to do with "fast-moving technology". They could have done this service with on old fashioned phone dispatch in the 50s and it would still be the same illegal operation. Sure, they've added some…
Uber uses machine learning to route drivers, not dispatchers.
Every time this topic comes up, the discussion always revolves around whether or not Uber is properly licensed, or if it's fair for them to operate. What's often overlooked is the very reason so many of these licenses became as valuable as they did in the first place, and like so many economic issues it boils down to one thing: trust. For example, anyone who's seen more of NYC than just JFK airport and Times Square k…
What likely annoys these people the most is that their little game is being called out. Regulation has its place, that is not stifling competition and restricting people from having jobs
I am astounded that the French government is doing exactly what the violent Taxi protesters (rioters?) wanted. This sends a clear message to any other groups: burn enough cars and blockade an airport and you will get what you want. I thought the Taxi drivers would be condemned by politicians and the French public.
Politicians will be queueing to show their support, hopefully to be remembered come election time.
I like Uber's service, but it's obvious that they are a taxi. A better taxi company, but a taxi; and they should get their licenses in order.
The licenses are what made the taxi system so inefficient.
Especially in this case since the real innovations that Uber brings in terms of ride allocation are not incompatible with paying taxes and insurance. Rather, the technical innovations of Uber appear to in themselves not be enough to actually compete with existing taxis, hence why the second innovation of actually breaking the law under the guise of technology is so important.
Uber has clearly pivoted into a taxi service, and as such it must compete on price, but somehow the fact they have an app for hailing cabs means they can be a taxi company that doesn't employ their drivers? How does that argument really work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you are correct, but blatantly ignoring the law is usually not the best way to fix that
Sometimes it's exactly the best way to fix it. Have something so good and popular the law has to change. Prohibition didn't end because people missed the taste of alcohol; it was because people kept on drinking (and the illicit nature brought with it the trappings of criminality - corruption, violence, and murder). Gay marriage bans were hard to "ignore" because it requires cooperation with the government, but anti-s…
Though the only comparison I think fits the most with Uber is prohibition (since alcohol can be considered as a luxury, while marriage is a legal right). Don't forget though, with prohibition there was a complex underground bootlegging market funding organized crime. Also there's the whole Great Depression thing which put the whole country in need of additional revenue streams...
Amongst other things, the former head of the French FBI is now chairman of one of the group's taxi companies, right after he delivered an internal government report skewering taxi competitors (and that was probably just the tip of the iceberg). No new licenses were given in Paris between 1990 and 2002 despite a 49% increase in airport passenger traffic and 17% increase in population.
The system itself is designed to maximise revenue; for example, taxis will not be allocated on the basis of proximity to the customer, but on the basis of which has waited longest, time that (according to the Nouvel Obs anyway - I haven't taken a taxi in Paris in ages) is charged to the customer immediately. Drivers pay a fortune to the company and often work 7-day weeks to make ends meet as a result. This, by the way, is why drivers on call in Paris will often refuse to drive you if your destination is too close.
Uber's strategy was simple, to gain so much popularity as to make it extremely expensive for the lobbying effort to continue. Rule of law? Personally, I do not think that people buying themselves favorable laws should be legal and defendable. For both executives to be on police watch when they are clearly not a flight risk is a sign that the monopoly is well connected and has obtained favour with the government.
[1] edit: link is now offline, Web Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20150317180809/http://tempsreel....