Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
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.
". 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.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
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?
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
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.
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.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
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.
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.
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.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
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).
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.