Quebec passes law to regulate Uber
cbc.caThe problem with regulation isn't Uber. It's the extraordinary costs required to operate a taxi - mostly the $200k plate. If I can get a background check and a card certifying me to be allowed to work with children for about $50, why does it cost nearly $200k to get a taxi license. Require licenses, reduce the costs to improve competition, and let the various companies compete on service.
And yet in New Zealand, Uber is instructing its drivers to ignore the legal requirements for commercial passenger transport, which boil down to a background check, a license endorsement, and a more frequent warrent of fitness check.
Uber is opposed in principle to even the most minimal safety legislation.
Of course they are opposed. Uber demonstrates that regulation is unnecessary and generally harmful, and typically only exists to rip off consumers.
Taxi regulations typically limit supply (raising costs for consumers), protect drivers over passengers (in Vegas a complaint against drivers must be notarized), and protect favored ethnic groups (c.f. Shiv Sena's taxi law in Maharashtra). Can you name any contemporary real life problem that taxi regulators solve better than Uber's own regulators?
I'm aware that historically, taxi regulation purports to solve real problems. But I claim that in the modern economy, Uber has solved every single one of those problems better than regulators can.
Of all the cities I'm familiar with (NYC, Vegas, Chicago, Mumbai, Delhi, Pune, Bangalore, Kuala Lumpur), I can't think of a single instance where a regulated taxi gave me better consumer protections than Uber/Lift/Ola.
So again, the simple question: what problems that currently exist would regulation solve?
> Uber demonstrates that regulation is unnecessary and generally harmful, and typically only exists to rip off consumers.
And then to "prove" your point you completely ignore the case I discussed, presumably because it doesn't fit your pre-canned rant which would look more at home, frankly, on /r/hailcorporate.
> So again, the simple question: what problems that currently exist would regulation solve?
The one where I'd like to have a commercial driver held to the standard of passing a police background check, a heightened demonstration of driving competence, and a properly maintained vehicle, none of which I see any evidence of Uber particularly caring about.
Or the one where they appear to be criminal fraudsters? http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/06/uber-hired-inve...
Here's evidence that Uber cares about all those things in New Zealand:
http://auckland.ubermovement.com/uberx/
http://auckland.ubermovement.com/required-documents/
It looks as if your proposed regulation is not solving a real problem. Personal attacks don't change this.
I'm all in favor of regulation where it makes sense. If there's a problem that can demonstrably solved by regulation, I'm all in favor of it. But this hardly seems to be one of those situations.
Where are these places where taxi drivers have a heightened demonstration of driving competence and vehicles better maintained than Ubers?
Around here (metro Boston), I can be virtually certain that the cab will have at least warning light on the dash, have wheel bearings that audibly rattle, and the driver doesn't strike me as someone who has gone to extensive training nor seem to have a superior awareness of the traffic laws nor common traffic courtesies.
Sure, Uber demonstrates that regulation is generally harmful and typically rips off consumers, but doesn't that still allow a few worthy regulations. Say, drivers cannot have a recent conviction for a violent offence?
Uber and Lyft already require this in the US, according to a quick google search.
http://www.idrivewithuber.com/uber-driver-requirements/ https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/213585758-Requiremen...
In India, Uber now imposes a background check that drastically exceeds the regulatory minimum (police-issued "character certificate", approx an 8k bribe).
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-09/uber-drive...
Sounds like criminals driving cars isn't currently a problem in the US. In India, it's a problem that regulators don't solve but Uber does.
So again, what problems that currently exist would regulation solve?
It is outrageously silly to compare Uber's self-regulation in an environment where it is surrounded by the constant threat of more intrusive government regulation; to it's hypothetical behavior in a hypothetical world where government regulation was not on the table.
One of the MAJOR positive spillover effects from government regulation is that companies self-police themselves more effectively, as part of their attempt to make sure they remain officially unregulated.
You could be right. Maybe the optimal policy would be for politicians to rattle their sabre in Uber's general direction while doing nothing.
Not sure if I understand your point. Unregulated taxi is a perfect market. What does this mean? No profit for the drivers. So what has happened over the last hundred years? Right, lobbying for market controls so that drivers can keep a part of the profits. Guess what will happen with Uber...!
Isn't $200k the free market cost? The government isn't pocketing that money. That's the price you would expect from an asset that generates income with a limited supply.
Edit: why am I down voted to max? The government limits supply but the medallions are still sold on the market.
No, the supply is artificially limited by the government; there's no free market involved. That $200k is paid to the government.
(The claimed rationale for limiting the number of taxis is to reduce traffic. I would suspect the actual rationale is to favor the existing taxi businesses that already have licenses and don't want competition.)
Are you talking specifically about Quebec here? This kind of thing varies a lot by jurisdiction, but in many jurisdictions the high costs for a plate are not paid to the government, but paid on a grey market to a prior owner, with the fee for registration being nominal except for the fact that no one gets to register any more. In many cities (including mine), people own plates as a retirement investment and are fighting deregulation because their investment will crater.
Not that this is any better, but people talk as if there's One Way taxi regulations work all over and there's quite a wide range on these things.
Also, the nominal reason for limiting plates is usually (as far as I've ever seen) to ensure a living wage for taxi drivers. I don't think it really works out that way, instead creating a class system where some people extract rent from other people.
The payment to the government is irrelevant. The point is that the government artificially restricts the number of occupational licenses.
I agree that it's not relevant who the wasted money goes to to the systemic effects, but it certainly implies a very different motive to say the government is taking that fee.
That is not true. If they were non transferable, a limited supply would still stay at the governmental set price.
Competition for the limited supply of licenses would manifest itself in other ways, resulting in $200,000 worth of economic resources being used, on average, to acquire a license.
More importantly, the high market price of a transferrable license indicates there is a shortage of taxis relative to demand for taxi service, which has a cost for the economy.
It's plainly obvious that the amount charged can't be related to the cost of the marginal traffic caused by the taxi. Even if you discount for the fact that a taxi is driving more often, it would mean that normal private car owners are inducing tens of thousands of dollars in negative externalities each year.
The 200K is not paid to the government but to the previous owner of the plate. So yes the price is dictated by demande/offer but you are true that by restricting the offer the are artificially raising the price of the plate.
When Uber started operating in Quebec the price of a plate in Montreal dropper to around 160K. That was the major point of dispute, since taxi drivers usually get loans to buy these plates knowing that they can re-sell then anytime. Uber changed that.
> That was the major point of dispute, since taxi drivers usually get loans to buy these plates knowing that they can re-sell then anytime. Uber changed that.
So fundamentally their complaint is: "My investment carried a risk"
> The claimed rationale for limiting the number of taxis is to reduce traffic.
The ratio of vehicles per person in Singapore is 0.18 (compare to about ~0.5 most places in the US). It's very easy to get a Taxi to any place not accessible by public transport. I would be astounded if there is any verifiable scientific study backing this claim.
[0] https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/dam/ltaweb/corp/PublicationsR... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_vehicle...
I don't think it's true at all that it's easy to get a cab in Singapore.
If you're in the downtown area anytime close to rush hour it's practically impossible to get a cab without reserving one in advance (which costs extra), or waiting in line at a designated "taxi stand" for an unacceptably long time.
Personally I think that part of the reason the government no longer allows street hails downtown (even for cabs) is an acknowledgment of this problem.
Limited supply is government's doing.
Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
no, 200k is not a free market cost. yes, government is pocketing that money. limited supply - you mean uber drivers who are willing to offer services to riders?
This prompted my interest in what's the history and regulation behind taxi laws, particularly for Quebec.
So I searched, and found this document extremely enlightening. Note that it's from 1995, long before Uber, and gives many pros and cons and reasoning behind different types of legislation:
I don't know if this reflects poorly on Uber or current taxi legislation.
Living in Québec I've never had a bad experience with taxi drivers the way people seem to have in NYC, etc. Uber was still far better, if anything just for how proud some drivers were of being part of it. The lower barrier of entry seemed like a positive thing overall.
A nice woman drove me once, offered me starburst candy and a bottle of water, both of which were in a basket in the back seat. Made my day extra nice.
Don't know where in Quebec you lived but my experience with taxis in Montreal was horrible (took a taxi every day for a few months) - old, poorly maintained cars with rude drivers who often drive like complete maniacs. Uber was on another level in terms of service before we even begin talking about the convenience of the app itself.
Trust Quebec to do everything they can to legislate innovation and improved quality out of existence in favour of preserving the status quo (and their tax dollars).
As far as I can tell, the drive to pamper riders comes from the fear of being cut off from driving for receiving too many sub-five star ratings. I would feel differently about it if Uber were handing out a "water bottle" stipend.
Oh, you mean like any regular job? Where you need to exceed everyone's expectations?
This is what a free market looks like. Don't like that? Take a look at Venezuela, and tell me you'd prefer to be dumpster diving for your next meal. Capitalism and Democracy are aweful aweful systems, but everything else is worse.
The difference is probably the level of expectations. In "any regular job" you don't get fired for having your ratings fall below 4.3 / 5 because a customer of yours had a bad day or fat-fingered 1 in a hurry.
The jobs with high turnover rates are usually known as "shitty jobs".
Do you really think that a highly competent organization that's hired hundreds of data scientists can't estimate/discount the base rate of fat fingered/random bad ratings?
(Fun fact: I don't know about Uber, but I know Ola does exactly this. They use "how would you handle this exact problem" as a warmup question on their interviews.)
They could, but do they have incentive to?
It's good for them to keep drivers who committed (e.g. those who took Uber's help in getting a new car) on edge. It's not that they have shortage of candidates, or that they actually care about them.
Lets think about their incentives.
Uber, Ola and others are desperately in need of more good drivers. They are growing rapidly, and literally will pay their competitors in order to attempt to recruit their drivers.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/05/30/how-uber-an...
http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/26/6067663/this-is-ubers-play...
"Uber has been aggressively poaching Lyft drivers for months, offering them huge bonuses just to do a few rides on Uber. This week, Lyft started fighting back with similar bonuses..."
There are two ways to have an extra driver next week. One is expensive recruiting methods. The other is not kicking them off the service. Remember, growth = new acquisitions - churn.
Lets think now about the costs. Handling the base rate of bad ratings would cost a data scientist a month or two of time - approx $20-60k. Assuming those huge bonuses are $500/driver, you'd need to retain 120 drivers for that python script to be worthwhile.
So if Uber has no incentive to solve this problem, it's only because it's a tiny problem (affecting < 0.1% of their workforce).
Are you really claiming that Uber hires hundreds of data scientists, but doesn't actually have them answer questions like "which drivers should be fired"? What do you think they do with them?
Quoting extremes at either end of the political spectrum is just silly.
The alternative to an unregulated workforce who's livelihoods are subject to the whims of an opaque organisation is not dumpster diving in Venezuela.
Sensible regulation with sensible market forces at a happy equilibrium is best.
It's never going to be perfect but arguments like yours make finding a reasonable compromise possible.
That's a common Uber thing; I've been offered a bottle of water in multiple Ubers in multiple cities.
However, maybe it's encouraging taxi drivers to step it up a bit. In my ride to the airport in Chicago yesterday, the driver offered me a bottle of water, which I think was the first time I've experienced that in a taxi.
Sometimes developed countries miss out on some good ideas. When I lived in Lima, Peru and La Paz, Bolivia in the 60's, they had a system called "colectivos". You stood on a main road, and in a few minutes a random car would stop, you'd pile in with four other people, and for 10¢ you'd get a ride downtown.
No permits, no insurance, any driver can participate. Faster and more frequent service than anything I've experienced back home in North America.
Similar systems exist throughout the Third World. God forbid we ever allow something like that in our "developed" countries.
This was one of the most pleasant things about living in Cochabamba, Bolivia. In addition to those "colectivos", they had busses, micros, and trufis that covered the entire city. Though regulated (by syndicates as much as anything), individual drivers and vehicle owners made money based on how many people they picked up. It was a for profit system that worked quite well and was cheap even by local standards, if not always fast, though I can't say it was much slower than the public transport in many Western cities.
In Cochabamba you could also flag a taxi and either trust them to charge you the normal rate, or negotiate a fare. Stressful to do at first, but once you got the hang of it no big deal.
Quick story: We never needed a car while living there, but rented one once to take a road trip. Just outside the city a cholita (Quechua speaking indigenous woman) with a huge bag flagged us down along the main road, got into the back seat without a word, then asked to "bajar" a dozen km later. On the way out she handed us a peso (~15 cents), again without a word.
When I was a foreign student in Taiwan in the early 80s, the taxis were numerous and cheap, and were a reasonable substitute for the (numerous) buses. Pile in a cab with 2-3 friends and go anywhere in Taipei for a dollar or so. You did get ripped off from time to time, but overall a very convenient system. The system in the U.S. is expensive and limited by comparison, cronyism and monopolistic.
I talk about Uber all the time when I'm in a taxi in Montreal, to be honest it's really not fair for them. Why should they have to pay a expensive regulation licenses, maintenance check-ups on the books, past several tests including knowing your driving area streets/history/etc, have ATM machine in the car with paper print out's, regulated machine for travel to cost ratio, yet an Uber driver can circumvent all this?
The real fear for cab drivers seem to be self driving cars even more than Uber.
Was talking to a few folks in both Alberta and Quebec and they mentioned that they felt that the Taxi drivers were really run by organized crime. Since they (including a few drivers) felt that there was lots of favoritizism and back room dealings with contracts over who could and couldn't service airports etc. Does anybody know if there is any basis for this view?
I don't think there is a basis for this. Taxi's are very regulated in Quebec, the taxi drivers themselves do the intimidating via their union and on the streets. The reality is that they have to pay large licenses, regular inspection fees, past several tests , have ATM machines in the car, etc, while the uber drivers don't.
If you want to see mob involvement related to cars you want to look at the towing industry, but generally they stick to the money, which is construction.
Maybe some companies, but there are a lot of different taxi companies in Montreal, many of which are worked-owned coops or an umbrella of freelancers.
There are also companies going after Uber's model but with strong ethics, such as Teo, which seems to be widely praised (good app, fully electric cars, good conditions for drivers, wifi inside the cabs).
My main annoyance against the taxi industry is its lobby, which is always against any sort of change in the transportation industry, such as new train lines (airport train or bus line), bike/bixi ride-share, etc. Taxis and Uber-type systems offer more transport solutions that reduce the requirement of having a car. I would love to get rid of my car, but it's not viable in Montreal (I bike to work, use the car mostly on weekends and Communauto requires me to do too much planning).
I've been living in Montreal for ~7 years without a car. It's not difficult. Yes, it's anecdotal, but I would find a car burdensome.
There was a great article about the corruption in snow removal in Quebec. People getting beat up for bidding on the wrong contracts. Wouldn't surprise me if that extended to the taxi business!
Not quite organized crime, but not far from it!
https://www.vice.com/read/of-course-there-is-a-snow-removal-...
> Not quite organized crime, but not far from it!
It's Montreal. They couldn't organize crime if they tried.
Ok, let me tell you my experience: Fyi I am left wing guy, like european left wing guy :), currently living in Bucharest, Romania. Here the taxis are regulated so the supply is limited but you can't really buy a licence, there is some kind of queue in place. Anyway we have a few dozen of taxi companies, however the experience is abysmal comparing with uber. What I can't understand is why there is no competition between the taxis to provide a better service, even in this restricted market: If some company would try to provide better service for a slightly higher price I would be the first to give up uber and use them ... But they don't care I think they are colluding to keep the costs down and that's it. Very sad.
Will be interesting to see if they pull out like they've done in Austin. It's definitely been less convenient to go to a bar since they left.
They plan to stay
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/uber-quebec-deal-1.36...
In my opinion, the government and the ride hailing companies should have bought back a share of the taxi permit pool value, then cancelled them. It would have been costly, but by taxing the ride themselves (at a fixed rate) then letting competition drive the ride price down while increasing the ride volume. The government could have had their money back, eventually. Uber technically owe "theoretical tax money" since they operated without permit in a regulated industry. They had said at some point they didn't care about paying that back, so it would have been a better solution. After that, the regulations could have been lifted/relaxed.
The current deal isn't very good, but at least there is one. Technically, with self driving and automation (including apps), a lot of people will lose their job, so obviously they will resist changes, any changes. We can complain all we want as developers, but from the taxi driver point of view, change suck. Then again, in my opinion, so does regulation. One positive point, at least, is that this saga allowed time for discussions and consideration. A abrupt disruption would maybe have destabilized the industry too fast, while the time it took for this law to be passed allowed for the creation of a "middle market" where new taxis companies managed to enter the industry with hybrid solutions (including one Tesla/Leaf + app company) and the "dinosaurs" had time to [try to] adapt [and fail]. In the end, this did create more competition instead of players being pushed out and replaced by less players. There will be a market consolidation eventually anyway, but until that, the users will be the real winners.
Time will tell. I am still not convinced this law was the right call, but appreciated the debate.
Automation will work if and only if car operator can make themselves non liable for any accident resulting from bugs.
Accident are stuffs that cannot be predicted. A bug is something that can be avoided.
As far as I am concerned, 99% of the software industry is not able to write critical software that is able to handle with a correct costs the case of failures and/or "abnormal" behaviors.
Software will fail. It will eventually fail dramatically. And with software it can fail in a reproducible way. Nowadays all experiments are made far from worst case (congestion, interferences, extreme conditions....)
Who is gonna pay for the predictable accidents? And will self driving cars will be better at avoiding accidents than humman given a same operating cost on the long term?
My guess, is : hell no.
Accident are stuffs that cannot be predicted.
Car insurance companies do this on a daily basis and make consistent and reliable profits betting on the outcomes.
Well, they have been involved in quite a few regulation tricks to not pay their due or cheat on customers (especially on forgetting to give life insurance prime). I would not take insurance company as an example of mathematical honest success in predicting the future.
And, also, I would point out that their prediction are based on opacity and it is hard to audit their reasoning. I talked with some of them, and their mathematical reasoning are flawed towards using linear equations to predict non linear phenomenon. And when I ask them how it can work, they had no explanations, just "recipies everyone use". So well, I do not trust them.
What you cannot explain simply you do not understand.
Living in Montreal, I'd like to know what the company's response will be. I'll be sad if the service is discontinued, and am still rooting for Uber Eats to come to town.