Slashdot Mirror


Four Dutch Uberpop Taxi Drivers Arrested, Fined

An anonymous reader writes with news that authorities in the Netherlands have arrested four drivers sharing their car for money through the Uberpop app. The drivers were then released with a fine of EUR 4,200 (USD 5,300) each and further threatened with additional fines of EUR 10,000 (USD 12,600) for each time they might be caught doing it again. While similar bullying applied to short rentals of private rooms through sites like Airbnb hasn't had the same success so far the thoughts go to the fined drivers, hoping they won't ever be caught carrying their grandmother to the supermarket then have to explain how they dared. Uber says it will "fully support" the affected drivers."

282 comments

  1. News at 11. by queazocotal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not legal just because you saw it on the internet.

    1. Re:News at 11. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But "on the internet" makes for an entirely different legal situation. At least according to a lot of laws passed recently.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:News at 11. by burne · · Score: 4, Funny

      TCA, the largest 'traditional' taxi switchboard used to stand for "Taxi Criminals Amsterdam', not 'Taxi Central Amsterdam'.

      Much of the TCA 'staff' had 2-3 feet dossiers at the local prosecutors.

      Uberpop is a threat to local mafia.

      Need I say more?

    3. Re: News at 11. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      It's not legal when the people already in the field have grandfathered rights to screw over the competition.

    4. Re:News at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not legal just because you saw it on the internet.

      Exactly, Uber drivers still need to be legally qualified, licensed and insured. Uber, and others like it, will fail when the lawsuits start ....

    5. Re:News at 11. by sabri · · Score: 1

      Uberpop is a threat to local mafia.

      They're a threat to all scumbag "taxi" drivers, not just TCA. Uberpop will soon come to Haarlem :)

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    6. Re:News at 11. by Kabukiwookie · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes indeed. If you're a tourist coming to The Netherlands, expect to be severely ripped off when when using a taxi. Not only are the taxi drivers generally obnoxious and sometimes downright hostile, there's no alternative other than the few privileged companies that are allowed to pick up travelers from Schiphol airport.

      A 30 minute ride will quickly add up to over 150 Euros and there's no recourse if there is any disagreement

      Rent a car if possible or take the train. It's cheaper and saves you a lot of hassle.

      --
      The mountains of madness have many little plateaus of sanity - Terry Pratchett.
    7. Re:News at 11. by MadMaverick9 · · Score: 1

      or take the train

      How? You can't even buy normal tickets anymore in The Netherlands.

    8. Re:News at 11. by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Informative

      How? You can't even buy normal tickets anymore in The Netherlands.

      You can get a ChipCart (I think that's the name) at the airport or at Central Station, then use that to ride the trains. You check in at readers on the platform before you board, check out when you get wherever using the same technique and it deducts money from your card.

      You can use that same card for buses, trams, trains, etc. You can keep it and use it again when you come back.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    9. Re:News at 11. by DrXym · · Score: 1

      It's not legal just because you saw it on the internet.

      There are plenty of apps which will hail a licenced cab, e.g. Hailo. It's the car and driver that matter and not the manner in which they were dispatched.

    10. Re:News at 11. by xSander · · Score: 2

      You don't have to buy an "OV-chipkaart" (public transport chip card) to get anywhere by train. If you use the train only incidentally, you can buy a paper ticket with a chip on it. You have to check in and out with it, but for the rest it's the same limited functionality.

      The chipcard has been met with criticism since its inception, though. Aside from the usual privacy concerns, it's poorly implemented. You have to check in and out between different transport companies, for example. And of course the companies rake in the money because the tariffs are, in practice, higher than the traditional way. And a lot of people forget to check out, so they pay the full deposit (20 euro for the train) because the companies make it hard to get the money back.

      I'm looking forward to using my ATM card with a NFC chip on it for train travel. That way I don't have to top up or have unused, unreachable money on my card. It's not very anonymous, but the current anonymous card isn't 100% anon either if you top it up with an ATM card or credit card, anyway.

    11. Re:News at 11. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Eh? I was in Amsterdam a few months ago and took the train (and a tram) between my hotel and the airport. There were kiosks at both ends that would sell the tickets, taking cash or credit cards, and they were quite cheap - far less than a taxi. Buying tickets for the tram worked the same way. They contained a chip that you tapped on the readers, but aside from implementation details they were single-use tickets.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    12. Re:News at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That card is horrible. Firstly, it costs about 7.50. Then you have to load up at least 20 euro, because if the saldo drops below that, you can't chip in at any railstation. Then you have to add the amount for the travel you might take. So before any tickets have been purchased, you're already 27 euros out. On top of that, you can't recharge anywhere except Amsterdam Central or Schiphol with a credit card, so have fun running out of funds in the middle of your stay.

      Oh, and the money expires after a year or so. And you can't get it back. So you better visit often or fuck off.

    13. Re:News at 11. by Kabukiwookie · · Score: 1

      Those have recently been completely gone. Traveling in public transport can only through a special chipcard that needs to be topped up with money and swiped when entering and leaving the public transport of choice.

      Quite inconvenient and for some reason, even if the trip is only 2 Euros, I believe a minimum of 10 Euros needs to be on the card at all times (so for a 2 Euro trip, you need 12 Euro on the card to be able to get on).

      Good reason is probably the fact that a lot of people will lose their card at 10 Euro each, that's quick cash (for the transport agency that is).

      --
      The mountains of madness have many little plateaus of sanity - Terry Pratchett.
    14. Re:News at 11. by mrvan · · Score: 1

      This is nonsense. You can still buy paper single use cards, but now they have a little chip in them (and they cost a bit more).

      I do think that the single use tram cards are way too expensive (2,70), but that's a different matter.

    15. Re: News at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the main thing to come out of this is more tourists coming to Amsterdam will be using uberpop.

      Thanks for the recommendation. I'll give it a go when I'm over there in November.

    16. Re:News at 11. by johanw · · Score: 1

      The money doesn't expire, it is written on the card. That was done as an insurance against network failures. That's why when the first cards got hacked the saldo could be increased with a RFID writer. The card does expire after several years though.

      Creditcards are generally seldom used in The Netherlands because our own banking cards charge much less costs. Don't expect to be able to pay with a credit card in most shops, especially outside the tourist areas. Cash is king.

    17. Re:News at 11. by Keyboard+Rage · · Score: 1

      Anonymous "OV Chipkaart" cards for public transport do expire after a few years (4 IIRC).

    18. Re:News at 11. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. I was in Amsterdam two weeks ago, and you can get paper tickets for the face value, no extra top-up required.

    19. Re:News at 11. by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      How? You can't even buy normal tickets anymore in The Netherlands.

      You can get a ChipCart (I think that's the name) at the airport or at Central Station, then use that to ride the trains. You check in at readers on the platform before you board, check out when you get wherever using the same technique and it deducts money from your card.

      You can use that same card for buses, trams, trains, etc. You can keep it and use it again when you come back.

      I've had trouble buying train tickets in NL - my memory said it was a combination of the train company not accepting bank cards without chips in them as well as refusing visa / mastercard.

      Perhaps someone in NL can clarify.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    20. Re:News at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not illegal just because the government says it is. (It takes more than a law to create jurisdiction.)

    21. Re:News at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The money will only come back if you bought an anonymous card, and then only if you send a form through snail mail. A Dutch form... Perhaps, months later. I would not be surprised if international transfer are impossible.

      And vis-a-vis the CC: getting cash (part of which probably non interchangeable), move it to a card (only possible with a desk, not the machines), again non refundable? Yeah, well, you're supporting my point: non-Dutch get a huge fuck you.

      Sorry pal, compared to other countries, this system just utterly sucks. And that would be forgivable if it was possible to buy regular tickets with cash/CC, but that's not longer possible. You have to buy overpriced 24hr free travel tickets or returns if you are lucky. Trust me, I've tried. Personnel completely agreed with me that the situation utterly sucks for the incidental traveler, and a foreign incidental traveler? Better to forget about it.

      And on top of all that, Dutch public transport is expensive compared to the rest of Europe. A actual taxi might be in the same price range, and a million times easier.

    22. Re:News at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you are in a foreign country, try to pay for most things with cash. My bank doesn't charge foreign transaction fees or ATM fees. The merchants might not like accepting your debit card without a chip, but the ATMs will accept them no problem.

    23. Re:News at 11. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The locals told me it's easier to ride illegally, and pay if caught. The fine is less than the cost of the rides you stole before being caught.

      Train tickets are a tax on the honest.

      Oh, and a taxi into Hoofddorp (from the airport) wasn't that much, better than Taxis in France and elsewhere I've been. The hotel I was going to was nowhere near the Hoofdorp train station, so it wouldn't have really helped taking the train to Hoofdorp, then taxi from there, and there are lots of taxis to choose from at the airport. Smaller train stations are less reliable.

      The worst taxi I ran across I walked away from without getting in, while two taxi drivers were yelling at me. Frankfurt. It appears I walked into the middle of a taxi turf war when I walked out of the train station, and they took it out on me, until I walked to the street in front of the station and took a taxi that was never in the train station taxi ranks.

    24. Re:News at 11. by Optali · · Score: 1

      I always wondered which kind of person in this country could ever use a Taxi... well, I have seen a couple of elderly dames with "Rollator" using them ;) A, yes, and the tourists.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    25. Re:News at 11. by Optali · · Score: 1
      Yes, it's a very difficult situation indeed. As the train station in Schiphol is so difficult to find and the buses are normally also carefully hidden... Of course, renting a car is a very good option, this way you can enjoy or SpeedWays of Dead were you can recklessly drive at 45km/hour in the traffic jam and admire our beautifully crafted road signs indicating a speed limit of 130km/h.

      Ah, the pleasures of living dangerously

      Not to speak about the joy of searching for a place to park in the big cities

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    26. Re:News at 11. by Optali · · Score: 1
      Well, despite being a small country we have a few airportS (note the plural) and quite a large number of STATIONS. And yes, you can buy the OV Chipkaart at any vending machine on any station.

      And don't waste your money in one of these "reusable" cards, they will cost you 4.5 € extra just for the sake of it. Just buy a dead-normal paper ticket. They are new too but made of paper and you can recharge them. Business as usual: Single trip or return trip. Remember to check in at the door and out if you have a return, later you can just throw it away.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    27. Re:News at 11. by Optali · · Score: 1

      "Poorly Implemented"? Lol. that's a very creative understatement :)

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    28. Re:News at 11. by Optali · · Score: 1

      That's universal here, not only in the public transport: All card readers are pin and chip readers. There are a few on bigger stations that accept credit cards (as opposed to the ubiquitous ATM cards or "bank pass") but I don't know if they accept cards with magnetic strip only.

      I think that chipless cards are not accepted EU-wide.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    29. Re:News at 11. by Optali · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you are talking about the Nederlands? http://www.ns.nl/reizigers/ovc...

      Well, maybe it's me. But in my country (Hilversum, capital of the The People's Republic of t'Gooi) we have a few yellow and blue machines that say "Losse kaartjes", made of paper.

      And I have a "Special Chipkart" that I pay every month... well, my boss pays it as here in my exotic country the companies cover for the cost of transport... I use it every day to travel between my country and the Republic of Equatorial Utrecht were I work in a Banana plantation (they grow so big in this climate!)

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    30. Re:News at 11. by Optali · · Score: 1

      The "Locals" were either a bunch of retards or a bunch of motherfucking pranksters. Assuming you visit Amsterdam, 38 Euros is a lot of rides to be taken... and that's the minimum fine you can get. Not worth the risk for a the 1.5 buck of the ticket from Hoofdorp to Amsterdam. And the Metro has closed doors, no way to ride "black".And the train controllers will go for the tourists, take it for granted

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    31. Re:News at 11. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And the train controllers will go for the tourists, take it for granted

      About 20 trips from Schiphol to Centraal over a week, and I never once saw a single controller. Nothing the locals said contradicted what I saw. Including trips outside Amsterdam and Holland. Unless I was crossing a border, or taking a train that required reservations, tickets were *never* checked. And most of the time we crossed a border, the police (or border patrol) got on and took someone off. I thought there were supposed to be no border controls, but names were checked at every border.

    32. Re:News at 11. by Optali · · Score: 1

      I AM a Local.

      And I worked in the Schiphol area for two years and in Amsterdam for nearly six.

      Just this very morning they caught a guy in Utrecht and it gets nasty as there is Police (yes, cops) waiting for you at the station. Last week there were some 5 Brits, all caught en-masse. Asthey didn't understand the controller they were caught absolutely by surprise when they met the huge security guys in my home town's station (Hilversum).

      Thus: you are either very lucky or what you are telling was a long time ago. I don't say it's not true, but I wouldn't create false expectations. Controls are every time more frequent because now they are easier to do as more personal can be employed in the trains directly... and as the service is utter crap and people are pissed off as hell they seem to want to take preemptive measures.

      Anyway: We ride for free as the companies pay our commuting tickets... these does either include all your rides if the company is big or you get the rest with 40% discount for you and up to two other persons, so that it's dead cheap. But complaining about the NS and the weather are out national sports. LOL

      I get controlled at least half of the days of the week and some days three or more times (twice per train).

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    33. Re:News at 11. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      We went in and out at odd times, so the controls may be aimed for commuters, and less for the off-time casual users. When there are only 10 people per car, there aren't that many people to catch.

    34. Re:News at 11. by MadMaverick9 · · Score: 1

      To all of you above - Thank you for proving my point.

      As a foreign visitor to NL - you're fucked.

      Now compare this to Switzerland - at the train station you can buy train tickets with cash at a ticket machine. And more importantly - you can upgrade your train ticket to include unlimited local public transportation for one day at the destination. With a simple click of a button.

      To me that makes Switzerland a very visitor friendly place.

    35. Re:News at 11. by Optali · · Score: 1

      Bah, but the Swiss tickets aren't nearly as fun as ours:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Not to talk about half the IT savvy population of the country learning how to program the MIFARE chips. ROFL.
      I still have a RS323 programmer somewhere.

      But yes, Switzerland RULEZ, not for nothing it's the birthplace of Celtic Frost

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
  2. Re:I'm sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    American Liberalism?

    What in the...have you not been paying attention for the past 200 years?

  3. Biased summary by excelsior_gr · · Score: 4, Informative

    What kind of person bills his grandmother for taking her to the supermarket? Jeezz...

    Repeat after me: "it's against the law to drive people around for money without the proper credentials".

    1. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do realise that the whole reason this is a story at all is because the law is perceived as bad. It's not that people don't know the law; it's that this law is, at best, a bad joke.

    2. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Repeat after me: "it's against the law to drive people around for money without the proper credentials".

      Repeat after me: "That's retarded. My property, my rules." Why can't I have someone give me pieces of paper when I drive them somewhere?

    3. Re:Biased summary by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What kind of person bills his grandmother for taking her to the supermarket? Jeezz...

      Repeat after me: "it's against the law to drive people around for money without the proper credentials".

      Your bit about "without proper credentials" makes it sound like all that's needed is for a driver to apply for a license and meet some objective requirements like driving records, vehicle inspections and insurance. If that were the case, you'd have a lot more folks siding with the law.

      Instead, in order to pick up a fare in Amsterdam, you need to meet some other arbitrary requirements, chief among them being a member of a TTO ("Regulated Taxi Organization") with at least 100 cars. And to pick up a fare from a taxi stand in Amsterdam, you need a further license -- one given at the discretion of the municipality for "professionalism".

      So there we have it -- there's a whole set of common sense regulations that are applied and that anyone can meet based on a set of objective criteria. Then there's another set that got "glued on" which makes no sense at all. So ditch the latter, and soon you'll find there's no reason for uber at all.

      [ But hey, at least it's not as bad as the US medallion system ! ]

    4. Re:Biased summary by EdwinV · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's not quite that simple. While the undoubtedly outdated, it doesn't give anybody the right te break it. Also, the anarchy that UberPop proposes would backfire as well, so there's probably some good compromise in there. Of course, this isn't what UberPop wants either because if UberPop drivers lose their advantage, they can't keep up their big price difference and their market would evaporate.

    5. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      While the undoubtedly outdated, it doesn't give anybody the right te break it.

      Are you seriously going to fall back to the appeal to law fallacy? Because that's what it looks like you're implying here.

      On the other hand, if you're just implying that normal people who are found to be breaking the law will likely be punished, then that's obvious, and you needn't state that. But that doesn't make it right.

    6. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remind me, which roads do you own?

    7. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So small ISPs shouldn't bother without "proper credentials" and if those proper credentials are too cumbersome to attain, they just shouldn't bother and let Comcast have a monopoly.

      You are going down a slippery slope of, "government regulation is always good" and you know its not true.

    8. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In a way he is right, we need to end the prohibition of driving people around town...

    9. Re:Biased summary by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why can't I have someone give me pieces of paper when I drive them somewhere?

      Because of laws. Just as you can't sell any service without the proper licence and not being the correct legal entity.

      See it as selling alcohol in a dry county. Or practicing medicine.

      Just because it is your property, it isn't always your rules. It is always "our rules" and the Dutch have tlll now decided against it.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    10. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Governments should stay neutral in markets and should not be skewing markets and picking winners and losers by arresting people...

    11. Re:Biased summary by WoOS · · Score: 4, Informative

      The arbitrary requirements you linked are to be allowed to use buslanes and taxi parking spaces in Amsterdam not to be a taxi driver in the Netherlands (it explicitely says that taxi drivers from outside Amsterdam are still allowed to drive into and out of Amsterdam without the "Taxxxivergunning"). So how about some information on the real requirements? Another page on the same site you linked mentions e.g. the "regels van de Wet Personenvervoer 2000" but my Dutch is not the best.

      At least in Germany the "proper credentials" do include e.g. a special driver license which includes a medical analysis, a police clearance, a check of the driving penalty points registry, check of local knowledge, ... .

    12. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      >100 cars
      typical european corporate protection..

      they go on about USA being evil oligarchial capitalists, but blindly ignore what they have going on.
      and dont even try to whine about the wealthy in USA, i've beem to monaco and luxemburg. your wealthy are just better at hiding it.

    13. Re:Biased summary by Harlequin80 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And frankly I think this is a good thing. Getting in a car with a stranger can be a dangerous act. Knowing that the marked taxi that you are getting in is, most likely, driven by a vetted individual, maintained to at least a minimum standard, fitted with cameras and tracking equipment, all mitigate some of that risk.

      I don't care that you can drive your car on the road. Just because you do that doesn't mean you get to be a taxi. You state that being a member of a TTO of 100 or more is arbitrary. I say that it means the government has a single point of inspection and contact to manage a large number of vehicles. As for the professionalism, it is much harder to define. But if you want to be a busker in Brisbane city for example you need a license. There is absolutely no cost in getting that license but you have to do an audition. Basically it is the council deciding are your professional enough, and again no issue from me.

    14. Re:Biased summary by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      At least in Germany the "proper credentials" do include e.g. a special driver license [wikipedia.org] which includes a medical analysis, a police clearance, a check of the driving penalty points registry, check of local knowledge, ... .

      That would be a license that allows you to transport up to eight passengers commercially. No idea if you need such a license in the UK, never bothered to find out, but my UK car insurance doesn't cover commercial transport of passengers, and an insurance that does is _significantly_ more expensive than the one I have. Which means I would be illegally driving without insurance if I drove people around for money.

    15. Re:Biased summary by lgw · · Score: 1

      Wow, you're really scared of cars. You must be terrified to sacrifice liberty for security so readily.

      This has nothing to do with product quality regulation. Product quality regulation is great and all, and a simple commercial drivers license would cover that. This is artificial scarcity. This is fucking the passengers and small businesses so that the large corporations make money. Why would you support that?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    16. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Governments should stay neutral in markets and should not be skewing markets and picking winners and losers by arresting people...

      Yeah. Because THIS Is the case for not regulating anything. The market of strangers with unknown criminal backgrounds and unknown levels of insurance being allowed to pick you up on the corner, lock you in a car and take you ‘somewhere’.

      There’s way to much regulation in life, but having some government enforced standards HERE is 10000% appropriate. Hey, what happened to your daughter? Oh, she was raped by a guy who picked her up at the airport who affiliated with some website. Yeah, shame. Oh well, at least we’re free!

    17. Re:Biased summary by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      All of them, if we're serious about this democracy game we claim to be playing.

      If you're going to say that the government owns the roads, then the government is separate from and rules over the people. We have a word for that, it's called Feudalism.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    18. Re:Biased summary by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

      Because in Australia, where I live, it isn't about that. I don't know what taxi services are like in the US, but here I wouldn't change them. We have a commercial drivers license and we have taxi licensing and a centralised booking and ordering system which frankly works very well.

      I see no benefits to me to having an unregulated taxi operator working here.

    19. Re:Biased summary by lgw · · Score: 1

      So price doesn't come into it then? Freedom to start your own small business (assuming you have a CDL) doesn't come into it then? What you really want is a government-appointed driver for a government-appointed car to take you to your government-approved destination at the government-approved time? Isn't that what busses are for?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    20. Re:Biased summary by mysidia · · Score: 1

      What kind of person bills his grandmother for taking her to the supermarket? Jeezz...

      Apparently, this is quite common in impoverished areas where the grandmother and lots of relatives may be living in shared space and the grandmother incapable of driving, but she needs to buy groceries for herself, and possibly some children whose care has been foisted on her, BUT everyone else does their own shopping.

      The kids will bill the parents/GPs for everything, and depending on the circumstance, even charge their parents rent, or vice-versa.

      Keep in mind, there are lots of folks in the world who are below the poverty line in the US, and when they can't afford to bear the cost on their own to live by themselves, they have a problem of working out how they will share the costs.

      In all fairness, however... gasoline, wear and tear, time and energy are not free.

      And by charging their grandmother for transport, it will help them be able to afford the iPhone 6+ that they need.

      It's just that often the kids don't seem to be as helpful as they ought to be, in charging essentially what a taxi would cost.

    21. Re:Biased summary by mysidia · · Score: 1

      And frankly I think this is a good thing. Getting in a car with a stranger can be a dangerous act.

      They background check their drivers. IIRC you see a picture of them and a profile before they can even pick you up.

      You know more about these drivers than you would know about the taxi driver who is coming to get you.

    22. Re:Biased summary by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      I obviously see it differently. Yes price is a factor. But Australia went to regulated taxis for safety reasons. Both that safety of the driver and the passenger. Here most taxi drivers are their own business and operate under the banner of the major brands.

      Also I don't see how I am being taken from a government approved start to finish? Unless you mean a street address? I think you are stretching a bow here. Regulation is not inherently bad

    23. Re:Biased summary by Harlequin80 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Uh huh...

      NBC recently tested Uber’s background checks by putting forward reformed criminal Beverly Locke, who bragged about her “three-page rap sheet”, as an UberX driver. Locke, on probation after nearly beating a woman to death, had prior convictions for burglary, drugs and assault, but was hired to be an UberX driver after filling out the online application.

      But this is where regulation comes in. I have no trust in Uber. I mean my should I? There have a vested interest in approving drivers. The regulator however does not. A regulators signoff on a person is worth something to me, seeing their picture on Uber's website is now.

    24. Re:Biased summary by lgw · · Score: 1

      Regulating product quality is fine. Regulating who's allowed to buy and sell (government-granted monopolies) is inherently bad.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    25. Re:Biased summary by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      This isn't a product, it is a service. So ergo the only way to regulate the service is to regulate the person doing the selling.

    26. Re:Biased summary by lgw · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, but you can do that in an open an objective way that anyone with a car can qualify for, if the goal isn't monopoly-granting. If someone who's currently working as a taxi driver can't trivially become a legal Uber driver (assuming his insurance carries over), or just start his own service or whatever -- that is, it's the driver, not the business, who qualifies -- then it's all a sham to stuff corporate pockets.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    27. Re:Biased summary by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

      Repeat after me: "it's against the law to drive people around for money without the proper credentials".

      No society based on consent can *enforce* laws a significant portion of the public disagrees without commensurate erosion of state legitimacy or otherwise moving of needle from "consent" toward "force".

      Either stepped up enforcement actions bring about increased pressure to change the law or otherwise resolve disagreements by amicable compromises such as reduction in licensing burdens or the industry goes underground where state looses visibility and ability to regulate while wasting resources and good will on enforcement actions the public is offended by.

    28. Re:Biased summary by LordLimecat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But that doesn't make it right.

      Its what makes society function. Not every "outdated law" can be compared to the civil rights movement. Some bad laws you live with, because the alternative of everyone determining which laws apply to them is called anarchy, and works well for noone.

    29. Re:Biased summary by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Liberty requires a functioning society and the rule of law to protect it. How bout we start with "its currently illegal, and not causing any gross injustice, so you obey the law"?

      Because otherwise, its not liberty you like, but license.

    30. Re:Biased summary by JonathanR · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But that doesn't make it right.

      Its what makes society function. Not every "outdated law" can be compared to the civil rights movement. Some bad laws you live with, because the alternative of everyone determining which laws apply to them is called anarchy, and works well for noone.

      I think you'll find that most people don't consult "the law" as a benchmark for determining their behavior. Saying that "the law" is what makes "society function" is a classic example of the correlation equals causation logical fallacy. Just because a law prescribes or proscribes a particular behavior, doesn't mean it is the motivating force for undertaking or abstaining from such behavior.

    31. Re:Biased summary by JonathanR · · Score: 1

      I obviously see it differently. Yes price is a factor. But Australia went to regulated taxis for safety reasons. Both that safety of the driver and the passenger. Here most taxi drivers are their own business and operate under the banner of the major brands.

      Also I don't see how I am being taken from a government approved start to finish? Unless you mean a street address? I think you are stretching a bow here. Regulation is not inherently bad

      This is bullshit. Each state racket has their own scheme of licensing, it isn't unified across the continent. As for most taxi drivers owning their own business; you'll more likely find that the licenses are owned by (and traded amongst) a class of wealthy investors who wouldn't see fit to sit their arses in the driver's seat of a cab.

      The drivers are likely to be impoverished newly minted immigrants who get paid a pittance and, typically lacking in local language fluency, get fleeced when legal things go awry.

    32. Re:Biased summary by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      I really don't have any problem with any of the requirements you've listed at the end there, so long as they are administered objectively and impartially. They all seem unobjectionable.

      But providing favorable treatment to some licensed taxi companies over others -- such as the use of taxi stands and spaces -- rubs me as unjustified favoritism.

    33. Re:Biased summary by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      This isn't a product, it is a service. So ergo the only way to regulate the service is to regulate the person doing the selling.

      And you can regulate the person doing the selling and the car he's driving without favoring one person over another or empowering a cartel.

      Falling into the "regulation-bad" "regulation good" dichotomy is really killing us here. Regulating the driver's record, the vehicle and his insurance is eminently sensible. Beyond that, it's just protectionism.

    34. Re:Biased summary by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      What part of "Getting in a car with a stranger can be a dangerous act" did you fail to understand?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    35. Re:Biased summary by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Whereas you've already slid all the way down a slippery slope of your own and now stand hip-deep in False Equivalence.

      Keep up the good work.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    36. Re:Biased summary by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      So why have a drivers license in the first place?

    37. Re:Biased summary by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      I don't speak Dutch, but usually these laws make a distinction between a taxi, that charge in arrears, park at taxi stops etc and private hire services like limos.

      The objective requirements you talk about is all you generally need to provide private hire services.

    38. Re: Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Repeat after me: "it's against the law to be a jew in Europe".

    39. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those roads are build with public money, so everybody pays his share for that. People that are using that roads but do not want to pay for it by avoiding payment they have to do, are strealing from the public... See? No gouvernment involved so far...

    40. Re:Biased summary by LordLimecat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you'll find that most people don't consult "the law" as a benchmark for determining their behavior.

      Right! And a lot of people are part of the reasons we have laws: Because they tend to work towards the breakdown of society, and we need the cudgel of law and order to restrain them.

      That doesnt mean all laws are good or well written, but again, if the benchmark for what is legal is your own preference, you are a parasite on society to that same degree.

    41. Re:Biased summary by LordLimecat · · Score: 0

      When you break the law you incur real costs to society. Either get the law fixed or join another society.

    42. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I guess you could argue that putting two people in one car instead of each person driving his own car is not paying his share of the road.

      However, one car will also put less wear on the road than two and contribute less to pollution and congestion.

    43. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have taxi laws because when the taxis were free for all business the ones driving them screwed up by cheating, robbing, and otherwise behaving badly. So we granted a monopoly of sorts to the drivers who obeyed the rules. We are still not convinced it's a good idea to let anyone drive people around for money. As a single person has had no way to judge the ride beforehand. And some people, say, for example, blacks, might get denied a ride, which our regulated taxis won't do.

    44. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody is regulating that here. They are free to drive a taxi if they do it the same way other taxis do. You also need all kinds of licenses and things to work as a doctor, I don't see anyone complaining "NetMedics.com - order a dude who knows about medicine!" can't compete with doctors legally.

    45. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I am a strong proponent of the free market, I still think it is reasonable that the law requires people transporting other people for money to be insured against their liability towards passengers. Maybe Uberpop could provide their contractors with insurance.

      The other legal requirement is that taxi drivers have passed a taxi driver's exam. While one might argue that this is not very useful, it is hardly fair that all existing taxi drivers would be required to have one whil Uberpop drivers would not need one.

    46. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you don't seem to get is that the public isn't offended by this taxi regulation. The public supports it. So kindly let uberplaah fix your own broken taxi system, from what I've heard I'd support Uber on that side of the ocean. But on this side, at least in my country, the taxi system is working just fine. I like it, Everyone I know likes it. We don't want unregulated ubertaxis here, hence we will report them to the police, who will then fine them.

    47. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He owns them as much as anyone else does, motherfucker. He's paying gasoline taxes just like anyone else.

    48. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The market of strangers with unknown criminal backgrounds and unknown levels of insurance being allowed to pick you up on the corner, lock you in a car and take you ‘somewhere’.

      Uber solved that, you pig-ignorant scaremonger. You have no idea what it takes to get signed up with Uber, do you? Not to mention the fact that if an Uber driver doesn't maintain a high rating, he's OUT. Try getting a cabbie canned for ripping you off.

    49. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? It's a limited resource, and the "favoritism" is that the limited resource is not free. That's an economically sensible decision for dealing with limited resources. There's IIRC also a requirement that you don't have a recent relevant criminal conviction. So no DUI's, defrauding customers or sex crimes, but you can probably get away with financial crimes.

    50. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Taxi laws exist because cab companies figured out how to fuck over the public by getting the government to outlaw their competition. That's what it's ALWAYS been about.

    51. Re:Biased summary by qbast · · Score: 1

      No society based on consent can *enforce* laws a significant portion of Slashdot readers disagrees without commensurate erosion of state legitimacy or otherwise moving of needle from "consent" toward "force".

      FTFY. Slashdot-dwelling Randbots are against it, not Dutch public.

    52. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you want to be a busker in Brisbane city for example you need a license. There is absolutely no cost in getting that license but you have to do an audition. Basically it is the council deciding are your professional enough, and again no issue from me.

      What. The. FUCK?

      You have no objection to the government deciding whether someone can play MUSIC?

      FUCK YOU. Fuck you, and the government you allow to rule you.

    53. Re:Biased summary by kenshin33 · · Score: 1

      here's what might happen to her: http://www.lapresse.ca/actuali... (in french )

    54. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really think an in-house facebook page is better than a government inspector? WHat kind of liberty flavoured Kool Aid are you drinking?

    55. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australia went to regulated taxis for safety reasons.

      BULLSHIT.

    56. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remind me, do you own my car? Whether or not I'm driving myself or not is irrelevant; a car is being driven on the roads either way. Unless you believe that the government should have the power to take away all of your rights just because you want to drive on a public road? That seems to defeat the purpose of public roads to me.

      I'm actually a liberal. I support public health insurance, and numerous other social safety nets. But the incessant need to control absolutely everything is not something I can get behind.

    57. Re:Biased summary by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      Because of laws.

      No one knew that. +5 Insightful. People who talk about how the law should be clearly need to be told what the law is.

      I don't see the problem in this case. Someone has their drivers license, they pay taxes, and all they're doing is using a car they already own to drive someone around in exchange for a bit of cash. They're not performing complex medical procedures on someone. Laws against alcohol and drugs are often complete nonsense.

      Just because it is your property, it isn't always your rules.

      Obviously. Hence, this story. How is this insightful? No one is really debating what the law is, but how it should be.

    58. Re:Biased summary by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      Completely different situation from driving a car. But hey, tell all those doctors that their jobs are as easy as driving a car.

    59. Re:Biased summary by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      Liberty requires a functioning society and the rule of law to protect it.

      I guarantee that this will not cause society to collapse. I also guarantee that blindly enforcing the law usually doesn't lead to good results.

    60. Re:Biased summary by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      But if you want to be a busker in Brisbane city for example you need a license. There is absolutely no cost in getting that license but you have to do an audition. Basically it is the council deciding are your professional enough, and again no issue from me.

      You like vague, subjective rules that could change from person to person, all so people can be allowed to play music? Keep that authoritarian garbage away from me.

    61. Re:Biased summary by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      if the benchmark for what is legal is your own preference, you are a parasite on society to that same degree.

      I'm curious - does that apply to marijuana users? If so, how was illegal marijuana use fundamentally different than this?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    62. Re:Biased summary by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously going to fall back to the appeal to law fallacy? Because that's what it looks like you're implying here.

      "Appeal to law fallacy"? These drivers fought the law, and the law won :-)

    63. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      driven by a vetted individual

      Like this guy http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O...

    64. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Knowing that the marked taxi that you are getting in is, most likely, driven by a vetted individual ...

      Well that made a smile. A dry sardonic grin to be precise. I come from the Netherlands and there are more taxi drivers here with a lengthy criminal record than there are without one.

    65. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are free to drive a taxi if they do it the same way other taxis do.

      That's like saying of black slaves in the American south prior to the Emancipation "they're free to not be slaves if they'd just be white." You don't just become a taxi driver. They are artificially scare, so new taxi drivers are an impossibility.

    66. Re:Biased summary by rvw · · Score: 1

      if the benchmark for what is legal is your own preference, you are a parasite on society to that same degree.

      I'm curious - does that apply to marijuana users? If so, how was illegal marijuana use fundamentally different than this?

      Good point! In fact you prove exactly the opposite of what you want. Marijuana sale is somehow legalized in the Netherlands. OK, it's a bad law, as it legalizes only selling to customers. The production is still illegal, selling to the shops is illegal, so this is really stupid. But from the customer side it is legal. That's what makes it good.

      Uber is not legal, because it is not good for the customer. It may be cheap, and as long as all is good and well I guess everyone is happy. But then there is an accident and the driver is not insured. What then? Who will pay? The Dutch state probably, so the tax payer. We don't want that.

      TCA and taxi drivers in Amsterdam may have a bad reputation, but for the rest of the Netherlands this is not the case. Most taxis are really OK, in good state, and drivers are OK as well. I've used many taxis - not in Amsterdam though - and all were OK.

    67. Re:Biased summary by lgw · · Score: 1

      The part where only a large corporation should be allowed to profit from it? Where does the "must be part of a small wealth clique" come in to public safety again?

      Product quality regulations good. Regulations establishing monopolies bad. It's not a difficult concept.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    68. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EXCEPT, approx 99% of those 'bad' laws were NOT simply random acts of stupidity, nor outdated, or whatever; there were/are PURPOSEFULLY enacted at the behest of the 1% who control The System to fleece, punish or otherwise limit the freedoms of us 99%...
      GIVEN an (at least) two-tiered (in)justice system, i have close to ZERO respect for any/all laws at this time... i do what is 'right', NOT BECAUSE of shitty laws, but because MY moral code is FAR HIGHER than any laws 'we' (sic, read 1%) enact...
      further, i simply refuse to believe all the bs about 'certified drivers' blah blah blah... when senile granny drives the grandmonsters out to the playground, she is probably more dangerous (on average) than any thousand uber type drivers, yet we don't bat an eyelash...
      BUT let an entrenched industry get a teeny tiny bit of competition (heh, isn't THAT what so-called free-market capitalism is ALL about ? ? ? *snicker*), and suddenly it is the end of western civilization that people are going to be driven around by 'uncertified' drivers...
      *yawn*

    69. Re: Biased summary by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      Nobody is stopping you, you just can't charge anyone for it.

      --
      This is blinging
    70. Re: Biased summary by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      They are not hiding it, yours is just more tacky.

      --
      This is blinging
    71. Re:Biased summary by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Funny then that the rules for driving someone around in a car are higher than flying someone in a plane. You can fly someone in a plane for money and not have a "commercial pilot license". But driving someone around, charging them gas money is illegal without complete and full commercial licensing? Seems silly and oppressive.

      What's next? If a hitchhiker offers you $5 for gas when you pick him up, it's a felony to take it?

    72. Re:Biased summary by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      I feel like we're not communicating. Im explaining a general principle ("breaking laws = furthering the cause of anarchy") and you're asking me about a particular law that you dont like. Change the law, or obey it, or work towards the breakdown of law and order.

      The "exceptions" come when the damage caused by obeying the law is worse than the damage done to the functioning of society (ie, Jim Crow laws). Breaking said laws may still be a negative factor for society, but it is a much greater net positive. This isnt the case with marijuana laws.

    73. Re:Biased summary by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Theres never one thing that causes society to collapse. Its an array of factors, and the breakdown of law and order is one of them. Breaking laws contributes to that; maybe it will never cause society to breakdown, maybe it will-- but you're acting as a tumor on society when you do break those laws.

    74. Re:Biased summary by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      Theres never one thing that causes society to collapse. Its an array of factors, and the breakdown of law and order is one of them.

      Well, good thing no one's suggesting complete anarchy, then. You have nothing to worry about.

      but you're acting as a tumor on society when you do break those laws.

      Depends entirely on the law.

    75. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When govts pass laws that the majority do not support, it is not the majority that is incurring "costs to society", it is the govt.

    76. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of "its up to people to decide for themselves who the fuck they want to get in a car with" do you not understand?

    77. Re:Biased summary by Optali · · Score: 1

      Just imagine the situation in stations and airports. It is bad right now, everywhere, in every country. Taxi Mafia are global. Now change the taxis for normal drivers... no matter if you can call them via an app or not... it will be total chaos. and this will mean that normal people who drive themselves will suffer the consequences of that, including economical ones with Uberpoppers just topping anywhere they want and releasing passengers everywhere and there would of course be wars and Mafia, you doubt it?

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    78. Re:Biased summary by Optali · · Score: 1

      Excellent point. I don think the common car insurance will cover accidents in these situations, and neither will the company Uberpop do.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    79. Re:Biased summary by Optali · · Score: 1

      Well, basically, because you are using the roads that belong to others and these others want to go to the places they are given pieces of paper for going too, or they want to go to places to give pieces of paper to others and you and a few others may be in the way. And the couple of millions of others that are on the road wiht their properties at the same time that you are trying to enforce your rules will not feel very happy about that.

      And you may have an accident with your property while enforcing your rules and the insurance company will not give you any pieces of paper, specially not if something happened to the person who wanted to give pieces of paper to you.. and you may end up in a big house with bars on the doors and windows and you may end up being the property of somebody else and subject to his rules ;)

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    80. Re:Biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just signed with them!!! I have no driving licence, LOL

    81. Re:Biased summary by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You really don't see the bigger picture here, do you?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    82. Re:Biased summary by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Yes the laws are different State to State. Australia is a federation. And seriously if you are talking about 1 man band taxi company what does it matter that you need a different license in Queensland and NSW? It's not like you might decide, hmmm actually today I think I will do a Sydney day and tomorrow a Brisbane one.

      Taxi licenses are expensive, but they are also an asset. They are not something that expires. Many taxi drivers purchase the license knowing that it is expensive but that they can work to pay down the debt associated with it and have a sizeable capital asset in the future. It is no different to an investment property. Also the license is for a vehicle and you see a number of trusts holding the license with multiple drivers working together.

    83. Re:Biased summary by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      Response to the sig line: Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.

      Fight for me? I'd be surprised and pleased if they quit fighting *me*.

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    84. Re:Biased summary by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      At least in Germany the "proper credentials" do include e.g. a special driver license [wikipedia.org] which includes a medical analysis, a police clearance, a check of the driving penalty points registry, check of local knowledge, ... .

      The worst taxi I ran across was in Germany. The taxi driver was second in the rank, but had a larger van for our 4 people plus gear, so we picked it. Then someone else came out of the train station. He started yelling loudly for me to get my stuff out of his taxi. I did. The people who came out walked off after he yelled at them as well. We had walked up to the first taxi and were seeing how we'd get everything in, when he started screaming at the first taxi driver for stealing his fare and yelled at me to get back in his taxi. We picked up our stuff and walked to the street and hailed a taxi there.

      I'm not sure what the rules are, but I was in fear of my safety with him screaming at me. Frankfurt train station.

    85. Re:Biased summary by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So it should be illegal to pick up hitchhikers? Illegal to let them pay for fuel? Illegal to let them pay more for thanks? Where do you draw the line?

    86. Re:Biased summary by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      As others point out, in the US, the regulations aren't on the drivers (the seller) but on the business owner. That's a different thing. The driver is minimally held to a higher standard. And Uber and others aren't complaining about that. But that the car owner must be on an approved list for the car to be used as a taxi is what the objection is to.

    87. Re:Biased summary by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      FTFY. Slashdot-dwelling Randbots are against it, not Dutch public.

      What is the basis? How do you know this?

    88. Re:Biased summary by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Not at all. In Queensland it is perfectly legal to pickup hitchhikers. HOWEVER, the police strongly advise against the practice (both picking up and being a hitch hiker) as it is a risky practice - see Ivan Milat - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      However hitching a ride from an unmarked vehicle should not be considered the same as ordering a taxi. The taxi is the vetted service where the expectation is that the driver is not a danger. The problem with Uber is that there is no vetting process that compares to a regulators process (at least here in Australia) so you lose that certainty. That certainty costs money to provide, so if you want to operate as a taxi service you must go through the regulated process to become a taxi driver and you must wear those costs.

      No one is saying you can't hitch hike, or car pool or anything like that. What is being objected to is claiming to be a taxi service without going through the licensing and audit process of genuine taxis.

    89. Re:Biased summary by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      No I have absolutely NO problem with them limiting the number of people who can busk in the main street of Brisbane city. The ABSOLUTE last thing I want is to have a busker ever 2 meters trying to drown out the person next to them.

      There is NOTHING stopping you from playing music in your own home or infact in 99% of the public spaces. There is a restriction on the number of people that can "play music hoping to be paid" in the dead centre of the city.

    90. Re:Biased summary by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      To be allowed to play music for money in the centre of the city. Yes. It only applies to Queen Street Mall, Redacliff Place and King George Square. These are pedestrianised areas set up as commercial districts. Outside of those areas you do not require a permit. Given that the permit is free and available to all I have no problems with it what so ever.

    91. Re:Biased summary by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      However hitching a ride from an unmarked vehicle should not be considered the same as ordering a taxi. The taxi is the vetted service where the expectation is that the driver is not a danger.

      So hitchhiking is legal, as is picking up a hitchhiker, and the hitchhiker has no more or less protections than a Uber user. But you want Uber illegal and hitchhiking legal?

      I'm so confused.

      No one is saying you can't hitch hike, or car pool or anything like that. What is being objected to is claiming to be a taxi service without going through the licensing and audit process of genuine taxis.

      Oh, so if they call themselves a paid hitchhiking service, then you'd have no issue with it. And it's "taxi" you object to, not the service. That doesn't agree with what you've complained about, where you talk about "safety" and such, and never saying "it's a valid service, but not a taxi". What are the requirements for "private car" services where you are? In NYC, they are roughly the same as Uber applies. And that's true in many places. Uber is a private car service, where you order the car over the Internet, not the phone. And it meets most of the private car service requirements, but not always all of them.

      Seems their stance is they won't meet the requirements for any specific type of service until the legality is settled. Otherwise, there's too much of a risk of a moving target.

    92. Re:Biased summary by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      I have no objection to Uber or the service in principal. My objection is that they are not complying with the law, at all. The requirements for a private car service here are stricter then what uber work to. You require a different license, insurance, registration and permit. Should Uber drivers operate the same as private car services do here and follow the same laws I have ABSOLUTELY no issue with them. Their non compliance with the law is the reason they are a safety risk.

      In Australia private car companies are not allowed to do street pickups, the fee must be agreed in advance, they must have Limo plates, the driver must be a certified driver (this is the same level of background and skills check as a taxi driver) their state issued ID must be on display at all times. But the biggest thing is that they MUST have a Limousine license and this is where Uber is going "nah why should I".

      Basically my issue is that Uber does not comply with even the more lax rules surrounding private hire vehicles, let alone the more stringent ones surrounding taxis. Also the rules haven't changed in years around what qualifies as a private hire vehicle, uber are just saying "fuckit" we want to do it so we will. This has nothing to do with wanting the legality settled and everything to do with try to bum rush an industry and a regulator.

      Also as for the term Taxi it is exactly the same as I would have an issue in you calling yourself an engineer if you did not hold an engineering qualification, or calling yourself a doctor without being certified. I know this is different between the USA and Aus but here Engineer is what is called a protected term, similar to Dietician for example. You can call yourself a Nutritionist (which isn't) here and it has absolutely no meaning, you cannot however call yourself a Dietician without certification. Calling yourself a Taxi service has specific meanings which Uber do not meet.

       

    93. Re:Biased summary by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The requirements for a private car service here are stricter then what uber work to. You require a different license, insurance, registration and permit.

      Not everywhere. And they do meet all the requirements for a hitchhiking service. And nobody has found them to be otherwise in court, or by law. Just by assertion (usually by competitors).

      Also as for the term Taxi it is exactly the same as I would have an issue in you calling yourself an engineer if you did not hold an engineering qualification, or calling yourself a doctor without being certified. I know this is different between the USA and Aus but here Engineer is what is called a protected term, similar to Dietician for example. You can call yourself a Nutritionist (which isn't) here and it has absolutely no meaning, you cannot however call yourself a Dietician without certification. Calling yourself a Taxi service has specific meanings which Uber do not meet.

      They don't call themselves a taxi service. You are doing that, and their "enemies" are doing that. Set them at the highest legal requirement, without regard to what they do or how they operate. If they are ruled legally a hitchhiker service, they meet all the requirements. If they are a private car service, you don't need background checks on the drivers.

      And you don't have "network engineers" in Australia? There are lots of engineer jobs on Seek that don't indicate any professional qualifications needed, mainly in IT. So I don't think "engineer" is as protected as you assert either.

    94. Re:Biased summary by weweedmaniii · · Score: 1

      At least in the US you are correct. There was a story recently about a guy working a night job as a pizza delivery guy to make some extra money. He had a wreck, the insurance company found out the accident happened while he was delivering pizzas and immediately cancelled his policy for using his personal auto for commercial purposes. So since he was cancelled any company he tried to get insurance with now puts him into the "high risk pool" for 3-5 years, effectively doubling his premiums.

      --
      "If stupid things work...then they are not stupid."
    95. Re:Biased summary by weweedmaniii · · Score: 1

      You are correct. In my town ALL taxi companies are owned by one group. There are about a dozen cab companies, all different names all different numbers. They all go to the same switchboard in the same office. Oh, to make it look good there is a "taxi board" made up of representatives from all the different companies who "approve" new taxi companies coming into the community, and each company has a different post office box, but all the taxis are repaired in the same garage, and all the reps work in the same office. The local government knows it and doesn't care. It's also convenient when a driver acts badly and the company gets sued. It limits the damage to that little piece of the pie. A few companies have gone "bankrupt" over lawsuits, the drivers for that "company" just borrow a different cab until their cab has the name of another company on the side. I know all this because a friend worked for a private ambulance service owned by the same company (medicare/insurance money$$$) and a few acquaintances over the years who were cabbies.

      --
      "If stupid things work...then they are not stupid."
    96. Re:Biased summary by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      Can they even define "professional" in a objective, scientific way, or is it just solely up to them?

    97. Re:Biased summary by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      The audition is a 5 minute performance in front of a panel of 5 people. 1 from council, 1 from Brisbane Marketing (it is essentially the entity that does all the promotions on behalf of the businesses in the area), 1 from Performing Arts Queensland, and 2 from the Queensland Conservatory of Music. Personally I think it is a pretty good selection panel for the purpose.

      Anyway, can you ever judge music in an objective, scientific way?

    98. Re:Biased summary by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      There can be no argument that they are working exactly as a private hire car does at the absolute minimum. You are organising a driver to transport you from location a to location b for a fee. Only in the most twisted world could you argue that is hitch hiking.

    99. Re:Biased summary by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      Anyway, can you ever judge music in an objective, scientific way?

      Nope, and that's precisely the problem.

    100. Re:Biased summary by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      A hitch hiker "hails" a car, and negotiates terms. Yet, no restrictions exist on the drivers that pick them up. You are demanding different rules for different drivers, without defining the differentiators. What if someone uses Tinder to find a ride? Would that make the driver a hire driver? How about the ride shares from school to home (common with state schools and people that live far from it looking for rides home on holidays)? They are usually paid, and pre-arranged, but from what I can tell, operate under hitchhiker rules.

      Worry less about what you want Uber to do, and more about how many classes of driver you want, and where the lines should be separating them. You stick to bashing Uber, without comparison to others. It makes you look obsessed and very biased.

  4. Well by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't trust the company to have my back. I may be a bit gullible and trusting, but I know enough to know that Corporate America will fry you in the name of money or image perception.

    1. Re:Well by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Image perception is the reason you may be able to trust them. They'll fail in all regulated markets if their attitude is "if you get fined, too bad"

  5. Illegal taxis have always been there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because you order through an app doesn't make it any different than all the other illegal taxis that have always been there. Not having to bother about license, insurance, knowledge and driver background checks makes you competitive, as all black market alternatives.

  6. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Netherlands has one of the highest quality of life ratings in the EU, even Forbes agrees with that but tacks on economic opportunity, and a fully funded pension system:
    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/12/business/no-smoke-no-mirrors-the-dutch-pension-plan.html

    I guess thinking long term and discussing policies makes society more enjoyable than participating in a race to the bottom Just because uber wants to have workers with no risk/employment obligations...

  7. Bullying by ZipK · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While similar bullying...

    Enforcing laws is bullying?

    1. Re:Bullying by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Depends entirely on the law.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Bullying by flopsquad · · Score: 1

      Oftentimes in history, yes it has been. TFA is short on details, so it's hard to say if that's the case here. Is it selective enforcement? An anti-Uber sting while other unlicensed cabs get a pass? How did the authorities nab these specific drivers? And regardless of the answer to any of those questions, charging the drivers a fine equal to the cost of a small/used car could be argued to be bullying right on its face.

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
    3. Re:Bullying by truedfx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Back in August, the ILT (the responsible party) had already been sending out warnings to drivers that what they were doing was illegal and that they could be fined up to EUR 4200. Source (in Dutch). If it has taken more than a month for them to actually fine anyone, I'd say they've been very lenient, at least based on the current laws.

    4. Re:Bullying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it doesn't, bullying in terms of laws is pretty much completely subjective. Anybody that's capable of operating a motor vehicle can apply for the appropriate license if they follow the same rules as everybody else.

      People are referring to it as bullying because they would prefer to live in anarchy where the government doesn't regulate anything.

    5. Re: Bullying by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      For a lot more examples of this, look up "Hollywood" and "rights holders".

    6. Re:Bullying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Dutch newspapers are much more complete.

      Other non-compliant drivers are also fined & enforced, not only Uber.
      As to how they were caught. Undercover agents requesting a ride with the app.

      The article also misses the progression of the penal system

      1st fine, 2nd fine are in the article (4500 euro, 10000 euro) .
      3+ is different though, impounding and forfeiting your vehicle. I wonder if Uber will compensate those as well.

    7. Re:Bullying by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't

      Yes, whether or not enforcing a law is bullying does depend entirely on the law. Some laws are unjust laws that were made to bully/oppress certain people (perhaps minorities). Whether that applies in this specific case is irrelevant.

      People are referring to it as bullying because they would prefer to live in anarchy where the government doesn't regulate anything.

      Straw man.

  8. Wow, I gotta warn a friend of mine by Opportunist · · Score: 0

    He borrows my car once a month to drive his grandma to do her monthly shopping and she usually gives him some money. More for him being her grandson than being her driver, but still.

    And I could be in for facilitating that crime!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Wow, I gotta warn a friend of mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He borrows my car once a month to drive his grandma to do her monthly shopping and she usually gives him some money. More for him being her grandson than being her driver, but still.

      And I could be in for facilitating that crime!

      Yeah, all of these Uberpop drivers are just grandsons driving grandma to shopping, and are not really requiring their rides to pay... I don't understand how using asinine examples like this helps a discussion on unlicensed taxis. Even if you get your argument accepted, it won't help Uberpop at all.

    2. Re:Wow, I gotta warn a friend of mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand how using asinine examples like this helps a discussion

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

      He's basically saying he doesn't have an argument at all.

    3. Re:Wow, I gotta warn a friend of mine by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      He borrows my car once a month to drive his grandma to do her monthly shopping and she usually gives him some money.

      I hope you checked that your insurance covers this. Would be sad if grandma is involved in an accident and no insurance covers the cost. It might mean financial ruin for your friend and his grandma.

  9. Won't happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hoping they won't ever be caught carrying their grandmother to the supermarket

    How many uber drivers would ever take a short run like that, except maybe with quadruple surge pricing? Ain't worth their time.

  10. op is uber agitprop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who posted this? An investor in Uber?? I applaud the Dutch government for taking action against schemes like Uber and Airbnb which are trying to profit by pitting the rest of us against each other in a battle-royale "race to the bottom." There is such a thing as too much competition, too much "free market." People need to be able to earn a decent living, and with unskilled jobs this requires wage controls and price controls. Free markets are only optimal for exploiting resources (such as pulling oil out of the ground); they are not optimal for environmental sustainability or maximizing quality of life.

    1. Re:op is uber agitprop by russotto · · Score: 1

      Says the AC who bribed his way to a hack license.

    2. Re:op is uber agitprop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or more likely is just an AC. These regulations exist for a reason, if there are issues with the regulations, then they should be fixed.

      The last thing I would want when getting into a cab is to have somebody that's not licensed, regulated or properly ensured driving me around.

    3. Re:op is uber agitprop by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Free markets are only optimal for exploiting resources...

      That's a very astute observation, OTOH; OPEC is not a free market, it's a cartel. A free market is one where anyone is free to participate, it has nothing to do with the quantity or quality of regulation.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:op is uber agitprop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free markets are only optimal for exploiting resources...

      That's a very astute observation, OTOH; OPEC is not a free market, it's a cartel. A free market is one where anyone is free to participate, it has nothing to do with the quantity or quality of regulation.

      A free market also requires frictionless entry and exit to a marketplace, as in if I want to build a $400,000,000.00 chip fab of refinery, I have a reasonable expectation that I can sell it for $400M the next to someone else if I change my mind. Kind of a big thing.

  11. Getting tired of this shit by gman003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The level of astroturfing for Uber is getting ridiculous. I was sympathetic at first, because I can see how the existing monopolies are bad, but:
    a) They aren't even trying to change the laws, they're just ignoring them. There are some laws that are so bad civil disobedience is a valid tactic. This is not one of those laws, and even then, when you do civil disobedience you're supposed to *accept* the legal punishment, because you *did* break the law.
    b) They're astroturfing like crazy to frame the debate as "the common man versus the big bad taxi monopolies" when it's really "big international web-based corporation versus big local corporations". I don't care how many times you make sockpuppet comments about it, nobody's getting arrested for driving their grandma to the grocery store. People are getting arrested for running unlicensed taxicabs.

    Licensing taxis is a good thing. The current laws may be overly-restrictive to protect existing businesses, but the spirit of the law is good. Uber? You're not. Any sympathy I once had is gone, purely because of your PR tactics. I was already unlikely to be a customer (I *have* my own car), but now I'm definitely not going to.

    1. Re:Getting tired of this shit by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the insightful comment. I had no opinion on the matter (and no mod point, alas!), but you've
      shed some light on it, at least. And prodded me to read up on Uber a bit, and what they're up to. Thank you.

    2. Re:Getting tired of this shit by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree more. There is nothing inherently good about Uber and some of their tactics are down right scummy.

      Uber has been issued a cease and desist here in Brisbane, will be an interesting one to watch as taxis here is Australia are pretty damn good. They are far from perfect of course but they are clean, and reasonably timely. The real issue with them is the system creaks under the load on a Friday and Saturday night.

    3. Re:Getting tired of this shit by flopsquad · · Score: 1

      Flop's 2nd Law: Never ascribe to astroturfing what can be adequately explained by strongly opinionated commenters.

      Seriously, a lot of people (here on /. especially) believe in the idea of companies like Uber and Lyft, and are solidly against the many local protection rackets for taxi business. Many commenters are also US based and don't get the European viewpoint. Some also have an uncontrollable faux-libertarian vomit reflex whenever regulations of any kind are mentioned.

      I own a car but still use Uber pretty frequently. I don't have any special connection to, or love for, the corporate entity that is Uber. In fact, if some of the nasty dial-and-ditch tactics Lyft alleges are true, that's pretty sleazy of Uber. But I've yet to hear a well-reasoned objection to the Uber/Lyft/rideshare model that isn't better answered by free markets and lower regulatory barriers to entry. And I am certainly not allergic to regulation as a matter of principle.

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
    4. Re: Getting tired of this shit by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I wish Silicon Valley would start developing market schemes like this for the medical field. How often do I take cabs? Now how often do I stuff the pockets of the Pharma monopoly?

    5. Re:Getting tired of this shit by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      What laws have they broken in Amsterdam? Do you know? The article doesn't seem to know either. Limousines seem to operate fine in Amsterdam. Limousines are just not allowed to use the taxi stands. Why is Uber not allowed to operate the same way as limousines?

    6. Re:Getting tired of this shit by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > "but the spirit of the law is good."

      This is where I have to disagree. "Well-meaning" is the memetic addition to justify the same ol' same ol' corruption, but in a democracy.

      The system is designed to be twisted and perverted, running undercover of "hey, they mean well!"

      I do not extend to them the benefit of the doubt, and the remediation to fix the law (often created not by legislators but by regulatory agencies even more slow to respond, and sufferin regulatory capture) is completely inadequate and overwhelmed by the rent seeking.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    7. Re:Getting tired of this shit by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      I don't care how many times you make sockpuppet comments about it, nobody's getting arrested for driving their grandma to the grocery store. People are getting arrested for running unlicensed taxicabs.

      It is not that simple in today's mobile world and the sharing economy.

      Tell me along where in this strata of events does driving in your car become illegal, because it seems to be an awfully fuzzy line to me

      • I agree to drive you to the airpot and we're close friends
      • I agree to drive you to the airport and we're work colleagues
      • I agree to drive you to the airport and although I don't know you personally my friend introduced us and I trust him
      • I agree to drive you to the airport and although I don't know you personally my friend introduced us and I trust him, and you agreed to reimburse me for my gas money and time
      • All of the above, except instead of my friend it is an application on my phone.
        • See the point here? Uber IS NOT RUNNING A TAXI SERVICE. All they are doing is providing an app that connects two parties, one of whom needs a ride and the other who doesn't mind giving a ride. So how do you make this illegal?

    8. Re:Getting tired of this shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell me along where in this strata of events does driving in your car become illegal, because it seems to be an awfully fuzzy line to me

              I agree to drive you to the airpot and we're close friends
              I agree to drive you to the airport and we're work colleagues
              I agree to drive you to the airport and although I don't know you personally my friend introduced us and I trust him
              I agree to drive you to the airport and although I don't know you personally my friend introduced us and I trust him, and you agreed to reimburse me for my gas money and time
              All of the above, except instead of my friend it is an application on my phone.

    9. Re:Getting tired of this shit by ZipK · · Score: 1

      All they are doing is providing an app that connects two parties, one of whom needs a ride and the other who doesn't mind giving a ride.

      Selling a ride, not giving a ride.

    10. Re:Getting tired of this shit by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      Some people have also been living in a city and needing the occasional hired ride since before Uber and Lyft were around and remember well just how damned awful the medallioned taxis are. Seriously... screw the taxis. A pox upon their houses and I hope Uber or Lyft or Sidecar or whoever really does run them out of business entirely. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

      Yeah, I'm opposed to the laws that prop up the legacy taxi companies; but I've no love for the libertarian fringe. The ride-share companies simply provide such a vastly superior service that I want them to win.

      I own a car too. And I usually use Uber or Lyft to get home so I can drink when I go out for a night on the town. And the regular taxis are just so bloody terrible that if the ride-sharing services DO lose the war and go out of business, I'll go back to the tedium of waiting for and navigating MUNI's Owl schedule to get home in the wee hours of the morning before I ever get in a cab again.

      And yeah... User's tactics against Lyft are kind of scummy. And I do wish they'd, instead, focus on putting a few more nails into the coffins of the taxis. But Uber's tactics are significantly less scummy than the taxi industry's and, for that matter, the actual cabs themselves. So anything that strengthens Uber is still a win in my book.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    11. Re:Getting tired of this shit by gman003 · · Score: 2

      The line is when the payment goes from "covering expenses" to "generating profit".

    12. Re:Getting tired of this shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is once they win, there will no longer be any laws preventing them from becoming worse than the current taxis. Races to the bottom destroys the quality in every industry it happens in.

    13. Re:Getting tired of this shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the insightful comment. I had no opinion on the matter (and no mod point, alas!), but you've

      shed some light on it, at least. And prodded me to read up on Uber a bit, and what they're up to. Thank you.

      In tat case, imagine you live in a bad neighborhood and need a cab to get home. The guy on the street who picks you up HAS to drive you there - it's part of the laws that allow him to charge for his service as a driver. Sure, if you are black you still might not get them to stop, but once they do they have to take you there.

      Once Uber/Lyft run the "roaming" cabs out of business by skimming there most profitable customers, you're not getting a ride home.

      It's the same thing FedEx/UPS are doing to the USPS - leaving the last mile (60 miles in rural areas) to the USPS who is legally obligated to deliver there 5/6 days a week. That's our 8% approval rating Congress doing that though, not some (lone) wanna be billionaire rent seeker.

    14. Re: Getting tired of this shit by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      Except this is not a race to the bottom. The ride share services are offering a higher quality product at, at least in the case of Uber, a premium price. It's the cabbies who are, and have been for many years, the bottom of the barrel.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    15. Re:Getting tired of this shit by operator_error · · Score: 1

      Uber said it will pay all fines forced upon its drivers by the authorities. Meanwhile the government said it will greatly increase the fines for multiple offenses by these same drivers, should they occur. I am with the government here, and welcome such regulation, as opposed to Uber's 'rating system' for driver's, or whatever Uber calls it.

      Full disclosure, I'm a bicyclist and a pedestrian, and I feel threatened lately with the increase of in-car gizmos, and I believe only government will help people like me, except when it doesn't.

    16. Re:Getting tired of this shit by tgv · · Score: 1

      You are completely right. I came here to say something to similar effect. The "share economy" is just shifting the employer's risk from employer to employee, almost returning labor to hour or piece wages. It's not sharing, it's another way of getting profit. So if Uber wants to sell taxi rides, they can get a license like everybody else.

    17. Re:Getting tired of this shit by ruir · · Score: 1

      I have a simple solution to the fake calls tactics against Lyft. A money deposit that can be deducted on your payments when using the service. You dont show up for the service requested, thats 5 euros out of your account. Or if that seems dacronian, just give priority to callers paying you with their virtual "wallet" on your service, rather than new callers.

    18. Re: Getting tired of this shit by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      There's nothing requiring you to go to registered doctors or official hospitals.

      When getting sick, why don't you fly over to Africa (the plane tickets cost you about as much as a night in hospital in the US), and ask some witch doctor to treat you (his fees for a full treatment may be less than what your regular doctor will charge you for a consult)? Maybe it's because you hope to get a proper treatment at your registered doctor, who you know has finished a rigorous training, and that the hospitals you're treated are maintained to high standards?

      There are good reasons for the licensing and registration systems that are in place for not only medical personnel, but also commercial transport services such as taxis. There may be room for improvement on the existing systems, but abolishing is certainly not going to be an improvement.

    19. Re:Getting tired of this shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a stupid range of arguments...

      Look - when someone takes an car by paying for it, and the driver and yourself are no friends or close related, it's simply work for the driver and you are an consumer. Blurring the line does not make that different.

      If I pay for a ride I want to be sure the driver has at least been background-checked, has at least an insurance that covers commercial use, has an car that's safe and checked, and has an licence and pay taxes like should be done..

      That stupid "grandma" argument has been taken too far, by using this range of arguments..

      I do not want to step into an taxi that is driven by an dangerous criminal, is not insured at all, is dangerous on the road by mechanical failures, and has no point where you can complain, because it's nowhere registered because it's ommiting an commercial licence..

      See - that was not difficult at all...

    20. Re:Getting tired of this shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is once they win, there will no longer be any laws preventing them from becoming worse than the current taxis.

      The bad thing about the current taxis is the law enforced lack of competition. So, you're basically saying that once they win - by getting rid of those law - they will become just as bad - i.e. having the same law enacted again.

      You don't think the politicians are going to say "wait what? Make up your mind"?

      Oh sorry, you're right. I don't have that much faith in politicians either.

    21. Re:Getting tired of this shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As soon as you're getting reimbursed for more than the gas money. If he's paying you for your time, it's a job and should be regulated as such.

    22. Re:Getting tired of this shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see if that happens. That could turn the offense from a mere license violation into criminal conspiracy, and at that point we're talking jail terms. In theory, that is, in practice it would be 40 hours of community service. But that still would shut down all of Uber in the Netherlands, including Uber Black. Also, there's a good chance the next convistions - even for other drivers - will immediately go up to 40K ER / 50K USD as it's no longer a first offense for Uber. It will be interesting to see how this works out, as the taxi industry isn't that beloved. Uber really is failing to lobby properly. They should be able to get the law reforms they want, and that's easier if done without being convicted first.

    23. Re:Getting tired of this shit by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      when you do civil disobedience you're supposed to *accept* the legal punishment, because you *did* break the law.

      So you feel that Snowden should have faced trial and risked being destroyed by our unjustice system merely because he broke a law? I mean, you're speaking in general about civil disobedience, here.

      I see no reason that civil disobedience automatically means you should be punished. There is no moral reason that you should be punished for breaking an unjust law. It might help sometimes, but don't apply some variation of a No True Scotsman and say that all civil disobedience must result in punishment; nothing is that black and white.

    24. Re:Getting tired of this shit by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      All of the above, except instead of my friend it is an application on my phone.

      At that point, because its no longer an agreement between friends.

      How about this appropriate analogy?

      I cook a meal.
      I cook a meal and invite you over to eat it with me as a date.
      I cook a meal, invite you over to eat it with me as a work thing.
      I cook a meal, invite my friend and my friend invites you to go in his stead.
      I cook a meal, invite my friend and my friend invites you to go in his stead, and you offer to reimburse me.
      You come to my place uninvited and I don't know you, I cook you a meal, you reimburse me and leave. I wouldn't have cooked the meal and let you eat it unless you reimbursed me.
      All of the above, except via an app.

      Commonly, the second to last stage is called a "restaurant" and the last stage is called a "takeout service". As is what you describing is commonly called a "taxi service".

    25. Re:Getting tired of this shit by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      See the point here? Uber IS NOT RUNNING A TAXI SERVICE. All they are doing is providing an app that connects two parties, one of whom needs a ride and the other who doesn't mind giving a ride. So how do you make this illegal?

      Germany has the nice law principle that it doesn't matter how you dress it up and what you put into your contracts, what matters is what actually happens. So it's clearly a taxi service.

    26. Re: Getting tired of this shit by dave420 · · Score: 1

      In the US, maybe. In Western Europe, no way. The worst taxis I've taken were in the US, and the best were in the EU. I wish Uber all the luck in the world in the US, and absolutely none in Europe.

    27. Re:Getting tired of this shit by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You missed the last one:

      I agree to drive you to the airport and although I don't know you personally my friend introduced us and I trust him, and you agree to reimburse me and pay me a profit for the journey.

      That's where it becomes illegal. Right there. That precise line. The one you conveniently missed out. Weird, huh?

    28. Re:Getting tired of this shit by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      But that is not how Uber works. You are paying the driver, not Uber. Uber is just acting as a payment processor, like Paypal, and they take a commission. Uber is strucutred this way very specifically to avoid an employer/employee or even a contractor relationship.

    29. Re:Getting tired of this shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your point being? I don't see us talking in a story about how uber was arrested and fined, I see us talking in a story about how uber drivers were arrested and fined.

    30. Re:Getting tired of this shit by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      That's rebutting his point, that's repeating it with different words:

      I agree to drive you to the airport and although I don't know you personally my friend introduced us and I trust him, and you agree to reimburse me and pay me a profit for the journey.

    31. Re:Getting tired of this shit by Optali · · Score: 1
      Well, another very good point indeed.

      And it's not only "Bad neighbourhoods", what about not profitable ones?

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    32. Re: Getting tired of this shit by Optali · · Score: 1

      Bah, we have our bikes. Who want's a shabby taxi?

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    33. Re: Getting tired of this shit by Optali · · Score: 1

      I thought doctors were completely private in the USA.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    34. Re: Getting tired of this shit by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I'm not a believer in "alternative" medicine, including your witch doctors. I just want to be able to buy conventional medical services on an open market, in the same way that I shop for electronics. If I'm prescribed a medication, I want to be able to shop the world market for the best deal, just as the Canadian government does. If the Silicon Valley disruptors were to offer me a medical market, this is the market that would be most important to me. I don't care that much about the rare occasions when I need a cab ride.

    35. Re:Getting tired of this shit by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      There are no laws, but there are reviews. The race to the bottom can't happen when the profit motive isn't there. If I could register my car as a "hireable-ride" from North City to South City M-F from 8-9 am. and the reverse from 5-6, then it'd end up being a paid ride-share.

      That's where I see these going in the middle term.

      But then, as you say, they will eBay, and end up 99% commercial sellers on an "auction" site with no auctions, just commercial sellers with Buy Now sales. The professionals always ruin it for the casual users.

    36. Re: Getting tired of this shit by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      When getting sick, why don't you fly over to Africa (the plane tickets cost you about as much as a night in hospital in the US), and ask some witch doctor to treat you (his fees for a full treatment may be less than what your regular doctor will charge you for a consult)?

      Because the borders will be closed on the way back. Though, it's illegal to close the border to citizens, but that doesn't stop the fearmongering politicians from suggesting something they know to be impossible.

      But there is money in medical tourism. People do fly out of the US to receive treatment.

      The real problem is that some treatment requires ongoing medicines, and there the FDA actively blocks your medical care by a licensed doctor, licensed to practice in the USA (yes, I've gone to foreign doctors that were US certified).

  12. Re:I'm sorry by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 2, Informative

    Life's not all about cheap dope and Eastern European hookers. Native Dutch have been leaving the Netherlands for years.

    "Last year, 144,175 people emigrated, the paper says, quoting figures from the national statistics office CBS. In 2011, nearly 134,000 people left and in 2010, 121,000."
    http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/a...

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  13. Uber seems to be fitting under UK existing law by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    We have a separate class of 'Licensed Hire Vehicles' which are not as flexible as taxis - you have to book them rather than hail on the street. This does require explicit registration of the vehicles, but I've seen one with 'Uber' flashes, so it seems to work. This is a good solution for people who want to make a real living out of Uber, rather than just occasional.

    http://green.autoblog.com/2007...

    is an alternative outcome - registration to avoid London's congestion charge (for driving in the streets of much of central London)

    1. Re:Uber seems to be fitting under UK existing law by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Not knowing the intricacies of UK rules, what you mention still means that not just anyone who happens to own a car may start offering rides for pay.

      The key is "Licensed Hire Vehicles" - they're licensed, so there must be some requirements for those that do not apply for normal private cars. Probably extra driving course and insurance, that kind of things. And as soon as they're licensed, they're legal to drive people around.

      The problem of most Uber drivers is that they are not licensed to carry paid passengers.

    2. Re:Uber seems to be fitting under UK existing law by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You are inferring rules which don't apply. You must pay a fee to be licensed. No more. There are no more rules for "Licensed hire vehicles" than any other, other than the fee attached. The article shows that some people found that the fee to be a licensed hire vehicle is less than the fees for not being one (for congestion rules in London).

      There are separate issues here. The car must be licensed. The driver must be licensed. And often the business owner must be licensed. These are separate, and calling all three "licenses" confuses the issue.

  14. The laws are behind & protectionism is alive a by johncandale · · Score: 1
    The city just wants their cut of the commerce. No doubt they will frame it in the "for the safety and regulation of the city" terms.

    The vested interests will also complain about fair competition. The problem with that is you can't stop more efficient businesses forever. Holding them back too long creates more problems when the crash finally comes

    In the end the laws are just behind. There are all this under used goods and services in the cities. (Cars idle all day at work, rooms empty while people are out of town). Before the internet it was too inefficient to match a user with the seller. This is no longer true. Fix the laws and productivity of resources will increase. Heck even the city government needs to change and allow filing of business sales taxes online for small scale stuff.

    Remember, this is inevitable anyways over the long term.

  15. Re:I'm sorry by mjwx · · Score: 5, Informative

    Life's not all about cheap dope and Eastern European hookers. Native Dutch have been leaving the Netherlands for years.

    "Last year, 144,175 people emigrated, the paper says, quoting figures from the national statistics office CBS. In 2011, nearly 134,000 people left and in 2010, 121,000."
    http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/a...

    To put this into perspective, the Netherlands has a population of 16.8 Million people. 150,000 aren't even 1% so that's pretty normal for emigration. Hardly the crisis you're making out.

    I'd be willing to bet a good proportion of those would be Dutch retiring to some place warmer with cheaper prostitutes like Thailand (Thailand seems to be the go-to place for European retirees, Americans usually end up in the Philippines, we Australians have infested both places).

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  16. Re:I'm sorry by Harlequin80 · · Score: 5, Informative

    And yet net migration remains positive. In 2013 144,175 people left and 197,241 came. So a little over 50k people decided it was a better place to live overall. Helps if you get both numbers.

  17. liability issues do you want to be a victim and??? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    liability issues do you want to be a victim and be left to fend for your self?

    http://www.theverge.com/2014/3...

  18. Re:The laws are behind & protectionism is aliv by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the end the laws are just behind. There are all this under used goods and services in the cities. (Cars idle all day at work, rooms empty while people are out of town). Before the internet it was too inefficient to match a user with the seller. This is no longer true.

    If your car is "underutilized" while at work, feel free to leave your keys in your unlocked car. You can leave a note and post about it online and ask people to return it with a full tank by a certain time. If you are sitting in your car all day while at work driving custom bus routes for fun, feel free to pick people up. If you charge for the service, you are a taxi driver and must follow local laws. Before you object, why should I be restricted from performing surgery without a license when you want to be a taxi driver without one? At least I'm only likely to kill poorly informed clients, not them, myself and people eating at a sidewalk cafe if I screw up.

  19. Re: I'm sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    50k found it better than Syria, Somalia, Iraq and other war torn countries they are escaping ;)

  20. Buck Feta. by buckfeta2014 · · Score: 1

    Buck Feta.

    --
    Buck Feta. You know what to do.
  21. How about you busybody fucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck off and stop telling other people what they're allowed to do?

    1. Re:How about you busybody fucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A democratic vote isnt "people deciding for themselves", its one group of people deciding for everyone.

      People deciding for themselves is, well, each person deciding for themselves.

  22. wtf is up with that summary by soccerisgod · · Score: 1

    I mean yeah this is slashdot but it feels like it's been quiet a while since I read such an opinionated summary here. How can you publish that crap? Oh right. Slashdot.

    --
    If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
    1. Re:wtf is up with that summary by tgv · · Score: 1

      It's dubbed "astroturfing": a form of propaganda whose techniques usually consist of a few people attempting to give the impression that mass numbers of enthusiasts advocate some specific cause. They are also completely ignoring the fact that nobody else wants it to be legalized. That /. publishes it, is the result of a lousy, commercialized editorial policy, and another illustration that you cannot trust sources that offer you new for free.

    2. Re:wtf is up with that summary by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      and another illustration that you cannot trust sources that offer you new for free.

      I don't really trust any news, free or not.

    3. Re:wtf is up with that summary by tgv · · Score: 1

      I think you can trust them a bit. They're not constantly lying to you about everything. At least, not the higher quality outlets. You do have to consider that often only partial information is available, and that they want to sell ads, so it's almost never the final word. But with that restriction, there are quite a few reliable news outlets available. Perhaps the best idea is to read everything two weeks later, so you can compare it to recent reports...

  23. Re:I'm sorry by scsirob · · Score: 1

    It very much is, unless you work for the Dutch government or the established taxi cartels like TCA.

    Dutch people are sick and tired of being over regulated and over taxed. It is a bloody insult that you need a permit to drive someone from A to B *IN YOUR OWN PROPERTY*. And is no less than a crime that Dutch government thinks it is OK to take over HALF of your income. 52% if you make a decent living, and all that to pay for those annual 50K 'positive' immigration of people who add nothing to Dutch society. That's modern slavery for the Dutch!

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
  24. Re: Wisdom follows, pay attention! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The military? Don't be ridiculous. The Europeans don't like soldiers, when there's a war on their backyard they pressure the US into taking care of it and then publicly denounce them. It would never come to this, disobeying a European government would get you deported to a concentration camp very fast.

  25. Hitch hikers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is that shit illegal? If so what's the difference. Backpackers have been doing that for years and no one complains. Add money to the equation and now it's an issue.

    1. Re:Hitch hikers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah i know! Its crazy! Its the same with sex!

    2. Re:Hitch hikers by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You don't see the difference between:

      A driver and his car, going from A to Z, stops on the way to pick someone up who's going from F to X, who reimburses them fuel money

      and

      A driver is requested by a person to pick them up at F and drive them to X, where a fee including a profit is demanded.

      It's not just money.

  26. Re:I'm sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Wow - about being completely wrong....

    Those 52% are only for the wealthiest people with a lot of private estate, the top of the chain so to say...

    Normal midclass people pay around 30%, but that money goes to welthcare, dykes, roads and infrastructure and so on..
    Also - if you are doing work (it does not matter if you are using your own property for that), you have to pay taxes over the money you earn. If you try to avoid taxes you going to get burned. And also - when you do work, you have to get an licence to do so. Trying to avoid the cost for that by doing that work without licence, will earn you an fine...

    I am the first to say that these licences are expensive, but try to do the same in -let's say- Londen, and you are in for a nasty surprise...

  27. Re:I'm sorry by Blaskowicz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Your own property? yes, feel free to drive without a permit *ON* your own property. Public roads aren't such.

  28. Its not legal just because there is an app for it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Driving unregistered taxis are illegal in most of europe. A private company writing an app does NOT change the laws.

  29. Bullying? by DrXym · · Score: 1

    Operating a taxi in most of Europe requires a taxi licence, a criminal background check, a "knowledge" test plus additional road safety requirements for driver & car. Uber is not exempt from this and if drivers don't meet the requirements they're going to be treated like any other unlicenced driver and fined. Sucks to be them but its not bullying. These laws existed before Uber turned up and if the company and their drivers didn't bother to do the due diligence then whose fault is it when they run afoul of them?

    1. Re:Bullying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uber are waging an astroturfing war in the media. It's all evil taxi drivers this and that, but not once do to they try to follow the law of the lands and get an appropriate taxi license, submit the drivers to criminal background checks and prove they have the required level of insurance for carrying passengers. Uber are bypassing all of this. It's like a free-for-all. Rules are in place for a reason, Uber are not being blocked from following them, they're trying to cheat the existing laws. I see this as no different from child day care.

      Taxi companies need a boot up the bum, Uber may do it. But they're losing a lot of support by their constant attempts to bypass the law all over Europe. If they don't like the law of the land, fuck off back to 'merica.

    2. Re:Bullying? by Keyboard+Rage · · Score: 1

      Obviously, those pesky little Yurpian countries with their pesky little anti-capitalist laws just don't get what "Uber" really stands for. So they better stretch out their right arm at a 45 degree angle into the air, waving their wad of dollars (that pesky little dollar-ripoff "Yuro" will have to go...), and hail the new conqueror of the taxi market. All bow to unregulated taxi drivers, who will take your money as quickly as they will drive you to your destination (hell). Don't worry, taking the bad service up the ass is just the rite of passage for better taxi transport, US style.

    3. Re:Bullying? by Optali · · Score: 1

      Indeed, US Style!! In the US ;)
      Were they are very welcome to stay and open carry and roll the coal all day long and happily feast in their KKK barbeques.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
  30. Re:I'm sorry by DrXym · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is a bloody insult that you need a permit to drive someone from A to B *IN YOUR OWN PROPERTY*.

    Thing is, a taxi is usually treated as a form of public transport. The standard that you the driver and your vehicle are held is consequently that much higher. That's why the regulation exists.

    It's bizarre that you conflate the issue with how much tax someone might pay on their wages.

  31. Re:I'm sorry by xonen · · Score: 1, Informative

    Wrong again.

    In the Netherlands, you may pay 30% taxes, but on top of that come contributions to the welfare system, since you are insured against unemployment by law.

    Typically, the average worker cost the employer about 3 times as much as the employee will receive netto on their bank account. This because employers pay a large amount of healthcare costs and other things.

    So, for the average worker, they will see their salary `taxed` by about 65-70%. Just, they don't call it tax but insurance fees. As your income climbs, taxes raises but social security fees are capped. So yes, someone with a 200k income or more pays in procents less taxes and fees.

    On topic. The Netherlands are killing all kind of active entrepreneurship. Seems only multinationals are welcome. Small businesses are not appreciated here, and even if you succeed, taxes and (local) governments will make your live miserable by regulations. Uber is just the latest example in this. Meanwhile, only few people take taxi's because no-one can or is willing to afford them, partly because their is no competitive market since its all being regulated. Paying 30 euro for a 2 km trip is not uncommon, and that's not even night tariff.

    --
    A glitch a day keeps the bugs away.
  32. Ridiculously biased summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Astonishing. Dear /., you're in trouble.

  33. What if it's a licensed taxi driver? by mythix · · Score: 1

    What if a licensed taxi driver would use the app to make some extra money in his spare time?

    he has all the requirements, but is still "stealing customers", would this also be against the law?

    1. Re:What if it's a licensed taxi driver? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, of course not. Driving a taxi without a licence is against the law, "stealing customers" is not.

    2. Re:What if it's a licensed taxi driver? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not Uber Pop, that is good old regular Uber and if you are a registered taxi driver with a permit to transport people for money, the way how you get your rides can be anything. Either call a central, use Uber or flag one down as he is driving past.
      The big problem here is Uber Pop, which arranges for unregistered drivers without a permit and clients to connect. The driver is breaking the law by making the trade and is thus fined.

    3. Re:What if it's a licensed taxi driver? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      What if a licensed taxi driver would use the app to make some extra money in his spare time?

      Uber pays its drivers really badly, so this isn't going to happen. There are also regulations about maximum working hours, you don't want to be driven by someone who already has been driving for 16 hours.

    4. Re:What if it's a licensed taxi driver? by Optali · · Score: 1

      He would be driving without proper INSURANCE.
      does this term ring a bell?

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
  34. Re:I'm sorry by mvdwege · · Score: 0

    Fuck off and die please. The world could do with less PVV voting scum.

    --
    "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
  35. Re:I'm sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those 52% are only for the wealthiest people with a lot of private estate, the top of the chain so to say...

    Wrong. The 52% tax bracket starts at € 56.532.

    Regardless, 52% is far too much for any income.

  36. As intended by Njovich · · Score: 1

    It was very obvious this was going to happen. Authorities even announced they would take action, and Uber has been very public about going to start this service and that they would pay any fines.

    I don't know what the playbook of Uber and the transport inspection services are, but it is obvious that for both sides have these fines as part of it.

    This makes it possible for Uber to fight it out in the courts, and will likely trigger discussion in the parliament that may lead to changes in the laws.

  37. How about you busybody fucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah, we are the society, it's our damn job decide how WE (including you) live around here. Take a ship over the ocean if you want to live free. Guess that's gone also. Well ,there is always somalia if you want to live outside civilized society without the evil government.

  38. Re:I'm sorry by MRe_nl · · Score: 1

    And to add to that the taxi's in Amsterdam are run by the police in every way except legally. The police work for Ajax and Heineken. Their main function is to destroy any new criminal acts or people muscling in on somebody's scam. Ergo no Uber.

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  39. Re:I'm sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't forget Morocco and Turkey. A lot of Dutch emigration is actually remigration. A large number of those 16.8 million Dutch are immigrants, who weren't born in the Netherlands and still hold their original nationality. Add to that a limited command of the Dutch language, the possibility to take your pensions with you, and the difference in purchasing power, the climate, and it's easy to see why.

    On-topic because the arrests were made in Amsterdam, where a significant fraction of taxi drivers are from Moroccan and Turkish descent.

  40. Standards, my ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The worst Uber car I've ever been in was cleaner, newer, and driven by a more pleasant and friendly driver than the best taxi I've ever been in.

    Uber is eating the cab companies' lunch because they're offering a SUPERIOR service.

    1. Re:Standards, my ass. by Dishevel · · Score: 2
      They get to offer a superior service because the are not regulated.

      Keep Uber going. Just let the cab companies compete fairly. Either get rid of regulations on cabs or add them to Uber.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    2. Re:Standards, my ass. by DrXym · · Score: 1

      The worst Uber car I've ever been in was cleaner, newer, and driven by a more pleasant and friendly driver than the best taxi I've ever been in.

      Wow your anecdote changes everything. Aside from the cleanliness I'm sure you made sure to check the car & driver's insurance covered you in case of an accident. And that the vehicle road safety certification was in order. And that the driver had no past criminal convictions. No?

  41. Re:I'm sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TCA competes with Uber, and Uber itself isn't banned. Uberpop is competing with licensed, insured drivers, and *that* is what's banned.

    And the 52% tax rate is an exception. 80% of the population pays between 36% and 42% max, and another 10% pays 52% over less than half their income.

  42. Don't spread disinformation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were not arrested for being uber drivers, they were arrested for being Jews and for being outside without wearing the mandatory yellow star. In Belgium they take the ERG (Europaeische RasseGesetzen) seriously. The goal of the EU is the protection of the European Volkgemeinschaft, after all.

    1. Re: Don't spread disinformation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the Netherlands, not Belgium, you ignorant goatfucking troll.

    2. Re: Don't spread disinformation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of Europe is now united under the blue flag of the European Union so it makes no difference. I bet you're a 'murkin ape. Hail Europe, one Reich from the Atlantic to the Urals!

  43. Re:I'm sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Haha, that's the most clueless reply I've seen here in a while. Dope and hookers are mostly consumed by tourists here, but I guess that's about all you know about The Netherlands.

    It would do you well to look into The Netherlands a bit further. You will find it's one of the happiest populaces in the world, rates consistently top5 in quality of healthcare, life, society, and many such categories. Since the rest of Europe is so close, it's not that exceptional for the elderly to spend their last days a place a bit sunnier.

  44. Re: I'm sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read it again. He wrote "IN" your own property. Meaning his vehicle.

  45. Re: I'm sorry by johanw · · Score: 2

    Ah, the followers of fuhrer Geert Wilders are reporting in. For the non-Dutch readers, his main (and nearly only) party program is that everything that goes wrong is the muslims fault.

  46. Re:I'm sorry by johanw · · Score: 1

    For some bankers and other money-grabbing "managers" I would say it is far to little.

  47. Apples and Oranges by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

    "the thoughts go to the fined drivers, hoping they won't ever be caught carrying their grandmother to the supermarket then have to explain how they dared"

    Unless they're planning on charging granny for the trip to the supermarket, this isn't relevant.

    1. Re:Apples and Oranges by Optali · · Score: 1

      I would tax any car owner just for breathing.
      They use up city space, parking space and waste a lot of money and resources... and car's aren't even really theirs, but paid by credit (except a very small bunch). This country is too small for people using an SUV just to move a single kilometer. Hmmm. I'm thinking that maybe this Uberpop isn't so bad at all if htey manage to create enough chaos XD

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
  48. Re:I'm sorry by Dishevel · · Score: 0

    Of course you would. Anyone who makes more money than you is evil and should pay for your next vacation.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  49. Re:I'm sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are not alone in that. Jalousy is a popular motivation for tax.

  50. Re: I'm sorry by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 0

    I don't think that's his point. It's more to do with the stabbing and murdering of people who criticise Islam, like Theo van Gogh. It's the fact that a female critic of Islam, Ayann Hirst Ali, was "no great loss because her opinions were polarizing" which is European liberal speak for don't criticise other Muslims. Indeed, it's a kind-of psychosis in Europe and elsewhere, such that authorities in the UK regularly and as policy let Muslim men molest and abuse thousands of children in cities like Rotherham because they feared criticising the culture the abusers came from (almost all Muslim) more than they cared for the welfare of these British (almost exclusively white) children.

    I ask you, in what respect is liberalism not disappearing up its own behind on this and many other issues? It's a disgrace.

  51. Re: I'm sorry by IrquiM · · Score: 1

    Luckily not in governments as they would be net positive then instead of flat broke...

    --
    This is blinging
  52. Re:I'm sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uber isn't small by any means. Fuck off, shill.

  53. Why are laws? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Because of laws.

    Why are laws?

    Just as you can't sell any service without the proper licence and not being the correct legal entity.

    Why do undue barriers to obtaining "the proper licence" and becoming "the correct legal entity" continue to exist?

    See it as selling alcohol in a dry county.

    Why do dry counties continue to exist?

    It is always "our rules" and the Dutch have tlll now decided against it.

    When was the most recent poll?

  54. Re:I'm sorry by Optali · · Score: 1

    You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about mate. "Emigration" does not mean "Leaving your land for all eternity without ever returning": Our INmigration rate is slightly higher than the EMigration rate.. and if you think on hundreds of thousands of poor Mexicans coming here you are wrong, in fact the bulk of the emigration are RE-inmigrantes; The very ones that went away and come back.

    The reasons for Emigration here are: Young people who traditionally go a year or two abroad, people who go to study abroad and people who go to LIVE a few kilometers away to Germany and Belgium (this is a small country mate).

    And finally another important group of "Native Dutch" emigrants are Dutch of Morokkan and Turkish origin who go back to live in their country of origin (Elderly) and young people born here but who have the opportunity go to to live to Morokko.

    And finally there is a HUGE group of elderly and pensionists of all ethnic origins that go to live in the south of Europe for rather obvious reasons. Hint: Despite the idea that USians may have we don't have tropical beaches nor snowy mountains.

    So that I have no idea what point you were trying yo make, but whatever it was: We happen to have internet too here in Good Old Holland (1)...

    1) Yes, this is written from the very Holland, Noord-Holland to be precise, so spare me your display of geographical knowledge fresh from Wikipedia

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast
  55. Re:I'm sorry by Optali · · Score: 1

    Not necessarily "limited knowledge..." but mate, for many people having the opportunity to live in a warmer country and buying a decent sized house is enough of an incentive to to go live to the land of their ancestors. And don't forget Benidorm,

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast
  56. Re:I'm sorry by Optali · · Score: 1

    And whores are way more abundant in Nevada (or wherever the state were it's free) than here. Not so speak about Germany. Even their weed-laws are less restrictive than ours. Heck, they were already better with medical marijuana legislation, now it's almost free in several states with more population and several times larger (Washington and Colorado, AFAIK). And talking about inmigrants: I have a new neighbour freshly immigrated from... The USA :)

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast
  57. Re: I'm sorry by Optali · · Score: 1

    The last thing a Wilders fan would say is that we live in a happy country.

    And you are wrong: Geert not only blames the Muslims, he also has the Leftist-Church, the Polish and East-Europeans (except his wife, of course) , Brussels (may be allergic to sprouts) and the Global Warming Alarmists (1)

    1) So, basically, this guy doesn't want us to become a second French Midi, thank you very much Geert!

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast
  58. Re:I'm sorry by Optali · · Score: 1
    If you recall that these 50K extra inmigr5ation are DUTCH coming back from abroad, BRITISH and GERMAN expats... well...

    And you commit a very stupid statistical fault: Those GERMANS, BRITISH and most of the rest of the extra 50K are actually working just like you and me and paying as much as we do. And specially among the GERMANS they may be paying MUCH MORE than you and me.

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast
  59. Re:I'm sorry by Optali · · Score: 1
    You are right.

    Taxes are TIERED meaning that we pay 30% for the common tier (biggest part) of our salaries and 42% for the highest tier and for some stuff that is taxes expressly like extra hours and vacation that you want to get paid out instead of taking them... but heck, that's with a reason.

    And not for nothing we are the country with the HIGHEST productivity in the world, because we are well treated workers and generally like our jobs and this is for a reason.

    And anyway: I don't give a flying fuck about these Uberpop users, I use the bike, that why we have our fietspadden for, paid with the taxes. I have no issue with taxes, it's always better to having to learn to breath underwater, LOL

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast
  60. Re:I'm sorry by Optali · · Score: 1

    Sure that people don't take taxis because they are expensive? And not just because everybody and the dog has a bike or a few of them (and nothing beats Gratis)? Or because you pay 0 EUR for home-to-work transport ?

    Taxed about 65-70%? Sure? With a modal salary of 35K/year this would mean 24500 EUR year... I mean... are you really sure that we are talking about the same country mate, het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden? Well, maybe I live in a different country: Noord-Holland may have segregated and we are now a Republic?

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast
  61. Re:I'm sorry by Optali · · Score: 1

    Hey! Good idea!!! Very good idea actually!! Can we make an app for that?

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast
  62. Re: I'm sorry by Optali · · Score: 1

    Read Again: ONPublic Roads, unless you refer to an Helicopter, of course. You are free to do as much business as you want, but if you use a resource you have to pay for it. Sorry. And roads are a resource, that happens to be public. And you are not free to what you want because you may hinder other persons who are also wanting to use the road to get to the places THEY make their business and practice their entrepreneurship it if fits them.

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast
  63. Re:I'm sorry by steveg · · Score: 1

    When you say "free," I'm assuming you mean legal.

    There are a couple of (rural, sparsely populated) counties where prostitution is legal. If there are a hundred legal prostitutes in all the brothels in Nevada at any one time, I'd be very surprised.

    Now, Las Vegas, that's a different issue. But prostitution in Las Vegas, is definitely not legal. There may be thousands of them, but that doesn't make them legal.

    --
    Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
  64. Re:The laws are behind & protectionism is aliv by Optali · · Score: 1

    Can I have a tank? ()
    They are underutilized! Pleaaase??? ^(*_*)^

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast
  65. The AirBnB Jab -- by eepok · · Score: 1

    "While similar bullying applied to short rentals of private rooms through sites like Airbnb"

    Look-- Uber, Lyft, and all the other distributed taxi services are being so heavily attacked by regulatory agencies because it is the responsibility of those agencies to protect consumer safety. Voluntarily make sure your company meets all the same safety and insurance requirements as an existing taxi system and you'll be set.

    AirBnB is similar in that the repeated short-term rental of homes as hotels requires health and fire inspections of these distributed hotels, BUT there's an additional issue. Amsterdam is a massive tourist attraction. People want to visit Amsterdam, ride bikes, get high, and maybe visit a prostitute. However, Amsterdam is not that big... and the people who live there don't want it to get very big. In fact, if it got too big or too expensive, then you'd have no dutch people living there-- just tourist agencies and immigrants dressed in stereotypical Dutch garb-- "Welcome to Dutch Land, Americans!".

    The ease of facilitating short-term tourism rentals via AirBnB makes it exceedingly profitable to buy a flat and use AirBnB to bring in more revenue per month than you could get renting the place out to people who actually want to live and work in the city. And that's the problem. Amsterdam should be full of the Dutch but without appropriate regulation, it will be full of tourists with some Dutch on the side.

    I would love to visit Amsterdam, but wouldn't care to do so in the future if it's jam packed with tourists.

  66. Re:I'm sorry by Optali · · Score: 1

    When you say "free," I'm assuming you mean legal.

    There are a couple of (rural, sparsely populated) counties where prostitution is legal. If there are a hundred legal prostitutes in all the brothels in Nevada at any one time, I'd be very surprised.

    /quote>

    Damn! Another broken dream. What do I tell the guys now after spending a lot of cash in condoms and pimp suites? Maybe trading them for bongs and visit Colorado instead?

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast
  67. Re:I'm sorry by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    ... before getting shot.

    Sounds good to me.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"