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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
>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.
My point is that maybe all drivers should have the extra training too. There's merit to the argument that all drivers should have the same requirements, but that doesn't necessarily mean the requirements should be whatever the minimum currently is.
I was just responding to the attempt to justify it on the grounds of "it's tons of metal at a high speed". If there are reasons to require additional training of taxi drivers[1] beyond what every driver gets for that very reason, then you need a more nuanced justification than "cars are heavy and fast".
[1] And I agree there are good reasons, just not ... that one. For example, that they drive a lot more often, with strangers, and with less choice over how much danger they're exposed to.
Ok... how does that answer the question about why Uber should get away with not having their drivers go through the training, but their competitors are required to? Remember, Uber is only lobbying to have their drivers exempt, not for the training to be dropped for everyone.
I never attempted to address that point. I was addressing the point I quoted.
Edit: And, FWIW, I agreed that a for-hire driver (whether taxi, bus, Uber, shuttle, etc) merits more training than personal driving, just not because of cars being big and fast.
"Transport Minister Laurent Lessard agreed to renew that pilot project Friday, but with stricter conditions, including a requirement that drivers undergo 35 hours of training, the same amount as traditional taxi drivers."
Sounds like they are normalising the requirements with other commercial services.
> 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.
While I agree with you in principle, there's no indication that this is anything but regulatory capture. There's no municipality in the western world that requires this much training for Uber drivers; would you say there's a problem there that needs solving, and that Quebec's legislated response is a reasonable solution? I'm personally skeptical.
Then they should be arguing to reduce training requirements for all commercial drivers, not saying that Uber should get special treatment because their drivers drive less.
If you want to drive a black cab in London (green badge holders), you're going to have to do a hell of a lot more than a paltry 35 hours of training: https://www.theknowledgetaxi.co.uk/
On average, drivers take 2-4 years to learn London well enough to pass!
London streets are um... a _legacy_ system, so it's not surprising that it takes more time. I'm not sure if Black Cabs hold a monopoly on London taxis, but if they are competing in a market, then it's just that they are providing a higher level of service, and are training at that level. Waze + a human will probably do a "good enough" job.
Yes, which has always been a waste of resources, and is obviously a waste of resources given that the requirements haven't changed since GPS and Google maps became available. It's a textbook example of regulatory capture.
As a Quebec resident, over-regulation and mandatory time spent in useless training is well known here as soon as you touch a regulated market.
A lot of provincial laws require that you waste time to obtain some license (in opposition to showing that you understand the regulations), and these laws are not going to change since most people in the field already did the time so don't care anymore or didn't do it and don't have to do it.
I hope this event will at least help in fix/expose this problem
This really isn't true. It can make sense to have fewer safety requirements on people who do an activity less even when that means their their hourly accident rate is higher. Said another way, safety training is a better investment when someone is going to be performing an activity a lot.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last time I was in Montreal my Uber driver wouldn't drop me at the airport, instead he dropped me at a hotel attached to the airport - he told me reason being in Montreal undercover police officers have been known to wait in the departures drop-off area and impound cars if they suspect you to be an Uber driver.
Interesting side note the driver actually was an airport employee - he would drive for Uber twice a day, once to work (he would hang out by the area of the city with lots of Hotels to try and catch and airport trip) and once on the way home. I thought that was kind of awesome.
If Uber was based around this kind of thing then I would support them. Their current business model (for the most part) is one person going to one place. It's identical to driving everywhere yourself, without the hassle of parking.
I don't know about you or the guy above, but I pretty much always use Uber Pool/Lyft Line over the single rider versions when it's just me unless I'm in a huge rush. Most of my friends do the same, and I started using both services more then they introduced the feature.
Not a likely story. If the driver was an employee at the airport, turning on uber before his shift might result in him driving in the opposite direction for an hour and missing his shift.
In some cities Uber drivers are able to choose drop-off areas, but I don't believe Montreal is one of them.
I always thought this idea had greater potential for extremely long car rides. If I'm taking a business trip from NYC to Boston, I'd be okay with a tagalong as long as they provide some gas money. It would have to be something scheduled in advance, but the ride would probably be more pleasant than taking a bus, and I'd be willing to drop the tagalong off somewhere besides the city square.
There's a Montréal-Toronto facebook group with 18k members I've used a few times to save on gas money. Typically people charge $30-$40 per seat for the 6 hour trip.
I drove a guy who was trying to make an app which would do this, but I can't remember what it was called. It started as a Vancouver-Whistler ride share e-mail list.
At the Toronto Airport, Uber rides from the terminal into the city are upwards of $60. But take an AirTrain one stop to a hotel and it drops to $25. I think we need government regulations, but just like pure unfettered capitalism, it works in some markets, in some ways, but fails miserably in others.
What do you mean by into "the city", downtown Toronto? Pearson is actually in Mississauga, not Toronto and a trip from Pearson to downtown Toronto could take up to an hour in the (very likely) traffic on the 427 and Gardiner during the day. The cab flat rate to downtown is also ~$60.
No idea what an AirTrain is. Do you mean UP Express? Why stop at Weston and pay $5.30 and not just take it all the way downtown for a meagre $12.35? During heavy traffic your travel time would be roughly equivalent to a cab.
Anywhere really (I particularly go to the west end), its the big difference you should note.
AirTrain = Linktrain [1]. Take it to the alt-hotel (for free) right at the airport and grab an Uber Pool to save 50-60% of the cab fare and get dropped off right at your door step with all your luggage.
Up next the Austin method. Local competition fills the void providing better service than before proving that it's the technology not the company that's making the difference. Being Canada it would be funny to see a government corporation as the replacement ala liquor.
There is local competition, Teo Taxi, I'll take them over Uber anytime. The prices are about the same, though their coverage is still somewhat limited.
Attempt to secretly fund recall effort through a shady 'non-profit activist group' for a local city council person, wasting local tax money and time...
Spend $10,000,000 mail-bombing the local citizens to avoid paying a fraction of that to properly fingerprint their drivers via a deceitful and confusing ballot initiative... (I really did love receiving four of the same mailer on the same day, all addressed to me. That I had already received eight other copies of in the preceding week.)
Realize you should have just gone to the mercenaries in the GOP State Government who are all for local community control as long as they're the ones controlling everything locally...
And then people wonder why I'm anti-Uber. Lyft was involved as well but they don't have all the additional scandals of Uber, so I'll cut them far more slack.
Austin was doing fine with the competitors until the Texas State Govt. passed a law overriding city regulations. I think that was a huge mistake. We were doing fine with the competitors, and I would have continued to use them despite them being slightly more expensive, if only in spite at Uber's actions.
This is a very common trend in Texas. Big cities, especially Austin, are liberal, whereas the state government is conservative. So the latter will do anything it can to spite and annoy the cities. The Uber debacle was just one example.
I don't know why you are being downvoted, this is exactly what is going on. Texas republicans seem like trolls to me, always trying to use their power in the State Houses to annoy and infuriate their more Urban constituents. DJT didn't win by a huge margin in Texas though so I'm hoping that pretty soon these clowns will get kicked out and we will have responsible representatives.
I tried the ride sharing alternatives in Austin at SXSW this year and it was back to the bad old days of unreliable transport. For instance, the taxi that was supposed to pick me up arrived in 40 minutes and also picked up someone else so I had to request another one.
There are ride-sharing alternatives like Fasten, RideAustin. I will concede that they are more expensive and unreliable during heavy traffic times (weekend nights).
Non-austenite here. If I arrive in Austin by plane and Uber or Lyft isn't working, knowing nothing about the local alternatives, I guess I have to take a cab.
Or even just... take a cab? Other than the lack of VC subsidies, even in cities that don't have great taxi services generally, taxis usually work reasonably well getting to and from the airport.
Where do you think the money that you pay for a taxi fare goes? Who exactly do you think is getting rich off this rip-off?
Have you considered that perhaps, the cost of a taxi fare is close to the cost of operating a car + having a 60 hour-week driver make a living wage (Without VC subsidies)?
If you arrive anywhere and assume the corporate alternatives you are used to aren't available, you will choose to use the local available services? How is this unreasonable?
I think possibly there will be no dominate player but rather a region by region balkanization.
I imagine the problem problem you describe will be solved by an aggregator service. You will just open the app and select from amongst the local players.
Honestly I don't know. I would be surprised if someone wasn't working on it if not. But I'm not sure if there is yet a critical mass of regional players yet to warrant it. But maybe that's a catch 22?
I'm surprised to hear people say the local competitors were better. That's really not true. It's possible they were as good (never actually were in my experience) however I can't think of one way that any of them were actually better than Uber or Lyft.
Edit: I should point out that I mean "better for the rider." From what I understand some of the services had much more driver friendly policies and payment structures. I have heard of people choosing based on that.
"The cancer is only in your kidneys, not in your whole body".
Regional state-owned monopolies are still state-owned monopolies. Oregon also has a state-run liquor store, and it's hours (and service attitude, and selection) sucks.
I would still have to use Google to find alternatives to Uber / Lyft in Austin. I used Lyft to get to the airport and was told that business was brisk. This was one week after they returned.
The problem was multifold. There was no less than 3 companies that ran into Austin, and none of them were really prepared to enter that or any market. No real mindshare, buggy software, too expensive, etc.
They pretty much said the same thing about Calgary, and yet after review they still followed the regulations and are to this day operating in the city.
I find it hard to believe Quebec will act terribly different.
This is what I'm curious about too. It doesn't say what the 20 hours of training entails or what additional material will be learned in 35 hours. Focusing on hours in general sounds really dumb. Why not focus on content? Define what drivers need to know regardless of how long the training takes. That allows Uber to produce better and better training materials that shortens the number of hours while still satisfying the reason the requirement for training exists in the first place.
This is a terribly stupid bluff. Nobody is going to march on city hall because they won't relax regulations for the whims of a single, multi-national company.
It seems at least once a week we get another story showing how utterly incompetent the executives in charge of Uber's public image are.
Well at this time their "Save Your Uber in London" petition[1] collected nearly 800k signatures. I find it quite baffling because I'm not sure why on earth would I ever petition for a big multinational company known for its shady tactics but here you go. Clearly Uber's executives, or at least their PR department, must be doing something right.
> I find it quite baffling because I'm not sure why on earth would I ever petition for a big multinational company known for its shady tactics but here you go
Because you want to use their service, and you want their competitors to be able to play by the same rules. For example, I don't have to have something controversial to say before I defend free speech; I don't have to want to cross any particular private lot before I'd vouch for freedom of movement.
Londoners like their servants, but they don't like paying them a living wage. Big cities get very used to people flocking in and pay little regard to conditions people live in. We are always recreating 1840s Manchester, and still we are surprised every time.
Mobilizing their user base is absolutely a tactic that Uber uses / expects to work. It's interesting, even when I was (briefly) working there, I found myself frequently incredulous that there were people internally who genuinely believed that Uber and its mission were akin to some sort of social movement.
To be clear, I think there are some good things about mobility alternatives (including Uber), I just find the David-vs-Goliath / we-are-fighting-for-justice viewpoint... odd.
EDIT: I should note that the credulous / incredulous divide exists in the general populace. I still find people who, when confronted with the evidence of some of Uber's shadier actions, respond with "Uber has to play tough to compete."
I'm not sure what Uber thinks is so different about what they provide at this point. There's a lot of work in Montreal already on alternatives for Uber -- I'm sure that will continue.
Good for Quebec. This could quite feasibly lead to the development of a local competitor, providing job opportunities for local developers and tax dollars for the region / country.
Ride sharing services are here to stay, but there's no particular reason that service has to be named 'Uber'.
I was under the impression the opposite was true. There several ride-sharing services in Austin for a while but their service and quality were abysmal, pickup times were long, and they all collapsed as soon as Uber and Lyft returned.
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?
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.
> 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?
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.
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.
> 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.
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].
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.
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.
It's only protectionism if the existing taxi companies didn't have to do it. In fact, if Uber doesn't, but the taxi companies do, that's also protectionism, but for Uber.
Wouldn't Uber still be safer overall for passengers when it comes to intentional crimes (not accidents)? In Uber, a driver may commit a crime, but the nature of requesting a ride means there's now a direct link between a victim and the identity of a driver. A driver could only commit a crime one time before his identity became known, so there's no way to have a serial offender.
Compared to hailing a taxi, police can't necessarily trace a victim back to a specific driver, so that person could theoretically commit repeated crimes.
This personally gives me a lot more confidence when it comes to putting trust in a driver.
Also, from a cursory glance over that link, a few of those appear to be misleading headlines in which the actual story is "a person, who happens to be an Uber driver, committed a crime".
> 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.
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.
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.
Protectionism is a strong benefit for a few that comes with a weak detriment to many. Sometimes that benefit is worth it and other times it isn't. Sometimes I feel like the "all protectionism is bad" argument only gets brought out on HN because emerging market countries haven't produced enough quality coders yet. When programmers can be exported as easily as sugar farmers and textile workers, I think we'll see that protectionism is not an inherent evil, but a qualified tradeoff that society at large needs to decide on.
Nope! I'm a software engineer, but I understand the economics. If companies can get better code from overseas, then they are welcome to do so. I also understand that most of my value comes not from the code I write, but from being able to talk about the code in native english, and to offer trade-offs to product-owners, and to coordinate effectively with my engineering coworkers. Communication takes less than half of my time, but it is half the job.
If I am writing the same code as someone in the 3rd world, I do not deserve to be paid more simply because I'm American. That is arrogance.
I'd be very interested in hearing you explain the economics in your own words.
And just to be clear what you're saying is that you're fine with workers in 3rd world countries (who are poor) and workers in 1st world countries (who are rich) meeting in the middle? Do you support unlimited H1B visas?
I do support unlimited H1B visas, and I would also want to liberalize H1B visas even more. I think that, because it's hard for a worker with a H1B visa to start their own company or to move between companies, the company that is sponsoring the H1B has more negotiating power. (i.e. "well if you don't work hard enough, we can effectively have you deported") and are thus able to exploit their workers more. The limitations I would want on borders are checks for criminal background, and some kind of verification that the people immigrating understand liberal democracy and civil liberties and want to share in that system.
So, there's this idea of comparative advantage. Two companies are both producing widgets, but for some reason one company can produce goods cheaper than the other. The reasons might be things like technology, company or regional culture, training of employees, cost of resources, or geography. If no trade is allowed, then the company with the comparative example can only operate within it's own region. If trade is allowed, then everyone gets the benefit of the cheaper product. Furthermore, the economy is more efficient now!
An example: If it costs Company A $2 to make a widget, and it costs Company B $3 to make a widget, then trading will lower the price. Company B may still be able to be in business, but consumers will get the benefit of competition between the two and having lower prices. Furthermore, because Company A probably selling more widgets now that we've allow trade, the economy is also more efficient, because we're spending less money just producing widgets.
The idea that trade is beneficial is widely accepted. ( http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/free-trade ) Protectionism is just one example of an anti-trade policy, so it follows that protectionism is bad, inefficient, and a tradeoff in which there are a few local winners, but at the cost of global efficiency, and as a direct tax on the people living in the region that's "protected".
Alright so here's my problem with this view: free trade is not pareto efficient, it's kaldor-hicks efficient which is to say that everyone is only better off if we take some of the winnings from the winners of free trade and distribute it to the losers. What would this look like in practice? Textile Company ABC Corp. sells shirts for $20 at a low profit margin. To increase profits it moves its shirt factory from America to Cambodia for cheaper labor and now they can sell shirts for $15. Because of the Kaldor-Hicks efficiency of trade what we should do in this instance is tax that shirt back to say $18 and give that tax money to the now unemployed american workers (at least for a while as a stop-gap) and boom everyone is better off. This way shirts are cheaper and the textile workers are the same as they were (but now with $2 cheaper shirts as well). But is what we're talking about even free trade anymore? Essentially we're taxing cambodian shirts but not american ones! But that's what our theory tells us is the way you do it to actually make everyone better off as a result of free trade. And then of course we don't live in magic, frictionless econ land so in the real world everybody now gets a shirt for $5 cheaper improving their lives a barely tangible amount but the american textile workers have had their lives totally upended and no redistributive tax is ever implemented and some politician who got an econ minor while earning his Business degree gets on TV and says: "Free trade makes everyone better off, it's just economics."
And that's why I say it's a case-by-case scenario. In my example above we've added like two or three real-world factors and ended up so far from the simple world of comparative advantage that we're barely even talking about the same hypothetical anymore. I don't mind protectionism in some instances because I know that we won't implement our economically perfect, kaldor-hicks tax and because of that free-trade has had and will continue to have distinctly negative effects on real people and real families.
I wasn't actually familiar with Kaldor-Hicks improvement by name, but that was definitely the idea I was getting at! Kaldor-Hicks improvement is defined in a funny way (i.e. could taxes be added such that we have no losers), but it seems like a proxy for "there is a net benefit / overall people are getting wealthier".
There is also now excess money in the wallets of the consumers. Consumer savings rates are pretty steady, so they're still going to spend money. The rest of the economy will benefit from that, and should be able to find a good use of our unemployed american t-shirt maker. America exports a lot of machines, especially those machines used in developing world factories.
I'm okay with there being losers, as long as the gains are more. Because in every industry this choice between "a sliver more wealth for everyone and a few losers" builds in aggregate. And I'm in favor of global improvement-- I have no (nationalistic/whatever) allegiance to the people who happen to be living near me.
Your problem is that there are losers at all. Do you feel like we should have banned the car, for the sake of stablehands and horseshoe cobblers? Do you think we should have banned the light bulb, for the sake of candle makers? I know these examples are about technology improvements rather than laws, but it's the same principle-- greater good, with the side benefit of free choice.
And I'd say you misunderstand my point which is not that I have a problem with some people losing, I have a problem with a few losers losing almost everything. It's almost a negative lottery, where if you come up snake-eyes your job is deported and now you're competing with thousands of other laid off individuals with almost exactly your same experience to find the few applicable jobs that are available. Except that even in a negative lottery you could choose not to play.
>should be able to find a good use of our unemployed american t-shirt maker.
This is just a total handwave though. There's nothing in your economic theory that says these people are going to find good employment, it's just wishful thinking. We had jobs, we sent them somewhere else, now there's less jobs. Plenty of people who worked at the car plants will never have another job as good. I don't know the history but I'd say that there probably plenty of cobblers who never found as good of employment again either.
>I have no (nationalistic/whatever) allegiance to the people who happen to be living near me.
That puts you in a tiny minority though. Most people aren't true globablists.
>Do you feel like we should have banned the car, for the sake of stablehands and horseshoe cobblers?
No, because then most of us lose (we don't get cars), I feel we should have taxed cars and redistributed that money to unemployed stablehands and cobblers though. Then we all win!
Let me pose to you a hypothetical example. ABC Corp sells $20 shirts in America. It moves its shirt factory from America to Cambodia. It still sells its shirts for $20. Its new profits are greater than the lost wages of the americans it laid off. If all that profit were distributed to one person, say the CEO would you still think it morally good?
I think that example might get at the heart of our disagreement.
> 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 sounds like you're reciting from an econ 101 textbook here. Let's speak a little more concretely. Take an Uber competitor - do you really envisage a dramatic price difference, particularly once you take Uber's war-chest gouging out of the equation? They still have to compete with local competitors (i.e. cabs), so there doesn't appear to be tons of wiggle room for this tax on consumers.
Even allowing for a slight consumer advantage from a globally competitive ride sharing service, I don't think you've conclusively demonstrated that those negatives necessarily outweigh the benefits of fostering local business. Put plainly, I perceive more benefit in my neighbor having a job than I do in saving $1 on a 10 minute ride sharing trip across town.
> 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
Sure, this hypothetical company is hypothetically competitive - but how competitive is it going to be if it doesn't exist in the first place? Seems more than a little unrealistic for any company to tackle Google on an even playing field.
You are conveniently forgetting about the ruthless practice of operating at a significant loss while lying to investors about a grandiose vision of the future. Large corporations regularly do this: overpromise local jobs, undercut everyone else by operating at a loss, and either have to bail out of the market or move on if they themselves are bought out. The result is both the local market is gone and then the local jobs are gone once these foreign companies leave.
If companies are operating at a significant loss, then that's just a subsidy from their investors to the common person. I use Uber because, hey, I'm happy to take money from dumb VCs.
Why wouldn't local markets be able to correct? If Uber collapsed, people would still need to get rides from A to B. If Uber collapsed, couldn't most of us make a rudimentary ride-requesting app in short order?
Cause and effect. Uber operates at a significant loss at the whims of VC investment. Operations undercut competition so the competition may have to close down shop and sell off assets or get bought out by the monopoly of the area. When this is the case (monopoly) then you have unfettered control over how pricing works.
Uber has to eventually make a choice about whether they need to cut costs, jobs or assets at some point in the future; or just wait it out until all the other competition dies out and they are the monopoly of the area.
But, as a result of pulling out of a city, a location, or a reduction in services, you have twofold problem:
1. Loss of jobs
2. Loss of local companies
(or adding the monopoly scenario)
3. Loss of price gouging prevention
Now what makes this type of market more feasible to resiliency is that the assets are distributed (i.e. owned by actual people). So if Uber did have to bail out, people could feasibly still work anyways. This is different than other models where major assets and investments are required to even operate at all.
That being said I worry about how long this is going to last. Uber is operating with the expectation that there will be fully automated self-driving cars and drivers will be unnecessary. This seems to indicate, at least to me, that the distributed asset model would go away (unless all cars are self-driving).
It's an interesting thing to consider, whether their future depends on continued reliance on VC subsidies (which is going to run out), and whether it relies on significant investment in self-driving assets, or whether it relies on everyone having self-driving vehicles. But perhaps part of the math is to balance the book by pushing more in that direction. (At least that's the pitch to the VCs). Basically, I am skeptical that this is sustainable to operate this way at a loss for so long that eventually they will have to increase prices or cut operations. In the case of the monopoly scenario, you have no way to competitively prevent price gouging (however temporary it might be).
My hope is that some aggregator services come along and turn the model into something more distributed with an open-pricing model based on efficiency metrics like operating cost for a self-employed/freelance driver.
Intellectual Property, DRM and holding my data hostage agaisnt my will are all forms of protectionism, and if you were to remove that, how much would Uber be worth? They have the software and "network effects", but without their driverless car play or the fact that I should be free to have an OpenID that would work between services (and carry my ratings, same for drivers) how great would Uber be?
You're right that protectionism stops innovation, but innovation is not always directly linked to wealth creation, and protectionism comes in many forms, including corporate protectionism.
How does Uber use IP, DRM, and data-hostaging to make itself worth more? :confused:
Having OpenID doesn't seem like a right you can demand. Idk. If you want to, choose a service that provides that. You're right that there's a network effect, but it's a network effect that's been freely given by consumers.
I'm not a pro-Uber shill. I'm kind of hoping that their self-driving car play fails, and that the market corrects itself. (i.e. Uber bankrupts!)
What do you mean corporate protectionism? Corporations don't have the power to pass laws and force people to do things against their will. Those powers only reside in the government. I'm absolutely anti-cronyism and anti-lobbying. I think the best situation we could be in would be one where the government does not have power to meddle in the market, because we would not even have to worry about special interests getting into politician's pockets, because politicians would have no special favors to give in return.
Markets control almost everything. How would governments not interfere in the market ? Would you not grant IP, considering IP is clearly a form of protectionism ?
Freely given can have a lot of interpretations. I would say that Uber is buying network effects using VC money by depressing prices for the goods they are selling.
In the end though car transportation will probably be as profitable of a business as airplane transportation - that is not much. The idea that strapping an app and bending regulations will allow Uber to make more money than its competitors seems like a fantasy to me - the price of entry being low enough and regulations being the same for all, Uber Will be the United Airlines of 2070.
The idea that Uber has any right to the data I've put into it is ludicrous as well to me - if I produce data I should have a right to it, and in a fully interchangable manner. anything else is an engineer's defense to monopoly by database, which I increasingly feel like should be illegal.
>> 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.
not sure this example applies to China blocking FB for example. they are 1 - creating job opportunities for their devs and 2 - taking the piece of the pie straight from FB and putting it into their pockets. (+ probably whatever data they want to collect on their citizens instead of FB doing that).
some protectionism is "good". the problem I have with it is it skews the playing field unless all players do the same thing.
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/ 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.
> 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/ 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.
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.
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.
Yep. 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.
> The adverts in some countries telling you not to take unlicensed taxis are not there for fun.
Yes, and the adverts in most safe developed countries telling you this are overwhelmingly about defending a local cartel. The ubiquity of them tells you that "regulations are mostly about safety" is just not something you can assume. You have to actually check to see if they're justified.
That's like your opinion man. Seriously, if you feel more safe in a regular taxi, just don't use Uber and leave the rest of us poor people alone. Your help is not welcome.
Also, I think you are incredibly naive to think that the training is mainly there to "help" drivers.
Except that Uber’s unfairly subsidized rides and skirting of regulations are driving regular taxi drivers out of business so they may not continue to be an option.
If people choose Uber over the regulated providers, they obviously don't want the supposed safety and other benefits provided by the regulation. I certainly don't.
But the main reasons I go on an Uber is because the drivers in any city I’ve been in have been maniacs, while (in my experience) Uber/lyft drivers are the calmest, most restpectful drivers on the road.
The fact that some venture capitalist is bankrupting themselves subsidizing the trip is a gift that keeps on giving.
That's as anecdotal as it is devoid of any causal link. There have there been numerous incidents of rapist and otherwise crazy Uber drivers around the world, and the mere choice of whether you're an Uber/Lyft driver vs. a regular taxi driver doesn't reveal anything about how sane you are.
At best, people get lucky to get assigned to cars whose drivers don't need the money and party do it for fun. As Uber & Lyft take over the traditional taxi indry's market share though, the quality of taxi drivers will revert to the mean, especially if the drivers are in fact the same people only operating under a different brand.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
The problem is that the prices would climb uncontrollably and against the will of the members, who would be scared or forbidden from violating the price controls (and even if they did, the public would assume they're charging more).
Basically it'd be a taxi service, and taxi services suck. Taxi services suck because the drivers bargain against the consumers, and against eachother.
and this be a known fucking formula that is the basis on which pricing is held - and then the white-label services are just bidding over driver payment %....
Wouldn't that algorithm just give the pure cost of the ride? Why would anyone drive for that if they're not going to make any money?
And as far as tipping, you'd need to ensure your formula has a minimum so that drivers are making a living wage. Otherwise disallowing tipping means you're just trying to save face while not caring that the drivers are actually able to make a living.
Something that takes into account those things I said, and allows tipping. If you don't want to tip, that's fine, but disallowing those people from making that extra income is just wrong.
That was Sidecar, AIUI. Drivers figured out their own formula for what it would take them to do a job, and riders got to make the tradeoff of how much more to pay for how much nicer a car/driver. It didn't explicitly handle a tipping/no tipping premium though.
It also went out of business. I suspect that was because Uber/Lyft were much better at straddling the line between "your a contractor" and "we can commoditize the experience".
>> Business idea: create a white-label Uber app and associated services
Pretty sure such things already exist (white label cab apps). Unless several of the local taxi firms in Southampton have hired a teams of (competent) app developers...
I think so too. Good for them and good for the locals. But let us not pretend this is not related to anti-globalism. I think it is and in many cases it's better for the locals, long term.
Now, if Uber can and is willing to meet the new reqs, by all means, play but play by the rules.
How is it 'good for locals' that they have significantly less choice when wanting to go from A-B?
Uber was a great service.
I live in Montreal, and use cabs because they are parked outside my door - but I used Uber to go to the airport, and 'as a local' - I'm seriously miffed off at this.
That logic is flawed. If it worked, there's a bunch of other imports they could get rid of to "provide local job opportunities and tax dollars". Should Netflix be next?
Seriously, this is 100% the taxi lobby at work. And it is very typical of Quebec politics: special interest groups being prioritized over consumers.
It is and it isn't. It depends on whether there is a market to begin with. Local job opportunities depend on whether or not there is active startups waiting to compete. It's hard to compete if the main competitor is operating at a loss.
If the taxi industry has to undergo this training, how on earth is it fair that Uber doesn't? If they didn't require this, wouldn't this be the Uber special interest group being prioritized?
"This could quite feasibly lead to the development of a local competitor, providing job opportunities for local developers and tax dollars for the region / country."
Highly unlikely.
Don't you think this has been tried in other regions?
There have been some good efforts to do this, but it requires savvy, luck, a great experience, and a critical mass and really a lot of $$$ to break into markets.
As evidence that it's not a 'local' thing I offer the fact that Uber and Lyft have no real similar competition almost anywhere. Wherever they have competition, it's in places like China from entities who have big $$ backing.
Also - it's utterly ridiculous that drivers need '35 hours of training'. Training for what exactly? How to drive? How to read a map? Even if 'regular cab drivers' did previously need that kind of training - I don't think they need it anymore.
Have Uber passengers experienced a problem with 'lost drivers'? Nonsense. I'll bet $100 that 'on average' most consumers would rate Uber as a better experience overall vis-a-vis regular cabs.
This is bad for Quebec - it will put many people out of work, and it will not lead to any new innovation.
FYI - I live in Montreal - and I never use Uber because there are a fleet of cabs parked outside my door. I talk to cabbies here often about the issue. My god man - it's like talking to someone from 1985. Cab companies themselves are notoriously fickle, cheap, unthoughtful. They have done ZERO to 'improve their game' over the last while. The cabbies have ZERO positive response to the issue, they just talk negatively about Uber, and have absolutely no sense that 'maybe they should do a few things better'.
It's amazing how backwater cab companies can be - it's partly due to the way they are organized (often they are syndicates of owner's nobody is really in charge), and of course, a smattering of companies across the board in any city. It's really an archaic industry.
Just 3 years ago - about 1/2 of 'Hochelaga Taxi' (my hood), did not even accept credit/debit!!! Now - they all have machines, but even the one's they bought are straight out of Myanmar. They're slow, crap. In 2017 you still can't get any 'Uber like features' out of the local cabs. I'd love to pay for my cab before, or 'on the way' or 'use my account' or something - but no.
It will mean fewer jobs, less choice, less competition - and business as usual for the local medallion holders.
It would seem rational that someone would just 'come along and make 'GoMyCab' but I'll bet any amount of money it won't happen. It's just too hard.
Now - you have the double problem: Uber has been 'run out of town' by politiking - who is now going to back a 'rival'?
Are VC's interested in investing in something risky - AND - that has to take on the cabal of local-yocal government officials + the Taxi Lobby who pushed a big multinational out?
No.
Also - there might not be enough scale in just one city to actually create enough surplus to create a great mobile experience etc..
This is one of the things I absolutely loathe about Montreal - it's the localist/anti-progress attitude here. It's 'politically populist' and they often don't make a lot of sense - AND - the city of Mtl is notoriously corrupt, though that's getting better.
The 'Uber pendulum' has swung too far. There are some serious things to consider about Uber, and the economics of it are interesting, but I don't think that because they've had bad publicity, that city officials should be playing a populist game.
I think there are better answers to 'the Uber problem'.
> This could quite feasibly lead to the development of a local competitor
Wouldn't this regulation apply to competitors as well? If Uber has deemed that it's not feasible to be competitive with taxis/etc with the new regulations, how would a direct competitor be able to compete in the exact same regulatory environment?
In Montreal we have [Téo Taxi](http://teomtl.com/), which is far better, IMO (although more expensive) and more fair with its employees (They get enough by working only 8h/day, compared to previously with Uber or other old-school companies).
All electric cars with free wifi in them.
The app is on par with Uber's, and the drivers are always nice.
Isn't being more expensive part of the problem? I think one of the main things that is "better" about Uber is how comparatively cheap it is. I know a couple of people who make enough money not to really care what they spend day-to-day, but I suspect that for most people that few dollars per fare is the difference between viable and unacceptable.
It is a big part of the problem when Uber is using VC money to subsidize part of the trip and when Uber isn't following safety/training/insurance regulations.
People are funny about that. They will bitch and moan about how expensive something is, but the second something goes wrong they want more safety features and regulation, in spite of the cost increase it will bring.
Which will last as long as the VC subsidies do--i.e. probably not much longer. I suspect that a lot of people who have grown accustomed to the sort of low fares that losing billions of dollars make possible are in for a surprise when prices rise up to be more in line with cabs again.
They already offer that experience and they still compete against ordinary Taxis which now have their own apps - Customers now expect a kind of experience and will go where it is met.
Sorry, I don't agree at all. I live in Montreal and I appreciate the choice.
You can't seriously know that company 'ABC' is 'more fair' to their drivers. If that were seriously the case, why are any of them even working for Uber?
I'm a 'local' in Montreal, and I now have one less major option for travel, though I usually use regular cabs, I use Uber to go to the airport and the service was great. Timely, clean, cheap - perfect.
How on earth this is 'good for Montreal' is beyond me.
Choice is good - and unless there are specific issues about Uber's service here (i.e. lack of licensing, insurance etc.) - then they should be left alone.
But there's no reason for cab divers to have '35 hours of training' - the reg should be off the books.
What on earth are they trained for?
Maybe 'back in the day' knowing the city by memory was an issue - it's certainly not today.
Has the city of Mtl been receiving complaints that 'Uber drivers are getting lost?'
Not only do I feel that most consumers would give Uber a 'better service rating' (despite their 'lack of training') - but consumers have tech that enables them: Maps. Estimates. Automatic payments etc..
When it comes to issues such as 'identity' 'insurance' etc. - there's no question Uber has to be on par: cars need to be driven by registered folks, there needs to be clean insurance, safety checks on the car etc. etc..
To speak of this as 'about training' I think misses the point that this is entirely political: medallion owners want to keep the value of their medallions up, and have used a 'legal' and 'populist' angle to protect their medallion-oligarchy. That's what's going on.
I don't believe there have been significant complaints bout Uber indicating that '35 hours of training' simply is not a requirement.
And FYI - you don't need any training to open a store and offer a service - if people don't like the merchandise or quality of service they go elsewhere - that model works well. If people thought Uber was crap, they wouldn't use it.
There are possibly 'issues' with Uber, but this is not one of them.
The problem is, Uber is lobbying for it's drivers to be exempt. Not lobbying for the regulation to be dropped altogether.
"To speak of this as 'about training' I think misses the point that this is entirely political: medallion owners want to keep the value of their medallions up, and have used a 'legal' and 'populist' angle to protect their medallion-oligarchy. That's what's going on."
I completely disagree. Uber right now has an advantage in that they don't require their drivers to undergo the training. Their competitors are required to. So I see absolutely nothing wrong with those competitors complaining that Uber gets an unfair advantage.
"And FYI - you don't need any training to open a store and offer a service - if people don't like the merchandise or quality of service they go elsewhere - that model works well. If people thought Uber was crap, they wouldn't use it."
A store is HUGELY different than a transportation service.
They need training to remind them they must not refuse service to wheelchair users or service dogs.
> And FYI - you don't need any training to open a store and offer a service
Depends what you're selling. A bunch of stuff is regulated (guns; alcohol; food) and you'll need to obey those regulations. You'll also need to obey all the other regulations around fire safety etc.
Doesn't that sort of attitude play into TfL's hand in London? Another example of Uber not willing to play by the rules, especially ones arguably safety-related?
I'm really tired of this multi-national corporations thinking they can come in and destroy the local market while leaving pennies for the employees; let alone not comply with local regulations. Good riddance!
Excuse me while I open my app that uses VC cash to double the payment I send to the nearest amateur violin player in order to play a really, really sad tune.
Like a kid taking his toys home because you won't play his game. I would love to see some sort of framework that facilitates ride sharing without it being attached to a single company.
225 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 245 ms ] threadAs 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.
The exception seems to be going after Uber. Minivan school carpools, etc, have informally existed for a long time without requiring extra licenses.
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?
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?
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.
Which they already went through to get a driver's license. The 35 hour taxi training is on top of that.
[1] And I agree there are good reasons, just not ... that one. For example, that they drive a lot more often, with strangers, and with less choice over how much danger they're exposed to.
Edit: And, FWIW, I agreed that a for-hire driver (whether taxi, bus, Uber, shuttle, etc) merits more training than personal driving, just not because of cars being big and fast.
Sounds like they are normalising the requirements with other commercial services.
While I agree with you in principle, there's no indication that this is anything but regulatory capture. There's no municipality in the western world that requires this much training for Uber drivers; would you say there's a problem there that needs solving, and that Quebec's legislated response is a reasonable solution? I'm personally skeptical.
On average, drivers take 2-4 years to learn London well enough to pass!
A lot of provincial laws require that you waste time to obtain some license (in opposition to showing that you understand the regulations), and these laws are not going to change since most people in the field already did the time so don't care anymore or didn't do it and don't have to do it.
I hope this event will at least help in fix/expose this problem
For example, you usually need to take a 1 day foodsafe course to work somewhere like mcdonalds: http://www.foodsafe.ca/courses.html
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.
Maybe not literally, but lawyers _do_ have the power to ruin lives, just the same. Not defending you competently being just one example.
I suppose the answer is that Uber doesn't believe they really have a business if they have to meet existing safety standards.
Interesting side note the driver actually was an airport employee - he would drive for Uber twice a day, once to work (he would hang out by the area of the city with lots of Hotels to try and catch and airport trip) and once on the way home. I thought that was kind of awesome.
How do they impound the vehicle if the driver is in it? Do they arrest the driver first?
In some cities Uber drivers are able to choose drop-off areas, but I don't believe Montreal is one of them.
[0] https://www.blablacar.com/
I drove a guy who was trying to make an app which would do this, but I can't remember what it was called. It started as a Vancouver-Whistler ride share e-mail list.
There is on Lyft: https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/213586028-How-to-use...
No idea what an AirTrain is. Do you mean UP Express? Why stop at Weston and pay $5.30 and not just take it all the way downtown for a meagre $12.35? During heavy traffic your travel time would be roughly equivalent to a cab.
AirTrain = Linktrain [1]. Take it to the alt-hotel (for free) right at the airport and grab an Uber Pool to save 50-60% of the cab fare and get dropped off right at your door step with all your luggage.
[1]: https://www.torontopearson.com/en/link/#
Spend $10,000,000 mail-bombing the local citizens to avoid paying a fraction of that to properly fingerprint their drivers via a deceitful and confusing ballot initiative... (I really did love receiving four of the same mailer on the same day, all addressed to me. That I had already received eight other copies of in the preceding week.)
Realize you should have just gone to the mercenaries in the GOP State Government who are all for local community control as long as they're the ones controlling everything locally...
And then people wonder why I'm anti-Uber. Lyft was involved as well but they don't have all the additional scandals of Uber, so I'll cut them far more slack.
Meanwhile, their asinine antics are having a very real effect on the economy of Texas: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/opinion/sunday/texas-unem...
Have you considered that perhaps, the cost of a taxi fare is close to the cost of operating a car + having a 60 hour-week driver make a living wage (Without VC subsidies)?
https://www.google.com/search?q=austin+ride+sharing&oq=austi...
But hey, cabs are fine too. It's your call.
I imagine the problem problem you describe will be solved by an aggregator service. You will just open the app and select from amongst the local players.
Edit: I should point out that I mean "better for the rider." From what I understand some of the services had much more driver friendly policies and payment structures. I have heard of people choosing based on that.
Regional state-owned monopolies are still state-owned monopolies. Oregon also has a state-run liquor store, and it's hours (and service attitude, and selection) sucks.
The problem was multifold. There was no less than 3 companies that ran into Austin, and none of them were really prepared to enter that or any market. No real mindshare, buggy software, too expensive, etc.
I find it hard to believe Quebec will act terribly different.
I'd say as job training comes that's rather on the low side.
And I'm sure Quebec is quaking in its boots by Uber's threat to leave.
It seems at least once a week we get another story showing how utterly incompetent the executives in charge of Uber's public image are.
[1] https://www.change.org/p/save-your-uber-in-london-saveyourub...
Because you want to use their service, and you want their competitors to be able to play by the same rules. For example, I don't have to have something controversial to say before I defend free speech; I don't have to want to cross any particular private lot before I'd vouch for freedom of movement.
To be clear, I think there are some good things about mobility alternatives (including Uber), I just find the David-vs-Goliath / we-are-fighting-for-justice viewpoint... odd.
EDIT: I should note that the credulous / incredulous divide exists in the general populace. I still find people who, when confronted with the evidence of some of Uber's shadier actions, respond with "Uber has to play tough to compete."
Ride sharing services are here to stay, but there's no particular reason that service has to be named 'Uber'.
Sadly, overturning Austin's laws at the state level have been detrimental but most people I know use Austin Rideshare
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?
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-everywhere-uber-is-bann...
Also, don't forget London.
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?
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.
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.
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
Also, that site is literally a creation of the taxi lobby [1].
[1] http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/about
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..
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.
Because there is absolutely no way that calling 911 on the person sitting next to you and in control of a 2 ton vehicle is going to end badly. Nope.
At some point it's more about protectionism than safety. This is yet another example.
Compared to hailing a taxi, police can't necessarily trace a victim back to a specific driver, so that person could theoretically commit repeated crimes.
This personally gives me a lot more confidence when it comes to putting trust in a driver.
Also, from a cursory glance over that link, a few of those appear to be misleading headlines in which the actual story is "a person, who happens to be an Uber driver, committed a crime".
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.
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.
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.
If I am writing the same code as someone in the 3rd world, I do not deserve to be paid more simply because I'm American. That is arrogance.
And just to be clear what you're saying is that you're fine with workers in 3rd world countries (who are poor) and workers in 1st world countries (who are rich) meeting in the middle? Do you support unlimited H1B visas?
So, there's this idea of comparative advantage. Two companies are both producing widgets, but for some reason one company can produce goods cheaper than the other. The reasons might be things like technology, company or regional culture, training of employees, cost of resources, or geography. If no trade is allowed, then the company with the comparative example can only operate within it's own region. If trade is allowed, then everyone gets the benefit of the cheaper product. Furthermore, the economy is more efficient now!
An example: If it costs Company A $2 to make a widget, and it costs Company B $3 to make a widget, then trading will lower the price. Company B may still be able to be in business, but consumers will get the benefit of competition between the two and having lower prices. Furthermore, because Company A probably selling more widgets now that we've allow trade, the economy is also more efficient, because we're spending less money just producing widgets.
The idea that trade is beneficial is widely accepted. ( http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/free-trade ) Protectionism is just one example of an anti-trade policy, so it follows that protectionism is bad, inefficient, and a tradeoff in which there are a few local winners, but at the cost of global efficiency, and as a direct tax on the people living in the region that's "protected".
Khan Academy on trade & comparative advantage: https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microec...
A longer essay about the topic, which addresses the common arguments for protectionism (i.e. infant industries, spillover effects, national security, unequal exchange): http://www.e-ir.info/2012/08/28/the-causes-and-effects-of-ec...
And that's why I say it's a case-by-case scenario. In my example above we've added like two or three real-world factors and ended up so far from the simple world of comparative advantage that we're barely even talking about the same hypothetical anymore. I don't mind protectionism in some instances because I know that we won't implement our economically perfect, kaldor-hicks tax and because of that free-trade has had and will continue to have distinctly negative effects on real people and real families.
EDIT: apologies about the textwall.
I wasn't actually familiar with Kaldor-Hicks improvement by name, but that was definitely the idea I was getting at! Kaldor-Hicks improvement is defined in a funny way (i.e. could taxes be added such that we have no losers), but it seems like a proxy for "there is a net benefit / overall people are getting wealthier".
There is also now excess money in the wallets of the consumers. Consumer savings rates are pretty steady, so they're still going to spend money. The rest of the economy will benefit from that, and should be able to find a good use of our unemployed american t-shirt maker. America exports a lot of machines, especially those machines used in developing world factories.
I'm okay with there being losers, as long as the gains are more. Because in every industry this choice between "a sliver more wealth for everyone and a few losers" builds in aggregate. And I'm in favor of global improvement-- I have no (nationalistic/whatever) allegiance to the people who happen to be living near me.
Your problem is that there are losers at all. Do you feel like we should have banned the car, for the sake of stablehands and horseshoe cobblers? Do you think we should have banned the light bulb, for the sake of candle makers? I know these examples are about technology improvements rather than laws, but it's the same principle-- greater good, with the side benefit of free choice.
>should be able to find a good use of our unemployed american t-shirt maker.
This is just a total handwave though. There's nothing in your economic theory that says these people are going to find good employment, it's just wishful thinking. We had jobs, we sent them somewhere else, now there's less jobs. Plenty of people who worked at the car plants will never have another job as good. I don't know the history but I'd say that there probably plenty of cobblers who never found as good of employment again either.
>I have no (nationalistic/whatever) allegiance to the people who happen to be living near me.
That puts you in a tiny minority though. Most people aren't true globablists.
>Do you feel like we should have banned the car, for the sake of stablehands and horseshoe cobblers?
No, because then most of us lose (we don't get cars), I feel we should have taxed cars and redistributed that money to unemployed stablehands and cobblers though. Then we all win!
Let me pose to you a hypothetical example. ABC Corp sells $20 shirts in America. It moves its shirt factory from America to Cambodia. It still sells its shirts for $20. Its new profits are greater than the lost wages of the americans it laid off. If all that profit were distributed to one person, say the CEO would you still think it morally good?
I think that example might get at the heart of our disagreement.
It sounds like you're reciting from an econ 101 textbook here. Let's speak a little more concretely. Take an Uber competitor - do you really envisage a dramatic price difference, particularly once you take Uber's war-chest gouging out of the equation? They still have to compete with local competitors (i.e. cabs), so there doesn't appear to be tons of wiggle room for this tax on consumers.
Even allowing for a slight consumer advantage from a globally competitive ride sharing service, I don't think you've conclusively demonstrated that those negatives necessarily outweigh the benefits of fostering local business. Put plainly, I perceive more benefit in my neighbor having a job than I do in saving $1 on a 10 minute ride sharing trip across town.
> 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
Sure, this hypothetical company is hypothetically competitive - but how competitive is it going to be if it doesn't exist in the first place? Seems more than a little unrealistic for any company to tackle Google on an even playing field.
Why wouldn't local markets be able to correct? If Uber collapsed, people would still need to get rides from A to B. If Uber collapsed, couldn't most of us make a rudimentary ride-requesting app in short order?
Uber has to eventually make a choice about whether they need to cut costs, jobs or assets at some point in the future; or just wait it out until all the other competition dies out and they are the monopoly of the area.
But, as a result of pulling out of a city, a location, or a reduction in services, you have twofold problem:
1. Loss of jobs 2. Loss of local companies
(or adding the monopoly scenario) 3. Loss of price gouging prevention
Now what makes this type of market more feasible to resiliency is that the assets are distributed (i.e. owned by actual people). So if Uber did have to bail out, people could feasibly still work anyways. This is different than other models where major assets and investments are required to even operate at all.
That being said I worry about how long this is going to last. Uber is operating with the expectation that there will be fully automated self-driving cars and drivers will be unnecessary. This seems to indicate, at least to me, that the distributed asset model would go away (unless all cars are self-driving).
It's an interesting thing to consider, whether their future depends on continued reliance on VC subsidies (which is going to run out), and whether it relies on significant investment in self-driving assets, or whether it relies on everyone having self-driving vehicles. But perhaps part of the math is to balance the book by pushing more in that direction. (At least that's the pitch to the VCs). Basically, I am skeptical that this is sustainable to operate this way at a loss for so long that eventually they will have to increase prices or cut operations. In the case of the monopoly scenario, you have no way to competitively prevent price gouging (however temporary it might be).
My hope is that some aggregator services come along and turn the model into something more distributed with an open-pricing model based on efficiency metrics like operating cost for a self-employed/freelance driver.
That just makes you sound stupid.
Copyright, Trademarks and Patents are protectionist devices that contribute billions to the economy and keep a ton of people employed.
Yes, they have their problems, but saying that they destroy wealth is idiotic.
You're right that protectionism stops innovation, but innovation is not always directly linked to wealth creation, and protectionism comes in many forms, including corporate protectionism.
Having OpenID doesn't seem like a right you can demand. Idk. If you want to, choose a service that provides that. You're right that there's a network effect, but it's a network effect that's been freely given by consumers.
I'm not a pro-Uber shill. I'm kind of hoping that their self-driving car play fails, and that the market corrects itself. (i.e. Uber bankrupts!)
What do you mean corporate protectionism? Corporations don't have the power to pass laws and force people to do things against their will. Those powers only reside in the government. I'm absolutely anti-cronyism and anti-lobbying. I think the best situation we could be in would be one where the government does not have power to meddle in the market, because we would not even have to worry about special interests getting into politician's pockets, because politicians would have no special favors to give in return.
In the end though car transportation will probably be as profitable of a business as airplane transportation - that is not much. The idea that strapping an app and bending regulations will allow Uber to make more money than its competitors seems like a fantasy to me - the price of entry being low enough and regulations being the same for all, Uber Will be the United Airlines of 2070.
The idea that Uber has any right to the data I've put into it is ludicrous as well to me - if I produce data I should have a right to it, and in a fully interchangable manner. anything else is an engineer's defense to monopoly by database, which I increasingly feel like should be illegal.
not sure this example applies to China blocking FB for example. they are 1 - creating job opportunities for their devs and 2 - taking the piece of the pie straight from FB and putting it into their pockets. (+ probably whatever data they want to collect on their citizens instead of FB doing that).
some protectionism is "good". the problem I have with it is it skews the playing field unless all players do the same thing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Clearly this would affect ride-sharing companies more than taxi companies, and it's likely no coincidence.
This is protectionism under the guise of "fairness." Nothing more.
Yes, and the adverts in most safe developed countries telling you this are overwhelmingly about defending a local cartel. The ubiquity of them tells you that "regulations are mostly about safety" is just not something you can assume. You have to actually check to see if they're justified.
That's like your opinion man. Seriously, if you feel more safe in a regular taxi, just don't use Uber and leave the rest of us poor people alone. Your help is not welcome.
Also, I think you are incredibly naive to think that the training is mainly there to "help" drivers.
I despise Uber for many reasons.
But the main reasons I go on an Uber is because the drivers in any city I’ve been in have been maniacs, while (in my experience) Uber/lyft drivers are the calmest, most restpectful drivers on the road.
The fact that some venture capitalist is bankrupting themselves subsidizing the trip is a gift that keeps on giving.
At best, people get lucky to get assigned to cars whose drivers don't need the money and party do it for fun. As Uber & Lyft take over the traditional taxi indry's market share though, the quality of taxi drivers will revert to the mean, especially if the drivers are in fact the same people only operating under a different brand.
Some of them are. Safety. Insurance. Identity.
But '35 hours of training' I don't think is one of them.
People are getting very excellent service out of Uber and Lyft, there's no pragmatic reason for '35 hours of training'
I would say my worst cab experiences have all been with uber drivers by far, and it’s gotten markedly worse over time.
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)
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.
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.
An "Uber for Uber" as it were, and call it YouYou...
Basically it'd be a taxi service, and taxi services suck. Taxi services suck because the drivers bargain against the consumers, and against eachother.
cost-of::car, fuel, wait-time, distance, wear, depreciation, prosective-client-areas(adjacency, rider-sub-base), etc... == rate for ride.
and this be a known fucking formula that is the basis on which pricing is held - and then the white-label services are just bidding over driver payment %....
also - tipping should not be allowed.
/r/changemyview
And as far as tipping, you'd need to ensure your formula has a minimum so that drivers are making a living wage. Otherwise disallowing tipping means you're just trying to save face while not caring that the drivers are actually able to make a living.
It also went out of business. I suspect that was because Uber/Lyft were much better at straddling the line between "your a contractor" and "we can commoditize the experience".
Pretty sure such things already exist (white label cab apps). Unless several of the local taxi firms in Southampton have hired a teams of (competent) app developers...
Now, if Uber can and is willing to meet the new reqs, by all means, play but play by the rules.
Uber was a great service.
I live in Montreal, and use cabs because they are parked outside my door - but I used Uber to go to the airport, and 'as a local' - I'm seriously miffed off at this.
Seriously, this is 100% the taxi lobby at work. And it is very typical of Quebec politics: special interest groups being prioritized over consumers.
The corruption extends to thinks like construction as well. Not surprised with this outcome.
http://teomtl.com/
Highly unlikely.
Don't you think this has been tried in other regions?
There have been some good efforts to do this, but it requires savvy, luck, a great experience, and a critical mass and really a lot of $$$ to break into markets.
As evidence that it's not a 'local' thing I offer the fact that Uber and Lyft have no real similar competition almost anywhere. Wherever they have competition, it's in places like China from entities who have big $$ backing.
Also - it's utterly ridiculous that drivers need '35 hours of training'. Training for what exactly? How to drive? How to read a map? Even if 'regular cab drivers' did previously need that kind of training - I don't think they need it anymore.
Have Uber passengers experienced a problem with 'lost drivers'? Nonsense. I'll bet $100 that 'on average' most consumers would rate Uber as a better experience overall vis-a-vis regular cabs.
This is bad for Quebec - it will put many people out of work, and it will not lead to any new innovation.
FYI - I live in Montreal - and I never use Uber because there are a fleet of cabs parked outside my door. I talk to cabbies here often about the issue. My god man - it's like talking to someone from 1985. Cab companies themselves are notoriously fickle, cheap, unthoughtful. They have done ZERO to 'improve their game' over the last while. The cabbies have ZERO positive response to the issue, they just talk negatively about Uber, and have absolutely no sense that 'maybe they should do a few things better'.
It's amazing how backwater cab companies can be - it's partly due to the way they are organized (often they are syndicates of owner's nobody is really in charge), and of course, a smattering of companies across the board in any city. It's really an archaic industry.
Just 3 years ago - about 1/2 of 'Hochelaga Taxi' (my hood), did not even accept credit/debit!!! Now - they all have machines, but even the one's they bought are straight out of Myanmar. They're slow, crap. In 2017 you still can't get any 'Uber like features' out of the local cabs. I'd love to pay for my cab before, or 'on the way' or 'use my account' or something - but no.
It will mean fewer jobs, less choice, less competition - and business as usual for the local medallion holders.
It would seem rational that someone would just 'come along and make 'GoMyCab' but I'll bet any amount of money it won't happen. It's just too hard.
Now - you have the double problem: Uber has been 'run out of town' by politiking - who is now going to back a 'rival'?
Are VC's interested in investing in something risky - AND - that has to take on the cabal of local-yocal government officials + the Taxi Lobby who pushed a big multinational out?
No.
Also - there might not be enough scale in just one city to actually create enough surplus to create a great mobile experience etc..
This is one of the things I absolutely loathe about Montreal - it's the localist/anti-progress attitude here. It's 'politically populist' and they often don't make a lot of sense - AND - the city of Mtl is notoriously corrupt, though that's getting better.
The 'Uber pendulum' has swung too far. There are some serious things to consider about Uber, and the economics of it are interesting, but I don't think that because they've had bad publicity, that city officials should be playing a populist game.
I think there are better answers to 'the Uber problem'.
Wouldn't this regulation apply to competitors as well? If Uber has deemed that it's not feasible to be competitive with taxis/etc with the new regulations, how would a direct competitor be able to compete in the exact same regulatory environment?
In Montreal we have [Téo Taxi](http://teomtl.com/), which is far better, IMO (although more expensive) and more fair with its employees (They get enough by working only 8h/day, compared to previously with Uber or other old-school companies).
All electric cars with free wifi in them. The app is on par with Uber's, and the drivers are always nice.
It is a big part of the problem when Uber is using VC money to subsidize part of the trip and when Uber isn't following safety/training/insurance regulations.
People are funny about that. They will bitch and moan about how expensive something is, but the second something goes wrong they want more safety features and regulation, in spite of the cost increase it will bring.
Sorry, I don't agree at all. I live in Montreal and I appreciate the choice.
You can't seriously know that company 'ABC' is 'more fair' to their drivers. If that were seriously the case, why are any of them even working for Uber?
I'm a 'local' in Montreal, and I now have one less major option for travel, though I usually use regular cabs, I use Uber to go to the airport and the service was great. Timely, clean, cheap - perfect.
How on earth this is 'good for Montreal' is beyond me.
Choice is good - and unless there are specific issues about Uber's service here (i.e. lack of licensing, insurance etc.) - then they should be left alone.
But there's no reason for cab divers to have '35 hours of training' - the reg should be off the books.
What on earth are they trained for?
Maybe 'back in the day' knowing the city by memory was an issue - it's certainly not today.
Has the city of Mtl been receiving complaints that 'Uber drivers are getting lost?'
Not only do I feel that most consumers would give Uber a 'better service rating' (despite their 'lack of training') - but consumers have tech that enables them: Maps. Estimates. Automatic payments etc..
When it comes to issues such as 'identity' 'insurance' etc. - there's no question Uber has to be on par: cars need to be driven by registered folks, there needs to be clean insurance, safety checks on the car etc. etc..
To speak of this as 'about training' I think misses the point that this is entirely political: medallion owners want to keep the value of their medallions up, and have used a 'legal' and 'populist' angle to protect their medallion-oligarchy. That's what's going on.
I don't believe there have been significant complaints bout Uber indicating that '35 hours of training' simply is not a requirement.
And FYI - you don't need any training to open a store and offer a service - if people don't like the merchandise or quality of service they go elsewhere - that model works well. If people thought Uber was crap, they wouldn't use it.
There are possibly 'issues' with Uber, but this is not one of them.
"To speak of this as 'about training' I think misses the point that this is entirely political: medallion owners want to keep the value of their medallions up, and have used a 'legal' and 'populist' angle to protect their medallion-oligarchy. That's what's going on."
I completely disagree. Uber right now has an advantage in that they don't require their drivers to undergo the training. Their competitors are required to. So I see absolutely nothing wrong with those competitors complaining that Uber gets an unfair advantage.
"And FYI - you don't need any training to open a store and offer a service - if people don't like the merchandise or quality of service they go elsewhere - that model works well. If people thought Uber was crap, they wouldn't use it."
A store is HUGELY different than a transportation service.
> And FYI - you don't need any training to open a store and offer a service
Depends what you're selling. A bunch of stuff is regulated (guns; alcohol; food) and you'll need to obey those regulations. You'll also need to obey all the other regulations around fire safety etc.
Nobody needs training for that. They're regs and laws like any other.
If you have concerns, you can make them 'pass a test' or whatever they can study on their own time.
Uber themselves make a very good case that they do.