7 ms·

Berlin bans Uber app citing passenger safety

33 points by Schweigi 12y ago

themartorana 12y ago
"The Berlin authority said passengers may not be covered by insurance because they aren't traditional cabs." Well, figure it out. Seems like something that could be answered with a phone call to an insurance company. It probably would have taken less time than banning Uber. If they had and the answer was "no, they're not" it would be an easy fix. I'm probably reading into it, but this is a pretty shaky excuse.
- claudius 12y ago
  The regulations regarding commercial passenger transport are relatively strict requiring appropriate driver’s licenses, vehicles etc. This is the main reason for the “ban” (it’s really more of a reminder ‘hey, what you’re doing is illegal‘). Furthermore, essentially all standard car insurance companies explicitly exclude commercial use of the vehicle, so it stands to reason that most Uber drivers do not have an appropriate insurance.
- anonythrow 12y ago
  It's figured out. They're not properly insured. Thus the ban. It's just bad reporting.
- Xylakant 12y ago
  Well, the Hamburg Authority did that, it's a funny read: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2aok79ru2kyrn30/SBWVI-PRT-714071812190.pdf https://www.dropbox.com/s/2aok79ru2kyrn30/SBWVI-PRT-71407181... The response of the insurance company was: No, this is not covered under the insurance contract and we canceled the contract for that violation. So yes, the insurance for private car owners does not cover commercial activities - no surprise here. And it's not an easy fix, because the premiums for commercial contracts are much higher, making the whole business idea much less profitable. And then, there's another long laundry list of code violations that Uber has to fix. I'm all in for letting Uber compete with cabs, but please, stick to the same rules and don't pretend that "disruption" is an excuse for "illegal".
fabian2k 12y ago
From what I read in other articles (e.g. http://www.golem.de/news/fahrdienst-app-uber-macht-in-berlin-trotz-verbot-weiter-1408-108580.html http://www.golem.de/news/fahrdienst-app-uber-macht-in-berlin...), Uber insures the drivers, but with a lower maximum payout for damages of 3.5 million. The mandatory minimum for car liability insurance is 7.5 million for damages against persons in Germany.
probably_wrong 12y ago
I have to wonder about this quote: > As a new entrant we're bringing much-needed competition to a market that hasn't changed in years. What does a San Francisco startup knows about the taxi situation in Berlin? Uber has often been well received in cities where taxi service is inefficient, but are berliners really unhappy with the service? Does Uber know that taxis in Berlin are used mostly by tourists, and therefore are not that hard to catch? Maybe Uber has spent a lot of time researching the German market, or maybe they are following Walmart steps[1] in applying US notions to a foreign market. But after living in Berlin for a year, I have to wonder: if Uber's free-for-all approach clashes against Germany's love for paperwork, whose fault is it? [1] http://www.dw.de/worlds-biggest-retailer-wal-mart-closes-up-shop-in-germany/a-2112746-1 http://www.dw.de/worlds-biggest-retailer-wal-mart-closes-up-...
- oleganza 12y ago
  Every person who takes Uber ride votes for Uber and against other taxis. If berliners are all happy with taxis, Uber wouldn't earn a penny there. But since they do and are willing to invest into challenging the ban in court, it's an indicator of existing demand for Uber. Now who is this Berlin "authority" to decide for people how they should travel from point A to point B? I don't care if Uber is from SF, Berlin or Hong Kong. They are not forcing people to pay them unlike governments that extract taxes and then tell taxpayers how they should live.
  - claudius 12y ago
    > Every person who takes Uber ride votes for Uber and against other taxis. Or maybe every person who takes an Uber ride has been fraudulently deceived into assuming that their ride was insured, approved by the appropriate authorities and generally safe. > Now who is this Berlin "authority" to decide for people how they should travel from point A to point B? It’s the appropriate authority relevant for local public transport, legitimised by general elections and bound by laws passed by the democratic institutions of the state of Berlin and the FRG. > I don't care if Uber is from SF, Berlin or Hong Kong. They are not forcing people to pay them unlike governments that extract taxes and then tell taxpayers how they should live. They also incentivise drivers to use their cars while not covered by any insurance, hence essentially endangering the general public. They furthermore try to appear as a legitimate and legal business while failing to meet the requirements necessary to transport persons commercially.
kriro 12y ago
I wonder if "insurance for a cut" is a thing. Basically apply the credit card model to insurance for cabs. Insurance company takes X% of all rides for providing the proper insurance needed for said rides. Keeps the barriers to entry low (giving up a cut is easier when you just do a couple of customers on the side than having higher fixed costs) and would probably allow a smart insurance company to make a nice bundle of money.
- seeingfurther 12y ago
  I don't know much about the insurance or ride-sharing industry but on the surface it sounds like a great idea.
PinguTS 12y ago
To all who think passenger safety equals insurance: you are wrong. Passenger safety is much more. Passenger safety is mainly 3 topics, which are all have to be fulfilled: 1. The car has to be in proper technical conditions. 2. The driver is trained to be allowed to drive people around for business purposes. Higher standards apply, then for regular driving behavior. 3. Insurance, insurance of the passenger as well as insurance of third party. As for commercial drivers, they do much more millage and as such it is much more likely, that something happens. For (1): a commercially driven vehicle makes much more millage, as such it is required to visit inspection every year, while for regular vehicle in Germany it is only every other year. For (2): drivers with a commercial license to drive people around are required to have regular medical check-ups. Also wrong behaving while driving is judged much hard, mostly twice the amount and double the points. That means, they can easily loose their license. That way, there should be a commercial pressure on them to drive safely. By the way, Uber does not compete only with Taxi service. Their drivers don't need a taxi license at all. Because, in Germany there are besides of Taxi additional licenses for such business. The are a number of such services, that operate within legal bounds since tens of years. The only difference between the "cool" start-up Uber is, that those have no shiny App and you have to know there phone numbers. That said, there are also services, which have an App, like http://www.mydriver.de/fahrdienst/berlin http://www.mydriver.de/fahrdienst/berlin The main problem besides safety is also, that Uber promotes and supports moonlighting/illegal work. Because their argument is, that they provide only ride sharing. BUT, if that whould be true, then why promote a new ride sharing service called UberPool? If Uber would provide real ride sharing, as they argue, then they would only start UberPool and not UberX and UberPop. But with UberPool there is the problem for them, they will compete with lots of other ride sharing companies, which operate in Germany since years and which are well established, like Blablacar, Flinc and others. TL/DR: If Uber would operate within the well established business practices and requirements, nobody would complain. But they don't want, because they want to be cheap on the back of actively ignoring all requirements.
- conception 12y ago
  I agree with all your points except "The only difference between the "cool" start-up Uber is, that those have no shiny App and you have to know there phone numbers." The Uber experience is significantly better than a normal cab ride. The shiny app does a lot to make the experience better, pays for the service (don't need to tip either!), tracks your driver, gives you contact information and a name/picture, as well as let you split fares between the passengers automatically, etc etc. That combined with surge pricing and the crowd sourcing nature (uber is often the only service any place but downtown or the airport) makes for a better product, safety concerns aside.
fidotron 12y ago
The bigger picture here is the trend of local governments desperately pushing against a tide of ever more pervasive globalisation. The simple reason something like Uber will win is business travellers expect to show up in any city and for it to work. If it doesn't that's not a mark against the Uber-like, it's a mark against the city. People do not want one app per city or country, but one which works everywhere. This is beyond the scope of any government to get near. The thing is Uber are slimy in the way Napster were taking the piss a bit, but it's clear the space is there for someone to come in and clean up.
- Xylakant 12y ago
  See, Uber could do it. They could just follow the regulations like everybody else, provide a better service and in the end, all would win. Or just provide the app and have a local partner in germany that does. But they don't want to. They want more: Skirt the regulations and illuminate us, but we don't want to be illuminated, especially not when the proceeds for that illumination go to ubers pockets while society bears the costs.
  - fidotron 12y ago
    That misses the point completely, which is that globalisation is forcing governments to accept a lowest common denominator of regulation. You can debate the merits of this until the cows come home, but it doesn't change that it's happening, and while attempts to prevent it can have limited local short term success the long term perspective is that the power of government, even at the super national level (such as the EU) is being steadily eroded by private interests. As an example, we all boo whenever a country bans Twitter, but that's just them enforcing their local regulations, which I'm sure they have very good reasons for. (i.e. they may legitimately prevent a riot) This is no different.
    - Vik1ng 12y ago
      I don't see why a country should accept any lowest common denominator of regulation for local taxis. Something that literally only affects the area in that country. If I need to get from the Berlin Aiport to the city centre then it doesn't matter what kind of cab service NY or SF has. They only cabs available there are going to be cabs and rides the Berlin or German government allows to operate.
Thiz 12y ago
Passengers have the inalienable right to choose the level of safety they feel comfortable for a price, and no goverment should confiscate that right. That's the essence of free markets.
- Vik1ng 12y ago
  Until the driver crashes into another car and is no covered by insurance... Sorry, but your "inalienable" right end once you affect others. Also someone will have to pick up your hospital bill I you weren't insured.
- capisce 12y ago
  Free markets suffer from negative externalities / tragedy of the commons, cartels, monopolies, race to the bottom, etc...
- Xylakant 12y ago
  You might have missed the announcement, but Germanys system is not a free market, by choice of it's population [1]. You can believe that it should be and try and lobby for a change, but it's an inalienable right in a democracy to vote on what we all consider the rights and obligations we all want to have in a society and sadly, for Uber and its investors, that view currently does not match up with their vision. [1] We even have that in the constitution, GG, Art. 14, Satz (2) "Eigentum verpflichtet. Sein Gebrauch soll zugleich dem Wohle der Allgemeinheit dienen."
avz 12y ago
It's true that Uber follows a liberal interpretation of existing regulations and this gives rise to legitimate concerns about fairness of its competition with the incumbents. Nevertheless, the new model does offer some benefits over the old way of doing things. The two that come to mind first: Utilization of resources. As a society we have a lot of cars. It seems reasonable to increase their utilization instead of setting aside a dedicated pool for taxi services. Regulatory upgrade. The existing regulations and licensing regimes were meant to increase safety and quality of service, but did that at the cost of reduced competition, increased prices and granting disproportionate privileges to the incumbents. Some of the same very goals like trust, safety and quality have now been achieved by Uber and the like without the same costs thanks to the reputation and review systems long employed in the internet. This is clearly desirable. I wish Uber engaged in more German-style consensus-seeking with the authorities, regulators and the incumbents instead of going for an all-out war. Change is clearly overdue in the taxi services, but the way it happens is just as important.
- Xylakant 12y ago
  > but did that at the cost of reduced competition, increased prices and granting disproportionate privileges to the incumbents. This is a feature. Whether those privileges are disproportionate is up for debate. There are very few actual privileges in germany. It would be an easy thing for Uber to just get some licenses for Berlin. They don't want that though, because the regulation also places burdens on the license holder: No right to deny a ride, even if you're making a loss, fixed prices, etc. > It seems reasonable to increase their utilization instead of setting aside a dedicated pool for taxi services. There's no requirement that forbid use of taxis as private cars. Nobody in Berlin does so, since a cab makes more money when it's driving, so drivers share cabs. But the town where I was raised, the local cab driver would use it as a private car. > Some of the same very goals like trust, safety and quality have now been achieved by Uber and the like without the same costs thanks to the reputation and review systems long employed in the internet. Looking at how reputation and review systems get abused and gamed on the internet, I'd rather trust the Berlin administration, as incapable and weird they sometimes are. > This is clearly desirable. I think sticking to the regulations is clearly more desirable than disrupting them. Who's right here? > Change is clearly overdue in the taxi services I actually don't think that's the case, at least not in Berlin. Some adaptions, sure, but nothing dramatic (like does a cab really have to be white? It's useful when you're trying to find one, but a sign on top might be sufficient).
nemesisj 12y ago
I've used taxis in four major USA metro areas fairly extensively: Chicago, San Francisco, NYC, and South Florida (Ft. Lauderdale / Miami). NYC is mostly OK, although drivers are sometimes hard to understand. Chicago was a step below, but still OK. South Florida and SanFran were the worst. Dirty, awful, dangerous drivers. All of those cities are very expensive, often have trouble with credit cards, and didn't have a good way to hail a cab other than calling at the time. I can see why Uber in theory makes sense in those environments. I remember when Uber launched in Europe I got an email from someone there asking about Edinburgh (where I live). My response is that I don't see Uber doing well in Edinburgh. Right now, in Edinburgh, I can hail a cab with an app that lets me specify my route or drop a pin where I'm at for pickup. I can see the cab on the map driving towards me. I get an automatic ringback on approach. I can pay with stored cc information or corporate account. Cabs are impeccably clean, inexpensive, and the drivers are really great. They are all trained in First Aid and most are highly accessible (you can specify if you need accessibility on booking). They will help you with luggage, engage in chat, and it's a really great experience. There are also private hire companies that compete with the cabs. There is some tension there as those cars don't offer or require the accessibility of cars and training to their drivers, and they're on the same meter. I almost never use them. The black cab cars are really great to get in and out of particularly with luggage. So to sum up, Uber just isn't going to do that well here in my estimation.

33 points by Schweigi 12y ago

"The Berlin authority said passengers may not be covered by insurance because they aren't traditional cabs." Well, figure it out. Seems like something that could be answered with a phone call to an insurance company. It probably would have taken less time than banning Uber. If they had and the answer was "no, they're not" it would be an easy fix. I'm probably reading into it, but this is a pretty shaky excuse.

claudius 12y ago
The regulations regarding commercial passenger transport are relatively strict requiring appropriate driver’s licenses, vehicles etc. This is the main reason for the “ban” (it’s really more of a reminder ‘hey, what you’re doing is illegal‘). Furthermore, essentially all standard car insurance companies explicitly exclude commercial use of the vehicle, so it stands to reason that most Uber drivers do not have an appropriate insurance.
anonythrow 12y ago
It's figured out. They're not properly insured. Thus the ban. It's just bad reporting.
Xylakant 12y ago
Well, the Hamburg Authority did that, it's a funny read: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2aok79ru2kyrn30/SBWVI-PRT-714071812190.pdf https://www.dropbox.com/s/2aok79ru2kyrn30/SBWVI-PRT-71407181... The response of the insurance company was: No, this is not covered under the insurance contract and we canceled the contract for that violation. So yes, the insurance for private car owners does not cover commercial activities - no surprise here. And it's not an easy fix, because the premiums for commercial contracts are much higher, making the whole business idea much less profitable. And then, there's another long laundry list of code violations that Uber has to fix. I'm all in for letting Uber compete with cabs, but please, stick to the same rules and don't pretend that "disruption" is an excuse for "illegal".

fabian2k 12y ago

From what I read in other articles (e.g. http://www.golem.de/news/fahrdienst-app-uber-macht-in-berlin-trotz-verbot-weiter-1408-108580.html http://www.golem.de/news/fahrdienst-app-uber-macht-in-berlin...), Uber insures the drivers, but with a lower maximum payout for damages of 3.5 million. The mandatory minimum for car liability insurance is 7.5 million for damages against persons in Germany.

probably_wrong 12y ago

I have to wonder about this quote: > As a new entrant we're bringing much-needed competition to a market that hasn't changed in years. What does a San Francisco startup knows about the taxi situation in Berlin? Uber has often been well received in cities where taxi service is inefficient, but are berliners really unhappy with the service? Does Uber know that taxis in Berlin are used mostly by tourists, and therefore are not that hard to catch? Maybe Uber has spent a lot of time researching the German market, or maybe they are following Walmart steps[1] in applying US notions to a foreign market. But after living in Berlin for a year, I have to wonder: if Uber's free-for-all approach clashes against Germany's love for paperwork, whose fault is it? [1] http://www.dw.de/worlds-biggest-retailer-wal-mart-closes-up-shop-in-germany/a-2112746-1 http://www.dw.de/worlds-biggest-retailer-wal-mart-closes-up-...

oleganza 12y ago
Every person who takes Uber ride votes for Uber and against other taxis. If berliners are all happy with taxis, Uber wouldn't earn a penny there. But since they do and are willing to invest into challenging the ban in court, it's an indicator of existing demand for Uber. Now who is this Berlin "authority" to decide for people how they should travel from point A to point B? I don't care if Uber is from SF, Berlin or Hong Kong. They are not forcing people to pay them unlike governments that extract taxes and then tell taxpayers how they should live.
- claudius 12y ago
  > Every person who takes Uber ride votes for Uber and against other taxis. Or maybe every person who takes an Uber ride has been fraudulently deceived into assuming that their ride was insured, approved by the appropriate authorities and generally safe. > Now who is this Berlin "authority" to decide for people how they should travel from point A to point B? It’s the appropriate authority relevant for local public transport, legitimised by general elections and bound by laws passed by the democratic institutions of the state of Berlin and the FRG. > I don't care if Uber is from SF, Berlin or Hong Kong. They are not forcing people to pay them unlike governments that extract taxes and then tell taxpayers how they should live. They also incentivise drivers to use their cars while not covered by any insurance, hence essentially endangering the general public. They furthermore try to appear as a legitimate and legal business while failing to meet the requirements necessary to transport persons commercially.

kriro 12y ago

I wonder if "insurance for a cut" is a thing. Basically apply the credit card model to insurance for cabs. Insurance company takes X% of all rides for providing the proper insurance needed for said rides. Keeps the barriers to entry low (giving up a cut is easier when you just do a couple of customers on the side than having higher fixed costs) and would probably allow a smart insurance company to make a nice bundle of money.

seeingfurther 12y ago
I don't know much about the insurance or ride-sharing industry but on the surface it sounds like a great idea.

PinguTS 12y ago

To all who think passenger safety equals insurance: you are wrong. Passenger safety is much more. Passenger safety is mainly 3 topics, which are all have to be fulfilled: 1. The car has to be in proper technical conditions. 2. The driver is trained to be allowed to drive people around for business purposes. Higher standards apply, then for regular driving behavior. 3. Insurance, insurance of the passenger as well as insurance of third party. As for commercial drivers, they do much more millage and as such it is much more likely, that something happens. For (1): a commercially driven vehicle makes much more millage, as such it is required to visit inspection every year, while for regular vehicle in Germany it is only every other year. For (2): drivers with a commercial license to drive people around are required to have regular medical check-ups. Also wrong behaving while driving is judged much hard, mostly twice the amount and double the points. That means, they can easily loose their license. That way, there should be a commercial pressure on them to drive safely. By the way, Uber does not compete only with Taxi service. Their drivers don't need a taxi license at all. Because, in Germany there are besides of Taxi additional licenses for such business. The are a number of such services, that operate within legal bounds since tens of years. The only difference between the "cool" start-up Uber is, that those have no shiny App and you have to know there phone numbers. That said, there are also services, which have an App, like http://www.mydriver.de/fahrdienst/berlin http://www.mydriver.de/fahrdienst/berlin The main problem besides safety is also, that Uber promotes and supports moonlighting/illegal work. Because their argument is, that they provide only ride sharing. BUT, if that whould be true, then why promote a new ride sharing service called UberPool? If Uber would provide real ride sharing, as they argue, then they would only start UberPool and not UberX and UberPop. But with UberPool there is the problem for them, they will compete with lots of other ride sharing companies, which operate in Germany since years and which are well established, like Blablacar, Flinc and others. TL/DR: If Uber would operate within the well established business practices and requirements, nobody would complain. But they don't want, because they want to be cheap on the back of actively ignoring all requirements.

conception 12y ago
I agree with all your points except "The only difference between the "cool" start-up Uber is, that those have no shiny App and you have to know there phone numbers." The Uber experience is significantly better than a normal cab ride. The shiny app does a lot to make the experience better, pays for the service (don't need to tip either!), tracks your driver, gives you contact information and a name/picture, as well as let you split fares between the passengers automatically, etc etc. That combined with surge pricing and the crowd sourcing nature (uber is often the only service any place but downtown or the airport) makes for a better product, safety concerns aside.

fidotron 12y ago

The bigger picture here is the trend of local governments desperately pushing against a tide of ever more pervasive globalisation. The simple reason something like Uber will win is business travellers expect to show up in any city and for it to work. If it doesn't that's not a mark against the Uber-like, it's a mark against the city. People do not want one app per city or country, but one which works everywhere. This is beyond the scope of any government to get near. The thing is Uber are slimy in the way Napster were taking the piss a bit, but it's clear the space is there for someone to come in and clean up.

Xylakant 12y ago
See, Uber could do it. They could just follow the regulations like everybody else, provide a better service and in the end, all would win. Or just provide the app and have a local partner in germany that does. But they don't want to. They want more: Skirt the regulations and illuminate us, but we don't want to be illuminated, especially not when the proceeds for that illumination go to ubers pockets while society bears the costs.
- fidotron 12y ago
  That misses the point completely, which is that globalisation is forcing governments to accept a lowest common denominator of regulation. You can debate the merits of this until the cows come home, but it doesn't change that it's happening, and while attempts to prevent it can have limited local short term success the long term perspective is that the power of government, even at the super national level (such as the EU) is being steadily eroded by private interests. As an example, we all boo whenever a country bans Twitter, but that's just them enforcing their local regulations, which I'm sure they have very good reasons for. (i.e. they may legitimately prevent a riot) This is no different.
  - Vik1ng 12y ago
    I don't see why a country should accept any lowest common denominator of regulation for local taxis. Something that literally only affects the area in that country. If I need to get from the Berlin Aiport to the city centre then it doesn't matter what kind of cab service NY or SF has. They only cabs available there are going to be cabs and rides the Berlin or German government allows to operate.

Thiz 12y ago

Passengers have the inalienable right to choose the level of safety they feel comfortable for a price, and no goverment should confiscate that right. That's the essence of free markets.

Vik1ng 12y ago
Until the driver crashes into another car and is no covered by insurance... Sorry, but your "inalienable" right end once you affect others. Also someone will have to pick up your hospital bill I you weren't insured.
capisce 12y ago
Free markets suffer from negative externalities / tragedy of the commons, cartels, monopolies, race to the bottom, etc...
Xylakant 12y ago
You might have missed the announcement, but Germanys system is not a free market, by choice of it's population [1]. You can believe that it should be and try and lobby for a change, but it's an inalienable right in a democracy to vote on what we all consider the rights and obligations we all want to have in a society and sadly, for Uber and its investors, that view currently does not match up with their vision. [1] We even have that in the constitution, GG, Art. 14, Satz (2) "Eigentum verpflichtet. Sein Gebrauch soll zugleich dem Wohle der Allgemeinheit dienen."

avz 12y ago

It's true that Uber follows a liberal interpretation of existing regulations and this gives rise to legitimate concerns about fairness of its competition with the incumbents. Nevertheless, the new model does offer some benefits over the old way of doing things. The two that come to mind first: Utilization of resources. As a society we have a lot of cars. It seems reasonable to increase their utilization instead of setting aside a dedicated pool for taxi services. Regulatory upgrade. The existing regulations and licensing regimes were meant to increase safety and quality of service, but did that at the cost of reduced competition, increased prices and granting disproportionate privileges to the incumbents. Some of the same very goals like trust, safety and quality have now been achieved by Uber and the like without the same costs thanks to the reputation and review systems long employed in the internet. This is clearly desirable. I wish Uber engaged in more German-style consensus-seeking with the authorities, regulators and the incumbents instead of going for an all-out war. Change is clearly overdue in the taxi services, but the way it happens is just as important.

Xylakant 12y ago
> but did that at the cost of reduced competition, increased prices and granting disproportionate privileges to the incumbents. This is a feature. Whether those privileges are disproportionate is up for debate. There are very few actual privileges in germany. It would be an easy thing for Uber to just get some licenses for Berlin. They don't want that though, because the regulation also places burdens on the license holder: No right to deny a ride, even if you're making a loss, fixed prices, etc. > It seems reasonable to increase their utilization instead of setting aside a dedicated pool for taxi services. There's no requirement that forbid use of taxis as private cars. Nobody in Berlin does so, since a cab makes more money when it's driving, so drivers share cabs. But the town where I was raised, the local cab driver would use it as a private car. > Some of the same very goals like trust, safety and quality have now been achieved by Uber and the like without the same costs thanks to the reputation and review systems long employed in the internet. Looking at how reputation and review systems get abused and gamed on the internet, I'd rather trust the Berlin administration, as incapable and weird they sometimes are. > This is clearly desirable. I think sticking to the regulations is clearly more desirable than disrupting them. Who's right here? > Change is clearly overdue in the taxi services I actually don't think that's the case, at least not in Berlin. Some adaptions, sure, but nothing dramatic (like does a cab really have to be white? It's useful when you're trying to find one, but a sign on top might be sufficient).

nemesisj 12y ago

I've used taxis in four major USA metro areas fairly extensively: Chicago, San Francisco, NYC, and South Florida (Ft. Lauderdale / Miami). NYC is mostly OK, although drivers are sometimes hard to understand. Chicago was a step below, but still OK. South Florida and SanFran were the worst. Dirty, awful, dangerous drivers. All of those cities are very expensive, often have trouble with credit cards, and didn't have a good way to hail a cab other than calling at the time. I can see why Uber in theory makes sense in those environments. I remember when Uber launched in Europe I got an email from someone there asking about Edinburgh (where I live). My response is that I don't see Uber doing well in Edinburgh. Right now, in Edinburgh, I can hail a cab with an app that lets me specify my route or drop a pin where I'm at for pickup. I can see the cab on the map driving towards me. I get an automatic ringback on approach. I can pay with stored cc information or corporate account. Cabs are impeccably clean, inexpensive, and the drivers are really great. They are all trained in First Aid and most are highly accessible (you can specify if you need accessibility on booking). They will help you with luggage, engage in chat, and it's a really great experience. There are also private hire companies that compete with the cabs. There is some tension there as those cars don't offer or require the accessibility of cars and training to their drivers, and they're on the same meter. I almost never use them. The black cab cars are really great to get in and out of particularly with luggage. So to sum up, Uber just isn't going to do that well here in my estimation.