Yes, and the adverts in most safe developed countries telling you this are overwhelmingly about defending a local cartel. The ubiquity of them tells you that "regulations are mostly about safety" is just not something you can assume. You have to actually check to see if they're justified.
In this context, "countless" was hyperbole. Obviously the Earth has limited places in which they can operate.
> They also definitely do not operate without significant issue in a many of them.
And in many of those, the "issues" are based on municipalities applying unreasonable or taxi-specialized regulations onto them. That in no way implies the service doesn't work, isn't safe, or isn't extremely popular and a great improvement over taxis.
It simply means the right people in the right places would rather protect the status quo than rationally assess the situation and revise policy where necessary.
> Regulation for taxi services is important. The adverts in some countries telling you not to take unlicensed taxis are not there for fun. The training's there to help drivers. Anyone who can't be bothered is probably not serious about being a good driver or playing by the rules and shouldn't be welcomed into the industry.
Nobody's arguing against regulation of taxi services.
The question is whether or not 35 hours of training is reasonable for Quebec only when somehow the rest of the world seems to get by without it. It is also not the case that nobody ever gets hurt, kidnapped, or stolen from by even "trained" taxi drivers.
Lawmakers and regulators need to start using common sense and acting in the best interests of consumers instead of the taxi lobby.
By comparison, to become a licensed barber (or electrician, etc) typically requires thousands of hours as an apprentice.
Hardly seems like a huge burden by comparison.
Clearly this would affect ride-sharing companies more than taxi companies, and it's likely no coincidence.
This is protectionism under the guise of "fairness." Nothing more.
Personally, I have an issue if municipalities try to impose differential standards, but asking Uber to have its drivers conform to existing standards seems reasonable.
When "existing standards" clearly benefit an entrenched, poorly-performing business model at the expense of an innovative, disruptive, and tech-enabled business model, those standards should be reassessed. Innovation and industry move much faster than lawmakers and regulators.
That's like your opinion man. Seriously, if you feel more safe in a regular taxi, just don't use Uber and leave the rest of us poor people alone. Your help is not welcome.
Also, I think you are incredibly naive to think that the training is mainly there to "help" drivers.
I despise Uber for many reasons.
But the main reasons I go on an Uber is because the drivers in any city I’ve been in have been maniacs, while (in my experience) Uber/lyft drivers are the calmest, most restpectful drivers on the road.
The fact that some venture capitalist is bankrupting themselves subsidizing the trip is a gift that keeps on giving.
At best, people get lucky to get assigned to cars whose drivers don't need the money and party do it for fun. As Uber & Lyft take over the traditional taxi indry's market share though, the quality of taxi drivers will revert to the mean, especially if the drivers are in fact the same people only operating under a different brand.
Some of them are. Safety. Insurance. Identity.
But '35 hours of training' I don't think is one of them.
People are getting very excellent service out of Uber and Lyft, there's no pragmatic reason for '35 hours of training'
They also definitely do not operate without significant issue in a many of them.
Regulation for taxi services is important. The adverts in some countries telling you not to take unlicensed taxis are not there for fun. The training's there to help drivers. Anyone who can't be bothered is probably not serious about being a good driver or playing by the rules and shouldn't be welcomed into the industry.