5 ms·

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 t

by 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.

by nyxtom 9y ago

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.