Hacker News Reader

Comment by pgeorgi | Hacker News Reader

In that case they should claim that UberPool is not a taxi business, since they don't intend to do it full-time (requirement as of PBefG §13(5)1), and as such they want a temporary license (up to 4 years) as per PBefG §2(7) for this new mode of transportation. (IANAL, no legal advice, yada yada)

What doesn't work is to pretend that laws don't exist, and pissing off regulators. That will also make hacks like the above much less likely to work for Uber because that requires some minimum amount of goodwill (given that it is a hack)...

We have laws for everything (as Xylakant succintly stated), but they usually also come with way to thread in new ideas. However, screaming "DISRUPTION!!!1" all the time just isn't good enough here.

View on HN

>What doesn't work is to pretend that laws don't exist, and pissing off regulators

That actually seems to have worked OK to a large extent for the likes of Uber and Airbnb. If they had complied with every existing regulation out there they never would have got off the ground. Whereas going ahead and just launching it is hard for regulators to stop the whole thing if it has wide spread adoption and is popular.

Both Uber and Airbnb are currently in the process of being killed of in Germany. If they started here, they definitely wouldn't have gotten of the ground.

Yeah, Germany may be a bit unusual in terms of sticking to their regulations.

As a foreigner living here in Germany, I have been continually surprised by the level of regulation that is in place here.

I am often doubly surprised when I realise that nearly every single piece of legislation I've come across actually seems to make sense, when someone takes the time to explain it to me.

I personally think that the regulation of public transport is a good thing. The fact that people are insured when they transport me around in a 1 tonne potential deathtrap is a good thing.

The last thing I want to hear when I wake up in hospital gravely injured is "sorry sir, you'll have to sign here to accept liability because the driver of your unlicensed taxi wasn't insured to transport paying passengers".

This isn't a black and white picture though. Couch surfing is very popular in Germany, and the recent rail deregulation allowed for a whole industry of long distance buses to create. But Germans put the law above everything else, as to keep politics, power and everything from derailing like they did in the 20th century.

I agree they are way better off asking for forgiveness than asking for permission. But then Uber (or it's supporters) cannot get all butthurt when some regulator puts them in their place.

I dunno, it might easily be a working strategy. Changing the law is basically the New Guy against any entrenched interests (taxi lobbies or whatever) plus Momentum -- either of which makes a formidable foe. The two in concert? Ow.

People who use some Uber service and appreciate it are more likely to speak out to their leaders asking why the law is preventing this useful thing that they have seen, used, and appreciated. Does this help more than it annoys the people who would change things?

Uber's problem: we have no "taxi lobbies" in Germany.

Taxi companies exist on a county level in Germany, Uber is global. That's also reflected in cash and revenue and will at some point reflect in lobbying capability.

If anyone in this game is a bully, it's Uber.

I've heard this train of argument before from some Germans. There is no corruption in German politics. Our politicians don't listen to special interests. I find this interesting. I think that some of the people who've told me this even believe it.

Your parent post didn't claim there was no corruption in German politics. They said that taxi companies were small and disunited, while Uber is large and powerful.

local lobbies are the most powerful at writing local regulations.

Local lobbies? Most taxi companies are _tiny_. Yeah, in Berlin, Munich, Hamburg, Cologne you might have bigger ones, but they're still local.

The law in question is on a _federal_ level. It's not a law in Berlin the city, Berlin the state, it's a law in Germany.

Your condescending comments ("Haha, they don't believe in political corruption") are neither on topic nor relevant to the issue at hand. I advice you to stop and rethink your approach here, and maybe gather more facts first. You're just trolling at this point.

Sure. Just that that the "regulations" Uber is violating are a federal law. Just about nothing local here.

Corruption definitely exists in Germany and nobody seriously doubts that politicians listen to special interests.

However the taxi lobby has argued for years now that the fees they are allowed to charge are too low without gaining any ground. They quite obviously lack any notable influence.

Except when they can align them selves with protectionist forces.

What are those "protectionist forces" supposed to be?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com