
Uber is officially a cab firm, says European court - chrisper
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42423627
======
hug
I take a bunch of ubers, by which I mean I take maybe 4 or 5 ubers a week.
Before I took ubers, I didn't take cabs, I took the train. I walked five
minutes to get on a tram to the train station, I switched to a train, and then
I walked ten minutes home.

I never, really, took cabs. I can explain the multitude of reasons: Cab
drivers with shitty attitudes, refusing to unlock the doors and just cracking
open the window to ask how far it was you were planning to go: Too short?
Don't want to take you, fare is too small. Too long? Don't want to take you,
won't get a fare back. I mean, y'know, cab drivers are legally obliged to take
you on any distance journey but the lack of accountability meant that they
wouldn't. Sometimes there were no choices: Cab home or you won't get there. In
those cases, I'd take cabs. The cab driver would be rubbing his eyes, swerving
all over the road, tired after working a 16 hour shift, while talking on the
phone to, I guess, whoever would listen. Doing anything they could not to pay
attention to driving, apparently.

And now I take ubers instead. It's not because I like uber. It's not because I
think that the laws around the cab drivers should be ignored and uber should
be allowed to flaunt that however they like. It's because I think that, at
least right now, uber works better than laws. At least right now.

Is the contractor thing a little bit on the suspicious side? Definitely.
Should they pay their "driver partners" more? Definitely. Do I think that this
problem is uber's fault? Most definitely not.

I don't have lyft available to me. If I did, I'd probably use lyft. I'm happy
with being slightly conscientious and paying a bit more, knowing that I'm not
ripping off some guy who can't do any better. Anecdotally, most of my friends
think the same thing.

But what I won't do is support the existing cab industry.

~~~
Erwin
My local (Denmark) taxi company has an app that is pretty much like Uber: I
enter start and end address and can prepay. But, they do obey the law unlike
Uber.

I suppose Uber's ease of use has inspired other companies, so it's great there
was some competition. But now if Uber wants to return to Denmark, they must
also obey the law.

I think in Europe we prefer to not have too much "disruption" and "lobbyism".

The big ongoing corruption case in Denmark right now is an IT company that
paid for a $50,000 Dubai "research" trip with IT-bosses from the the local
government (in hope of making it back for selling too-expensive IT equipment
to the state)

There's a lot of people involved -- so far, a government employee has received
a 4 month non-suspended prison sentence for receiving about $7,000 worth of
iPhones etc.

~~~
mattmanser
We had app ride hailing in Nottingham, UK before Uber was even founded. It was
an inevitability everywhere.

Rather funnily, we had a Twilio in Nottingham too many years before Twilio was
founded.

The difference between EU and American startups is that there are VCs
investing huge sums in US companies so they can do mass advertising.

~~~
jouls
It's unfortunately not that surprising though. The tech giants have operated
in Europe largely without paying taxes. Avoiding corporate income taxes with
help of Ireland, The Netherlands and US tax law. As well as avoiding VAT with
special deals with Luxembourg. They have essentially operated with a large
discount compared to local competitors. It's of course a lot harder to get
investments in the shadow of such competition.

I don't think funding as such is the main problem in Europe though. We do have
a few really rich tech people, as well as a lot of old wealth. What we don't
have is the thousands of semi-rich people in the wake of the tech giants that
can "repeat the cycle". Something especially needed since we haven't been
spared the increase in housing costs.

~~~
pm90
Excellent point, especially with the tons of semi rich people. Its often
overlooked how young SV really is. The first gold rush was in semiconductors,
and the people that made money there invested in software and the cycle
continued. What essentially happened is that these "semi-rich" people, as you
say, were perfect investors in new startups:

1\. They had the money to get the startup going 2\. They had the technical
expertise to (mostly) select good investments and cut through the bullshit.
3\. They had experience with startups themselves; they were excellent mentors
and had industry connections besides.

Now the system is in place, it seems rather magical.

------
flexie
And how ridiculous is it that it would take half a decade to state the obvious
while this company funded by tech billionaires competed on unfair terms with
tens of thousands of tiny taxi companies that followed rules and acquired
licenses, expensive mandatory equipment etc.

I would love for the taxi industry to be liberalised but just not for the
benefit of a few Silicon Valley billionaires with complete disregard of
legislation.

~~~
ErikVandeWater
> competed on unfair terms

Albeit the taxi companies created the unfair terms. Obviously it is not
necessary to have a medallion to drive someone around. HN is generally anti-
lobbying to protect corporate interest, but now that Uber is big there is some
regret...

> I would love for the taxi industry to be liberalised but just not for the
> benefit of a few Silicon Valley billionaires

And the consumer...

~~~
rhino369
>Albeit the taxi companies created the unfair terms. Obviously it is not
necessary to have a medallion to drive someone around. HN is generally anti-
lobbying to protect corporate interest, but now that Uber is big there is some
regret...

This myth of the taxi companies lobbying to avoid competition doesn't seem
based in reality. Taxis didn't seek out regulation to protect themselves.
Cities began regulating fares, service areas, and the business model. Cities
put rules on them for the public good. The medallion is there is to balance
out the price regulations placed on taxi companies and to ensure that the
rules didn't make the taxi business unprofitable.

I've never seen any indication they sought out these regulations.

Really it smells like a smear campaign to make a bunch of immigrants driving
cars 12 hours a day the bad guys and to make the 60 billion dollar corporate
titan the underdog.

~~~
hawkice
> Cities began regulating fares, service areas, and the business model. Cities
> put rules on them for the public good.

The popularity of Uber, Lyft and similar show those two statements are in
contradiction. I'm sure they weren't aware at the time, but that's what
happens when you regulate business models. The status quo is locked in, and
things are worse than they could be with perfect invisibility.

~~~
rayiner
Taxi regulations date to a time when governments thought it was a good idea
for the government to regulate rates. The government decided how much you
could charge and your pricing policies, and in return, it limited competition.

~~~
forapurpose
My impression is that the rate regulation is to protect consumers from being
ripped off or exploited. Does anyone know the actual history?

~~~
rayiner
Some history of the Haas Act here: [https://www.politico.com/states/new-
york/albany/story/2013/0...](https://www.politico.com/states/new-
york/albany/story/2013/01/the-curse-of-the-new-york-city-taxi-
medallion-000000). One thing to note is that this didn't happen in a vacuum.
This was happening at a time when the government regulated things in ways it
wouldn't dream of doing today. If you wanted to build a new telephone line,
operate a new freight trucking or airline route, or build a new railway, you'd
have to ask a government agency for permission, and also get approval for the
prices you wanted to charge. The agency would decide "oh, there is no need for
a route from here to there" and could deny permission on that basis, or decide
"oh, this price is too high, you can't charge that much."

The government back then generally viewed competition as a pernicious thing.
So they imposed entry requirements to limit competition. That necessitated
also bringing prices under government control, to curb monopoly abuses. The
Haas Act followed the same basic logic. Limit pernicious competition by
limiting licenses, but curb potential abuses by controlling rates.

------
djsumdog
This is good to hear. A few weeks ago we saw the recording breaking loss,
showing Uber is really undercutting everyone and operating way under costs
(while slashing drivers pays and yada yada).

Uber is big, really big. But I don't think it's too big to fail. And I think a
failure will be colossal.

Has anyone noticed Lyft prices have gone way up? Like, almost standard cab
fair prices in some cities? I wonder if Lyft is banking on the fact a lot of
people use them so they don't use Uber, and noticing their prices are just
slightly less than a regular cab. They could put them in a place where they're
profitable, and charge a more traditional rate.

In the early days I knew Uber drivers who use to be cab drivers who claimed
they made a ton more money than with their cab company. I doubt that's as true
anymore, but once Uber fails, I bet we'll see a huge re-emergence of Cabs --
possibly alternative ride sharing apps that will put more money in the hands
of drivers (where it should be).

It's really weird being in American cities today, because the number of cabs
is significantly lower and noticeable. I saw a woman with her hand up,
actually hailing a cab, and thought that was so weird. You rarely see that
now. I mean it's probably better that cabs are more efficient with apps, going
directly from pickup to pickup instead of burning fuel driving around, but
there is still something lost with not being able to raise you hand or go to a
taxi stand and get a cab in a city.

~~~
dguest
> I don't think it's too big to fail.

My gut reaction: There's no company the size of Uber that could die more
quietly. The world's reaction would be a muffled "meh".

Uber doesn't even own their most important asset, which is their drivers, and
if they collapse catastrophically their drivers will simply turn off the Uber
app and download one of a half dozen competitors' apps (if they don't already
have it). For Uber customers, the transition will be even easier.

Maybe I'm missing something: This isn't like a car company that owns and
manages factories, or like a tech company that has labs or does significant
R&D, or even a bank that has lots of employees and owns other assets.

So genuine question: what do we loose if Uber vanishes tomorrow?

(Don't get me wrong, I'd be sympathetic to their employees who need to find
new jobs, but my guess is that their skills are in relatively high demand.)

~~~
beberlei
it could have a massive effect on tech valuations in general. so from a real
economy perspective you may be right, but the stock market and VC market might
start to see this as an event to re-evaluate everything.

~~~
te_chris
An event they would entirely deserve, if that's the case.

~~~
TeMPOraL
And it would be a gain for the society, too - because currently it seems the
more absurd a valuation is, the more there is something wrong with a company -
either it's doing useless crap, antisocial crap, or behaving immorally while
doing something potentially useful.

I would love to see the valuations go down, to reduce the incentives for smart
people to grow harmful businesses.

------
deusofnull
I dont overly care what regulatory framework we place Uber into, I care that
they dont misclassify their workers as independent contractors. The whole gig
"economy" is a scam, people smarter than I have broken down the numbers about
the cost of maintaining your vehicle (in uber's sake) and the tax bill due in
april exceeding the pay. Not to mention theres little to no job security or
benefits. Pay Your Workers.

~~~
andonisus
You should care. Uber has lobbied in my state to not be classified as a taxi
(or common carrier), and their drivers are classified as independent
contractors. They were able to successfully lobby for this classification by
guaranteeing a $1,000,000 liability insurance policy for injury caused by
their drivers.

If your injuries due to driver negligence exceed this amount (which is very
possible if you are severely injured and become disabled for the rest of your
life, unable to work), you have no recourse. You cannot currently go after
Uber because they are not classified as a common carrier. You are screwed.

------
senko
_[The] ECJ said that a service whose purpose was "to connect, by means of a
smartphone application and for remuneration, non-professional drivers using
their own vehicle with persons who wish to make urban journeys" must be
classified as "a service in the field of transport" in EU law.

It added: "As EU law currently stands, it is for the member states to regulate
the conditions under which such services are to be provided in conformity with
the general rules of the treaty on the functioning of the EU."_

It didn't say it was a cab firm, but it did say it's a transport service, not
a "digital service". To me as a layman, that makes perfect sense. With all
kinds of services being improved using digital technology, the term "digital
service" can be applied to almost anything.

------
paulus_magnus2
In countries like Morocco, Egypt, China etc EVERYONE is a taxi driver. Stick
your finger up and they'll drive you a few km/miles for a few bucks.

Uber incorporated / centralised that. It's not some vague digital enabler
marketplace. They know the route, micromanage both the driver and passenger,
collect money based on route, unilaterally set prices. How someone can think
they're not a taxi company is beyond me.

~~~
pmlnr
This. If this wasn't the case I would not have been able to get off from one
of the mountains after dark a few years ago.

~~~
Symbiote
You can probably hitchhike from a mountain in Europe, as most mountains are in
remote or fairly remote areas.

------
bdz
Court press release

[https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/201...](https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2017-12/cp170136en.pdf)

The full ruling is atm only available in spanish and french

[http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-434/15](http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-434/15)

~~~
tom_mellior
At this moment, I count the full ruling in 18 languages, including English,
though that version is marked "Provisional text". Possibly working direct
link:
[http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc...](http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=198047&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN)

------
yalogin
Wow. Uber single handedly made folks on ycombinator pro cab industry. The
hatred I saw for the cab industry when Uber was announced or becoming
successful was so strong that I am amazed at how grandly Uber fucked it up.

Practically though, Uber is still doing great and probably will be just fine
even after this ruling. The traditional taxis are still bad and have never
reinvented themselves.

~~~
heedlessly2
that doesn't make sense.

HN is pro Lyft but also pro cab?

I just think HN doesn't like Uber

~~~
grzm
Please don't do this. HN is a diverse community, and you choose to be a part
of it. Casting all of HN in one bucket does a disservice to everyone.

~~~
Whitestrake
It seems that the fallacy of characterizing a large community (e.g. reddit,
HN) as a single entity capable of things like hypocrisy is becoming more and
more commonplace.

------
alkonaut
And again: "Taxi company considered by a court to be a taxi company". And this
is news.

And no, dear US, "taxi" does not mean "ride service that has a monopoly on
picking up people on the street, enforced by the use of medallions or
similar". Taxi means "A car that takes you somewhere without a preplanned
route, for money". This is why this is so bloody obvious.

In any place without a mediallion system or other enforced monopoly, there is
NO innovation in what Uber is doing! An app or surge pricing is what everyone
does. Ubers sole innovation is pretending that they aren't a taxi company so
they don't need to hire and pay their employees properly. And honestly we can
do without that innovation.

~~~
4684499
I may need you to provide the definition of innovation. Uber enables me to
call a cab even before I leave the building, it suggests a price for me, it
shows me cab's location, it sends my request to more than one cab.

~~~
TeMPOraL
That's how a taxi works, yes.

The only potentially new thing here (though not necessary invented by Uber)
was "shows me cab's location", but the remaining three? All of them were
supported since people invented telephones and portable radio transmitters.

Uber's primary innovation is, and always has been, their operations playbook,
which allowed - and still allows - them to grow a billion-dollar business
while routinely breaking the laws in front of everybody and not even trying to
hide it much.

~~~
tluyben2
But I have no interest in talking to anyone or have essays worth of
conversations where to meet and at what time and for what price. Or, like for
instance a London competition app and many cab services outside London demand;
to book n (even 24 for some) hours in advance.

------
tekkk
Here's a second-hand account of why Uber is terrible and should be regulated
heard from a finnish taxi driver a week ago:

1) Probably all of the Uber drivers are uninsured in the case of accident.
Good luck getting your hospital bill covered if that happens and insurance
company finds out you were taking an Uber.

2) There is no background check whatsoever for Uber drivers he told. They
recently added a clause that requires Uber drivers to have taxi permit (or
something similar) which is required by law but they do not actually check it
but now the legal responsibility is out of their hands. He said something in
the lines of that "bad apples" can start driving and remain much longer in
Uber's system than while driving regular taxi.

3) There has been cases in which Uber drivers haven't paid any taxes and
actually have been taking unemployment checks while driving. Sure not directly
Uber's fault but again if their drivers were regulated I'm sure it would make
checking their taxes much easier and Uber would pay pension etc. from the pay.

I think those were his main points if I recall correctly. In Finland regular
taxi is well-respected and regulated so Uber has had little luck in succeeding
to gain market share. Mostly foreign people use and drive Uber here.

~~~
rockinghigh
#1 is false. Uber has an insurance: [https://www.uber.com/newsroom/insurance-
ridesharing-uber](https://www.uber.com/newsroom/insurance-ridesharing-uber) #2
is also false. There are background checks:
[https://help.uber.com/h/6970e704-95ac-4ed3-9355-e779a86db366](https://help.uber.com/h/6970e704-95ac-4ed3-9355-e779a86db366)

~~~
tekkk
@rockinghigh #1 In paper yes it seems so. But quick googling shows me this
page [http://jukka-
pekkakukkonen.puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/223502-u...](http://jukka-
pekkakukkonen.puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/223502-uber-ja-vakuutukset) In which
the guy goes through finnish Uber TOS which states that Uber is not liable of
any damage to you or losses caused by the driver. Also because Uber drivers
have the basic insurance for personal use but not for professional the
insurance companies might decline compensation because it's against the terms
of agreement.

#2 Also I think the point the taxi driver and (consequently I) was trying to
make that Uber does not check can you actually be a professional driver. They
might check your crime record but do you think that's all what it takes to be
a taxi driver? Granted it might differ in your country but in Finland taxi
drivers are well-respected because they behave like a customer servant should.
And from what he said it seemed that Uber's process seemed a bit flaky "fill a
form and you're an Uber driver" or something like that.

Have you no trust in me? :) If you show me a non-Uber source that debunks my
claims please go ahead.

------
marenkay
Considering how Uber was apparently wanting to evade to be considered a
transportation service this is IMHO a correct decision.

Just because you're a startup/funded/unicorn does not mean that laws do not
apply.

This is pretty much the biggest thing that will change the "new economy". The
market has reached a point where rightfully so people start to wonder why IT
startups should be evading laws. They should not.

Running a business comes with duties for everyone. That is in the end in the
interest of all consumers.

~~~
chewz
I agree 100%. All this "disruption" thing is mostly about being in a grey zone
where you can cut corners, avoid paying taxes and not respect regulations. The
legal system will slowly catch up and the initial advantage will disappear. In
the end this is how economy works.

AirBnB is next I guess.

~~~
alkonaut
> AirBnB is next I guess.

I think it already started. If you sublet your apartment you are either a
landlord or a hotel service, and have to follow all the safety/fire/health/
regulations for one of those. It's pretty obvious you aren't supposed to be
allowed to just "share" your apartment for a fee, where some startup unicorn
takes a nice cut because they cornered the market with a web site.

So yes. Uber and AirBnB are innovators in the sense that they aggresively
invade legal gray areas. I think they will fundamentally change markets (e.g.
will cause taxi monopolies to be removed, or reduce the red tape hotel
businesses) - but they won't exist in a decade doing what they do now.

~~~
marenkay
There is one issue here: what Uber and AirBnB are doing is not a grey area.

Both transportation and renting are regulated markets for a reason: because we
already have experience that infrastructure related markets without regulation
will be abused.

While there are some issues in both taxi and hotel businesses, I strongly
oppose to Uber and AirBnB being a solution. Both companies apply IT methods
but none of them have contributed any fundamental improvements to
transportation or renting so far.

A real disruption should involve producing a beneficial iteration that moves
forward a topic.

\- Uber did basically invest their disruption into the return of 19th century
labour methods. \- AirBnb is basically inflating rents.

All those unicorn sparkles aside, it is probably time to look at unicorns with
a clearer view. Sustainable value is not created by lawless disruption.

~~~
xigency
> Both transportation and renting are regulated markets for a reason: because
> we already have experience that infrastructure related markets without
> regulation will be abused.

While that's true, that experience comes from a different time period. I don't
agree with the idea of exploiting unenforced laws, but this is also an issue
where the community, government, or regulatory bodies aren't reacting quickly
enough.

There's this weird dissonance where people like the new ideas and convenience,
but don't wish to revisit the rules around these industries for any reason.

If every person prefers to hail cabs from an app to get in an unmarked car,
then the city or state or whichever body should be forced to contemplate
medallions. And if people want to AirBNB, the community should find reasonable
compromises in rules that keep everyone happy.

It seems like the law makers and citizens are taking a slide, forcing judges
to evaluate crummy old laws against what look like scammy businesses that the
people love.

~~~
marenkay
> There's this weird dissonance where people like the new ideas and
> convenience, but don't wish to revisit the rules around these industries for
> any reason.

I do not think the issue is in most of these rules. Transportation has e.g.
insurance enforced. Uber evades that rules and thus endangers customers.
Willingly. And fights for continuing to do so.

The thing about Uber and AirBnB is a two-sided coin:

\- laws should never be evaded. If a company like Uber wants to see laws
change, there is a political process. But: that process can never start with
breaking the law. \- law makers need to wake up. Society is moving faster
because of the internet, thus something like a revisiting cycle for laws
should be mandatory in every industry.

But: that needs to come from us as citizens. We have to demand that every
company needs to follow laws, and use lawful processes if they want change to
be implemented.

Meanwhile, I still think companies willingly breaking laws to disrupt markets
should be punished. That includes Uber and AirBnb and many others.

------
bluewave
About time the greedy corporation start paying their drivers a living wage.
Good to see Europe fighting back as US is regressing further into plutocracy.

~~~
blocked_again
Uber drivers in Banglore makes around 50K rupees profit each month. This is
higher than many government jobs and similar to the salary of many software
developers in India.

~~~
darklajid
I've only ever ridden Uber over a period of two weeks - the last two. In
India, in Pune.

The drivers more or less all complained about Uber cutting the incentives and
margins, stating that they are making a low amount of money. Ola seems to be a
contender that many local drivers flock to?

Yes, these drivers might've lied to me. I'm just putting this anecdote against
your statement of 50k INR of profit/income: That's certainly not the
impression I got when I had discussions about just that on my rides.

~~~
rtx
They don't want more competition.

~~~
darklajid
So I'm a white German IT guy in a suit in a car in India.

There's no reason to believe that I'm going to be competing with them anytime
soon, nor is it likely that I have any locals that I'd praise Uber to if you
pick me up from a hotel.

Can't believe that they'd lie for that reason?

------
fuscy
This ruling is pretty disastrous for Uber in some countries where there is
ingrained corruption through regulation.

Take România for example: licenses are needed to operate, there is a limited
number of them, winning licenses is a black box, there is a maximum limit to
the price per kilometer, a phone operator service is required, physical
systems that monitor the ride, no credit card taxi support legislation, no
legal tipping, cars must be licensed for taxi, drivers need special taxes and
tests (some are part time weekend drivers).

In short there is a lot of improvements that Uber brings but the legislation
doesn’t cover (like GPS use) and there is no way to change those without
hurting the real taxi drivers.

------
jopsen
I'm not surprised that the American model of classifying your workers as
"self-employed sub-contractors" isn't going to work out in Europe.

On topic: Yes, taxi laws needs to be revised. But that's a political issue.

~~~
fergie
Yes, taxi laws need to be revised, but there are sound reasons for licensing
taxis operating in a city:

\- Limiting the amount of traffic on the roads

\- Ensuring that vehicles are nice enough (that there isn't a "race to the
bottom")

\- Ensuring that drivers are nice enough (qualified, not scary violent
criminals)

\- Ensuring that drivers are compelled to pick you up and drop you off no
matter who/what you are, and where you are going.

\- Ensuring that there is a central point of contact for hailing a taxi.

\- No ambiguity about who and what is a taxi with regard to parking etc.

To be sure, a lot of licensed taxi services are pretty terrible. But thats not
to say that the idea of licensed taxis is bad- its actually pretty reasonable.

Its worth noting that San Fransisco and the Bay Area was the "perfect storm"
for creating Uber about 5 years ago- you had a fairly car-dependant transport
network, an absolutely abominably terrible licensed taxi service, a lot of
local skill in making web services, access to venture capital, (relatively)
lax regulation, a healthy disregard for the working classes, and a
naively/cynically optimistic view on self driving cars. But try to transfer
those conditions to, say, a European city, and Uberization suddenly becomes a
lot more difficult.

~~~
jopsen
The only argument I've heard for licensing is coverage of rural service area.

Most of the others can be fixed by regulation of ride-sharing services.

------
thisisit
The important question is - what implication does it have beyond the
classification? Does Europe have different standards for cab firms to meet?
Like employment, fare rules?

~~~
ainiriand
Specific passenger insurance the first thing. You don't have that in Uber.
Another special regulation is that taxis pay to the city council to operate.
Uber drivers don't do that.

------
Stefstefstef
Does that mean Uber now has to listen to all taxi rules and regulation in all
of Europe?

~~~
jopsen
Taxis are regulated locally, country by country, sometimes at municipality
level.

I think most countries have already been of the opinion that Uber was a taxi
service. And hence, prosecuted any violations they've made.

I know Uber have been shutdown in multiple places. Because regulators simplify
declared that they considered it illegal.

So no, I don't think this will change much. This was probably a futile move by
Uber trying to argue regulation didn't apply.

~~~
ccozan
In Bucharest the city council just ruled that every taxi ride must go thru a
central dispatch. This made all the apps/agregators illegal, Uber included.

Some legal taxi companies say will complain, because they can't imagine that
we go back to '80s phone dispatch system, and the customers shall be able to
use their apps to book the nearest taxi based on location, what a dispatch
will not be able to do.

~~~
TeMPOraL
That's interesting, and sounds really disappointing. What are the reasons
behind that decision?

~~~
petre
Corrupt leadership inspired by the 80s "golden era". If they centralize the
system, then they could pretend bribes for issuing taxi licenses.

------
ainiriand
Yes, some taxis are a pain in the ass. But that doesn't mean that Uber should
not be playing under the same rules as everybody does, isn't it?

------
b3b0p
I have never used an Uber, Lyft or any ride share.

If any rule or requirement is needed for any and all ride sharing companies,
including taxi services and even bus drivers is they take a road test to at
least confirm they understand basic rules of the community or area they
service.

I bike or walk everywhere. I don't have a car. The problem I see and have is
almost every few minutes while biking in the bike lane in Austin, a Lyft,
taxi, or other ride share stops right in front of me in the bike lane to
either drop off or pick up people. I've even had honk at me from behind while
I'm in the bike lane because they want to use it or make a right turn.

I've talked with a couple people about this and even seen police pull these
people over. So, I am pretty sure it's not legal. I wish 2 things: 1) These
drivers are required to confirm they know the basic/general rules of the road
and 2) Police start enforcing these rules. I won't even bother mentioning that
every single driver I see pass me is texting or talking on their phones (not
hands free style).

------
CaptainZapp
"However, millions of Europeans are still prevented from using apps like ours.
As our new CEO has said, it is appropriate to regulate services such as Uber
and so we will continue the dialogue with cities across Europe. This is the
approach we'll take to ensure everyone can get a reliable ride at the tap of a
button."

This company is so full of shit!

------
PeterStuer
Surprised as the current EU administration is usually quite keen to support
the race to the bottom.

------
jister
Sure it was sugar-coated but I thought this was obvious from the beginning?

------
mickeythug
bbc.com does not have SSL? :O

------
martin_andrino
These are good news. Taxi sector is beyond screwed, we need better and cheaper
services. I’m happy to see a successful and respectful company like Uber being
the one leading the movement.

~~~
djsumdog
They provide that service by undercutting Taxis at a loss. I hope you're being
sarcastic. Uber is anything by respectful .. and successful I guess in size,
but not looking at their bottom line.

~~~
pishpash
Undercutting taxis and at a loss are two separate issues. Taxis are overpriced
in the US with or without Uber.

------
maephisto
Looks like the "Regulate Uber everywhere" trend is confirmed. Edit: I did not
mean this as a bad thing, but as something that's normal and welcomed.

~~~
Marazan
I don't see how classifying Uber as a minicab firm amounts to banning it?

~~~
nielsbot
"Banning" -> "Regulating"

------
Artlav
I still wonder why Uber is a thing. It makes no sense, it does not feel like
something capable of reliable service and it got almost no use cases.

Is it just a passing fad of some sort, like fidget spinners?

~~~
mavidser
> it got almost no use cases

You don't think calling cabs to your location, paying with your stored card,
knowing the fixed cost beforehand is a valid usecase?

~~~
ionised
Uber didn't invent these things. My local taxi places have been doing them for
years.

------
ccheng_app
for god sake, ppl are stupid. Uber just left, let those ppl use the old fancy
taxi service, they will like it!

------
forrestthewoods
As long as Uber driver count isn’t artificially constrained with $500,000
“medallions”.

How do sick days and benefits calculate when “employees” are free to work as
few or as many hours as they want? What happens if an “employee” chooses to
drive more than 40 hours in a week or 8 hours in a day?

It still seems like there needs to be a new classification for “gig economy”
workers. They’re neither normal employees nor are they independent
contractors. It’s definitely something new.

~~~
lhopki01
$500,000 medallions seems to be a US 'innovation'.

Sick days and benefits will be calculated pro rata just like they are for
people who work part time. It's not a hard system to create considering most
companies have to do it already. There will be a contract that specifies that
if you work a 40 hour week you get his much and if you work less you get that
fraction of it. I would guess the contract would specify that overages don't
accumulate more benefits but that's up to Uber to write into their contract.

The gig economy are exactly that, normal workers. Just because your work
doesn't have regular hours doesn't mean we need an entirely new classification
system.

~~~
forrestthewoods
What if I work a 60 or 80 hour work week? Do I accumulate sick days faster?
What about states that mandate 1.5x pay for every hour over 40 in a week or
every hour over 8 in a day? Can I force minimum wage waiting around at 5am in
areas with insufficient passengers?

There are no companies that "have to do it already" where employees also have
complete and total control over the number of hours they work and in what
location they work.

~~~
tom_mellior
> Can I force minimum wage waiting around at 5am in areas with insufficient
> passengers?

In the EU, legally, yes, as long as Uber's stance is that if you are logged
into the app, you are available for work and must accept fares. See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Time_Directive_2003](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Time_Directive_2003):
"The SIMAP judgment defined all time when the worker was required to be
present on site as actual working hours, for the purposes of work and rest
calculations. The Jaeger judgment confirmed that this was the case even if
workers could sleep when their services were not required."

Will Uber actually pay you minimum wage if you try this? No, they will fire
you. Or they will implement a special mode in their app saying "thank you for
trying to log in, but your services are currently not needed, so we won't let
you".

Just because you aren't aware of the many many very detailed rules in this
area, that doesn't mean that there are no rules.

------
dronemallone
By this logic, all stock traders should be considered employees of the stock
exchange they use. Uber is just like a stock exchange - a match making
service.

* Traders/riders on a transaction/ride pay the exchange/Uber for this service.

* Traders/riders are free to trade/ride as much they want to, at any hour of the day, provided there's enough liquidity in the market (surge pricing etc.)

* If a trader doesn't cut a profit on a trade, it's the trader's problem not the exchange's

* If an Uber driver doesn't drive enough to earn a living wage, it's the driver's problem not Uber's.

~~~
simion314
The problem in your logic is that different industries have different
regulation, like food industry has different rules then electronics, this
regulation were created probably after bad things happen. As a user of Uber or
classic taxi you should have same protections. Try imagine Uber for food, you
put in an app what food you want to eat and some random person will bring you
the food he cocked, the person is not qualified, the startup did not made
enough background checks, maybe he cokes in a place with rats, if you get sick
you can 1 star the person. My point is that analogies do not work that well
when you change industry, P.S. I did not downvoted you

~~~
saint_fiasco
I would totally buy the food from the random person if it was cheap,
convenient and had good user ratings.

People who can afford to only buy things with background checks and quality
control and insurance should be free to buy those things, but it's a little
mean to decide for everyone else. Some people can only afford the shitty
version.

~~~
user5994461
A random person cannot sell food to random person.

uber eats and deliveroo are only working with restaurants, they couldn't do
otherwise.

~~~
saint_fiasco
Yes they can. It happens all the time, just not through a company. Probably
not in Europe, though.

I am making a normative argument. I am aware that regulations prevent that
sort of thing for good reasons. I say that there are also good reasons for not
regulating. In everything there is a tradeoff.

~~~
simion314
Yeah, but the society calculated and decided that it is worth some extra cost
to have clean food places and personnel then have to pay with lives or medical
care. As a society we decided that this rules are better globally, even if
some individuals would risk eating expired food because is cheaper.

~~~
jpttsn
Society rarely gets its calculator out. Rule making tends to be a political
process. Oftentimes, the rules are suboptimal. The “calculation” is just a
convenient rationalization.

~~~
simion314
I assume even if I get an exact measuring function for cost vs benefits you
will find a minority that will ask to use a different measurement function.

