6 ms·

What would it mean for the taxi industry to be liberalised?

simias 9y ago
At least in many places in Europe (but I think it's also the case in some cities in the USA) you need to get a taxi license to operate which is pretty anti-competitive. I agree with the parent that I would prefer if we had some stringent regulation for taxi businesses but the license system would be phased out to open the market to competition. Unfortunately taxi drivers can resell their licenses, and they're pretty damn expensive (in the hundreds of thousands of euros in Paris IIRC) so the license owners obviously very staunchly defending their investments and taxi companies their de-facto monopolies. Besides taxis can basically shut down all traffic in the capital (and they're not particularly civil about it either) when they go on strike so the status quo endures.
- kuschku 9y ago
  Where I live, starting a service like uber requires an appropriate drivers license and insurance. No licenses, nothing. (But you can't pick people up off the streets, that is something else, and licensed). As result, there's many services like uber — but uber themselves is banned, because while the German government was willing to ignore the commercial drivers license requirement, they couldn't ignore the insurance requirements that Uber refused to fulfill.
  - simias 9y ago
    Yeah I think there's a similar "loophole" in France but since everybody has a smartphone these days many taxis feel like it's unfair competition anyway. I'm kind of torn on this issue frankly, on one hand the taxis have had a de-facto monopoly for decades and as such ended up with a rather high price for a sub-par service so I'm glad uber shook them up a bit. On the other Uber is clearly playing dirty and we might end up being worse off in the end if taxi drivers don't manage to earn their life decently while most of our fare money ends up in some tax heaven never to be seen again.
  - rbehrends 9y ago
    > As result, there's many services like uber — but uber themselves is banned, because while the German government was willing to ignore the commercial drivers license requirement, they couldn't ignore the insurance requirements that Uber refused to fulfill. The German government had nothing to do with it. The lawsuits were brought by Uber's competitors under §3a of the Unfair Competition Act [1], which prohibits violating laws in order to gain a competitive advantage. They have standing under §8 (3), item 1, of the same law. The courts had no choice but to rule in their favor; it was pretty much as open and shut as a civil case can be. [1] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_uwg/englisch_uwg.html#p0035 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_uwg/englisch_uwg...
    - kuschku 9y ago
      Correct, but the federal government offered to reduce the requirements for running this service for all competitors on the market, according to Dobrindt.
      - rbehrends 9y ago
        Oh, it appears I misunderstood you. Yes, the federal government was willing to review the regulatory requirements, at least in principle. I was focusing on the last subclause of your sentence.
- juandazapata 9y ago
  This happens for a reason. If no licenses are required, the market will be flooded with more offer than demand. Also the environmental impact, traffic jams, etc.
  - donatj 9y ago
    Demand meets need naturally. That’s how all other businesses works.
    - johannes1234321 9y ago
      The point is that taxi is not seen as a pure business. It is seen as a part of infrastructure. Elderly or disabled people should have a reliable way of transport. The goal of the regulation is that taxi companies don't only did lucrative rides (from the airport to träfe fair) but also less lucrative rides (from one's Appartment to the doctor few blocks down) and provide enough (realtively cheap) capacity even at uncommon times (4am or such)
      - Kalium 9y ago
        I recently spoke with an elderly woman in San Francisco on exactly this subject. She regarded Uber as the best thing that's happened to her life in the past decade. It enables her mobility in ways that taxis never did.
        johannes1234321 9y ago
        This is hard to argue. For one since American perspective is different from my German/Europe and that's an individual, not a larger perspective on society.
        Kalium 9y ago
        The key difference, I think, is that in your background taxis are an affordable and reliable source of transportation services for all. They provide peak and off-peak services, for routes lucrative and otherwise. The American experience I have had with taxis is that taxis are expensive, unreliable, and will try to ditch you if they deem your destination insufficiently lucrative. When you need them most, there's a very good chance that they won't show in a reasonable timeframe... or show at all. Which is to say that they avoid providing as many of the society-level benefits you describe as possible. San Francisco in particular was a hell of useless taxis. For a long time, calling dispatch to get a taxi left you with odds of under 50% of one actually showing up.

At least in many places in Europe (but I think it's also the case in some cities in the USA) you need to get a taxi license to operate which is pretty anti-competitive. I agree with the parent that I would prefer if we had some stringent regulation for taxi businesses but the license system would be phased out to open the market to competition. Unfortunately taxi drivers can resell their licenses, and they're pretty damn expensive (in the hundreds of thousands of euros in Paris IIRC) so the license owners obviously very staunchly defending their investments and taxi companies their de-facto monopolies. Besides taxis can basically shut down all traffic in the capital (and they're not particularly civil about it either) when they go on strike so the status quo endures.

kuschku 9y ago
Where I live, starting a service like uber requires an appropriate drivers license and insurance. No licenses, nothing. (But you can't pick people up off the streets, that is something else, and licensed). As result, there's many services like uber — but uber themselves is banned, because while the German government was willing to ignore the commercial drivers license requirement, they couldn't ignore the insurance requirements that Uber refused to fulfill.
- simias 9y ago
  Yeah I think there's a similar "loophole" in France but since everybody has a smartphone these days many taxis feel like it's unfair competition anyway. I'm kind of torn on this issue frankly, on one hand the taxis have had a de-facto monopoly for decades and as such ended up with a rather high price for a sub-par service so I'm glad uber shook them up a bit. On the other Uber is clearly playing dirty and we might end up being worse off in the end if taxi drivers don't manage to earn their life decently while most of our fare money ends up in some tax heaven never to be seen again.
- rbehrends 9y ago
  > As result, there's many services like uber — but uber themselves is banned, because while the German government was willing to ignore the commercial drivers license requirement, they couldn't ignore the insurance requirements that Uber refused to fulfill. The German government had nothing to do with it. The lawsuits were brought by Uber's competitors under §3a of the Unfair Competition Act [1], which prohibits violating laws in order to gain a competitive advantage. They have standing under §8 (3), item 1, of the same law. The courts had no choice but to rule in their favor; it was pretty much as open and shut as a civil case can be. [1] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_uwg/englisch_uwg.html#p0035 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_uwg/englisch_uwg...
  - kuschku 9y ago
    Correct, but the federal government offered to reduce the requirements for running this service for all competitors on the market, according to Dobrindt.
    - rbehrends 9y ago
      Oh, it appears I misunderstood you. Yes, the federal government was willing to review the regulatory requirements, at least in principle. I was focusing on the last subclause of your sentence.
juandazapata 9y ago
This happens for a reason. If no licenses are required, the market will be flooded with more offer than demand. Also the environmental impact, traffic jams, etc.
- donatj 9y ago
  Demand meets need naturally. That’s how all other businesses works.
  - johannes1234321 9y ago
    The point is that taxi is not seen as a pure business. It is seen as a part of infrastructure. Elderly or disabled people should have a reliable way of transport. The goal of the regulation is that taxi companies don't only did lucrative rides (from the airport to träfe fair) but also less lucrative rides (from one's Appartment to the doctor few blocks down) and provide enough (realtively cheap) capacity even at uncommon times (4am or such)
    - Kalium 9y ago
      I recently spoke with an elderly woman in San Francisco on exactly this subject. She regarded Uber as the best thing that's happened to her life in the past decade. It enables her mobility in ways that taxis never did.
      - johannes1234321 9y ago
        This is hard to argue. For one since American perspective is different from my German/Europe and that's an individual, not a larger perspective on society.
        Kalium 9y ago
        The key difference, I think, is that in your background taxis are an affordable and reliable source of transportation services for all. They provide peak and off-peak services, for routes lucrative and otherwise. The American experience I have had with taxis is that taxis are expensive, unreliable, and will try to ditch you if they deem your destination insufficiently lucrative. When you need them most, there's a very good chance that they won't show in a reasonable timeframe... or show at all. Which is to say that they avoid providing as many of the society-level benefits you describe as possible. San Francisco in particular was a hell of useless taxis. For a long time, calling dispatch to get a taxi left you with odds of under 50% of one actually showing up.