Hacker News Reader

Comment by plg | Hacker News Reader

it's worth pointing out that Quebec has no trouble at all living life as an "outsider" with respect to Canadian and north american "norms" ... i.e. no matter how "standard" uber becomes (or not) this will not be an argument in favour of adopting it.

there are a metric ton of examples of how life in quebec is bizarre compared to neighbouring provinces in Canada (and compared to the US)

this may be just another one

View on HN

What are the arguments for a city to adopt Uber? Presumably there were reasons to implement taxi regulations and medallion caps and whatever those reasons were, if they made sense to the city 5 years ago, they probably still make sense today.

The reasons tend to be closer to a century old than 5 years, and similarly tend to have been the result of preferential regulation in favor of the taxi companies.

A good history of the jitney transport industry[0]. I'll note that the statistics reported regarding length of service and demographics of jitney drivers indicate that UberX is a much more apt solution to the problem of matching riders with drivers than a "traditional" taxi service with full-time employees.

[0]http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/724795?uid=3739976&uid... - note article is available with a free registration.

I didn't say the reasons were created 5 years ago, only that if there were reasons 5 years ago they probably haven't changed. Of course you could make the argument that there weren't valid reasons 5 years ago but that doesn't seem compelling, I don't think a city would have de-regulated the taxi industry and let anyone pick people up for money 5 years ago.

There's a whole gamut of options between current regulations and no regulations. But the corrupt regulators don't want to change anything because they like how the current regulations bring in $800K per year per medallion to license holders who are also their friends, partners and/or campaign donors (actual Vancouver numbers).

What kind of safety or convenience or other concerns require profits in excess of $800K per taxi cab per year? What's wrong with market pricing? Why should short rides subsidize long rides? Why can't one company offer no-frills service (at no-frills prices), and the other one premium service? Why can't taxis have optional ride pooling?

Uber, Lyft & co have already proved that they can work great alongside existing cabs. There is no reason why they wouldn't work if the regulations are updated from 1930 to 2015 and from protecting incumbents' profits to protecting users' interests. But the cities are unwilling to do that because they like their profitable taxi cartels.

5 years? More like 40-80. In Vancouver for example the 4 taxi companies comprising the taxi industry basically regulate themselves. Of course they will never approve another entrant. I wouldn't be surprised if Montreal is about the same.

I didn't say the reasons were created 5 years ago.

In most modern legal systems, the question is not what the law should allow but what the law should prohibit. So the question should really be, what are the arguments for a city to prohibit Uber?

That's irrelevant to the point, which is that whatever prohibits Uber today also prohibited Uber in the recent past before Uber existed. Did unregulated taxi service make sense to a city 5 years ago?

Just because a law has been on the books doesn't mean the law continues to be in the public interest, especially when it was enacted before the technology to enable Uber was widespread enough to make Uber possible.

There is only one reason and it is very simple: taxi owners use their political influence to extract rents. It's a scheme to legally steal from people who use taxis.

> there are a metric ton of examples of how life in quebec is bizarre compared to neighbouring provinces in Canada (and compared to the US)

Quite the prejudicial statement. While some things are different, living in Quebec is pretty similar to any other place except for the fact that we speak french.

When LA or New York banned Uber, did you say how californian and New Yorkers were 'bizarre' and 'outsider'?

My understanding is that they also legally require French to be used in a variety of contexts (with "language police"). If so, that is significantly different than most other places - and may feel "bizarre".

For example, you are free to run a restaurant with employees that do not speak English in the US, but you are not allowed to run a restaurant with only English speakers in Quebec.

Let me just say this: Nothing you wrote is remotely true.

Not. A. Single. Thing.

Really?

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/quebec-language-pol...

In Quebec, the law is that the public has an affirmative right to be served in French:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_French_Language

and fines are issued for violators:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/french-still-under-th...

I don't know if this counts as "bizarre" or not, but it's certainly unusual, since other provinces do not do this.

I didn't mean to offend. This is merely how it was described to me. I have read a little, but I could be off. I have seen things like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Language_Act_%28Quebec...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois_de_l...

The example that really rubs me the wrong way (currently) is if I lived in Quebec, I would have to send my children to school in French, even though they have never spoken a word of French before --- that is, unless I send them to private school. It is a law that if you are an immigrant, your children, if they go to public school, are only permitted to go to French public school. I find that bizarre. My tax dollars are neither French nor English tax dollars. They are just Canadian dollars. If that is prejudice, so be it.

Are you sure about this? I don't think it's true. I think actually only kids from English speaking parents can attend public English school. Not 100% sure though TBH.

Even worse

You are failing to grasp a few basic understanding of how laws and culture works. Since education is of provincial jurisdiction, that means that your federal taxes have nothing to do with what's happening in Quebec.

We have french public schools for the same reason you have english public schools in english speaking provinces. It's not rocket science, just common sense.

If you want your kid to go to an english speaking school and deny them from the french culture, no one is stopping you from putting your money where your mouth is.

You do seem to dislike quebec so may I suggest you just move out? It may be better suited for you to live elsewhere.

not the first time someone told me if I didn't like something about the way my government operates, I should just leave

Ironically, NYC and California are often seen by other regions as outsiders. 'specially Californians, which feature regularly as the butt of rural dislike and jokes. :-)

Well, FWIW Vancouver is just as backwards as Montreal in this regard, we don't even have Uber.

If something does not conform to your "standards" and "norms", that does not make it automatically "bizarre" (whatever you mean by that). And as many pointed out already, uber is banned in many cities across Canada and US, which is maybe proof that those "norms" and "standars" you talk about do not actually exist. This is probably an example of your own prejudice actually.

It's also one of the most corrupted with government officials.

Yes, corruption directly correlates to Uber presence (or lack thereof).

Making this a Quebec VS Canada issue is ridiculous. There are similar fines given across the country.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com