Should ride-hailing drivers follow the same rules as taxi drivers?
In 2015 Taiwan’s vTaiwan process asked whether UberX should follow the same laws as taxis and car-rental firms. 1,921 people voted on statements written in Mandarin, and the organisers said they would ask the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to respond.
A public Polis conversation in Taiwan, through vTaiwan
From a public Polis conversation in Taiwan, through vTaiwan, June 2015 to January 2017: “UberX 自用車載客”. People wrote statements and voted agree, disagree or pass on each other’s. These rows are the statements most voters agreed with, the ones that split voters most evenly, and the ones the fewest agreed with, out of 94 that at least 15 people voted on. Statements about the voters themselves, insults and unchecked factual claims are left out. Passes are not counted. The statements were written in Mandarin; each is translated for this page, with the original under it.
Most agreed
I think drivers should be vetted. Passenger protection and drivers’ rights both have to be looked after. Most important of all is safety first.
I think the government should use the challenge of Uber to improve how taxis are regulated and rated at the same time, so that taxi drivers and passengers can get service as good as Uber’s.
I think that since public transport spread, the share of commercial cars driving empty has kept rising. Letting private cars carry passengers won’t grow demand; it will only make taxis harder to run.
I think that although UberX says it is there to serve the public, once the cost of paying tax legally and of insurance is added, its business model could not keep running.
I think Uber and the carpool network the government set up are both matchmaking platforms, and neither has anything to do with the Ministry of Transportation.
Polis sorts voters into opinion groups by how they voted across the whole conversation. This one found 2: Group A (330 voters) and Group B (889 voters). These are the statements every group was most likely to agree with, ranked the way Polis ranks common ground: the chance of agreeing in each group, multiplied together. Under them is the statement the groups were furthest apart on.
I think drivers should be vetted. Passenger protection and drivers’ rights both have to be looked after. Most important of all is safety first.
我覺得應該審核人員。乘客保障。駕駛權益都要兼顧。最重要還是安全第一
Group A198 agreed, 3 disagreed (99%)
Group B402 agreed, 9 disagreed (98%)
I think that when UberX private cars carry passengers, they should be covered by passenger liability insurance.
我覺得 UberX 自用車載客時，應該要投保汽車乘客責任險。
Group A232 agreed, 10 disagreed (96%)
Group B440 agreed, 24 disagreed (95%)
I think every driver who carries passengers should have accident insurance.
我覺得載客的司機都應該保意外險。
Group A227 agreed, 5 disagreed (98%)
Group B440 agreed, 26 disagreed (94%)
Where they split
I think private cars carrying paying passengers without government certification already threaten public safety.
Written for the hearth so this question has a whole card on each side to argue with. No visitor wrote them, so the two parts only a person can fill are empty: what happened to you, and who on the other side called the case against fair.
Yes
Where this card stands
Yes. A stranger driving you for money is the same risk whatever app booked the ride, so vetting, insurance and tax should be the same.
How sure, before and after the case against
The strongest case against it
Taxi rules were written for street hails and fixed fleets. Copying them onto part-time drivers ends a service riders chose, when the rules for both could be fixed instead.
What would change this card’s mind
If part-time drivers under lighter rules had no more crashes, assaults or uninsured claims than licensed taxis.
Only the safety rules. Vetting and insurance should match, but fleet licences and fixed fares shouldn’t be forced on people who drive a few hours a week.
How sure, before and after the case against
The strongest case against it
Every lighter rule for ride-hailing is a rule taxis still carry, so taxi drivers end up competing with one hand tied.
What would change this card’s mind
If cities that kept two rulebooks saw taxi incomes collapse without riders getting safer or cheaper trips.
“Argue with this card” opens the card on the front page with this card’s position as the case against you. You write where you stand and what would change your mind.