[Case Study and Source](https://hackmd.io/Os5_JBm_RPiWBnZ8v9EpFQ?view)

## Introduction
This report summarizes the results of public input, encompassing:
* __210 statements__
* __45,919 votes__
* 8 topics
* 39 subtopics

All voters were anonymous.

## Overview
Below is a high level overview of the topics discussed in the conversation, as well as the percentage of statements categorized under each topic. Note that the percentages may add up to greater than 100% when statements fall under more than one topic.

* **Legal status and regulatory framework (24%):** Statements call for a modernized legal framework that separates ride‑hailing from traditional taxis, mandates licensing, safety and consumer‑protection standards, ensures transparent enforcement and data oversight, and promotes fair competition.
* **Service quality, convenience, and user experience (19%):** Statements highlight Uber’s pre‑booking, real‑time vehicle tracking, cashless payments and driver‑rating system as boosting convenience and perceived service quality, while noting concerns about fare‑surge opacity.
* **Market competition and economic impact (13%):** Statements argue that Uber would expand consumer choice and stimulate competition, counteracting taxi subsidies, yet also raise worries about unfair competition and driver earnings.
* **Passenger safety and insurance requirements (12%):** Statements stress the need for mandatory passenger liability insurance, rigorous driver verification, and platform safety tools such as GPS tracking and rating systems to protect riders.
* **Driver qualifications, rights, and employment conditions (11%):** Statements emphasize stronger licensing and safety checks, flexible work opportunities, income disparities, and the need for improved grievance handling and driver protections.
* **Platform classification and sharing‑economy definition (10%):** Statements debate whether Uber functions as a ride‑hailing transport service, an information‑matching marketplace, or a labor‑dispatch model, influencing which regulatory authority should oversee it.
* **Taxation and financial responsibilities (5%):** Statements assert that Uber must meet corporate tax obligations in Taiwan, criticize perceived tax avoidance, and discuss how tax policy affects market fairness and competition.
* **Other (6%):** Statements contain light‑hearted remarks such as sharing secrets or affection for cats, without substantive consensus.

## Top 5 Most Discussed Subtopics
39 subtopics of discussion emerged. These 5 subtopics had the most statements submitted.

### 1. Legislative reform and dedicated ride‑hailing regulations (19 statements)

Prominent themes were:
- Update laws to match tech-driven ride‑hailing.
- Create distinct regulations for shared‑economy vehicles.
- Ensure driver and passenger safety through legal oversight.
- Balance taxi industry interests with new platform competition.
- Anticipate autonomous vehicle integration in transport policy.

### 2. Comparative advantages over traditional taxis (13 statements)

Prominent themes were:
- Greater convenience and on‑demand booking
- Higher service quality and vehicle cleanliness
- Win‑win benefits for drivers and passengers
- More transportation options beyond traditional taxis
- Distinct pre‑booking model versus street‑hail taxis

### 3. Licensing and registration requirements for ride‑hailing services (11 statements)

Prominent themes were:
- Require UberX to obtain transport business license.
- Ensure driver qualifications and vehicle standards match taxis.
- Government should enforce registration and deregister non‑compliant firms.
- Legal compliance essential for safety and fairness.
- Balance innovation with existing transportation regulations.

### 4. Qualification standards and safety requirements (11 statements)

Prominent themes were:
- Professional driver license required for Uber drivers
- Stricter qualification and background checks needed
- Display driver credentials visibly inside the vehicle
- Mandatory safety training and certification exams
- Align Uber standards with existing taxi regulations

### 5. Driver and vehicle quality assurance (9 statements)

Prominent themes were:
- Uber vehicles perceived as higher quality than taxis
- Drivers viewed as more professional and courteous
- Passenger rating system seen as essential
- Transparent rating enforcement ensures vehicle standards
- Owner‑driver care leads to safer driving

## Topics
From the statements submitted, 8 high level topics were identifiedas well as 39 subtopics. Based on voting patterns both points of common ground as well as differences of opinion have been identified and are described below.

### Legal status and regulatory framework (50 statements)
This topic included 7 subtopics, comprising a total of 50 statements.

#### Legislative reform and dedicated ride‑hailing regulations (19 statements)
This subtopic had moderately high alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Modernizing Legal Framework for Emerging Tech Services**: Several statements argue that existing decades‑old laws are ill‑suited to current technology and should be updated or newly created to accommodate services like Uber.
* **Crafting Distinct Regulations for Ride‑Hailing Platforms Separate from Traditional Taxis**: A recurring view calls for a specific regulatory regime that differentiates non‑commercial, part‑time ride‑hailing vehicles from professional taxi and passenger‑car categories.
* **Balancing Protection and Competition Between Ride‑Hailing and Conventional Taxi Operators**: Comments express both support for improving taxi oversight to match Uber’s service quality and concern that taxi drivers may be disadvantaged, while a minority suggest that Uber should not be legalized to protect the taxi industry.
* **Ensuring Safety, Consumer Rights, and Legal Certainty for Drivers and Passengers**: Many statements emphasize the need for legal safeguards, insurance, and accountability mechanisms to protect all parties using ride‑hailing services.
* **Anticipating Future Mobility Trends Such as Autonomous Vehicles and Their Regulatory Needs**: Some participants highlight that legislation should also consider longer‑term scenarios like driverless cars and the broader impact on public transport and employment.

Common ground:
Participants argue that the government should use the Uber challenge to overhaul taxi oversight and rating systems so that both taxi drivers and passengers receive service quality comparable to Uber. They call for legislation that legalizes Uber, creates separate rules for UberX and other part‑time, non‑commercial vehicles, and brings all white‑plate taxis in smaller towns under uniform regulation. Several participants stress that existing passenger‑vehicle laws hinder the sharing economy and demand swift, environmentally friendly reforms. One participant says authorities must assess Uber’s measurable impact on daily life and that the participant will back legislation only if they find the impact substantial. [[111](## "\"我覺得政府應該能藉由面對 Uber 的挑戰，同時改善計程車的監管與評價制度，讓計程車的司機與乘客也能獲得如 Uber 一樣的服務品質。\"
Votes: (Agree=411, Disagree=18)"), [68](## "\"我覺得現在已經是一個科技時代，很多事物及法令規範都應該應時應地治宜，而不是墨守成規。\"
Votes: (Agree=558, Disagree=51)"), [133](## "\"將Uber合法，能讓司機與乘客都能受到更好的保障，只希望台灣政府能擬定法規\"
Votes: (Agree=240, Disagree=35)"), [140](## "\"我覺得既然出了北中高，台灣其他鄉鎮市的計程車幾乎都是白牌車，搭車時總是坐地起價，不如立法全數納入規範。\"
Votes: (Agree=211, Disagree=36)"), [106](## "\"我覺得要替UberX找到出口，就該訂定有別於職業小客車和計程車的法規，讓非營業車，只是要共乘或補貼油錢的，兼職性質的自用車，有一個遵守的遊戲規則\"
Votes: (Agree=365, Disagree=69)"), [151](## "\"我覺得目前管理職業客車的法規對分享經濟很不友善。應該要盡速修法，比較環保。\"
Votes: (Agree=135, Disagree=29)"), [123](## "\"我覺得UBER問題是否應該立法(或修法)？應取決於UBER服務是否有夠大影響力，目前來看，影響人民日常並不大。若民意機關覺得影響性夠大，我讚成修法或立法。\"
Votes: (Agree=209, Disagree=71)")]

Differences of opinion:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a significant difference of opinion (at least 20 votes, and more than 40%% and 60%% difference in agreement rate between groups). [[111](## "\"我覺得政府應該能藉由面對 Uber 的挑戰，同時改善計程車的監管與評價制度，讓計程車的司機與乘客也能獲得如 Uber 一樣的服務品質。\"
Votes: (Agree=411, Disagree=18)"), [68](## "\"我覺得現在已經是一個科技時代，很多事物及法令規範都應該應時應地治宜，而不是墨守成規。\"
Votes: (Agree=558, Disagree=51)"), [133](## "\"將Uber合法，能讓司機與乘客都能受到更好的保障，只希望台灣政府能擬定法規\"
Votes: (Agree=240, Disagree=35)"), [140](## "\"我覺得既然出了北中高，台灣其他鄉鎮市的計程車幾乎都是白牌車，搭車時總是坐地起價，不如立法全數納入規範。\"
Votes: (Agree=211, Disagree=36)"), [106](## "\"我覺得要替UberX找到出口，就該訂定有別於職業小客車和計程車的法規，讓非營業車，只是要共乘或補貼油錢的，兼職性質的自用車，有一個遵守的遊戲規則\"
Votes: (Agree=365, Disagree=69)"), [151](## "\"我覺得目前管理職業客車的法規對分享經濟很不友善。應該要盡速修法，比較環保。\"
Votes: (Agree=135, Disagree=29)"), [123](## "\"我覺得UBER問題是否應該立法(或修法)？應取決於UBER服務是否有夠大影響力，目前來看，影響人民日常並不大。若民意機關覺得影響性夠大，我讚成修法或立法。\"
Votes: (Agree=209, Disagree=71)")]

#### Licensing and registration requirements for ride‑hailing services (11 statements)
This subtopic had moderately low alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Legal Compliance and Licensing**: Several statements assert that UberX should obtain the appropriate transport business license and adhere to existing regulations like other taxi operators.
* **Safety and Risk Concerns**: Some statements express worry that operating without proper licensing may create safety risks for passengers and shift liability onto the government.
* **Regulatory Parity with Taxis**: A number of statements suggest UberX should be subject to the same requirements as taxis, including vehicle identification, driver examinations, and licensing.
* **Government Enforcement and Deregistration**: Certain statements call on authorities to cancel Uber’s corporate registration following the rejection of its administrative appeal.
* **Innovation Within Legal Boundaries**: One statement acknowledges the value of innovative services but emphasizes they must operate fully within the law to avoid fairness and safety issues.

Common ground:
Participants argue that innovative profit‑driven services advance society, but they require those services to operate fully within legal regulations to prevent fairness and safety problems. They request that UberX apply for a transport‑business license in accordance with the law. [[51](## "\"我覺得任何的創新服務以達營利目的的確是社會進步的重要過程，但必須完全在法律的規範下合法經營，才能避免因非法營運而產生社會公平及社會安全等問題．\"
Votes: (Agree=469, Disagree=97)"), [21](## "\"我覺得UberX應該依法令申請經營運輸業務。\"
Votes: (Agree=505, Disagree=186)")]

Differences of opinion:
While there was broad support for requiring UberX to comply with legal regulations, opinions differed with respect to specific enforcement measures and vehicle identification. One participant argued that UberX operates without a license and creates safety risks for riders. Another participant asserted that, after the Ministry of Transportation rejected Uber’s appeal, the Taipei city government should cancel the registration of the company “Taiwan Yubo Digital.” A third participant insisted that the government require taxis to use a yellow paint scheme so that taxis stand out from other vehicles. [[18](## "\"我覺得UberX目前未依法營業，讓我覺得搭乘時有風險。\"
Votes: (Agree=351, Disagree=350)"), [31](## "\"我覺得既然交通部已駁回 Uber 的行政訴願，台北市政府就應該註銷「台灣宇博數位」的公司登記。\"
Votes: (Agree=260, Disagree=323)"), [13](## "\"我覺得計程車身一定要塗裝成黃色的，和其他車輛顏色不同。\"
Votes: (Agree=299, Disagree=392)"), [51](## "\"我覺得任何的創新服務以達營利目的的確是社會進步的重要過程，但必須完全在法律的規範下合法經營，才能避免因非法營運而產生社會公平及社會安全等問題．\"
Votes: (Agree=469, Disagree=97)"), [21](## "\"我覺得UberX應該依法令申請經營運輸業務。\"
Votes: (Agree=505, Disagree=186)")]

#### Government enforcement and punitive measures (8 statements)
This subtopic had moderately low alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Mandated Enforcement Responsibility**: Several statements assign the transportation ministry the duty to proactively seize illegal unlicensed vehicles and Uber operations.
* **Perceived Government Inaction**: Multiple statements criticize the government for failing to act decisively against illegal Uber activities, describing the response as ineffective or incompetent.
* **Calls for Stricter Penalties**: Some statements advocate expanding enforcement measures, including heavier fines or arrests, and adopting a more “iron‑fisted” approach.
* **Dismissal of Public Opinion**: One statement asserts that efforts to halt illegal Uber services should proceed without requiring input from citizens.
* **Cross‑Regional Comparison**: A statement contrasts Taiwan’s enforcement with Hong Kong’s, suggesting Taiwan’s penalties are comparatively lenient.

Common ground:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a point of common ground (at least 20 votes, and at least 70% agreement).

Differences of opinion:
There was disagreement about how to handle Uber. One participant argued that the Ministry of Transportation’s enforcement was ineffective and reflected governmental incompetence. Another participant claimed that Hong Kong’s crackdown, which included arresting company leaders, was appropriate and urged Taiwan to adopt a similarly tough approach, warning that allowing unregulated vehicles jeopardizes passenger safety. [[29](## "\"我覺得交通部取締效果不彰，是公權力無能的表現。\"
Votes: (Agree=317, Disagree=335)"), [164](## "\"香港取締Uber不只是對司機開罰，也逮捕了公司負責人，台灣取締Uber只會罰罰款罷了，請鐵腕一點好嗎? 隨意車輛人員都能載客，只是犧牲掉了乘客(人民)安全。\"
Votes: (Agree=69, Disagree=55)")]

#### Transparency, public consultation, and reporting mechanisms (4 statements)
This subtopic had high alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Reporting Dispute Records to the Ministry**: Several statements call for Uber’s dispute‑resolution records to be submitted to the Ministry of Transportation.
* **Online Publication of Investigation Findings**: There is a request that the 2014 Uber legality investigation report be made publicly available online.
* **Pre‑Consultation Position Disclosure by Agencies**: One statement argues that relevant government bodies should first clarify their stance before gathering public opinions.
* **Requirement for Reasoned Justification**: A comment emphasizes that any reporting or decision should be accompanied by a clear, reasonable explanation.

Common ground:
Participant A calls for the Ministry of Transportation to publish the 2014 report that examined whether Uber violated the law. Participant B urges the Ministry of Transportation to receive and review Uber’s dispute‑resolution records. Participant C demands that every relevant government agency state its position clearly before any public consultation is conducted. [[41](## "\"交通部應於線上公開2014年調查 Uber 是否違法的報告。\"
Votes: (Agree=522, Disagree=87)"), [9](## "\"我覺得 Uber 平台的爭端解決紀錄應呈報給交通部。\"
Votes: (Agree=559, Disagree=125)"), [37](## "\"我覺得在徵集意見前，各級相關政府單位都應該先明確表示立場。\"
Votes: (Agree=491, Disagree=144)")]

Differences of opinion:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a significant difference of opinion (at least 20 votes, and more than 40%% and 60%% difference in agreement rate between groups). [[41](## "\"交通部應於線上公開2014年調查 Uber 是否違法的報告。\"
Votes: (Agree=522, Disagree=87)"), [9](## "\"我覺得 Uber 平台的爭端解決紀錄應呈報給交通部。\"
Votes: (Agree=559, Disagree=125)"), [37](## "\"我覺得在徵集意見前，各級相關政府單位都應該先明確表示立場。\"
Votes: (Agree=491, Disagree=144)")]

#### Public safety and consumer‑protection standards (4 statements)
This subtopic had moderately low alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Government Certification Required**: Statements argue that vehicles used for passenger transport must obtain official government certification to safeguard public safety.
* **Unlicensed Private Cars Pose Risks**: Statements describe private cars operating without a transport license as threatening public safety.
* **Minimum Legal Safety Standards**: One statement suggests that law should set only basic safety standards, leaving further specifications to market mechanisms.
* **Market Mechanisms Complement Regulation**: The same statement emphasizes that beyond a baseline, market forces should determine additional standards.
* **Taxis as Public Transport Under Government Oversight**: A statement frames taxis as a public transport mode that should be managed by the government to protect passengers and drivers.

Common ground:
A participant says that the law should set only a minimum standard that protects passengers, drivers, and other road users, and that the market mechanism should decide everything else. [[143](## "\"我覺得法律僅須訂定一個能保護乘客、司機其他用路人的最低標準，其他應交由市場機制來決定。\"
Votes: (Agree=193, Disagree=40)")]

Differences of opinion:
While there was broad support for setting only a minimum standard that protects passengers, drivers, and other road users, opinions differed with respect to whether unlicensed private cars providing rides without government certification threaten public safety, as one participant argued that they already do. [[44](## "\"我覺得自用車未經政府認證就自行載客營業，已經威脅到公共安全。\"
Votes: (Agree=294, Disagree=352)"), [143](## "\"我覺得法律僅須訂定一個能保護乘客、司機其他用路人的最低標準，其他應交由市場機制來決定。\"
Votes: (Agree=193, Disagree=40)")]

#### Driver data protection and privacy oversight (2 statements)
This subtopic had moderately high alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Government Regulation of Driver Data**: Both statements express that driver personal data should be subject to government control.

Common ground:
A participant says that the government should regulate UberX drivers' personal data. [[24](## "\"我覺得 UberX 司機的個人資料，應受政府管制。\"
Votes: (Agree=483, Disagree=179)")]

Differences of opinion:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a significant difference of opinion (at least 20 votes, and more than 40%% and 60%% difference in agreement rate between groups). [[24](## "\"我覺得 UberX 司機的個人資料，應受政府管制。\"
Votes: (Agree=483, Disagree=179)")]

#### Fair competition and non‑preferential treatment of incumbents (2 statements)
This subtopic had high alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Fair Regulatory Framework**: Statements call for government to establish impartial rules for the transport sector rather than shielding incumbent interests.
* **Enhanced Consumer Choice**: Statements highlight the benefit of legalizing Uber to give consumers additional transportation options.
* **Stimulated Market Competition**: Statements suggest that allowing Uber would create healthy competition for existing taxi operators.
* **Expanded Part‑Time Opportunities**: Statements note that Uber legalization would open more part‑time work avenues.

Common ground:
Participant A argues that the government must establish fair transport regulations that do not protect entrenched interests. Participant B advocates legalizing Uber, saying that it would give consumers an additional option, create healthy competition for taxi drivers, and expand part‑time work opportunities. Both participants reference the Uber controversy resolved through the vTaiwan deliberative process as a precedent for inclusive policy making. [[65](## "\"我覺得政府應該對運輸業設置公平的管制規則，而不是保護特定的既得利益者。\"
Votes: (Agree=558, Disagree=43)"), [153](## "\"我贊成uber合法化，讓消費者多一個選擇，讓計程車業者多一份良性競爭的動力，更讓兼職管道多方面開放。\"
Votes: (Agree=161, Disagree=22)")]

Differences of opinion:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a significant difference of opinion (at least 20 votes, and more than 40%% and 60%% difference in agreement rate between groups). [[65](## "\"我覺得政府應該對運輸業設置公平的管制規則，而不是保護特定的既得利益者。\"
Votes: (Agree=558, Disagree=43)"), [153](## "\"我贊成uber合法化，讓消費者多一個選擇，讓計程車業者多一份良性競爭的動力，更讓兼職管道多方面開放。\"
Votes: (Agree=161, Disagree=22)")]

### Service quality, convenience, and user experience (39 statements)
This topic included 7 subtopics, comprising a total of 39 statements.

#### Comparative advantages over traditional taxis (13 statements)
This subtopic had moderately low alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Convenient Pre‑Booking**: Statements highlight that Uber allows passengers to schedule point‑to‑point rides in advance, contrasting with the on‑the‑spot nature of traditional taxis.
* **Higher Perceived Quality**: Comments note Uber vehicles as cleaner, more polite, and generally offering a higher‑quality riding environment than traditional taxis.
* **Cost‑Effectiveness**: Several statements describe Uber as cheaper or more affordable compared to traditional taxi services.
* **Mutual Benefits for Drivers and Passengers**: Some remarks emphasize that Uber creates a win‑win situation, providing advantages to both riders and drivers.
* **Expanded Choice of Service**: Participants mention that Uber adds an additional transportation option, giving users more alternatives beyond conventional taxis.

Common ground:
One participant states that Uber is a new service that benefits both passengers and drivers. [[53](## "\"我覺得UBER是個讓乘客與司機雙方都能受益的新服務。\"
Votes: (Agree=527, Disagree=87)")]

Differences of opinion:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a significant difference of opinion (at least 20 votes, and more than 40%% and 60%% difference in agreement rate between groups). [[53](## "\"我覺得UBER是個讓乘客與司機雙方都能受益的新服務。\"
Votes: (Agree=527, Disagree=87)")]

#### Driver and vehicle quality assurance (9 statements)
This subtopic had high alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Perceived Superior Vehicle Quality in Uber**: Several statements claim Uber’s vehicles are generally of higher quality than typical taxis, noting the availability of premium car models and better overall condition.
* **Perceived Superior Driver Conduct in Uber**: Multiple statements describe Uber drivers as having better attitudes, adhering more to traffic rules, and providing a more courteous service compared to taxi drivers.
* **Positive Evaluation of Uber’s Passenger Rating System**: Comments highlight Uber’s rating mechanism as effective, transparent, and capable of enforcing standards by suspending low‑scoring drivers.
* **Call for Universal Rating Mechanisms Across All For‑Hire Vehicles**: One statement advocates that all commercial vehicles should adopt passenger rating systems rather than relying solely on government licensing.
* **Contrast Between Uber’s Transparent Rating and Taxi’s Opaque System**: Several statements contrast Uber’s publicly visible, enforceable rating process with the taxi industry’s “black‑box” system that lacks passenger feedback visibility and enforcement.

Common ground:
The participants propose that every commercial vehicle adopt a passenger‑rating system rather than relying solely on government licences. They highlight Uber’s transparent rating mechanism, which automatically suspends drivers whose scores fall below 4.5, and contrast this with the taxi industry’s opaque, non‑feedback‑driven system. The participants also point out that Uber offers higher‑end car models such as Audi, BMW, and Mercedes, and that Uber drivers generally obey traffic rules and treat passengers politely, leading them to view Uber’s overall service quality as superior to traditional taxis. They request that Uber maintain its current rating standards and that policymakers use this model when revising transportation regulations, citing the vTaiwan deliberation that resolved a previous Uber controversy as an example. [[96](## "\"我覺得所有營業車輛都應該一律採取乘客評分機制，而不是只靠政府核發營業許可。\"
Votes: (Agree=402, Disagree=56)"), [172](## "\"我覺得UBER與計程車車隊的評分系統最大差別是：UBER的評分系統公開透明且貫徹執行，分數低於4.5的駕駛一定會被停機，也因此確保了車輛品質。相反的，計程車車隊的評分系統完全是黑箱，輸入方式不僅不利於乘客使用，評分系統也無鑑別度可言。即使按完後，乘客也無法得知車隊是否有收到評分。\"
Votes: (Agree=94, Disagree=14)"), [67](## "\"Uber有機會搭乘高級車款(Ex.Audi.BMW.Benz.....etc.)，計程車多半為國產車，有著不同的新鮮感。\"
Votes: (Agree=488, Disagree=81)"), [39](## "\"我覺得 UberX 平均而言品質較計程車好\"
Votes: (Agree=520, Disagree=108)"), [121](## "\"我覺得 我搭乘uber就是因為司機素質都普遍比較好，不像計程車司機 跟他說我要到幾個不同地區 還會臭臉迎人，就算有法規給他們，素質還是很差！希望uber維持現狀⋯\"
Votes: (Agree=231, Disagree=57)"), [128](## "\"我覺得車輛部份因為是自己所愛護的車輛，也都會遵守不違反交通規則，不會像一般計程車那樣橫衝直撞嚇死乘客\"
Votes: (Agree=239, Disagree=64)"), [169](## "\"我覺得Uber的評分機制很好
Votes: (Agree=86, Disagree=24)")]

Differences of opinion:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a significant difference of opinion (at least 20 votes, and more than 40%% and 60%% difference in agreement rate between groups). [[96](## "\"我覺得所有營業車輛都應該一律採取乘客評分機制，而不是只靠政府核發營業許可。\"
Votes: (Agree=402, Disagree=56)"), [172](## "\"我覺得UBER與計程車車隊的評分系統最大差別是：UBER的評分系統公開透明且貫徹執行，分數低於4.5的駕駛一定會被停機，也因此確保了車輛品質。相反的，計程車車隊的評分系統完全是黑箱，輸入方式不僅不利於乘客使用，評分系統也無鑑別度可言。即使按完後，乘客也無法得知車隊是否有收到評分。\"
Votes: (Agree=94, Disagree=14)"), [67](## "\"Uber有機會搭乘高級車款(Ex.Audi.BMW.Benz.....etc.)，計程車多半為國產車，有著不同的新鮮感。\"
Votes: (Agree=488, Disagree=81)"), [39](## "\"我覺得 UberX 平均而言品質較計程車好\"
Votes: (Agree=520, Disagree=108)"), [121](## "\"我覺得 我搭乘uber就是因為司機素質都普遍比較好，不像計程車司機 跟他說我要到幾個不同地區 還會臭臉迎人，就算有法規給他們，素質還是很差！希望uber維持現狀⋯\"
Votes: (Agree=231, Disagree=57)"), [128](## "\"我覺得車輛部份因為是自己所愛護的車輛，也都會遵守不違反交通規則，不會像一般計程車那樣橫衝直撞嚇死乘客\"
Votes: (Agree=239, Disagree=64)"), [169](## "\"我覺得Uber的評分機制很好
Votes: (Agree=86, Disagree=24)")]

#### Pricing transparency and fare structure (6 statements)
This subtopic had moderately low alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Lack Of Transparency In Fee Structure**: Several statements criticize Uber’s “fee surcharge” logic and management system as insufficiently transparent, making users uneasy.
* **Inconsistent Fare Outcomes**: Some statements point out that the current pricing can produce counterintuitive results, such as UberBlack sometimes being cheaper than UberX.
* **Desire For Publicly Accessible Pricing Information**: A number of statements express that making fare rates openly searchable would improve confidence and attract more riders.
* **Acceptance Of Dynamic Pricing Based On Supply And Demand**: One statement acknowledges that price surcharges reflecting supply‑demand fluctuations are reasonable, even if they may deter some riders.
* **Comparison With Other Services And Expectation Of Transparent Rates**: Comments compare Uber to non‑regulated “white‑label” cars, suggesting that Uber’s transparent pricing could draw passengers away from those services.

Common ground:
Participant A notes that illegal white‑label cars in other counties raise fares arbitrarily and proposes that Uber‑style transparent pricing and route integrity would attract more riders. Participant B acknowledges that surge pricing can discourage riders but argues that adjusting fares according to supply‑demand is reasonable. [[135](## "\"外縣市白牌車坐地起價，時有所聞，若能像über 有公開透明的費率，并且不會亂繞路，會吸引更多乘客搭乘\"
Votes: (Agree=225, Disagree=37)"), [87](## "\"我覺得雖然加成計費會讓人比較不想搭Uber，加成計費依照供需法則去變化是合理的。\"
Votes: (Agree=410, Disagree=80)")]

Differences of opinion:
While there was broad support for transparent pricing and route integrity, participant expressed that UberX's management system lacks transparency, making the participant feel uneasy. [[19](## "\"我覺得UberX管理制度不夠透明，讓我難以安心。\"
Votes: (Agree=363, Disagree=327)"), [135](## "\"外縣市白牌車坐地起價，時有所聞，若能像über 有公開透明的費率，并且不會亂繞路，會吸引更多乘客搭乘\"
Votes: (Agree=225, Disagree=37)"), [87](## "\"我覺得雖然加成計費會讓人比較不想搭Uber，加成計費依照供需法則去變化是合理的。\"
Votes: (Agree=410, Disagree=80)")]

#### Convenient app features and cash‑less payments (4 statements)
This subtopic had moderately high alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Personal Use of Ride‑Hailing Apps**: Some statements indicate that users have personally used Uber to request rides.
* **Perceived Reduction of Driver Route Manipulation**: One statement suggests that using an app to hail rides can lower the likelihood of drivers intentionally taking longer routes.
* **Real‑Time Vehicle Tracking**: A statement notes that UberX provides clear information about the vehicle’s location and estimated arrival time.
* **Cashless Payment Convenience**: A statement highlights that UberX’s credit‑card billing eliminates the need for handling cash or receiving change.

Common ground:
Participant A says that using online tools such as ride‑hailing apps reduces the chance that drivers will deliberately take longer routes. Participant B reports personal use of Uber to request a ride, showing that the app‑based approach is already in practice. [[59](## "\"我認為，用網路工具（例如app）叫車，可以降低司機故意繞路的機率。\"
Votes: (Agree=535, Disagree=78)"), [0](## "\"我有用過 Uber 叫車。\"
Votes: (Agree=536, Disagree=197)")]

Differences of opinion:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a significant difference of opinion (at least 20 votes, and more than 40%% and 60%% difference in agreement rate between groups). [[59](## "\"我認為，用網路工具（例如app）叫車，可以降低司機故意繞路的機率。\"
Votes: (Agree=535, Disagree=78)"), [0](## "\"我有用過 Uber 叫車。\"
Votes: (Agree=536, Disagree=197)")]

#### Customer support and issue‑resolution mechanisms (2 statements)
This subtopic had moderately high alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Limited Resolution Options for Traditional Taxis**: Statements note that problems with taxi rides lack a clear avenue for resolution.
* **In‑App Complaint Mechanism for Uber**: Statements highlight that Uber offers a customer‑support channel through its application.
* **Perceived Higher Efficiency of Uber’s Complaint Handling**: Statements suggest that resolving issues via Uber’s app is faster than filing complaints against taxis.

Common ground:
One participant says that filing complaints through Uber’s app resolves problems more efficiently than filing complaints about taxis. [[90](## "\"我覺得Uber透過應用程式客訴時，問題獲得解決的效率比投訴計程車來得高。\"
Votes: (Agree=385, Disagree=78)")]

Differences of opinion:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a significant difference of opinion (at least 20 votes, and more than 40%% and 60%% difference in agreement rate between groups). [[90](## "\"我覺得Uber透過應用程式客訴時，問題獲得解決的效率比投訴計程車來得高。\"
Votes: (Agree=385, Disagree=78)")]

#### Service availability and geographic coverage (2 statements)
This subtopic had low alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **International Use**: Some statements note that Uber is used in locations outside Taiwan.
* **Rural Service Provision**: One statement suggests that Uber should allocate a specific share of its fleet to operate in remote or rural areas as part of public transportation.

Common ground:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a point of common ground (at least 20 votes, and at least 70% agreement).

Differences of opinion:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a significant difference of opinion (at least 20 votes, and more than 40%% and 60%% difference in agreement rate between groups).

#### Other (2 statements)
This subtopic had low alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **UberX Color Branding**: Some statements argue that UberX does not need to be limited to a yellow color scheme.
* **Credibility of User Feedback**: Some statements suggest that only individuals with multiple Uber rides should have their opinions considered valuable.

Common ground:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a point of common ground (at least 20 votes, and at least 70% agreement).

Differences of opinion:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a significant difference of opinion (at least 20 votes, and more than 40%% and 60%% difference in agreement rate between groups).

### Market competition and economic impact (28 statements)
This topic included 5 subtopics, comprising a total of 28 statements.

#### Regulatory environment, subsidies and policy considerations (8 statements)
This subtopic had moderately high alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Increased Public Convenience**: Several statements argue that allowing Uber operations would provide citizens with an additional convenient transportation option.
* **Competition as Driver of Improvement**: Multiple comments highlight that competition, including from Uber, is seen as essential for progress, higher service quality, and overall market efficiency.
* **Counteracting Taxi Subsidies and Price Increases**: One statement points to existing government subsidies for taxis and fare hikes, suggesting Uber competition would let market forces determine demand.
* **Call for Flexible Regulatory Approach**: Some remarks urge the government to adopt more flexible, non‑prohibitive regulations for Uber, emphasizing adaptation rather than outright bans.
* **Criticism of Restr Taxi Regulations**: One comment criticizes regulations limiting taxi vehicle colors and designs, claiming they favor certain manufacturers, raise costs, and reduce consumer appeal.

Common ground:
Participant 1 argues that taxis receive government fuel subsidies and the union plans to raise fares, so the government should open UberX to competition and let market demand set prices. Participant 2 asserts that opening Uber will strengthen Taiwan’s basic competitiveness. Participant 3 maintains that UberX already provides sufficient passenger‑rights safeguards and that permitting its operation will give the public an additional convenient transportation option. [[119](## "\"我覺得計程車已受政府補貼油價，現在公會仍然決定調漲車費，應該開放 UberX 競爭，讓市場決定需求。\"
Votes: (Agree=362, Disagree=65)"), [144](## "\"我覺得開放Uber是提升臺灣基礎競爭力重要的一環\"
Votes: (Agree=162, Disagree=55)"), [92](## "\"我覺得UberX現有保障乘客權益的機制已經足夠，放行營運可以讓民眾多一個便捷的交通方式。\"
Votes: (Agree=335, Disagree=140)")]

Differences of opinion:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a significant difference of opinion (at least 20 votes, and more than 40%% and 60%% difference in agreement rate between groups). [[119](## "\"我覺得計程車已受政府補貼油價，現在公會仍然決定調漲車費，應該開放 UberX 競爭，讓市場決定需求。\"
Votes: (Agree=362, Disagree=65)"), [144](## "\"我覺得開放Uber是提升臺灣基礎競爭力重要的一環\"
Votes: (Agree=162, Disagree=55)"), [92](## "\"我覺得UberX現有保障乘客權益的機制已經足夠，放行營運可以讓民眾多一個便捷的交通方式。\"
Votes: (Agree=335, Disagree=140)")]

#### Impact on traditional taxi operators and industry dynamics (7 statements)
This subtopic had moderately low alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Unfair Competition Perceived**: Several statements claim UberX creates unfair competition for existing domestic transport operators.
* **Oversupply and Empty‑Vehicle Concerns**: Some comments argue that the number of taxis is already sufficient and that allowing private cars to carry passengers will increase empty‑vehicle rates, making taxi operations harder.
* **Variable Service Quality Linked to Competition**: One statement links the uneven quality of taxi services to an insufficiently fair competitive environment.
* **Positive Disruption and Competitive Pressure**: A few remarks view Uber’s entry as a beneficial challenge that breaks unwritten norms, encouraging improvement among taxi drivers.
* **Call for Platform Integration**: One comment suggests that traditional taxis should be permitted to receive Uber ride requests.

Common ground:
Participant 1 says the market fails to provide a fair competitive environment, which leads to uneven taxi service quality and calls for reforms to ensure fairness. Participant 2 says traditional taxis now must join fleets to survive, a practice not mandated by the government, and praises UberX for breaking this unwritten rule. Both participants highlight the need for policy changes that allow new ride‑hailing models to compete openly with established taxi services. [[63](## "\"我覺得現在的計程車服務品質參差不齊，跟市場未提供足夠的公平競爭環境有關。\"
Votes: (Agree=500, Disagree=86)"), [84](## "\"我覺得傳統的計程車現在都要加入車隊才有辦法生存，這也不是政府規定的，UberX顛覆了這項不成文的規定，覺得很棒！\"
Votes: (Agree=418, Disagree=100)")]

Differences of opinion:
While there was broad support for reforming the market to let new ride‑hailing models compete fairly with traditional taxis, opinions differed with respect to the consequences of opening private cars for passenger transport. One statement argued that increased availability of personal vehicles would raise empty‑vehicle rates and further strain taxi operators. Another statement claimed that UberX creates unfair competition against the domestic transport sector. Both statements underscore concerns about the impact of deregulation on existing taxi services. [[50](## "\"我覺得大眾運輸工具普及後，營業車的空車率已不斷攀升，開放自用車載客不會擴大需求，只會讓計程車更難經營。\"
Votes: (Agree=290, Disagree=290)"), [20](## "\"我覺得UberX已與現有國內運輸業產生不公平競爭的情形。\"
Votes: (Agree=312, Disagree=385)"), [63](## "\"我覺得現在的計程車服務品質參差不齊，跟市場未提供足夠的公平競爭環境有關。\"
Votes: (Agree=500, Disagree=86)"), [84](## "\"我覺得傳統的計程車現在都要加入車隊才有辦法生存，這也不是政府規定的，UberX顛覆了這項不成文的規定，覺得很棒！\"
Votes: (Agree=418, Disagree=100)")]

#### Price competition and consumer cost savings (6 statements)
This subtopic had moderately low alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Flexible Peak Pricing**: Some statements suggest that fares should be allowed to increase flexibly during peak periods.
* **Personal Experience with Surge Pricing**: One statement notes having taken an Uber ride that required a price increase.
* **Consumer Cost Savings with Uber**: Several statements claim that Uber (or UberX) typically costs less than taxis, saving roughly the price of a lunch.
* **Critique of Taxi Price Increases**: A statement argues that continued taxi fare hikes, despite high profits, conflict with market allocation principles.
* **Driver Sustainability Concerns at Night**: One statement warns that low nighttime Uber fares undermine driver viability and could reduce vehicle availability, recommending higher night rates.

Common ground:
One participant proposes that the platform should flexibly raise prices during peak periods. Another participant notes that UberX fares usually undercut taxi rates, allowing riders to save roughly the cost of a lunch. [[3](## "\"我覺得尖峰時段可以彈性提高收費。\"
Votes: (Agree=583, Disagree=159)"), [72](## "\"我覺得UberX在計費上通常較計程車便宜，平均都能省下一個便當的錢。\"
Votes: (Agree=398, Disagree=115)")]

Differences of opinion:
While there was broad support for flexible peak pricing and the view that UberX fares generally undercut taxi rates, participants differed with respect to personal experiences of surge pricing, as one participant reported having taken Uber with increased fares. [[43](## "\"我有以加價計費搭乘過 Uber\"
Votes: (Agree=281, Disagree=283)"), [3](## "\"我覺得尖峰時段可以彈性提高收費。\"
Votes: (Agree=583, Disagree=159)"), [72](## "\"我覺得UberX在計費上通常較計程車便宜，平均都能省下一個便當的錢。\"
Votes: (Agree=398, Disagree=115)")]

#### Market efficiency and demand‑driven service provision (5 statements)
This subtopic had moderately low alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Support for Ride‑Sharing Efficiency**: Several statements praise Uber as a good platform that improves matching efficiency and fosters competition.
* **Criticism of Taxi Subsidies**: One statement argues that subsidizing taxis wastes taxpayer money and that the market should decide service provision.
* **Call for Problem Solving and Regulation**: A statement emphasizes that Uber reflects market demand but that existing problems must be identified and resolved.
* **Comparative Performance Assessment**: One comment notes that Uber excels in matching efficiency while taxis perform better in distance efficiency.
* **Questioning Overall Demand**: A statement questions whether Taiwan’s population actually requires such a large fleet of vehicles.

Common ground:
One participant says Uber reflects market demand and that the participants should identify, confront, and resolve the problem. [[139](## "\"我認為，Uber是市場需求的反應，目前應該找出問題，正視問題，解決問題。\"
Votes: (Agree=246, Disagree=24)")]

Differences of opinion:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a significant difference of opinion (at least 20 votes, and more than 40%% and 60%% difference in agreement rate between groups). [[139](## "\"我認為，Uber是市場需求的反應，目前應該找出問題，正視問題，解決問題。\"
Votes: (Agree=246, Disagree=24)")]

#### Employment opportunities and labor‑market effects (2 statements)
This subtopic had low alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Reduction of Unemployment**: Some statements claim that Uber could help lower the unemployment rate.
* **Environmental Benefits**: One statement notes that Uber might contribute to environmental protection.
* **Income Source for Marginalized Workers**: A statement describes Uber as an important source of earnings for low‑income or discriminated individuals in the broader labor market.

Common ground:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a point of common ground (at least 20 votes, and at least 70% agreement).

Differences of opinion:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a significant difference of opinion (at least 20 votes, and more than 40%% and 60%% difference in agreement rate between groups).

### Passenger safety and insurance requirements (25 statements)
This topic included 5 subtopics, comprising a total of 25 statements.

#### Mandatory passenger liability insurance for ride‑hailing drivers (6 statements)
This subtopic had moderately high alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Driver Insurance Requirement**: Several statements assert that drivers should be required to carry passenger liability insurance.
* **Platform Responsibility**: Some statements contend that Uber, which collects fees, has an obligation to provide or arrange insurance for passengers.
* **Current Lack of Coverage**: A few statements express that passengers feel unprotected because insurance is not presently offered.
* **Specific Applicability to UberX**: One statement highlights that UberX vehicles used for ride‑hailing should also be covered by passenger liability insurance.

Common ground:
Participant 1 argues that UberX drivers who use their personal cars to carry passengers must purchase automobile passenger liability insurance. Participant 2 contends that every driver who transports passengers should obtain accident insurance. Participant 3 maintains that because Uber collects subscription fees, the company bears responsibility to provide passenger insurance and should be authorized to create additional insurance products when necessary. [[16](## "\"我覺得 UberX 自用車載客時，應該要投保汽車乘客責任險。\"
Votes: (Agree=723, Disagree=36)"), [7](## "\"我覺得載客的司機都應該保意外險。\"
Votes: (Agree=712, Disagree=39)"), [104](## "\"我覺得 Uber 公司既然收取收續費，有責任提供乘客保險，需要時可以另外制定保險種類。\"
Votes: (Agree=430, Disagree=49)")]

Differences of opinion:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a significant difference of opinion (at least 20 votes, and more than 40%% and 60%% difference in agreement rate between groups). [[16](## "\"我覺得 UberX 自用車載客時，應該要投保汽車乘客責任險。\"
Votes: (Agree=723, Disagree=36)"), [7](## "\"我覺得載客的司機都應該保意外險。\"
Votes: (Agree=712, Disagree=39)"), [104](## "\"我覺得 Uber 公司既然收取收續費，有責任提供乘客保險，需要時可以另外制定保險種類。\"
Votes: (Agree=430, Disagree=49)")]

#### Driver qualification and verification (licenses, health checks, background screening) (5 statements)
This subtopic had moderately low alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Driver Qualification Verification**: Several statements call for systematic checks of drivers’ licenses, health assessments, and background screenings to ensure safety.
* **Passenger Safety Risks with Unverified Vehicles**: Comments express concerns that riding in private cars without clear verification may expose passengers to crimes such as robbery or use of stolen vehicles.
* **Platform Responsibility for Safety Oversight**: Some statements place the onus on the ride‑hailing platform to implement robust screening and insurance measures, suggesting that effective oversight would maintain user confidence.
* **Regulatory Comparison with Traditional Taxis**: One comment highlights that taxi drivers possess police‑approved certifications, whereas Uber drivers lack an equivalent mechanism, raising safety apprehensions.
* **Balancing Driver and Passenger Interests**: A viewpoint mentions the need to consider both driver rights and passenger protection, emphasizing safety as a primary shared concern.

Common ground:
One participant says that the personnel should be vetted, that passenger protection and driver rights must both be considered, and that safety is the top priority. [[40](## "\"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\"
Votes: (Agree=642, Disagree=18)")]

Differences of opinion:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a significant difference of opinion (at least 20 votes, and more than 40%% and 60%% difference in agreement rate between groups). [[40](## "\"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\"
Votes: (Agree=642, Disagree=18)")]

#### Regulatory framework and insurance standards (government oversight, unified insurance model) (5 statements)
This subtopic had moderately low alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Clear Vehicle Identification**: Several statements call for distinct signage on passenger‑carrying vehicles to make them recognizable.
* **Registration and Trip Limits for Private Cars**: Some statements argue that private cars used for rides should be formally registered and restricted in the number of trips per day.
* **Operator Responsibility for Passenger Safety**: One statement stresses that transport providers must ensure passenger safety, criticizing government rules that favor incumbent interests.
* **Insufficient Insurance Protection**: Multiple statements describe current lack of adequate insurance for passengers using private or Uber‑type services as a safety gap.
* **Unified or Mandatory Insurance Coverage**: A few statements propose that private‑car passenger insurance be extended or that a single insurer (e.g., Uber) provide standardized coverage for all riders.

Common ground:
A participant suggests changing the policy so that personal‑vehicle passenger insurance also protects passengers’ rights or Uber provides a unified insurance plan. [[150](## "\"應修改讓自用車的乘客保險也能保障乘客的權益或由UBER統一投保\"
Votes: (Agree=171, Disagree=27)")]

Differences of opinion:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a significant difference of opinion (at least 20 votes, and more than 40%% and 60%% difference in agreement rate between groups). [[150](## "\"應修改讓自用車的乘客保險也能保障乘客的權益或由UBER統一投保\"
Votes: (Agree=171, Disagree=27)")]

#### Comparative safety perception between ride‑hailing services and traditional taxis (5 statements)
This subtopic had moderately high alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Perceived Safer Driving Practices by Uber**: Several statements note that Uber drivers tend to change lanes more cautiously and avoid reckless maneuvers compared with taxi drivers.
* **Uber’s Safety Features Viewed as Superior**: Comments highlight that Uber’s mechanisms and overall service are believed to provide better passenger protection and quality than traditional taxis.
* **Taxi Services Seen as Inconsistent and Risky**: Some statements describe taxis as hazardous because of variable vehicle conditions and driver competence.
* **Aggressive Taxi Competition Creates Unsafe Situations**: One statement points out that taxi drivers cutting into bike lanes to chase fares leads to accidents and reflects poor management.
* **Calls for Regulatory Reform of Taxi Operations**: Remarks suggest that updating taxi management and regulations is needed to address safety concerns and modernize the industry.

Common ground:
Participant A says Uber drivers change lanes gradually toward the curb, which he believes reduces danger for following traffic, whereas he observes taxi drivers often cut lanes abruptly when passengers alight, endangering other vehicles. Participant B says riding in taxis involves risk because vehicle conditions and driver competence vary widely. Both participants highlight safety concerns that differentiate Uber services from traditional taxi services. [[66](## "\"我覺得Uber司機開車時較不會像計程車司機亂鑽，當客人要下車時計程車會直接切換車道不顧後方來車安危，但Uber司機會慢慢切換車道至路邊。\"
Votes: (Agree=425, Disagree=85)"), [137](## "\"我覺得搭計程車是ㄧ件要冒險的事情，因為車輛品質參差不齊，司機的品質也參差不齊。\"
Votes: (Agree=203, Disagree=46)")]

Differences of opinion:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a significant difference of opinion (at least 20 votes, and more than 40%% and 60%% difference in agreement rate between groups). [[66](## "\"我覺得Uber司機開車時較不會像計程車司機亂鑽，當客人要下車時計程車會直接切換車道不顧後方來車安危，但Uber司機會慢慢切換車道至路邊。\"
Votes: (Agree=425, Disagree=85)"), [137](## "\"我覺得搭計程車是ㄧ件要冒險的事情，因為車輛品質參差不齊，司機的品質也參差不齊。\"
Votes: (Agree=203, Disagree=46)")]

#### Platform‑driven safety mechanisms (GPS tracking, ride records, rating system) (4 statements)
This subtopic had moderately high alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Ride Record and GPS Tracking**: Statements highlight that continuous GPS‑based trip logs are viewed as a safety feature that can be reviewed by Uber or authorities if incidents occur.
* **Driver Rating and Enforcement**: The rating system that can suspend or retrain low‑scoring drivers is presented as a mechanism that increases passenger confidence compared to traditional taxis.
* **Compensation for Missing Formal Licenses**: Even without professional driver licenses or visible vehicle markings, the existence of digital trip records is cited as a factor that reassures users.
* **User‑Generated Verification**: One statement notes that taking and uploading photos of the driver and vehicle provides an additional sense of security.
* **Preference for Uber Over Taxis Due to Safety Controls**: Several comments express a willingness to avoid taxis and favor Uber because of the platform’s safety mechanisms.

Common ground:
The participants propose that Uber record every passenger’s trip with GPS and that Uber supply those records to police when incidents occur, enabling investigators to trace routes and verify details. The participants also note that, although Uber X drivers may lack professional licenses or distinctive vehicle markings, the availability of trip logs makes riders feel safer. [[126](## "\"我覺得每一位客人的行程都可以用GPS定位記錄，如果發生事情時UBER公司可以調閱行程記錄協助警方辦案\"
Votes: (Agree=272, Disagree=39)"), [69](## "\"我覺得即使Uber X沒有職業駕照或車體有明顯標示以辨識，但因其每趟行程皆有行程紀錄，也感到安全
Votes: (Agree=413, Disagree=133)")]

Differences of opinion:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a significant difference of opinion (at least 20 votes, and more than 40%% and 60%% difference in agreement rate between groups). [[126](## "\"我覺得每一位客人的行程都可以用GPS定位記錄，如果發生事情時UBER公司可以調閱行程記錄協助警方辦案\"
Votes: (Agree=272, Disagree=39)"), [69](## "\"我覺得即使Uber X沒有職業駕照或車體有明顯標示以辨識，但因其每趟行程皆有行程紀錄，也感到安全
Votes: (Agree=413, Disagree=133)")]

### Driver qualifications, rights, and employment conditions (23 statements)
This topic included 5 subtopics, comprising a total of 23 statements.

#### Qualification standards and safety requirements (11 statements)
This subtopic had moderately low alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Driver Licensing Standards**: Statements mention both personal vehicle licenses and professional/occupational licenses as relevant qualifications for Uber drivers.
* **Enhanced Qualification Procedures**: Several statements call for additional exams, certifications, background checks, or no‑accident records to ensure driver suitability.
* **Comparison with Traditional Taxis**: Comments contrast Uber driver standards with taxi driver habits and regulatory practices, noting perceived deficiencies in both.
* **Visibility of Driver Credentials**: One statement suggests displaying registration, license, and driving information prominently inside the vehicle.
* **Safety and Service Quality Concerns**: Remarks question whether existing qualification checks adequately protect passenger safety and guarantee service quality.

Common ground:
Participant A states that they possess a small‑vehicle driver’s license. Participant B argues that the current qualification review fails to guarantee taxi‑driver service quality and calls for stricter standards. Participant C explains that professional driver licenses require written exams with additional locations and landmarks and road tests with tighter S‑curves and lane control, while both license types follow identical traffic safety rules. [[14](## "\"我有小型車駕駛執照。\"
Votes: (Agree=555, Disagree=100)"), [145](## "\"我覺得既有的資格審查，無法保證計程車司機的服務品質\"
Votes: (Agree=168, Disagree=35)"), [161](## "\"就安全面，職業駕照跟自用相比，筆試多了地點跟景點，路試多了更窄的S與行車線，交通安全規則都一樣。\"
Votes: (Agree=73, Disagree=26)")]

Differences of opinion:
While participants broadly agreed on the need for strict driver‑qualification standards, a participant argued that UberX does not manage driver qualifications rigorously enough. [[35](## "\"我認為 UberX 對司機資格的管理方式不夠嚴謹。\"
Votes: (Agree=337, Disagree=294)"), [14](## "\"我有小型車駕駛執照。\"
Votes: (Agree=555, Disagree=100)"), [145](## "\"我覺得既有的資格審查，無法保證計程車司機的服務品質\"
Votes: (Agree=168, Disagree=35)"), [161](## "\"就安全面，職業駕照跟自用相比，筆試多了地點跟景點，路試多了更窄的S與行車線，交通安全規則都一樣。\"
Votes: (Agree=73, Disagree=26)")]

#### Employment conditions, income, and flexibility (5 statements)
This subtopic had moderately high alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Flexible Employment Opportunities**: Several statements highlight Uber as a model that can create flexible job options and increase overall employment.
* **Income Disparities**: One statement notes that taxi drivers earn more than Uber drivers, with Uber drivers receiving about 60% of the fare.
* **Multi‑Platform Work Permission**: A statement proposes allowing drivers to work for multiple dispatch services simultaneously.
* **Impact of Autonomous Vehicles**: A statement raises concerns about future self‑driving technology and its implications for taxi driver employment.
* **Rider Convenience**: A statement points out that Uber improves convenience for users when taxis are unavailable.

Common ground:
One participant argues that Uber’s business model generates flexible employment opportunities. Another participant urges planners to anticipate autonomous‑driving technology, to evaluate whether large‑scale public transit systems still require new construction, and to devise strategies for the future employment of taxi drivers. A third participant proposes that regulators should permit drivers to receive dispatches from multiple ride‑hailing platforms simultaneously. [[62](## "\"我認為，UBER 是一個可以創造彈性就業機會的商業模式。\"
Votes: (Agree=549, Disagree=68)"), [94](## "\"我覺得要提前考慮電腦自動駕駛的情況，包括現代大眾系統是否還有興建必要，以及以後計程車司機的就業該怎麼辦。\"
Votes: (Agree=304, Disagree=112)"), [4](## "\"我覺得應該開放司機同時接受多家派遣。\"
Votes: (Agree=499, Disagree=184)")]

Differences of opinion:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a significant difference of opinion (at least 20 votes, and more than 40%% and 60%% difference in agreement rate between groups). [[62](## "\"我認為，UBER 是一個可以創造彈性就業機會的商業模式。\"
Votes: (Agree=549, Disagree=68)"), [94](## "\"我覺得要提前考慮電腦自動駕駛的情況，包括現代大眾系統是否還有興建必要，以及以後計程車司機的就業該怎麼辦。\"
Votes: (Agree=304, Disagree=112)"), [4](## "\"我覺得應該開放司機同時接受多家派遣。\"
Votes: (Agree=499, Disagree=184)")]

#### Regulatory oversight and fleet/platform management (3 statements)
This subtopic had low alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Insufficient Driver Training**: Statements criticize the lack of professional driver training for fleet drivers, describing it as a shortcoming.
* **Weak Platform‑Based Fleet Oversight**: Statements express concern that Uber relies mainly on its app to manage drivers, resulting in perceived poor fleet management.
* **Risk of Unregulated Driver Behavior**: Statements warn that without proper oversight, an increase in drivers could lead to misconduct similar to unregulated drivers.
* **Brand‑Promise Misalignment**: Statements note that Uber markets itself as a ride‑sharing service but operates with many professional drivers, avoiding regulations applicable to such drivers.
* **Unreasonable Pricing Concerns**: Statements mention that the fleet’s pricing is viewed as unreasonable.

Common ground:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a point of common ground (at least 20 votes, and at least 70% agreement).

Differences of opinion:
There was disagreement as participants argued that fleet‑managed drivers inspire rider confidence, non‑fleet drivers tend to misbehave, and Uber’s reliance on an app‑only system may become problematic as its driver base expands. [[170](## "\"以前是車行管司機，現在是車隊管司機。所以品牌車隊大家比較有信心搭乘，因為有在管理。現在車行不太管司機，所以未加入車隊的司機就比較會胡搞瞎搞。uber現在司機少問題不大，等到uber司機多了，大概就像現在很多沒人管的司機一樣了。而且uber只用APP管司機？各位覺得這樣真的好嗎？\"
Votes: (Agree=36, Disagree=44)")]

#### Driver rights, protections, and grievance handling (2 statements)
This subtopic had low alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Illegality And Unfair Competition**: Statements claim UberX driver dispatch is illegal and unfair, infringing on professional taxi drivers' employment rights.
* **Insufficient Incident Support**: Drivers report lack of emergency assistance, inadequate response to health‑related and accident incidents, and reliance on personal insurance.
* **Demand For Driver Rights Protection**: There is an expressed expectation that Uber should both pursue legalisation and actively safeguard driver rights.
* **Grievance Handling Deficiencies**: Complaints highlight poor communication and follow‑up after incidents, indicating weak grievance resolution processes.

Common ground:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a point of common ground (at least 20 votes, and at least 70% agreement).

Differences of opinion:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a significant difference of opinion (at least 20 votes, and more than 40%% and 60%% difference in agreement rate between groups).

#### Other (2 statements)
This subtopic had high alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Taxi Driver Identity**: Some statements express personal identification as a traditional taxi driver.
* **Uber Driver Identity**: Some statements express personal identification as an Uber driver.

Common ground:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a point of common ground (at least 20 votes, and at least 70% agreement).

Differences of opinion:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a significant difference of opinion (at least 20 votes, and more than 40%% and 60%% difference in agreement rate between groups).

### Platform classification and sharing‑economy definition (21 statements)
This topic included 3 subtopics, comprising a total of 21 statements.

#### Transport‑service (ride‑hailing) view (9 statements)
This subtopic had moderately high alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Paid Carpool Model**: Several statements propose a ride‑hailing service that functions like a carpool where the driver charges passengers for shared trips.
* **Definition of Genuine Carpooling**: Multiple comments emphasize that true carpooling should involve drivers and riders sharing the same destination without detours or waiting for additional passengers.
* **Call for Strict Regulation**: One statement likens transport services to food and medicine, arguing that they require especially rigorous definition and oversight.
* **Classification and Management of Uber**: Comments discuss whether Uber should be treated as a virtual ride‑hailing platform or a transportation service, noting that management is weaker if Uber does not acknowledge its virtual nature.
* **Perception of Uber as Taxi Dispatch**: Some remarks assert that Uber functions merely as a taxi‑dispatch service and does not embody the utilization of idle vehicle capacity or authentic carpooling.

Common ground:
One participant says the idea of a driver charging passengers for a ride, similar to existing ride‑sharing, is feasible. Another participant argues that true carpooling requires the driver’s destination to match the passengers’ destination and rejects detours for picking up riders. A third participant claims that transportation services share the same regulatory concerns as food and medicine and calls for stricter definitions and oversight than those applied to general service‑matching platforms. A fourth participant emphasizes the spirit of genuine carpooling and stresses that only trips where the driver and riders share the same route qualify. [[46](## "\"我覺得類似共乘，但由開車的人向共乘者收費的概念，是可行的。\"
Votes: (Agree=578, Disagree=97)"), [165](## "\"我覺得真正共乘的精神
Votes: (Agree=81, Disagree=22)"), [55](## "\"我覺得交通運輸和食品、藥品性質類似，比起一般服務的媒合平台來說，應該要特別嚴格的界定與把關。\"
Votes: (Agree=399, Disagree=143)"), [100](## "\"我覺得「駕駛自己要去的目的地，和搭乘的人相同」才是共乘的精神，繞行等待載客的不能算是共乘。\"
Votes: (Agree=284, Disagree=121)")]

Differences of opinion:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a significant difference of opinion (at least 20 votes, and more than 40%% and 60%% difference in agreement rate between groups). [[46](## "\"我覺得類似共乘，但由開車的人向共乘者收費的概念，是可行的。\"
Votes: (Agree=578, Disagree=97)"), [165](## "\"我覺得真正共乘的精神
Votes: (Agree=81, Disagree=22)"), [55](## "\"我覺得交通運輸和食品、藥品性質類似，比起一般服務的媒合平台來說，應該要特別嚴格的界定與把關。\"
Votes: (Agree=399, Disagree=143)"), [100](## "\"我覺得「駕駛自己要去的目的地，和搭乘的人相同」才是共乘的精神，繞行等待載客的不能算是共乘。\"
Votes: (Agree=284, Disagree=121)")]

#### Information‑matching (digital marketplace) view (9 statements)
This subtopic had moderately low alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Information‑Matching Platform**: Several statements describe Uber as an information‑matching service akin to auction sites or online marketplaces.
* **Sharing‑Economy Benefits**: Some statements view Uber as a sharing‑economy platform that can reduce societal resource waste.
* **Internationalization and Acceptance**: A few statements emphasize Uber as an international app that Taiwan should adopt rather than exclude.
* **Regulatory Scope**: Multiple statements argue that, as an information service, Uber falls outside the jurisdiction of the Transportation Ministry.
* **Perception of Technological Sophistication**: One statement characterizes Uber merely as an app, downplaying it as a distinct technology.

Common ground:
One participant argues that the sharing economy reduces societal waste of resources. Another participant contends that Uber functions as a platform that supervises independent drivers and passengers rather than as an employer of workers. A third participant proposes that Taiwan should embrace UberX as an international app to integrate with global markets instead of marginalizing the service. [[61](## "\"我認為，共享經濟能降低社會資源的浪費。\"
Votes: (Agree=522, Disagree=59)"), [71](## "\"我覺得UBER是一個共享平台的概念，而非僱員的概念。UBER是以一個平台管理者的角度來監督在平台上的合作司機及乘客
Votes: (Agree=458, Disagree=114)"), [109](## "\"我覺得UberX是國際化的App，今天台灣要融入國際，就要接受這個平台，而不是排擠它。\"
Votes: (Agree=350, Disagree=99)")]

Differences of opinion:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a significant difference of opinion (at least 20 votes, and more than 40%% and 60%% difference in agreement rate between groups). [[61](## "\"我認為，共享經濟能降低社會資源的浪費。\"
Votes: (Agree=522, Disagree=59)"), [71](## "\"我覺得UBER是一個共享平台的概念，而非僱員的概念。UBER是以一個平台管理者的角度來監督在平台上的合作司機及乘客
Votes: (Agree=458, Disagree=114)"), [109](## "\"我覺得UberX是國際化的App，今天台灣要融入國際，就要接受這個平台，而不是排擠它。\"
Votes: (Agree=350, Disagree=99)")]

#### Labor‑dispatch / service‑industry perspective (3 statements)
This subtopic had moderately low alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Uber Characterized as Labor Dispatch in Service Industry**: The statements describe Uber as a form of labor dispatch comparable to bus employees, placing it within the service sector.
* **Emphasis on Worker Autonomy and Choice**: The statements highlight that individuals have the freedom to choose gig work and earn income through the sharing economy.
* **Equivalence to Other Transport Gig Jobs**: The statements assert that Uber work is similar to that of traditional taxi or scooter (小黃) drivers.

Common ground:
One participant states that Uber functions as a labor‑dispatch service, similar to bus driver employment, and belongs to the service industry. [[17](## "\"Uber 是人力派遣，就像客運僱員，屬於服務業。\"
Votes: (Agree=497, Disagree=193)")]

Differences of opinion:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a significant difference of opinion (at least 20 votes, and more than 40%% and 60%% difference in agreement rate between groups). [[17](## "\"Uber 是人力派遣，就像客運僱員，屬於服務業。\"
Votes: (Agree=497, Disagree=193)")]

### Taxation and financial responsibilities (11 statements)
This topic included 3 subtopics, comprising a total of 11 statements.

#### Corporate tax compliance for ride‑hailing platforms (4 statements)
This subtopic had high alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Tax Obligation**: The statements assert that Uber, as a company operating in Taiwan, has a duty to pay taxes to the local government.
* **Financial Contribution to Society**: The statements emphasize that Uber should provide fiscal contributions to both the government and the broader Taiwanese society.
* **Responsibility of Foreign Companies**: The statements highlight that, being an overseas entity, Uber must present a convincing approach to address its tax obligations in Taiwan.
* **Legal Compliance**: The statements contend that regardless of Uber’s innovative business model, it must fulfill its lawful tax responsibilities for income earned in Taiwan.

Common ground:
One participant argues that paying taxes is a fundamental duty for any company operating in Taiwan and insists that Uber must fulfill its legal tax obligations regardless of its innovative model. Another participant emphasizes that, as a foreign entity, Uber should present a convincing response to Taiwanese society regarding its tax responsibilities. A third participant states that Uber ought to remit taxes to the government of the jurisdiction where it conducts business. [[141](## "\"我覺得繳稅是一個企業在台灣經營的義務，Uber或其新創模式再麼優秀，在台灣的所得都應該要盡到合法納稅義務。\"
Votes: (Agree=221, Disagree=26)"), [64](## "\"Uber 是境外公司，我認為 Uebr 有責任針對在台灣繳稅的問題提出足以說服台灣社會的因應方式。\"
Votes: (Agree=536, Disagree=74)"), [8](## "\"我覺得 Uber 應該向營業地的政府納稅。\"
Votes: (Agree=616, Disagree=108)")]

Differences of opinion:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a significant difference of opinion (at least 20 votes, and more than 40%% and 60%% difference in agreement rate between groups). [[141](## "\"我覺得繳稅是一個企業在台灣經營的義務，Uber或其新創模式再麼優秀，在台灣的所得都應該要盡到合法納稅義務。\"
Votes: (Agree=221, Disagree=26)"), [64](## "\"Uber 是境外公司，我認為 Uebr 有責任針對在台灣繳稅的問題提出足以說服台灣社會的因應方式。\"
Votes: (Agree=536, Disagree=74)"), [8](## "\"我覺得 Uber 應該向營業地的政府納稅。\"
Votes: (Agree=616, Disagree=108)")]

#### Perceptions of tax avoidance and fairness (3 statements)
This subtopic had low alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Tax Avoidance Perceived as Unfair**: Several statements criticize Uber for earning revenue in Taiwan without paying taxes, describing the practice as illegal and a breach of public trust.
* **Government Inaction Criticized**: The statements express dissatisfaction with the government's perceived failure to enforce tax obligations and broader regulatory standards on Uber.
* **Normalization of Minimal Tax Reporting**: One statement frames Uber's tax avoidance as comparable to individuals choosing the lowest taxable income, presenting it as a normal behavior.
* **Safety and Legal Compliance Concerns**: Comments raise issues about Uber drivers lacking proper vehicle registration, insurance, and oversight, linking these to broader regulatory neglect.
* **Perceived Inequity Between Gig Workers and Employees**: The statements suggest that Uber drivers receive tax exemptions and subsidies that regular salaried workers do not, leading to a sense of unfairness.

Common ground:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a point of common ground (at least 20 votes, and at least 70% agreement).

Differences of opinion:
Participant argued that Uber's tax avoidance is normal, comparing it to the common practice of filing the lowest possible amount on personal income taxes. [[171](## "\"我覺得UBER避稅很正常，就如同你在申報所得稅時會選擇最低金額的申報方式一樣正常。\"
Votes: (Agree=61, Disagree=66)")]

#### Impact of tax obligations on market competition (2 statements)
This subtopic had low alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Tax Burden Undermines Viability**: The statements note that adding legitimate tax and insurance costs would make UberX’s business model unsustainable.
* **Questioning the Sharing‑Economy Label**: The comments describe Uber as a capital‑intensive platform that encourages vehicle purchase or lease rather than embodying a pure sharing economy.
* **Advocacy for Higher Tax Rates**: One statement suggests the government should set higher tax standards for Uber‑like services to maintain industry price baselines and curb price competition.
* **Government Regulation as Market Stabilizer**: The remarks imply that governmental tax policies are needed to preserve market mechanisms and prevent distortion from low‑cost competition.
* **Innovation Versus Market Competition**: The comments express concern that without appropriate tax measures, innovative business models may be disadvantaged by aggressive price competition.

Common ground:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a point of common ground (at least 20 votes, and at least 70% agreement).

Differences of opinion:
One participant argued that UberX cannot remain viable if it must bear legal tax and insurance costs despite its claim to serve the public. [[48](## "\"我覺得 UberX 雖然說是為了服務大眾，但如果加上合法納稅、保險的成本，它的商業模式就無法營運下去。\"
Votes: (Agree=249, Disagree=266)")]

### Other (13 statements)
This topic included 1 subtopic, comprising a total of 13 statements.

#### Other (13 statements)
This subtopic had low alignment compared to the other subtopics.

Prominent themes were:
* **Sharing Secrets**: One statement expresses a personal enjoyment of telling a secret or tip.
* **Affection for Cats**: Another statement remarks that cats are cute.

Common ground:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a point of common ground (at least 20 votes, and at least 70% agreement).

Differences of opinion:
No statements met the thresholds necessary to be considered as a significant difference of opinion (at least 20 votes, and more than 40%% and 60%% difference in agreement rate between groups).