Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!)
-
Context for those who won't read the article: that was before he got elected president. At the time, he was a minister for a government that was hostile to Uber operating in France.
-
@Zerosquare said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
At the time, he was a minister for a government that was hostile to Uber operating in France.
But also, he was known for being a pretty strong advocate of deregulation (going against the grain of that government, yes). So this is entirely in accordance with his character.
One of his legacies from this time are what are colloquially called "Macron's buses" i.e. making it easier for private companies to run long-distance bus services between cities (which before was impossible, I'm not entirely sure why, but in practice only the public rail company did it -- and very badly/expensively).
-
@remi said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@Zerosquare said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
At the time, he was a minister for a government that was hostile to Uber operating in France.
But also, he was known for being a pretty strong advocate of deregulation (going against the grain of that government, yes). So this is entirely in accordance with his character.
One of his legacies from this time are what are colloquially called "Macron's buses" i.e. making it easier for private companies to run long-distance bus services between cities (which before was impossible, I'm not entirely sure why, but in practice only the public rail company did it -- and very badly/expensively).
Since the same happened around the same time in Germany, it's probably not just Macron thing.
-
@topspin said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Reminds me, it’s been a while since I last checked if they’re still illegal in Germany, and if they’re still illegally operating anyway…
Why are they illegal in Germany?
-
@Kamil-Podlesak It's probably not, you're right. It's likely part of the whole deregulation of mass transport such as the opening of rail lines to other operators (not that this one is working, at least in France... I think a couple of companies have tried it but it's far from a success, either from a business point of view or as a consumer...).
But in France he was the one who endorsed and pushed this whole agenda, hence it's associated with his name.
Somewhat paradoxically, I believe that having a left-wing government at that time made it easier for those reforms to go through. The government had more goodwill from leftists (who are/were the most opposed to this idea), and the government could also play the PR card of this "rogue" minister going further than they'd like. Which is pure bullshit, of course, but allowed for example the president to step in and ostensibly "rein in" Macron, i.e. cutting off part of his reforms, which soothed a bit the left wing. The same minister in a right wing government would have faced a much stronger public opinion backlash.
(see also how he managed to pass changes to employment's laws with relatively few protests, when similar (in scope) changes some years before by a right wing government brought huge protests and strikes -- and how, a few years later when he was president and couldn't "hide" again behind a left-wing president, his pension reforms were hugely contested (though on the brink on going through when COVID happened))
-
@remi said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Somewhat paradoxically, I believe that having a left-wing government at that time made it easier for those reforms to go through.
"Only Nixon could go to China."
-
@MrL said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@topspin said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Reminds me, it’s been a while since I last checked if they’re still illegal in Germany, and if they’re still illegally operating anyway…
Why are they illegal in Germany?
I don't know if they still are.
They were because they decided they don't have to obey the laws. Because, as the thread title says, "regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough".
-
@topspin said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@MrL said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@topspin said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Reminds me, it’s been a while since I last checked if they’re still illegal in Germany, and if they’re still illegally operating anyway…
Why are they illegal in Germany?
I don't know if they still are.
They were because they decided they don't have to obey the laws. Because, as the thread title says, "regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough".
I hoped for some details
-
@MrL it's been too long for my memory, I'd have to look it up in more detail. There have been several verdicts against them in the past, deciding that they can't operate without complying to necessary regulations (trade laws, taxation, etc.). They also have continued operating nevertheless.
A brief look at wikipedia says they operate in 8 German cities. Another brief search also says that the high court has just upheld the verdicts:
-
@topspin said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@MrL it's been too long for my memory, I'd have to look it up in more detail. There have been several verdicts against them in the past, deciding that they can't operate without complying to necessary regulations (trade laws, taxation, etc.). They also have continued operating nevertheless.
A brief look at wikipedia says they operate in 8 German cities. Another brief search also says that the high court has just upheld the verdicts:
That's pretty vague - pretty much what Uber does everywhere. But thanks anyway.
-
@topspin said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Reminds me, it’s been a while since I last checked if they’re still illegal in Germany, and if they’re still illegally operating anyway…
Last time I looked, they were only allowed to act like a normal Taxi company - i.e. no offloading of business costs unto their drivers.
-
@Rhywden said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@topspin said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Reminds me, it’s been a while since I last checked if they’re still illegal in Germany, and if they’re still illegally operating anyway…
Last time I looked, they were only allowed to act like a normal Taxi company - i.e. no offloading of business costs unto their drivers.
Actually, this by itself is a legal practice in some other countries (ie the company is basically a dispatch for self-employed taxi drivers) and Uber still run into legal trouble in those countries as well (because there is still a big difference between self-employed taxi driver and a random schmuck in 1973 Zhiguli).
AFAIK the only special thing about Germany in this regard is that the whole "we are totally doing something totally absolutely completely different, because Web 2.0" schtick did not work on any of the three levels: city/state bureaucracy, elected politicians, courts. In most other countries, one of these can be persuaded to at least "postpone decision to seriously consider this compelling argument".
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
there is still a big difference between self-employed taxi driver and a random schmuck in 1973 Zhiguli
The difference being that the schmuck is cheaper, arrives at your location and won't steal from you at every opportunity. It is pretty big, yes.
-
@MrL said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
there is still a big difference between self-employed taxi driver and a random schmuck in 1973 Zhiguli
The difference being that the schmuck is cheaper, arrives at your location and won't steal from you at every opportunity. It is pretty big, yes.
IOW the basic difference between amateur and professional.
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@MrL said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
there is still a big difference between self-employed taxi driver and a random schmuck in 1973 Zhiguli
The difference being that the schmuck is cheaper, arrives at your location and won't steal from you at every opportunity. It is pretty big, yes.
IOW the basic difference between amateur and professional.
I must be not very professional as I don't steal.
-
@MrL said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
there is still a big difference between self-employed taxi driver and a random schmuck in 1973 Zhiguli
The difference being that the schmuck is cheaper, arrives at your location and won't steal from you at every opportunity. It is pretty big, yes.
You must be talking about Poland, or somewhere else, not Germany.
Here the professional certainly doesn't steal from you (which I assume you mean literally, because "cheaper" is listed separately). Also, for a real taxi driver I know beforehand I'll get decent service and arrive at the destination, for the random schmuck how would I know that.All of which is irrelevant, because the point is that the specific laws and regulations apply to everyone. If you want them changed, get them changed. But the whole "we're not a taxi company1 so we don't need to follow the law" or "paying taxes or requiring insurance is too expensive, we wouldn't be disruptive if we followed the law" shit is just not going to fly. Their whole attitude of "we're from Silly Valley and we don't care what laws you have, we can do whatever we want" should get them kicked out of here completely.
1 They literally tried to pretend that they're a "ride share" service at one point, which they most definitely are not, and at another point apparently pretended that drivers don't get paid for the drive but just get a reimbursement from Uber, all of which is trying to not have to pay taxes, not needing insurance, and not needing a license.
-
@topspin said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
You must be talking about Poland, or somewhere else, not Germany.
Here the professional certainly doesn't steal from you (which I assume you mean literally, because "cheaper" is listed separately). Also, for a real taxi driver I know beforehand I'll get decent service and arrive at the destination, for the random schmuck how would I know that.I'd say it's pretty naive to think that, but maybe Germany is the land of honest taxi driver, I don't know.
All of which is irrelevant, because the point is that the specific laws and regulations apply for everyone. If you want them changed [but I doubt you'll actually find much support for that here besides maybe a little simplification] get them changed.
I talked to a lot of people about Uber and similar companies, and indeed a lot of them are against. They all mention respect for the law, insurance, technical state of vehicles, driver's health checks, professionalism and even 'familiarity with the city'.
You know what they all have in common though? They all drive everywhere in their own cars and never use taxis.Whereas people who actually pay for rides voted with their wallets: overwhelmingly in favor of Uber. As a result we now have something like 5 popular ride calling apps, prices dropped, quality went up and it's not uncommon to see taxis doubling as ubers.
But the whole "we're not a taxi company1 so we don't need to follow the law" or "paying taxes or requiring insurance is too expensive, we wouldn't be disruptive if we followed the law" shit is just not going to fly. Their whole attitude of "we're from Silly Valley and we don't care what laws you have, we can do whatever you want" should get them kicked out of here completely.
Uber murdered all taxis in my town in a span of one year. I commend them for it.
That they broke idiotic regulations and monopoly protections in the process? What a pity.
-
@MrL said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Whereas people who actually pay for rides voted with their wallets: overwhelmingly in favor of Uber.
Sure, if you have the option to buy at a supermarket that doesn't pay VAT, a lot of people would do that. Normally black market stuff would be illegal, but if they can legally get away with it, they'd "vote with their wallet".
Is that an argument for "Uber can break the law but everyone else would go to jail for that"? Do you like it when laws selectively get applied to everyone but the big bully?
-
@topspin said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Sure, if you have the option to buy at a supermarket that doesn't pay VAT, a lot of people would do that. Normally black market stuff would be illegal, but if they can legally get away with it, they'd "vote with their wallet".
:trump-wrong.gif:
Uber is regulated here, perfectly legal and still way cheaper and more convenient than taxis.
Besides, how does that 'if people could, they would' fit with 'those law breakers won't get any support here!' ? See my previous post.
Is that an argument for "Uber can break the law but everyone else would go to jail for that"? Do you like it when laws selectively get applied to everyone but the big bully?
'big bully'? You mean taxi companies that stirred their pet politicians into a frenzy about people dying in car accidents in masses (which didn't and does not happen)? Taxi companies that blocked whole cities multiple times to protest 'unjustice' and to 'protect the clients'? Or taxi companies that organized destroying uber cars and beating up their drivers?
-
@MrL said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Whereas people who actually pay for rides voted with their wallets: overwhelmingly in favor of Uber. As a result we now have something like 5 popular ride calling apps, prices dropped, quality went up and it's not uncommon to see taxis doubling as ubers.
I, personally, think that this would also happen if they paid taxes. Slowly, sure, but the whole app-based model is leaps and bounds more effective and solves most of the issues that plagued taxi service since forever. Which also makes the special regulations obsolete so they should be abolished.
I also think that everyone should pay taxes by the same rules, but I suppose we will never agree here.
-
@MrL said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@topspin said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Sure, if you have the option to buy at a supermarket that doesn't pay VAT, a lot of people would do that. Normally black market stuff would be illegal, but if they can legally get away with it, they'd "vote with their wallet".
:trump-wrong.gif:
Uber is regulated here, perfectly legal and still way cheaper and more convenient than taxis.
It isn't here, though.
Besides, how does that 'if people could, they would' fit with 'those law breakers won't get any support here!' ? See my previous post.
Is that an argument for "Uber can break the law but everyone else would go to jail for that"? Do you like it when laws selectively get applied to everyone but the big bully?
'big bully'? You mean taxi companies that stirred their pet politicians into a frenzy about people dying in car accidents in masses (which didn't and does not happen)? Taxi companies that blocked whole cities multiple times to protest 'unjustice' and to 'protect the clients'? Or taxi companies that organized destroying uber cars and beating up their drivers?
No idea about the situation in Poland. Doesn't answer my question about you liking it when they're the only one allowed to break the law.
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
I also think that everyone should pay taxes by the same rules, but I suppose we will never agree here.
If your same rules are simple and without exemptions, then we will.
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Slowly, sure, but the whole app-based model is leaps and bounds more effective and solves most of the issues that plagued taxi service since forever.
There's apps for taxis, too. Buying a license for google maps and making an app to call a taxi might not be done in an afternoon, but it's also not a billion dollar project.
-
@topspin said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
No idea about the situation in Poland.
It's good, taxis are dying.
Doesn't answer my question about you liking it when they're the only one allowed to break the law.
What made you think I'm some kind of law absolutist? Breaking idiotic regulations is good, breaking monopoly protections is good, breaking any oppressive laws is good. And of course, cheating on taxes is laudable.
-
@MrL said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
What made you think I'm some kind of law absolutist? Breaking idiotic regulations is good, breaking monopoly protections is good, breaking any oppressive laws is good. And of course, cheating on taxes is laudable.
Yeah, I get the whole argument the Germans are making. But I have a difficult time respecting the laws they're talking about as being good laws. One might hope that they'd look at the situation and realize the laws are insane (as they are also in many American cities) and reform them, but if our denizens are representative it doesn't look likely.
-
@topspin said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Slowly, sure, but the whole app-based model is leaps and bounds more effective and solves most of the issues that plagued taxi service since forever.
There's apps for taxis, too. Buying a license for google maps and making an app to call a taxi might not be done in an afternoon, but it's also not a billion dollar project.
Now that taxis have to compete with Uber, sure. But the nearest big city to me (New York) didn't have a taxi hailing app until well after Uber had pretty much taken over.
IIRC, most of the other big US cities that Uber operated in also didn't have taxi hailing via app until much later.
-
@boomzilla The laws over here regarding taxis are not that onerous. Some places you don't even have to take a memory test anymore.
Basically, you're mandated to have the proper insurance, the proper signage and a calibrated and non-manipulable meter. Also a mandatory test of vision every five years.
-
@Rhywden said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Some places you don't even have to take a memory test anymore.
OMG! How do you handle that much freedom?!?!
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@topspin said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Slowly, sure, but the whole app-based model is leaps and bounds more effective and solves most of the issues that plagued taxi service since forever.
There's apps for taxis, too. Buying a license for google maps and making an app to call a taxi might not be done in an afternoon, but it's also not a billion dollar project.
Now that taxis have to compete with Uber, sure. But the nearest big city to me (New York) didn't have a taxi hailing app until well after Uber had pretty much taken over.
IIRC, most of the other big US cities that Uber operated in also didn't have taxi hailing via app until much later.
Also, in places like NYC or Washington, DC, starting a taxi business wasn't quite a billion dollar project but it could easy be a million dollar project, since the number of taxi medallions (i.e., the license needed to operate a car as a taxi) were fixed and therefore very expensive.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@topspin said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Slowly, sure, but the whole app-based model is leaps and bounds more effective and solves most of the issues that plagued taxi service since forever.
There's apps for taxis, too. Buying a license for google maps and making an app to call a taxi might not be done in an afternoon, but it's also not a billion dollar project.
Now that taxis have to compete with Uber, sure. But the nearest big city to me (New York) didn't have a taxi hailing app until well after Uber had pretty much taken over.
Then what's stopping them from competing just with their ride hailing app but not breaking the law?
-
@MrL said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
And of course, cheating on taxes is laudable.
That's all I wanted to know.
-
@boomzilla Yeah, we don't have such a limit on the number of taxi companies. What we have instead are mandatory tariffs everyone has to adhere to - depends on the municipality on how high (or low) the tariffs are.
-
@boomzilla said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
But I have a difficult time respecting the laws they're talking about as being good laws.
Which ones in particular? That you need to have insurance that will actually pay when you're doing commercial transportation?
-
@topspin said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@boomzilla said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
But I have a difficult time respecting the laws they're talking about as being good laws.
Which ones in particular? That you need to have insurance that will actually pay when you're doing commercial transportation?
Eh, that seems reasonable on its face. Are the drivers really uninsured? I can't recall what the insurance situation was when my wife was driving for Uber. I know our state made us register it differently. We had different color stickers for the license plate.
Maybe fine the drivers for not having insurance?
-
@topspin said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@boomzilla said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
But I have a difficult time respecting the laws they're talking about as being good laws.
Which ones in particular? That you need to have insurance that will actually pay when you're doing commercial transportation?
In the US, as @boomzilla alluded to, there are regulations in some cities (and there were more before Uber) that limit the number of taxis that are allowed to operate. Since the city was already at the "maximum number of taxis," Uber wasn't allowed to register as a taxi company.
This is also the reason that Uber couldn't compete with Real Taxis on the basis of having an app being a better way to get a taxi than actually hailing one.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear that's not "the laws they're are talking about".
@Rhywden said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Yeah, we don't have such a limit on the number of taxi companies.
They're still not trying to just compete legally on the basis off "omg we have an app".
-
@topspin said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
There's apps for taxis, too.
Right but (here at least) you need one per taxi company and they don't all have them and if you go to a new area you need to download a new app and probably sign up and each app works slightly differently and you can't always pay in the app etc.
Uber is way more convenient if you're not always booking taxis in the same place.
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Which also makes the special regulations obsolete so they should be abolished.
Some regulations are necessary anyway, like requiring suitable insurance and having each actual driver pass some sort of criminal records check. Yes, that might push up prices, but both have been found necessary through hard experience over many years, so Uber shouldn't have any option to dodge them. (I can remember cases from when I was young when there were known rapists driving taxis to nightclubs to pick up groups of drunk young women, which is a recipe for absolute horror.)
On a practical level (at least from the perspective of UK rules), the Uber innovation is replacing the taxi firm's dispatcher with an algorithm and an app.
-
@topspin said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@GuyWhoKilledBear that's not "the laws they're are talking about".
@Rhywden said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Yeah, we don't have such a limit on the number of taxi companies.
They're still not trying to just compete legally on the basis off "omg we have an app".
The insurance stuff isn't what I'm talking about, because in the US, Uber has commercial liability insurance that protects other drivers when they're in accidents that are the fault of an Uber driver.
Technically, there's no limit on the number of taxi companies, just the number of actual taxis.
But that's an absurdly pedantic point, even for this website, so let me pretend I know for a fact that no German city has a limit on the number of actual taxis on the road or a medallion licensing scheme either.
Uber had two real innovations. One is hail-by-app, which was illegal in most American cities with taxi cartels when Uber started. The other was to hire contractors who provided their own cars to drive the taxi. In America, at least, the regulatory model for vehicles is that certain vehicles are "commercial" vehicles and certain vehicles are "personal" vehicles. And that different regulations could be applied to different vehicles on a VIN-by-VIN basis.
Frankly, neither existing regulatory model is very good.
Uber's argument is that "commercial" versus "personal" has to do with the activity being performed, and thus you should be allowed to use the same vehicle for personal and commercial purposes, and which regulatory model applies to you at any given moment depends on the activity you're using the car for at that moment.
We regulate and tax other contractor provided equipment pro-rated based on the percentage of time it's used for business rather than personally. There's no good reason to treat cars differently than that.
There's no good reason to ban hail-by-app except to protect the existing taxi cartel.
If I had to guess what part of their business Uber actually has a problem with in Germany, and I wasn't allowed to guess taxi medallions, I'd bet it would be that the regulatory model demands that a particular vehicle be either commercial or personal, but not both.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear There's no ban on hail-by-app in Germany. For instance, we have just such a service in Hamburg called "Moia".
You open the app and state your destination. You get a quote and are then directed to a pickup point nearby (not a fixed point, merely a point where a car can stop for some seconds without causing a traffic jam or running afoul of "Don't even think of stopping here!"-signs). The only real difference to normal taxis: Moia exclusively uses 9-seat transports because they try to pool people with similar destinations.
-
@dkf said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Some regulations are necessary anyway, like requiring suitable insurance and having each actual driver pass some sort of criminal records check. Yes, that might push up prices, but both have been found necessary through hard experience over many years, so Uber shouldn't have any option to dodge them.
They don' dodge any of that here. Like I said, I'm not sure whose responsibility was what, exactly, on the insurance front, but again, fine the people who don't have it. They definitely do background checks, too.
-
@boomzilla Should be the other way around: No insurance, no placard. No fines neccessary.
Driving without an insurance is also a slightly bigger deal over here and punishable by jail time even when only done negligently. Willfully dodging that mandate is in a completely different ballpark.
-
@Rhywden so what is actually happening? Who is not buying insurance? I feel like you guys are being too vague here to understand the actual problem. I'm pretty sure, for instance, that when my wife applied, she had to provide the registration and proof of insurance before she was allowed to drive for Uber.
-
@Rhywden said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Moia exclusively uses 9-seat transports because they try to pool people with similar destinations.
So they're trying to use a moiety of vehicles?
-
@boomzilla said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
I'm pretty sure, for instance, that when my wife applied, she had to provide the registration and proof of insurance before she was allowed to drive for Uber.
For chicks I thought they also required measurements.
-
This article from 2019 suggests that, unlike when they got banned the first time, Uber were using normal taxi drivers but fell foul of some other silly regulations:
Since [the last ban in 2015], Uber has worked with licensed private hire vehicle companies in Germany, so passengers using the app get picked up by a driver from a traditional private hire firm.
German law says private hire drivers must return back to their company's base after completing a trip, if they do not have another journey lined up.
Drivers are not allowed to drive around or park somewhere waiting for a new job to come in.
The complaint said Uber had not done enough to make sure the private hire companies it worked with respected this rule.
The law also says that private hire jobs must be accepted by the business, rather than the individual driver.
So, when somebody uses the Uber app in Germany, the company finds nearby drivers and then has to send the booking request to the driver's despatch office.
The job must then be accepted and sent to the driver by a human despatch operator. The process cannot be automated.
The complaint said Uber had also failed to enforce this rule.
-
@boomzilla said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@Rhywden so what is actually happening? Who is not buying insurance? I feel like you guys are being too vague here to understand the actual problem. I'm pretty sure, for instance, that when my wife applied, she had to provide the registration and proof of insurance before she was allowed to drive for Uber.
Uber tried to do an end-run around regulations by not properly checking if their drivers actually obtained a transportation insurance (and not a merely personal one).
Personal insurance does not cover anything in case you either have or cause an accident.Our courts don't like such blatant offloading of the company's responsibilities unto the drivers (i.e. they said: "Either you provide them with insurance yourself or you increase their monetary recompensation by the amount they need to get an insurance because that shit ain't cheap! And fucking check if they actually have insurance!") and promptly reamed them a new one.
-
@loopback0 Naw, those were not taxi drivers but private hire drivers.
Private hire drivers, for example, are not bound by the mandated taxi tariffs.
-
@Rhywden said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@loopback0 Naw, those were not taxi drivers but private hire drivers.
Private hire drivers, for example, are not bound by the mandated taxi tariffs.
Ok fine but the regulations in question still seem pretty stupid.
-
@loopback0 said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@Rhywden said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@loopback0 Naw, those were not taxi drivers but private hire drivers.
Private hire drivers, for example, are not bound by the mandated taxi tariffs.
Ok fine but the regulations in question still seem pretty stupid.
Which has pretty much been the criticism here all along.