4 ms·
> 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.ube
by 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 agoDo 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.
- moduspol 9y agoI don't, and I don't. When "existing standards" clearly benefit an entrenched, poorly-performing business model at the expense of an innovative, disruptive, and tech-enabled business model, those standards should be reassessed. Innovation and industry move much faster than lawmakers and regulators.
- cucuuc 9y ago35 hrs is less than half of a class during a semester. The MSF can give you 10 hours of motorcycle training in a single weekend. By comparison, to become a licensed barber (or electrician, etc) typically requires thousands of hours as an apprentice. Hardly seems like a huge burden by comparison.
- moduspol 9y agoIt certainly isn't if you're planning to make it your career, but Uber markets driving for them as flexible and easy with little/no up-front costs. Clearly this would affect ride-sharing companies more than taxi companies, and it's likely no coincidence.
- s73ver_ 9y agoGiven that, right now, taxi companies do have to do this, and Uber doesn't, I would say no, this is going to affect Uber the same. As it should.
- moduspol 9y agoYep. And a policy that limited maximum driver hours to 20 per week would "apply equally to taxis and Uber," but would clearly hit taxis a lot harder than Uber. This is protectionism under the guise of "fairness." Nothing more.
- s73ver_ 9y agoI completely disagree. There is nothing unfair about this move. It affects both parties equally.