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.
> 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... ) 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
