> As much as you guys love to hate on Uber, do you honestly want to go back to a world without it?
As an European? Yes.
Things were evolving fine in Europe; from our POV, Uber isn't doing anything innovative - they're just a personal transportation company (we have those) with a cute app (we have those) that tries to outcompete everyone by unilaterally deciding that laws don't apply to them.
> Taxi unions aren't going to say "oh, but Lyft doesn't have as much sexual harassment in the workplace, we'll let them slide."
I wish this would stop; I get that sexual harassment is what media loves to write about, but this was not remotely the biggest or most wrong thing Uber has done. Their whole business model is antisocial.
As an european, I disagree strongly. Uber has improved my standard of living significantly. However has to be noted that taxi regulation varies greatly from country to country.
Obviously opinions about Uber and usage frequency vary, but it's a matter of fact that the quality of Taxi service in most European countries is better than in the U.S., and the ubiquity and affordability of public transport means that there is little actual need for Uber for most people in urban areas BEYOND convenience and luxury needs. And while those of course are total legit, they (in my eyes) shouldn't be the main driver in shaping legislation which will affect everyone.
My experience as an European taking our local taxis:
- Getting scammed by the typical "longer ride"
- Aggressive driving, crossing red lights, etc
- Unpleasant drivers: either passive-aggressive who won't reply to your "good morning", or permanently complaining about everything, including the current trip (too cheap!)
- Apps? Ha! They don't even have GPS, and no, they don't know "the whole city", good luck getting to a smaller street just by the address.
- Your trip goes a bit outside the city limits? Here's a surcharge for the remainder of the trip plus a fee for the trip back (even after your left the cab).
Plus one can't even point to Uber's corruption and lack of respect for law: our association of taxis and its president are no better, just smaller.
Uber's are not particularly cheaper around here, yet I'd choose it or one of their competitors over taxis any day even if they were 50% more expensive.
No question there, these are problems (although in the countries I know about such as Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, the taxi organizations have apps, and in addition there is MyTaxi).
But if you are a person who is willing to pay 50 % more just to get the Uber experience, then it is rather likely that you are part of a minority. Which, I think, proves my point of the group that Uber mostly caters to: convenience-focused people with enough money not having to worry about (frequently?) pay for ridesharing.
Someone like you is already able to take Uber Black, so everything is fine, isn't it?
And I disagree that it's just convenience. Crossing red lights and similar behavior that I've seen make it a safety issue as well.
By the way, I'm not willing to pay more because I'm flush with cash, but because I drive it rarely enough that it wouldn't mean much at the end of the year.
The claim that taxi dribers cross red lights (and Uber drivers don't) is the weirdest argument in support of Uber I have heard about so far.
Uber Black is giving you what you want: An enhanced experience over taxi while simoultaneosuly following the legal requirements.
But what you want in addition: it should be cheaper than taxi. Better overall experience, but cheaper. Makes sense, everyone wants that. But this comes with larger costs for the society (especially long-term) which frustratingly, the biggest Uber advocates always choose to ignore.
Having said that, I really do understand the frustration about the regular imperfections and inefficiencies of hailing a cab. The problem I see that the proposed answer - Uber - the very company - is in the end a very bad solution from a big picture view (even if it elevates the rider experience).
> The claim that taxi dribers cross red lights (and Uber drivers don't) is the weirdest argument in support of Uber I have heard about so far.
It's my experience, atypical or not.
> Uber Black is giving you what you want: An enhanced experience over taxi while simoultaneosuly following the legal requirements.
Incorrect. There's no legal difference between the two in my jurisdiction.
Maybe you're confused by Uber's names? Around here, like in other (all?) countries in Europe, UberX only uses drivers with professional licenses to drive passengers. The "free-for-all" model is UberPOP (which was never introduced in my country).
By the way, please don't tell others what they want. Obviously all other things equal I prefer to pay less, but I was very explicit in that I don't mind if they're somewhat more expensive, I'd still use it over taxis.
Having said that, while I like that Uber gave a kick in the pants in a complacent and frankly arrogant professional class, now that the market has been opened up I don't care if Uber itself sticks around.
No problem, for a while I was confused as well. Seems kind of silly of Uber to conflate the two; one would think it's in their best interest to avoid it.
"- Apps? Ha! They don't even have GPS, and no, they don't know "the whole city", good luck getting to a smaller street just by the address."
I usually use night tram (living in northern part of Poznań is quite nice) when I drink, but when I use taxi they usually have GPS. At least for a few years.
Maybe public transit only runs certain hours or that high quality taxi is too expensive. The billions of trips on Uber and similar platforms indicate that this is often the case.
If in fact there is "little actual need" for Uber, then nobody will use it. That's the beauty of allowing consumers the choice. It uncovers whether assumptions like this are actually true. It is like constantly running an experiment.
> The billions of trips on Uber and similar platforms indicate that this is often the case.
> That's the beauty of allowing consumers the choice. It uncovers whether assumptions like this are actually true. It is like constantly running an experiment.
From hundreds of years of running market economies in the world we already have a clear experimental result: consumers prefer cheaper goods/services to more expensive ones of equivalent quality.
If you can make your service cheaper by subsidizing it with VC money and then even more by ignoring regulation, then there's no surprise consumers will use it - even if long term, the service is unsustainable and socially destructive.
Why wouldn't I prefer Uber to Taxis even if the price was the same? I've ridden in tons of Ubers and taxis and the quality of the Uber ride has always been better: cleaner car, a non-monetary rating system that enforces good behavior (I think it's clear that tipping does nothing), working GPS and credit card usage, drivers always know where to go, etc.
I've never had to tell an Uber driver where to go or approximately where my destination is, so it's really frustrating when I can remember a few times where I would get into a taxi and have the taxi guy be frustrated at ME, the paying customer, for not knowing what region of the city my destination was.
Well, I explicitly wrote "BEYOND convenience and luxury needs"
Of course some people take Uber. For almost any kind of service there will be customers. But that's not the point. At least not my point. My point is that the large majority of people in Europe do not need Uber for their mobility needs. And therefore, Uber should - in my point of view - not get outsize influence over transportation policy.
Because Uber is not just a startup that wants equal terms. It is a predatory (I really rarely use this word, but for Uber, I do) giant that has zero consideration for social responsibility and very deep pockets for lobbyism. Once they have a foot in the door, they'll push it wide open. Which is why cautiousness in this case is really necessary, in my eyes.
It seems like the key argument hinges on whether or not venture capital is significantly subsidizing these rides. If Uber ever turns a profit (not a financially engineered one), that might change the discussion a bit.
I'm European and I couldn't disagree more with you.
Why didn't the EU block companies like Expedia taking over the traditional travel agent business, why didn't they stop Amazon and others from selling books online and stoped hundreds of traditional bookstores from closing, why didn't they stop VoIP and chat companies from closing, etc.
I'm not a fan of Uber as a company/culture, but the value they provide to me is huge. The traditional taxi driver isn't willing to change, admit that their license/medallion is a barrier to entry designed and speculated by them. If they don't want to change others will come and provide a better service/product.
To me, Uber is a necessary evil. I will continue to use them night and day... until a better service pops-up.
I draw the line at following the law. As far as I know, neither Expedia nor Amazon operate in blatant violation of law anywhere in Europe.
And even if it was just bending or breaking some rules unfairly lobbied in by the taxi mafia, I'd cut Uber some slack. But over the years, they've shown time and again, and again, that it's not about some greater social goal (in spite of their marketing copy), it's not surgical lawbreaking to make things better. They just play dirty and don't care; hell, the management was always pretty smug about it.
Because you don't need a license to sell books or vacations but you need one to drive a taxi? Don't worry, the taxi business will definitely change after this.
In the US, we've had black car services for years. The difference here was always that only taxi's could take road-side hails (that's it). Now, any commercial vehicle on the road in the US needs to comply with their state Public Utility Commission (PUC). If they cross state lines like truckers, there is a set of federal licensing (in addition to state regulations). Most Uber drivers are compliant with their state PUCs because it's pretty easy: <7 yr old vehicle, commercial insurance, valid drivers license. Digital hailing is an obvious efficiency gain that some people refuse to acknowledge (seemingly because of an emotional reaction >80%).
Sure, but, for example, Uber in London is not in the taxi business, but that of the minicabs. Minicabs don't need the taxi license. However, Uber does need to comply with TfL rules.
The really disrupting thing here is the ability in ordering the car from the mobile phone, and the frictionless experience. This is what is making the taxi obsolete. Now that black cab drivers have realised of the threat, they want to consider all others equals, when before they where happy living with Addison Lee, et al.
PS: travel agents do need licenses to sell airplane tickets, and have bank guarantees, etc., just to gain a fee. Pass through websites which earn a fee, like the travel agents, don't.
As a German: Most of my experiences with traditional cabs have been horrible. There were some nice exceptions but on the whole I really try to avoid taking a cab.
More-less the same as "an American", the two places are comparable. Situation may differ from city to city, but since the article is saying "Europe", I want to point out that many places in Europe had figured out all the legal Uber "innovations" long before Uber itself showed up on the continent. So we would be totally fine without an actor that doesn't play by the rules.
It's not really the same thing as saying as "an American". America is much more homogeneous than Europe.
Even though US states have laws that differ they operate using same legal system, culturally they are very similar and the majority of people speak english.
This is not the case within the European Union, for example German and Italian law uses a different legal system to Ireland. Their is no common European language and culturally their are massive differences from place to place.
I've had awful taxi experiences in many European countries (Italy, France, Belgium to name a few) in the years before Uber. Maybe I'm missing something, could you provide some examples of European countries where getting a taxi was a pleasant experience prior to Uber?
A fair point about the homogeneity, though existence of EU slowly improves things here.
> could you provide some examples of European countries where getting a taxi was a pleasant experience prior to Uber?
Probably everywhere. The problem is still lack of consistency.
Just look at this whole thread. I never had a bad experience with taxis in Poland, pre- or post-Uber - but I have a friend who had, and he hates taxi companies because of it. 'yoodenvranx doesn't like taxis in Germany, but 'burgreblast presumably doesn't mind. 'user15672 and 'phillc73 are ok with taxis in London, but hating on London taxis is so common I don't even need to look for examples.
So taxis in Europe aren't uniformly bad or uniformly good; they seem to be a mixed bag, with a lot depending on city, company or even the driver you get. Something that definitely could be improved, but then again, people report bad rides with Uber too, and all of that doesn't free Uber from the requirement of following local laws.
Can you expand on this please, because as noted by other comments, many other Europeans are disagreeing with you.
1. When you say "evolving fine in Europe," can you clarify what portions of Europe, perhaps specifically countries or cities? Or can you expressly state that you mean the entirety of Europe?
2. Can you name the personal transportation companies with cute apps that make Uber unnecessary for the regions indicated by (1) ?
1) Varies per city and per country, but over the years in Uber threads I've seen enough people on HN from various parts of Europe who told wrote about their local systems to be convinced that pretty much every country in Europe has such a business. So I believe I can generalize safely over at least the whole EU.
2) Where I live - Kraków, Poland - we had iCar for years (they've expanded to several cities in the region now). Their app could use a facelift, true, but otherwise works fine, and in pre-app times, their phone dispatch worked well too.
I remember them first showing up when I was a teenager, 10 or so years ago. They had a conflict with regular taxi companies over their business model - a conflict which over the years got resolved in courts, and regulations were appropriately adjusted. I can point to that as an example of how to handle the issue in a civilized way.
There are also at least two companies that attempt to bridge different services in different cities under one app - Taxi.eu and myTaxi. They also work together with the regular taxi services (the evil "taxi mafias") too.
I remember them first showing up when I was a teenager, 10 or so years ago. They had a conflict with regular taxi companies over their business model - a conflict which over the years got resolved in courts, and regulations were appropriately adjusted. I can point to that as an example of how to handle the issue in a civilized way.
So they started operating before the regulations were changed to accommodate their model. How exactly is this different from Uber?
They didn't act illegally, they found a workaround that was technically legal (taxis used a license-per-driver model, they figured out how to make it work with company-wide license) and lowered their costs (no need for expensive training and exams, they offset that by relying on GPS, and it was in fact the very reason I preferred them).
Regular taxi companies obviously got angry at the new competition, there was some tire slashing, and eventually courts clarified the regulations in a way that didn't turn out bad for either party, and now they peacefully coexist. Regular taxis adopted some of the new ideas, too, and the overall quality of service improved for every company.
I don't believe so. As far as I know, unlike Uber, iCar never:
- actually broke any local law
- pulled any shenanigans with taxes or employment laws
- allowed nor encouraged drivers to operate with improper insurance
- messed with journalists
- used investor money to subsidize rides to the point no one could compete with their prices
Their one innovation was using GPS, which allowed them to avoid the need for training drivers in city kowlege (and the legal workaround they found thus let them operate under one company-wide transportation license), and to bill by distance instead of by time. The latter was actually a huge value for consumers, because it removed the price variation caused by congestion, as well as allowed the company to state the whole price up front, which made people trust them more.
Prague has Liftago [0] (from English "lift" and Czech "tágo", colloquial for taxi). It basically unites licensed taxi drivers. Payments are processes by Liftago. Works very nicely.
I don't see a reason why a licensed taxi company couldn't work as Uber on the outside. (Liftago does.)
Without Uber, I can take a taxi (or a more Uber-like pseudo-taxi rental car with driver) anonymously, instead of being molested by a hostile company through a hostile app. So, apart from illegal pricing, they cannot even compete on quality of service.
I am currently vacationing in Rome, and loving it, except for two things: tourist-oriented restaurants; and taxis. Those are seriously horrible. 16 euros for a 5 minute ride? Not a problem for out budget, but this is racket, pure and simple, and I hate being fleeced. We're hating it enough that we'll try to avoid countries without Uber in the future.
That is one benefit of Uber (and trans-national apps like MyTaxi or Taxi.eu) compared to local taxis. My guess is you're being ripped off because you're tourists.
I remember that as a kid, my mother and grandmother would teach me to never take a taxi that's parking in front of the train station, because those are the scammers that prey on tourists. Instead one should order a taxi from a known company using a phone.
>My guess is you're being ripped off because you're tourists.
This does not make it OK. If Uber solves this problem alone it will help lift the local economy.
I'm enough of HN comment reader to know you mean well, but I honestly don't think you are thinking this through clearly because of your personal experience. Keep in mind, I live in a small town in fly-over-country-USA, so I have no use for Uber.
Not sure what you're referring to. I'm definitely not defending the practice of ripping off tourists, and in fact I admit that Uber, being a multinational service, gives a real value for consumers in this aspect.
> Things were evolving fine in Europe; from our POV, Uber isn't doing anything innovative - they're just a personal transportation company (we have those) with a cute app (we have those) that tries to outcompete everyone by unilaterally deciding that laws don't apply to them.
I think the major innovation that's overlooked (because they haven't rolled it out in many markets) is UberPool/Lyft Line. Being able to match strangers with departures/destinations on the same route leads to significant savings for the customers and better car efficiency (one car for two trips, instead of two cars).
I'd say no. Blablacar is more of a market place matching empty seats and riders with a driver to a common(ish) destination. UberPool is more like a smart/dynamically routed minibus that constantly picks up and drops off passengers. What they have in common is that they try to minimize empty seats in cars.
I don't know how UberPool or Lyft Line work exactly, but it sounds like the shared taxi initiatives (mostly operated by the railways) we've had in the Netherlands for decades.
> As an European? Yes.
> Things were evolving fine in Europe; from our POV, Uber isn't doing anything innovative - they're just a personal transportation company (we have those) with a cute app (we have those) that tries to outcompete everyone by unilaterally deciding that laws don't apply to them.
If you believe that taxis are getting better in Europe, see the following video:
So why did uber become popular if you already have equivalents? Unless Europe is populated by an abnormally large number of masochists, it must have been cheaper, more convenient, or higher quality.
If it was able to achieve one or more of the above benefits because it broke laws, I'm curious as to the benefits of those laws and do they outweigh the benefits uber apparently provided?
As an American, I am unfamiliar with taxi regulations in Europe, but I would be hard presssed to find any benefits of the taxi regulations in US cities in which I have lived.
On the other hand, in Japan where I live now, there are very few taxi regulations (no medallion system). Unlike the US, taxis are cheap, convenient, and high quality. As a result, uber is almost non existent. My intuition is if Europe had a well functioning taxi system like Japan, uber would not have become popular.
"Uber being popular" is probably just an American thing.
I can imagine mild popularity in Berlin, but I (living in a smallish town near a middle-to-big city) don't think I know anybody who has ever taken an Uber.
Not because of how scummy Uber is, but because it's nearly irrelevant.
It's only notoriety and relevance stems from it's legal troubles.
It was a great improvement in Budapest over the scumbag taxis.
Now of course the taxi lobby got it banned, but there's something called taxify instead, of course it's the homegrown version by some blessed local firm.
Uber is an amazing example of the Silicon Valley bubble trying to solve a problem that exists for them but not others. Just because taxi service was abhorrently bad in San Francisco doesn't mean it's that bad everywhere. VCs didn't really seem to know that and threw billions at them, they failed to live up to the promised growth because they ran into local competition that they didn't anticipate, so they pivoted to a margin play and are now spinning tales of how close they are to being able to fire all of their (already underpaid) contractors.
Can't wait to see them crash and burn and be replaced by commodity ride-share services that have a better connection to their service area.
Uber's MVP product improves upon all taxi services. Hailing a cab with an app is much better than making a call and hoping they show up.
But all the extra work getting people to drive in the spare time doesn't really add much value. It's only viable because they are dumping money in the market to subsidize it.
Uber could co-exist with taxis. In many cities you can hail a regulated cab with the app.
<quote>You know the rest of the world isn't as racist as the USA</quote>
Unless perhaps, you are a Turk in Germany or a Roma just about anywhere in Europe.
A reasonable point. I'd say the US is worse in absolute terms (simply on account of a much larger number of number of fatal shootings and the like), but whether that means it's more racist or similarly so and just more violent in general is tricky to analyze. It's unfortunate that we find ourselves having to make such comparisons at all :-(
Everywhere in the 60s or everywhere in pre-Uber XXI century? Honest question; I was under the impression that most of the racism problems in the US have been solved before I was born.
Racism in the US is not currently solved, so your impression is incorrect. Slavery is gone, and legal segregation is gone, but racism is still alive and well.
While the other comment is particularly snarky, and while modern day racism is less overt than activities like lynching, it still exists.
As an easy example from recent news, a Texas judge posting on facebook that it was "time for a tree and a rope" (which is an implied lynching)[0].
I love this, because it obliterates the "but why should I have to do anything for other people?!" argument of my conservatives friends here in the USA.
They always dance this weird line between "the deep state run by the rich are destroying this country for their profit" and "people should be allowed to make money however they want, and do whatever they want with that money."
This is very interesting. What are the limits on this?
The prior sentence refers to inheritance, so it's clearly about personal property also (if not exclusively). But if someone inherits a Porsche, in what way is it supposed to serve the public good?
Also, the following sentence discusses expropriation (which appears to be what is known in the US as eminent domain). And the title of the section is "Property — Inheritance — Expropriation".
I wonder if this means this section (including the intriguing sentence you quoted) is just talking about rules for inheriting and expropriating property. That is, perhaps it's not a general rule for property to serve the public good (just that it may be called to do so in cases of expropriation).
I would be very interested to know how other people interpret this sentence and the section in which it's found.
The article is number 14, so it's a basic right – articles 1 through 19 – we open our constitution with our rights, we don't add them as an afterthought in some amendments. ;-)
So paragraph 1 guarantees property and inheritance. And makes both subject to limitations, set out by law (freedom of art, for example, is not limited by laws, at least not literally in the text of the constitution).
Paragraph 2 lays out one such limitation: social benefit.
Paragraph 3 lays out a means to achieve that: expropriation (exceedingly rare, I think it is sometimes used for huge infrastructure projects like Autobahnen or railroad tracks, but only after years of negotiations).
So it is indeed a general rule, not a detail to expropriation.
To your question about the limits on paragraph 2 let me just throw in a bit from the German Wikipedia, without having checked it:
* Not all property is subject to this limit to the basic right to property, but only such property that has "social relevance"
I would interpret it so that apartments and housing are clearly having social relevance, but your Porsche probably hasn't.
Furthermore:
* Those limitations to the basic right to property must be rooted in fomal law, not just regulations or jurisprudence.
I'm not German, and obviously not familiar with German law, but it sounds to me like this sentence is not itself enumerating any particular limits, but rather serving as a reminder of the kind of philosophy they want the law to obey: that property is not a fundamental and absolute right like the right to life (as it is in the Lockean conception which influenced British and American law), but rather a conditional one, whose precise definition should be tuned to whatever is best for society as a whole.
What I mean is, I think history has shown that the "best" definition of property (as in, which one has the best outcomes for society) is one that's "mostly private". Full Communism clearly doesn't work very well, but an absolutely inviolate right to private property carries all kinds of problems too, so instead most countries have settled on a flexible definition where there is private property with an enumerated set of restrictions and limitations (which a hardcore Lockean can't do, because to them property is absolute). The sentence in the constitution seems like a reminder of this when it comes time for a constitutional judge to evaluate a particular law, which I think is right - a constitution can't cover every possible situation, it should be a set of guidelines for entering unfamiliar territory.
Right, on that level many things are basically abstract formulations of intent over which people can debate a long time. :-)
There is also Article 20, saying in part:
"The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state.
So the social obligation of property isn't a fluke, but more a consequence of this provision.
The "social" is really important here and it is being interpreted as a real duty of the state to achieve social welfare. And it is so central to our constitution that it is protected by the "eternity clause" in Article 79:
"Amendments to this Basic Law affecting the division of the Federation into Länder, their participation on principle in the legislative process, or the principles laid down in Articles 1 and 20 shall be inadmissible."
It's probably been thought of and accounted for already, but I have to ask: could the government first amend the constitution to remove Article 79, and then start messing with the parts it protected? :).
From what I know, the current legal consensus is that this is not possible (despite not being explicitly mentioned, which really seems like a strange oversight, but it's seen as being obviously the intent of article 79) – the only way to get rid of it would be to replace the Grundgesetz with a new constitution. (Some argue that since the institutions that could replace it are bound by the Grundgesetz, them enacting a constitution that doesn't provide the protections of article 1-20 would not be legal, but that's further in the realm of untested theories)
And of course, changes like this would be likely to happen in political environments that don't care about these things.
Article 79 does not overtly protect itself in the literal text, but constitutional scholars are pretty much unanimous in their assessment that Article 79 is indeed included, because any other interpretation would render Article 79 pretty much useless.
Modern economics started with Adam Smith saying , and I'm paraphrasing, enlightened self-interest for organizations can lead to the social and economic good for all
As an European? Yes.
Things were evolving fine in Europe; from our POV, Uber isn't doing anything innovative - they're just a personal transportation company (we have those) with a cute app (we have those) that tries to outcompete everyone by unilaterally deciding that laws don't apply to them.
> Taxi unions aren't going to say "oh, but Lyft doesn't have as much sexual harassment in the workplace, we'll let them slide."
I wish this would stop; I get that sexual harassment is what media loves to write about, but this was not remotely the biggest or most wrong thing Uber has done. Their whole business model is antisocial.