You want disruption? Try this: Uber office raided again, staff cuffed An Uber employee has been arrested for allegedly obstructing a police raid in Amsterdam in the Netherlands earlier today (Thursday). The taxi-booking app is illegal in Euro nation – but the company behind the software has been running the service regardless, earning the ire of not only cabbies but also the authorities. Last …
Uber is facilitating illegal activity by enabling unlicensed drivers to pick up fares. That's the long and the short of it.
Quite a lot of countries regulate taxi drivers to ensure safety. That means enforcing a sensible level of vehicle maintenance and liability insurance and sometimes background checks. Uber seems to really dislike following those rules, that's all, and trying clever dodges AFTER being warned off and fined is not going to impress authorities. Hence the raid. There is a limit on the fine on the current activity, but I suspect the Dutch authorities are now so pissed off they're probably looking for something that will produce a more juicy fine or maybe even jail time, hence the raids. Arrogance is never a good stance when you're dealing with a legal system, I think Google is starting to discover that too.
Oh, and as for how safe you are with Uber:
Joe Sullivan joins the biz, currently valued at $40bn, from his job as chief security officer at Facebook
Yeah, given that pedigree you can rest assured that your personal details are safe...
Something to do with protecting old business models and cushy jobs, let's see that would include news media, publications, music, advertising, video distribution, taxi service, hotels, taxpayer supported jobs-for-life, am I missing anything..... ?
There are a lot of dinosaurs out there trying to stop the future, I predict they will lose.
@ac
Whilst you might be right about the existing industry being overprotected dinosaurs, it should be pretty clear by now that Uber make a pretty crap poster child.
They may be challenging the existing models, but the company is clearly a walking nightmare.
From security to data-mining, they don't seem capable of operating in a manner that is in the interest of consumers.
The appears to be a bunch of incompetent, over-litigous data-sucking assholes, but hey they're challenging the status quo so it's all forgiven right?
The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.....
Something to do with protecting old business models and cushy jobs, let's see that would include news media, publications, music, advertising, video distribution, taxi service, hotels, taxpayer supported jobs-for-life, am I missing anything..... ?
Nice try, but that theory doesn't work in this case as there are alternatives such as Lyft that don't seem to have all those problems. It is certainly true that some cities run little monopolies around taxi management, but you can break those monopolies without immediately veering into knowingly encouraging and even promoting illegal activity. Unfortunately, that little fact appears to be lost on Uber who is employing the classic business model of "permissible is that which you don't get caught for".
Well, they got caught, and methinks they protest too much. Their tactics in that respect speak volumes for their attitude, such as planning to dig for dirt on opposing journalists.
So here's a parallel. In the United States (and most of the world), opiates are highly regulated. Many are completely illegal, many are controlled. If you have a license to produce and sell opiates, such as a pharmaceutical company, it is legal. Selling something like heroin, or pharmaceutical opiates unlicensed, is illegal. Making an app facilitating said sales would also be illegal. Apps like instagram where this occurs despite it not being the intention of the app are not illegal. This is why Uber is "illegal software" in places where cabs are highly regulated.
Yeah that's the trouble with solutions like Uber....
It's a gateway drug to all sorts of terrible things like better service, customer satisfaction, competition, customer choice, and the efficient use of excess or spare capacity.
It MUST be BANNED before everyone becomes addicted and society grinds to a complete halt....
Our dear govt can and has done already.
The current issue is a separate offense, where Uber is "non-cooperative" in providing details in exactly how much rides they're facilitating in this way. The arrest is about one person flat-out refusing to cooperate with the court order.
We're Dutch. Laws are ...interpretable.. But you really don't want to mess with a court order.
You'll find that taxis are strictly licensed mainly for safety and honesty - there are still plenty of fake taxi companies at work in London that will rip off tourists. If you take a ride in an unlicensed and uninsured taxi you will receive very little compensation for injury. Uber et al are trying to jump on their bandwagon not a legal one.
You'll find that taxis are strictly licensed mainly for safety and honesty - there are still plenty of fake taxi companies at work in London that will rip off tourists. If you take a ride in an unlicensed and uninsured taxi you will receive very little compensation for injury. Uber et al are trying to jump on their bandwagon not a legal one.
You can set standards without unduly constraining market participants who follow the rules. What's happening here in the US is that a lot of places have established taxi operators who bid on a limited number of medallions, badges, licenses, etc, with the entire "fee" going into the city's coffers.
Rather than let the established market participants play in a walled garden, free from competition, it seems easier to require that anyone operating as a car-for-hire must carry commercial insurance of a certain amount and leave it to the insurance carriers to require a certain level of proof before they extend a policy. If you want to operate a car-for-hire service where you provide the cars (as many cab companies do today, though often on lease or for a fee), then the carrier should insure the business owner and require them to check, certify, maintain, and validate the drivers. If Uber or any other peer-to-peer service wants to play, they should make the Ts & Cs clear for both sides that insurance is required and that the transaction is between the driver and the passenger.
In some cases, there is something to be said for giving market participants enough rope to hang themselves with...
You can set standards without unduly constraining market participants who follow the rules. What's happening here in the US is that a lot of places have established taxi operators who bid on a limited number of medallions, badges, licenses, etc, with the entire "fee" going into the city's coffers.
And that seems to be the fallacy of many comments coming from the left side of the Pond. "That is how the taxi business works in America, so it must be the same (and corrupt) in the rest of the world."
So many commenters automatically assume that the reason Uber is getting into trouble in other parts of the world has nothing to do with the fact that the drivers don't have the relevant driving licences, insurance etc. but that it is protectionism by the taxi drivers and the government in collusion.
As somebody who lived and worked in London for a while, I would assume that New York, Boston, LA etc. taxi drivers go through rigorous training, have to know the streets of their city like the back of their hand and don't need modern technology like a SatNav to get from A to B.
(As an aside, I took my step-daughter to the airport yesterday and she was astounded that I just got in the car and set off to the airport. She asked me where the SatNav was. She seemed to think it is nearly impossible to drive so far without a SatNav to guide you.)
Can't have a free market taking away municiple licence income and disrupting taxi cartells, can we?
It is hardly a money making exercise, indeed I know my own local council doesn't even cover its costs. It is a service for public safety. You might want a 5% discount on your taxi fare but personally I'd rather spend that money to ensure that someone I care for (girlfriend, wife or daughter) is as safe as possible when they need to get home late at night.
You don't. That says more about you than the merits of the licensing system.
Which is not to say the system is run fairly in councils. Taxis are subject to 6 month inspections (in the UK) which are stricter than an MOT and must be kept clean at all times. The registration of Taxi vehicles and particularly new drivers is subject (by reputation) to abuse. Many areas have a large incumbent which uses dubious methods to attract drivers and deter competition.
Then there is the monopoly system that the councils promote. This is done for the benefit of the companies not the customer. In a free market the council would plate up as many people as want to apply and are good drivers with a good vehicle. They would also support companies which offer a discount over the standard rates but many councils discourage this. A company offering a 10% discount (as one company local to me did) was stopped from doing this by the council.
London's knowledge system is out of date in the modern world. Other regions use a system that links the satnav to the billing system and provides a proven price which can even be offered up front. As it is, its really just protectionism.
I always found it strange that a system designed for safety didn't require that it's drivers attained a higher driving qualification than any other driver, as is required for say HGV. I would certainly prefer it if my driver had an advanced qualification and that seems a better 'restriction' to entry than the knowledge.
My BIL is a taxi driver in Hampshire btw. To be fair, I don't recommend it as a career.
@damworker:
In the UK, there's a difference between "taxi" and "private hire".
If you phone up and book, that's "private hire". They can charge what they like. It's quite reasonable for you to phone around several private hire companies if you want to get the cheapest price, especially for longer journeys. And if you have a bad experience you're likely to use a different "private hire" company next time. So the free market mostly works - the councils set some basic safety standards, does regular safety checks and leave the rest to the market.
However, if you hail a taxi without having an advance booking, that needs a "taxi" license, which is stricter. In that case, you're going to hail the first cab that drives past, or take the first one in line at the taxi rank. Taxi journeys also tend to be shorter and cheaper - you're not going to hop in a taxi and get them to take you from Manchester to London, you'd book a "private hire" instead. It's not reasonable for the average punter to compare taxi prices - and if you tried that at a busy taxi rank you'd delay everyone in the queue behind you. So the council sets prices, and all taxis have to charge the same, . To avoid discrimination, the council often requires all or many taxis to be wheelchair-accessible. The council can also be really picky about the models of car, either for practical reasons or due to the area's "image". E.g. Bristol taxis are all painted Bristol Blue partly so they can be easily identified and mostly for "image" reasons; London taxis are famous for being "black cabs" so they are usually black and have only a couple of models of cars allowed. In return for taxi drivers jumping through those hoops, the council limits the number of taxi licenses to help taxi drivers make money. If a taxi driver is going to invest in a new taxi to the council's spec, they need to know they'll be able to drive it profitably for 3-5 years.
Note that all "taxi" drivers are allowed to do "private hire", if you pre-book, and can charge what they like in that case (although if you haven't agreed a price, it will be the standard metered fare).
And I have been threatened with violence when the "agreed fare" was not to the drivers liking (he got lost, didn't know the way, underestimated distance, I DONT care).
Of course, being 2 fit males (2 girls in tow) we told the driver to seek guidance where the sun doesn't shine and took off.
Yes, threw the notes for the agreed fare on floor, then took off just to be clear....
I'll say it again, the Uber app is very good at what it does (as I am sure is Lyft which a friend used to cart us around San Fran).
Why don't the taxi firms buy it?
P.
Still smacks of an barrier to trade creating a cartel to me. And as part of that whole globalization thing, there aren't supposed to be barriers to trade in services anymore at least not between the United States and the European Communities.
Now, if Uber isn't abiding by relevant health and safety regulation or requiring their drivers to do so, there's an issue and a legitimate one. But preserving a taxi driver's job is not one of them. If they offer a competitive service, they have nothing to worry about. If they do not, then too freaking bad and maybe they should, instead of getting protectionism legislated.
It would be a barrier if they will refuse to sell a license to Uber drivers but if I remember correctly, in almost every country on Earth anyone can apply for that.
Uber should stop being a multibillion dollars multinational trying to act as a small shop doing occasional pick-ups for a modest fare.
There's no barrier except that Uber are supposed to... you know.... comply with local legislation and get a license.
Whether or not there's protectionism going on doesn't really factor in to that. If local laws specify that Uber need to do something, they have 2 options
- comply
- challenge the legislation
What they can't do, is pretend that the legislation doesn't apply to them and operate any way.
Unfortunately, that's what they seem to have been doing.
We don't tolerate the likes of Kraft coming over here and saying "well the food standards requirements are lower in the US, so we're going to ignore the UK standards". Why would this be any different?
To operate in a country, you need to comply with their laws, even if you think the laws are backwards
And as part of that whole globalization thing, there aren't supposed to be barriers to trade in services anymore at least not between the United States and the European Communities.
There are no barriers to trade, as long as companies operate within the law of the lands where they do business.
If a Dutch company decides that, because they can openly sell marijuana in coffee shops in Holland, they would have a rude awakening if they tried to do that in most parts of America. Where is the globalisation there?
I work for a software company and we do business all over the world, but we have to follow local legislation when implementing financial and ERP software in other countries. There is nothing stopping us doing business in those countries, as long as we follow the rules and regulations that are set in place. That often means jumping through a lot more hoops (Russia), but in some other countries (Poland, Hungary), it means that the rules are less tight than at home, so there are fewer problems to deal with than in our own highly regulated home market.
Today, the company announced it was hiring its first Chief Security Officer.
This cloudy technology company, in this day and age, spent its first SIX YEARS without a chief security officer.
And there's any sort of surprise that their driver database has been compromised and their user database likely has been as well?
They're legally not hacks, but they're certainly looking more and more like hacks.
Do keep in mind that these are just labels. They may well have had someone tasked with the equivalent of the job and called it something else or nothing in particular - and I'm certainly not impressed by the act itself of sticking labels on things. That said, I have obviously no idea how much of that job was being done (or not) before by anyone at Uber.
Too many people are assuming the licensing actually in reality improves safety or quality. New York taxi cartels said the same thing and had the same sort of laws. But it turns out people love Uber and want their service. What is the argument for denying someone the freedom to do business without a guild license or taxi medallion or whatever they call it? This is just taxi cartels. This is crony capitalism. If Uber has a bad service, let them go out of business on merit. Hitting Uber over the head with regulations designed to prevent disruptive innovation is just thuggery.
I think the difference is that the perception in New York is that you're not actually safer in a licensed taxi than you are in an unlicensed one; the cars don't seem to be well maintained, the drivers don't seem to be regulated. (It may not be true - I'm talking about perception). Hence, Uber is popular in New York - you can get cheaper fares.
Whereas in London (and presumably Amsterdam) the perception is that you definitely ARE safer - the taxis ARE well maintained; the drivers ARE regulated.
Personally, I would never use Uber.
If you try Uber just once, with a prepaid visa , give a fake name (I do) , via their website and report back.
I have had bigger nightmares getting random taxis in London, France, Italy, Poland(!!!!!), NYC, Florida, than so far with Uber.
The point about Uber/Lyft etc.. is that you can share your trip and immediately give feedback if something is wrong.
There is a lot of FUD out there, but either way there is *some* risk getting a stranger to drive you anyway.
For that matter, there is a risk from some people you might actually know...!!!!
P.
@Martin: I support your choice to not use Uber. If you believe the London cabs are better, or you prefer Pepsi or Coke, good for you. But let the customer decide. As far as I'm aware Uber doesn't force many people to use their service at gunpoint. If their service sucks, nobody will use it. If their insurance is inadequate for your liking, don't use their service. What's really happening here is that we're preventing customer choice. We're pretending to know what the customer wants better than the customer does. We're using government to stifle disruptive innovation. Let people choose on their own. Let London cabs advertise how much better trained their drivers are, how great their insurance is, etc. And then let the customer decide for themselves.
I'll disagree.
Let's say you go to a kebab stall. The kebabs taste great, & they are cheap - cheaper than the other shop down the road.
The stand is cheaper because they don't pay rent. Ok, you can live with that. The council gets no money, but that's ok by you, you get a cheaper service.
And the food tastes great! They mix extra offal in. You don't know where they get it, you aren't an offal-and-pig-brain expert, are you? And they've got a halal symbol.
Then you get ill. You get tested, & hey, it is a rare disease. But that's ok - your kebab was cheaper, & most people were fine, right? Because you can't sue them - the name has changed, & it's in another lay-by now, with a different guy working there. And besides, it turns out he doesn't have insurance or a health certificate either. Just more of those cheap tasty meat patties.
(That was an analogy. Uber + driver are the tax dodging uninsured stand.)
I do not know the details of the situation in NY, but many places in Europe (and I here include the islands to the NW of France) the difference between a licensed taxi and a private car is:
- you have to pass an additional test to drive a taxi. In DK it is a harder driving test, in London you have to know the roads, there may be variations elsewhere. Perhaps background checks; you can loose the taxi drivers license for assault etc?
- taxi insurance is quite different from regular car insurance. You have liability to the passengers, in a private car they are there on their own risk.
Most places the driver's license is open, but the number of cars is regulated. This is historically because an oversupply presses drivers and give more bad behaviour, threats, overcharging, "scenic" routes", what have you.
A taxi is an environment where you have to trust the driver, and where official licences of drivers and vehicles gives you a way of getting back to drivers who go off the straight and narrow. I am sure this is abused by incumbents in a lot of places, but this does not change the fundamental reasons for the existence of regulations.
As I see it, Uber is just trying to ignore this and pretend the rules do not apply to them.
This post has been deleted by its author
The next case from the dutch government will call it an "economisch delict" which translates into economic crime, and that can be punishable with prison time. Alternative measure/punishment for such a crime can be "bestuursdwang", which basically means that the government kicks the CEO out of his chair, takes the seat, and implements the measures the court has ordered, and sends the bill to the company.
Ah yes, economic crime and economic sabotage, as I recall, that worked really well back in the Stalinist era.... hope those Uber execs don't get the gulag or sent to a firing squad.
I always thought the Netherlands was a progressive country with an intelligent, well-educated population and some serious entrepreneurial spirit.
Maybe I am just out of touch or not paying attention.... Apparently nanny-state economics, protectionism, crony capitalism, predatory state action and high unemployment will continue to be the state sponsored agenda for the 21st century.
with a physical presence.
I don't understand the reasoning for having a bricks and mortar presence in these countries when it seems to me that all the action takes place in the cloud.
The drivers and passengers obviously have to be in-country but the booking, tracking and charging mechanism could be anywhere. (ie. outside of unfriendly fire).
Just to explain this a bit....
If Uber had only offered UberBLACK and UberLUX, basically nothing would have happened. These are services provided by qualified, insured taxi drivers and the Dutch authorities were (basically) pretty happy with that.
However, Uber also offered UberPOP in which anyone with a normal driving license and "reasoable" car can provide.
This is illegal in the Netherlands, just in the same way that someone can't just stick a "TAXI" sign on their car and wait until someone sticks out their arm. It's pretty common in most cities in the world that you can't just do that. You certainly can't do it in any city in the UK either, for example.
Why not? Well.... insurance for one thing, vehicle safety for another. It's actually pretty sensible.
So, it's really nothing really to do with technology that makes this particular service illegal.
They were warned. They were fined. Their drivers were fined. But they just kept on doing it. At a certain point the boys in blue (well, actually in new trendy black and yellow shirts over here) come around and arrest you.
I thought 'being an inconvenient nuisance' got you 4 to 10 if found guilty these days and your name on a secret blacklist otherwise.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/08/police-colluded-blacklist-construction-workers-consulting-association-union-activists
As an ex-South African, I can't understand all this fuss about safe taxis ...
I'm not a great fan of Uber as a business model but at the same time you have to be careful of established interests using spurious arguments to suppress a disruptive business model. There was a court ruling recently in California that sent a shot over the bows to professional licensing bodies, clearly delineating between a professional standards organization and a cartel -- too many of these standards organizations, ones who've been given the power to regulate trade in a particular field, were using their power to exclude competition. (...and they all cite 'safety' as the reason).
In this case the problem is that taxis should be using the Uber application. They can't because Uber takes rather a large slice of the revenue (50%?) which would make the business uneconomic. That's why Uber's business based around private cars and non-commercial drivers -- the PR front talks about 'sharing' but in reality people are working practically full time on this (the company's enabling them) and so they're really just yet more independent contractors on zero hours employment contracts. I can understand the taxi drivers being a bit annoyed about this -- anyone can compete with you if they don't have the overhead that your business needs to be in business legally -- but at the same time they need to understand and embrace the technology.
The taxi industry simply failed to innovate. I used a local taxi company to get to my office a couple of weeks ago. I had to call, speak to someone who struggled to understand what I wanted and then wait for the cab which was promised in 10 minutes and arrived 40 minutes later. The cab was a 10 year old Crown Victoria with plastic seats, a broken suspension and an undefinable 'aroma'. Driver got lost and I ended up being a human sat nav.
This morning I booked with Uber for the same trip. Car arrived in 13 minutes and I was able to track it on my smart phone so I was stood by the gate when it arrived. Car was new, clean and the journey was quick and uneventful.
And it was cheaper.....
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
