Uber Banned Across Germany

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
This "ban Uber" stuff is getting out of control. Pretty soon it will be illegal to offer a friend gas money for giving you a ride somewhere. :rolleyes:

A court in Frankfurt has banned Uber from operating in the country until a hearing later this year on the legality of the service, which allows people to use their smartphones to book rides with freelance drivers. The potential countrywide ban in Germany is the latest in a number of legal setbacks that the San Francisco-based company has faced in Europe and North America as it tries to expand its car service globally.
 
This "ban Uber" stuff is getting out of control. Pretty soon it will be illegal to offer a friend gas money for giving you a ride somewhere. :rolleyes:

except it isn't. uber is clearly aimed at quasi-commercial use. and commercial passenger transport in germany is heavily regulated. for good fucking reason.
 
I think the real problem here is that uber is clearly in demand. People like it, and people use it. It seems to me like these bans are not aimed at safety or proper regulation, but simply keeping a hidden monopoly in effect by stunting competition. I must say I am impressed something as silly as the "big taxi" is in the pockets of politicians. Clearly the only disadvantage of Uber is that it is hurting taxi drivers revenue. Thats it, thats all this whole thing is about. It's not about safety, it's not about taxation, it's about the simple fact that Uber could put the entire taxi system out of business in less than year.
 
I think the real problem here is that uber is clearly in demand. People like it, and people use it. It seems to me like these bans are not aimed at safety or proper regulation, but simply keeping a hidden monopoly in effect by stunting competition. I must say I am impressed something as silly as the "big taxi" is in the pockets of politicians. Clearly the only disadvantage of Uber is that it is hurting taxi drivers revenue. Thats it, thats all this whole thing is about. It's not about safety, it's not about taxation, it's about the simple fact that Uber could put the entire taxi system out of business in less than year.

No, I think this is about regulation ... although I support a high degree of deregulation, I think that services that have safety implications should be regulated and that these new internet services should operate within the parameters of the regulations ... taxi services are heavily regulated in most of the developed world for a reason ... although it would add some inconvenience to the Uber side of the equation it is not unreasonable for them to insure that all of their registered drivers carry valid insurance and driver's permits and that their cars have met all the required road safety requirements ... they could most likely compete with taxis even with that (and without putting their passengers/customers at risk) ;)
 
The traditional taxi cab drivers are doing everything they can to maintain the status quo. Which includes banning innovation unfortunately.
 
No, I think this is about regulation ... although I support a high degree of deregulation, I think that services that have safety implications should be regulated and that these new internet services should operate within the parameters of the regulations ... taxi services are heavily regulated in most of the developed world for a reason ... although it would add some inconvenience to the Uber side of the equation it is not unreasonable for them to insure that all of their registered drivers carry valid insurance and driver's permits and that their cars have met all the required road safety requirements ... they could most likely compete with taxis even with that (and without putting their passengers/customers at risk) ;)

I think you are being a little naive. They will pass laws which will make so Uber cannot complete. This is the problem with near monopoly institutions which have close government ties (think broadband internet).

But, let me put it this way. Programs like "ride share" are not regulated at all and actually supported by your local governments and DOT. This is the same fundamental thing as uber but for a "longer distance". You don't see the Tax drivers going nuts over this because for one reason only...they never had a chance at that revenue anyways.

Something about a duck walking and talking seems appropriate...
 
No, I think this is about regulation ... although I support a high degree of deregulation, I think that services that have safety implications should be regulated and that these new internet services should operate within the parameters of the regulations ... taxi services are heavily regulated in most of the developed world for a reason ... although it would add some inconvenience to the Uber side of the equation it is not unreasonable for them to insure that all of their registered drivers carry valid insurance and driver's permits and that their cars have met all the required road safety requirements ... they could most likely compete with taxis even with that (and without putting their passengers/customers at risk) ;)

Even with those steps covered, Uber and Lyft still have issues in places like Seattle. No, the problem is that the entrenched guys make up a significant revenue stream to the government, and neither the entrenched players nor the government like disruption.

It's good old fashioned protectionism.
 
for good fucking reason.
And that reason is that the red party, aka the labor party, with unions has too much control in Germany and they don't like the idea of a competitor with lower overhead, better service, at a lower price.

Its simple gestapo anti-capitalist pinko crap, and I find it hysterical that people actually side with the cabbies. Have you ever ridden in a cab in Germany? They are generally horrible people, and if you appear even the slightest bit intoxicated, especially if they think you're a foreigner, they will drive in you circles for half an hour before demanding a house payment. And most are very aggressive overweight middle eastern or turkish looking guys with bad accents that will seriously get in your face and have no qualms about pulling a tire iron if you contest the charge.

In fact, wasn't that long ago I was reading a story about some Iraqi cab dude in Germany that raped his passenger who happened to be a blind elderly woman. But hey, luckily they are regulated right! I mean, since the regulated ones are raping our women, just imagine what ueber would do! Double-rape!!!
 
Yeah, while I think services like Uber are the future, they are currently clearly circumventing safety and other regulations put in place to protect passengers and the interests of towns and cities.

I'm surprised Uber drivers haven't been arrested in droves for offering what amounts to illegal taxi services.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041063892 said:
Yeah, while I think services like Uber are the future, they are currently clearly circumventing safety and other regulations put in place to protect passengers and the interests of towns and cities.

I'm surprised Uber drivers haven't been arrested in droves for offering what amounts to illegal taxi services.

I believe they are being fined and Uber/Lyft has either paid those fines or is currently fighting those fines on behalf of their employees.
 
I believe they are being fined and Uber/Lyft has either paid those fines or is currently fighting those fines on behalf of their employees.

Ahh, well from my reading on the subject, in the past illegal cabs have often been seized on sight, and drivers placed under misdemeanor arrest. I guess it depends on the jurisdiction how they treat it.
 
This is about regulation and getting priced out of a market.

In many places Taxi's are strictly regulated, you have to have insurance, licensing, and I assume vehicle inspections etc. Sometimes licensing is even based on city/neighborhood in the area.

Wouldn't you be pissed if you followed the law, paid your fees only to have someone just setup an account on a site undercut you.

Now the government(s) have to either deregulate taxi's or regulate/ban uber like services.

As for car pool or ride share examples, this is another perfect example of how technology makes something feasible when at the time the same instances were a non-issue due to difficulty to coordinate or perform. Car pools would be limited to co-workers and neighbors just like pirated music and movies were limited to degradating copy and physical distribution within circles (think the tape vs broadband worldwide download).

As for Germany having the most crooked taxi drivers every... Hotels.com rated Berlin as the #4 city for taxi service. And as for the quoted rape story... really weird story but anecdotal non-the-less.
 
Somewhat ironic that uber is a German word. They just got uber banned in Germany.
I think the real problem here is that uber is clearly in demand. People like it, and people use it. It seems to me like these bans are not aimed at safety or proper regulation, but simply keeping a hidden monopoly in effect by stunting competition.
Bingo. The Senator in CA who voted against it has a brother who runs a taxi company. It's all about cronyism.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041063892 said:
Yeah, while I think services like Uber are the future, they are currently clearly circumventing safety and other regulations put in place to protect passengers and the interests of towns and cities.
Um safety?? Like what?
 
Um safety?? Like what?

In many jurisdictions commercial vehicles carrying passengers are subject to more stringent vehicle inspections, requirements on licensure of drivers etc.

I think Uber is a great way to do cabs, but it is clear that the regulatory framework needs to catch up, and I strongly disagree with their "better to beg forgiveness than ask permission" approach.

If you want to change local ordinances, petition to do so FIRST, and once the changes pass, then set up business, not the other way around. That amounts to a disregard for the rule of law.
 
Since it looks like Uber is probably reporting the financial transactions to the governments (for tax purposes) it shouldn't be that big a deal to license their drivers (have them come in to a one of a couple of local garages where they can conduct a quick safety inspection of the vehicle and verify the insurance/drivers license of the vehicle as well) ... for the more rigidly regulated areas they might also need an arrangement with the police to verify the license and registration as well

This doesn't seem as if it would hurt either the pricing or availability of the service and I would be surprised if the local jurisdictions pushed back on those actions ... any drivers unwilling to do that minimal amount of effort probably aren't worth having in your service ;)
 
The irony is that "Uber" is a German word. :D

I haven't used that service yet, but my friends who normally take the cab if they plan on doing binge drinking at the bars swear by Uber's service. Cheaper, faster, and often a much nicer car.
 
I think the real problem here is that uber is clearly in demand. People like it, and people use it. It seems to me like these bans are not aimed at safety or proper regulation, but simply keeping a hidden monopoly in effect by stunting competition. I must say I am impressed something as silly as the "big taxi" is in the pockets of politicians. Clearly the only disadvantage of Uber is that it is hurting taxi drivers revenue. Thats it, thats all this whole thing is about. It's not about safety, it's not about taxation, it's about the simple fact that Uber could put the entire taxi system out of business in less than year.

I dont think it would put it out of business but its clearly hurting trade.

We have same issues in uk, uk taxi drivers did at least one protest in london.

Over here they claim uber has lower costs due to not having to get certian licences or something so as such they cant compete, whether thats BS or not who knows, but I agree clearly taxi drivers are not enjoying been undercut.

Certian taxi's tho I think are a reasonable price, the ones that are a ripoff are the ones that use meters, so the meter ticks at traffic lights etc. They can get very costly.

e.g. from where I live to city centre on bus is £1.40, in normal tax its just £3.50 not bad bearing in mind it drops me off where I want not just at bust stop and more comfort, and meter taxi is about £12 a clear ripoff.
 
All of these clusterfucks (including the one where Uber drivers were basically given encouragement to poach Lyft drivers, or force them to waste time/gas etc...), show exactly WHY transport-for-hire need to be regulated. We only need to look at what cab companies (and now Uber etc..) do to each other, and to the travel experience when they are unregulated.

Uber is not a "ride share", its a for-profit car-service/cab enterprise that basically wants to exploit older regulatory language to avoid the fair costs of doing business. I don't think you should be able to claim something is a "ride share" unless it is zero-profit (ie only pay for gas money). The same corruption is happening on the lodging side with something like AirBNB - its not about giving people a place to crash for a pittance for the most part, its operating a hotel without all the requirements (ie fire safety, inspections, zoning etc..) that others have to deal with.

This isn't about "impeding progress", no more so than a manufacturing company running their fab out of a residential area and dumping untreated waste into the backyard, then claiming they can offer a "cheaper, better product if the gov't would just get off their back". Bull. Uber and the lot of them are welcome to compete, but they need to abide by the same rules as legitimate players in the market
 
Should they be put out of business? (No, I use them weekly). Are they clearly not ride-sharing services? Yes.

I hate taxis and use Uber/Lyft far more often than I should, they're just too damn convenient. But at the same time, clearly they're able to undercut the cabs because they aren't holding full insurance, more vehicle inspections, etc. They should definitely be able to compete either way; but we need to find a regulatory middle ground.
 
Deutschland, Deutschland, Über alles, Über alles in der Welt!

Those lyrics have not been in use since the end of WWII.

The complete official lyrics of the German national anthem are as follows today:

Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
Für das deutsche Vaterland!
Danach lasst uns alle streben
Brüderlich mit Herz und Hand!
Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
Sind des Glückes Unterpfand;
|: Blüh' im Glanze dieses Glückes,
Blühe, deutsches Vaterland! :|

Which translates:

Unity and Justice and Freedom
For the German Fatherland!
Let us all strive for this purpose
Brotherly with heart and hand!
Unity and Justice and Freedom
Are the Pledge of Happiness;
|: Bloom in the Glow of Happiness,
Bloom, German Fatherland! :|
 
More failure from Germany. Next the victim-feminists will outlaw prostitution and claim they are helping repressed women.
 
All of these clusterfucks (including the one where Uber drivers were basically given encouragement to poach Lyft drivers, or force them to waste time/gas etc...), show exactly WHY transport-for-hire need to be regulated. We only need to look at what cab companies (and now Uber etc..) do to each other, and to the travel experience when they are unregulated.

Uber is not a "ride share", its a for-profit car-service/cab enterprise that basically wants to exploit older regulatory language to avoid the fair costs of doing business. I don't think you should be able to claim something is a "ride share" unless it is zero-profit (ie only pay for gas money). The same corruption is happening on the lodging side with something like AirBNB - its not about giving people a place to crash for a pittance for the most part, its operating a hotel without all the requirements (ie fire safety, inspections, zoning etc..) that others have to deal with.

This isn't about "impeding progress", no more so than a manufacturing company running their fab out of a residential area and dumping untreated waste into the backyard, then claiming they can offer a "cheaper, better product if the gov't would just get off their back". Bull. Uber and the lot of them are welcome to compete, but they need to abide by the same rules as legitimate players in the market

Bullseye.

I mean, some of the examples are hyperbolic in a sense, but they are a perfect analogy of what is really going on here.
 
More failure from Germany. Next the victim-feminists will outlaw prostitution and claim they are helping repressed women.

Because somehow throwing in and blaming "feminists" into a post about Uber and ride-sharing disproves their point that feminism is needed in the first place. :rolleyes:
 
Zarathustra[H];1041064484 said:
Those lyrics have not been in use since the end of WWII.

I know, but these new lyrics are not as much fun! :p

(Yes, I understand the history behind it; I jest.)
 
Well after seeing the completely unsafe conditions present in a lot of DC cabs, I couldn't blame people that wanted to use another service.
 
No, I think this is about regulation ... although I support a high degree of deregulation, I think that services that have safety implications should be regulated and that these new internet services should operate within the parameters of the regulations ... taxi services are heavily regulated in most of the developed world for a reason ... although it would add some inconvenience to the Uber side of the equation it is not unreasonable for them to insure that all of their registered drivers carry valid insurance and driver's permits and that their cars have met all the required road safety requirements ... they could most likely compete with taxis even with that (and without putting their passengers/customers at risk) ;)
Taxi medallions cost hundreds of thousands. Over $600K in Boston. They were originally banned (since lifted I think) not for safety, but "on the grounds that the GPS-based smartphone app was not a certified measurement device."

A common justification used to fight ride sharing apps has been over safety, but the real force behind it is definitely the big money cab companies that now enjoy very limited competition due to the current medallion system. It's protectionism.
 
Well after seeing the completely unsafe conditions present in a lot of DC cabs, I couldn't blame people that wanted to use another service.

Cabs are often terrible yes, but that doesn't justify trying to circumvent or break the law.

IMHO, this is how law should work:

1.) You obey existing laws, regardless of how much you agree or disagree with them

2.) If you disagree with them you work to change them

3.) Only once they are changed do you change your behavior.

4.) Even after a law is changed, past violations of the law that is no longer in affect should still be prosecuted, as the person violated the law at the time.

Only then can we maintain the proper rule of law.

So, my take on Uber/Lyft/AirB&B etc is that - although I have never used them, they all appear to provide services that are valuable and provide a competitive edge against the status quo. They should be allowed to compete in the marketplace, as that is how we drive improvement, but not by violating or circumventing current laws.

These are regulated services for a reason, and the regulations need to be updated to reflect changing times and ideas, not flagrantly disobeyed.

We don't need the wild west out there.
 
Taxi medallions cost hundreds of thousands. Over $600K in Boston. They were originally banned (since lifted I think) not for safety, but "on the grounds that the GPS-based smartphone app was not a certified measurement device."

A common justification used to fight ride sharing apps has been over safety, but the real force behind it is definitely the big money cab companies that now enjoy very limited competition due to the current medallion system. It's protectionism.

I would support eliminating the regulations that require the expensive medallion ... I would also support that all drivers undergo a mandatory drug/alcohol test and background check before they join as well ... and maybe a mandatory LoJack on their vehicles :cool:
 
Protectionism at its finest. I'm still searching for a cab that I would deem safe. Most are poorly maintained.
 
What safety regulations do taxi drivers have over anyone else that actually protects us? I have never once felt safe in a taxi cab. In fact I would much rather ride with a complete stranger in a nice honda civic than some dirty beat down crown vic with an angry guy up front who I know is going to try and scam me into a higher fare.
 
Back
Top