8 ms·

But Uber operates without significant issue in countless other markets all over the world without the training Quebec requires. Is it possible the training is

But Uber operates without significant issue in countless other markets all over the world without the training Quebec requires. Is it possible the training is not as necessary as presumed? Aren't we opening up a can of worms by praising the idea of creating needless regulations to keep the status quo simply because it's perceived to be more local?

nyxtom 9y ago
Uber does not operate in other areas of the world without issue, this is simply not true. http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-everywhere-uber-is-banned-around-the-world-2015-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-everywhere-uber-is-bann... Also, don't forget London.
- moduspol 9y ago
  "other areas" != "all other areas"
  - yarrel 9y ago
    That refutes your argument, not the responses.
  - nyxtom 9y ago
    Someone else also made a point against this. We can count all the places where Uber operates and they have issues in the majority of them. If you also include the places where they have been banned then it's an even larger distribution of issues than non-issue locations.
    - moduspol 9y ago
      > We can count all the places where Uber operates and they have issues in the majority of them. And how many of those would be solved by 35 hours of training as is apparently required in Quebec? Besides, I said "significant issue." By that I mean the world keeps on spinning despite Quebec's training not being applied elsewhere. People aren't getting killed, injured, or swindled at a rate much higher than with taxis. That raises the question as to what this is really about: safety and protecting the public, or protectionism and keeping the status quo?
      - nyxtom 9y ago
        It's a fair point that perhaps safety is a concern if you compare the numbers. I personally do not have all the numbers on hand to either confirm or refute that argument. Before you make that comparison I would suggest determining whether that's actually true in Quebec. To me it seems you've created a false dichotomy.
        moduspol 9y ago
        I don't think regulations should work that way, though. It is not the case that we should assume that whatever regulation is in place (especially in this case, where it's unique to Quebec) is valid and useful until proven otherwise. Innovation and industry have always moved much faster than lawmakers and regulators, and anything that coincidentally defends the status quo will naturally be clung to by affected parties. I couldn't possibly come up with numbers showing what could happen if the training weren't required, but we do know that the rest of the world (including other drivers and normal taxi drivers) seem to do fine without it. That's reason enough that the burden of proof should be on the regulation's proponents, not everyone else.
        nyxtom 9y ago
        > It is not the case that we should assume that whatever regulation is in place (especially in this case, where it's unique to Quebec) is valid and useful until proven otherwise I agree with this sentiment. > Innovation and industry have always moved much faster than lawmakers and regulators This is also true in the case where exploitation runs rampant and a company that operates at a loss causes other operations to go out of business. The causal effects of these type of practices are not without malice to the local economy. Does this mean regulations should be so restrictive? Well duh, absolutely not. There are case studies where working together can work and there are cases where significant aggressive operating tactics are detrimental to the local economy. The two have to actually want to work together.
will_brown 9y ago
What do you define as a significant issue? Something tells me you may not fully informed regarding Uber driver incidents that include murder, sexual assaults, kidnapping, fatal crashes, etc... http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/rideshare-incidents http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/rideshare-incidents
- moduspol 9y ago
  I feel like I'd need to compare that to incidents with taxis and similar industries to be able to determine the significance. Then I'd need to see if any of the regulations allegedly being skirted would actually impact them. Also, that site is literally a creation of the taxi lobby [1]. [1] http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/about http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/about
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    Well then you should probably go do that.
  - shyn3 9y ago
    This was known to all cities prior to Uber. In Toronto, we had incidents where taxi drivers and customers were attacked in taxis. Regulations were implemented and each taxi driver was licensed by the city. They had a picture of the driver in the vehicle. There is an emergency light in the back in case of alarm the driver can pull which allows another person to call 911. There are many regulations that Uber is bypassing. It's a great idea, except the taxi service should not be based on the lowest cost, it should be based on safety. This is the one place you need regulations or strict standards. Our taxi's weren't allowed on the road if they were over 5~years old, now that is changing again. We are going backwards..
    - moduspol 9y ago
      With Uber, you already get a picture of the driver, along with the plate number, make, and model of the car. You also already necessarily have a device capable of calling 911 by using Uber (your own phone). This whole idea that Toronto (or London, or Quebec) is the only place in the world with the unique insight to regulate ride sharing services with their own unique snowflake policies needs to be dispelled. Many of these regulations (including the ones you're citing) clearly are relics of the past that don't reasonably apply to these services. Residents of Toronto won't be able to move forward by clinging to the entrenched status quo out of misplaced beliefs that their regulations are future-proof, infallible, or provide any significant amount of additional safety to riders.
doktrin 9y ago
> Aren't we opening up a can of worms by praising the idea of creating needless regulations to keep the status quo simply because it's perceived to be more local? Yes, potentially. It would be disingenuous to ignore that possibility, but regulation that favors local competitors does seem to have worked out well for China. If they hadn't actively pushed for home grown alternatives to the SV-based behemoths their tech sector might quite conceivably not be where it is today. I'd be interested in hearing of counter-cases, preferably specific to tech. As it stands, my operating hunch is that some level of protectionism is beneficial - but I'm far from an expert on the subject.
- moduspol 9y ago
  Sure, but then let's have that discussion. Let's not hide it behind other regulations.
  - doktrin 9y ago
    > Sure, but then let's have that discussion Well, we're on a discussion forum so that would be appropriate. > Let's not hide it behind other regulations. In my experience, it's the exception and not the norm for entities (be they governmental or otherwise) to plainly state their motivations. I think it's unrealistic to expect that to change anytime soon.
- civilian 9y ago
  Protectionism _destroys wealth creation_, hands down, period. The cost of protectionism is that the service you are "protecting" is now more expensive to your own citizens. It's a tax. The industry also knows that it now has two options to get more money--- be a better business, or continue to get favors from the government. Sugar is 3x as expensive in the US as it is in latin america. Why? We have restrictions on imports, and thus we have to have american companies growing sugar. We are missing out, and if we could remove those protectionist laws, we wouldn't have all our food companies relying on HFCS. (I'm not saying that HFCS is any more unhealthy than sugar, but it would help give consumers a choice.) Let's ponder about China. Chinese entrepreneurs already have an at-home advantage of knowing chinese customs and culture and legal frameworks. If they were not protectionist, then they could be benefitting from cheaper products, which would allow them to accumulate capital faster, which allows them to create new businesses faster. Additionally, the level of success required for their business is not at a "playpin" level-- if they can be successful in the hypothetical non-protectionist chinese market, then they can be successful anywhere in the world with an open market. It's also really important for business people to be getting the proper signals from the market-- i.e., what quality of product they need to provide and at what cost. If you're performing protectionism, you're giving people false numbers.
scaryclam 9y ago
We can definitely count the markets in which Uber operate, so that statement is a bit silly (hint look here https://www.uber.com/en-GB/cities/ https://www.uber.com/en-GB/cities/ and count them). They also definitely do not operate without significant issue in a many of them. Regulation for taxi services is important. The adverts in some countries telling you not to take unlicensed taxis are not there for fun. The training's there to help drivers. Anyone who can't be bothered is probably not serious about being a good driver or playing by the rules and shouldn't be welcomed into the industry.
- moduspol 9y ago
  > We can definitely count the markets in which Uber operate, so that statement is a bit silly (hint look here https://www.uber.com/en-GB/cities/ https://www.uber.com/en-GB/cities/ and count them). In this context, "countless" was hyperbole. Obviously the Earth has limited places in which they can operate. > They also definitely do not operate without significant issue in a many of them. And in many of those, the "issues" are based on municipalities applying unreasonable or taxi-specialized regulations onto them. That in no way implies the service doesn't work, isn't safe, or isn't extremely popular and a great improvement over taxis. It simply means the right people in the right places would rather protect the status quo than rationally assess the situation and revise policy where necessary. > Regulation for taxi services is important. The adverts in some countries telling you not to take unlicensed taxis are not there for fun. The training's there to help drivers. Anyone who can't be bothered is probably not serious about being a good driver or playing by the rules and shouldn't be welcomed into the industry. Nobody's arguing against regulation of taxi services. The question is whether or not 35 hours of training is reasonable for Quebec only when somehow the rest of the world seems to get by without it. It is also not the case that nobody ever gets hurt, kidnapped, or stolen from by even "trained" taxi drivers. Lawmakers and regulators need to start using common sense and acting in the best interests of consumers instead of the taxi lobby.
  - danielahn 9y ago
    Do you live in Quebec? Why do you get to decide what is reasonable for them? Personally, I have an issue if municipalities try to impose differential standards, but asking Uber to have its drivers conform to existing standards seems reasonable.
empath75 9y ago
My last two uber rides were with an elderly gentleman who had poor night vision who ran a stop sign, ran over a curb and almost drove a bus off the road, and a really angry guy who complained about uber for five minutes while driving me around in a circle and then dropped me off where he picked me up after he found out my route was over a toll road, then refused to cancel the trip and I had to get a refund from uber. I would say my worst cab experiences have all been with uber drivers by far, and it’s gotten markedly worse over time.
- moduspol 9y ago
  Yes, and we've heard no shortage of bad taxi anecdotes, either.
- kimsk112 9y ago
  Then you should choose Taxi instead of ride sharing service like uber or lyft. My experience with regulated Taxi in many cities have been mostly bad while my uber/lyft experience in many cities have been mostly good, so I always choose uber/lyft over Taxi.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    That's fine, but why should the taxis be subject to regulation that Uber/Lyft aren't?
- cucuuc 9y ago
  I’d reread all senior citizens yearly. I don’t care why they drive. Fun cab stories: I had a cab driver on a van do 120 km/h (75mph) on an offramp I do at 60kph in a sedan. I had to teach a cab driver how to drive on snow/ice once. As we drive on i75 (in fairness this was in Atlanta, and I grew up in Canada) I had a (private) driver reek of alcohol A (private) cab driver in BsAs doing long division on a piece of paper on the freeway (we had an argument over some math I did in my head) A cab driver in the Andes had a wadfull of coca in his mouth. Of the half dozen Greek cab rides, only one didn’t give me the run around. (I tipped him the full fare, and he refuse it until I told him it was for his honesty)
leot 9y ago
I don't have stats to back this up, but my ridesharing experiences are almost always better than taxi experiences, and if the taxi experience has improved recently it's because of competition with ride sharing. By all means enforce antitrust rules against Uber, but the reality is that taxis are going to go extinct, and Uber will too if they don't get self driving cars sorted out.
kafkaesq 9y ago
Is it possible the training is not as necessary as presumed? Yes, but if so then that's something for the localities (through their democratic process) to decide. Not you or I. And it's certainly not for Uber to decide, on its own, what's "best" for that given locality - and to continue operating despite local regulations it happens not to like. As it has unfortunately has not only had a habit of doing in the past - but which it has done as a deep and abiding expression of its core values as an organization.

nyxtom 9y ago

Uber does not operate in other areas of the world without issue, this is simply not true. http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-everywhere-uber-is-banned-around-the-world-2015-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-everywhere-uber-is-bann... Also, don't forget London.

moduspol 9y ago
"other areas" != "all other areas"
- yarrel 9y ago
  That refutes your argument, not the responses.
- nyxtom 9y ago
  Someone else also made a point against this. We can count all the places where Uber operates and they have issues in the majority of them. If you also include the places where they have been banned then it's an even larger distribution of issues than non-issue locations.
  - moduspol 9y ago
    > We can count all the places where Uber operates and they have issues in the majority of them. And how many of those would be solved by 35 hours of training as is apparently required in Quebec? Besides, I said "significant issue." By that I mean the world keeps on spinning despite Quebec's training not being applied elsewhere. People aren't getting killed, injured, or swindled at a rate much higher than with taxis. That raises the question as to what this is really about: safety and protecting the public, or protectionism and keeping the status quo?
    - nyxtom 9y ago
      It's a fair point that perhaps safety is a concern if you compare the numbers. I personally do not have all the numbers on hand to either confirm or refute that argument. Before you make that comparison I would suggest determining whether that's actually true in Quebec. To me it seems you've created a false dichotomy.
      - moduspol 9y ago
        I don't think regulations should work that way, though. It is not the case that we should assume that whatever regulation is in place (especially in this case, where it's unique to Quebec) is valid and useful until proven otherwise. Innovation and industry have always moved much faster than lawmakers and regulators, and anything that coincidentally defends the status quo will naturally be clung to by affected parties. I couldn't possibly come up with numbers showing what could happen if the training weren't required, but we do know that the rest of the world (including other drivers and normal taxi drivers) seem to do fine without it. That's reason enough that the burden of proof should be on the regulation's proponents, not everyone else.
        nyxtom 9y ago
        > It is not the case that we should assume that whatever regulation is in place (especially in this case, where it's unique to Quebec) is valid and useful until proven otherwise I agree with this sentiment. > Innovation and industry have always moved much faster than lawmakers and regulators This is also true in the case where exploitation runs rampant and a company that operates at a loss causes other operations to go out of business. The causal effects of these type of practices are not without malice to the local economy. Does this mean regulations should be so restrictive? Well duh, absolutely not. There are case studies where working together can work and there are cases where significant aggressive operating tactics are detrimental to the local economy. The two have to actually want to work together.

will_brown 9y ago

What do you define as a significant issue? Something tells me you may not fully informed regarding Uber driver incidents that include murder, sexual assaults, kidnapping, fatal crashes, etc... http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/rideshare-incidents http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/rideshare-incidents

moduspol 9y ago
I feel like I'd need to compare that to incidents with taxis and similar industries to be able to determine the significance. Then I'd need to see if any of the regulations allegedly being skirted would actually impact them. Also, that site is literally a creation of the taxi lobby [1]. [1] http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/about http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/about
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Well then you should probably go do that.
- shyn3 9y ago
  This was known to all cities prior to Uber. In Toronto, we had incidents where taxi drivers and customers were attacked in taxis. Regulations were implemented and each taxi driver was licensed by the city. They had a picture of the driver in the vehicle. There is an emergency light in the back in case of alarm the driver can pull which allows another person to call 911. There are many regulations that Uber is bypassing. It's a great idea, except the taxi service should not be based on the lowest cost, it should be based on safety. This is the one place you need regulations or strict standards. Our taxi's weren't allowed on the road if they were over 5~years old, now that is changing again. We are going backwards..
  - moduspol 9y ago
    With Uber, you already get a picture of the driver, along with the plate number, make, and model of the car. You also already necessarily have a device capable of calling 911 by using Uber (your own phone). This whole idea that Toronto (or London, or Quebec) is the only place in the world with the unique insight to regulate ride sharing services with their own unique snowflake policies needs to be dispelled. Many of these regulations (including the ones you're citing) clearly are relics of the past that don't reasonably apply to these services. Residents of Toronto won't be able to move forward by clinging to the entrenched status quo out of misplaced beliefs that their regulations are future-proof, infallible, or provide any significant amount of additional safety to riders.

doktrin 9y ago

> Aren't we opening up a can of worms by praising the idea of creating needless regulations to keep the status quo simply because it's perceived to be more local? Yes, potentially. It would be disingenuous to ignore that possibility, but regulation that favors local competitors does seem to have worked out well for China. If they hadn't actively pushed for home grown alternatives to the SV-based behemoths their tech sector might quite conceivably not be where it is today. I'd be interested in hearing of counter-cases, preferably specific to tech. As it stands, my operating hunch is that some level of protectionism is beneficial - but I'm far from an expert on the subject.

moduspol 9y ago
Sure, but then let's have that discussion. Let's not hide it behind other regulations.
- doktrin 9y ago
  > Sure, but then let's have that discussion Well, we're on a discussion forum so that would be appropriate. > Let's not hide it behind other regulations. In my experience, it's the exception and not the norm for entities (be they governmental or otherwise) to plainly state their motivations. I think it's unrealistic to expect that to change anytime soon.
civilian 9y ago
Protectionism _destroys wealth creation_, hands down, period. The cost of protectionism is that the service you are "protecting" is now more expensive to your own citizens. It's a tax. The industry also knows that it now has two options to get more money--- be a better business, or continue to get favors from the government. Sugar is 3x as expensive in the US as it is in latin america. Why? We have restrictions on imports, and thus we have to have american companies growing sugar. We are missing out, and if we could remove those protectionist laws, we wouldn't have all our food companies relying on HFCS. (I'm not saying that HFCS is any more unhealthy than sugar, but it would help give consumers a choice.) Let's ponder about China. Chinese entrepreneurs already have an at-home advantage of knowing chinese customs and culture and legal frameworks. If they were not protectionist, then they could be benefitting from cheaper products, which would allow them to accumulate capital faster, which allows them to create new businesses faster. Additionally, the level of success required for their business is not at a "playpin" level-- if they can be successful in the hypothetical non-protectionist chinese market, then they can be successful anywhere in the world with an open market. It's also really important for business people to be getting the proper signals from the market-- i.e., what quality of product they need to provide and at what cost. If you're performing protectionism, you're giving people false numbers.

scaryclam 9y ago

We can definitely count the markets in which Uber operate, so that statement is a bit silly (hint look here https://www.uber.com/en-GB/cities/ https://www.uber.com/en-GB/cities/ and count them). They also definitely do not operate without significant issue in a many of them. Regulation for taxi services is important. The adverts in some countries telling you not to take unlicensed taxis are not there for fun. The training's there to help drivers. Anyone who can't be bothered is probably not serious about being a good driver or playing by the rules and shouldn't be welcomed into the industry.

moduspol 9y ago
> We can definitely count the markets in which Uber operate, so that statement is a bit silly (hint look here https://www.uber.com/en-GB/cities/ https://www.uber.com/en-GB/cities/ and count them). In this context, "countless" was hyperbole. Obviously the Earth has limited places in which they can operate. > They also definitely do not operate without significant issue in a many of them. And in many of those, the "issues" are based on municipalities applying unreasonable or taxi-specialized regulations onto them. That in no way implies the service doesn't work, isn't safe, or isn't extremely popular and a great improvement over taxis. It simply means the right people in the right places would rather protect the status quo than rationally assess the situation and revise policy where necessary. > Regulation for taxi services is important. The adverts in some countries telling you not to take unlicensed taxis are not there for fun. The training's there to help drivers. Anyone who can't be bothered is probably not serious about being a good driver or playing by the rules and shouldn't be welcomed into the industry. Nobody's arguing against regulation of taxi services. The question is whether or not 35 hours of training is reasonable for Quebec only when somehow the rest of the world seems to get by without it. It is also not the case that nobody ever gets hurt, kidnapped, or stolen from by even "trained" taxi drivers. Lawmakers and regulators need to start using common sense and acting in the best interests of consumers instead of the taxi lobby.
- danielahn 9y ago
  Do you live in Quebec? Why do you get to decide what is reasonable for them? Personally, I have an issue if municipalities try to impose differential standards, but asking Uber to have its drivers conform to existing standards seems reasonable.

empath75 9y ago

My last two uber rides were with an elderly gentleman who had poor night vision who ran a stop sign, ran over a curb and almost drove a bus off the road, and a really angry guy who complained about uber for five minutes while driving me around in a circle and then dropped me off where he picked me up after he found out my route was over a toll road, then refused to cancel the trip and I had to get a refund from uber. I would say my worst cab experiences have all been with uber drivers by far, and it’s gotten markedly worse over time.

moduspol 9y ago
Yes, and we've heard no shortage of bad taxi anecdotes, either.
kimsk112 9y ago
Then you should choose Taxi instead of ride sharing service like uber or lyft. My experience with regulated Taxi in many cities have been mostly bad while my uber/lyft experience in many cities have been mostly good, so I always choose uber/lyft over Taxi.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  That's fine, but why should the taxis be subject to regulation that Uber/Lyft aren't?
cucuuc 9y ago
I’d reread all senior citizens yearly. I don’t care why they drive. Fun cab stories: I had a cab driver on a van do 120 km/h (75mph) on an offramp I do at 60kph in a sedan. I had to teach a cab driver how to drive on snow/ice once. As we drive on i75 (in fairness this was in Atlanta, and I grew up in Canada) I had a (private) driver reek of alcohol A (private) cab driver in BsAs doing long division on a piece of paper on the freeway (we had an argument over some math I did in my head) A cab driver in the Andes had a wadfull of coca in his mouth. Of the half dozen Greek cab rides, only one didn’t give me the run around. (I tipped him the full fare, and he refuse it until I told him it was for his honesty)

leot 9y ago

I don't have stats to back this up, but my ridesharing experiences are almost always better than taxi experiences, and if the taxi experience has improved recently it's because of competition with ride sharing. By all means enforce antitrust rules against Uber, but the reality is that taxis are going to go extinct, and Uber will too if they don't get self driving cars sorted out.

kafkaesq 9y ago

Is it possible the training is not as necessary as presumed? Yes, but if so then that's something for the localities (through their democratic process) to decide. Not you or I. And it's certainly not for Uber to decide, on its own, what's "best" for that given locality - and to continue operating despite local regulations it happens not to like. As it has unfortunately has not only had a habit of doing in the past - but which it has done as a deep and abiding expression of its core values as an organization.