One of the most distinct trends in recent years is the sharing economy, that is, the sharing of things or services on the Internet or online between individuals at no cost or expense rather than individuals owning them. Carpooling, which was encouraged to reduce economic, social and environmental costs, even in the analog era, has been operated in such a way that passengers share the real costs of operating a car. Ride-sharing programs, for example, such as overseas Uber and Lyft and Korea's Socar and Greencar, are business models that extend the principles of carpooling from the analog to the digital era. The sharing economy is located in the middle of ownership and rental, which is slightly different from the traditional concepts of rental or lease. Moreover, the digital era's sharing economy exists in various forms, from the sharing of accommodation, such as Airbnb, to the sharing of computer software, and the sharing economy is expected to expand very rapidly as the application of Block-Chain spreads.
In Korea, a TFT was created to solve the problem related to the carpool system, as the taxi industry is strongly opposed to allowing the carpool system using Kakao Mobility's carpool app. These are only fragmentary examples of direct conflict between the analog era and the digital era, and in the future, these confrontations will emerge in more areas, especially, in all services AI can replace. For example, if the self-driving car is activated 100%, there will be a taxi company, but the job of taxi driver will probably disappear, and moreover, taxi companies may have to give up the job to a car manufacturer or a car platform. If so, the concept of the taxi system will become a system that once existed in history. With this digital era in place, traditional industries will disappear and this type of conflict will be repeated each time. Such conflicts can also be seen in Britain's early 19th century Luddite movement, which mark the first mass protests to the development of technology when Industrial Revolution began.
The current issue is whether to allow carpooling even during commuting hours. Here are some of the problems of the Government's proposals.
First, it is difficult to define a regular commute time when there is a growing number of companies and professions that still apply flexible time. In other words, the concept of the analog era of commuting has become ambiguous.
Second, even if carpooling is allowed only on a limited basis, the problem can grow in the case of accidents involving carpooling. The current Automobile Damage Compensation Act prohibits the operation of an owner-occupied vehicle (when the cost of transport is significantly more than the actual cost) and provides an exemption that completely excludes the compensation of motor vehicle insurance in the event of an accident. Also, even if the carpool system is allowed only on a limited basis, attention will be paid to what kind of voter analysis the court makes on repeated passenger car traffic in the event of an accident. To address this issue, the Automobile Damage Guarantee Act should be amended, and separate insurance should be created in the form of On & Off that can only be applied during periods of government-approved commuting hours or during carpooling services.
Third, there is no standard for determining how much money is reasonable for a carpool system. If the government offers proper fare standards, there will be a lot of conflict between the government and the commercial taxi market. I also think there will be other specific issues that can affect the safety of passengers, such as the condition of the driving vehicle or the nature of the driver.
Fourth, if the carpool system is allowed entirely through the revision of the law, the carpool system will minimize the adverse effects on taxi drivers in socially disadvantaged circumstances. The law may also provide access to a solution through subsidies or the implementation of a pay system. But I think this solution is also very limited, as the government cannot solve an issue through subsidies whenever different forms of conflict occur. This is because a subsidy will greatly increase social costs and eventually lead to complaints from interest groups that do not receive these benefits. < 저작권자 © 중앙헤럴드 무단전재 및 재배포금지 >