Hacker News Reader

Comment by dpweb | Hacker News Reader

Uber providing the insurance would give them clear stats you could compare accidents, robberies, etc.. Uber vs taxis. Suspect Uber is going to compare favorably if we get to see the data. Then what is the need for current state regulation?

Govts are going to have to deal - there is huge demand for ride-sharing. Bash Uber if you want - they are right this time. Just declaring it illegal is the wrong approach - Govt and ride services need to be in negotiations to safely give people what they want for taxi services.

View on HN

The government didn't just wake up this morning and declare Uber illegal. Their ridesharing service was illegal and they set up shop anyways. There are massive downsides to the current monopolistic state of taxis in areas like Philly, and I believe the laws need to be changed to accommodate the new state of transportation. But Uber ought to be working to change the law, not breaking it in the hopes that the government eventually just gives up.

What they're doing puts drivers in the position mentioned in the article: Uber has told them they're operating legally when they are not. Whether or not the law is valid doesn't change the fact that Uber knowingly put the drivers in this position.

A driver shouldn't be checking with Uber for their legality to operate, they need to check their local laws. As an independent contractor, you run your own business. If I set up an unregulated food cart they're going to shut me down, without regard to who my suppliers or partners are.

Could make the case Uber should be blacking out the app in illegal areas, they can modify the app down to very specific areas - try Ohare airport for instance.. Not shocked whats happening in Philly. They are in an uphill battle with governments for sure, not shocked their aggressiveness. But judge them on if they pay the driver fines - that would be an important gesture on their part.

Oh I agree, if I were the one driving the car I'd like to think I'd have read every bit of local regulation on ridesharing. But if your suppliers were the ones who talked you in to driving your food truck around and their enrollment process ensured you that you were part of the legal future to delicious burrito delivery, their behavior would be at least negligent, if not outright malicious.

> But Uber ought to be working to change the law, not breaking it in the hopes that the government eventually just gives up.

Very good point and well made.

Although, could one say this model has worked with regards to the legalisation of marijuana in Colorado and elsewhere? I.e. it's illegal, but we're going to do it anyway, so we may as well legalise it and regulate it?

Sort of. In my opinion the major difference there is that the change wasn't driven by a particular corporate interest. I expect I'd feel differently about stings on ridesharing if hundreds of people individually decided it would be cool to start organizing rideshare services, and the government started running stings on them.

A similar example is content sharing. Leaving aside the debate on whether or not it should be legal, the community as a whole changed how they interacted with content and the market has begun to shift in response, with more and more content providers realizing that they need to adapt. (I know that's not happening nearly as fast as we'd like, but it is happening).

> But Uber ought to be working to change the law, not breaking it in the hopes that the government eventually just gives up.

You're missing the very real possibility that deliberately disobeying the laws is the most effective way to get the laws changed.

I am not missing that: I do not believe that to be the case. My apologies for not addressing that directly in my original comment.

Uber isn't fighting against discrimination, they aren't fighting against poverty or famine or some global crisis.

They are a business engaged in political maneuvering as part of their goal of changing the regulations in their favor. Whether we think their end goal is good or not, we shouldn't pretend that they're doing this out of altruism.

Civil disobedience and similar acts are effective tools in protesting against injustices in the government. But in using such acts as tools against any inefficient or obsolete laws, we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Please don't misunderstand. I don't mean to compare the nobility or importance of changing taxi regulations with the American civil rights movement, the Indian independence movement, or other notable historical instances of civil disobedience.

But I do not believe the civil disobedience is only effective for causes of that scale.

Sorry if I implied you were making that comparison. The comparison is my own: I do feel that civil disobedience should only be utilized for things of that scale.

For things where the dispute is over efficiency or cleaning out obsolete laws or correcting over/under-regulation, actual political involvement applies. Campaign vigorously, support and send candidates who feel passionately about your cause, withhold support from those who do not. Hold rallies, organize protests. Be involved.

But disobeying laws that were enacted via legal means and do not violate human rights crosses a line.

Imagine you're upset because your ISP charges massive prices and their quality of service is terrible (like this would ever happen). Contacting their support, reaching out to their corporate office, blogging about their poor service, and taking them to court over broken SLAs are all valid things to do. Refusing to pay your bill because the service is subpar is not.

It's not a perfect analogy, but hopefully it does a better job describing why I draw the line where I do.

> But disobeying laws that were enacted via legal means and do not violate human rights crosses a line.

But I do think these taxi laws blatantly violate human rights.

>But Uber ought to be working to change the law, not breaking it in the hopes that the government eventually just gives up.

Abiding by the law is not how any significant social movement has worked - ever.

There is huge demand for cheap ad-hoc transit.

The problem then is changing the regulatory framework - reduce barriers to entry and the need for Uber per se vanishes. That said, industrial-scale corporate civil disobedience is extremely unlikely to be the most socially-optimal way to achieve this.

> That said, industrial-scale corporate civil disobedience is extremely unlikely to be the most socially-optimal way to achieve this.

Might not be the most optimal way, but on the other hand, it might be the only way to change things. The traditional approach would be to go to regulators, hat in hand, and say "Please sir, can I disrupt the system?," and get the answer, "No, of course not. Now sod off." By demonstrating a working, superior system to consumers, you now have regulators in the position not of giving permission, but of taking away a preferred option.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com