
Uber No Longer Banned in Germany - _mayo
http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/16/uber-germany-ban-lifted/
======
jbangert
Well, in Germany the only thing you need a taxi medallion for is waiting at
taxi stands and being hailed off the street. Everything else can be done as a
'rental car with driver' (i.e. livery), which is allow to receive driving
assignments via radio (which I am sure also covers an app). There is no
quota/medallion system for livery cars, nor any fare regulations, nor a
requirement to act as a common carrier. However, the drivers are required to
have a commercial driving license and special health/vision and defensive
driving tests, which I think is what Uber is trying to avoid.

~~~
mschuster91
> which is allow to receive driving assignments via radio (which I am sure
> also covers an app)

Not necessarily. According to Wikipedia (
[http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mietwagen_mit_Fahrer_(Deutschla...](http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mietwagen_mit_Fahrer_\(Deutschland)
) the livery car driver must not wait outside of the office for customers, but
has to return to the office and wait there for new jobs. If he happens to get
a job while driving, that's fair.

~~~
jbangert
Yes, but this is rarely enforced, especially if the minicabs don't wait in
front of a hotel, but just take a slow route home (Or if as in the case of
Uber, they get 'free'/unpaid time when they have no fare, as they are self-
employed). What do Uber cars currently do when they don't have a fare?

~~~
celticninja
Carry on with their other taxi jobs from what I can tell.

------
PinguTS
Actually, they where never banned as such and this decision is not a decision
in the case, but for formal reasons.

The original decision was an immediate decision based on the idea an immediate
reaction is required before final judgement takes place. This final judgement
has not taken place.

The immediate decision was opposed and for formal reasons the judge agreed
that immediate action is not required.

Final judgement in the case itself will take place some time later this year.
The jury has indicated, that in the case itself it may eventually violates the
law. But this is only in indication until final judgement takes place.

~~~
chmars
It is quite obvious that Uber drivers operate in violation of German laws.
Uber and similar companies will have to do a lot of lobbying for a change of
the relevant laws … in addition, Uber should provider their drivers with
insurance - otherwise, sooner or later an ugly accident without insurance
coverage for the victims will make unpleasant headlines sooner or later.

------
at-fates-hands
This actually surprised me considering how they essentially said they would
continue to break the law. In my experience, when you start openly defying
laws, judges tend to come down pretty hard against you.

Hopefully their fines are still enforceable.

~~~
pkaye
Corporations always manage to openly defy laws and survive with a slap on the
wrist.

~~~
ivanca
If you are a Bank you can even get away with money laundering (with a fine,
but the money laundering pays it itself):
[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/hsbc-judge-
approves...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/hsbc-judge-
approves-1-9b-drug-money-laundering-accord.html)

------
cwal37
One thing that I think people are unaware of with respect to America vs.
Europe is the implementation of the precautionary principle[1]. While it is
discussed most often in environmental circles (probably one of the key
differentiators in international environmental policy/law), it really has
become a pervasive cultural difference in governing perspectives. While it is
not officially ingrained in all aspects of EU law, it is certainly present in
quite a few decisions.

Personally, I think there needs to be a balance, and you can find examples on
both sides of its implementation being heavy-handed (GMOs in Europe), or its
absence devastating (some Superfund sites or adverse long-term health impacts
in the USA). Of course, I'm speaking in general terms here, as you can find
counterexamples in both cultural spheres, but that general policy distinction
does exist.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle)

~~~
twoodfin
Do you think it's at the root of the policy differences? I frequently suspect
it's more of a stalking horse for other ideological agendas. How much of a
brake did the precautionary principle put on a unified currency, for example?

And it's hard to see on which side the PP comes down for many issues: Should
we institute a carbon tax because we should show precaution at the effects of
a continuing accumulation of greenhouse gasses? Or should we avoid it because
we can't properly gauge its long term cost/benefit ratio?

~~~
cwal37
I don't think it's at the root, but I do think it's an important factor. I
come from the world of environmental science and policy, and it's clearest
there. Environmental law in particular, which was one of my favorite subjects
in grad school (incidentally, it's really interesting to see how federal
environmental protections started in the US then migrated to Europe and became
stronger there).

I tried to couch my comment in fairly broad terms (with plenty of caveats)
because I know it's not universally applicable. However, I do truly believe
that it is an important idea to understand when parsing differences in policy
reactions between the USA and Europe. Specific implementations may come down
to pre-existing biases, but I think it's still crucial to know what the PP is
and how it could be applied in a more black and white situation. To me, it's
all about having some knowledge of the frameworks in play in a given
situation.

------
chasing
Do they still get fined for the time they were operating under the ban? Or
does it retroactively invalidate the fines?

------
Genmutant
So, are they going to comply with the law now, or continue to ignore it?

~~~
viscanti
What law and what is the purpose of said law?

~~~
mschuster91
In Germany, the taxi market is strictly regulated and enforced.

Cities have uniform tariffs, calibrated meters and forced availability (i.e. a
taxi driver is obliged to take everyone everywhere, unless the guest is a
danger to the safety of the taxi like drunk or agressive) to avoid the horror
stories of other cities like wildly varying prices for the same route (hello
Uber surge pricing!), cabs not responding to a hail (multiple accounts of this
on HN e.g. for New York)... and the drivers have to undergo a rigorous testing
of location knowledge, which usually takes into account not just the streets,
but also basic history and points of interest.

Also, in most cities the number of available medaillions usually represents
the amount of taxis needed, so there is no unhealthy competition and enough
taxis on the road to serve the demand.

Edit: Yep, the cars also are mandatory checked once every year and the cars
are commercially insured. Rigorous checks also make sure every driver is
appropriately registered and no "illegal" workers drive. The downside of the
system, though, is that the fares are seen to high from customers' POV and too
low from the company POV (because the prices are often adjusted only once
every couple of years and in the meantime, gas and insurance costs only go
up).

Another thing which will be massively disrupting the German taxi space will be
the mandatory minimum wage of €8.70/h - while now a huge lot of the taxi
drivers are paid a percentage of their income, everyone will have to shift to
hour-based payments, which will definitely affect the companies.

~~~
Genmutant
You also need a commercial insurance for your car.

------
api_or_ipa
Awesome, so my city is still the only market they've ever pulled out of. Way
to go Vancouver. welp :(

------
juliankmazo
Governments always create borders and politics that slow down the innovation.
But we have great entrepreneurs disposed to fight against that.

~~~
tomp
Governments protect the people by banning dangerous, profit-driven practices.
As they should.

~~~
baddox
The problem is that the corporations too often have a large influence on what
is considered "dangerous," and that too often becomes things that are
financially dangerous to entrenched corporations, like innovation.

~~~
krapp
True. But sometimes corporations would prefer to innovate at the cost of
lives, or safety, or even honesty.

I'm not suggesting that this applies to Uber or not, as clearly people find
value in it _and_ also find value in regulation for taxis in general, only
that I don't believe it's axiomatic that regulation and innovation are
necessarily mutually opposed.

