Four Dutch Uberpop Taxi Drivers Arrested, Fined

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Four Dutch Uberpop Taxi Drivers Arrested, Fined

Posted by timothy on Sunday October 12, 2014 @09:41AM from the not-so-laissez-faire dept.

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."

33 of 282 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

News at 11. by queazocotal · 2014-10-12 09:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's not legal just because you saw it on the internet.
1. Re:News at 11. by burne · 2014-10-12 10:46 · 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?
2. Re: News at 11. by Applehu+Akbar · 2014-10-12 11:02 · Score: 2
  
  It's not legal when the people already in the field have grandfathered rights to screw over the competition.
3. Re:News at 11. by Kabukiwookie · 2014-10-12 11:42 · 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.
4. Re:News at 11. by SuperKendall · 2014-10-12 16:07 · 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
5. Re:News at 11. by xSander · 2014-10-12 20:14 · 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.
Biased summary by excelsior_gr · 2014-10-12 09:49 · 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 · 2014-10-12 10:09 · 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 Wrath0fb0b · 2014-10-12 10:15 · 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 ! ]
3. Re:Biased summary by houghi · 2014-10-12 10:38 · 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.
4. Re:Biased summary by WoOS · 2014-10-12 10:46 · 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, ... .
5. Re:Biased summary by Harlequin80 · 2014-10-12 10:53 · 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.
6. Re:Biased summary by gnasher719 · 2014-10-12 11:30 · 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.
7. Re:Biased summary by Harlequin80 · 2014-10-12 12:38 · 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.
8. Re:Biased summary by Harlequin80 · 2014-10-12 13:14 · 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.
9. Re:Biased summary by WaffleMonster · 2014-10-12 14:51 · 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.
10. Re:Biased summary by LordLimecat · 2014-10-12 15:12 · 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.
11. Re:Biased summary by JonathanR · 2014-10-12 15:43 · 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.
12. Re:Biased summary by viperidaenz · 2014-10-12 17:33 · Score: 2
  
  So why have a drivers license in the first place?
13. Re:Biased summary by LordLimecat · 2014-10-12 19:27 · 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.
Bullying by ZipK · 2014-10-12 09:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

While similar bullying...
Enforcing laws is bullying?
1. Re:Bullying by truedfx · 2014-10-12 10:29 · 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.
Getting tired of this shit by gman003 · 2014-10-12 10:30 · 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 gman003 · 2014-10-12 13:52 · Score: 2
  
  The line is when the payment goes from "covering expenses" to "generating profit".
Re:I'm sorry by Vinegar+Joe · 2014-10-12 10:41 · 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
Re:Wow, I gotta warn a friend of mine by gnasher719 · 2014-10-12 11:25 · 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.
Re:I'm sorry by mjwx · 2014-10-12 12:43 · 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.
Re:I'm sorry by Harlequin80 · 2014-10-12 13:34 · 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.
Re: I'm sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-12 16:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

50k found it better than Syria, Somalia, Iraq and other war torn countries they are escaping ;)
Re:I'm sorry by Blaskowicz · 2014-10-12 19:15 · Score: 4, Informative

Your own property? yes, feel free to drive without a permit *ON* your own property. Public roads aren't such.
Re:I'm sorry by DrXym · 2014-10-12 19:46 · 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.
Re: I'm sorry by johanw · 2014-10-13 00:42 · 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.
Re:Standards, my ass. by Dishevel · 2014-10-13 02:44 · 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?