Uber, green transportation taxi why are so bad?

Transport and new transport: energy, pollution, engine innovations, concept car, hybrid vehicles, prototypes, pollution control, emission standards, tax. not individual transport modes: transport, organization, carsharing or carpooling. Transport without or with less oil.
dirk pitt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2081
Registration: 10/01/08, 14:16
Location: isere
x 68




by dirk pitt » 26/06/15, 06:55

the government has just decided to confiscate the vehicle for uber drivers.
decidedly, they have the wrong fight.
the story:
uber and VTC take the taxi job
taxis take the job of VSL (80% loan of taxi customers are reimbursed by the security)
and the VSL ... they must be dead because we can't hear them.
0 x
Image
Click my signature
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 26/06/15, 09:20

antoinet111 wrote:Hi, in the case of carpooling it is a sharing of charges, there is no (theoretical) benefit so nothing to criticize.


Yes. When it comes to real carpooling! I go from A to B on such day, on such date and I suggest the empty places ...

But for having taken carpoolers, I was told that some owners "organize" trips according to demand and make the round trip just to transport people, by "stuffing" the car ... Example, : I do not work Saturday, I travel Strasbourg-Paris in the morning and Paris-Strasbourg in the afternoon ... As my vehicle is insured, etc ... if I take 4 carpoolers, at the rate "approach of holidays / week -end ", I can make a small margin [however, I think many do not count all the actual costs: vehicle maintenance in particular! but only fuel and toll]

We get closer to Uber!

It becomes disguised moonlighting.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79270
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11019




by Christophe » 26/06/15, 09:56

Yes Dirk and did ... and for those who are not aware of the abbreviations:
VSL = Light Sanitary Vehicle
VTC = Transport Car with Driver,

Here is as Dirk says, this is confirmed: http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/en-direc ... ncois.html

"UberPop must be dissolved and declared illegal and the seizure of vehicles must be declared and carried out"Judge the head of state.

But the president also explained that "it is not the state which can seize vehicles itself". The seizure must "be authorized by court decisions."


I think it smells the end of carpooling in the broad sense ...

But Uber was already banned in other countries or cities: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uber_%28entreprise%29

In Belgium Uberpop is prohibited by the Brussels Commercial Court on April 16, 2014 after a complaint filed by the company Les Taxis Verts. Uber announces that it will continue to operate its service despite the ban.

In June 2014, Uber raised $ 1,2 billion, or 879 million euros, valuing the company at $ 17 billion9. A record since Facebook's fundraisers. Uber announces a 25% price reduction in UberX fares in San Francisco. In California, the service then operated at a loss11. In Germany, Uber was banned in Berlin in August 201412 and in Hamburg in September13.

(...)

In India, Uber was banned in the city of New Delhi on December 8, 2014 following the arrest the day before of an Uber driver for raping a female passenger17. The same day in the United States, the city of Portland filed a complaint against Uber for violation of its regulations. The city is also implementing a penalty system for drivers up to $ 1 for the company and 500 for the driver2. Uber replies by declaring that it supports its drivers in court and by creating a petition authorizing its service in the city, which collects more than 250 signatures18.

On December 9, UberPOP was banned in Spain by a Madrid court. On December 24, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick was personally charged in South Korea for the illegal exercise of the taxi profession. He faces up to two years in prison and a fine of almost 15 euros000.
0 x
dirk pitt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2081
Registration: 10/01/08, 14:16
Location: isere
x 68




by dirk pitt » 26/06/15, 10:14

Christophe wrote:I think it smells the end of carpooling in the broad sense ...


on the contrary, I think it is the end of taxis as we have known them until now.
the taxi fight is a rear guard fight and it is lost in advance even if for the moment, they have the impression of winning a few battles.
0 x
Image

Click my signature
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79270
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11019




by Christophe » 26/06/15, 10:21

Ideally yes and in the long term yes (but in how many years?) ... because for the moment the municipalities or governments of the world which ban Uber rather defend "the taxi system" than the societal innovation of Uber!

But why don't they seek a partnership with Uber rather than deciding on a formal ban?

Ah yes they certainly give in to taxi lobbies ...
0 x
User avatar
Gaston
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1910
Registration: 04/10/10, 11:37
x 88




by Gaston » 26/06/15, 10:56

Christophe wrote:Ideally yes and in the long term yes (but in how many years?) ... because for the moment the municipalities or governments of the world which ban Uber rather defend "the taxi system" than the societal innovation of Uber!
Regardless of the Taxi / Uber problem, would "societal innovation" not consist in moving towards more and more precarious odd jobs? :?:
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 26/06/15, 11:00

I like to remember that when we invented the electric bulb, there were protest movements by the lantern igniters and I even believe that there were prohibitions ... [as there were monster demonstrations against the Eiffel Tower!]

History has decided: whenever an "innovation" is progress, political force cannot oppose it.

However, there is something very, very fishy about Uber-style "innovations": it is unbridled liberalism and nothing more and nothing less than offering honest people to do moonlighting, without charges, without taxes ...

You know my opinion on charges, taxes and levies: it is an advance in civilization, that is to say a pooling of a certain number of needs (health, education, public order, etc.) .

A "100% Uber" company is a jungle company. I doubt that "Uber drivers" can provide care, education for their children, etc ... with their Uber income!

For now, and short term, it works ; social security, paid by others, will take care of them; national education, paid for by others, will educate their children after having educated them themselves ...

More generalize this "system" : it's Lagos! Rich people very rich. And 99% of the population struggling in utter misery. Deregulation, the least state has never bothered the rich!

What we know for sure is that the benefits are elsewhere!

So, there, the "Uber", it's just smart kids, who offer an individualistic and short-term model. It is therefore the formalization of moonlighting and "social parasitism".

Uber already weighs a few billion dollars.

Do not look for where the profits are. Uber executives don't need social security. They pay for the best private clinics. They do not need national education. Their children are in the best private schools (or universities).

Find the mistake !!!

And to say that Uber drivers think they are contributing to the progress of society ...

It is not always a light that thinks it is!
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 26/06/15, 11:08

Gaston wrote:, does not "societal innovation" consist in moving towards more and more precarious odd jobs:?:


We posted at the same time! Our ideas come together!

[this does not detract from a real debate on the monopoly oftaxis, and what this generates as abuse, and which serves as an argument; I note that the main argument of the "taximen" is that the license cost them 200 euros; will someone say one day that it is "bribe" paid to their colleague retiring; a license initially did not cost much: a few taxes; it is the monopoly which put the last generation of "taximen" in a delicate situation: they paid their colleagues the "right" to occupy a box ... and obviously, they fucked themselves; Uber has nothing to do with it, except that it blows up this perverse system and suddenly its prices are hyper-competitive!]
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79270
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11019




by Christophe » 26/06/15, 11:09

Gaston wrote:Regardless of the Taxi / Uber problem, would "societal innovation" not consist in moving towards more and more precarious odd jobs? :?:


Uber is clearly a way, like many others, to "put butter in the spinach" or simply "to make ends meet" ... especially in times of crisis like now ... not sure it would have had the same success if the working world were healthier !!!

So this is another social debate ...

ps: rather than precarious I would speak of unstable ... (and societal stability is losing ground and not only professionally ...)
0 x
User avatar
Gaston
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1910
Registration: 04/10/10, 11:37
x 88




by Gaston » 26/06/15, 11:21

Did67 wrote:this does not detract from a real debate on the monopoly of taxis
[...]
Uber has nothing to do with it, except that it "blows up" this perverse system and suddenly its rates are hyper-competitive!
Absolutely.
It is also amusing to note that taxis were waging war against hybrid bikes only a few months ago (perfectly legal and paying taxes) and that yesterday, taxis and hybrid bikes were side by side against UberPop ...
0 x

Back to "New transport: innovations, engines, pollution, technologies, policies, organization ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 99 guests