Hacker News Reader

Comment by cperciva | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Then why insist on better training for ride-sharing drivers than all other drivers?

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.

If the taxis have to do it, why shouldn't Uber drivers?

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.

But then why reply to my comment with yours? It seems rather off topic.

"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

I don't see that as a reasoning. I fail to see why Uber shouldn't follow the same regulations as any other taxi/car service.

Canada has training requirements for other low income jobs, and the kids take them even if your just going to work part time.

For example, you usually need to take a 1 day foodsafe course to work somewhere like mcdonalds: http://www.foodsafe.ca/courses.html

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.

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.

> Nobody gets killed if I do a bad job.

Maybe not literally, but lawyers _do_ have the power to ruin lives, just the same. Not defending you competently being just one example.

hence the 3 years of practical training

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.

Isn't the point of a drivers license to certify that you're qualified to drive on the road? Why isn't that enough?

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.

All part-time drivers have to do is out-lobby the entrenched interests? That doesn't sound like a level playing field..

It's not enough. That's why 20,000+ people die per year on the roads in the US.

>why should there be a special Uber exception? That's cronyism.

The exception seems to be going after Uber. Minivan school carpools, etc, have informally existed for a long time without requiring extra licenses.

Were they done for profit?

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?

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?

Last I checked -- which was quite a while ago, and not in Quebec -- the overwhelming majority of Uber drivers drove 20+ hours a week, often 40+.

Prohibitive seems strong to me. 35 hours of training to work 600 hours over the next two years is a 5% burden even for your very-part-time driver.

I wonder how easy it is to do the 35 hours of train. If it is a course that is only run a couple of times per year, then that's pretty prohibitive.

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.

Sure. I agree it's less attractive. I'm saying it's not prohibitive.

Prohibitive in what way? One week of training to start your fabulous new Uber lifestyle reaping serious revenue and enjoying life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com