In Germany for example, we have both requirements. But for years there have (legally) been companies who don't have "taxi rights", and label themselves as "rental cars with driver". They are cheaper than regular taxis, but they are not allowed to park in taxi spots, and you can't hire them from the roadside I think. But the drivers still have to pass the same tests as regular taxi drivers (health tests, background tests, knowledge of the city, ...). I think this is a really good model, it gives the customer a cheaper option if they are a bit more flexible with their pick-up spots.
Uber should do exactly this, but instead they want to skirt the person transport license requirements and hire "untrained" drives. They purposely mix the issues of licenses and medallions, hoping to use people's hate of monopolies and high taxi prices to steer public opinion in their direction.
Also, Uber sometimes claims to be a ride-sharing service. Just private citizens who share their car and get compensated, not professionals. Well, every Uber I have been in, anywhere in the world, was very professional. You can't tell me this is just their side hobby. And if they really wanted to offer just ride-sharing, this exists legally in Germany as well. People can connect on car-sharing websites with strangers, and pay the driver their share of the expenses. It's a popular way to cheaply get around. And if the driver only does it for compensation, not as a job, no license is required.
Do you want every entry level job to require a license and put up barriers to getting these jobs for immigrants? Do you think nail technicians, hairdressers and waiters should require a license to do their job too?
The thing that is a barrier for immigrants, in most places, is that they don't get work permits.
The only potentially new thing here (though not necessary invented by Uber) was "shows me cab's location", but the remaining three? All of them were supported since people invented telephones and portable radio transmitters.
Uber's primary innovation is, and always has been, their operations playbook, which allowed - and still allows - them to grow a billion-dollar business while routinely breaking the laws in front of everybody and not even trying to hide it much.
If there are regulations that would prevent taxi companies from doing that, then that's the problem.
If there is a monopoly so they don't have incentive to do that then that's a problem.
I can use an app to pre-book, pre-pay and track a taxi using any of the local taxi companies (of which none has a monopoly). The problem is solvable...
I could call, they'd know the calling phone location (land lines, so that was fixed). Alternatively I'd have to tell where I was and where I'd like to go to. Either they would tell how much time it'd take, plus the car number picking me... or call back with the same info, if no immediate taxi was available.
The meters were a must - both distance and time and you got a receipt at the end. That's like 17-18y ago.
So in comparison, suddenly the only advantage uber has left is being unregulated.
If the regulation says "there can only be one company and they can charge cash only if they want" then the regulation is poor. The regulation should say "Anyone who fulfills the criteria on safety/insurance/skill can operate a taxi business. And oh, they must accept credit cards".
[1] https://www.itbusiness.ca/news/contactless-payments-set-to-t...
I think practically the USA will just skip over chip & pin and go pure NFC payments, kind of like landlines vs cellphones in developing countries.
But Uber's story is full lies, deception, sexism, corruption, theft, etc, etc, etc...
Also taxis don't hire people, people rent taxis and then drive them.
1. Those hailed on the street or found waiting at a taxi stand/rank. These are metered services. They drive you somewhere and you pay the amount shown on the meter. In London, and some other parts of the UK, these are known as Black Cabs (because the vehicles have traditionally been painted black).
2. Pre-booked services. Essentially a passenger phones to make a booking, informs the service of the pick-up address and destination, agrees a price, then waits for the taxi to arrive. These are known as Mini Cabs.
Both these services are licensed and regulated in the UK.
Uber very clearly falls into the second category. They're just a Mini Cab firm with a fancy app.
But again: all these terms are just effects of the madness that is a local monopoly on one type of ride service (typically, but not always, the one that can use taxi stands and be hailed without pre booking on the street).
This has made people associate "taxi" or "cab" with just that one type of ride service, in their city. Which is understandable - but it makes no sense when discussing laws across a continent, or worldwide. "Taxi" has a very simple definition: it's a vehicle for hire with a driver. An Uber is a taxi service even if it's not (yet) allowed to perform the same services as a yellow cab in new york, or a london taxi
No that's what I mean. You can put a label on then depending on local regulations for monopolies which is why in some cities there are lots of silly distinctions such as cab/minicab/"black car" or whatever.
But all those distinctions have just appeared because of the local monopoly - not becasuse they are inherently differnent. From an insurance/employment/etc. standpoint they are "cars that take people from a to b for money" - and whether you call that "cab firm" or call it "ride service" or something else is irrelevant.
> Also taxis don't hire people, people rent taxis and then drive them.
Again - this is a local phenomenon. There are places where cab firms are one man businesses, co-ops, owned cars/rented cars etc. It doesn't really matter either.
Over here they very much do hire people, taxi drivers are normal employees. The same company is also contracted for temporary work by the local bus company and by the municipality for bringing disabled kids to schools, that sort of thing; it's all the same drivers.
Things are not the same everywhere.
Technology really blurs the line, and for most purposes, they act and fulfill the market that is provided by Taxis.
Uber claimed they weren't. They were claiming to be just an infrastructure service without any influence over the transportation part of the business. They wanted to do this since transportation services are subject to the local regulations as a specific exception to the normal Single Market rules on the provision of services (where you only required to follow your home regulations).
P.S. Your home regulations will include all the common European regulations but customer local regulations could be different.
In 2017, yes. But despite the fact that in some countries, Uber clones appeared before Uber did, Uber was, as far as I remember, the first to implement such a model.
And everyone who remembers ordering a taxi in advance and waiting for 20-30 minutes for a bad, rude driver, for 2-3 the money that taxis cost now, can appreciate the innovation.
I think what people are confusing here are the effects of a removed monopoly and technical innovation.
The solution isn't removing employment safety, the solution is just removing the monopoly in cities where there are taxi monopolies. All Uber did was simply circumvent the monopoly regulations.
Try a non-uber taxi in a city without taxi monopoly and it's exactly like uber.
I feel like I'm repeating myself - yes, it is, in 2017.
In 2007 it was nothing like it. It became like it after people started cloning Uber.
A cab company with a rating system?
And no, dear US, "taxi" does not mean "ride service that has a monopoly on picking up people on the street, enforced by the use of medallions or similar". Taxi means "A car that takes you somewhere without a preplanned route, for money". This is why this is so bloody obvious.
In any place without a mediallion system or other enforced monopoly, there is NO innovation in what Uber is doing! An app or surge pricing is what everyone does. Ubers sole innovation is pretending that they aren't a taxi company so they don't need to hire and pay their employees properly. And honestly we can do without that innovation.