France Upholds Ban On Uber Using Non-Professional Drivers

And you thought I was kidding yesterday when I said Uber needs better attorneys. Even their French lawyers suck.

France's Constitutional Court upheld a national law that banned one of Uber Technologies' car services that relies on non-professional drivers using their own vehicles, dealing another setback to the company in Europe. Uber had challenged the legality of a law passed by the French government last year, which banned its so-called UberPOP service and updated rules on how taxi companies and chauffeured cars could compete.

Uber was always going to be in trouble when the legal issues started going to court. As much as everyone wants these guys to win because they like the idea of spending less money on things... They industry they are trying to get in on is regulated almost everywhere. Being just like a cab company and then claiming to not have to follow the same rules isn't going to fly pretty much anywhere when it gets in to the point of being in front of a judge.

There isn't even anything to defend they are in the wrong really. I mean if I started a service that allowed people to sell seats at peoples dinner table for folks to eat. It wouldn't be legal almost anywhere, unless the people involved where properly inspected by health inspectors and properly licensed. I get that people feel in most places the cab companies have systems setup where they overcharge... still are licensed the Gov (in most places) for good reason. Uber skirts all of that and thinks they can do it legally, I doubt Uber is still around almost anywhere in 10 years at least operating the way it does now.

If the taxi industry has to deal with these safety regulations, I don't see what makes Uber any more special. This is a company that fought against background checks and checks to make sure the drivers were insured. Many people have a soft spot for Uber but it is unwarranted.

The difference between a restaurant or bed n breakfast is that the regulations put in place for public safety are not the kind or regulations people already have (such as a drivers license and insurance), and that there are unique factors to consider when offering those services to the public. Taxi drivers do not offer any level of protection better than what a regular joe shmoe off the street has. Therefore that makes the whole taxi system a racket instead of a regulated industry.

The issue is that the authorization to drive a taxi comes from paying a government bribe. Oops. I meant to say "fee". In New York, the "medallion" (which must be affixed to each taxi) costs $1,000,000. And, it has to be renewed each year. For each taxi.

Do you think NYC (and the judges appointed by the NYC administrations) would allow that revenue to be threatened? They consider it "theirs". Uber threatens it. Therefore, the power structure will defend itself and shut down uber.

Money and power end up with consistent results. It has NOTHING to do with safety. It has EVERYTHING to do with who gets the money.

c3k said:

The issue is that the authorization to drive a taxi comes from paying a government bribe. Oops. I meant to say "fee". In New York, the "medallion" (which must be affixed to each taxi) costs $1,000,000. And, it has to be renewed each year. For each taxi.

Do you think NYC (and the judges appointed by the NYC administrations) would allow that revenue to be threatened? They consider it "theirs". Uber threatens it. Therefore, the power structure will defend itself and shut down uber.

Money and power end up with consistent results. It has NOTHING to do with safety. It has EVERYTHING to do with who gets the money.

Click to expand...

Comparing New York to every city on the planet is a bit disingenuous. New York is a bit exceptional when it comes to cabs. In many other places it doesn't cost near as much to get a taxi up and running.

Also, Uber is in a position where it could really only hope to be good as long as it is new and the underdog. If they got to a position where taxis vanish and they're left holding the bag then they're going to have issues with complete coverage and having enough drivers. I can't imagine that, at the rates they pay drivers, they're going to attract too many full time drivers to completely replace cabs in most big cities. They're a nice alternative but they're not really set up to be a replacement. And, as long as they're playing the underdog they can get some appeal by breaking the rules. Once you monopolize the market they'll be under far more regulatory scrutiny and the profit margins will drop drastically.

Give Uber dominance in the taxi industry and you'll soon find that they're no different than the current crop.

The question of the Amount of a Fee is hardly the issue. This isn't some third world country. I can't go and buy an old bus... and start driving around as many people as I want with my regular old drivers licence and basic (not commercial car insurance).

Its regulated for a reason... if in some cities if the gov has turned it into just another tax, well perhaps people need to make that an election issue instead of thinking no regulation at all is the answer. I honestly can't believe people are even stupid enough to use Uber... I mean if the guy who couldn't get a job driving a real taxi messes you up in an accident do you really want to be the moron arguing with an insurance company that doesn't want to have to cover you, or find out the driver was carrying a 100k personal policy and wondering who is going to pay for your life time of wheel chairs.

Uber is a terrible long term business model, seeing as its an illegal business almost everywhere that it would be profitable. Lets all be honest Travis Kalanick would be very smart to cash out before they start loosing even more in courts everywhere. He should let a new owner start transiting the tech into something they can sell to legit licensed Partner companies in all the territories they have been booted from... the value of Uber will drop a ton but at least it won't just end down the road.

Husanak said:

The question of the Amount of a Fee is hardly the issue. This isn't some third world country. I can't go and buy an old bus... and start driving around as many people as I want with my regular old drivers licence and basic (not commercial car insurance).

Click to expand...

We arent talking buses here, we're talking normal cars. Buses are difficult to drive and requires specific training. They also require a specific degree of maintenance unlike a regular vehicle. Should you be able to drive a bus? No. Should you be able to drive a car? Yes.

Its regulated for a reason...

Click to expand...

Yeah, the money.

if in some cities if the gov has turned it into just another tax, well perhaps people need to make that an election issue instead of thinking no regulation at all is the answer.

Click to expand...

It's already self-regulated. Drivers have insurance. Thats all anybody cares about when it comes to transportation in a car.

I honestly can't believe people are even stupid enough to use Uber... I mean if the guy who couldn't get a job driving a real taxi messes you up in an accident do you really want to be the moron arguing with an insurance company that doesn't want to have to cover you, or find out the driver was carrying a 100k personal policy and wondering who is going to pay for your life time of wheel chairs.

Click to expand...

Who says the Uber driver ever wanted to be a taxi driver? Uber drivers arent failed taxi drivers, they're just people who have no desire to work for a taxi company and instead prefer the system Uber has in place.

So you really have more faith in whatever mysterious taxi insurance plan they have available than the Geico plan the Uber driver is holding? Here's the problem with taxi drivers

• Their cars suck
• They are slow to arrive
• The drivers are often rude
• The drivers often scam you taking longer routes
• Drivers often scam you with shady currency practices

Uber drivers have NONE of these problems. I dont know why we're having this debate, Uber has already prove itself, and the people have spoke. We like uber. It's vastly superior to taxi's in every possible way. Anyone who says otherwise is either a shill for the taxi industry or just likes being a douche.

Uber, have you met Aereo?

McFry said:

We arent talking buses here, we're talking normal cars. Buses are difficult to drive and requires specific training. They also require a specific degree of maintenance unlike a regular vehicle. Should you be able to drive a bus? No. Should you be able to drive a car? Yes.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the money.

Click to expand...

And the fact that the city wants taxi services to available to the handicapped, to have vehicles that are regularly maintained, inspected and retired after several years of service (unlike Uber whose so desperate for drivers they often allow 15 year old vehicles to be used), to not have too many cars operating at the same time and leading to congestion and interference with mass transit and to find a balance between cost to passengers and modest wage for the drivers and to avoid a race to the bottom with desperate drivers.

And someone driving themselves to and from work and doing a few errands is a far cry from someone driving most of day picking up passengers and driving them around and racking up thousands of miles of week on their vehicle.

It's already self-regulated. Drivers have insurance. Thats all anybody cares about when it comes to transportation in a car.

Click to expand...

The thing is, in most markets they don't have insurance that would cover them if their insurance company found out what they were doing.

Who says the Uber driver ever wanted to be a taxi driver? Uber drivers arent failed taxi drivers, they're just people who have no desire to work for a taxi company and instead prefer the system Uber has in place.

Click to expand...

What do you think driving people for money is, other than a taxi service.

So you really have more faith in whatever mysterious taxi insurance plan they have available than the Geico plan the Uber driver is holding? Here's the problem with taxi drivers

Click to expand...

I certainly would; the taxi driver would have commercial insurance while the Uber driver is at risk at various stages of driving. Other than a few markets which have forced Uber to provide insurance for their drivers, a driver getting into an accident is likely to be dropped by their insurance company.

Uber drivers have NONE of these problems. I dont know why we're having this debate, Uber has already prove itself, and the people have spoke. We like uber. It's vastly superior to taxi's in every possible way. Anyone who says otherwise is either a shill for the taxi industry or just likes being a douche.

Click to expand...

And your talking points clearly make you out to be a Uber shill or employee.

Of course, given the mounting legal defeats, huge losses and rapid turnover of drivers, Uber won't be around in a few years anyways.

Regardless of what way you fall on the Uber spectrum, you have to admit the wording of calling them "non-professional" really is funny, if they're doing a job for money they are by definition professional, if you're trying to say taxi drivers some how have a higher skill set because they had to pay a fee and sit through a 5 hour class, then you're delusional.