Uber hit with preliminary injunction to stop service in Berlin
zeit.de
zeit.de
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)
Yes, you can profit when you find loopholes in regulations that your competitors can't take advantage of. Color me shocked.
Neelie Kroes then spoke out against this ban: https://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/c...
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.
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.
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)
Assuming taxi service regulation is fair of course. Taxis are insanely expensive in Germany.
In London, black cab drivers still earn a very decent amount, able to take home £500 on a regular day afaik. http://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/18oush/how_much_do_t...
What?
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)
For someone who wants to nitpick you seem to have a funny definition of country...
And yes, taxis in SXF have a higher tariff http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxigewerbe_in_Berlin
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.
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
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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_Germany
This happens in the U.S. too - Cincinnati airport is actually in Kentucky, etc.
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.
I would often take a taxi for £3 or £4 half way across a city in the UK, which would cost more like 15€ in Germany.
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.
Just giving my opinion that I find taxis far more expensive in Germany than I did when living in the UK.
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?
http://www.numbeo.com/taxi-fare/country_result.jsp?country=U...
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
So I guess MLK should have just accepted the current state of affairs, and Anne Frank should have just turned herself in?
The law is not some ultimate moral authority.
>these regulations are arbitrary and exist only to benefit existing taxi companies (which, of course, disagrees with your former claim...),
"Arbitrary" doesn't just mean "random". It also means "based on whim". There is no contradiction.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
"über etwas sprechen" -> "to speak about something"
"über die Brücke" -> "across the bridge"
"weit über das Nötige hinaus" -> "far above what's necessary"
Even the playing field by lifting restrictions, or apply them evenly.
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.