7 ms·

Uber doesn't want to comply with regulations because it takes away their advantage? Gee, what a surprise.

cperciva 9y ago
These regulations arguably put Uber at a significant disadvantage. 35 hours of training is annoying if you're going to be driving a taxi for 60 hours a week; it's prohibitive if you're considering driving an Uber for 6 hours a week.
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  I'd agree if Uber was really acting as a ridesharing/carpooling service. I don't know that I've ever had an uber (or lyft, for that matter) driver who drives less than 20 hours a week.
  - brndnmtthws 9y ago
    Plus, why should part-time drivers receive less training? There's no precedent where drivers can opt to take an easier driving test if they intend to drive less on average. Why should there be a special Uber exception? That's cronyism.
    - smokeyj 9y ago
      Isn't the point of a drivers license to certify that you're qualified to drive on the road? Why isn't that enough?
      - Sacho 9y ago
        The drivers license makes a cost benefit analysis skewed for general use(eg driving to/from work). The usage of a taxi driver is different - perhaps it merits a different type of training and licensing.
      - _jal 9y ago
        If you think removing restrictions for commercial drivers is sensible, that's something to pursue at the policy level. Making exceptions is exactly the wrong thing to do - you want a level playing field. As far as "why", commercial drivers are held to different standards for a number of reasons. I'm pretty sure you can think of some if you try.
        smokeyj 9y ago
        All part-time drivers have to do is out-lobby the entrenched interests? That doesn't sound like a level playing field..
      - pixl97 9y ago
        It's not enough. That's why 20,000+ people die per year on the roads in the US.
    - 27182818284 9y ago
      >why should there be a special Uber exception? That's cronyism. The exception seems to be going after Uber. Minivan school carpools, etc, have informally existed for a long time without requiring extra licenses.
      - vkou 9y ago
        Were they done for profit? IANAL - yet I can offer legal advice without a license, but I can't represent someone in court, or be paid to offer legal advice without a license. If yes, do for-profit minivan school carpools exist in Montreal?
- brianwawok 9y ago
  Is the 6 hour a week Uber driver really a significant force? I know early on it worked like that. I thought now you either have 20h a week drivers who only drive during busy times, or 60 hour a week full timers. With the bonus structure etc. I thought it was hardly worth the 6h a week plan?
- mikeash 9y ago
  Training requirements should be based on safety requirements, which are the same whether you're on the road for 6 hours a week or 60.
  - foota 9y ago
    Then why insist on better training for ride-sharing drivers than all other drivers?
    - mikeash 9y ago
      I see no particular reason not to have high standards for other drivers too. 35 hours of training seems perfectly reasonable before being allowed to pilot tons of steel at high speeds. Here in the US, driver training requirements are incredibly low, and this results in atrocious behavior on the roads.
      - 27182818284 9y ago
        As I understand it, the vast majority of driving problems aren't errors from a lack of training, but from training-independent items like falling asleep at the wheel, misjudging distance, ignoring rules that you had been trained about, etc
        mikeash 9y ago
        How are those training-independent? I could sort of buy falling asleep as independent, although I would argue that training should cover physiological factors and how to deal with them. Judging distance is definitely something you can help with training, as is remembering/respecting rules. In any case, I see a lot of really simple failures, like an inability to stay within the lane (especially on curves, holy shit the things people do on curves), misunderstanding of right of way, clueless merging, not keeping right, etc., all of which could benefit from additional training.
      - SilasX 9y ago
        >I see no particular reason not to have high standards for other drivers too. 35 hours of training seems perfectly reasonable before being allowed to pilot tons of steel at high speeds. Which they already went through to get a driver's license. The 35 hour taxi training is on top of that.
- wavefunction 9y ago
  Prohibitive in what way? One week of training to start your fabulous new Uber lifestyle reaping serious revenue and enjoying life.
- wpietri 9y ago
  Prohibitive seems strong to me. 35 hours of training to work 600 hours over the next two years is a 5% burden even for your very-part-time driver.
  - drpgq 9y ago
    I wonder how easy it is to do the 35 hours of train. If it is a course that is only run a couple of times per year, then that's pretty prohibitive.
  - mahyarm 9y ago
    You have to take a week off or spend 4-5 weekend days in training, making driving on Uber a lot less attractive as a part time extra while your already employed.
    - wpietri 9y ago
      Sure. I agree it's less attractive. I'm saying it's not prohibitive.
- flexie 9y ago
  How would a week's mandatory training be prohibitive? My profession (as a lawyer) required 5 years of mandatory university education and 3 years of practical training and supplementary courses and exams. Other professions require even more. Every year I must take what amounts to 2-3 days of additional courses to maintain my license. And I just push papers and money around. I don't move people. Nobody gets killed if I do a bad job. I think it's only fair to require a tiny bit of training for a taxi driver, also if he works for Uber.
  - elsurudo 9y ago
    > Nobody gets killed if I do a bad job. Maybe not literally, but lawyers _do_ have the power to ruin lives, just the same. Not defending you competently being just one example.
    - ramy_d 9y ago
      hence the 3 years of practical training
- aetherson 9y ago
  Last I checked -- which was quite a while ago, and not in Quebec -- the overwhelming majority of Uber drivers drove 20+ hours a week, often 40+.
microcolonel 9y ago
For what it's worth, the purpose of the regulations is clearly to give the established taxi services an advantage. Fares clearly prefer Uber over the "competing" car services. Both drivers and fares are willing to take the relatively small risks involved (most of which are not specific to Uber anyway) and pay significantly less for a service.
wpietri 9y ago
Even so, it's a bit surprising to me given that the new CEO is singing the "I can change" song. If Uber is really trying to turn over a new leaf, why do something that sounds like the old Uber? At worst, why not wait a couple of years and push for different regulations then? I suppose the answer is that Uber doesn't believe they really have a business if they have to meet existing safety standards.

These regulations arguably put Uber at a significant disadvantage. 35 hours of training is annoying if you're going to be driving a taxi for 60 hours a week; it's prohibitive if you're considering driving an Uber for 6 hours a week.

joshuamorton 9y ago
I'd agree if Uber was really acting as a ridesharing/carpooling service. I don't know that I've ever had an uber (or lyft, for that matter) driver who drives less than 20 hours a week.
- brndnmtthws 9y ago
  Plus, why should part-time drivers receive less training? There's no precedent where drivers can opt to take an easier driving test if they intend to drive less on average. Why should there be a special Uber exception? That's cronyism.
  - smokeyj 9y ago
    Isn't the point of a drivers license to certify that you're qualified to drive on the road? Why isn't that enough?
    - Sacho 9y ago
      The drivers license makes a cost benefit analysis skewed for general use(eg driving to/from work). The usage of a taxi driver is different - perhaps it merits a different type of training and licensing.
    - _jal 9y ago
      If you think removing restrictions for commercial drivers is sensible, that's something to pursue at the policy level. Making exceptions is exactly the wrong thing to do - you want a level playing field. As far as "why", commercial drivers are held to different standards for a number of reasons. I'm pretty sure you can think of some if you try.
      - smokeyj 9y ago
        All part-time drivers have to do is out-lobby the entrenched interests? That doesn't sound like a level playing field..
    - pixl97 9y ago
      It's not enough. That's why 20,000+ people die per year on the roads in the US.
  - 27182818284 9y ago
    >why should there be a special Uber exception? That's cronyism. The exception seems to be going after Uber. Minivan school carpools, etc, have informally existed for a long time without requiring extra licenses.
    - vkou 9y ago
      Were they done for profit? IANAL - yet I can offer legal advice without a license, but I can't represent someone in court, or be paid to offer legal advice without a license. If yes, do for-profit minivan school carpools exist in Montreal?
brianwawok 9y ago
Is the 6 hour a week Uber driver really a significant force? I know early on it worked like that. I thought now you either have 20h a week drivers who only drive during busy times, or 60 hour a week full timers. With the bonus structure etc. I thought it was hardly worth the 6h a week plan?
mikeash 9y ago
Training requirements should be based on safety requirements, which are the same whether you're on the road for 6 hours a week or 60.
- foota 9y ago
  Then why insist on better training for ride-sharing drivers than all other drivers?
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I see no particular reason not to have high standards for other drivers too. 35 hours of training seems perfectly reasonable before being allowed to pilot tons of steel at high speeds. Here in the US, driver training requirements are incredibly low, and this results in atrocious behavior on the roads.
    - 27182818284 9y ago
      As I understand it, the vast majority of driving problems aren't errors from a lack of training, but from training-independent items like falling asleep at the wheel, misjudging distance, ignoring rules that you had been trained about, etc
      - mikeash 9y ago
        How are those training-independent? I could sort of buy falling asleep as independent, although I would argue that training should cover physiological factors and how to deal with them. Judging distance is definitely something you can help with training, as is remembering/respecting rules. In any case, I see a lot of really simple failures, like an inability to stay within the lane (especially on curves, holy shit the things people do on curves), misunderstanding of right of way, clueless merging, not keeping right, etc., all of which could benefit from additional training.
    - SilasX 9y ago
      >I see no particular reason not to have high standards for other drivers too. 35 hours of training seems perfectly reasonable before being allowed to pilot tons of steel at high speeds. Which they already went through to get a driver's license. The 35 hour taxi training is on top of that.
wavefunction 9y ago
Prohibitive in what way? One week of training to start your fabulous new Uber lifestyle reaping serious revenue and enjoying life.
wpietri 9y ago
Prohibitive seems strong to me. 35 hours of training to work 600 hours over the next two years is a 5% burden even for your very-part-time driver.
- drpgq 9y ago
  I wonder how easy it is to do the 35 hours of train. If it is a course that is only run a couple of times per year, then that's pretty prohibitive.
- mahyarm 9y ago
  You have to take a week off or spend 4-5 weekend days in training, making driving on Uber a lot less attractive as a part time extra while your already employed.
  - wpietri 9y ago
    Sure. I agree it's less attractive. I'm saying it's not prohibitive.
flexie 9y ago
How would a week's mandatory training be prohibitive? My profession (as a lawyer) required 5 years of mandatory university education and 3 years of practical training and supplementary courses and exams. Other professions require even more. Every year I must take what amounts to 2-3 days of additional courses to maintain my license. And I just push papers and money around. I don't move people. Nobody gets killed if I do a bad job. I think it's only fair to require a tiny bit of training for a taxi driver, also if he works for Uber.
- elsurudo 9y ago
  > Nobody gets killed if I do a bad job. Maybe not literally, but lawyers _do_ have the power to ruin lives, just the same. Not defending you competently being just one example.
  - ramy_d 9y ago
    hence the 3 years of practical training
aetherson 9y ago
Last I checked -- which was quite a while ago, and not in Quebec -- the overwhelming majority of Uber drivers drove 20+ hours a week, often 40+.

microcolonel 9y ago

For what it's worth, the purpose of the regulations is clearly to give the established taxi services an advantage. Fares clearly prefer Uber over the "competing" car services. Both drivers and fares are willing to take the relatively small risks involved (most of which are not specific to Uber anyway) and pay significantly less for a service.

wpietri 9y ago

Even so, it's a bit surprising to me given that the new CEO is singing the "I can change" song. If Uber is really trying to turn over a new leaf, why do something that sounds like the old Uber? At worst, why not wait a couple of years and push for different regulations then? I suppose the answer is that Uber doesn't believe they really have a business if they have to meet existing safety standards.