6 ms·

Consumers by and large want to pay for these protections (at least they want everyone else to pay for them), which is why they elected MPs to implement them. If

Consumers by and large want to pay for these protections (at least they want everyone else to pay for them), which is why they elected MPs to implement them. If the general public perceived it unnecessary to pay for them, they could elect appropriate politicians to remove the added protections, but it is not up to a single company to decide “nah, not worth it” and break existing laws.

aianus 12y ago
Germany is not a direct democracy. Theoretically it could be that 100% of the constituents oppose these protections, but still elected MPs which support them. There are plenty of issues that are more important and more likely to influence one's vote than the price of taxis.
- vertex-four 12y ago
  Then perhaps the price of taxis is not so important as to break the law to provider cheaper taxis.
- lispm 12y ago
  > Germany is not a direct democracy. That's not true. Elements of direct democracy are for example available at the local level. Here in Hamburg the politics is supporting it. For example the mayor of Hamburg is openly supporting it: http://www.abendblatt.de/politik/deutschland/article129401329/Olaf-Scholz-Ich-bin-Anhaenger-von-Volksentscheiden.html http://www.abendblatt.de/politik/deutschland/article12940132... http://www.abendblatt.de/politik/deutschland/article129395652/Hamburg-ist-das-Labor-der-direkten-Demokratie.html http://www.abendblatt.de/politik/deutschland/article12939565... If people here in Hamburg/Germany would be unhappy with it, then they could vote over such a topic, if there is enough interest. We already have elements of direct democracy. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksentscheid http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksentscheid For example we voted here to buy back the energy utilities, sold a few years ago. Just recently a non-binding public voting was a done about a new possible tourist attraction. Here you can see the list of `Volksabstimmungen` we had here in Hamburg in the last years: http://www.hamburg.de/contentblob/104078/data/volksabstimmungen-uebersicht.pdf http://www.hamburg.de/contentblob/104078/data/volksabstimmun...
  - Xylakant 12y ago
    To be fair, since this is a federal law and Volksentscheid are only possible up to state level, this wouldn't change anything in this case.
    - lispm 12y ago
      The states could propose a change of the federal law, the Personenbeförderungsgesetz.
      - Xylakant 12y ago
        I'm fairly sure that this is not possible to enforce via Volksentscheid. Its state legislation, so the details differ, but as far as I understand in most states the referendum can only decide over a proposed law. In some states a general guideline for the parliament can be decided over (Berlin, HH and Schleswig-Holstein) but those are only recommendations. I'm not certain if it would be a valid course to create a law that forces the parliament (or rather the states representatives in the Bundesrat) to propose a law. That might create a legal problem: What if the proposed law gets changed or rejected in the Bundesrat etc. You're free to try, but I doubt that course of action will work.
jacquesm 12y ago
So, the free market proponents argue that in that case the consumers should be able to choose freely between the two options. That's pretty much the crux here: should consumers have the ability to 'opt-out' from these protections or not? My beef with that is that taxi's are seen as public transport and people expect a certain level of service rather than a free-for-all where one driver will be courteous and professional, the car clean and serviceable, the next will rip you off and be a jerk. Uber takes care of this in part by using a feedback mechanism, but - Unfortunately for Uber - in Germany these things are a bit more organized than elsewhere and the German taxi system - in those cities where I have used it - is actually quite reasonably priced and the drivers are typically professional and the cars are clean and well maintained. So from that point of view they don't add value, they just undercut the existing drivers by sidestepping the regulations. And that is unfair competition. The solution is simple: Uber should certify their cars and drivers for the German market under the same rules as the rest of the drivers and taxi companies, then undercut them on price and overdeliver on service. That really would be the free market in action.
- aianus 12y ago
  Well, part of the innovation with Uber is that they're able to deliver the same or better service without the regulatory cost. If the feedback mechanism functions as well or better than special licenses/health checks/knowledge tests/what have you, why not pass those cost savings of that innovation on to consumers? The regulations sound good and all, but I can tell you from personal experience that Uber takes feedback very seriously whereas dispatcher companies and regulators couldn't care less about it and pretty much nothing's ever going to happen to a taxi driver that was rude to you or took a circuitous route.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    > Well, part of the innovation with Uber is that they're able to deliver the same or better service without the regulatory cost. What regulatory cost? Professional liability insurance (which is mandatory for the transportation of people) and higher frequency car certification are not 'regulatory costs' they are costs that industry and government have arrived at as a reasonable compromise between the pull of the market and the ability of taxi service providers to make money whilst providing a safe and professional service to the customers. Regulatory costs would be 'buy a permit at $1M' or something like that. I don't see that in this judgement, it is just about Uber totally ignoring the law. > If the feedback mechanism functions as well or better than special licenses/health checks/knowledge tests/what have you, why not pass those cost savings of that innovation on to consumers? I'm all for that. If after Uber complies with the law their margins are such that they can operate more efficiently they will own the market. > The regulations sound good and all, but I can tell you from personal experience that Uber takes feedback very seriously whereas dispatcher companies and regulators couldn't care less about it and pretty much nothing's ever going to happen to a taxi driver that was rude to you or took a circuitous route. I've never had a German taxi driver that was rude to me or that took a circuitous route. (I wished I could say the same for my hometown, Toronto, Bucharest, Rome or New York, the other places where I regularly used taxis).

aianus 12y ago

Germany is not a direct democracy. Theoretically it could be that 100% of the constituents oppose these protections, but still elected MPs which support them. There are plenty of issues that are more important and more likely to influence one's vote than the price of taxis.

vertex-four 12y ago
Then perhaps the price of taxis is not so important as to break the law to provider cheaper taxis.
lispm 12y ago
> Germany is not a direct democracy. That's not true. Elements of direct democracy are for example available at the local level. Here in Hamburg the politics is supporting it. For example the mayor of Hamburg is openly supporting it: http://www.abendblatt.de/politik/deutschland/article129401329/Olaf-Scholz-Ich-bin-Anhaenger-von-Volksentscheiden.html http://www.abendblatt.de/politik/deutschland/article12940132... http://www.abendblatt.de/politik/deutschland/article129395652/Hamburg-ist-das-Labor-der-direkten-Demokratie.html http://www.abendblatt.de/politik/deutschland/article12939565... If people here in Hamburg/Germany would be unhappy with it, then they could vote over such a topic, if there is enough interest. We already have elements of direct democracy. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksentscheid http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksentscheid For example we voted here to buy back the energy utilities, sold a few years ago. Just recently a non-binding public voting was a done about a new possible tourist attraction. Here you can see the list of `Volksabstimmungen` we had here in Hamburg in the last years: http://www.hamburg.de/contentblob/104078/data/volksabstimmungen-uebersicht.pdf http://www.hamburg.de/contentblob/104078/data/volksabstimmun...
- Xylakant 12y ago
  To be fair, since this is a federal law and Volksentscheid are only possible up to state level, this wouldn't change anything in this case.
  - lispm 12y ago
    The states could propose a change of the federal law, the Personenbeförderungsgesetz.
    - Xylakant 12y ago
      I'm fairly sure that this is not possible to enforce via Volksentscheid. Its state legislation, so the details differ, but as far as I understand in most states the referendum can only decide over a proposed law. In some states a general guideline for the parliament can be decided over (Berlin, HH and Schleswig-Holstein) but those are only recommendations. I'm not certain if it would be a valid course to create a law that forces the parliament (or rather the states representatives in the Bundesrat) to propose a law. That might create a legal problem: What if the proposed law gets changed or rejected in the Bundesrat etc. You're free to try, but I doubt that course of action will work.

jacquesm 12y ago

So, the free market proponents argue that in that case the consumers should be able to choose freely between the two options. That's pretty much the crux here: should consumers have the ability to 'opt-out' from these protections or not? My beef with that is that taxi's are seen as public transport and people expect a certain level of service rather than a free-for-all where one driver will be courteous and professional, the car clean and serviceable, the next will rip you off and be a jerk. Uber takes care of this in part by using a feedback mechanism, but - Unfortunately for Uber - in Germany these things are a bit more organized than elsewhere and the German taxi system - in those cities where I have used it - is actually quite reasonably priced and the drivers are typically professional and the cars are clean and well maintained. So from that point of view they don't add value, they just undercut the existing drivers by sidestepping the regulations. And that is unfair competition. The solution is simple: Uber should certify their cars and drivers for the German market under the same rules as the rest of the drivers and taxi companies, then undercut them on price and overdeliver on service. That really would be the free market in action.

aianus 12y ago
Well, part of the innovation with Uber is that they're able to deliver the same or better service without the regulatory cost. If the feedback mechanism functions as well or better than special licenses/health checks/knowledge tests/what have you, why not pass those cost savings of that innovation on to consumers? The regulations sound good and all, but I can tell you from personal experience that Uber takes feedback very seriously whereas dispatcher companies and regulators couldn't care less about it and pretty much nothing's ever going to happen to a taxi driver that was rude to you or took a circuitous route.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  > Well, part of the innovation with Uber is that they're able to deliver the same or better service without the regulatory cost. What regulatory cost? Professional liability insurance (which is mandatory for the transportation of people) and higher frequency car certification are not 'regulatory costs' they are costs that industry and government have arrived at as a reasonable compromise between the pull of the market and the ability of taxi service providers to make money whilst providing a safe and professional service to the customers. Regulatory costs would be 'buy a permit at $1M' or something like that. I don't see that in this judgement, it is just about Uber totally ignoring the law. > If the feedback mechanism functions as well or better than special licenses/health checks/knowledge tests/what have you, why not pass those cost savings of that innovation on to consumers? I'm all for that. If after Uber complies with the law their margins are such that they can operate more efficiently they will own the market. > The regulations sound good and all, but I can tell you from personal experience that Uber takes feedback very seriously whereas dispatcher companies and regulators couldn't care less about it and pretty much nothing's ever going to happen to a taxi driver that was rude to you or took a circuitous route. I've never had a German taxi driver that was rude to me or that took a circuitous route. (I wished I could say the same for my hometown, Toronto, Bucharest, Rome or New York, the other places where I regularly used taxis).