It's strange that this took so long, and only in Berlin.
If you want to drive a Taxi in Germany, you need a special driver's license. If you want to open a taxi company you need to prove that you are reliable and secure. Additionally you can't refuse a passenger (if there is nothing wrong with them) and can only charge the tarif the city says (+ additional charges like if it sunday or at night).
> It's strange that this took so long, and only in Berlin.
I'm not surprised that it's only in Berlin: Berlin and Munich are the only german cities Uber operates in. In addition to that you need standing to sue, so neither you nor me as a customer can sue. The injunction here is the result of a case started by a taxi company owner in Berlin, so it applies to Berlin only. I would assume that the Munich cab companies were waiting for this case to go through and might follow suit.
It's important to note that this is _only_ a preliminary decision, the final court decision may be different. It's more of an indicator in which direction the court leans, but preliminary injunctions may be granted for reasons such as that continuing the service might create irreversible facts. (nb: I haven't read the injunction)
Not just Berlin, the same happened in Brussels a couple days ago. We have a dinosaur of a "transport minister" who decided to ban. Two taxi companies monopolize the market.
That's a feature (Surge Pricing). The official reason is to get more cars on the road, but I bet they're not unhappy about pocketing more consumer money either.
Surge Pricing is illegal in Berlin, and probably other European countries. And I imagine the illegality of price gouging ("surge pricing") while also skirting taxi regulation will be expanded dramatically in the coming years, all across much of Europe and blue states.
Yes, you can profit when you find loopholes in regulations that your competitors can't take advantage of. Color me shocked.
It's worth noting that in this context as far as I can tell, Uber's drivers and cars were regulated and licensed. They are allowed to drive limos for hire, but the law requires them to return to their place of business after a job (they aren't allowed to keep cars sitting around to pick up passengers). The google translation of the main complaint by the taxi association is "they keep taxe similar primarily in downtown ready to spontaneously pick up passengers." In other words, they don't wait to receive a call to get a car close and available to their passengers.
So, while it's true that this is probably against the laws of the city, it's hard to see it as anything other than protectionism for taxis: there's no evidence that Uber was causing harm for passengers (or else they'd be talking about this), and there's no reason to believe that making a limo service return its cars to its place of business after each job is inherently better for consumers.
In this context it's important to note that it's not a city law. Übers drivers violate the Personenbeförderungsgesetz which is a federal law. The injunction might have happened in all german cities, but this specific case seems to be about Berlin only.
Most specifically Uber violates §49 ("Verkehr mit Mietomnibussen und mit Mietwagen"), Satz (4) which makes a very clear and distinct case that rental limousines must avoid confusion with Taxis. " Annahme, Vermittlung und Ausführung von Beförderungsaufträgen, das Bereithalten des Mietwagens sowie Werbung für Mietwagenverkehr dürfen weder allein noch in ihrer Verbindung geeignet sein, zur Verwechslung mit dem Taxenverkehr zu führen."
The regulations concerning limos for hire are far lower than the regulations concerning cabs, most notably limos for hire are exempt from §21 (Betriebspflicht) and §22 (Beförderungspflicht). Basically cabs have to accept any customer and the law demands that they keep on providing (and even expanding) their service as deemed necessary by the city. It's like saying "oh, regular cars are regulated as well".
The cabs in germany are regulated as part of the public transport. Uber tries to skirt that regulation and reap the benefits, while undermining the system - and by doing that they create damage to the consumers. Even if you assume there's no damage to the consumer it's not Uber that gets to decide which law applies and which needs disruption. I could think of a couple of laws that I think need disruption in my line of work (tax law, for example) but I don't get to choose either.
I completely agree with you. As Uber gets more popular, there's statistically more likelihood for assaults and rapes to happen (it does happen in some countries where taxi services are less regulated). What collateral would a distributed service like Uber have if one or more drivers turned out to be harmful to consumers?
I just had a look at the uber registration page. I don't think you need any kind of license, at least not for UberPop. The only requirements listed are your own car, age 21, a drivers license and that you're out of the probation period for the license.
Cab and Limo drivers at least need a Personenbeförderungsschein, but I'm not certain that UberBlack requires that, the wording is unclear ("gewerbliche Zulassung" relates more to tax and business registration for which the Personenbeförderungsschein might be a requirement or not)
Yeah, seems like a pretty clear-cut violation of the law. You can’t do that. If you think the law sucks then you have to lobby for change, not just violate the law.
Also, it’s not like Uber (absolutely terrible name in Germany) offers any advantages over, say, mytaxi (ordering the car with an app, paying with an app), besides maybe price. (And since mytaxi works within the confines of the existing taxi system they can’t really change anything about the price.)
God forbid we have transportation services not beholden to arbitrary regulations built in favor of the existing taxi industry.
People use Über because it's better than any regulated taxi service. That is direct, incontrovertible proof that the existing taxi regulations are hurting innovation.
Regardless of whether or not you are correct in your assertion that these regulations are arbitrary and exist only to benefit existing taxi companies (which, of course, disagrees with your former claim...), you don't get to break the law because you disagree with it.
>So I guess MLK should have just accepted the current state of affairs, and Anne Frank should have just turned herself in?
Comparing the civil rights movement to taxi regulations is ridiculous. If that's the best you can do it should tell you a lot about the strength of your argument.
>"Arbitrary" doesn't just mean "random". It also means "based on whim". There is no contradiction.
It means: "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." If there is a reason it is not arbitrary.
>Comparing the civil rights movement to taxi regulations is ridiculous.
In the context of this argument, they're logically isomorphic. The fact that the civil rights movement has more emotional significance is irrelevant.
You said "you don't get to break the law because you disagree with it". That's clearly bullshit if you believe that what MLK or any other law-breaking activist did was right.
>It means: "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." If there is a reason it is not arbitrary.
Emphasis mine. Your definition matched what I said exactly.
>In the context of this argument, they're logically isomorphic. The fact that the civil rights movement has more emotional significance is irrelevant.
No, they're not, and the significance of the civil rights movement is not "emotional." Drastic measures are required when people are being systematically oppressed and abused. Not so much when you want to start a taxi company.
>Emphasis mine. Your definition matched what I said exactly.
Right, except for you conveniently ignoring that last bit.
Arbitrary? While I can't speak for every taxi law in every country, I quite like knowing that the taxi I ride in has to maintain a standard of vehicle and that the driver isn't some chancer on day-release.
That sounds pretty arbitrary to me. What is "a standard of vehicle"? Who defines that? What if I don't mind riding around in a shitty car if I have to pay less?
Über also avoids the need for regulation of vehicle quality by having a rating system. There are better, more efficient ways to solve problems like this than by legislating against them.
In Berlin from SXF to the "city center" it will run around 40€, from TXL, around 20€ to 30€ depending, and no tip. (Also both airports are served by public transport)
So, no, they are not insanely expensive compared to other places in Europe (and even elsewhere)
It's a bad argument to compare the prices for one service in two distinct countries and then imply that the price difference must be due to regulation. There are a lot of other factors going into the price difference - from fuel prices, car prices, repairs, to taxes and other differentiating factors. Prices also always relate to the average cost of living in the area.
The average earning per km in Berlin is somewhere around or below 1,50 EUR before costs (anecdotal evidences but from a credible source). Nobody really gets rich from that - not even the cab company.
I don't think you realize how small a kilometer is! Or how valuable a Euro is (in terms of real money like dollars). That sounds to me like an incredible rate of profit.
These cities in the UK that cost three pounds to cross half of. Are they some kind of special, tiny city? Perhaps made out of lego? An awful lot of taxis charge a couple of quid as the minimum fare just to get in it, so where you're getting these taxis I don't know.
Here's a big list. Even allowing for the inherent unreliability of the internet (and some of those prices look a bit suspicious), just which city is it that costs three pounds to cross in a taxi?
Those prices look suspicious indeed. Most of my experience is from Glasgow around 2010.
I just entered a journey I made often (home in north-west Glasgow to the central station) and that website came up with £13.50. I clearly remember paying £5 with tip for that journey from a local taxi company.
Even with the dominant black cab company, I don't remember going home from the city centre late night for as much as that.
In Paisley, which is a bit smaller, I took taxis to the airport for £3 or £4.
SXF is not in Berlin. It's even in another german country (Brandenburg). So different regulations apply.
TXL should be cheaper, but that depends on the target.
Actually, things are a little more complicated here. It's correct that SXF (and BER) are in another country (Landkreis Dahme-Spreewald, LDS) and don't belong to Berlin which would ordinarily imply that the SXF Airport is not part of the area where Taxis from Berlin have to drop you off and that Taxis from Berlin would not be allowed to pick up passengers at the SXF airport for the return trip to Berlin (and the other way round, Taxis from LDS could not pick up passengers in Berlin for the return trip). Since that is obviously an unacceptable situation the "Berlin" area was expanded to include the airport and that LDS-based taxis could pick up passengers in Berlin in return. It used to be that the fee was slightly different depending on where the taxi was based, but I haven't noticed any difference in the last years.
The reason TXL is cheaper is mainly because it's closer, SXF is pretty far out and BER is even further out. There's an extra airport upcharge for TXL though.
> For someone who wants to nitpick you seem to have a funny definition of country
Please don't call people out for minor mistakes that the principle of charity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) can easily explain. Even when you're right, it usually adds more noise than signal.
It's easy to consider that omnibrain might be a non-native English speaker who isn't up on the distinctions between "country", "county", "state", "province", and the like. His or her meaning was clear, in any case.
If you do think something is important to correct, please edit out personalized language ("for someone...nitpick...you seem") from the correction. That too adds noise, plus detracts from civility.
This also applies to the parent's pointless observation and not providing a clarifying source (like I provided)
So if they're going to say I don't know what I'm saying while providing erroneous information (Brandenburg is a state, not a country) I'm going to prove them wrong
You could also avoid the noise by saying what people should or should not do
Please understand that when we post moderation comments like this, they're not intended personally. The intent is to send feedback into the HN system about what makes for a good thread. The hypothesis is that it will slowly adapt to the feedback. This may be working—some people feel the threads have gotten better—so, even though they're tedious both to write and to read, I'll keep posting them for now. Ideally, the system would eventually become self-correcting. We'll see.
In German, the word "Land" is used for both states (as in the federal states of Germany, Bundesländer) and countries.
Berlin is a City-State in Germany, entirely surrounded by the state of Brandenburg. Thus it's not too surprising that Berlin's big airport is "in another state."
Like lots of other things in Europe, some things are cheaper, and some thing more expensive than in North American cities.
But to say that taxis are "insanely" expensive is not just overdrawn, but disconnected from reality.
And doesn't in the least detract from the main point: that just because Uber (or its fans on HN) perceive taxi fares as being higher in some locations than in others, doesn't give Uber the right to bust its way through local regulations. Period.
Depends on the country. As far as I know, at least back when I was a kid, taxi drivers in Geneva earned very well due to the monopoly and limit on numbers.
It's interesting to note that "Uber" is translated as "About" (über)
---
Thanks for everyone explaining why Uber translates to about - I'm a german native. Not knowing that makes the google translate a little hard to read, so I thought I'd add it for all that don't speak german.
"Uber" is really quite a poor brand name for the German market. It either implies ignorance of the u-umlaut (the correct transliteration of über would be ueber, not uber), or worse, some very negative associations with Nazi ideologies (Übermensch and the first line of the Deutschlandlied).
What? Umber is just a preposition, it doesn't has nazi overtones. The fact that it's grammatically incorrect is probably a plus, because it's then less likely to be confused.
"über" does not always have nazi overtones but as with many other similiar words in the german language it is definitely tainted with nazi overtones, which are very obviously present depending on the context in which a word is used.
If you use "über" to describe something as better in some way, nazi overtones are very obviously present and if you name a company Uber, it's definitely implied that you're better than the alternatives.
>if you name a company Uber, it's definitely implied that you're better than the alternatives.
Wasn't this the point of the name?
Where I live people use über often and it means pretty much what it means in German and has no Nazi connotations. (Of course most of our German ancestors moved here long before WWI)
Of course it's the point but in precisely in this context it has a nazi overtones because this is how the nazis used it see "Übermensch" or "Deutschland über alles".
"Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, über alles in der Welt..." is the beginning of the first verse of the national anthem that has now been banned, although mostly because it refers to borders that Germany now does not have anymore.
"Über" has no direct translation to English, it can only be translated in context. It can be translated to about, above, over, across, of, via, beyond and several other words.
Good. Lawbreakers should be prosecuted. If the law is unjust, then change the law for all - don't allow some people to get away with it just because they are "tech companies" and continue to oppress the rest with the laws.
From all I read Taxi business in Berlin is already a highly competitive market with low margin and low salaries for the drivers. I think this market does not need a downward spiral. Granted, my sources (taxi driver blogs) may be biased.
So you trust the taxi drivers to tell you if their industry is "competitive enough"? Brb, I have to go ask comcast if the cable industry is competitive enough.
There is no such thing as too much competition. Increased competition always has a net positive effect. Comcast and the taxi industry may suffer, but society will benefit.
