4 ms·
I have no sympathy for Uber as a company, but (without having additional information beyond what it is provided in the article), it seems to me that a new law m
by Kurtz79 10y ago
I have no sympathy for Uber as a company, but (without having additional information beyond what it is provided in the article), it seems to me that a new law mas made ad-hoc to address Uber's rise specifically, not that they were already breaching existing regulation when they started operating in Denmark.
Taxi drivers are a vocal and recognizable faction, while on the other hand there is the nebulous concept of what benefits the average "consumer/citizen".
It makes little political sense to support the latter over the former.
- johanvts 10y agoThe new law actually liberalized the market a lot and is pretty smart I think. We have had 'strict' regulation on taxis as long as I know, but the new law makes it easier to enter the market while still ensuring stuff like the drivers are trained, know first aid and pay taxes. It also manages to regulate taxi-driving as a business while not killing ride sharing. You can deduct any expenses related to a trip, and if the payment only covers costs the trip is defined as ride sharing, for which you don't have to be registered as a taxi driver. I think it makes sense to advocate a level playing field and having a situation where two companies are in the same market but one is heavily regulated and the other is not is not fair or desirable. Uber could stay on the danish market, but choose not to because they will not be able to denounce all responsibility for their employees which is a central part of their business plan.
- Kurtz79 10y ago"I think it makes sense to advocate a level playing field and having a situation where two companies are in the same market but one is heavily regulated and the other is not is not fair or desirable." Absolutely. I think most countries in Europe have had a rigidly regulated environment for ride hauling because simply there was no real alternative, and the aim was to prevent the average Joe to start operating as an illegal taxi, with zero control on part of the authorities. Now that Uber, Lyft are a reality, it's more than fair to require they follow regulations as the other actors in the business, but at the same time laws should be up to date to reflect the new reality. It seems fair to me requiring that new ride haling companies can offer the same standards of quality as normal taxis, that the drivers they are properly compensated and pay taxes. Less so that they carry "Fare Meters", when the apps themselves offer the same functionality.
- kpil 10y agoUber is having a similar problem in Sweden. The taxi market is possibly too unregulated with two-three larger regional or national companies that focus on quality and compete on good prices, and a bunch of scammers that try to have identical cars but much more expensive fares. Uber is only able to compete with the scammers somehow, and as they pay no tax, insurance, employment tax, social costs, etc, and use drivers accounts in the middle east for payments which probably is not a sold tax and money laundering strategy etc, it's not hard to see why.