France Says It Will Ban Uber’s Low-Cost Service in New Year | Hacker News Reader

France Says It Will Ban Uber’s Low-Cost Service in New Year

nytimes.com

157 pointsMaxQuentero138 comments

In my (only a few days) experience with UberPop in Paris... it was horrible. I've used Uber (various service types) in a few cities, and most of all use them regularly in London. I think I'm close to adding them to my list of companies I just don't want to give business to, but that's a whole other barrel of worms.

I spent a week in Paris last month, and while I'd normally ignore an UberPop level, my hotel was down a straight road to the place I was going every day that week, and with UberPop I exactly hit the minimum (€4), whereas paying more than double that I felt guilty enough to walk the 10-15min..

I don't think I've ever had such consistently bad experiences with any taxi service, be it modern or old, global or local. All the UberPop drivers had no GPS, or GPS that didn't work. All had trouble finding me to collect, despite Uber's seemingly straight-forward system. I had to give directions (not just "my hotel's round the next corner", but directions for full longer journeys), luckily my French is just good enough...

After a few trips I stopped trying to save money and went back to UberX and UberBerline. All sorted after that (a couple of language-caused issues, but that's my fault for being English in Paris and not speaking French as well as I'd like!)

What's the difference between UberPop and UberX?

UberPop are unlicensed taxis in private cars masquerading as ride-shares. Which they obviously aren't, since the paying client decides the destination.

I would be surprised if UberPop is still in operation anywhere in Europe by the summer of 2015. It's patently illegal on multiple fronts.

Some governments are open to providing a regulatory framework (one that covers safety and consumer protection), especially in places where the taxi market is dysfunctional, but Uber's "fuck your laws, we'll do it anyway" attitude is extremely counterproductive in that respect.

UberX is a professional limousine service, and in most places they operate they abide by the rules. (Which also means they're not particularly cheaper than regular taxis.)

I am a consumer (of UberPop among other transport solutions) and I am (genuinely) not understanding: agreed it's not ride-shares, but why is there laws that make non-ride-shares so complicated? UberPop is simple, for the driver, the consumer and it drives the costs down, this sounds really nice to me.

If it's only about safety and consumer protection, well shouldn't it be a consumer choice anyway? (agreed it's easy for me, a male above 30 to tell this... and despite the bad experiences I also had in Paris with UberPop although my drivers had GPSes - one had 2 of them, was confused as hell and should certainly be looking more at the road) Just like I do when I choose real ride-shares (i.e. not UberPop. We have blablacar in France for example which is hitchhiking through the internet).

It seems that, in France, politics made a huge mistake coming up with horrendously expensive (apparently 200k to 300k EUR) taxi licenses and now some people are at risk to pay for those mistakes, namely people who have recently invested in one of this license. Cause even if UberPop is banned, VTC (Vehicule de Tourisme avec Chauffeur) are now legal and make those licenses quite useless (or at least the investment isn't nearly as justified as before).

It's obvious to me that the law have to go in the direction of new technology or the consequences will be quite disastrous. I agree that Uber's attitude seems a bit harsh but I would thanks them for any induced (political) changes in the direction of technology.

EDIT: didn't know the adverb "patently" was not referring to patents, thanks dminor for teaching me english :) (I'm french obviously :/)

The idea behind regulating personal transportation, aka taxis is because of the big external effects. If there was a free, unregulated market for taxis, obviously fares would be much lower and there would be much more taxis on the streets. However this in turn decreases the experience for the individual passenger (more traffic leads to longer rides) and much more importantly causes traffic lags for all other users of the road - most notably for the transportation of goods. So while a completely liberated taxi market might work out for the passengers (especially outside of rush hours) it most likely won't work out for the economy at large. This is an inherent problem when you have a liberal market (transportation) which uses a publicly owned good (the streets) which can't be priced appropriately (or only in a limited way - see London).

> If there was a free, unregulated market for taxis, obviously fares would be much lower and there would be much more taxis on the streets.

Why are you guessing? There is real data on this.mThere used to be regulated pricing for taxis in Stockholm, Sweden. Now it is an unregulated market ("free" as they like to call it).

The result is well documented. Prices remain the same, availability is up, but overall it's been an unpopular change. Any of the independent riders will rip off tourists at the first chance they get, scamming them for as many thousand dollars they can get away with, by inventing complicated fee structures. Police will do nothing as it is (currently) legal.

But doesn't fewer taxis also mean longer waiting times to get a taxi, and encourage an increase in private car ownership, replacing taxis on the road with private drivers driving themselves?

Won't one Uber driver replace many cars on the road, especially as the price is driven down, the cost of using Uber makes owning a car less appealing in many locales?

Rather than ban Uber, they could just implement taxes, just like Uber implements real time surge pricing. The tax could be tied to congestion. Uber would pass these onto consumers, prices would rise, and presumably demand for drivers would equalize with how much time and money people collectively would be willing to pay.

I agree; real time surge pricing for congested roads would be the optimal solution. But just imagine the outcry in the population when you try to implement road charges for all inner city roads. This is another example of an economically perfectly sound concept which is in many parts of the world politically completely unfeasible (at least for the moment). On top of that, couldn't you argue that transportation is a basic human right? If so, you would have to either discriminate against the poor or adjust the rates based on income, which again makes this a politically very hot and difficult topic.

Idea: In the same way that the Alaska Permanent Fund has created a vocal pro-industry constituency out of nothing (aka the residents of Alaska, who are paid from extractive revenues), maybe we could drum up political support by distributing the revenues directly to the people. As in, "Dear Mr. Smith, you live here, therefore here is your monthly check for your share of the dynamically-priced congestion tax revenues that we collected on your behalf. Have a nice day."

That might be more palatable than "We invisibly 'lowered' your tax bill elsewhere, Mr. Smith."

> real time surge pricing for congested roads would be the optimal solution.

Except where people are too poor to afford surge pricing, even though they may need to travel just as much as anyone else.

Libertarianism is great right up to the point where you actually need something you can't afford, like medical care or travel to a job. Then it's pretty much a big FU because you're not profitable.

This comes up every time someone suggests pricing a scarce good (either with Pigovian taxes or privatizing a scarce resource), but it has an easy solution: [p]rebate everyone the amount of tax they would pay for poverty level consumption of the resource. That preserves all of the incentives to cut back on a marginal unit, without penalizing someone for being poor.

Facing economic realities doesn't mean keeping staying with systems that rewards the wrong thing.

The problem is that mainstream economic theory assumes your utility to society is equal to your income and therefore discriminating based on income is an optimal strategy for society.

Of course, wages are about negotiation power, not utility. It's so misguided it's bizarre.

Interesting how you ended up reaching the libertarian conclusion. If roads were private (and in places where they are we do see this) you can change the charging fee based on time of day, congestion, etc, and optimize it in such a way as to keep the traffic flowing.

No way to do that when things are public.

Fwiw, congestion tax is already a thing: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congestion_pricing

Thanks for the insight. Seems fair to regulate publicly owned goods. Maybe the problem is that the regulation is too dumb? For example it could encourage taxis at night (like many have said Paris at night is terrible and taxis are way too expensive), or be based on congestion like cromwellian suggested?

I find it extremely hard to believe that an artificial shortage reduces externalities.

Politics didn't make taxi medallion expensive, they gave it free, it's supply and demand that made them expensive[1]. Taxi are not useless, not everyone is able to use and app on his smartphone and some people want the simplicity to hail a cab. But the taxi license starts to decrease. Banning UberPOP is about consumer protection because VTC or taxis are professional that had an exam, special insurance, they pay there taxes, unlike UberPOP which is about transferring the costs on insecure workers and unsustainable jobs that don't take in account of all the costs of doing this job.

[1] : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxis_parisiens#Le_prix_de_la_l...

Thanks, so apparently they limit the number of licenses causing those horrendous prices? In that case it seems to me they are still at the root of the problem and should fix it now that it has surfaced (paying back licenses that where purchased shortly before the VTC law for example).

If you ask me, we are way to focus on sustainable job in France. Unemployed people need to start somewhere. Which is far more easy if you are from the UK or the USA.

I think that paying back would a way to go out of this system. But the loser will be the tax payer. When the state/politics decided to give licences for free (a long time ago) and then let the offer and the demand decide the price, they created a speculative bubble: every buyer expected to resell it for at least the same price or make a profit (often a big one). Now, if this market is opened to more actors, the lasts to buy will get a big debt out of their deal and may be in a bad position for the rest of their life.

For me the ones to blame are those politics who created this situation. Concerning the taxi drivers who made a big profit, why should they be blamed for a system the state has put in place? (well, I do for being so greedy and making the taxi a transportation for affluent people)

Note also that taxi drivers are well known for hidding parts of their revenues (proof or source: none). Because of that, taking the taxi is really the last resort for me.

> The word "patent" sounds especially weird to me in that context. Are they seriously "patents" for taxiing people?

"Patently" is a synonym for "obviously" - nothing to do with patents.

This is one of those funny cases where the etymological connection has been a bit obscured by time. Patents are called such because they are "open letters" disclosing the invention. Patent : Open :: Latent : Hidden.

Of course in this case it's patent that patent disclosures are not what is being referred to. :-)

Just saw your comment: Thanks for the insight! Now that I understood the root causes and laughed at the related word play, I won't forget anymore :)

>> "If it's only about safety and consumer protection, well shouldn't it be a consumer choice anyway?"

Ideally BUT it's unlikely the consumer will have the full information to make that choice. Is the taxi going to provide it and wait until they've read it and made an informed decision?

> UberX is a professional limousine service

That sounds like Uber/UberBlack to me. UberX is still citizen drivers in their own cars doing it in their own time. I highly doubt they are professionally licensed.

I'm not the person you're replying to, but from a consumer point of view UberX feels like a limo service (in Paris, London..)

In London for example, if you didn't know anything about the company, you wouldn't know the UberX drivers were any different to more traditionally set-up private firms like Addison Lee. Whereas UberPop in Paris felt like getting a ride from an amateur.

Huh, that's interesting. Over here (Seattle), UberX feels more like Paris' UberPop (citizen drivers, their cars, however still some regulation by Uber) and UberBlack is the full on towncar service that's professionally licensed (and most of them run private car services on the side).

This varies depending on geography. In some cities UberX are regular citizen drivers, but in others UberX are professional drivers.

Here in New York all UberX cars, and their drivers, are licensed in the same category as black cars and limos.

UberPop drivers are regular people like you and me. UberX drivers are professional "tourist drivers".

Huh. So in San Francisco, UberX are citizen drivers, UberBlack are professional limo drivers, and there is no UberPop.

In Paris (I think, again anecdotal and I only used UberPop on my most recent trip to Paris) UberX are "citizen drivers", but meeting semi-professional standards in both their service and their vehicle. UperPop, at least feels to the consumer, like someone with a small car clicked a button saying "yep I can do this" and voila, off they go.

yeah uberx are still following uber's guidelines and are pretty professional. if they fuck up too much uber terminates their license.

uberpop is basically everyone and their dog, ie this is closer to real ride sharing.

So in the US Uber is what UberX is in France and UberX in the US is what UberPop is in France? Really weird, wonder why they would do that?

It's not really that, it's the car class. UberPOP is anything compact or subcompact, sometimes limiting to 2 passengers. UberX is a 4-door sedan. UberPOP is not launched in the US - you can only start driving for Uber with a 4-door sedan or higher.

If your workplace was just 10-15 minutes away, straight down the road I just don't understand why you didn't took the countless public transport opportunities.

Paris has IMHO one of the most affordable and pleasant metros I've ever used in Europe. I'd almost like to guarantee you that you would have reached your goal faster, cheaper and more relaxed if you'd taken the metro!

Not cheaper or more relaxed! Between my hotel and Porte de Versailles (the convention center) was literally one straight road, with a one-way system.

Was 15-20 minutes to walk it (Google Maps says 18min), under 5 minutes to drive in one direction, 5-10min the other (due to one-way road).

Metro was easy sure, 300m to nearest station, then 2 stops on one line to Porte de Versailles - but that takes fractionally more time than a taxi, and is less pleasant than either a taxi or walking. I think 5 nights in that hotel and I probably walked it 60% taxi'd 40% - don't think I used the metro once.

Overall however I agree with your praise of the Paris metro. That said, I've been to Paris probably every other month for the past couple of years, and 50+ times in my life, and use 90% taxis... because they're easier, because the cost difference to me is non-existent (company credit card) and because most of my trips to Paris are cramming in meetings and therefore time between them relaxed in the back of a car with my laptop out catching up on emails is much needed.

Man. As a Parisian, I don't know what to think of this. Our public transport is quite good, but there's pretty much nothing running at night, apart for Taxis, and Parisian taxis are a rip off.

France can be quite reactionary when it comes to think like this, and it's a shame. Wish they'd thought of ways to incorporate this technology and democratise the system as opposed to a good old knee-jerk.

As a french, I wonder how this law will affect other car pooling services, such as blablacar. I use them quite frequently to move, as it's a lot cheaper than train, and you can chat with the driver.

Well,the difference is ride-sharing is more or less tolerated,if it's not for profit. Very few people offering shared rides make money out of it.It's usually paid,because it's more about sharing expenditure.

UberPop,on the other hand,is a private taxi service.It's not about someone saying he goes to Nantes and has room for 4 people,for a 15€ fee.

Given the price of the train,the development of ride sharing and inter region bus travelling(which was still illegal a few years ago),is a good thing.

I cant believe how insanely expensive the train is today.The SNCF also stopped providing a lot of services (low cost train,stations,...)they deemed not profitable enough just to push for the high speed rail.in 2005,you could do Paris-Nantes for 15€. It took 4 hours,but who cares.

Today,it's 50 up to 100€ + if you dare book a trip on the same day you're travelling.

Ride-sharing is not tolerated, it's specifically authorized by law - with a legal framework to make it viable.

What's more or less tolerated (for now) is some ride-sharing drivers inflating prices above the legal limit to make a small buck.

> inter region bus travelling(which was still illegal a few years ago)

Wait, this was illegal? Wtf, why?

Blablacar will not be affected by the law, because it is carpooling. You're not paying for a service, you're sharing the cost of the ride.

Most of blablacar drivers do not respect the law regarding this. The rules for computing the cost of a ride are fairly rigid. For instance, the toll price cannot be taken into account. Here are the rules : http://droit-finances.commentcamarche.net/faq/4835-bareme-ki...

Since there is no traditional long distance car service threatened by it (the SNCF isn't worried for the moment), I'd say blablacar is safe.

ps: music band tribute username ?

True that they don't annoy any powerful union, or company.

(nope, Vampire the Masquerade tribute username ;) )

I would say that the SNCF actually is worried by Blablacar and other companies. See their extensive PR campaigns about their own (inferior) ride-sharing services.

Ha, I'm too disconnected, I never saw these services. 'idvroom' name doesn't ring much but time will tell. They fishing for low hanging fruits, they have other problems to deal with instead...

Why doesn't the Metro run later in Paris? If I remember correctly from my last visit there around 2005 the Metro shutdown at 1 or 2AM.

Maintenance? Cost? Politics? All of the above? It seems odd for a truly world-class city such as Paris to not have a 24/7 subway system.

Very few cities have 24/7 subway service. NYC is pretty much the only one I can think of. German cities generally have 24 hour service on the weekends, but not through the week.

A few others: Chicago, Philadelphia, Copenhagen. I am a bit biased, but I think Copenhagen has the best service in that regard. Almost any main transit route runs 24/7: the metro, the 9 'A' trunk bus routes, most of the commuter-rail 'S-train' lines, and even the international 'Øresundståg' train service to Malmö. It makes a nice difference in peace of mind, because you never have to worry about being stranded anywhere.

Stockholm have comparable service level during nights as well. Although some smaller trains don't run for a few hours during the night, even on weekends.

Philadelphia has VERY little 24 hour service. Last I checked two bus routes operate along the same path as the 'orange' and 'blue' subway lines and nothing else. The regional rail service shuts down by midnight.

Ah sorry, I misread. It looks like there is 24-hour subway service, but only on weekends, with bus replacements on Sun-Thu: http://www.septa.org/service/all-night.html

In Chicago we have 24 hour service on the most popular subway routes (the red and blue lines). Several of the busiest bus routes are 24 hours as well.

London and Tokyo are both also not 24/7 (although London announced a couple of months ago that some central lines would move to 24/7 in the next few years I think).

London Underground will also be 24 hours on Friday and Saturday nights only, again due to requirement for maintenance timeslots. More info http://www.tfl.gov.uk/campaign/tube-improvements/the-future-...

Also note that "night service" on NYC subway can sometimes be every 20 or 30 minutes and run alternating on one track

Maintenance, it's an old metro and there is no second railway like in NY.

I'm guessing the cost of staff factors into it. Some Paris Metro lines are ATO, but still operator run. I can't speak to the SNCF lines, but I imagine since they're prone to striking...

No, it's that there is no time to do maintenance unless you have extra tracks. In NY you can close the one pair of tracks and do maintenance on the other. If you've only got dual track, then you can't do maintenance.

I use Uber in Paris - I've always wondered what the insurance was for Uberpop - and although outright banning it may be too extreme, I'm happy to see this part of the "sharing" economy more regulated.

I think Uber still has a lot going for it specifically in Paris: convenience, accepting credit cards, etc, without having to skirt around the law...

> Parisian taxis are a rip off

Well the system itself is broken with the taxis' licensing plates being over-valued..

One one hand I don't like much Uber, on the other hand it would have helped terminate this broken system..

But for the government it's much easier to ban Uber than to fix the system, especially since taxis can very easily disrupt Paris's overloaded roads..

I feel the same about Uber, had some not so good experiences with UberPop but still hope it will stop those taxi licenses jokes (apparently costing 200k to 300k EUR).

But I don't understand this decision since the government has to do something anyway because of the VTC (kind of taxis but they can't pick you up in the street, i.e. other Uber services. They do not need a taxi license) which have been authorized. A really good news for the poor fools who just invested in a taxi license...

Agreed, Taxi service in Paris is outrageously expensive. Rivaling Toronto even.

After World War II, communists, who had been on the right side of the conflict, got enormous power. This eventually percolated in the education system, and now France is left with a few generations that have been force fed progressive propaganda from an early age.

Combine that with a more ancient bend for Jacobinism and technocracy and you have the current situation. Very powerful unions who can lock down reform, and a population who polls to the left of Cuba in terms of political opinions.

Ce pays est foutu.

Ah yes, the famous French communist leaders of the post-war era: De Gaulle, Pompidou, d'Estaing...

De Gaulle had to strike a deal with the communists. They may not have been at the very top of the power, but they certainly were in governments.

What are you talking about? The only time France had communists in government was in 1981..

Nope. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gouvernement_provisoire_de_la_R...

Also the PCF had 27% of the seats in the Assemblee Constituante of the 4th republic.

> a population who polls to the left of Cuba in terms of political opinions.

This no doubt accounts for the success of the extreme right wing.

> France is left with a few generations that have been force fed progressive propaganda from an early age.

Ah, yes. Like this fantastic law about the positive effects of colonialism? Clearly, conservatives would totally above any kind of revisionism...

Anyway, good luck in your country of adoption. Hope you don't get seriously sick.

The French extreme right wing takes its root in Poujadism. The closest equivalent would be something like Peronism. It's basically a mix of protectionist ideas mixed with a lot of welfare programs. It tend to be reactionary on many social issues, but it is anchored firmly on the left. Most supporters of the FN today are blue collar, and it's not surprise that one of their 'thinkers', Alain Soral came from the far left - they're pretty similar.

As far as the attitude of French people on economic issues, just look at the polls instead of making ad hominem an quips http://www.latribune.fr/actualites/economie/20110125trib0005... http://www.croissance-responsable.fr/commissions/sondage-les... http://www.ifop.fr/?option=com_publication&type=poll&id=2637

The FN has historically been a mix of economic liberalism and nationalism. They may surf on a more socialist way because it's fashionable nowadays, but that's all.

I looked briefly at the polls you linked to. People think that the current economic system profits unfairly to a small minority? Is that being far left now? A third thinking capitalism is not the way forward becomes "the population polls left of Cuba"?

The FN has a brief foray in economic liberalism in the 80's which was primarily an opportunistic way to capitalize on the shock of having the socialists in power. It didn't last and the success you allude too came after they turned towards an anti-capitalist and anti-free market rhetoric.

There's a specific poll that I'm trying to dig which was about attitudes towards free markets and capitalism where French citizens polled among the least favorable country in the world, below Cubans. I didn't just make it up as a quip.

In the 80s? LePen sr was all for lower taxes, the end of subventions, much less government intervention, drastic cuts in public spending well into the 2000s. It's only with the arrival of his daughter at the head of the party and her attempts at making it look more respectable that things changed.

You mean in 2002 when he was advocating a welfare payment equivalent to the minimum wage to all parents and heavy tariffs?

Mais ou est passé l'optimisme français /s

Seriously.I can agree with you(expect for the communist finger pointing,i mean the whole political class is responsible for the current situation).What is really stupid,is that,you could create a lot of job by easing a few regulations here and there.The problem is,the state created the issue with taxis at first place,with the limited license attribution.You shouldn't cap taxi licenses.Yes,they should follow all requirements needed,be inspected on regular basis and have the proper insurance.By I see little justification for the license cap thing.

You want people not to use their own car.And by the way there is that auto-lib thing,so why cap the taxi pool?

That can be said about a lot of other fields too.You want things to run smoothly,you want people to be able to rent a flat without having to produce 10+ years of payslips, you want people to be mobile to be able to relocate to find work easily, ... you want to create an proper environment for employment,investment,... and not just protect "your friends".That's not just a "communist" issue,all parties do the same mistake,but people need to want it as well.Today,I think we're too afraid of the future,and have some kind of "romanticized" vision of France that never really existed,and,that is also important,Paris is too snob, and self centered as well.So giving more power(and proper financing) to the regions is something important as well.

The optimism moved out. I spent the first 23 years of my life in Paris, before happily moving to NY about 10 years ago. My parents both vote for the Socialist party and pretty much everyone I interacted with growing up was heavily left wing.

It's not just cab licensing, that happens everywhere. What's different about France is that a few years ago the government tried to increase the cap, and cabs started grid locking Paris in protest. What did the government do? They caved. That type of thing would not happen in a place like NYC. Why did they cave?

Public opinion was after all against taxi cabs which are fairly unpopular in Paris. However, handling the issue with force would have turned public opinion against the government, and would have triggered the other syndicalist organisation to join in protest.

We're back at the root of the problem. Public opinion in France is strongly anchored to the left, and yes, it has to do with the far left's influence on the Education Nationale. Open a French high-school textbook in economics and you will see large sections devoted to Marxism, an economic theory that pretty much no modern economist support.

Left and right politics both have trade offs. I wouldn't give up my free health care or education for anything. But we get stuck with stupid regulations in certain areas which hurts job growth. On the other hand look at the USA. Compared to many European countries it's on the far right - however their taxi industry is still heavily regulated in most major cities. I've come to the conclusion recently that governments in general will always suck. Despite my high opinion of free health care the recent revelations on government spying have had to make me think whether I can tolerate big/left government.

>"What's different about France is that a few years ago the government tried to increase the cap, and cabs started grid locking Paris in protest. What did the government do? They caved. That type of thing would not happen in a place like NYC. Why did they cave?"

NYC with its taxi medallions is a really well known example of a taxi monopoly. So I'm not sure why you'd think that it's somehow better than in France and that they wouldn't "cave" to a cab strike.

In NYC, the taxi medallions have reduced in number since the start of the monopoly in 1937, and by 1996 (60 years later) it dwindled from an initial 16000 to a mere 11500. And since then they've added a paltry 2000 extra ones to bring the number somewhere above 13000.

If you have to choose between a conspiration of communists and jacobinists, and normal people that just disagree with you...

Nowhere have I mentioned a conspiracy.

Communists aren't normal people?

Not that the person I replied to was treating them as such.

I'm a socialist myself so I feel sympathy for a communist, even if I don't agree with him.

Of course they are normal people, that's what makes it terrifying. Communism killed hundred of millions of people. And yes, the French communist party supported Stalinism for a long time.

Communism - the utopian ideology - didn't kill hundreds of millions of people, because it has never existed. It has been used several times as a means to reach power, after which the dictator(ships) have chosen to either adopt it to his/their own liking (Stalinism, Marxist-Leninism, Trotskyism, <insert>ism) or practically abolish it as is the case with modern-day China. Fully developed communism is supposed to (alas, probably never will) be 'a stateless, classless and moneyless society, structured upon common ownership of the means of production.' [1]

That's about as far from Stalinism you can get.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

After $event$, $bad_political_ideology$, who had been on the right side of $event$, got enormous power. This eventually percolated in the education system, and now $country$ is left with a few generations that have been force fed $bad_ideas$ propaganda from an early age. Combine that with a more ancient bend for $historical_ideology$ and $class_system_perspective$ and you have the current situation. Very powerful $group$ who can lock down $action$, and a population who polls to the $wrong_side$ of $example_country_on_wrong_side$ in terms of political opinions. Ce pays est foutu.

I went to Paris the other weekend, and my first interaction with the taxis system was when some scumbag tried to gouge me 100 euro for a 6 km taxi ride). Contrast that to pulling out my phone and ordering an Uber which cost me 20 euro.

> “Currently, those who use UberPop are not protected in case of an accident,”

Well,the truth is,it's up to the driver to get insured properly. Which is a huge problem,since the proper insurance cost a lot of money.Most drivers using UberPop would just be violating the law here.

At the same time,i'm pretty sure UberPop doesnt check if drivers follow all law requirements,because they wouldnt find enough drivers for the service.

Same basic family of loopholes as Airbnb and other "sharing economy" services.

Shift legal liability for regulation following to the end provider, ignore the fact that very many of your providers are almost certainly breaking laws and/or contracts (eg. leases) and hope nobody notices until you're big enough to be a difficult target.

Seems to be a pretty effective model here in the US.

In the case of Uber it's not just the regulatory cost that is being pushed onto the drivers but the capital risk of vehicle purchase and maintenance as well.

As is the case for AirBnB. The capital risk of the hotel purchase and maintenance.

Personally, this taught me that with time we all forgot what was provided by old platforms. It's a strange feeling. RyanAir for instance, provides 20$ air tickets... but you can't have more than 1 luggage, and you won't get served food, toilets aren't free, etc etc. Makes you realize that older companies prices aren't complete fluff, but we just forget what's included in their service. Until we need them.

Same for new 'disruptive' startups. You don't pay as much as a Taxi, but it's a random guy, may have insurance, may know how to drive safely, etc etc.. Seems like ensuring all this features to be stable is what drove the cost high in the first place.

Cycles.

The interesting thing about this analogy is that for all of Ryanair's policies on baggage and boarding and frills, they're still required to hold insurance and airworthiness certificates.

Similarly with taxis, I don't have a problem if someone wants to offer a taxi dependent on computer routing or have drivers that don't load the passengers' luggage or whatever, but stuff like insurance and safety certificate should be non-negotiable. I mean, I don't even particularly mind if the insurance comes from Uber stating in writing "we're good for it" to all drivers rather than through a traditional insurer, I just don't think depending on one-off company goodwill to cover problems as seen for Uber and Airbnb incidents is particularly good policy.

In general I agree with your sentiment, but toilets are indeed free on ryanair flights.

Weird, I'm sure I've heard RA's boss saying they would bring down prices below 10 euros by making it optional. Maybe CEO humour :)

They say that kind of stuff because there's no such thing as bad press for Ryanair so it ends up as free brand marketing. They also "considered" lay-down or standing-only flights at one point as I remember.

I'd actually pay extra for full-time standing on flights less than 4 hours if there were actually sufficient space for me (at 6'1") to stand.

Of course, the only reason this comes up is because airlines have eliminated way too much legroom that used to exist, and so I'm sure if they implemented this in the real world it would involve me standing hunched over the entire flight, which becomes far less appealing.

Almost certainly it's regulation that's forcing them to have seats.

They keep the toilets free because they are probably smart enough to know that enough of their customers hate them that they'd piss on the aisle and the clean up costs would be too much.

> Almost certainly it's regulation that's forcing them to have seats.

Evil big government keeping disruptive businesses down again. Probably due to regulatory capture by the seat cartel...

Yeah that was part of the same interview.

> Well,the truth is,it's up to the driver to get insured properly. Which is a huge problem,since the proper insurance cost a lot of money.Most drivers using UberPop would just be violating the law here.

Would this argument really fly in court if someone got hurt and sued UberPop?

"yeah, well we expected the drivers would be insured, and we knew many of them didn't, and we never checked..."

It sounds to me that it would be possible that the court would decide that uberPop would be legally responsible for the damages anyway.

IANAL but European laws tends to put a lot of implied responsibilities on companies - compare warranties, health or environmental laws. Doesn't matter what the contract says, companies are responsible anyway.

> It sounds to me that it would be possible that the court would decide that uberPop would be legally responsible for the damages anyway.

That's an interesting perspective,but it would then imply some kind of boss/employee relationship between Uber and the drivers.

Well,the french court could decide that Uber drivers are not contractors but employees ,too, we've seen that again and again in France.

I do not wish for anybody to get hurt during a trip,of course,but it would be a very interesting case.

Uber drivers are essentially employees, the whole contractor thing is a farce.

> The Thévenoud Law would require all drivers who chauffeur paying passengers to have a license, obtainable after 250 hours of training, and to have appropriate insurance, just as with normal taxis.

250 hours!!! What in the world do they need that kind of training for? To operate a car? Are they doing The Knowledge like in London?

Anytime a disruptive company appears which successfully provides the same or superior service to customers than the established players at a lower cost, the knee-jerk reaction is to squash it using the powers of government. We see the same reaction to Tesla across the United States (although their cars can hardly be described as "lower cost").

What upsets me is the commentary I read on Hacker News: "I don't like Uber, I personally had bad experiences with their drivers, and their cut-throat business practices rub me the wrong way. They deserve to be banned." Wtf? That's not the disruptive spirit of Silicon Valley, it's the reactionary cowardice of close-minded politicians.

> That's not the disruptive spirit of Silicon Valley

Well,disruption shouldnt mean,"the hell with the law".San Fransisco might tolerate that,but all the world isnt San Fransisco.

Nobody denies the taxi industry has issues.But in some countries this "disruptive" behavior doesnt last very long.

Other Uber services are still legal in France.They didnt outlaw Uber,just Uber services that violate french laws.

Sorry,but this whole "disrupt" thing is bullshit,especially when on the short run it's just new middlemen trying to replace the old ones.

We've seen it today in Australia,with Uber raising price x4,the challengers are no better than the old guard,it's just a power struggle.

Uber doesn't deserve any automatic sympathy or boosterism just because they're a "disruptive" company with ties to investors who happen to be associated with the Silicon Valley startup scene. Heck, for a lot of people (not me, but much of the population), that alone is a reason to be suspicious of them or dislike them. Presenting that as a reason to be uncritical of them just fuels that distrust, and risks extending that distrust to other, similar companies who don't deserve it. One bad actor can make everyone look bad.

One of the big issue with taxis is that this is a monopoly and a few powerful people have a lot to gain (not the drivers, obviously).

Same problem everywhere in the world right now (the opposing company being Uber or another one does not matter. if you don't like Uber it does not matter. it affects the principle itself)

“Not only is it illegal to offer this service but additionally for the consumer there is a real danger,” French interior ministry spokesperson Pierre-Henry Brandlet told iTELE, questioning drivers’ inadequate insurance.

Many of the justification for these bans do seem to focus on the perception of inadequate insurance for the drivers. I wonder if Uber's next move will be to ask the drivers (in the markets that require it) to procure some type of commercial insurance. The catch for them is that they may not be able to do that through the company without putting themselves even more at risk in the ongoing class action lawsuit on its classification of drivers as contractors vs. employees. It will be very interesting to see how it all plays out.

Pushing those kinds of costs onto the drivers seems to be one of the main points of Uber.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/understanding-the-econom...

>Since no one can provide plausible Uber growth theories based on major productivity/service improvements, one must consider the possibility that Uber management’s growth strategies may be at least partially based on drivers it would not want to publicize. The labor exploitation hypothesis suggests that Uber not only hopes to avoid paying higher costs that might be needed to attract drivers away from competing companies, but hopes to actually achieve driver costs lower than what existing companies face, by exploiting significant information dissymmetries. One key is Uber’s “independent contractor” approach, whereby those drivers provide the vehicle, vehicle maintenance and liability insurance. As mentioned earlier, traditional business logic suggests that this approach could not work because existing companies could always get much better rates than individuals acting in isolation. In these situations Uber has shifted the full vehicle capital risk (normally borne by a taxi company) to the driver; this allows Uber to grow without raising much capital, but there is no evidence that drivers are being compensated for their (collectively) large capital contribution, or the risk that Uber exercises it rights to suddenly terminate the contract of the person who had purchased a vehicle on its behalf. Similarly, the typical taxi/limo driver may not understand the true maintenance/depreciation costs of intensive commercial use as well as professional fleet managers, and multiple reports indicate Uber drivers do not always understand the requirement to purchase commercial insurance with significantly greater liability coverage than their personal policies (carrying paying passengers would invalidate their personal policies and violate laws in most cities).

I don't know much about French insurance, but Uber is probably endowed enough at this point to self-insure as a means of reducing premium expenditure. It will have to place nice with the governments and reserve accordingly, but there are plenty of companies with similar risk profiles, e.g., Enterprise.

Will they be able to compete on price if they do that? Commercial insurance is usually more expensive.

"Will they be able to compete on price?"

Sounds like the current low prices are the result of cutting corners and not having adequate insurance. Which makes me side against Uber here.

Yeah http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/understanding-the-econom...

There's no economy of scale that's typical of technology companies here - Uber drivers are not able to buy cars cheaper in bulk, get a better deal on gas, or buy commercial insurance at much cheaper rates. Hertz or Avis have a better cost structure than Uber.

The price advantage comes from skirting the regulation on taxi medallions (only relevant for a few large markets like NYC) and skirting commercial insurance requirements.

It's a big question. There have been so many stories already about many drivers facing money losing rides. Unless Uber is willing to pass along a fare increase in markets requiring commercial insurance, they certainly won't be able to get their drivers to sign up for commercial insurance. Even then, there are other issues at play as well (Taxi unions, etc.) which could come up with other reasons to stop Uber.

>Will they be able to compete on price if they do that?

Can they even be considered to be competing now, if they can't assure me that the driver will be able to cover expenses if he injures and/or kills me or other passengers?

I hate this "management by banning" approach.

I've never used UberPop so I cannot comment on its quality as a service. However because it is working, governments should take this as an indication that there's something wrong with the taxi system and the system is ripe for being disturbed by this type of ideas.

Can you blame someone for wanting to pay less for the same service (getting from A to B)? If it is the licensing system that makes the taxis expensive then it should be reviewed. Banning is lack of management.

Finding a taxi in Paris at night can be an ordeal, so besides regulating the competition, what's the rationale behind banning a low-cost, on-demand alternative?

>“Currently, those who use UberPop are not protected in case of an accident,” he added. “So not only is it illegal to offer the service, but for the consumer, it’s a real danger."

This really confused me as the article ended with " On its French driver recruiting website, it assures applicants that they do not need any insurance beyond what is standard for their vehicles. All UberPop trips are covered by commercial liability insurance with a $5 million per accident maximum, it says, that covers any damage or injuries caused by the driver." So which is it?

So, what's the answer? A new, much thinner set of regulations governing Uber/Lyft-style transportation? Sort of what AirBnB got in San Francisco? Surely governments should enable what is clearly a fantastically better situation for both riders and drivers.

Banning products and services in demand by every day people has a long history of working out.

Except it's not really banning a product or a service. Taxis still run in the city and Uber still runs in the city. Uninsured rides for money is what remains banned. The company would have to ensure that Uber drivers have the correct insurance. It's not a p2p lift share scheme, it's a business.

In the UK it is illegal for a mini-cab (not the standard black/yellow taxi, hail taxi) to take you without booking. Their insurance only covers pre-booked fares.

Banning dangerous and illegal services is fine if the providers don't clean up their act.

>Banning dangerous and illegal services is fine

Things that are banned are always described as "dangerous and illegal".

Not true. Many times dangerous operators are legitimately shut down for breaking the law, or hurting people. It's called regulation and justice.

Even Uber uses it on their own drivers. If the drivers get too many bad ratings they don't allow the driver to keep working for them.

Uber has gotten too many bad ratings, and France is shutting them down.

That is a very naive point of view. Governments don't work like Yelp or Hacker News or something. There are people that represent or have the support of powerful lobbies which make things change. In this case, the taxi union. The article even talks about this move being in response to threats by the taxis. "With Paris taxis threatening to create traffic chaos on Monday with a go-slow action to protest the ride-booking company, an Interior Ministry spokesman said that Uber’s low-cost service, UberPop, would be prohibited in France as of Jan. 1."

I think these uber wars are going to be interesting from a historical perspective. We're kinda seeing which governments are unusually protectionist and resistant to change. No surprise France, Netherlands, and Spain are on this list. Considering those countries have fairly weak to poor economic growth, one would think a bit of economic liberalisation would go a long way. That's the funny thing about protectionism, it keeps voters happy (cab lobbies, unions, etc) but it tends to kill innovation, the economy, and job growth. How do these countries expect to improve their situation? More deficit spending and EU bailouts like Greece?

How companies like Uber are treated may be a canary in a coalmine situation for hurting economies. If companies like Uber can't be allowed to compete, then who will? Who will make the new jobs and create new value?

I'm not sure that enforcing existing laws and closing loopholes that allow illegal taxi services to pretend to be ride sharing is "protectionist".

That language is a little loaded. These aren't taxis. Taxis are cars that sit and take fares from the street. They take up room, add to traffic, etc. This more like requesting a car service, which is pretty common in big cities. Taxi regulation being used to stop it is a sign of corruption, not law enforcement.

I think there are regulatory hurdles to be crossed here, but a wholesale banning of the service is extreme, short-sighted, and anti-business.

Why is driving someone around in a car for money illegal? It's dangerous? They should be forced to take all passengers to all locations? It's disgusting that we've reached a point where people are so comfortable curtailing commercial activity. And without needing to put forth any reasoning beyond "it's illegal".

Remember all the ad hoc US regulatory hurdles that ultimately killed the Concord rentability to protect the local incumbent. And that was not a better radiotaxi, that was flying faster than the speed of the sound.

So, it's only uberpop that is banned, and one can still use uberX ?

Yes

"Parisian taxi associations had brought the case against Uber, accusing it of unfair competition"

"Unfair competition" is apparently the newest word for "competition."

Just as disruption is the new word for pocketing the money you would have spent on complying with the law, as profit.

I would call it unfair if one company followed a completely different subset of laws.

"unfair competition" seems like a ridiculous anti-consumer reason to kill something, especially considering the expense of Paris taxis

It's mostly a matter of lobbying... Public safety, assurance, etc... if it were the problem, they'd ask drivers to show their assurance card to customers, and warn customers. But if they only want to ban Uber so satisfy taxi drivers, any excuse will do.

The French press even mentions that Uber was banned in India after a driver raped a client. What's the point? FUD. Will they ban every profession with at least one raper in it?

Btw, french politicians were convicted of rape too... lol

It's pretty obvious that its company v. consumer these days. Its a war throughout the world - businesses can easily corrupt public servants in all walks of life. Is there a way to eradicate corruption?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com