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.
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.
> 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).
My comments aren't meant to refer to the German situation in isolation.
In a lot of jurisdictions complying with some of the consumer protection laws is more expensive to the consumer than a feedback system alone while offering little to no additional benefit. Things like medallion laws, knowledge tests, etc. These laws will never get changed unless Uber breaks them and demonstrates that they are, in fact, unnecessary.
I'm not familiar with the German regulations and the article is light on details but if it's as simple as liability insurance and an extra car-checkup I doubt Uber would be opposing this so vehemently. They already provide commercial liability insurance to US drivers, for example.
> I'm not familiar with the German regulations and the article is light on details
Ah, ok, never mind me then.
It's hard to argue from assumption, but this is not the only article about this subject, there are many more and this case has been working its way upward for a while in this court and others.
Essentially the German authorities position is that Uber is operating an unlicensed taxi company. Uber is welcome to become licensed but refuses to do so, which allows it to compete with the existing taxi companies but without the associated costs.
The existing taxi companies feel that this is unfair and have brought suit, which the courts have now decided has enough merit to warrant an injunction.
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.