France Gives In To Insanity And Rioting Taxi Drivers: Cracks Down On Uber
from the because-that'll-help dept
Yesterday, we wrote about taxi drivers in France going absolutely insane in protesting the fact that they don't like competition from Uber. They took drivers hostage, set fires and flipped cars over -- basically reminding everyone that "hey, Uber drivers aren't nearly as fucking crazy as taxi drivers." But here's the amazing thing: the French government apparently has decided to appease these modern day luddites:France ordered a nationwide clampdown on UberPOP on Thursday, siding with taxi drivers who blockaded major transport hubs in angry protests against the popular online ride-sharing service.Not only that, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, rather than call out the taxi drivers, pretended that it was the fault of "both sides"
Prime Minister Manuel Valls condemned the violence and incidents "on both sides" as the government sought to take a tough stand on the protests while backing the drivers' case.The French bureaucrats are now telling law enforcement to seize cars from Uber drivers. Really.
"They give a deplorable image to visitors to our country," he said during a visit to Colombia, adding that all available legal measures would be taken to halt the UberPOP activity.
In a toughening of the French stance, Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve ordered Paris police to issue a decree banning UberPOP and said cars defying the order would be seized.Again, as most users of Uber and other such services will tell you, the experience tends to be a lot better than crappy cab experiences.
"The government will never accept the law of the jungle," he said in a television declaration on Thursday evening.
And European bureaucrats sit and wonder why they can't have more innovative internet companies starting up there. Perhaps they should look at situations like this and how they respond to innovative companies that disrupt legacy, monopoly services by providing something that the public actually wants.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bernard cazeneuve, cabs, france, innovation, luddism, manuel valls, riots, taxi
Companies: uber
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Maybe we should use this as an example of why regulatory capture is bad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is nothing I hate more than a citizenship that tries to skirt the very laws they let their politicians enact to avoid paying the price of the stupidity they keep voting in.
Uber is a great idea, but just not for the idiots of France. Someone needs to pay the price of stupid, and there is no better group of people to pay that price than the idiots electing the idiots in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If there were no laws requiring ass-pull fees to enter the market, Uber couldn't gain an advantage by blatantly ignoring those laws (or as Masnick likes to describe it "disrupt[ing] legacy, monopoly services"), and pseudo-libertarians couldn't make themselves look dumb by once more extolling a success story which turns out to be one of the biggest moochers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is a big lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is there a Google venture that Masnick doesn't love?
Not just Google but EVIL CENTRAL: Goldman Sachs.
Since Uber is JUST a web service, and we know those are cheap, then HOW could it possibly be valued so high? Uber should be charging maybe a quarter per referral -- Ebay does more in the way of site services and has low rates -- and since Uber claims drivers aren't employees but independent contractors, it can't have much in the way of expenses or structure.
Uber is also making money by SPYING on users everywhere if you install its app! So fits right in with Google.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/23/technology/uber-ftc-complaint-tracking/index.html
Now why does Masnick keep running these? -- Anyone new here, take the Copia link on any Techdirt page, there's Masnick proudly stating Google sponsors him, and its logo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hoarding with the Horde
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hoarding with the Horde
Then there is group B. They rely on the public roads too. Except none of their earns go towards the upkeep and manitance. I wonder why Group A is upset?
This isn't the evil socialist using their guns this is people reacting to a purely extractive service that gives nothing back. The law is the law, you want it changed then their are means in France to do this. Use democratic accountability to remove accountability. What a novel idea /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hoarding with the Horde
Uber and its drivers don't have to pay any taxes in France?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hoarding with the Horde
Please prove that "group B" doesn't pay any taxes for road maintenance in any of their lives? Do they not buy gas (tax), do they not buy cars (tax), do they not pay yearly (tax) on those cars?
Stop making up lies, you're not smart enough to get away with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hoarding with the Horde
Group B is doing the same exact thing and skirting the taxes that A is paying into. Are you that daft? Whether or not the taxes in place or just or not is irrelevant at the moment. If you drive a taxi you need to pay the taxes that all taxi drivers pay. Are Uber drivers little special rays of sunshine that are exempt from the system? No.
I'm even ignoring the fact that Uber was allowing uninsured drivers with no background checks on the road. Kind of a French law you know? But then again when you feel that the law doesn't apply to you and the evil Commie / Socialist /Facist (you forgot Nazi) comic book villain govt enforces the law of all thing... well cry me a river.
Et voila no lies just a touchdown looks like I got way with it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is there a Google venture that Masnick doesn't love?
Not just Google but EVIL CENTRAL: Goldman Sachs.
Since Uber is JUST a web service, and we know those are cheap, then HOW could it possibly be valued so high? Uber should be charging maybe a quarter per referral -- Ebay does more in the way of site services and has low rates -- and since Uber claims drivers aren't employees but independent contractors, it can't have much in the way of expenses or structure.
Uber is also making money by SPYING on users everywhere if you install its app! So fits right in with Google.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/23/technology/uber-ftc-complaint-tracking/index.html
Now why does Masnick keep running these? -- Anyone new here, take the Copia link on any Techdirt page, there's Masnick proudly stating Google sponsors him, and its logo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is there a Google venture that Masnick doesn't love?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is there a Google venture that Masnick doesn't love?
I don't know what batshit crazy world YOU live in, but here in the real world *no one* considers 12% of your gross sales to be a "low fee."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is there a Google venture that Masnick doesn't love?
If creating a web service is so cheap, why are you still here leeching off of Mike's service?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is there a Google venture that Masnick doesn't love?
So then is eBay overvalued as well?
Facebook?
LinkedIn?
Twitter?
*Insert favorite website here*?
What a piss-poor argument. You're slacking, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is there a Google venture that Masnick doesn't love?
Yeah, really, I mean just look at how much he loves YouTube... oh wait.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150622/23534431429/youtubes-inane-response-to-handing-popul ar-youtubers-channel-to-cosmetics-company-blame-algorithms.shtml
Blue, you need new talking points that aren't so easily debunked. Go back to whoever is giving you yours and ask for an updated set that make you look just slightly more realistic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is there a Google venture that Masnick doesn't love?
And because it is easy it must be dismissed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, really. That's what happens when you make a habit of flouting the law: the law eventually decides enough is enough.
If you don't like the law, the appropriate thing to do in a democratic society is to work to get the law changed. Instead, like the barbarians who run the company, Uber has been thumbing its nose at the law and saying "Nyah, nyah! So what are you going to do about it?"
Well... this is what. It's about time, and I really hope the USA follows their example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: enough is enough
It's what you do when the law is unjust and immoral.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: enough is enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: enough is enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: enough is enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: enough is enough
People who choose to engage in civil disobedience know this, and they do so with their eyes wide open, betting that they'll be vindicated by the court of public opinion and come out ahead in the long run. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
To try to make the claim that someone should be able to get away with blatantly flouting the law, whether or not you believe it's a form of noble "civil disobedience", without any legal consequences, is pure fantasy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: enough is enough
Yes. Sometimes they get the law changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: enough is enough
Maybe their particular method is what is wrong and not the law or disruption in general?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: enough is enough
That's what the people who don't like them don't like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: enough is enough
I doubt that any of Uber's passengers give a shit about this.
"...flouting the law at every opportunity..."
Broad, meaningless generalisation. Are they stealing cars, running red lights and kicking puppies? Or just pushing up against transportation laws?
"...trampling on the rights of everyone who's not Uber..."
Another broad, meaningless generalisation. Who exactly is "everyone who's not Uber"? That's quite a lot of people. What rights exactly? Free speech or something?
"...harming their workers and their customers..."
All of them? Some of them? A tiny fraction of them? Are they harming them more or less than taxi workers and customers?
Your claims are grandiose and without any explanation. Explain how a company can be as successful as they are if, according to you, all their drivers and passengers are having such a terrible experience and hate them so much? Nobody is forcing people to drive for them or use the service. Are you claiming it's all just "playing the media skillfully"and we're all just stupid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: enough is enough
Wait, what? If their workers and customers were being harmed, they have many, many, many other options for them. Especially the workers. So why do they keep signing up more and more people to drive for them?
A friend of mine -- just yesterday -- went to the inspection center in Silicon Valley to get certified for Uber and was told to come back another day because the wait would be hours. For people getting "exploited" they sure seem to be eager to sign up...
Mason, you're being really foolish if you really believe those regulations protect people, rather than protect against competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: enough is enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: enough is enough
This argument may have held true in the past when such things could be done pretty easily without public knowledge. I'm not so sure that in this day and age of social journalism that oil companies could get away doing things like that, even without the standards we currently have in place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: enough is enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: enough is enough
I believe they can, to some degree. Public opinion does hold weight with stockholders who don't wish their investments to be devalued by a public trashing of the company.
As a counterargument, I offer... oh, I dunno... maybe every single thing that we found out the oil industry has done since the invention of the Internet?
I don't see the invention of the Internet as the turning point here. It's since everyone started carrying a remote TV news crew in their pocket that's the turning point. With smartphones and all the associated social media apps anyone can be a reporter these days. We don't have to wait for mainstream media to get around to doing an in-depth exposé to get people up in arms about an issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: enough is enough
Govt Hulk SMASH market based threat!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: enough is enough
No, it isn't.
Civil disobedience is not and never has been "ignore the laws you don't like and hope you get away with it". Instead, it's "publicly violate unjust laws in a deliberate attempt to get arrested, in order to clog up the court system (if done en-masse) or embarass the authorities (if done by a high-profile individual), in order to force a change in the law".
Civil disobedience is a political campaigning tactic, not a catch-all excuse for whatever you feel like doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2) So long as a person has the appropriate insurance, why should they be banned from making money with their own property to earn some extra money. No company or individual should have the right to protect their own income by preventing others from competing with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because one of the most fundamental rules of civilization is that you can't just do whatever you want just because you can. The pro-Uber folks, either out of ignorance or straight-up maliciousness, keep trying to paint this as some sort of David and Goliath story about an evil, oppressive "guild" shutting down competition.
The reality is that taxi driver certifications are very important. If you're going to get in a cab, you have to be able to trust that the person behind the wheel is competent (not going to get you killed) and trustworthy (not going to rob, kidnap, murder, or simply swindle you). Think about the amount of trust you're extending, placing your life and safety in the driver's hands by getting into a cab. Certification provides a time-honored, well-understood way of demonstrating that that trust is warranted.
Yes, it's expensive; most things of great value in life are. And so when a bunch of gypsy cab operators start breaking all the relevant laws and undercutting the legitimate taxi drivers, and then completely unsurprisingly causing harm all over (privacy violations, price gouging, maliciously interfering with competitors by calling for fake rides, etc,) why is anyone surprised that people don't like it?
...oh yeah. Because they've been fed a line of crap about how it's about noble rebels fighting the Evil Empire of the "guild system", and they believed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Funnily enough, it is much easier to be taken in by a fake registered taxi that it is by an Uber driver. In the first case all you have to go on is the medallion, in the second you can have a picture of the driver from an independent source, along with customer reviews, and therefore a more certain identification. Further, a third party has a record of who you are riding with, which gives better protection to customers, than a taxis maybe notifying their controller that they have a hire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or overturn cars, or set tires on fire to block major roads, or assault competitors... Lucky we've got taxi certifications to prevent that from ever being able to happen!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So can everyone get a list of these unstable ones that are setting shit on fire, and overturning Uber drivers' vehicles?
Because not for nothing, I certainly wouldn't get anywhere near those crazy fucks, let alone in a car with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is… unless you want a choice of which ride, light bulb, school, health care, plastic bag, food, trade, gun or joining a union or accountable, proficient government. Good luck getting serious pro-choice options passed through the “Pro-Choice” legislatures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When that is said it is important not to grant monopolies or closed markets from those laws.
EU is a regulated market and not a libertarian wet dream. Overall, having some standards is a good thing. A race to the bottom as some libertarians propose is not always the way to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
For more personal services, customers will not let a race to the bottom go to the bottom, most will pay a bit more to get a decent service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where customers can get and give instance feedback, and new people can easily enter the market, quality tends to settle to the level that the customers want, and is also somewhat varied allowing for different tastes and affordability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thank you!
I don't understand why so many people don't understand this very simple point. Libertarians love to complain about how regulations make things more expensive to produce, as if all the money was just vanishing into a black hole somewhere. As if they're completely ignorant of basic economics, and how producing a higher quality product (which regulations enforce, by setting a minimum bar) is generally more expensive. (And if they're not completely ignorant, then they do know this, and are deliberately looking for ways to get away with producing a poor-quality product. Either way, it's a harmful ideology.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fast feedback gives a better quality assurance than the slow plodding of bureaucratic systems, which rarely act before a problem has become serious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Any yet my Uber experience has been so much better than practically every taxi ride I've ever had. Please explain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mason Wheeler shits the bed
I think Rosa Parks had the right idea on how to deal with the shits in power and so do companies like Uber.
Today, you've laid out so much bullshit (like how dangerous it is to get in a Uber car...) that you've given ol' Blue some serious competition for the BS artist of the day award.
The simple fact is that consumers LIKE services like Uber and HATE traditional cab services and consumers WILL win this battle. Cab companies have only themselves to blame for that.
And despite all their fighting, the day is coming when pretty much every cabbie will be out of a job anyway as self-driving cars hit their stride. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of pricks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mason Wheeler shits the bed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I want to know is ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, the French government surrendered?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insanity...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cowardice and mob rule at it's finest
Really, I guess I missed it when Uber drivers were out rioting and destroying vehicles.
"They give a deplorable image to visitors to our country," he said during a visit to Colombia, adding that all available legal measures would be taken to halt the UberPOP activity.
If he was talking about the cab drivers and the riots, then yes, I would absolutely agree that their actions here give a deplorable image to visitors, but given that second half, I can't help but think that he's completely ignoring them, and instead blaming Uber for the 'deplorable image'.
Because clearly Uber drivers are so much worse for the public image of a country than violent and/or destructive riots. /s
In a toughening of the French stance, Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve ordered Paris police to issue a decree banning UberPOP and said cars defying the order would be seized.
"The government will never accept the law of the jungle," he said in a television declaration on Thursday evening.
So I take it then that those that were destroying cars and other public property have all been arrested and are currently sitting in cells awaiting trial? I mean if Uber drivers can have their cars seized, then surely those involved in a riot and destruction of public property, surely those people are facing much harsher penalties for their actions, right? /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And this is why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UberPoP is illegal in France
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: UberPoP is illegal in France
I'm not sure where the President of France thinks he gets the authority to arbitrarily declare things illegal when they were specifically set up to follow all the French laws. They would need either some kind of lawsuit against UberPOP where a court would rule them illegal, or to have a new law made that UberPOP doesn't currently follow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously? It sounds like that's exactly what he did, he accepted the law of the jungle and caved in like a dirty little whore. Cazeneuve should be ashamed to show his face in public to make such a speech and then do exactly what he said he would not do.
Talk about a fucking hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope Uber just continues operating. Fuck them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
surprised
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]