3 ms·
I really wonder how much of this is protectionism for Taxis, and how much of it is protectionism against foreign companies. I don't have any particular love for
by cromwellian 12y ago
I really wonder how much of this is protectionism for Taxis, and how much of it is protectionism against foreign companies. I don't have any particular love for Uber (the way they waste Lyft resources makes them d-bags in my book), but I don't buy the 'safety' excuse being given.
It reminds me of the bullshit safety concerns used to continue Oregon's ban on pumping your own gas at gas stations: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/06/its_for_the_children_and_other.html http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/06/its_for_...
The reality is, it's a form of protectionism for gas station attendant jobs, just as this German decision smells like regulatory capture. My guess is that if Uber changed policy to actually meet whatever requirements safety they're asking, they'd devise a new set of excuses for the ban, because this is ultimately about preserving the status quo.
- pgeorgi 12y agoThe "excuse" is the Personenbeförderungsgesetz (law on [commercially] transporting people). Taxis have to implement it (and they do), and so they can complain in court about competitors who don't (as a remedy to state intervention: regulation has to apply to everyone). That's what happened here, nothing more, nothing less. If the court hadn't stopped Uber, we'd actually see some special treatment (that is, protectionism) in Uber's favor.