
Berlin bans Uber app citing passenger safety - Schweigi
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28788142
======
probably_wrong
I have to wonder about this quote:

> As a new entrant we're bringing much-needed competition to a market that
> hasn't changed in years.

What does a San Francisco startup knows about the taxi situation in Berlin?
Uber has often been well received in cities where taxi service is inefficient,
but are berliners really unhappy with the service? Does Uber know that taxis
in Berlin are used mostly by tourists, and therefore are not that hard to
catch?

Maybe Uber has spent a lot of time researching the German market, or maybe
they are following Walmart steps[1] in applying US notions to a foreign
market. But after living in Berlin for a year, I have to wonder: if Uber's
free-for-all approach clashes against Germany's love for paperwork, whose
fault is it?

[1] [http://www.dw.de/worlds-biggest-retailer-wal-mart-closes-
up-...](http://www.dw.de/worlds-biggest-retailer-wal-mart-closes-up-shop-in-
germany/a-2112746-1)

~~~
oleganza
Every person who takes Uber ride votes for Uber and against other taxis. If
berliners are all happy with taxis, Uber wouldn't earn a penny there. But
since they do and are willing to invest into challenging the ban in court,
it's an indicator of existing demand for Uber.

Now who is this Berlin "authority" to decide for people how they should travel
from point A to point B? I don't care if Uber is from SF, Berlin or Hong Kong.
They are not forcing people to pay them unlike governments that extract taxes
and then tell taxpayers how they should live.

~~~
probably_wrong
> Now who is this Berlin "authority" to decide for people how they should
> travel from point A to point B?

I think this is a great point to illustrate the difference in mentality
between Germany and the US.

From what I've experienced, people in Germany trust their government to make
sure things are the way they should be. As an example: every apartment is
required by law to provide a certain amount of natural light. You literally
cannot offer an apartment without windows, nor with windows that lead into a
wall.

And you could say, like I did, "but what if I want to live in a windowless
apartment because it's cheaper?". The German answer to that is "No, every
person deserves decent living conditions, so you are not allowed to offer
something that is not decent, _even if there is people willing to pay for it_
". That's the German way of doing things, and germans seem pretty happy about
it.

Of course, this line of reasoning wouldn't fly in the States. I think Uber
failed to understand that the German government will not allow a service that
does not meet the approved standards, _even if there 's people willing to pay
for it_, because as a German citizen you are entitled to (and implicitly
expect) a certain quality of service (insurance, availability) that Uber is
not providing.

~~~
mnutt
For what it's worth, most US cities I know of have certificate of occupancy
standards requiring bedrooms to have minimum amounts of natural light.

~~~
viggity
I'm not sure that they're actually after natural light. Windows, yes. Natural
light, probably not. In order to be considered a bedroom, you need a way of
exiting the room in the event of a fire. Windows do that. In areas with
basements, the window needs to be an egress window so someone can actually
crawl out.

[https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1...](https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1920&bih=1017&q=egress+window)

------
PinguTS
To all who think passenger safety equals insurance: you are wrong. Passenger
safety is much more.

Passenger safety is mainly 3 topics, which are all have to be fulfilled: 1\.
The car has to be in proper technical conditions. 2\. The driver is trained to
be allowed to drive people around for business purposes. Higher standards
apply, then for regular driving behavior. 3\. Insurance, insurance of the
passenger as well as insurance of third party. As for commercial drivers, they
do much more millage and as such it is much more likely, that something
happens.

For (1): a commercially driven vehicle makes much more millage, as such it is
required to visit inspection every year, while for regular vehicle in Germany
it is only every other year.

For (2): drivers with a commercial license to drive people around are required
to have regular medical check-ups. Also wrong behaving while driving is judged
much hard, mostly twice the amount and double the points. That means, they can
easily loose their license. That way, there should be a commercial pressure on
them to drive safely.

By the way, Uber does not compete only with Taxi service. Their drivers don't
need a taxi license at all. Because, in Germany there are besides of Taxi
additional licenses for such business. The are a number of such services, that
operate within legal bounds since tens of years. The only difference between
the "cool" start-up Uber is, that those have no shiny App and you have to know
there phone numbers. That said, there are also services, which have an App,
like
[http://www.mydriver.de/fahrdienst/berlin](http://www.mydriver.de/fahrdienst/berlin)

The main problem besides safety is also, that Uber promotes and supports
moonlighting/illegal work. Because their argument is, that they provide only
ride sharing. BUT, if that whould be true, then why promote a new ride sharing
service called UberPool? If Uber would provide real ride sharing, as they
argue, then they would only start UberPool and not UberX and UberPop.

But with UberPool there is the problem for them, they will compete with lots
of other ride sharing companies, which operate in Germany since years and
which are well established, like Blablacar, Flinc and others.

TL/DR: If Uber would operate within the well established business practices
and requirements, nobody would complain. But they don't want, because they
want to be cheap on the back of actively ignoring all requirements.

~~~
conception
I agree with all your points except "The only difference between the "cool"
start-up Uber is, that those have no shiny App and you have to know there
phone numbers." The Uber experience is significantly better than a normal cab
ride. The shiny app does a lot to make the experience better, pays for the
service (don't need to tip either!), tracks your driver, gives you contact
information and a name/picture, as well as let you split fares between the
passengers automatically, etc etc. That combined with surge pricing and the
crowd sourcing nature (uber is often the only service any place but downtown
or the airport) makes for a better product, safety concerns aside.

~~~
PinguTS
1.: as the other wrote, there is the App called MyTaxi, which does the very
same with regular Taxi service. The funfact is, in Germany Taxi service is
available on much more places than you think, even in the back coutry, and one
requirement with a Taxi license in Germany is, that they are not allowed to
deny a pickup. There is no surge pricing. You always pay the correct price and
their is regular legal inspection that they don't cheat on you in terms of
manipulation of the taxameter.

2.: The other App I mentioned, works the very same way and is even backed by
one of the big rental companies, called Sixt.

------
fabian2k
From what I read in other articles (e.g. [http://www.golem.de/news/fahrdienst-
app-uber-macht-in-berlin...](http://www.golem.de/news/fahrdienst-app-uber-
macht-in-berlin-trotz-verbot-weiter-1408-108580.html)), Uber insures the
drivers, but with a lower maximum payout for damages of 3.5 million. The
mandatory minimum for car liability insurance is 7.5 million for damages
against persons in Germany.

------
fidotron
The bigger picture here is the trend of local governments desperately pushing
against a tide of ever more pervasive globalisation.

The simple reason something like Uber will win is business travellers expect
to show up in any city and for it to work. If it doesn't that's not a mark
against the Uber-like, it's a mark against the city. People do not want one
app per city or country, but one which works everywhere. This is beyond the
scope of any government to get near.

The thing is Uber are slimy in the way Napster were taking the piss a bit, but
it's clear the space is there for someone to come in and clean up.

~~~
Xylakant
See, Uber could do it. They could just follow the regulations like everybody
else, provide a better service and in the end, all would win. Or just provide
the app and have a local partner in germany that does. But they don't want to.
They want more: Skirt the regulations and illuminate us, but we don't want to
be illuminated, especially not when the proceeds for that illumination go to
ubers pockets while society bears the costs.

~~~
fidotron
That misses the point completely, which is that globalisation is forcing
governments to accept a lowest common denominator of regulation.

You can debate the merits of this until the cows come home, but it doesn't
change that it's happening, and while attempts to prevent it can have limited
local short term success the long term perspective is that the power of
government, even at the super national level (such as the EU) is being
steadily eroded by private interests.

As an example, we all boo whenever a country bans Twitter, but that's just
them enforcing their local regulations, which I'm sure they have very good
reasons for. (i.e. they may legitimately prevent a riot) This is no different.

~~~
Vik1ng
I don't see why a country should accept any lowest common denominator of
regulation for local taxis. Something that literally only affects the area in
that country. If I need to get from the Berlin Aiport to the city centre then
it doesn't matter what kind of cab service NY or SF has. They only cabs
available there are going to be cabs and rides the Berlin or German government
allows to operate.

------
kriro
I wonder if "insurance for a cut" is a thing. Basically apply the credit card
model to insurance for cabs. Insurance company takes X% of all rides for
providing the proper insurance needed for said rides.

Keeps the barriers to entry low (giving up a cut is easier when you just do a
couple of customers on the side than having higher fixed costs) and would
probably allow a smart insurance company to make a nice bundle of money.

~~~
seeingfurther
I don't know much about the insurance or ride-sharing industry but on the
surface it sounds like a great idea.

------
avz
It's true that Uber follows a liberal interpretation of existing regulations
and this gives rise to legitimate concerns about fairness of its competition
with the incumbents. Nevertheless, the new model does offer some benefits over
the old way of doing things. The two that come to mind first:

Utilization of resources. As a society we have a lot of cars. It seems
reasonable to increase their utilization instead of setting aside a dedicated
pool for taxi services.

Regulatory upgrade. The existing regulations and licensing regimes were meant
to increase safety and quality of service, but did that at the cost of reduced
competition, increased prices and granting disproportionate privileges to the
incumbents. Some of the same very goals like trust, safety and quality have
now been achieved by Uber and the like without the same costs thanks to the
reputation and review systems long employed in the internet. This is clearly
desirable.

I wish Uber engaged in more German-style consensus-seeking with the
authorities, regulators and the incumbents instead of going for an all-out
war. Change is clearly overdue in the taxi services, but the way it happens is
just as important.

~~~
Xylakant
> but did that at the cost of reduced competition, increased prices and
> granting disproportionate privileges to the incumbents.

This is a feature. Whether those privileges are disproportionate is up for
debate. There are very few actual privileges in germany. It would be an easy
thing for Uber to just get some licenses for Berlin. They don't want that
though, because the regulation also places burdens on the license holder: No
right to deny a ride, even if you're making a loss, fixed prices, etc.

> It seems reasonable to increase their utilization instead of setting aside a
> dedicated pool for taxi services.

There's no requirement that forbid use of taxis as private cars. Nobody in
Berlin does so, since a cab makes more money when it's driving, so drivers
share cabs. But the town where I was raised, the local cab driver would use it
as a private car.

> Some of the same very goals like trust, safety and quality have now been
> achieved by Uber and the like without the same costs thanks to the
> reputation and review systems long employed in the internet.

Looking at how reputation and review systems get abused and gamed on the
internet, I'd rather trust the Berlin administration, as incapable and weird
they sometimes are.

> This is clearly desirable.

I think sticking to the regulations is clearly more desirable than disrupting
them. Who's right here?

> Change is clearly overdue in the taxi services

I actually don't think that's the case, at least not in Berlin. Some
adaptions, sure, but nothing dramatic (like does a cab really have to be
white? It's useful when you're trying to find one, but a sign on top might be
sufficient).

~~~
avz
Not sure about Berlin, but in many places getting a taxi license (medallion)
involves paying so much money that people use mortgage-like financing to get
it. This denies taxi jobs to low income and unskilled people without good
credit rating.

There is clearly a lot more than taxi colors that can be improved. Rating and
reviews is one such example. Price and route transparency are another. User
experience (for example through replacement of call centers with mobile apps)
yet another.

~~~
Xylakant
I couldn't find the price for the taxi license in Berlin, but some Hamburg
Taxi driver summarizes about 600-700 Euro for all costs included [1]. It's for
an extension, so that doesn't include the health check and the special driver
license you need, but all in all that should be a low 4-digit investment.
There are 7000 medallions in Berlin, so that already shows it's not a
mortgage-like investment. You'll have to pay the actual cab, though :)

There's an app for regular cabs in germany (mytaxi) that gives you ratings,
reviews, payments and the user interface improvement you wish for while still
being fully legal. They basically replace the callcenter and take a
commission, like a call center would do.

[1] [http://taxi-magazin.de/taxi/topics/buerokratie-huerden-
und-k...](http://taxi-magazin.de/taxi/topics/buerokratie-huerden-und-kosten-
einer-konzessions-verlaengerung.php)

------
nemesisj
I've used taxis in four major USA metro areas fairly extensively: Chicago, San
Francisco, NYC, and South Florida (Ft. Lauderdale / Miami).

NYC is mostly OK, although drivers are sometimes hard to understand. Chicago
was a step below, but still OK.

South Florida and SanFran were the worst. Dirty, awful, dangerous drivers.

All of those cities are very expensive, often have trouble with credit cards,
and didn't have a good way to hail a cab other than calling at the time.

I can see why Uber in theory makes sense in those environments. I remember
when Uber launched in Europe I got an email from someone there asking about
Edinburgh (where I live). My response is that I don't see Uber doing well in
Edinburgh.

Right now, in Edinburgh, I can hail a cab with an app that lets me specify my
route or drop a pin where I'm at for pickup. I can see the cab on the map
driving towards me. I get an automatic ringback on approach. I can pay with
stored cc information or corporate account. Cabs are impeccably clean,
inexpensive, and the drivers are really great. They are all trained in First
Aid and most are highly accessible (you can specify if you need accessibility
on booking). They will help you with luggage, engage in chat, and it's a
really great experience.

There are also private hire companies that compete with the cabs. There is
some tension there as those cars don't offer or require the accessibility of
cars and training to their drivers, and they're on the same meter. I almost
never use them. The black cab cars are really great to get in and out of
particularly with luggage.

So to sum up, Uber just isn't going to do that well here in my estimation.

------
Thiz
Passengers have the inalienable right to choose the level of safety they feel
comfortable for a price, and no goverment should confiscate that right.

That's the essence of free markets.

~~~
Vik1ng
Until the driver crashes into another car and is no covered by insurance...
Sorry, but your "inalienable" right end once you affect others.

Also someone will have to pick up your hospital bill I you weren't insured.

------
themartorana
"The Berlin authority said passengers may not be covered by insurance because
they aren't traditional cabs."

Well, figure it out. Seems like something that could be answered with a phone
call to an insurance company. It probably would have taken less time than
banning Uber.

If they had and the answer was "no, they're not" it would be an easy fix.

I'm probably reading into it, but this is a pretty shaky excuse.

~~~
Xylakant
Well, the Hamburg Authority did that, it's a funny read:
[https://www.dropbox.com/s/2aok79ru2kyrn30/SBWVI-
PRT-71407181...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/2aok79ru2kyrn30/SBWVI-
PRT-714071812190.pdf) The response of the insurance company was: No, this is
not covered under the insurance contract and we canceled the contract for that
violation.

So yes, the insurance for private car owners does not cover commercial
activities - no surprise here. And it's not an easy fix, because the premiums
for commercial contracts are much higher, making the whole business idea much
less profitable. And then, there's another long laundry list of code
violations that Uber has to fix. I'm all in for letting Uber compete with
cabs, but please, stick to the same rules and don't pretend that "disruption"
is an excuse for "illegal".

