3 ms·

As long as the laws prohibit Uber from operating, why is it strange that the government would take steps to ensure that? Perhaps the laws should change - certa

As long as the laws prohibit Uber from operating, why is it strange that the government would take steps to ensure that? Perhaps the laws should change - certainly Uber wants them to. But flouting the law isn't often the best way to make that happen. They're not protesting injustice, they're jamming a foot in the door of a multi-billion dollar industry with technology that is still very new to regulators. The "we're just an app that connects people who want a ride with willing drivers" dodge is disingenuous, and the alternation between wounded and scoffing attitudes is grating. I don't like Uber as a company, and personally I hope it fails and the next guy picks up the torch and does these things with a bit of tact. Neither driver nor user will care.

smsm42 12y ago
There are lots of outdated laws, and executives work around them all the time. In fact, the chief executive of the US just recently did exactly that, and not for the first time. So proclaiming "oh, it's the law, there's nothing to be done" is ignoring the reality at best. At worst, it's a trick since the people who talk about "nothing to be done" are exactly the same ones who ensure the law stays in place as is. >>> technology that is still very new to regulators. So the natural reaction of course to ban it. Just in case. >>> I don't like Uber as a company You understand you liking or not liking them has nothing to do with their rights to do business, moreover - their rights should not depend on them being likable in any state that wants to call itself the state governed by laws and not by whims?
icebraining 12y ago
I don't like Uber itself either. But what if flouting the law - and getting customers on your side after experience your product - the only way to make it happen? That doesn't mean the law shouldn't be upheld, and they fined if necessary. But that's the government's job, not Uber's.
pgeorgi 12y ago
The thing I find grating is that Uber takes everything they perceive to be broken in some local US taxi market (bay area?) and project it onto the world. Even though taxis seem to be regulated pretty much everywhere, the reason for regulation, the way things are done, and its effects can vary a lot. Doesn't matter, Uber still feels the need (at least according to their PR) to crush the evil taxi monopoly in Germany. Even though there is no monopolist. If anything, Uber is the best match for that (international company with deep pockets vs local companies with typically 5 cars or less)
philwelch 12y ago
The purpose of law should be to benefit the public. Uber and Lyft empirically demonstrate, in most cities, that taxi regulations--a textbook example of regulatory capture for decades--do not benefit the public when they protect taxis against competition. Some people have an authoritarian worldview--laws are handed down to us by our betters, and we'd better follow them no matter what. I prefer a democratic worldview--laws are an artifact created by the people for the benefit of the people, and once they hinder that purpose rather than promote it, there's nothing sacred about continuing to follow it to our own detriment.
- Nursie 12y ago
  In many cities acrozs the world there is both comprtition and consumer-oriented regulation. London is like this. Uber's business model isn't even novel there.

smsm42 12y ago

There are lots of outdated laws, and executives work around them all the time. In fact, the chief executive of the US just recently did exactly that, and not for the first time. So proclaiming "oh, it's the law, there's nothing to be done" is ignoring the reality at best. At worst, it's a trick since the people who talk about "nothing to be done" are exactly the same ones who ensure the law stays in place as is. >>> technology that is still very new to regulators. So the natural reaction of course to ban it. Just in case. >>> I don't like Uber as a company You understand you liking or not liking them has nothing to do with their rights to do business, moreover - their rights should not depend on them being likable in any state that wants to call itself the state governed by laws and not by whims?

icebraining 12y ago

I don't like Uber itself either. But what if flouting the law - and getting customers on your side after experience your product - the only way to make it happen? That doesn't mean the law shouldn't be upheld, and they fined if necessary. But that's the government's job, not Uber's.

pgeorgi 12y ago

The thing I find grating is that Uber takes everything they perceive to be broken in some local US taxi market (bay area?) and project it onto the world. Even though taxis seem to be regulated pretty much everywhere, the reason for regulation, the way things are done, and its effects can vary a lot. Doesn't matter, Uber still feels the need (at least according to their PR) to crush the evil taxi monopoly in Germany. Even though there is no monopolist. If anything, Uber is the best match for that (international company with deep pockets vs local companies with typically 5 cars or less)

philwelch 12y ago

The purpose of law should be to benefit the public. Uber and Lyft empirically demonstrate, in most cities, that taxi regulations--a textbook example of regulatory capture for decades--do not benefit the public when they protect taxis against competition. Some people have an authoritarian worldview--laws are handed down to us by our betters, and we'd better follow them no matter what. I prefer a democratic worldview--laws are an artifact created by the people for the benefit of the people, and once they hinder that purpose rather than promote it, there's nothing sacred about continuing to follow it to our own detriment.

Nursie 12y ago
In many cities acrozs the world there is both comprtition and consumer-oriented regulation. London is like this. Uber's business model isn't even novel there.