Berlin Bans Car Service Uber

An anonymous reader is just one of many who have pointed out that things don't look good for Uber in Berlin. Berlin has banned car service Uber, which allows users to summon a ride on their smartphone, for not offering drivers and vehicles licensed to carry passengers, or full insurance cover, the German capital said. The ban takes immediate effect and Uber risks fines of up to 25,000 euros each time it violates the city's Public Transport Act, Berlin authorities said in a statement. Uber said on Thursday it would appeal against the decision, accusing Berlin of denying its people choice and mobility. "As a new entrant we are bringing much-needed competition to a market that hasn't changed in years. Competition is good for everyone and it raises the bar and ultimately it's the consumer who wins," said Fabien Nestmann, German General Manager at Uber. Undaunted by the setback in Berlin, Uber has launched uberTAXI in Hong Kong.

Comments

Bugger this

[Anonymous Coward]

These guys seem to be copping a whole lot of shit just for trying to make transport easier for users.

Re: Bugger this

[Anonymous Coward]

This is because they feel they don't have to live by the same rules as everyone else driving passengers for money.

Re:Bugger this

[flopsquad]

This is not a troll. There should be a +1 "Not Actually Trolling"

Uber is quite retarded

[angel'o'sphere]

accusing Berlin of denying its people choice and mobility. "As a new entrant we are bringing much-needed competition to a market that hasn't changed in years. Competition is good for everyone and it raises the bar and ultimately it's the consumer who wins,"
There is a law. German wide. Which says: to transport people commercially you need a "commercial transport license". Just like a pilot with a PPL may not commercially transport persons but needs a commercial transport license. Heck, even if you drive a mini bus with more than 7 passengers _privately_ you need a "personell transport license".

This is not an "anti Uber law", this is law valid for every citizen or corporation.

Trying to make a law suit against current valid law is just idiotic. Try to change the law instead, well if you can.

If Uber wants to do business they should "hire" 'professional drivers' who have the same professional education other 'cap' or 'bus' drivers have.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[binarylarry]

Hahaha, you make it sound as if "being licensed" has some implication of advanced skill.

The govt in this case doesn't care about that, they want their licensing money back.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[bill_mcgonigle]

Uber et. al. have obviated the need for those a-priori licensing regimes and offer safer, better solutions to the same old coordination problems.

It means the end of the useful life of the cartels and their [often captured] regulators, so of course they fight it.

Here, have a listen:
http://www.cato.org/multimedia...

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[bayankaran]

The govt in this case doesn't care about that, they want their licensing money back.

You are right. But then without tax and revenue from licensing how will the government function?
We can always argue whether a specific regulation is needed or not, but are you are using the usual "small government", "starve the beast" idea?

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a law. German wide. Which says: to transport people commercially you need a "commercial transport license". Just like a pilot with a PPL may not commercially transport persons but needs a commercial transport license. Heck, even if you drive a mini bus with more than 7 passengers _privately_ you need a "personell transport license".

Uber doesn't consider itself a commercial transport service. It considers itself a ridesharing service. Presumably it could accept an upper limit of seven passengers.

I don't want to get into the merits of the law or applying it to Uber. I just wanted to point out that there is an argument that this law should not apply to them. It may or may not be a good argument.

I wonder how difficult it would be for them to comply with the law. I.e. how many people have commercial transport licenses? How hard would they be to get? Uber could require its drivers to have the license. They probably don't want to do so, as it would limit their driver supply.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

So the only way to have a "Free Market" is by having Government control? I really hope you realize how idiotic that thought process really is. And no, it has nothing to do with a company being held accountable for their actions, this is preemptive exclusion. Accountability is something else entirely.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can find a working link I'll be happy to mod your comment appropriately.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Trepidity]

No, they haven't. If Uber was willing to themselves shoulder any liability, that would be one thing. But they claim that individual drivers are responsible for any liability that may arise in an accident, and that Uber is not responsible. Of course, conveniently enough, the average driver nowhere near enough assets to pay out any liability claim in the case where they caused an accident. That is precisely why insurance is required.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Harlequin80]

I think you are wrong in this case, particularly as the case is in Germany. In the US getting into a cab is pretty horrific experience at the best of times, my experience has been several white knuckle drives where I have actually said to the driver I will tip him if he slows down, or taxis that simply aren't clean.

In Germany my experience has been taxis arriving on time, driven well and immaculately clean. Having legislated taxi services can mean that your drivers are vetted to a higher level (ie police checked & driver skills checked) than a decentralised system can ever be.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[noidentity]

Is it an anti-competition law? In many places they limit the number of licenses, which reduces competition and allows taxis to charge more.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, if you get into an actual taxi cab, the service is almost always regulated with a commercially licensed driver. If you do not have a commercially licensed driver, you probably aren't in a cab. For example, in New York City, there are limo services that do much the same thing as cabs do but are not regulated the same way. I think that you are looking at the difference between how Germany and the US regulate, not a difference of whether they regulate.

It's my understanding that it is more difficult to get a personal driver's license in Germany. That may scale up to the commercial licenses.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[angel'o'sphere]

How exactly should a Uber 'cap' be safer than an ordinary cap?

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Government was not allowing asinine damages in claims I would probably be in agreement with your opinion, but we both know that is bullshit. Double jeopardy is common today, and justice is used to punish things that the Government does not like. If you happen to be on the "Government" side of an issue you can cash in for life. If you are on the other side of the debate, well.. your asshole is going to be stretched far and wide.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[Trepidity]

No, this is precisely about accountability. It's not a new problem either: London invented this solution in response to this problem ~350 years ago. In the 17th century, there were many hackney carriages driven by unscrupulous drivers, who had no assets you could go after to pay for damages they caused through their rash behavior.

Here are two solutions:

1. Enforce a skill floor on drivers, so the worst cannot drive at all.

2. Require the rest of the drivers to carry insurance, so that any damages they cause to a third party may be assured coverage.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

wat? At no point did anyone say government shouldn't exist. However, this is a perfect example of government bringing nothing to the table, only hurting the economy instead.

If this causes revenue to go down, and the savings from not having to regulate the drivers doesn't match, then increase income/property/capital gains taxes. Problem solved.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

so youre saying that some kind of driving test be administered, and subsequent success results in a driving license?
i dont think it will work, seems just as impossible as imposing compulsory insurance.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[ZaphodHarkonnen]

They can consider themselves a sovereign state for all that means. Uber provides a commercial transport service even if they're simply contracting out the actual transport to someone else. So it should be up to them to make sure that the drivers they use meet the regulations of the country. Nothing here is saying that Uber cannot provide transport services. Just that they need to provide them under existing regulations. Now if they do not wish to do this they have two paths of recourse. Either not enter the market, or lobby for a law change.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[ZaphodHarkonnen]

Sounds like it's more a safety and skill law. I haven't seen any reference to Berlin having a cap on licenses.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[jonwil]

Plenty of people on the roads who only have licenses because the cops haven't caught them yet (driving dangerously, hooning, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, driving unsafe or un-roadworthy cars or otherwise doing things that put the lives of other road users at risk)

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

Good grief, you are grasping at some straws really far away.

All Cars driving in the US today MUST be insured to be legal. All drivers in the US today must be licensed to drive. There is no exception being made by Uber or Lyft drivers, none, zero, zip, nill.

If a driver is legal, then why would it matter what property he owned? Because you really think that every case of injury from auto accident entitles someone to 7+ figures in damages?

Oh I know, you will bring up some fringe case to prove how devastating _every_single_ injury from a car accident is, and how _every_single_person deserves to be paid millions of dollars for mental anguish in addition to the medical bills and time off of work. Go ahead and play that game, but then you need to play it for EVERYONE starting with yourself! Don't complain when your car insurance rates go to 10K a month to cover those types of damages.

If you don't buy into the universality of the damages, then you are absolutely buying into the preemptive exclusion process.

Uber already pays for more damages than a normal insurance policy in every single State in the US. They already provide insurance to cover drivers that may not have enough insurance. You will probably once again grasp at the fringe case where Uber and the Driver disagreed on who's insurance should cover an accident. That case is primarily a dispute where the victim wanted more money, and the driver didn't want a premium increase. Nobody left the victim dying in the street with no help and no coverage of the medical bills.

In other words, both of your solutions are ALREADY IMPLEMENTED, at least in the US. I can't say how things are done in other countries, but I would assume that just like in the US the company follows the laws of that land.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[mysidia]

You are right. But then without tax and revenue from licensing how will the government function?

They will get their money.... if not from licensing, then from catching and exorbitantly fining people who are supposed to have licensinsg but don't.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[qpqp]

to transport people commercially you need a "commercial transport license"

Unless you're just sharing the cost.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[Noah Haders]

I got pulled over for hooning in the fast lane of a fwy.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, yes. Without goverment control the "free market" will stabilise into a natural monopoly. If you keep the goverment away long enough you are left with a single company doing everything.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[phantomfive]

You are right. But then without tax and revenue from licensing how will the government function?

I'm not sure you wrote that correctly, but without tax and revenue from licensing, there are plenty of options.....income tax being a common one.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[moronoxyd]

Bull. As a citizen of Berlin I'm very happy that the government regulates people working in the transport business.
I don't want to be driven in a bus or car that doesn't conform to safety regulations or by a driver that has been working so many hours that he is sleepy or otherwise not able to safely bring me from A to B.

And if Uber and Lyft ignore the regulations already in place then they have no business doing business.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you propaganda swallowing idiot. You really think it's the world wide cottage industry taxi driving which has captured regulators, and not the companies with billions in venture capital from Goldman Sachs and Silicon Valley?

Cato are paid to say shit like this, you hopefully aren't.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[westlake]

Hahaha, you make it sound as if "being licensed" has some implication of advanced skill.

and maybe you don't know as much as you think you do:

The following are required by 1st time applicants for a Personenbeforderungsschein

Formal Application Antrag (obtained at the driver licensing office, usually the Road Traffic Office of the Community or Parish)

Personalausweis or passport (in combination with a valid personal registration)

Fuhrerschein (only the standard EU-Driving Licence is acceptable)

Medical Report from a Doctor specialised in ''Arbeitsmedizin'' or a Dr. with a qualification in ''Betriebsmedizin'' or a Report from a Reporting Institute for physical and mental driving competence. Info regarding which Drs. can do this is given by the Road Traffic Office. (The diagnostics relate to Stress, Reaction and Perception testing.)

Opticians Report or Certificate

Medical confirmation of Physical and Mental ability.

Fuhrungszeugnis (Criminal Record Report) with NO entries (for Official use only)

Extract from the Central Traffic Register Kraftfahrt-Bundesamtes in Flensburg

Ortskenntnisnachweis Proof of Knowledge (for the relevant district for Hire cars in Communities with population over 50.000).

Questions are to be answered regarding Places of Interest, Public Buildings, City districts. Generally routes will also be tested by giving starting and finishing points and allowing the candidate to describe the shortest route. Usually the Taxi company intending to employ the candidate will assist with the preparation for this test.

Knowledge test for taxi drivers in Germany. Is there one? Advice on working as a cabbie.
[Germany's English-speaking crowd. May 2010]

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[moronoxyd]

Uber doesn't consider itself a commercial transport service. It considers itself a ridesharing service. Presumably it could accept an upper limit of seven passengers.

I don't want to get into the merits of the law or applying it to Uber. I just wanted to point out that there is an argument that this law should not apply to them. It may or may not be a good argument.

Then they can bring their case to court and let the judges decide.
But until then they are bound by the decisions of the official body that regulates these matters.
This is about people's safety, so they have to follow the safety regulations until it is proven they don't have to.

Germany isn't the Wild West where companies can do as they please and consumer rights be damned.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[moronoxyd]

I can't say how things are done in other countries, but I would assume that just like in the US the company follows the laws of that land.

Except that the regulatory body here in Berlin responsible for public transport says they don't.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

no, they have licenses because they passed their drivers qualification exam and exercise. same as any unsafe taxi/uber driver that the police havent yet caught

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxi driving has low barriers to entry. If there were no restrictions at all on who could do it, competition would be so intense that only cheaters could compete - much like it already is in some industries, much like it is in tour de France. That's why passenger transport is regulated all over the world. You wouldn't like the taxi drivers you get after the race to the bottom, nor the things they come up with to stay afloat.

What regulation does, is buy you something else than lower fares with the currency of competition. In London, for instance, to get licensed you need to pass a ridiculous local geography exam. In some corrupt municipalities, they auction the permits or allow sale/renting of permits - this gives you some race to the bottom, but lets the municipalty scalp the profits.

Uber are trying to fool the world that their ebay-ish rating systems and their paypal-ish dispute resolution can do a better job that government. As users of Ebay and Paypal know, a big marketing budget is needed to make people believe something that ridiculous. Unfortunately Uber has billions of venture capital dollars to do just that, as well as to "convince" local and national regulators that the rules shouldn't apply to them.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not an "anti Uber law", this is law valid for every citizen or corporation.

Laws applying equally to every citizen or corporation is a foreign concept for American companies.

To American companies, the "law" is what you buy to enforce against other people, when you get rich enough, the "law" no longer applies to you. Hence, in Uber's eyes, any law that works against Uber's interest is, by definition, an "anti-Uber" law, probably bought by other interests that is competing with Uber.

Looks like Uber is going to get an education about what Law means in the Europe.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

The "free market" would not turn into monopolies, that is a steaming pile. The main reason for monopolization of nearly everything today is due to Federal intervention and regulation. Take Patent laws for example, which are Government enforced regulations which allows the ownership of not just physical inventions, but ideas and concepts. Those patent laws have allowed only those that can afford to pay, to play. And it's such an important job to the US Government that they were found to be paying your tax dollars they could pay the auditors to do nothing for their money. That's not taking a long lunch, that's spending 0 time at an office doing zero work, while collecting your hard earned cash.

That is one very easy example of many that demonstrate that the Federal Government is not protecting anyone from monopolization.

Now lets look at the monopolization that _has_ occurred, with a Federal Government that you somehow believe protects you from these things. How did Wal-mart monopolize if the Feds are there protecting you? How did Google, Microsoft, Apple, Comcast, AT&T, (I could go on and on with that one) maintain and extend their monopolies? You have a Federal Government that is protecting you, you said so. Where is your magical Government protection from monopolization?

Take a look around you! Look at the median incomes, look at wealth distribution in the USA. Look at today's numbers compared to last year and the year before and the year before and tell me the trend. Hint, it's getting worse and not better. These numbers are published, and easy to read, and they don't back your fantasy of having a Government keeping you safe. You are either sleeping or willfully blind to what is going on in your own country.

Honestly, I'm not anti-government. I think Government has legitimate functions. You on the other hand are simply delusional, pretending that they are doing things they are not doing so that you can maintain your fantasy of living in a "Free" country participating in a "Free" market. Even worse, you are defending it as if your delusion was true, despite having facts all around you demonstrating a contradicting reality.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

Licenses allow an additional way of controlling stuff by revoking and renewing licenses.

That control can be used for good or bad.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[mjwx]

No, this is precisely about accountability. It's not a new problem either: London invented this solution in response to this problem ~350 years ago. In the 17th century, there were many hackney carriages driven by unscrupulous drivers, who had no assets you could go after to pay for damages they caused through their rash behavior.

Here are two solutions:

1. Enforce a skill floor on drivers, so the worst cannot drive at all.

2. Require the rest of the drivers to carry insurance, so that any damages they cause to a third party may be assured coverage.

If they applied this to Uber, they'd be just as expensive (if not more so) than regular taxi services.

I firmly believe that any driver or car could register as a taxi as long as they meet these requirements:
1. The driver to be licensed as a taxi driver (in Perth, Western Australia we have a test kind of like London's "The Knowledge" but far simpler).
2. The vehicle to be in good condition (as in beyond just roadworthy).
3. The driver is insured as a commercial driver.

However companies like Uber are not trying do this. Rather they seem bent on trying to ignore the rules as long as possible and that's only going to work for so long as cities are already starting to crack down on them. Its only a matter of time before an Uber driver in Australia or Europe hits and maims someone then insurance companies are going to go after Uber like rabid dogs (and Uber wont survive them).

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it matters. When I ride with a taxi or similar, I can rest easy because I'm protected by law; money exchange is between private and business, thus providing all the benefits of customer protection. (Good luck dealing with fraud from a private driver - you're on your own)

Also, the insurance matter. I want to know, that if the driver of the car gets us in an accident, that all injury caused to me or my property is fully covered. If its a private driver, nothing is covered.

I don't drive in pirate taxis because of these reasons. I don't drive in taxis whose company is not in agreement with the union either. Power to the workers, also those workers who drive taxis.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

If you've picked up a newspaper in the last year, it should have been clear enough who has captured the regulators. It sure as hell isn't Uber.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[gl4ss]

sure, if you don't equate commercial transport license to "Taxi medallion more costly than the car itself".

Which is fairly common.

and really, the places where it's like that is where the taxis are lobbying for banning uber. it would be rather easy to check out available uber taxis and check if they have license or not and smack them with the appropriate fines if not. but if you want to protect your roaming or taxi pole mafia, then you need to ban the whole concept.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[mvdwege]

Hahaha, you make it sound as if "being licensed" has some implication of advanced skill.

In Germany? You bet it does.

I wish people would stop projecting American incompetence at running government services on the rest of the world.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

outch that hurts

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Uber driver was not already going to make that trip before the call, then they are not ride sharing, it's a taxi service.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Germany, not the USA. People have to pass an exam/test with some proficiency.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to prove your damages. And the defense has the right to knock as much off as possible. It's definitely not perfect, but you make it sound like you win your case and you're automatically granted millions of dollars. It does happen from time to time, but most cases are settled for far less and even when they do go to verdict, the sums are based upon actual damages.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

> Hahaha, you make it sound as if "being licensed" has some implication of advanced skill.

Actually yes, in most of the world. Here, in my country Hungary, located a little east of Germany, but also in the same European Union, being licenced to transport goods or people on the road professionally, requires more stringent process compared to becoming a "gentleman motorist" (but both include medical checks and classroom + closed track + on-the-road training and exams). Pro-driver medical checks called PAV level I, II, III are heinous and even include computerized tests of quick reaction times by the applicant and in-depth ophtalmology.

Hungarians, who have lived in the USA were shocked to discover that "gentleman motorist" tests there consist of no theory at all and at maximum, some 5 minutes of circling a housing block or rounding two corners for on-road test. US drivers of 18-wheelers are examined less than "gentleman motorists" in Hungary for knowledge and fitness. Apparently, USA considers Ford / Harley driving as a basic human right, the same category as walking or riding a bicycle.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[Keyboard Rage]

Uber was (predictably) banned in a couple of Dutch cities for basically the same reason as in Berlin. Taxis here need licenses and have to adhere to strict guidelines due to serious issues with price-fixing and unacceptable behaviour by (not always) unlicensed taxi drivers (including robberies) in the past. Uber's reaction was "The law is obviously wrong and needs to be changed the future. We expect that this change will be made soon.".

This showcases some incredible arrogance and lack of understanding of how things work. A) Those laws and rules are the way they are because of historical reasons; those reasons are very likely to rear their ugly head again when licenses are abolished. B) Exclusive deals (e.g. where Uber would be the only one to be able to provide unlicensed taxis) are against European law. C) A company can't decide for everyone what the law should be; changes to the law will have to be agreed upon by all parties (and taxi unions are powerful). D) Suggesting that a law ought to change 'soon' because it means company X can't use their (obviously flawed) business model might work in a highly corrupt country (or one that does not care about consumer rights); it has no place in a democracy, and considering Uber seems to think it it ought to work that way maybe means Uber should be investigated for possible corruption practices...

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to be driven in a bus or car that doesn't conform to safety regulations or by a driver that has been working so many hours that he is sleepy or otherwise not able to safely bring me from A to B.

While I agree with that I also feel that I don't want "a driver that has been working so many hours that he is sleepy" in the car behind or in front of mine either, regardless of if he is having passengers or not. Well, I prefer if he has passengers since they can wake him up.

Typically there are laws in place that says that you aren't allowed to drive at all if you are too tired or intoxicated or otherwise unfit to handle traffic. That they are driving someone else for a fee shouldn't have anything to do with that.
I guess that it is easier to just enforce this regulation more strictly on the transport sector rather than to enforce it on all drivers but that doesn't mean that the same rules shouldn't apply to everyone.
A driver that doesn't comply with the law should have is driving license revoked, after that the license to transport people is pretty redundant.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Phoeniyx]

"I don't want to be driven in a bus or car that doesn't conform to safety regulations or by a driver that has been working so many hours that he is sleepy or otherwise not able to safely bring me from A to B." Well, then don't use Uber. But there is enough people who WILL want to use Uber. This is not one of those things where you need to "compromise" so that some people are disadvantaged SO THAT another group may be disadvantaged. This is simply about eliminating choice where the two systems (regulated taxi drivers and uber type system) can easily co-exist. People like you can overpay for your taxis and people like me can use Uber (and voluntarily be exposed to drivers that don't conform to safety regulations and may fall asleep).

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you seen the average driver? Oh wait you probably are one so you can't see beyond your own bonnet.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[Trepidity]

If you have personal auto insurance and you drive the vehicle commercially, the insurance will not pay out: driving commercially violates the terms of personal auto insurance, so you voided the policy. So you are uninsured.in that case, despite claiming to be insured. If you drive commercially, you need commercial auto insurance to actually have a policy that is valid.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Warma]

I actually think that the reality is more zero-sum here. People already must use transport and do so every day, so bringing an option into the market does not magically produce more consumers for it.

The regulated and licensed drivers are not unaffected by the business Uber takes away from them, which may either force them to raise prizes, lower quality or go out of business. All of these options will lower the quality of service for the person you are replying to, so for him/her, it is a rational option to oppose this change.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

Transportation licences are very expensive (~$100000 for major cities), they also require training, higher standards on the vehicles etc. Traditional forms of transport cannot compete against Uber on equal terms, so we will have to choose one of the two. You can love it or hate it, but most European countries are going to ban Uber, Paris and Madrid are already preparing their own bills.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[dave420]

They're not that expensive in Europe.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[Richard_at_work]

sure, if you don't equate commercial transport license to "Taxi medallion more costly than the car itself".

The taxi medallion is more costly than the pants the owner wears as well, but it still doesn't mean shit.

The medallion is a license - the car is the tool. The two have no link other than you use the tool under the license.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[gsslay]

It has nothing to do with skill. "Being licensed" has some implication (however imperfect it may be) of being insured and being a known citizen, with a history of following the rules of the road and laws in general.

Not being licensed means you could be an uninsured, unidentifiable, homicidal maniac fresh out of prison. Personally I'd prefer some kind of means of avoiding getting in a car alone with these people.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[drinkypoo]

accusing Berlin of denying its people choice and mobility. "As a new entrant we are bringing much-needed competition to a market that hasn't changed in years. Competition is good for everyone and it raises the bar and ultimately it's the consumer who wins,"

There is a law. German wide. Which says: to transport people commercially you need a "commercial transport license".

So although you just acknowledged that Berlin deliberately denies its choice and mobility by presenting the proof thereof, Uber is retarded?

This is not an "anti Uber law", this is law valid for every citizen or corporation.

Yes, a law which deliberately denies choice and mobility specifically for the purpose of profit protectionism. Just like Uber says.

If Uber wants to do business they should "hire" 'professional drivers'

That's not what Uber does. Uber enables citizens to do business, and they get a cut for enabling that business. Except, of course, in places which deny their citizens choice and mobility in pursuit of profit.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[drinkypoo]

Hahaha, you make it sound as if "being licensed" has some implication of advanced skill.

In Germany? You bet it does. I wish people would stop projecting American incompetence at running government services on the rest of the world.

Actually, I read it as assuming competence where there in fact is none. Europeans brag about how much testing they have to go through before they can get licensed, as if they all had to be exemplary drivers just to get a license. Now you're telling us that this isn't true, that the average driver isn't capable of driving a car. Which is it? Make up your fucking mind.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[drinkypoo]

Application: We have taxi licensing here, too. which also requires registration and a driving license. Won't require a physical, but national health insurance will probably change that. Already requires that you can see, which is part of the driving licensing test. Already requires that we're assumed to be physically and mentally able to drive, which is part of the driving licensing test (supposedly. Yes ours are woefully bad.) A criminal record will not automatically disqualify you, which is a good thing, unless you're trying to divide your nation into criminals with no incentive not to be criminals, and everyone else. You do need a clean motor vehicle report just to keep the necessary insurance. Mostly we have no proof of knowledge, but google knows more than the best-trained cabbie so who gives a shit? So does a $100 Garmin.

In conclusion, you really have no more requirements to become a taxicab driver than we do, so the only thing you potentially have to be smug about is that your basic driving tests are harder than ours. Unfortunately, since you still seem to need to certify taxi drivers separately to ensure that they can drive, which is after all what they actually do, it doesn't seem like your driving tests are actually more meaningful than ours. If they were, everyone in your country would be considered a sufficiently good driver to operate a cab, because that is in fact the basic skill involved.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[drinkypoo]

Here are two solutions:
1. Enforce a skill floor on drivers, so the worst cannot drive at all.
2. Require the rest of the drivers to carry insurance, so that any damages they cause to a third party may be assured coverage.

1. Yes, please. Every licensed driver should be capable of driving a cab. It is, after all, simply a series of trips.
2. We're already all required to carry insurance.

Personally, I like 3. National health care along with 0. Safer cars for all. We have the first part. The last part would go a long way to reducing the burden of insurance.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

This is not one of those things where you need to "compromise" so that some people are disadvantaged SO THAT another group may be disadvantaged.

Unless you're the person in the lane next to the Uber car when its high-mileage, improperly-maintained components break, or the person crossing the road in front when the Uber driver falls asleep, and then you get to be in the accident too.

Regulations on commercial drivers exist for a reason, and it's not just for the benefit of the passengers inside a commercial vehicle.

Providing an alternative that is competitive merely by virtue of not following the same rules as everyone else isn't an improvement. Compete on the same basis as everyone else, and then if your service is otherwise better you can enjoy all the well-deserved support you like. Otherwise, you should expect regulators to close you down.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahaha, you make it sound as if "being licensed" has some implication of advanced skill.

there are conditions to this license and it's not that expensive.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[AmiMoJo]

Don't bother. The libertarian view is that everyone should check that the vehicle is safe and the driver competent before making a contract to be transported with them. Ideally when you get on the bus there should be a verifiable certificate of road-worthiness and the driver's licence, complete with a contract exempting the bus company from all liability for you to sign. Poor people can take a cheaper bus without the certificates, because basic safety is a personal "choice" (mostly influenced by the amount of money you have).

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like requiring a license for operating heavy machinery implies that the average person is a cripple who can't pull a lever, or food safety inspections implies the average person can't make food safely in their own kitchen.

There's going to be stricter requirements for doing something commercially (in this case likely driving 10x as much with twice as many people on board) for personal use/hobbyists. Deal with it.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Bing Tsher E]

The weird thing is, you're so nestled into your worldview that you thought you didn't need a visible sarcasm tag.

Tort law can easily resolve this, without need for protectionist measures backed by unions and various other cartels.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[serviscope_minor]

Actually, I read it as assuming competence where there in fact is none. Europeans brag about how much testing they have to go through before they can get licensed, as if they all had to be exemplary drivers just to get a license. Now you're telling us that this isn't true, that the average driver isn't capable of driving a car. Which is it? Make up your fucking mind.

I did my test in London and lived in New Mexico for a few years. If you believe the English driving test is not substantially harder than the New Mexico one then I have a bridge to sell you. The England one is one of the hardest in the world and has a very substantial failure rate.

And in Germany, commercial drivers are licensed and required to have an EVEN HIGHER standard of driving than regular drivers.

And now for the bragging. Here is a table of countries by road fatalities:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Germany and the UK, two countries with strict licensing of various sorts are several times safer than the US when it comes to driving. And those are two countries with a very high population density. If you bring in lower density countries with more adverse driving conditions like Norway the stats get even better.

Basically stricter driver licensing provably works at making the roads safer.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

Deliberately skirting existing law and being called out on it does not in any way imply being the victim of regulatory capture.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[arglebargle_xiv]

Hahaha, you make it sound as if "being licensed" has some implication of advanced skill.

Licensing implies some minimal level of quality control. People in western Europe, and most parts of the US, are used to a relatively good quality of taxi transport that comes about from decades of regulation. Now before you complain about how bad things are in your home city, try catching a taxi in St.Petersburg, or Bucharest, or Tirana (in St.Petersburg I'd get a marshrutka which is shared with lots of others or a taxi from a hotel, in Bucharest I'd get in a car driven for a fee by a friend's cousin's brother, and don't even ask about Tirana). Even cities like Budapest a decade ago were still the wild west until they introduced stricter regulation of drivers, now it's almost at the level of somewhere like New York, although hailing a cab on the street is still a no-no (you phone for it and order one).

So before you advocate a free-for-all, remember that the current situation only exists specifically because there isn't a free-for-all.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

The license includes a test and therefore a qualification. Because they charge their customers according to the route they have find the shortest or the best route for the customer. It might be a bit outdated in the age of SatNav, but the important part here is an insurance that covers commercial transport and overall safety with licensed drivers, usual procedures, a special equipment in the car and so on.

The taxi business is quite set regarding ride fares and salaries, but they are that for a reason uber tries to shortcut by ignoring where those reasons stem from - abuses, tragedies and crimes. It made them now look like a scheme to anyone coming up with a new idea, but however, combining the uber app with conventional taxis would still be a good idea.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know how you get a cab license in the UK? You fill out a form for the local council and they issue you with your Hackney Carriage piece of paper. There is no testing whether you know the rules of the road (passed driving test, not needed), there's no checking whether you know the area, and there's no insurance investigation to see whether you're a maniac.

Buses and large vehicles are a different matter, but cabs, no difference from cars.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[dunkelfalke]

Meh, by that logic a commercial pilot license is superfluos as well, private pilot license should be enough to pilot a passenger machine after a IFR crash course since the basic skills involved are the same.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

Want to hear a fun example of this?

My wife failed her Canadian drivers exam three times, but was able to pass on her first attempt in the US.

Weird right?

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[IamTheRealMike]

Unless you're the person in the lane next to the Uber car when its high-mileage, improperly-maintained components break, or the person crossing the road in front when the Uber driver falls asleep, and then you get to be in the accident too.

So I guess travelling salesmen have to get special licenses too, or anyone who has an especially long commute? I guess this government licensing regime applies to anyone who drives more than a certain number of hours per day? No? They apply only to people who are paid to take passengers around and thus have money to squeeze? Hmm.

Regulations on commercial drivers exist for a reason, and it's not just for the benefit of the passengers inside a commercial vehicle.

The entire Uber hullaballoo is happening exactly because nobody seems able to clearly articulate the value that this giant pile of red tape brings to the table. People handwave and say "of course regulations make things safer", but why Uber can't achieve the same outcomes better is not exactly clear. I don't think a government license magically makes people less likely to fall asleep at the wheel, for example - rules around how long any driver can drive would do that, but that's not what taxi licensing achieves.

It seems pretty clear that technology can solve some of the problems that historically have been achieved through government licensing. Governments are NEVER going to decide that some laws can be replaced with new technology, their history of doing this is non-existent because the people who pass laws are not technologists. So conflicts like Uber vs taxi licensing regimes are inevitable. But that doesn't make Uber automatically in the wrong. It's just a sad reflection on the lack of software ability at the top of our societies power structures.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[IamTheRealMike]

The libertarian view is that everyone should check that the vehicle is safe and the driver competent before making a contract to be transported with them.

Hardly. The anti-Uber-banning view (call it libertarian if you like) is that governments already require drivers licenses to check for competent drivers and road vehicle licensing to ensure safe vehicles, which is why most people are totally OK with getting into the car of a random friend or relative. But we're expected to believe that once you pay someone for a trip, suddenly all those existing licenses become irrelevant and we need extra new (invariably very expensive) licenses to provide safety and competency.

Here's a thought. Maybe if someone trusts Uber to do a better job of policing their drivers than their local government, they should be allowed to test that theory out? So far I haven't actually encountered anyone who has had a bad experience with Uber. I'm sure they exist, but people with bad experiences of regular licensed taxis are a dime a dozen. It's not like paying a big fat fee to your local city magically makes people awesome.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[CanHasDIY]

As an American who actually payed attention in History and Civics classes, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that regulating business practices is one of the few things our government was actually established to do, due in large part to the shady practices that King George allowed corporations like the East India Tea Company to use on colonists.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[mvdwege]

Since I am not even asserting what you are saying I am in your second sentence ("Europeans brag..."), I am not even going to dignify this with a rebuttal. You can fuck your strawman for all I care.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much, yes. Since the alternatives are the poor get no service, or everyone gets substandard service. Typically larger cities get the latter (Anyone ever used the TTC in Toronto?), and smaller cities get the former (examples abound, just throw a dart at the map).

But go ahead, insult as much as you like, since you know you're right, despite a dearth of examples to the contrary.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[CanHasDIY]

The entire Uber hullaballoo is happening exactly because nobody seems able to clearly articulate the value that this giant pile of red tape brings to the table.

Safety. Accountability. Legal recourse.

Take your pick.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[CanHasDIY]

Germany and the UK, two countries with strict licensing of various sorts are several times safer than the US when it comes to driving. And those are two countries with a very high population density.

Hey, as an American I take offense to that!

Not what you said, mind, but rather the fact that it's true.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[drinkypoo]

I did my test in London and lived in New Mexico for a few years. If you believe the English driving test is not substantially harder than the New Mexico one then I have a bridge to sell you.

Oh no, I'm quite clear that our driving tests are pathetic. But my point is, you're either qualified to drive a car with other people in it, or you aren't.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

You seem to be conflating several issues, as well as setting up some straw men, neither of which encourages constructive debate.

One issue is statutory licensing, which may artificially limit the number of people who can drive for-hire vehicles in a given area. It is true that such regimes are vulnerable to local politics and regulatory capture, pushing expenses up for drivers and reducing competition. There are also some arguments in favour of reasonable licensing regimes, not least because there is only so much road space and so much demand for hire vehicles. There is certainly room for debate about how this side of the industry works and whether newer alternative models might be better.

Another issue is safety regulations, which typically restrict things like permitted time behind the wheel without a break or how often vehicles must be maintained and tested. This is quite a different thing from licensing to limit supply in the market, though clearly some method of identifying who is subject to the safety regulations is needed. Here it is common, at least in my country, for professional drivers who spend many hours behind the wheel to be regulated. For example, lorry drivers and coach drivers also have to comply with regulations that don't apply to individuals driving private vehicles for their own purposes. Here, there is much less room for debate. Normal people don't spend the equivalent of an entire working day behind the wheel, day in and day out, with relatively little to keep their attention focused on driving. Even when private individuals make long journeys by car, they rarely spend as long behind the wheel as lorry drivers do daily. And of course the service and mandatory testing intervals for private cars are set with private driving in mind, while vehicles used commercially tend to do much higher mileage.

As a third related issue there is insurance. It is a legal requirement in my country for every driver to have proper insurance to certain minimum standards. Note that this is primarily for the protection of others: as far as I know, you can still drive a personal car without insurance to cover wrapping it around a tree and writing it off, but you may not legally drive it without "third party" insurance that would cover any damage you do if you wrap it around someone else's car and write off both vehicles. Insurance policies typically specify things like the type of vehicle and how it will be used and are priced accordingly, and the insurance industry probably has a better understand of the true risks of different types of driving than anyone else. So letting people drive commercially when their insurance doesn't cover it would just be a loophole and a clear risk to other road users who won't be protected as the law requires in the event of an accident.

I don't think the people who question services like Uber on regulatory grounds are necessarily against competition or innovation in the marketplace. I'm certainly not; I write software every day for businesses that do stuff no-one has done before that is only possible because of that software, so why would I want to hold back progress? But some of those regulations really are there for good, sensible, practical reasons, and I don't think a new entrant into the market should get a free pass on breaking the rules that apply to everyone else just because they're new.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[CanHasDIY]

you make it sound like you win your case and you're automatically granted millions of dollars. It does happen from time to time,

Indeed - for example, when a person misrepresents themselves as a commercial carrier, though they lack the proper licensure and insurance. Because then it's not just "causing a car wreck," it's also fraud.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[CanHasDIY]

So the only way to have a "Free Market" is by having Government control?

No, no, no.

The only way to have a Free Market is to build a trans-dimensional vehicle and transport yourself to FantasyLand. Because here in Reality, there is absolutely no such thing as a free market - even black markets, which are the closest thing, are regulated to a certain degree.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[CanHasDIY]

to transport people commercially you need a "commercial transport license"

Unless you're just sharing the cost.

Then you're not transporting commercial, are you?

Here's the difference:

Ride-sharing - you and I are going to the same place, so you pick me up and I give you a couple bucks for gas.

Taxi service - I call you, arrange a pickup time, and pay you to deliver me to my destination (which isn't necessarily yours).

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[Rostin]

Just because a law applies to everyone equally doesn't make it a good or fair law. I think most people would agree that some regulations of this kind are for the public good, while others only serve to unfairly protect established businesses by making it difficult for new competitors to enter the market.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[dave420]

The basic & public transport tests are much harder than in the US. The personal license test includes basic medical training, for instance.

The public transport license tests go above and beyond a private license test, as they need to be as good as you can possibly get, as they drive many more people around than just themselves, and those people need guarantees of the ability of the driver.

There's nothing to be smug about, just sad that the US's taxi drivers (and private drivers) have no guarantee of ability, leading to the insane amount of deaths on US roads. That's just tragic for everyone, regardless of where you live. You sound a bit defensive...

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[dave420]

You really don't like to think that something's less awesome in the US than somewhere else... How sad. That attitude ensures that anything less awesome in the US will stay less awesome for generations to come. I hope you're happy!

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[angel'o'sphere]

Might be the case if the topic was a different one.
In public transportation I don't see a way to abolish such a law.
Bottom line the extra license for the driver is cheap, perhaps up to 1000Euros, and as it is not a real cab, they don't need the cab permit from the city (AFAIK). They only need to register an ordinary business. OTOH, the city permit requires you to have extraordinary knowledge about the city, the roads, shortest paths for common routes, Hotels, points of interests, hospitals etc. So depending on what you are exactly doing I expect you also need the permit issued by the city.
And yes: that his a high barrier, but we believe it is right so. Why? Because I don't want to bleed to death when a friend flags down a 'cab' and asks to get me to the next hospital and the stupid driver takes the third best route to the second closest hospital or needs 3 minutes to pick one from his navi.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[dave420]

So people should be able to practice medicine or law without a license, then, as that's denying people choice? You are really stretching your point here...

The laws governing the taxi service in Berlin (which the city seems very happy with - I've taken a bunch and they're great, just as in other parts of Germany) has nothing to do with profit, but of providing a service of a set quality for the public. Weird, I know.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[angel'o'sphere]

So although you just acknowledged that Berlin deliberately denies its choice and mobility by presenting the proof thereof,
I don't get this sentence, what do you expect Berlin to proof? And why should the city proof anything anyway?
Yes, a law which deliberately denies choice and mobility specifically for the purpose of profit protectionism. Just like Uber saysNo, the law sets a minimum standard you have to follow to operate in a certain business, like e.g. for doctors, lawyers etc.
That's not what Uber does. Uber enables citizens to do business, and they get a cut for enabling that business. Except, of course, in places which deny their citizens choice and mobility in pursuit of profit.
You can do any business you want as you follow the regulations.
I would like to be a lawyer, too. Unfortunately if I open a law office and start advertising, I will be in trouble: as I nave no license, I did not study law.
Why should that be different for a professional driver?

Uber had no problem at all if all its drivers had professional transportation license (that is basically a drivers license and has nothing to do with cabs) and makes sure they have a 'commercial' insurance.

Sorry, you can not look at every country and every 'problem' from a backyard american point of view.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

Statistics. What about the percentage/# of people that actually own cars and drive on a daily basis in the UK and Germany? http://drivesteady.com/cars-per-capita

The United States comes in first - statistics from the World Bank show that for every 1,000 people there are 809 vehicles on the road. Both the UK and Germany are ~500. So yeah... Fewer people drive there, both in total and per capita, so of course they have fewer road deaths. They also are a little smaller than the US, so not as much ground to cover.

BTW, I have driven in both places. If you think German truckers are "keeping the roads safe" I'm not sure we can agree on anything.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[angel'o'sphere]

No, it does not allow the taxis to charge more.
Taxi tariffs are centralized fixed. Except you have a special long range desire and can agree on a special price.
Keep in mind the licenses are usually on company level, not on driving cabs level.
Considering the amount of empty taxis idling with running engine all day through in my town, I really wonder how they even make money at all.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[robbyb20]

Ha, i dont konw what taxis you get into but the ones in chicago are usually in pretty bad shape. Brakes sound like they need to be changed, AC RARELY works and most times the smell is nauseating.

I have had some bad Uber-x cars as well but since they are owned by one person, they usually are able to take better care of it beyond what the Taxis that run 24/7 with different drivers are able to do.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[Triklyn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

standard oil would like its monopoly back.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

If Uber wants to do business they should "hire" 'professional drivers' who have the same professional education other 'cap' or 'bus' drivers have.

I was thinking something similar. If countries/municipalities want to ban Joe Schmo from being a taxi driver in his spare time, fine, there are reasons for professional certifications...but what I don't get is why actual taxi drivers aren't all about apps like this!?

Think about it:
- No need for a dispatch service...that's the number one reason preventing an ambitious taxi driver from starting his/her own company (where they get to keep more money for themselves!)
- These apps allow for the ability to price "dynamically" based on market conditions. That might run afoul of some municipalities which set the taxi rates, but I know some taxi drivers would be amenable to actually lowering their set rates from time to time if it put someone in the seat.
- They could very easily include some "routing" software stringing together a few short rides in an efficient manner.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[operagost]

Trying to make a law suit against current valid law is just idiotic. Try to change the law instead, well if you can.

This is not a rule to follow in a democratic form of government. If it were, then we'd have to have left the Jim Crow laws in place because, after all, they were "valid". Perhaps the government has no right to tell people what, or who, they are allowed to carry in their vehicles.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[angel'o'sphere]

Sure ...

Nevertheless according to current law a lawsuit against a law wont work.

Regardless how you want to turn and twist it,

The only way to change it, is to get the parliament, next election perhaps, to change the law.

Or on what base exactly do you believe you can formulate a case against 'this paragraph is not right' and hope a court:
a) accepts the case
b) rules in your favour
c) gets the parliament to change the law
????

Al three points are completely impossible, even in your country, so how do you believe it would work in back yard Berlin?

And yes, all above is a rule to follow in ANY democratic form of government, you must have a weird idea what a democracy is.

I AM THE PEOPLE, I AM THE VOTER, not a fucking company like Uber.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[operagost]

You are right. But then without tax and revenue from licensing how will the government function?

No income tax there? No VAT or sales tax? No vehicle licensing fees? No drivers' license fees? No fuel taxes? These bogus "licenses" are just the way "progressive" governments enact regressive taxes to keep the rabble from starting their own businesses and possibly challenging the elite.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[qpqp]

Yes, except that people use ride-sharing to get more than just their gas, without getting a commercial license (technically this is probably illegal). So similar rules should apply to Uber as well, as we could assume that drivers only take others for a ride with it, if it's "on their way" (never-mind their "way" being "cruising around town").

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[CanHasDIY]

Yes, except that people use ride-sharing to get more than just their gas, without getting a commercial license (technically this is probably illegal). So similar rules should apply to Uber as well, as we could assume that drivers only take others for a ride with it, if it's "on their way" (never-mind their "way" being "cruising around town").

That seems far more convoluted and unworkable than "make all people using their vehicles commercially have commercial license/insurance"

Can't speak for anywhere else, but where I live it's illegal to pick up hitchhikers, effectively making ride-sharing with strangers illegal.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

That is why there are 3 stats for fatalities:
-per capita
-per vehicle
-per distance driven

So you can try to spin the stats meaningless but in all categories the US is at the bottom compared to EU countries: just above Belgium per mile/km. And they are totally crazy on the road.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

Bull. As a citizen of Berlin I'm very happy that the government regulates people working in the transport business.
I don't want to be driven in a bus or car that doesn't conform to safety regulations or by a driver that has been working so many hours that he is sleepy or otherwise not able to safely bring me from A to B.

This actually very much depends upon the person. Some people can stay focused even when rather tired while others aren't at all focused even when they're awake. One time I asked a doctor in sleep medicine what the worst case they'd ever seen was. The professional advised me during a MSLT they evaluated they saw someone fall asleep in 15 seconds. In spite of that kind of result apparently he had never had an accident during his job as a taxi driver.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[qpqp]

It is, but if they'd force Uber and other apps to do so, they'd also encroach on the territory of the "original" ride-sharing services, which are rather established in Germany. Also, it'd make Uber's (main) model meaningless, so obviously they're going to fight it.
An interesting tidbit, is that it's quite difficult to have a technically insecure car in Germany, due to the heavy regulation and police checking anything suspicious, so I believe they (Uber) should just find an insurance company willing to fully insure their drivers (or provide a quick and easy process for them to do so themselves) and it'd probably be fine.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Bing Tsher E]

Already requires that you can see, which is part of the driving licensing test.

My wife watched an elderly gentleman at the License Branch bump into a chair as he went up to the counter to renew his license. He said 'excuse me' to the chair. The person at the counter gave him his license renewal.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[Rostin]

Bottom line the extra license for the driver is cheap, perhaps up to 1000Euros, and as it is not a real cab, they don't need the cab permit from the city (AFAIK).

Uber's and Lyft's business model relies on individuals driving their own cars, many of whom do it part time to make a little extra money. A thousand euros is a very significant hurdle to someone like that. Maybe cab drivers should be required to obtain a special, more expensive license, but it's not convincing that this license is no big deal because it costs "only" 1000 euros. I'll take your word for it that Berlin doesn't require any extra permits, but FYI cities in the US usually require cab companies to obtain a so-called "medallion" for each taxi they wish to operate. There are a fixed number of medallions, which limits the total number of taxis. In NYC, when a medallion becomes available, it can go for upwards of a million dollars. In other large cities, the cost can be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's clear why both city governments and established taxi companies are fighting tooth and nail to get Uber and Lyft kicked out of their cities.

Why? Because I don't want to bleed to death when a friend flags down a 'cab' and asks to get me to the next hospital and the stupid driver takes the third best route to the second closest hospital or needs 3 minutes to pick one from his navi.

Ridiculous. Regardless of whether an Uber driver is qualified to drive a taxi, a taxi is not an ambulance.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[angel'o'sphere]

The company that needs the 'medallion' in this case would be Uber, not the driver. The driver needs a driving license, like any other doing the same business. Get used to it.

Regarding your ridiculous, no it is not. That is how things are!

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

I should hope so! But hooning might be allowed on the autobahn.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

Bull-fucking SHIT. These things will vary not only by country, by state, by insurance company, and by different policies within a company (like having full coverage versus just state-mandated liability only).

Here is what you lack, besides general knowledge and common sense, a reference:

However, a very broad exception to this exclusion allows coverage for the business use of a vehicle provided it is one of three types: 1) a private passenger auto, 2) a pickup or van, or 3) trailer while used with the aforementioned. This exception suggests that as long as the vehicle is one of these three types, coverage remains intact after the accident.

https://www.trustedchoice.com/...

Captcha: overcome (oh lordy, lordy yes I have!)

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[Rostin]

Regardless of who has to pay for the medallion, they are an artificial barrier to new competitors who wish to enter the market. They protect established companies at the expense of new ones, which stifles innovation and hurts everyone. Telling me to "get used to it" is silly. Laws can be changed, and when they are unfair or not in the public interest, they should be.

I don't know what you mean when you say "That is how things are!" Are you telling me that there are no ambulances in Berlin, and that when people are near-fatally injured and in serious danger of bleeding to death, they call a taxi to get to the nearest hospital? I admit I've never been to Germany, but I find that very difficult to believe.

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[angel'o'sphere]

There is no artificial entry barrier for 'new' companies.
All existing companies had the exact same barrier.

The topic Uber/Lyft can hardly be called innovation/innovative, how do you come to that idea? Just because the internet is involved? Wow ... we have web based 'Mitfahrgelegenheitenâ(TM) since 20 years or more.

There is nothing unfair here and no, the law should definitely not be changed, â(TM)we don't want such drivers on our roads!' There is no reason to change laws, you are completely off topic: "the law is in public interest", hence we have it.

No, I did not say, we have no ambulances, I said: "If the nearest cab gets flagged down", a little difference. Flagging the next best cab is faster than getting an ambulance anyway, and it was an argument to make a point (about knowledge of local roads etc. ... and before you start nitpicking: yes, an ambulance driver needs the exact same license a cab driver needs, and has to show he has the exact same knowledge about local routes ... there is only one exemption: if you do civil service, and you are driving around people - not injured, but elderly or children or handicaps - then you can be exempt from needing a 'person carrying permit' )

Sorry, I don't really get from where you get the ideas about 'unfair competition' and/or 'in the interest of general public' ... both is wrong.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Harlequin80]

But that is exactly what is different between Australia, Europe, and the US. In Berlin most of the taxi's are recent model Mercedes, usually E classes and are in great condition. In Australia they are either Falcons, Commodores or Aurions with Prius being used inside the higher density city circle. These are also (generally speaking) in good condition. This is BECAUSE the market is highly regulated.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[genkernel]

Where are mod points when you need them. Very much this. The effect described by the parent post has happened in other industries, and will continue to happen until people become more wise.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[robbyb20]

Nice! I didn't take any taxis while I was in Italy(rented car) so I can't comment on the European taxi quality but it sounds like the taxis in Berlin are nice.

Is there a way to easily get one or do they require you to call one provider or stand on the road for one to pass?

Re:Uber is quite retarded

[drinkypoo]

So people should be able to practice medicine or law without a license, then, as that's denying people choice? You are really stretching your point here...

Wow, you put all the hypocrisy on one line. That was convenient of you.

Re: Uber is quite retarded

[Harlequin80]

Berlin taxis are only available if you call one to pick you up. They will do drive-by pickup but the other public transport is that good in Berlin that the taxi business struggle so they basically don't circle the city anymore.

Japan is another country where taxis are great. I don't know what make of car they are (they seem to be custom) they have a mechanised arm which opens and closes the rear left door for you to get in and out of and all the drivers wear immaculate pressed uniforms. Taxis in Japan are everywhere as well you just flag them down or head to one of the million taxi ranks.

Just Sayin'

[Anonymous Coward]

Affirmative action cow;

s'got real employment now.

You'll never get rich,

by being a bitch;

affirmative action cow. ... Cow! ... COW!

I ban Berlin

[say2joe]

It's just taxi lobbyists pushing back...Just like here... taxis suck compared to Uber.

Re:I ban Berlin

[angel'o'sphere]

Dude, if you found a company here in my town and start advertising you are driving people around, the next thing that is happening is the the responsible offices visit you and check your company.
There is absolutely no lobby needed for that.

And by the way: the exact same thing happens if you open a restaurant, want to sell hot dogs at a street or want to over medical services, there are hundrets of other things, like selling alcohol, weapons or tabaco where you exactly know it is only a matter of days after going into business that the first 'control' is made.

And for your interest: this is more or less the same in every civilized country.

Re: I ban Berlin

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me, where is this "taxi lobby" situated? Considering taxi driving is a genuine cottage industry (drivers are usually self-employed and own their own cars), and taxi centrals/companies are usually local affairs, they're going to have some SLIGHT coordination issues.

Uber, on the other hand, is the billion-dollar baby of Jeff Bezos and Goldman Sachs. Poor ickle Uber, what will they do against the evul international taxi lobby?

Re:I ban Berlin

[Harlequin80]

However if you read about Berlin taxis there is a really low demand for them because of how good other public transport is. To the point that taxis don't circulate around Berlin to do pickups - they are purely a call and we come service.

Taxis in Berlin are small fry business compared to say LA or New York. The other component is that European governments are more concerned with individual safety that the US government is. From the US side you can argue that that makes them interfering nanny states. From the European perspective the US government is criminally reckless. The German government sees regulating taxi services as a safety issue ergo it is regulated.

Re:I ban Berlin

[Anonymous Coward]

I think taxis are call-only everywhere in Germany.

Re:I ban Berlin

[dave420]

Then you're woefully incorrect :)

Ah Repression Lives In Berlin

[Anonymous Coward]

The Berlin Government receives quite a heavy load in fees from Public "Pissers" where you have to pay to piss, and the fees climb steeply for other certain "functions".

Not doubt that Taxis are heavily regulated in the proper "German Way" and the Uber model is a direct threat to the existence of the Berlin Government. Hay, Berlin, buy some of Obama Drones to kill Uber cars in Berlin ! It would be just like the good old days ah ha. :-)

Uber alles? Nein!

[Spy Handler]

at least in Berlin...

Re:Uber alles? Nein!

[Anonymous Coward]

No Uber in Germany?

That's just super...

Average people just don't like hipsters.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber is often seen as a hipster phenomenon. While it may be a service that is potentially useful to others, it has so far been popularized and hyped by the hipster segment of the population, and is most commonly associated with hipsters.

Average people, as a general rule, do not like hipsters. To everday people, the hipsters come off as very obnoxious, rude, and quite annoying. Hipsters go out of their way to project a "holier-than-thou" attitude, and other people notice and dislike this.

Nobody likes going into a shop, for instance, and then having to deal with the smug, snobby hipsters who work there. Normal people dislike asking a simple question about where to find a product, and getting a rant about social justice or something similar in return, from somebody who dresses solely to look weird and who may very well be wearing glasses without any lenses. All they wanted to know was what aisle to look in!

When people think "Uber", they think "hipster", which immediately brings up these negative connotations. Rightly or wrongly, this (unintentional?) association with hipsters reflects badly on Uber. People are repulsted by hipsters and anything related to hipsters, which unfortunately includes Uber at this time.

If they want to gain widespread acceptance, Uber seriously needs to break this assocation that people have between them and hipsters. People need to think things like convenience, affordability and good service when they hear the name "Uber", rather than thinking of hipsters and the rottenness that hipsters bring.

Re:Average people just don't like hipsters.

[Noah Haders]

lol this is funny but I think Lyft is more strongly associated with hipsters. pink mustaches and fist bumps? I love it cuz I'm not a hipster hater, but whatever.

Re:Average people just don't like hipsters.

[Trepidity]

No real person has ever heard of "Lyft".

Re:Average people just don't like hipsters.

[Noah Haders]

No real person has ever heard of "Lyft".

very true. except its a $3.5 billion company with revenues of $100 million / year and service growing 6% per week -> 20x per year, compounded. there must be a lot of unreal people out there.

Re:Average people just don't like hipsters.

[Anonymous Coward]

Define "hipster". Or do you mean people who have different tastes and opinions to philistines such as yourself?

Re:Average people just don't like hipsters.

[Trepidity]

Sounds like Webvan.

Re:Average people just don't like hipsters.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is going strong since 2009.

Re:Average people just don't like hipsters.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why's the parent modded down? It's 100% correct, even if some Hipsters don't like to face the truth. That's just like Hipsters, too. When faced with a reality they don't like, they just resort to censorship. Maybe it works like that at Reddit or Hacker News, but it shouldn't work like that here!

Re:Average people just don't like hipsters.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like 1999's Webvan, not the new company that bought the trademark and a free sockpuppet for a penny.

Re:Average people just don't like hipsters.

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you managed to get any observations to fit your theory yet adolf quetelet?

Re:Average people just don't like hipsters.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sold! Like Enron, the numbers just can't be wrong.

Re:Average people just don't like hipsters.

[mwvdlee]

A hipster is somebody who would suddenly get a different taste if (and because) you'd like their taste.
They are people who so desperately want to be seen as different that they end up all being the same.

It's like how children want to be adults, but adults don't care about being adult.
Hipsters want to be interresting, but interresting people don't care about being interresting.

Re: Average people just don't like hipsters.

[Anonymous Coward]

Could not agree more.

Re:Average people just don't like hipsters.

[Ol Olsoc]

A hipster is somebody who would suddenly get a different taste if (and because) you'd like their taste.

So Republicans are hipsters - who even oppose their own plans if they've been adopted by the democrats -or even worse, that guy who isn't "one of "us"?

They are people who so desperately want to be seen as different that they end up all being the same. It's like how children want to be adults, but adults don't care about being adult.

Yup, I guess that's exactly who you are referring to.

I just thought they were obnoxious modern day beatniks with black rimmed glasses and thrift store clothing.

Re:Average people just don't like hipsters.

[robbyb20]

Are you talking about the EU or US? Just giving an example but most of Chicago uses it. From hipsters to soccer moms to loop business professionals to college students.

Might be different in Berlin tho!

And yes, Lyft is the "hipster" one. I dont like those.

Re:Average people just don't like hipsters.

[painandgreed]

A hipster is somebody who would suddenly get a different taste if (and because) you'd like their taste.

It doesn't necessarily contradict your statement, but from living for two decades in the "hipster part of town", I can pretty much say that a hipster is pretty much any early college age person doing what all the other 20 somethings are doing, just like they pretty much always have. The title stays the same as the looks, clothes, and music all continue to change. The people that most often use the term are usually no longer 20 somethings who are not in touch with youth culture any more, if they ever were.

Re:Average people just don't like hipsters.

[flopsquad]

That parallel is deeply +1 Insightful. Damn son!

Re:Average people just don't like hipsters.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. That is YOUR opinion on what a "hipster" is, but it's not true. It's like saying a "goth" is someone who wears black clothes and make-up, when that description couldn't be further from the truth.

A hipster is merely someone who is up to date on current events and isn't afraid to express their own opinion or style. I'm in my late 30s am sure some uncultured people might consider me to be a "hipster" because I keep up on news, I am well travelled and I certainly have my own unique style of thought and appearance.

People like you care too much about what others think of you, which is a sign of immaturity. You're still caught up in the high school popularity contest mentality. On the other hand, as a "hipster", I do what I want, say what I want and dress how I want without any concern of what someone might try to label me as.

Re:Average people just don't like hipsters.

[Anonymous Coward]

A hipster is somebody who would suddenly get a different taste if (and because) you'd like their taste.

A couple of days ago someone told me a story. He and a friend went to a bar while on a trip. They ordered a particular drink they had heard about in their home town of Houston.

The bartender informed them that the bar no longer offered that drink as it had become too popular. They expressed surprise, and the bartender doubled down: "If you've heard of it in Houston, obviously it's too popular." Oh, obviously.

So a hipster bar is a bar that stops serving drinks when they become popular. <facepalm>

Re:Average people just don't like hipsters.

[mwvdlee]

Right... you're trying to be "hip" and "different" and absolutely don't care about being gip and different.
You got me good, you did!

Re:Average people just don't like hipsters.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh lord, someone please mod this '+1, unintentionally hilarious'

Re:Average people just don't like hipsters.

[Anonymous Coward]

So Republicans are hipsters - who even oppose their own plans if they've been adopted by the democrats -or even worse, that guy who isn't "one of "us"?

That is out of context. 99.9% of Republicans are ordinary, uninteresting, unpowerful people... just like 99.9% of Democrats. Even the 1% is nothing the 0.01% fear.

Attaching the opinions of Nixon, Heritage Foundation, or Romney onto average citizens (recall, 99.999999% are not Nixon, Romney, or even a flunky editor at the Heritage Foundation) is disingenuous beyond belief.

Unambiguously, that attitude is part of the problem. Keep playing two-party politics, that is exactly where the 0.01% want you.

Picking nits..

[fred911]

First off TFA is about as weak on details as it is in verb conjugation. And we just clip and paste without editing?

  What is proper insurance cover(age)? Are the limits too low, or not commercially based? Or not vetted properly?

  Quite honestly, I've never "Ubered" a substandard ride. I've had a few tardy ones I canceled, sans expense. Nothing compared to ANY taxi service. When I "Uber" a ride I get immaculately clean vehicles, professionally dressed drivers who own high end vehicles. Compared to a possible slacker, who's leased a 200k mile sled with vinyl seats and a plexiglas separator, talking on his bluetooth earpiece and bitching when I want to settle with a card and not cash.

  It would sure be nice to read an article with USEFUL UTILITY (not to mention an edited summary).

 

Re:Picking nits..

[Guspaz]

When I "Uber" a ride, I get a regular taxi. They call it "uberTAXI", and it's the only service available in the second largest city in Canada. A regular taxi shows up, and you get billed the regulated meter rate.

About the only advantage is that Uber's app is probably more reliable/better than the very similar apps used by existing taxi companies in Montreal. I've had Diamond Taxi's app crap out on me after ordering a few times, and the GPS on the taxi only updates infrequently.

Re:Picking nits..

[Keyboard Rage]

Your "possible slacker" would likely not get a taxi license in Europe, first and foremost because his car is not up to standards. Europe USA.

Re:Picking nits..

[Keyboard Rage]

Gah, Slashdot doesn't take all Unicode characters properly :/

Read "Europe is not the USA"

Re:Picking nits..

[Jahta]

First off TFA is about as weak on details as it is in verb conjugation. And we just clip and paste without editing?

What is proper insurance cover(age)? Are the limits too low, or not commercially based? Or not vetted properly?

TFA was clear enough. Licensed taxi drivers (certainly in most EU countries) are expected to demonstrate a level of competence and suitability to operate as a commercial driver; e.g. must not have a criminal record, must pass an advanced driving test, must pass a medical, must have proper commercial vehicle insurance, etc. And it is illegal to transport passengers for money without a commercial license and commercial vehicle insurance.

Uber's position is that anybody who downloads their app can call themselves a taxi driver and, if they don't meet the licensing standards, well it's the drivers's problem not Uber's. That is disingenuous. Uber are operating as a "driver for hire" service but trying to avoid any of the responsibilities being a "driver for hire" operator. Uber could easily resolve this by verifying that anybody signing up with them has a valid commercial license and insurance. But they seem strangely reluctant to do that. That's neither good competition nor good for the consumer.

Re:Picking nits..

[Bing Tsher E]

Europe is not the USA

It certainly isn't. There are pretty close to zero Trabants on the road in the USA.

Competiton, good for everyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if the field is fair. Uber and Lyft have problems with their own behavior. Is it wrong for the people of a sovereign state to have rules?

Re:Competiton, good for everyone?

[fred911]

". Is it wrong for the people of a sovereign state to have rules?"
  No, it's just wrong for a public utility to use legislation to eliminate competition (thereby lowering the quality of service) instead of raising their level and competing on the same field of play.

Re: Competiton, good for everyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you not tell the difference between laws? Or are they all equivalent?

If you can show me the correlation between the two, do so. Otherwise leave your strawman behind.

Re:Competiton, good for everyone?

[Noah Haders]

what does this even mean?

Re: Competiton, good for everyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so you do accept that there can be regulations, but you want to avoid regulatory capture. What suggestions do you have for that?

Re: Competiton, good for everyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a long diatribe, what are you having a problem understanding?

Re:Competiton, good for everyone?

[angel'o'sphere]

Actually the quallity of service is not lowerd.
How should that be? Your idea is retarded, lol.

If Uber wants to compete 'on the same field of play': they should raise their standard!

It is not a public utility that is making those laws ... the laws are made by the parliament ... the law is over 100 years old ... and it is not a 'Berlin thing' similar laws we have all over europe. I doubt you can drive in any european country (regardless if EU or not) a cab without having the proper license ... well perhaps in Turkey, if you call that europe, or probably in Bulgaria.

Re: Competiton, good for everyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're worried about regulatory capture ... are you worried about the billion-dollar company funded by Goldman Sachs and Jeff Bezos, or about the cottage industry of self-employed taxi drivers?

Re:Competiton, good for everyone?

[Richard_at_work]

The legislation existed before Uber but they ignored it - there is no elimination of competition going on here, there is competition failing to compete by the same rules and restrictions as their competitors.

Imagine a company being founded along the same lines as Uber, but their service being "build a house" - they may be cheap, but they get there by ignoring local building codes... No one is going to bitch about local government enforcing those pre-existing codes, so why should they bitch about pre-existing transportation laws being enforced here?

Re:Competiton, good for everyone?

[drinkypoo]

Imagine a company being founded along the same lines as Uber, but their service being "build a house" - they may be cheap, but they get there by ignoring local building codes...

I'm imagining a comparison that does not completely miss the point, as yours does. This is like a house being built to code by a non-contractor, and that non-contractor being told that he can only be paid hourly and that he'll have to have a contractor sign off on the design. I live in a house right now whose design is total shit and which was built sloppy as fuck and it managed to get signed off by a contractor and pass code. It proves absolutely fuck-all except that the state (or county) has managed to collect some lucre, just like a taxi license proves nothing about driving ability that is not already allegedly proven by european driving tests.

Re:Competiton, good for everyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in a house right now whose design is total shit and which was built sloppy as fuck and it managed to get signed off by a contractor and pass code. It proves absolutely fuck-all except that the state (or county) has managed to collect some lucre,

In fact it reduces the chance of fires caused by faulty wiring (I bet your house even has breakers), makes it less likely to fall down on top of you and generally make a nuisance of itself, and guarantees you have readily available fire exits, but by all means continue being blind to every advantage modern civilisation provides you with.

Re:Competiton, good for everyone?

[dave420]

How is this insightful? The law states that people carrying passengers for a fare must have a special license. That's it. Uber wants to have fare-carrying drivers without the special license. It's as mad as if Uber was asking for their drivers to not need any license at all.

The playing field is already level - want to drive Uber fares? Get a commercial license like everyone else.

Re: Competiton, good for everyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but this discussion was regarding Uber, I wasn't providing a full and express listing of my concerns regarding the state of the world in this thread, but yes, yes I am worried about the influence of many such entities.

There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[Anonymous Coward]

These guys seem to be copping a whole lot of shit just for trying to make transport easier for users.

No, these guys are copping a whole lot of shit for trying to offer no-standards transport in nations that have minimum standards for their public transport services.

It's not good enough to be cheap in Europe if you don't meet basic standards. The EU has a lot of consumer protection laws designed to look after their residents (now there's a thought), a concept that is completely foreign in the US where it seems that only company profits matter.

If you want to do business in Europe, you don't have any magic right to ignore European legislation and import the US rulebook instead.

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[murdocj]

where's my "insightful" mod points when I need them :(

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[Noah Haders]

No need to cite anything. They're unregulated by govt and unions so they must be crazy cracked-out beasts. Or so the govt and unions would have you believe.

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[qpqp]

How about that airplane you travel on?

You mean, like Airbus,Iliushin, Tupolev, and a few others? Or are you talking about Sir George Cayley?

Enjoying that computer you're using? Americans invented that.

Have a look at this please.
Europe's got the brains and US has^H^H^Hhad the money.

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like it's pretty disputed.

Re: There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy. Unlike Taxis, drivers that use Uber are not subject to mandatory yearly inspections of their cars and do not have to purchase a dedicated insurance. As a user, everything you do is at your own risk, the driver's regular insurance won't pay if he's using the car for commercial transport purposes, so in case of an accident you will most likely have to pay your hospital bill yourself (plus the driver will have to pay any other damage out of his own pocket)

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[Anonymous Coward]

If uber driver crashes who will pay for the possible injuries? Yeah. If taxi crashes they have an insurance that will cover everything.

This is to keep the drivers and passengers away from courts fighting over who pays who. It's a reasonable system, because this way we can starve the lawyers, which is always a worthy goal.

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what did YOU do? And to be fair: what did anyone here do to achieve what you said?
Just being born into US or some European country citizenship doesn't entitle you to anything.
You like the USA? Guess from where those founder fathers came. You like democracy? You should thank the Greeks. You like logic, as it is used in philosophy and the sciences? You should thank the Greeks, although the native cultures in middle and south America invented very similar concepts. You like your pretty fireworks on the 4th of July? You should thank the Chinese. You like your combustion engines? You should thank the Germans. You like your space program that put a man on the moon? Then you should also thank the ancient Chinese and nazi Germany scientists that invented the liquid fuel rocket. You like modern, digital microelectronics? You should thank a Albert Einstein, a German Jew. His Nobel Prize winning paper about the inner photoelectric effect laid the foundation for the development of lasers, which are used in the photolithography process since the 80s.
If you actually look at history then you will see that there were brilliant inventors all over the world, none if which are YOU or I. It just happens that the rest of the world is older than the USA and therefore had more time to make "history". Native Americans had their accomplishments as well. But apparently a lot of those cultures didn't regard record keeping in a similar way as the "old world", where history was rewritten by the victor as well.

Why can't we stop with the penis fencing, which don't even belong to us, and break it down to the underlying issue. Just like the US is allowed to make their own laws so are other nations. And if you want to do business with them you have to play according to their rules.

Re: There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[jeti]

1. In Germany, insurance that covers passengers is mandatory for anyone driving a car.
2. All cars have pass inspection every two years.
3. The tests to get a drivers license are quite stringent and you have to take driving lessons at a licensed school.
4. A drivers license will be revoked quickly if you rack up penalty points.
5. The Uber app should be able to warn users if the driver takes a longer route than necessary.
6. AFAIK, the Uber app provides ratings for drivers and customers and both drivers and customers can be rejected beforehand by the other party.

Re: There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[Frankie70]

> In Germany, insurance that covers passengers is mandatory for anyone driving a car.

Does the regular insuance cover the case where the car is used for commercial purposes as a taxi & the passenger is a paying passenger?

Re: There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[ziggystarsky]

But the rules for commercial provision of transport service are far more stricter. Obviously adhering to these rules is connected to a cost which Uber drivers do not have to pay and thus can be cheaper.

It is somewhat sane to demand a higher level of security from drivers that are expected to transport more people. Yes, it would be very safe to demand the same level from everyone that is driving a vehicle. But demanding the higher standards only from those transporting the most people gives a good trade-off bewteen effort/cost and benefit.

In addition the insurance for an average driver can be lower, because the average number of people injured in an accident is lower. I bet (but don't know) that insurances for taxi drivers are higher. Insurance for a bus will probably be even higher.

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[Anonymous Coward]

'That's probably a reason why Euroland trails the US in inventions, innovation and production. Enjoying that computer you're using? Americans invented that. How about that airplane you travel on? Americans invented that.'

Obviously the comment of someone who lives in the deep South and who's mother, sister and daughter are all the same person!

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[DrXym]

So... I'm sure you can cite references that Uber is more dangerous or less competent than the established services, right?

So you're demanding that someone prove an unknown quantity is more dangerous or less competent than a known quantity?

Re: There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[DrXym]

1. In Germany, insurance that covers passengers is mandatory for anyone driving a car.

Insurance policies always have legalese which absolve them of paying out when the vehicle is used in an improper fashion. At best it might offer basic 3rd party insurance which might not include you as a paying passenger or limit your claim. And you assume someone has insurance to begin with.

2. All cars have pass inspection every two years.

Taxis are considered as small public vehicles and usually have additional standards they must meet with regard to cleanliness, luggage capacity, suitable vehicle models, safety equipment (fire extinguisher, first aid kit etc.), accessibility features like handholds, floor lighting etc. That's in addition to inspection to ensure the car is roadworthy. In some countries the schedule for testing is stricter for taxis too due to the additional wear and tear. And you assume someone has their car inspected to begin with.

3. The tests to get a drivers license are quite stringent and you have to take driving lessons at a licensed school.

Which doesn't test a person's geographic knowledge. Nor does it say if the person was caught drink driving and banned for a year, or if they previously raped someone. And you assume they have a licence to begin with.

5. The Uber app should be able to warn users if the driver takes a longer route than necessary.

A feat which can be accomplished with any other navigational app, e.g. Waze.

6. AFAIK, the Uber app provides ratings for drivers and customers and both drivers and customers can be rejected beforehand by the other party.

I should hope so too. I doubt those ratings have much to say about a driver's criminal background or compliance with public transport laws.

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[qbast]

Ha! It means that US invented time travel too.

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll, begone!

Re: There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm European. Hope uber gets banned. I want vetted people driving a cab I am in. I also want the driver to make a decent living and not have to work crazy hours. Fuck neo-liberal economics.

Re: There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[jeti]

1, 2, 3. Insurance, inspections and drivers licenses are strictly controlled in Germany and violations are rare. Furthermore, I'd expect Uber to demand copies of the relevant documents.
1. Uber seems to provide additional insurance to its customers.
2. I think the standards for roadworthy cars are high enough in Germany. If someone wants even higher standards, he can simply not choose to use Uber.
3. With current navigational systems, local geographic knowledge is not very important anymore.
6. The app provides users with knowledge of the drivers behavior towards his customers. That's good enough for me. Giving former criminals an option to earn a living legally seems like a good thing.

I assume that customers of Uber are aware of the compromises they're taking. The rating system in addition to the legal requirements for normal drivers should ensure a high enough safety and quality of service. People who are not content with that can make use of other, more tightly controlled services.

Re: There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[Richard_at_work]

No, it invariably does not. Commercial insurance is an entirely different ball game.

Re: There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[jeti]

No. Standard insurance does not cover commercial drivers. They'd have to get a different kind of insurance. AFAIK if someone with standard insurance caused an accident, the insurance would pay the victims and then demand its money back from the insured person.

Uber would certainly need to verify that its drivers are covered appropriately.

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[Opportunist]

Damn right, let's get rid of any kind of government influence in the market! Why do we still have building codes? Let the market sort it out, if they build shoddy houses nobody will want to live in them if they can collapse on top of you any moment.

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[IamTheRealMike]

The first airplane was created by Orville and Wilbur Wright, American brothers. No other craft was capable of flying prior to this. This is undisputed.

Interestingly, after inventing the airplane they then filed patents on it and their company stagnated, technologically. Meanwhile planes were being invented at around the same time in Europe, and they weren't protected in the same way, so by the time World War 1 started the American's had to fly in European made planes because the US ones weren't good enough. Eventually of course the patents expired and US aircraft caught up pretty fast.

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[Koreantoast]

No, these guys are copping a whole lot of shit for trying to offer no-standards transport in nations that have minimum standards for their public transport services... The EU has a lot of consumer protection laws designed to look after their residents (now there's a thought), a concept that is completely foreign in the US where it seems that only company profits matter.

Gross oversimplification for someone trying to score cheap points and apparently has not been following the adventures of Uber in the United States. The constant, very public fights that Uber has been having in cities across the United States are those very same types of "minimum standards for public transport" that you refer to in the EU.

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[Ol Olsoc]

No need to cite anything. They're unregulated by govt and unions so they must be crazy cracked-out beasts.

So how do you know the Uber has insurance?

And this seems like a great way for a serial killer or rapist to get people to willingly get in their vehicle. Eliminate all that messy struggle.

Because if the entry requirements are only a car that runs, there will be a lot of people who drive without insurance, or licenses, or stoned or drunk.

Or so the govt and unions would have you believe.

Hows the weather over there in Somalia, land of the Libertariat?

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[Rich0]

These guys seem to be copping a whole lot of shit just for trying to make transport easier for users.

No, these guys are copping a whole lot of shit for trying to offer no-standards transport in nations that have minimum standards for their public transport services.

Well, no doubt they have standards, but they are their own standards.

I'm all for basic requirements around liability insurance and such as long as they aren't over the top (you shouldn't need a million dollar policy to carry a few passengers).

The thing is, it is in Uber's interest to ensure a decent level of quality everywhere. If somebody gets mugged by an Uber driver in Italy, they will lose customers EVERYWHERE. If somebody gets mugged by an Italian taxi driver, it won't affect the revenues of the London taxi drivers all that much. It is really a different model to quality - it isn't necessarily worse, just different. I think it needs to be regulated differently, but I don't suggest that we should accept unsafe conditions.

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[dave420]

Except in the EU, specifically in Berlin, Taxis are actually brilliant, and letting Uber into the market would degrade service for the public. This isn't just cronyism, but actually defending a public service which is worth defending on merit alone.

Re: There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[robbyb20]

I know this link doesnt apply to EU but its worth sharing. I can only assume a lot of the people that are commenting happen to live in the US as well.

http://blog.uber.com/rideshari...

This pertains to uber-x(regular cars), not the taxis and black car services that already have commercial insurance.

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[robbyb20]

If its unknown, how can anyone make assumptions that either is safer than the other?

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[Rostin]

The EU has a lot of consumer protection laws designed to look after their residents (now there's a thought), a concept that is completely foreign in the US where it seems that only company profits matter.

I'm sure all of these laws exist only and exactly to protect residents rather than established companies, trade unions, professional organizations, and other political donors against upstarts like Uber.

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[robbyb20]

The argument over rape/killer always gets me. When ever you get into an uber car, it automatically sends you the driver info to your email account and registers it with uber.

When ever I get into a taxi, I have to take the name and number down, then email or text it to a friend to make sure they dont do the same.

Did you know most people dont do that? How many times have you gotten into a cab and not remembered who the driver was? Or the Taxi number for that? Wouldnt it be nice if there was a system that automatically logged it all? I wonder which one does that, the "regulated" taxi or the "unregulated" uber.

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[Noah Haders]

No need to cite anything. They're unregulated by govt and unions so they must be crazy cracked-out beasts.

So how do you know the Uber [driver] has insurance?

here's the thing that big-government people don't get... there are many solutions to a problem other than heavy handed government regulation enforced with a legal monopoly.

US has a very robust civil court system. So it behooves them to make sure their drivers have a valid license, registration, and basic insurance. If they don't and somebody is hurt in an accident and the driver's insurance isn't sufficient to cover the damages, then they open themselves up to a whole lot of expensive legal liability.

as for making sure a driver isn't drunk or stoned... would a govt regulation solve that? are licensed cabbies drunk and stoned when they drive, some of them yes some of the time.

rapists etc I'm not sure what a government regulation does for you that private solutions wouldn't do.

as for a libertarian paradise, you better get ready because a rand paul revolution is going to sweep America then the globe.

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[Noah Haders]

Damn right, let's get rid of any kind of government influence in the market! Why do we still have building codes? Let the market sort it out, if they build shoddy houses nobody will want to live in them if they can collapse on top of you any moment.

most government regulation is in place to support entrenched interests who have become better at lobbying than at serving their customers.

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[whistlingtony]

SOME government regulation is in place to support entrenched businesses. On the other hand, I'm rewiring my house right now. In 5 years, you might buy it... Do you REALLY want me to be able to do any old thing I want? :D

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[Noah Haders]

no, I want you to pay a fee to the government and use an overpriced undermotivated unionized contractor. because I love big government! Without the nanny state, how would we take care of ourselves?

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[Ol Olsoc]

as for a libertarian paradise, you better get ready because a rand paul revolution is going to sweep America then the globe.

Funniest post today. You crypto - libertarians planning on an armed uprising?

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[Bing Tsher E]

You like democracy? You should thank the Greeks.

Certainly not the Europeans in general, though. They descended into the dark ages some time after the end of Greek civilization. If the Arabs hadn't preserved the knowledge and culture of the Greeks, we'd likely not know of it.

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[Anonymous Coward]

> Enjoying that computer you're using? Americans invented that

John (von) Neumann was an ethnic jew, who was born and raised in Budapest, Hungary. He went on to attend university in Germany and migrated to the USA later on.

Another major father of programmable computing, Prof. Konrad Zuse was a german. Much of the early work in programmable computing was done by the britons.

Re:There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[Anonymous Coward]

How about that airplane you travel on? Americans invented that.

And the resulting Wright-Curtiss patent war meant that for the next 15 years, virtually all innovation in flight technology took place in Europe.

Re: There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[makomk]

Uber's business model relies heavily on drivers using their own, standard insurance and not bothering to ask questions about whether they're actually covered. I think Uber have started offering their own insurance and raised prices to pay for it since someone got killed by an Uber driver in the US, but it's still inadequate (apparently less than they're legally required to have in Germany, and at least in the US all their drivers are driving uninsured whenever they're seeking riders).

Re: There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[Anonymous Coward]

Memo to self, register hushmail account, buy more gaffer tape.

Germans!

[Anonymous Coward]

What can you do with'em?

What are they complaining about?

[JanneM]

I don't know why Uber is complaining. All they need to do, after all, is to recruit drivers with a commercial license; require the vehicles to comply to commercial safety standards; and provide the needed insurance. It's not as if the deck is stacked against them - the other services they compete against all follow the same rules.

For my part as a potential user, liability is the real issue. I would never risk taking a car service where I'm not fully covered in the case of an accident. It's not just medical and other costs for myself; if the driver is not licensed you, as the one paying for the ride, may be regarded as co-responsible if your driver caused the accident in the first place. You want to risk hundreds of thousands of Euro in damages to save a few bucks on a taxi ride?

Re:What are they complaining about?

[Anonymous Coward]

That will cut into Uber's all important profit margin.

Re:What are they complaining about?

[stephanruby]

I don't know why Uber is complaining. All they need to do, after all, is to recruit drivers with a commercial license;

In Germany, if they carry less than 8 passengers and if their vehicles are below a certain weight, then they don't need to take a different driving test.

What they do need however is a license to operate a taxi, and that's determined locally, with a criminal background/medical/eyes check, and a very stringent but outdated local geography test that has been rendered completely useless by mobile applications such as Google Maps Navigation and Waze.

For my part as a potential user, liability is the real issue. I would never risk taking a car service where I'm not fully covered in the case of an accident.

In the US, Uber covers you for up to one million dollars. For other countries, just check the relevant Uber web site for the country you're in, and see how much insurance they have. My bet is that you'll probably have better coverage when you travel as a passenger/driver with Uber than if you were to drive yourself personally.

Re:What are they complaining about?

[angel'o'sphere]

In Germany, if they carry less than 8 passengers and if their vehicles are below a certain weight, then they don't need to take a different driving test.
That is incorrect. This is only valid if you don't commercially transport passengers.
If you actually do transport passengers comercially, you need an extra driving license, and you need the same extra license if you transport more than 7 or 8 people _non_ commercially (in one vehicle) like e.g. if you bring boy scouts into a camp. Every bus driver bringing kids to school has such a license!

outdated local geography test that has been rendered completely useless by mobile applications such as Google Maps Navigation and Waze.
Well, I usualy have trips that are not longer than 15 minutes, and I appreciate it if the driver does not need 2 mins to set up the navigation first, especially if the spelling of the target is odd.

In the US, Uber covers you for up to one million dollars.
Erm, do you actually own a car? I guess not.
My private, standard, insurance for my private car, with no intent to be used commercially is insured up to 10 million Euro (damage to persons). That is a very normal rate, I doubt you can even get a lower one.

My bet is that you'll probably have better coverage when you travel as a passenger/driver with Uber than if you were to drive yourself personally
Certainly not. Damage to yourself is not covered by your car insurance. That is covered by your health and/or accident insurance or 'out of job insurance' in case you can no longer work.

Re:What are they complaining about?

[Anonymous Coward]

My bet is that you'll probably have better coverage when you travel as a passenger/driver with Uber than if you were to drive yourself personally.

Thats not nearly true. In Germany you are covered by 7.5 million Euro at least (it's the law), but the normal insurrance covers even 50 to 100 million. Thats 15 to 30 times Uber gives you... And when you are Uberpop-Driver in case of an accident, the insurrance company could deny you the payments when you didnt sign an insurrance contract for commercial driving, which is much more expensive.

Re:What are they complaining about?

[JanneM]

What they do need however is a license to operate a taxi, and that's determined locally, with a criminal background/medical/eyes check, and a very stringent but outdated local geography test that has been rendered completely useless by mobile applications such as Google Maps Navigation and Waze.

So require that the drivers have it, outdated or not. It's required by all commercial passenger traffic so it's not as f it discriminates against Uber after all. If they really don't like it, they're free to lobby and argue for a change to the relevant laws. Just arguing that "but we don't wanna follow the law!" gets tired really fast.

In the US, Uber covers you for up to one million dollars.

That's a pretty pathetic sum for traffic insurance. Remember, you may potentially be economically liable for several injured, permanently disabled or killed people, property damage and other costs. And again, as the one that commissions and pays for the trip, you just might find yourself shouldering part of the criminal liability too, if you didn't check that the guy you hired had a valid license for commercial traffic.

Re:What are they complaining about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not many other countries intentionally bankrupt accident victims the way the US does. Making you pay for your trauma care as if you'd voluntarily purchased three million hamburgers is not how the rest of the developed world operates. You live in the fourth world: profit above all else, and plebes can eat shit.

Re:What are they complaining about?

[stephanruby]

In Germany, if they carry less than 8 passengers and if their vehicles are below a certain weight, then they don't need to take a different driving test.
That is incorrect. This is only valid if you don't commercially transport passengers.
If you actually do transport passengers comercially, you need an extra driving license, and you need the same extra license if you transport more than 7 or 8 people _non_ commercially (in one vehicle) like e.g. if you bring boy scouts into a camp. Every bus driver bringing kids to school has such a license!

I mentioned the term "driving test", not driver license. Also, I provided a source. You didn't. And I did mention that you needed a taxi license in my following paragraph.

outdated local geography test that has been rendered completely useless by mobile applications such as Google Maps Navigation and Waze.
Well, I usualy have trips that are not longer than 15 minutes, and I appreciate it if the driver does not need 2 mins to set up the navigation first, especially if the spelling of the target is odd.

Then you should use Uber then, because you confirm the address on your own mobile phone, everything after that is fully automated, and the Uber driver doesn't have to set up anything.

In the US, Uber covers you for up to one million dollars.
Erm, do you actually own a car? I guess not.

I do, but only in California. The minimum mandatory coverage in California is actually crazy small.
$15,000 for injury/death to one person
$30,000 for injury/death to more than one person
$5,000 for damage to property

Not only that, but unlike most European countries where the system of stickers makes driving without insurance almost impossible. In the US, it's actually quite easy to do so.

Re:What are they complaining about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, I gave a figure for Uber in the US.

In the US, that amount of insurance is considered high.

Re:What are they complaining about?

[stephanruby]

Thats 15 to 30 times Uber gives you...

...gives you in the US.

Like I said in my other post, the existing insurance system in the US, and especially in California, is actually very pathetic.

Re:What are they complaining about?

[stephanruby]

It's required by all commercial passenger traffic so it's not as f it discriminates against Uber after all.

No, the specific geography test I mentioned is only for taxi licensing, not for any other kind of commercial passenger traffic.

That's a pretty pathetic sum for traffic insurance.

You got me there.

The US, California especially, is actually pretty pathetic where it comes to car insurance coverage. In Germany, I would expect Uber's insurance to be much higher.

Re:What are they complaining about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats 15 to 30 times Uber gives you...

...gives you in the US.

No, in Germany/Europe it is 3.7 Million Euro Uber gives you. I meant that. And as I said, thats the only liable insurrance there is, unlike in a taxi.

Re:What are they complaining about?

[JanneM]

Not many other countries intentionally bankrupt accident victims the way the US does.

I don't live in the US, and I agree. But, if you're found liable for an accident you will tend to pay a lot of money in any country; the accident victims likely have life or accident insurance and their insurance company will want to get reimbursed.

So good, comprehensive accident insurance is a very good idea no matter where you live. Usually we have that as part of our home insurance or other thing like that, and if you own a car you have mandatory insurance for that.

But in a case like this you may well be completely uncovered. The vehicle insurance is likely not valid for commercial traffic, and your home insurance may well not be valid either. As I said, I would never, ever get into a car like this without first being absolutely sure that the liability situation is crystal clear.

Re:What are they complaining about?

[Anonymous Coward]

By and large that's no longer the case. There are no caps on health care coverage any longer and no pre-existing conditions either. The real question here is who winds up paying, you or the other party in the collision. So, you might wind up bankrupt, but it wouldn't likely be the perosn wtih the trauma.

What's more, even before the recent healthcare reforms, most of the time, you'd just file for bankruptcy protection and get shielded form most of the bills. Why do you think our healthcare insurance is so expensive?

Re:What are they complaining about?

[dave420]

That's still not very civilised. In more developed parts of the world medical expenses will be paid by the same entity regardless of who was at fault, meaning no need for lawyers and such to determine who's at fault, and bankruptcy over medical costs is never even a possibility.

Re:What are they complaining about?

[dave420]

Yes, you provided a source, but it was wrong. I can appreciate how you got caught out and are now pretending that the test and the license passing the test provides are two different, unrelated things. In Germany you need a special series of tests to get the special license for carrying paying passengers. So yeah, your source was present, but incorrect.

Re:What are they complaining about?

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

In the US, Uber covers you for up to one million dollars. Erm, do you actually own a car? I guess not. My private, standard, insurance for my private car, with no intent to be used commercially is insured up to 10 million Euro (damage to persons). That is a very normal rate, I doubt you can even get a lower one.

My bet is that you'll probably have better coverage when you travel as a passenger/driver with Uber than if you were to drive yourself personally Certainly not. Damage to yourself is not covered by your car insurance. That is covered by your health and/or accident insurance or 'out of job insurance' in case you can no longer work.

My friend, things are very different in the USA. I have higher insurance coverage for damage to persons than the average American. I have this based on the advice of my best friend who is attorney. My coverage tops out at about $1 million US dollars and while I could get more, to achieve your levels would be cost prohibitive. Again, note that I said that my coverage is far above what a typical American has. Here you can indeed have damage to yourself covered by car insurance. Because of the messed up way that medical care works in the USA, we actually need this kind of coverage as our health insurance may require co-pays that could bankrupt someone who isn't rich if they got into a serious vehicular accident. In fact, prior to "Obamacare" (or the Affordable Care Act if you prefer) it was quite common for health insurance to have payment limits that could easily be reached in serious accidents. Automobile insurance makes medical payments all the time here.

Re:What are they complaining about?

[stephanruby]

Yes, you provided a source, but it was wrong. I can appreciate how you got caught out and are now pretending that the test and the license passing the test provides are two different, unrelated things.

I didn't get caught out. I did say "driving test" in my original post. You're implying I didn't.

In Germany, if they carry less than 8 passengers and if their vehicles are below a certain weight, then they don't need to take a different driving test.

And what do you mean by "unrelated things" any way? The taxi license does pre-require a normal automobile driver license to begin with. And the normal automobile driver license does require a driving test (although, the taxi license doesn't require any additional driving test, except for a stringent geographical knowledge test and a criminal background/medical/eyes check, which I've already mentioned in my original post).

In Germany you need a special series of tests to get the special license for carrying paying passengers.

That's what I essentially said in my original post (except I was a bit more precise, since bus drivers do not need to take a taxi local geography knowledge test and bus drivers are required to take an extra driving test that taxi drivers of smaller vehicles are not required to take).

I think you'll find that if you re-read my original post, you'll agree with almost all of it (except for my opinion about the local geography knowledge test being outdated, I assume you'll probably disagree with me on that part).

Re:What are they complaining about?

[angel'o'sphere]

Ah, I assumed our parent was german and did not know about his own insurance, but as you describe now he might be from mixed american/german background.

I was unprecise btw. my insurance goes up to ten million for damage to persons but is capped at 1 million per person. So if I make a suicide run into a gas station that is easy exceeded, damage on property is anyway capped at 1 million I believe.

This is a standard insurance, I doubt you even can pick different polices ... while we have different prices depending on insurance company, they don't vary much and the range that is covered is very similar. If you want to insure your own car against damage e.g. that is a separate police.

Re:What are they complaining about?

[angel'o'sphere]

Erm, several people pointed out you are wrong, should I requote you and write the word where you are wrong in FAT BOLD LETTERS? Ah, well I just do that.

In Germany, if they carry less than 8 passengers and if their vehicles are below a certain weight, then they don't need to take a different driving test.

That little unsuspicious 'don't' in the middle is wrong. I pointed out in my previous posts, and so did some others: you need a special driving license and for that you make a special test.

That's what I essentially said in my original post (except I was a bit more precise, since bus drivers do not need to take a taxi local geography knowledge test and bus drivers are required to take an extra driving test that taxi drivers of smaller vehicles are not required to take).
Ah, so the don't above was not a typo? This completely false. As I explained in my first post answering you.

A) I drive _non commercially_ less than 8 people: I need no special license
B) I drive _non commercially_ 8 people or more: I need a special license, I drive 2000km next weekend and we are exactly 7 in the rented car, and we had to sign a paper that we are actually only 7 as the car has 9 seats.
C) I drive commercially: I always need a special driving license, regardless of number of passengers. Even if I'm the hired driver for a CEO or whatever, if My job is to drive a single person around, I need a special permit for that.

Is that now clear? This is law, has nothing to do with any further city restrictions for taxi permits.

I think you'll find that if you re-read my original post, you'll agree with almost all of it ... No, we don't as your post was as wrong as this one.

Re:What are they complaining about?

[Rich0]

Well, I usualy have trips that are not longer than 15 minutes, and I appreciate it if the driver does not need 2 mins to set up the navigation first, especially if the spelling of the target is odd.

Is this REALLY something that needs to be regulated by law? I can understand the need for insurance, basic safety, etc. However, if it takes you a few minutes longer to get to the destination to save $5, shouldn't that be a choice you can legally choose to make.

I mean, I'd hope that the UPS driver wouldn't get lost finding my house and delay the shipment for a month, but if UPS did that routinely they'd be out of business, so it isn't necessary to regulate it.

Re:What are they complaining about?

[Bing Tsher E]

Death due to medical rationing is always a possibility, though. I suppose you can fly to the US or one of those clinics in the Bahamas if you have enough money.

Re:What are they complaining about?

[angel'o'sphere]

Well, knowledge of the local environment perhaps not (anymore ... after all there was no GPS when the law was made).

However special driving license, yes!

Re:What are they complaining about?

[stephanruby]

A) I drive _non commercially_ less than 8 people: I need no special license

I don't disagree with this part.

B) I drive _non commercially_ 8 people or more: I need a special license, I drive 2000km next weekend and we are exactly 7 in the rented car, and we had to sign a paper that we are actually only 7 as the car has 9 seats.

I don't disagree with this part.

C) I drive commercially: I always need a special driving license, regardless of number of passengers. Even if I'm the hired driver for a CEO or whatever, if My job is to drive a single person around, I need a special permit for that.

I did google for something that substantiated this claim, but I couldn't find anything (other than what I already found). If you could provide an official source for that, or even a forum post from someone who claims to have first-hand knowledge, I'd gladly accept it. It can even be in German, I don't speak German, but I can use Google Translate.

Now I'll understand if you don't feel the need to justify yourself to a person you do not know, and I'll even understand if you don't feel my comment is worth replying to. After all, we all have lives outside or Slashdot.

Just don't expect me to change my mind simply because you say there is such a law out there.

Re:What are they complaining about?

[angel'o'sphere]

The relevant law is "Â 1 PBefG (PersonenbefÃrderungsgesetz) - Sachlicher Geltungsbereich
" and the follow up paragraphs.
The not very accurate/informative wikipedia article: Â 1 PBefG (PersonenbefÃrderungsgesetz) - Sachlicher Geltungsbereich
The law or more precisely, decree: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... with links to relevant laws.
And I figured I was not fully correct.
C) should have meant: commercial up to 7 (8?) persons, you need yet again another license for 8 - 21 persons ( called 'D1' in Germany) and finally the 'D' license if you want to transport more than 21 persons, e.g in an overland bus or a train.
Here is Forum thread with questions and answers: http://www.gutefrage.net/frage...

Re:What are they complaining about?

[Rich0]

Well, knowledge of the local environment perhaps not (anymore ... after all there was no GPS when the law was made).

However special driving license, yes!

Special driving license, maybe...

If we were talking about busses I'd definitely buy in. They're larger than normal cars, and there are issues with evacuation, and situations that just don't come up with cars.

However, driving a taxi safely is no harder than driving a car safely. Maybe just a special endorsement after taking a quiz would make sense. If somebody can't drive a few passengers safely, they can't drive a family safely, or even themselves safely without putting others at risk.

Re:What are they complaining about?

[stephanruby]

Thanks, this is interesting. I find myself corrected.

I wonder if Uber is getting banned from that city for not hiring those types of licensed drivers, or if it's because their people didn't take the normal Taxi certification, or if it's for something else entirely.

Re:What are they complaining about?

[angel'o'sphere]

What I don't know and did not check is if they need a "taxi permit" like taxi companies do. I know that many cities allow "alternative companies", like a company called "Minicar" in my town, but again I don't know if they need a "taxi permit", I "believe" they don't (there where law cases abut that decades ago, but I only remember that the cities got forced to "accept" such companies, but I don't know under which regulations).

In any case the "hired" drivers need the "passenger transportation license".

I figured that is actually not expensive at all, I guess 350 Euros everything together.

Re:What are they complaining about?

[umghhh]

I am not sure how that works for German residents that German gov forced to pick up private health insurance like me. From what I understand there have been court cases where jobless idiots could not cover their insurance because their private one was too expensive while if they had been insured by the state this would all be covered. There are some other cases where illness in old age where change of insurance is legally and practically impossible that chronic illness made people sell their houses. This is not a common situation as private insurance is not very popular in Germany (ever wondered why?) but it still happens.

Re:What are they complaining about?

[longbot]

My private, standard, insurance for my private car, with no intent to be used commercially is insured up to 10 million Euro (damage to persons). That is a very normal rate, I doubt you can even get a lower one.

Holy. Shit. No wonder driving is so expensive in Europe! Do you mind me asking what that policy costs you per year? I have $10,000 property, and $10,000 personal injury coverage (the least allowed by state law) in an effort to curb my insurance costs, and it sets me back about $400/yr. I would be paying several thousand dollars per year for coverage in the $100k range, I can't even imagine what it would cost to get into the millions.

Re:What are they complaining about?

[angel'o'sphere]

The insurance is a little bit above 400 Euros, not sure.
However we have a system in germany (which seems unknown to americans, and I don't know how similar other european countries are) where we get significant rebates for every year we drive without accident. That means you start with paying 100% of the insurance fee and drop over the years and decades down to 25%. I believe I'm at 30% but did not check that.

For me my car is also insured (comprehensive insurance?), so even if I cause an accident parts of my car bill are payed by the insurance.

The "raw" general liability insurance could be as cheap as 240 Euros, depending on region where you live, if you place your car in a garage and whether you belong to a certain occupation class (I don't know why there are so many special cases for which you get a rebate)

Not sure to which post you answer, because I talked to someone else also: the 10 millions still mean maximum 1 million per person, so if 30 persons got hurt, and the limit is reached, it gets calculated down. In fact I don't know what would happen to me if that limit is reached, if I have to pay with my private money.

So if only 3 persons get hurt, and worst case crippled, each of them only gets maximum 1 million.

As I said before: for Germany this is a standard insurance, you can not "buy less" and I'm uncertain if or how a private person can "improve" it.

Re:What are they complaining about?

[longbot]

At one point, I priced collision coverage for my car (it's optional for me since I own the vehicle outright) and it would've been $2,000 for six months... on a vehicle with a value of $2,400.

It's interesting that you can get so much more coverage for so little cost. Your laws regarding cost must be very stringent. I certainly wouldn't mind paying what you're paying for the coverage you've got. I was paying $600 per six-month term ($1200 annually) for the paltry $10,000 property liability and $10,000 personal injury liability required by law. What always bugged me was paying so much for so little, and I know the insurance company jacked the rates up because they know that you have to be insured to drive lawfully, and have to pay whatever they tell you.

Did you even bother to read the GP's comment?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see words like "skill", "competence", or "quality" in the GP's comment. So how the fuck is it making the implication that you've incorrectly claimed it's making? Oh, that's right, it isn't. Did you even read that goddamn comment before you replied to it?

The motivation behind such regulation is irrelevant. Maybe it's about quality. Maybe it's about money. Maybe it's about both. It doesn't fucking matter. What does matter is that the regulations exist, they're enforced against everybody, and if you're going to involve yourself or your business in such activities then you're going to have to abide by such regulations.

Please don't pollute our discussion with your bullshit about "implications" that obviously aren't even being made. If you can't handle the mature, intelligent, adult discussion we're engaging in here, then please drag your sorry ass back to reddit.

Re:Did you even bother to read the GP's comment?

[poity]

Anti-establishment pro-disruptive technology Slashdot suddenly become strict stickers of "Da Law"
And all it took was for the issue to involve a non-US city.

What happened to all the voices in those past Lyft/Uber threads talking about how stupid it was that some US cities were thinking of limiting these startups, or that taxi companies wanted to strike? What happened to those angry tirades about government-business collusion, regulatory capture, and backwater anti-competitive provincialism? Are those just presumed to be impossible elsewhere?

Re:Did you even bother to read the GP's comment?

[butchersong]

People are just getting into the office in Europe so all the moderation and comments may be skewed at the moment toward them. Europeans to a much greater degree seem to interpret regulations and protections as a blanket keeping them warm and safe. In the states we get the same 'blanket' but our interpretation is different. Maybe we were cold maybe we weren't but we never asked for a blanket, can't move very well and what kind of weirdo just walks up and tries someone up in a blanket? Any moment the blanket will probably be secured with duct tape, crammed into their trunk and we'll end up driven to a remote location for a little "it puts the lotion on its skin" action.

It will be interesting to watch and see if the slashdot moderations and opinions swing back as the more libertarian leaning US users wake up and begin to login.

Re:Did you even bother to read the GP's comment?

[N1AK]

What happened to all the voices in those past Lyft/Uber threads talking about how stupid it was that some US cities were thinking of limiting these startups,

There's a difference between some cities trying to block Uber because it undermines the outdated medallion concept, and a city having reasonable requirements to offer a commercial transportation service and expecting it to be followed. You might feel that Berlin's public transport act is unreasonable, though I doubt you have any idea what's in it, but if the locals think that it is reasonable then it is perfectly reasonable for the government to expect companies to follow it. It seems that Berlin's issues are primarily that passangers may not be adequately insured and that Uber may not be checking that all drivers are licensed (which includes checks on criminal record, health and driving record) which don't seem unreasonable to me. I don't want services like Uber to accept drivers that meet a certain standard!

Re:Did you even bother to read the GP's comment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Says the fucking coward.

Re:Did you even bother to read the GP's comment?

[poity]

A government's claims about what the public wants is accepted at face value, with few if anyone speculating on why, and many coming to the government's defense to explain away the controversy with an implicit acknowledgement that gov and public are indeed aligned. This is rare here in Slashdot land, which is why it stands out so much.

new != better

[Anonymous Coward]

" market that hasn't changed in years."

That doesn't mean that it needs to change. This line of thinking results in average services. Every time you get a good service, it eventually gets replaced with a mediocre service that is newer, resulting in average service overall.

We see this all the time in the IT industry. A perfectly serviceable solution that meets the business needs gets replaced by the new flavour of the day. But missing half the capabilities of the old solution that are actually required for the business needs. Eventually the new service gets all the needed functionality grafted on in increasingly hacky ways until the next thing comes along. From my experience this lifecycle period seems to be shortening in length, so the solutions get more hacky and the quality decreases over time.

Out to Change The Industry and Way of Business

[Anonymous Coward]

At the core, startups have one of two business models: They either work within the existing business framework in their industry, or they try to change the way business is done. Uber and Lyft are among the latter, in that they are drastically changing how the money flows and how the laws protect certain players. Not only do they have to develop new technology and sell it to consumers, they have to fight both the competition and government that are together unified against them. This is a very hard approach.

liability coverage is needed

[Joe_Dragon]

liability coverage is needed
http://www.sfgate.com/news/art...

victims should not be holding the bag when drivers like this have insurance that uses loop holes to get out of covering victims. Taxis and other "commercial transport license" drivers have insurance that covers them all the time.

Re:liability coverage is needed

[Frobnicator]

Like most things in real life, there is nuance to that case.

The companies DO provide insurance. $1M in coverage, but it is only in effect from the time the ride is accepted to the time the passengers exit. That situation was an edge case, an auto/pedestrian collision right at the border of that time, immediately before the passenger was in the car. They denied coverage because the event happened immediately before coverage took effect. Much like having an insurance policy that takes effect October 1st and having damage reported September 29th, the collision happened immediately prior to the policy becoming active. Tragic, but unfortunately it happens sometimes. Rather importantly, they have since extended the time of coverage so if it happened today it would be covered. So when another tragedy like that inevitably happens the full $1M insurance will be in effect.

Both Uber and Lyft have added additional insurance which is in effect any time the driver marks themselves online as 'available'. The insurance rules can be summed up pretty easily:

* Logged out / unavailable: Your own insurance covers you, nothing from company as you aren't on the clock.
* Available but between jobs: Company provides $50K in supplemental insurance, after your insurance pays as the primary.
* From "ride accepted" to "ride finished and passengers is away from vehicle": Company provides $1M as primary insurance, personal insurance is secondary.

I assume it is similar for all their locations, but it may be different in Germany where they were banned.

The California proposal is to increase the insurance coverage for the "Available but between jobs" segment from $50K to $750K, which would cost quite a lot more for the company and is dramatically more than what traditional taxis must have for collision and liability. I would only agree with the bill if it affected all transportation companies, not just the newcomers.

Re:liability coverage is needed

[mysidia]

victims should not be holding the bag when drivers like this have insurance that uses loop holes to get out of covering victims.

This is already a fact of life for everyone. If some driver runs into you and doesn't have the proper insurance, you could be on the hook financially.

The driver in that case (who should be in jail) ran over the girl not because he was an Uber driver, BUT just because he was a negligent driver on the road at the time.

Furthemore INSURANCE WOULD NOT HELP, even if he had it. The girl is dead, period, full stop. There is no insurance payout here. There is no amount of money you can pay to a family to bring their child back to life.

So, anyways, it makes perfect sense that Uber only needs to provide insurance, when the driver is actually operating the vehicle commercially ---- that is, driving to make a pickup, and then picking up and transporting the passenger, until the passengers are fully dropped off.

Taxi companies need to provide insurance all the time, because They own the vehicle, and the driver is their employee.. An employee operating a company owned vehicle FOR ANY COMPANY, exposes the company to liability for whatever happens while they are operating company property. Even if the trip is personal and not related to business.

It's quite different if the company doesn't own the vehicle, and it's usually not being driven for business purposes.

Re:liability coverage is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

This is already a fact of life for everyone. If some driver runs into you and doesn't have the proper insurance, you could be on the hook financially.

Nope, not where I live. (in europe) Then again, we have set up the system so it actually protects the citizens. If said driver(actually the car, who is driving doesn't matter, the car owner pays for the insurance) doesn't have the insurance (which is mandatory anyways, you can leave it unpaid, but the fines are harsh) the government will pay for it, and then get the money from the driver afterhand. If the driver died they will get whatever he had when he died and just cover the rest.

As I see it, uber doesn't have to provide insurance, as they don't own the vehicle, they don't drive it, the person driving it doesn't work for them. The person who owns the vehicle has to get the proper licenses and insurances. If uber wants to sell them one as a condition of relaying passengers to them it's ok (then uber is an insurance company and has to follow another set of laws) I see uber as a service company that enables small scale taxi companies to get passengers. The funny thing is, after they have got the proper licences and insurance coverage they could as well be real taxis. Which is the damn point of the law. We want to regulate taxis, trying to go around that regulation is simply criminal.

Re:liability coverage is needed

[mjwx]

liability coverage is needed
http://www.sfgate.com/news/art...

victims should not be holding the bag when drivers like this have insurance that uses loop holes to get out of covering victims. Taxis and other "commercial transport license" drivers have insurance that covers them all the time.

In Australia an Uber driver with private car insurance (meaning all of them) would still have the claims paid out (except that of the Uber driver, because he violated the terms of the policy). However the insurer would be free to go after any assets the driver has and any assets Uber has as compensation.

I'd wager Germany would be similar.

Re:liability coverage is needed

[traycerb]

The driver in that case (who should be in jail) ran over the girl not because he was an Uber driver, BUT just because he was a negligent driver on the road at the time.

Or maybe an inattentive driver, as even if he's not picking up a passenger, by being an Uber driver, he by necessity has to have his phone with him and will need to actively check it while driving.

Re:liability coverage is needed

[allcoolnameswheretak]

September has 30 days.
So that "immediately prior" to October 1st, should probably be September 30th.
Not September 29th.
Just sayin.

Re:liability coverage is needed

[Stuarticus]

Like most things in real life, there is nuance to that case./quote>

Did her bag of skittles look like a weapon?

Re:liability coverage is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly.

Re:liability coverage is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nope, not where I live. (in europe) Then again, we have set up the system so it actually protects the citizens. If said driver(actually the car, who is driving doesn't matter, the car owner pays for the insurance) doesn't have the insurance (which is mandatory anyways, you can leave it unpaid, but the fines are harsh) the government will pay for it, and then get the money from the driver afterhand. If the driver died they will get whatever he had when he died and just cover the rest."

That is strange, must mean you are living in an other Europe than I am in. Or maybe there just ins't 1 Europe to begin with

-In the UK the driver needs insurance for driving a particular vehicle. Person A owning car A can't just drive on CAR B, person A needs to have its own insurance to cover car B or person A has to be on the insurance of the owner of car B. It is a strange concept to me (not living in UK).
-It is not the gov. that pays for uninsured drivers, the insured drivers do. Insurance companies pool money to cover victims.

Re:liability coverage is needed

[Splab]

Sorry but you are wrong.

If a driver hits you and doesn't have insurance, your own insurance company will cover you and they in turn will do civil suits against the driver to get reimbursement. (This isn't the US, you guys get screwed by your government and insurance companies, we do less so here in Europe)

Re:liability coverage is needed

[mysidia]

If a driver hits you and doesn't have insurance, your own insurance company will cover you and they in turn will do civil suits against the driver to get reimbursement.

Only if you yourself have the proper 'uninsured motorist' coverage.

Re:liability coverage is needed

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

It was a one-day weekend.

Re:liability coverage is needed

[CanHasDIY]

(This isn't the US, you guys get screwed by your government and insurance companies, we do less so here in Europe)

Depends on your insurance company and agent. A few years back my wife was rear-ended by some d-bag with fly-by-night insurance, and our agent hounded theirs to the point of threatening a federal lawsuit against the company. They paid. Also, if you're uninsured and cause a wreck, the other drivers' insurance co. can and will sue you and have your wages garnished until the debt is paid.

Re:liability coverage is needed

[mysidia]

They paid. Also, if you're uninsured and cause a wreck, the other drivers' insurance co. can and will sue you and have your wages garnished until the debt is paid.

This only works if you have wages. Over 50% of the US population is on welfare, and many might not have any wages to garnish. Yes, your insurer can go through months of extra work to secure a civil judgement, but you can't enforce it against someone with no non-exempt assets.

As for Uber or Lyft..... the victim can always sue the company, claim the company is liable. Even if the driver was just using the app, the litigant can claim the driver was distracted and Uber/Lyft designed their app such that they knew or should have known it would result in distracted drivers.

And in judgement against the driver, secure the payments for fares / order Uber/Lyft to withold or freeze the driver's payouts

Re:liability coverage is needed

[CanHasDIY]

They paid. Also, if you're uninsured and cause a wreck, the other drivers' insurance co. can and will sue you and have your wages garnished until the debt is paid.

This only works if you have wages. Over 50% of the US population is on welfare, and many might not have any wages to garnish.

Do you have a source for that "over 50% on welfare" claim? Because it sounds either dubious, or like a gross misinterpretation of facts.

Anyway, "being on welfare" doesn't mean "no income to garnish." In fact, statistically most people on welfare are working anywhere between 30-50 hours a week, albeit at one or more part-time jobs. The one's who aren't are typically disabled, or very very elderly; many of whom don't own cars or drive.

As for Uber or Lyft..... the victim can always sue the company, claim the company is liable. Even if the driver was just using the app, the litigant can claim the driver was distracted and Uber/Lyft designed their app such that they knew or should have known it would result in distracted drivers.

They'd have to, since operating your personal vehicle commercially would void the driver's personal insurance. They could also sue the driver directly for fraud, as he would be misrepresenting himself as an agent of a legitimate commercial venture.

Re:liability coverage is needed

[Joe_Dragon]

* From "ride accepted" to "ride finished and passengers is away from vehicle": Company provides $1M as primary insurance, personal insurance is secondary.

But your insurance says you are working for a Company as a driver at that time and we are not covering you at all for that time.

Re:liability coverage is needed

[Joe_Dragon]

* Available but between jobs: Company provides $50K in supplemental insurance, after your insurance pays as the primary.

But your insurance says you are working for a Company as a driver at that time and we are not covering you at all for that time.

Re:liability coverage is needed

[mysidia]

Anyway, "being on welfare" doesn't mean "no income to garnish." In fact, statistically most people on welfare are working anywhere between 30-50 hours a week, albeit at one or more part-time jobs.

There are restrictions on what can be garnished legally; for example, a minimum wage employee cannot be garnished --- an employee paid more than the minimum wage can only be garnished some fraction, and it will essentially never be sufficient to repay the bill with interest. If these people are at the poverty line, it is likely that all of their wages will be excluded and they be incapable of being garnished, if not all their wages, then perhaps 95% or so, due to claims of financial hardship this would cause.

They may also avoid garnishment by switching jobs, and ensuring the party holding judgement does not know and cannot discover their employment, or being employed in a cash payment business. For example: waiters/waitresses commonly receive direct payments as tips, which the employer doesn't have access to, therefore is incapable of garnishing.

Do you have a source for that "over 50% on welfare" claim? Because it sounds either dubious, or like a gross misinterpretation of facts.

Number of the Week: Half of U.S. Lives in Household Getting Benefits

rt.com:

More than half of the US population – 165 million of 308 million Americans – is now dependent on the state in some form. Of these, 107 million Americans rely on government welfare, 46 million seniors collect Medicare and there are 22 million government employees.

The number of Americans on welfare have increased from 97 million to 107 million since President Obama took office, according to research by Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee Jeff Sessions. The number of Americans on food stamps during the president’s term has risen by more than 14 million.

Re:liability coverage is needed

[CanHasDIY]

Anyway, "being on welfare" doesn't mean "no income to garnish." In fact, statistically most people on welfare are working anywhere between 30-50 hours a week, albeit at one or more part-time jobs.

There are restrictions on what can be garnished legally;

Those restrictions are based on arbitrary government calculations (the same calculations that say a person with a $40K/yr job can afford $800/mo student loan payments, because they fail to take any expenses into account), and can be overruled by a judge.

They may also avoid garnishment by switching jobs, and ensuring the party holding judgement does not know and cannot discover their employment, or being employed in a cash payment business. For example: waiters/waitresses commonly receive direct payments as tips, which the employer doesn't have access to, therefore is incapable of garnishing.

Instead of refuting point-by-point, I'm just going to leave this here.

Do you have a source for that "over 50% on welfare" claim? Because it sounds either dubious, or like a gross misinterpretation of facts.

Number of the Week: Half of U.S. Lives in Household Getting Benefits

rt.com:

More than half of the US population – 165 million of 308 million Americans – is now dependent on the state in some form. Of these, 107 million Americans rely on government welfare, 46 million seniors collect Medicare and there are 22 million government employees.

The number of Americans on welfare have increased from 97 million to 107 million since President Obama took office, according to research by Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee Jeff Sessions. The number of Americans on food stamps during the president’s term has risen by more than 14 million.

So, gross misinterpretation of facts, then. Or rather, conflating the terms "government assistance" and "welfare."

FWIW, tax credits are technically "government assistance."

Re:liability coverage is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

But that's the whole point of licensing; personal use licenses come with a certain amount of safety evaluation (usually in the form of a test), whereas commercial licenses require more strict regulation as the person will be using the road A LOT more than a normal user (including adequate equipment that doesn't pose as much of a risk, like looking at your phone all the time would).

Uber-ing and the like is completely illegal within all of Australia and New Zealand; the state governments in Sydney and Melbourne actively set traps for people attempting to provide the service and will fine you up to $120,000 AUD (almost the same as USD).

Re:liability coverage is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

A study by the New York Times that examined New York car accidents in a given year found that as many as one in every five car accidents involved a taxicab. Of the 70,000 accidents in the city that year, almost 13,000 involved taxicabs. I found less than 20 Uber accidents and some of them were not duty.

I have found one Uber driver who was not on duty involved in a fatal accident.

Uber has a $1 million policy (Lyft and Sidecar have similar policies) in case the driver's personal coverage is not enough. In contrast, said New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance spokesman Marshall McKnight, many municipalities require taxis to carry only $300,000 in coverage.

There are law firms that specialize in taxi cab accidents. There are comedy routines about New York City taxicab drivers and their crazy driving. The comedy team of Avery Schreiber and Jack Burns built a career on this.

Actually, the cab driver is more likely to be robbed or killed in US cities. Compare the homicide rate for NYC cops versus NTC cabbies. Uber and other ride shares screen the passengers with a credit card check, while the government requires that a cab must pick up anyone by law. Here in Austin, TX a cabbie was forced by police to take a drunk against his wishes in the Sixth Street district. The drunk was violent and beat the hell out of guy!

Actually

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber was banned because it was missing the umlaut.

Re:Actually

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubär?

It's the law.

[DrYak]

It's just taxi lobbyists pushing back...

It has nothing to do with lobbies, or taxis reacting to Uber.

It's simply the law, and this law is much older than Uber itself.
It has always been there and still needs to be applied, even after Uber appears.
(Some other countries like Switzerland have similair laws).

If you transport people professionally (no mater if you're some minister's chauffeur, a taxi driver, working as a bus driver in the public transportation service, or simply driving a minivan with more than 7 passengers) the law requires that you have a special driving license and insurance companies require that you subscribe a different type of insurance policy (insurance is mandatory in EU).
Uber is note immune to the law. People get money to carry people around with Uber, they must therefore follow the state law.

This is not taxi drivers protesting against Uber because it's competing with them, it's simply the city ruling that Uber needs to play by the same rule like everybody else.

Re:It's the law.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not taxi drivers protesting against Uber because it's competing with them, it's simply the city ruling that Uber needs to play by the same rule like everybody else.

Hmm ...

How dare you tell us your little European laws apply to us almighty Americans!

- Every US Company

Re:It's the law.

[gutnor]

BTW the law is maybe old in the Germany, but similar law has been created in the UK only 10 years ago. In order to run a mini-cab service, you need to make sure to follow a few regulation like all your car must pass a car inspection and your driver must be insured, with valid license, ...

The UK is a lot closer to the US and yet, they created that law a decade ago.

Seems strange...

[johnslater]

...given that there used to be a song about "Deutschland" and "Uber"...

On Yer Bike

[GrahamCox]

Just get a bike. Berlin is brilliant for cycling. And if you need to transport something big, just call up any of the many taxi-like services that will take it home in a van for you.

They can't stop it.

[Karmashock]

They can stop pay services but they can't stop free services. lets say you just list that you're taking a ride from point X to point Y and would be willing to pick up anyone along the way.

How can that be illegal. Now do you want to pick up a total stranger? Maybe not. But then maybe the culture will change where you'll be okay with that.

Re:They can't stop it.

[angel'o'sphere]

For that we already have private lift/ride sharing where the 'passengers' pay a part of the fuel bill.
Obviously that is more interesting for long distances, as soon as you over sucha lift more than once a day inside of the same town, or on the sa,e route back amd forth (and get more money than the fuel costs) every controlling agency would argue you do that commercially.

Why not the City itself?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do agree that many commercial taxi services are inefficient and could do with more competition. What I don't agree with is that this competition has to come from *Uber*. Technology-wise, I'm sure at least half of the people here could whip up a comparable "rider-and-car-scheduling" system, both the back end and front end (Android or IOS app, Blackberry and WinPhone if you're a masochist) in a week, tops (I'm not saying it'll be *pretty*, I'm saying it'll work). So honestly there's no reason why each and every city cannot run it's own car/ride-sharing system, for example. The only difference between a system like that and Uber is that Uber's founder won't get rich. All the "additional functions" that Uber provides (insurance) only happened reactively (after Uber vehicles killed people/drivers raped passengers).

Why hasn't this happened?

The analogy I would draw is between Google Maps/Nokia Here vs. OpenStreetMaps, for example. If a city can licence taxis, it may as well extend the taxi licensing scheme to include some sort of ride-sharing setup. Why not?

RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Your car is licensed to be driven for your transportation, just like the movie is licensed to be viewed by you. If you want to run a transport distribution service, get a license, like a theatre.

Raise the bar?

[matbury]

What bar are Uber raising? All I can see is a race to the bottom. If I get into a taxi, I want to know that it's insured, up to a reasonable minimum standard of safety and security, that the driver is fully informed of his/her legal obligations, and that if something happens that's suspect, illegal, or just plain wrong, I have official channels to go through that can deal with the issue quickly and effectively. That means every taxi and every driver has to be identifiable and reachable. How else do you ensure that without licensing?

If you get into a taxi in London, you can be sure that the driver can get you to your destination in the shortest possible time any time of day and any day of the week: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

Re:Raise the bar?

[Keyboard Rage]

The bar that in Europe is placed much higher than (apparently) in the ole US of A, a concept that Uber appears to have some trouble grasping (not so Uber, eh?). So a business model that might work well in North America due to the abyssimal suckage of 'real' taxis there comes up at the bottom of the barrel at the other side of the Atlantic.

Re:Raise the bar?

[drinkypoo]

If you get into a taxi in London, you can be sure that the driver can get you to your destination in the shortest possible time any time of day and any day of the week: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

If I get into a car in London, I can be sure that google can get me to my destination blah blah blah. Who gives a shit? What year is it?

Re:Raise the bar?

[serviscope_minor]

If I get into a car in London, I can be sure that google can get me to my destination blah blah blah. Who gives a shit? What year is it?

It's just astonishing the level of brazen, gleeful ignorance on slashdot. I'd love to see you try to drive through central London using google maps. Sure it's possible, but there's several problems.

1. The taxi drivers know which roads to avoid and use at any given time of day. Google maps does not. So, enjoy being stuck in traffic.

2. Many many roads and urban canyons which means you need precision on the GPS just around the time it craps out through getting no reception. With strange junctions and roads at a variety of strange angles you will get lost very fast.

3. If you think you can take your eyes off the road and look at a map you've clearly never driven through London. The roads are unfeasibly busy. There are pedestrians coming and going from all angles (no jaywalking laws here), aggeressive busses, taxis and lorries, mental motorbike and bicycle riders, road works in impressive amounts, astonishingly elaborate lane markings, emergency vehicles other bad/confused drivers (too busy looking at a satnav...), people coming out of side roads/parking at the side of the road and so on and so forth.

Of course, you can always look at the map when you hit problem (1), but then it's more of a wishlist than a useful map.

But if you don't believe me, try starting in Oxford street, heading East until you hit the north circular, take it round to Woolwich then take the south circular round to Richmond. Enjoy ploughing through Tooting highstreet during the middle of the day. Revel in your confusion as all apparent reference to the road disappears from maps and road signs alike. Enjoy being baffled when a roundabout has the same road marked on all three exits.

Re:Raise the bar?

[wonkey_monkey]

But if you don't believe me, try starting in Oxford street, heading East until you hit the north circular, take it round to Woolwich then take the south circular round to Richmond.

South of the river at this time of night? You must be 'avin a giraffe.

Re:Raise the bar?

[serviscope_minor]

South of the river at this time of night? You must be 'avin a giraffe.

Good point. You need google maps because taxi drivers won't go saafariver.

Re:Raise the bar?

[matbury]

Re: "If I get into a car in London, I can be sure that google can get me to my destination blah blah blah. Who gives a shit? What year is it?" -- Most people I know in London, Barcelona, Moscow, and Toronto (all places where I've lived and worked) use public transport and taxis to get around. They leave their cars at home because it's just too much hassle to drive in large cities. Some friends got rid of their cars altogether and only hire them when they need to take longer journeys where public transport and taxis aren't so good. Busy cities need taxis (and usually more of them) but letting unregulated drivers with their personal cars, in whatever state they may be, take over and undercut experienced, licensed, and insured taxi drivers isn't the answer. There are illegal unregulated taxis in Moscow: go to a main street, stick out your thumb, and in a matter of seconds you'll have a line of cars offering you a lift to wherever you want to go. If you don't like the price or look of the first guy who comes along, you can go to the next one in line. In some parts of London you can find illegal taxis too.

Without a doubt, a lot of taxi services around the world could do with some reforms and improvements but on the whole they've better than just any Tom, Dick, or Harry picking people up off the streets whenever they feel like it. I don't think silicon valley's "culture of disruption" is a particularly constructive approach and their true motives are more likely to be along the lines of creating controlling monopolies that suck all of the profits from both ends, passengers and drivers, and leave them effectively powerless and disenfranchised. How exactly would you go about having a legitimate grievance heard against Uber or Lyft? What do you think the likelihood of having it settled reasonably and quickly would be? PayPal already ignores UK and European consumer protection rights and laws and is effectively a law unto itself. You're much better off going directly through the established consumer protection processes than trying to register a complaint through PayPal's grievance procedures.

Uber and Lyft have the potential to destroy taxi driving as a professional industry and a job and leave and inadequate mess in its place. If so, that'll push more people into using their cars in cities and add to congestion, pollution, accidents, stress, costs, and frustration for everyone.

Show me

[Anonymous Coward]

Show me one documented instance of Uber's insurance company paying out adequately to an injured passenger.

Now... Gleich

[Anonymous Coward]

Now it's over (über) for them...

Re:Now... Gleich

[dave420]

Ueber doesn't work in that context. Vorbei would probably be better.

There's more to EU transport than cheapness

[Anonymous Coward]

This. IN europe taxis have insurance that actually covers damages to the passengers. Normal car insurances don't cover the use for commercial usage. The very basic level for consumers is _FORCED_ on everyone, because we, as people, rather hae a private company and the users of said taxi services pay for the injuries etc instead of paying for them collectively. (we are not going to leave anyone untreated, even if they have no personal insurance, therefore public transport pays a premiun insurance, because they are responsible for the passengers while they are on board). Nothing wrong with this. I support if fully. That said, I also like uber. Just offer the minimum quality level required and keep going. Can't just ignore laws. These are even very rational laws.

It's a legal thing

[Anonymous Coward]

For two reasons: First, you need a license. But not because the government is evil and oppressive but because a "license" actually means something, it covers liability. You need insurance if you want to be a professional driver (among other things).

What Uber basically does is this: They take the cash, but no responsibility. Again, we have a case where a leech-company privatises the gain, and dodges the rest: The fees go to them but the risk is carried by whatever private person drives the car, Uber even has it in their terms of service they are not liable.

To such a system says has the german state one thing to say: "No, thanks. Go away".

Oversight and regulation

[pablo_max]

While I agree with you that most people cannot tolerate hipsters, I disagree with your assertion that most people will put up with unlicensed taxi drivers.
I travel all over Europe and Asian as part of job and for personal reasons and I have learned one thing..NEVER take unofficial taxis. EVER.
Oversight and regulation of certain industries are not a bad thing.

Re:Oversight and regulation

[N1AK]

I travel all over Europe and Asian as part of job and for personal reasons and I have learned one thing..NEVER take unofficial taxis. EVER.

Which is why I don't get the concern about Uber etc. I travel abroad plenty and finding out what official taxis are, how to make sure it is an official taxi, how to check they are doing what an official taxi should etc is a lot of work and still has risks. With a system like Ubers I know that the car I'm calling is part of their network, would be kicked off rapidly if they don't follow Uber's rules etc. I've only used Uber a couple of times and in places where I know the official taxis are legit, but I'd probably feel safer taking an Uber ride in Thailand than finding an official taxi.

Re:Oversight and regulation

[qbast]

Have you actually been to Thailand or you are just spouting prejudice? Official taxis there (especially in Bangkok) are great - clean, working AC, _very_ cheap (on meter with official rate).

Re:Oversight and regulation

[Rockoon]

So what you are saying is that if the vehicle is clean, has a working AC, and is very cheap.. then its 100% certain to be an official taxi?

Have you actually learned to read, or are you just spouting Statist defenses?

Re:Oversight and regulation

[qbast]

So what you are saying is that if the vehicle is clean, has a working AC, and is very cheap.. then its 100% certain to be an official taxi?

Pretty much yes. Official taxis charge regulated, metered rate, which ends up being very cheap. 'Private' taxi drivers live off ignorant tourists that don't even know they are getting fleeced unless driver gets really greedy and charges something like 5x rate.

Have you actually learned to read, or are you just spouting Statist defenses?

Grow up kid and maybe visit the place before you start spouting off crap and make an idiot of yourself.

Re:Oversight and regulation

[jbmartin6]

I think the parent's point was that it might be unclear how to find an official taxi in a strange country (what do they look like, how to locate them, etc.), but finding an official Uber taxi is always the same process. I don't think he was knocking Bangkok's official taxis.

Re:Oversight and regulation

[Dr. Evil]

The hard part about Thai taxis is finding them. As a tourist, you'll be swarmed by conmen with tuktuks, fake cabs and motos. Meanwhile, the legit taxis won't be in a hurry to find you because they won't speak English. I'd forgive anyone for thinking that Thai cabs are corrupt. They didn't seem to be to me, but they were not easy to find.

OTOH, in Malaysia, the taxis are so severely corrupt that I had to consider them to not exist. Ask at a taxi stand for a metered fare? "The meter is broken" from every single driver. Prices? You would think you were in London.

In Athens, pre-GPS days, I spent 10 minutes touring the downtown to get around the block. The driver insisted that he had to work around the one-way streets. Who'd have thunk it would have cost an extra Eur 20 to take a cab from the wrong side of the street?

I have mixed feelings about Berlin banning uber. The Berlin transit system is incredible, the Berlin taxis are affordable and safe, and there's German language ride-share tools which are great if you need to get to a neighbouring city and can't afford the train, or can't find a bus. Uber seems unnecessary.

Re:Oversight and regulation

[Rockoon]

Pretty much yes. Official taxis charge regulated, metered rate, which ends up being very cheap.

So what you are saying is that if the vehicle is clean, has a working AC, and is very cheap.. then its 100% certain to be an official taxi?

Perhaps you have a really severe problem with reading? You are claiming that if these things are true, then it is 100% certain to be an official taxi?

You are claiming that there isnt even one single non-official taxi that is clean, has working AC, and is very cheap. Not a single one. Zero of them. Not 4 of them. Not 3 of them. Not 2 of them. Not 1 of them. None of them.

Re:Oversight and regulation

[Rich0]

Have you actually been to Thailand or you are just spouting prejudice? Official taxis there (especially in Bangkok) are great - clean, working AC, _very_ cheap (on meter with official rate).

I think the point is that Uber is a global brand. Thialand Taxi Company or whatever they call it isn't. I have no idea if their Taxis are good or not, but I know what Uber is. Maybe Thailand Taxi is better, but it is an unknown quantity for somebody new to the country.

If I go to Uzbekistan and need to mail a package back to the US, maybe the Uzbekistan post office is decent. But, if I see an office labeled "UPS" I have some kind of expectation about what kind of service it will provide, and if UPS wants to remain competitive as a global provider they're going to strive to meet that level of service everywhere. Global companies stay in business by offering their customers a uniform experience that they can't get without being experts in every country on earth.

Re:Oversight and regulation

[dave420]

I hear your complaints, and as you said - none of them apply to Berlin. Those other methods of transport currently work within the law, so it seems strange that people appear to think something needs to be changed in Berlin "to improve service" - the service is already fantastic, with the protection of the public!

Re:Oversight and regulation

[Dr. Evil]

My mixed feelings are because Uber should fail on its own to compete with Berlin's transit system and cabs. Instead of banning them, they should find a way to offer licensing and insurance to the drivers.

Re:Oversight and regulation

[Bing Tsher E]

You're very cosmopolitan.

How do we subscribe to your newsletter?

Re:Oversight and regulation

[N1AK]

I'll happily stand by my statement about Thai taxis. I know two people who've been there who had issues with Taxis in Thailand. As you'd be aware if you'd both read and comprehended my post before throwing accusations of prejudice around one of the issues I highlighted was ensuring that it is an official taxi that you're getting in.

There are plenty of other places I could have used as examples instead. I used Thailand because I'm heading there in Feb and given the experiences of those two friends and the online guidance on taxis in Thailand I know that I personally would use Uber instead if it was available.

Re:Oversight and regulation

[N1AK]

They aren't banning Uber for the type of service it offers etc, Uber is breaking the law and Berlin is making that explicitly clear. Uber could already make changes to how it operates to be in line with the law, but it doesn't want to.

Who mods this tripe up?

[mjwx]

The driver in that case (who should be in jail) ran over the girl not because he was an Uber driver, BUT just because he was a negligent driver on the road at the time.

this is bullshit.

Bolding parts of it doesn't make is less bullshit.

Liability insurance for commercial drivers is mandatory in most places for this very reason. Further more in many places third party injury insurance is mandatory for all drivers for this very reason.

Maybe you in your libertarian delusions can go and explain to family of the girl who died because of this driver that it's a fact of life and they should be happy for that.

Furthemore INSURANCE WOULD NOT HELP, even if he had it. The girl is dead, period, full stop. There is no insurance payout here.

Actually there is a very big payout for death.

But what about the next time when a person isn't killed, just permanently disabled. You could go along then and explain it's a fact of life.

Or maybe the drivers could get liability insurance seeing as they're using their cars for commercial purposes. Then again, that would mean their services wouldn't be cheaper than a regular taxi.

"Competition is good for everyone..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. A friend of mine had a little shop in St. Petersburg, a couple of years after Perestroika.

She was offered "protection" by the police and by the mafia. Turns out the mafia's offer was cheaper and more convincing, so she went with that.

Yay, competition, laws be damned!

Idiots.

Weberlied

[Anonymous Coward]

Im düstern Auge keine ThrÃne,
Sie sitzen am Webstuhl und fletschen die ZÃhne:
Deutschland, wir weben Dein Leichentuch,
Wir weben hinein den dreifachen Fluch â"

  Wir weben, wir weben!

Ein Fluch dem Gotte, zu dem wir gebeten
In WinterskÃlte und HungersnÃthen;
Wir haben vergebens gehofft und geharrt,
Er hat uns geÃfft und gefoppt und genarrt â"

  Wir weben, wir weben!

Ein Fluch dem KÃnig, dem KÃnig der Reichen,
Den unser Elend nicht konnte erweichen,
Der den letzten Groschen von uns erpreÃYt,
Und uns wie Hunde erschieÃYen lÃÃYt â"

  Wir weben, wir weben!

Ein Fluch dem falschen Vaterlande,
Wo nur gedeihen Schmach und Schande,
Wo jede Blume früh geknickt,
Wo FÃulniÃY und Moder den Wurm erquickt â"

  Wir weben, wir weben!

Das Schiffchen fliegt, der Webstuhl kracht,

Wir weben emsig Tag und Nacht â"
Altdeutschland, wir weben Dein Leichentuch,
Wir weben hinein den dreifachen Fluch,

  Wir weben, wir weben!

Everywhere big government is found,

[Anonymous Coward]

cronyism is also found, and things like Uber will face a fight. The political class needs money and the best place to get it is from corruption. Uber is not a good source of cash for the political elites - big organizations like unions and transport associations (who will cough-up cash, campaign workers, and votes) in exchange for laws guaranteeing them their share of the market and the rates they want ARE.

Laws are supposed to exist to keep people from hurting each-other; laws are for things like rape, murder, robbery, and fraud. Laws that exist to protect certain groups from competition within an otherwise level laying field (like taxi service within a particular city) are completely illegitimate.

Germans have been using ride sharing for years now

[seoras]

I don't get it.
What's legally different with Uber to the ride sharing websites so popular in Germany for at least a decade now?
7 years ago I was dating a German who was from Dresden, she regularly went back home to Berlin & Dresden for visits.
She never used public transport to go visit her parents, only a ride sharing website as it was much cheaper than the train/bus.
We even had a driver drop me off at the airport, after picking up another paying passenger, on their way to Dresden.
One thing I can say about Germans is that they are frugal with money and I'm Scottish which is saying something! ;)

Re:Germans have been using ride sharing for years

[dave420]

Those 'services' are private drivers who are driving that way regardless of whether they have passengers. The fare is not profit, but to cover the fuel cost. If said driver was charging more than the cost of the fuel, and was making several trips a day to places they wouldn't be going anyway, then they'd be breaking the law and face prosecution.

Not surprised

[JustOK]

Well, I'm not surprised. Germans have been saying for decades that Uber is for Allies, but they're not allowed to talk about that.

Re:Germans have been using ride sharing for years

[drinkypoo]

What's legally different with Uber to the ride sharing websites so popular in Germany for at least a decade now?

The same as every other nation. They have devised a mechanism to extract a pound of flesh from each cab driver, and they are short on dinner. These ghoulish cannibals profit from causing others to suffer. They are motivated to engage in anticompetitive restraint of every aspect of life by profit.

No one

[y5t3m]

Gives a shit if you ban some app, that ban isn't going to stem the tide of destroyed business models based on protectionist regulations, we'll write a new app before the sun is up, so waste your time putting greasy pens to parchment drafting the next trough filling regulations.

Medallion vs Commercial license/insurance

[Apotekaren]

I'm fairly libertarian in my views, but I do agree with the City of Berlin in requiring commercial licensing and insurance on Uber drivers, as a consumer protection issue. How Uber chooses to solve this is up to them. They could require commercial licensing for all driver applicants, and provide the insurance on a per-ride basis, if this is legal in Germany.

HOWEVER, while this problem is separate from the medallion issue that Uber has faced in the US, only time will tell how the German local and national government treats Uber and other ride-sharing services. AFAIK, there is no set limit on the amount of commercial licenses and insurances in the city of Berlin, which is unlike how the medallions work. Medallions are not in place to provide consumer safety, but to limit the availability of providers. And protecting profit margins.

If Uber solves the issues presented and starts working with commercially licensed and insured drivers, but keep getting into trouble with the government, then we can start suspecting foul play.

And I'm not saying the official taxi companies played no part in this, they probably were very eager to tip off the local government of this legal issue

corporations are always right

[Tom]

"As a new entrant we are bringing much-needed competition to a market that hasn't changed in years. Competition is good for everyone and it raises the bar and ultimately it's the consumer who wins,"

Says the guy who gets to profit. Follow the money - of course he'd say something like that. PR drones are paid for coming up with good reasons why their product is the best thing since sliced bread.

Actually, sliced bread is pretty awful, but that's a different story.

The market has changed quite considerably. German startups like MyTaxi are increasingly replacing the old and stupid middlemen with a nice mobile service that connects drivers and passengers directly. There's a bit of competition in that market as well. Then there are the modern car-sharing companies like Car2Go and DriveNow and some others, where you can take any of their cars wherever you find it and can drop it off wherever you go. No need to go to designated parking spots or something. They're basically like a taxi you drive yourself. In a few years, they'll probably have an autonomous car in the mix that you can call on your smartphone and it'll pick you up.

To say the market is stagnant is a bold piece of PR lies. There have never been so many options for personal transport, changing so quickly.

Uber is not as revolutionary as it makes itself out to be. But more important: They don't understand the European market, where american wild-west methods of just riding into town and taking what you think is yours by god given rights are not welcome. We have regulations and laws and rules, and we actually quite like them. They make our lives more calm and plannable. Europe has a different culture, less friendly to startups and hotshot ideas, but it also means fewer people crash and burn, and less collateral damage when they do.

If Uber gave a fuck, they could operate in Berlin. But their attitude - which was visible in other german cities like Hamburg where they also ran into problems - was basically "this is our cool business idea, go and change your laws if you don't like it". I'm not surprised that with that attitude, someone told them to fuck off and die.

Re:corporations are always right

[LienRag]

Actually, sliced bread is pretty awful, but that's a different story.

Well, you shouldn't get your bread in Germany if you say that...
Lightly toasted sliced bread with une noix de beurre and a touch of lemon marmelade... yummmmm!!!

Re:corporations are always right

[Tom]

Well, you shouldn't get your bread in Germany if you say that...

Actually, Germany has some of the best bread in the world, with some of the highest variety. But if you appreciate bread, you should always cut it just before eating. Pre-sliced bread is dried out and loses much of its flavour and smell. Freshly baked bread, cut into thick slices just before you eat it, that's how you do it.

Typical american white bread doesn't even register as "bread" in Germany. In the supermarket, it is sold in a seperate shelf, because toast and sandwich is the only thing it's good for.

I use Uber and love it

[Fuzi719]

Unlike nearly every other commenter in this thread, I've actually used Uber (and Lyft and standard taxis). I had actually stopped using taxis before Uber (or Lyft) came along here in Atlanta because they are simply horrible. Horrid service, horrid drivers, high fares. Just horrible experiences one after another. When Uber arrived here, it was like a breath of fresh air. I don't own a car, so I use public transit, Zipcar, and now Uber/Lyft for my needs. Uber is reliable, every driver I've had has been super nice and professional, the cars well-maintained, and the fares more than reasonable. And I don't have to worry with surly drivers demanding tips they don't deserve or jacking up the price or refusing to accept a credit card, etc. Uber vets the drivers far better than the taxi services here in Atlanta. I've also use Uber when I travel, even in Shanghai, China. To the standard taxi companies, I say, suck it! You had your chance, you blew it.

Re:I use Uber and love it

[CanHasDIY]

I don't see a whole lot of people saying Uber is bad and should not be allowed to operate for that reason.

What I see, is a lot of people saying that if Uber is going to operate a taxi service, they should operate it under the same, existing regulations that every other taxi service in [region] operates under. Which doesn't seem, to me, like too much to ask.

My problem with Uber is twofold - their desire to not be regulated (but keep everyone else regulated), and their petulant whining about it.

Very well, then

[rasmusbr]

It says in their Berlin page, under fine print: "Uber is not a transportation provider." https://www.uber.com/cities/be...

If they're not a transportation provider then I don't see why banning them from providing transport would be a problem, since that's supposedly not what they're doing.

Re:Very well, then

[pbasch]

Wow. Really? That's chutspatik of them.

No

[mjwalshe]

Personal car insurance does not cover commercial use

Uber in USA

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been a number of cities Uber has tried to startup in. The problem they face here is - wait for it - unions..

You know damn well they wont stand for any competition.

First flight

[phorm]

Actually, that claim is not so undisputed as you might think. Still in the USA though.

But given the "Eurotrash" comment I'm probably just feeding a troll.

Re:Germans have been using ride sharing for years

[CanHasDIY]

I don't get it.
What's legally different with Uber to the ride sharing websites so popular in Germany for at least a decade now?

If you and I are going to the same place, so you pick me up and I chip in for gas - that's ride sharing.

If I specifically hire you to take me from point A to point B - that's hiring a taxi.

The difference is, in the first instance we're just two people going the same direction, whereas in the second you are a driver-for-hire.

Re:Germans have been using ride sharing for years

[dave420]

So you see no difference between someone who is simply driving from point A to point B regardless of whether someone comes with them asking if someone wants a ride and taking them along asking only for petrol money, and someone who waits to be asked to drive from point A to point B, and will do the same many times a day, in order to make money as their job?

The pound of flesh is hardly that - it costs a few hundred Euros to get a license, and guarantees that everyone who drives a taxi is up to it. Ride sharing is clearly something completely different.

Your argument sounds absolutely pathetic, and you sound incredibly whiny complaining about it all the time. It's actually quite funny reading about you wanting everything to suck so people have lots of choice of things that suck...

Deutschland Nicht Uber Alles

[gelfling]

How droll is that?

in defense of Hipsters

[whistlingtony]

Disclaimer: I live in Portland OR. :D

Ya know, I'm sick of people bashing on hipsters. We live in an overly commercialized society. Why bash on some kids that are trying to find a little authenticity?

Why is it a bad thing to show disdain for Justin Bieber and people who think he actually makes good music. Why is it a bad thing to actively seek out good music by local artists? Why is it a bad thing to show an appreciation for a small show or a small band over the commercialized stuff we're all force fed today?

I get what you're saying, I do. But lay off. Let they that never had a mullet or acid washed jeans cast the first stone. Let they that never listened to New Kids On The Block because all the other kids said they were good, cast the first stone....

We all did it (Looking at you Punks and Goths). Hipsters just want to find a little authenticity in our fake commercialized world. Lay off 'em. In a few years their entire clique will be available for sale at Hot Topic and they can cry about the good old days like we all do.

I hope they find it. Don't sell out Hipsters! The more they hate you, the more you're winning!

Not just about "consumers"

[pbasch]

There are many interest groups involved in this. Uber may (or may not... I suspect it is) be good for SOME consumers, but there are other interests at stake. There are unions, which are good for the polity in that they help funnel more wealth to workers, and thus create a wealthier citizenry. There are the elderly and the handicapped, who are shut out of Uber and will suffer if taxi businesses shrink. And there are, of course, the least sympathetic victims of Uber, the owners of taxi fleets. They are part of chambers of commerce (or whatever the local Germany version is) and hold sway within their communities.

Let's not kid ourselves. As a function of smartphones, Uber serves a certain clientele - generally young, generally well-off, not all citizens.

Further, I'd love to see an analysis of the ethnicities of taxi drivers versus Uber/Lyft drivers. I suspect that the U/L drivers are, more than taxi drivers, doing this part time, and part of the majority ethnicity. Taxi driving is traditionally a job for recent immigrants.

One last note. It's just barely possible that in German, "Uber" brings up bad memories... Uber alles, and all that. I don't know, but it could be.