As far as I can see, Uber is the problem in countries, where taxi industry is heavily regularized.
Recently Uber started its operation in Poland, in Warsaw. For 2 days that was a news, but later nobody paid much attention on it.
In Poland in order to become taxi driver one needs to fulfill a number of conditions (only people who never comitted a crime are allowed a licence, must be physically and mentally healthy) a then pass the "city knowladge" exam. Exam is obligatory only in cites larger then 100K. And that's all.
Due to competition taxi prices are kept on resonable level, so taxi companies are competing by having nicer cars, being highly available (wating for a taxi longer then 10 min is unusual), offering loyalty cards, cummulative invoicing at the end of the month, etc.
Uber can compete with lower prices - they have promised to be 20% cheaper. It is not clear however cheaper from which price - premium taxi companies (about 60 cents per kilometer) or cheap services (40 cents per kilometer).
There are other questions as well - would Uber be able to provide invoices, if not, it is not a deal for many people.
Even if I pay less (10% less?), I don't think I will risk riding with someone who might be totally unfit for the job and does not know city. Plus if something goes wrong I am not sure how Uber is going to handle that.
So, basically, Uber is one more taxi company out of 25 with fancy way of calling taxi, so there is no reason for other companies to protest.
When people talk about 'heavy regulation', they don't usually specify what regulations they are actually talking about. In Germany for example, Uber is in trouble because they are not ensuring that their drivers are insured (a normal private car insurance won't cover commercial operation) and not ensuring that the vehicles have the required level of mechanical safety checks (commercial vehicles require more regular tests because they do far more miles).
When you peel away the vague and emotive language of 'heavy regulation' to look at the actual issues then suddenly things look quite different.
Hands up who on HN thinks filling our roads with uninsured drivers is a good thing? Hands up who thinks mandatory checks on vehicles brakes and other basic safety systems is a bad thing? I think I see pg's hand at the back there. But in general the vast vast majority of people think mandatory insurance is a good idea. That's why nearly all developed countries require it by law.
Uber don't want to actually come out and say 'our drivers are not insured', but make no mistake, thats the kind of thing Uber and SV VCs are talking about when they complain about 'red tape' and 'regulation' and 'lack of entrepreneurial spirit'. Ignoring insurance laws makes it easier for them to undercut law abiding and sociably responsible competitors, and they want to continue to get away with it.
> commercial vehicles require more regular tests because they do far more miles
That doesn't make any sense. Sure, high mileage cars probably need to be checked more regularly, but that goes for non-commercial vehicles as well. The fact that money changes hands after a ride does not do anything to the technical state of the car.
Same thing for the insurance: if I drive a friend to the airport, that's OK apparently. But if I drive someone else to the airport for money, suddenly I'm not insured anymore?
To me this just sounds like people making up rules to protect their own interests.
> Hands up who on HN thinks filling our roads with uninsured drivers is a good thing? Hands up who thinks mandatory checks on vehicles brakes and other basic safety systems is a bad thing? I think I see pg's hand at the back there. But in general the vast vast majority of people think mandatory insurance is a good idea. That's why nearly all developed countries require it by law.
The thing is that instead of making these things "expected" because of market forces, imposing it by law makes it a default for everyone and it becomes a box to tick when you want to operate a taxi, just like many other things. And you end up with people who simply do not give a shit at all about consumer experience and providing a good service at all. That's the key difference with countries were taxis have less regulations: people actually compete on service, for the benefit of everyone, not just the few who are taxi drivers and running a monopoly provided by the State.
With this attitude you end up with Taxi drivers who do this job because they see it as a rent, not as a way to make a difference on the market. Yeah, that's the spirit!
Consumers can see and value polite drivers and clean cars. I can't determine whether a taxi needs its breaks checked. So obviously I want some form regulation to be in place that guarantees that whatever taxi I get into actually has good breaks. Same thing with whatever paperwork needs to be managed for tax purposes and so on. I as a customer can't see it so it won't emerge by market forces alone.
There can always be over- and under-regulation in any market, the places where Uber was born from the "over regulation" probably has quite a lot more regulation, most notably it is probably where you have a system of regulating the NUMBER Of taxis (e.g. "Taxi medallions"). The "regulation" that many oppose to is probably the regulation that actually prevents people from easily getting into the taxi business to meet demand. Regulations regarding safety/insurance etc. I can't imagine either drivers or customers see as a problem. If someone finds getting proper insurance too bureaucratic that is probably a good filter for drivers you don't want on the market.
I'm in favour of light-touch regulation on taxis (at least in the presence of an outfit that can provide driver reviews), but basic safety/insurance checks aren't something the market is likely to be all that efficient at enforcing.
The issues people are going to review on will be driver experience, internal cleanliness, etc. Poor vehicle safety only really becomes a passenger issue at the point it's too late.
Lack of insurance is even worse - because it also affects the person your taxi crashes into, who doesn't have any say in the matter at all, market-wise.
The thing is that insurances and checks on vehicle brakes are not visible for the consumer, and so an uninformed consumer won't care about it until an accident happen. By then, it's too late.
This. Many commentators especially in Germany are complaining about the lack of a will to innovate, yet uber is nothing new under the sun. They pretend to be part of a sharing economy, yet charge more than the fuel costs of a trip, which is the quintessential difference to ride sharing. They are simply a global taxi company with a fancy app that is trying to benefit from not being regulated by claiming to be something new - ride sharing.
They are a taxi company so should have to follow the same regulations as all the other taxi companies.
Licensing/quotas/medallions etc. are horrible ideas. Uber is doing right for breaking into these markets, pretending to be taxis but saying they aren't.
So for all the other markets, where there is no medallion system or other barrier for entry to the market (other than "expected" things like insurance etc.), that is where Uber is just a taxi. And here they don't even SAY they aren't taxis.
My guess: taxi license/medallions are a relic that is bound to disappear pretty quickly. Since in some places people have to BUY these things, it's obviously not going to be done overnight.
> My guess: taxi license/medallions are a relic that is bound to disappear pretty quickly. Since in some places people have to BUY these things, it's obviously not going to be done overnight.
I agree, however until they lawfully become a thing of the past is not fair to people who have bought them (or followed the possibly lengthy procedure of getting licensed)
I can't see how they can offer a cheaper service once all major companies have decent apps, dynamic pricing etc. At least here decent apps are standard for all major companies on the market (no live tracking or pre payment but at least very good booking and price info up front). Given that a lot of the income for the major taxi companies come from major deals (school rides, elderly, large corporations) that uber won't take, I don't even think they need to adopt all of ubers' practices to compete with them. As a matter of fact I don't think Uber is any cheaper!
Same in Stockholm, Uber isnt some revolutionary new method of transportation, it's another taxi co among hundreds. The app+payment is the only thing that sets them apart, but apps of course exist for a handful of the other largest taxi companies.
Doesn't Uber use considerably nicer cars than any other taxi service? When I get an Uber in London it's a very new and clean spacious black car, not your standard taxi. And the drivers are far more polite (they don't try to ask me about football for example).
Since there are hundreds of companies there are all sorts of cars. Uber does have the best cars in its price range (standard taxi prices) though. You can always get a black 7-series from a company other than Uber, but you are probably being ripped off since standard taxicos run more standard (such as e-class or v70) cars.
In Germany and Spain, there's a state-maintained taxi cartel. They don't want any competition - that's the point of a cartel to begin with - and so, their friends in the government are working to prevent it. All the bullshit regulation is just part of maintaining the cartel.
Apparently they don't have this problem in Poland, and rather unsurprisingly, taxis are cheap and competing by having nicer cars etc.
Yup. We already had our taxi disruption in Poland when iCar and the like appeared. They used a legal trick to get around requirements for taxi license. A dozen media storms, few slashed tires and a law change later, they were made to operate under taxi law, and everyone seems to live along well. The primary important features introduced by iCar, et al. was a) fare based on distance, therefore known before the ride, and b) use of GPS to navigate around the city.
I actually switched to iCar mostly for b) - I trust GPS more than taxi driver's instinct.
I don't see anything new Uber can bring here. We already have a taxi network with an ordering app anyway.
I don't know what taxi services are you using, but I live in a major Polish city and the taxis are horrible, for a couple of reasons:
- You always get a different price
- You never get a receipt (if you request one, you often get yelled at)
- Drivers drive like madmen
- Sometimes it takes 30+ minutes for a taxi, other times no taxi picks up the damn phone
- Sometimes they tell you 20 minutes, and then don't come at all.
Fuckers will talk all the ride about how hard it is for them to make a living, how the laws are hard to follow for them etc. And then give you a price of 50zl for a 10 minute ride. Ridiculous. I can't wait for services Uber and alike to take them all out of business.
Are you a non-native? The culture of overcharging foreigners is probably still pretty strong in many places (it was born during the communist time, where every westerner was perceived as a walking wallet).
Exactly. Uber has risen as we perceive the cost of a taxi service to be excessive. Why is this? Is it exploitation by a bloated monopoly or is it to cover actual costs (such as insurance, regulatory constraints) which don't present themselves to the average traveler? I'm sure it is somewhere in the middle.
The main differences will be labour rates-i.e. how much the driver is paid (or earns) per shift and the utilization rate (i.e how much of the time the driver is working).
Here in Colombia Uber is AMAZINGLY better than any taxi company. The difference is simply too big.
A normal taxi will not go where I want, or refuse to take me for any other reason. And payment has to be cash only. And there's always some risk the driver will try to take advantage of you.
> How they will do this in a city with thousands of cars is a different question, and authorities haven’t given any details on how they will try to find Uber cars in the streets of Madrid.
Easy. Undercover inspectors just book an Uber ride. Soon as they step into the vehicle, they present ID and fine the driver.
The authorities wouldn't need to be successful very often. So long as there's a possibility of a large fine the number of drivers would start to fall. If it falls to a level where getting an Uber car takes too long the customers will leave, and then Uber withdraw because they aren't making any money if there aren't any customers.
If 1% of Uber drivers are fined leads to 50% of drivers being scared away that could be enough to stop Uber completely.
Well, a taxi license in Spain costs as much as a good new house.
Maybe even two houses depending on the area.
Historically, people needed to take big credits to start a taxi career.
I'm not sure what is my position, but I've empathy for those who did pay such license and special insurances.
Also I've empathy for those who want to make use of Uber services.
It's not easy to make justice to all of them at the same time.
I think there are more European countries with the same conflicts regarding this situation with traditional taxis and Uber. Many disputes, demonstrations and strikes, all around Europe.
Here in Spanishtan the government has take a position. We can not presume of a 2.0 government, neither about pro technological laws, or pro entrepreneur laws. Indeed. Is not new for me.
> Also I've empathy for those who want to make use of Uber services. It's not easy to make justice to all of them at the same time.
Well, it depends on your culture and perspective, of course. To me, the answer is almost always clear and obvious: when there's a conflict between the worker's happiness and the consumer's happiness, the worker comes first. Society's role is to ensure its members can make a respectable livelihood -- not to solve every minor inconvenience for those whose comfortable survival is already guaranteed, or to make their life more "efficient". Of course, if the rich want to run their lives like well-oiled machines, it's their prerogative, as long as they don't interfere with society's more important goals.
You mean typewriter manufacturers should have been kept afloat forever using taxpayers' funds so as to not fire workers?
(That's what "the worker comes first" despite the consumer not wanting the product would mean, I think. If not, then the question is where you draw the line and how you measure the harm done to the average worker when he is forced to support other workers who are unproductive compared to available alternatives. For instance, rich people have private cars and sometimes private drivers and don't need taxis that much. Who needs a taxi? Someone without a car who needs to quickly get from A to B. Could be a rather poor chap. Of course, taxis, that regulated brand of public transportation, are hardly affordable on a regular basis to "poor" people. Whether this helps or hurts "workers" is not obvious to me. All of which is not to say that I'm "on Uber's side" or some such, I'm too uninformed to take a side on this one. Just wondering about your "pro-worker" statement.)
Common sense and politics[1] usually provide the answer. I'm not talking about keeping dead industries afloat, but protecting certain necessary ventures through regulation, to ensure that the workers get compensated fairly for their required service. It is better to have customers wait another 3 minutes for a taxi, than taxi drivers not being able to make ends meet. The important thing to remember is that we aren't supposed to work for the sake of the economy; the economy is meant to work for us. What that means in practice, is left for each country, with its own culture and customs, to decide.
[1]: Although I mean politics in its very common denotation (i.e. the work of politicians, and not "politics of oppression"), it does provide a very good mechanism for groups to bargain over interests. It doesn't always come up with the same answer your common sense would give you, but it's sometimes better (though more annoying): it allows groups to consider various proposals as a package, rather than fight it out over each one in isolation (e.g. we won't oppose increase in gas tax if you don't allow unregulated taxi services).
The structure of the arrangement between taxi companies and the government is different in each area, and is subject both to particular deals struck (and I don't mean that in a bad way, though sometimes it is) and to whatever extra safety procedures the government wants to enforce. For example, a country should be free to require an expensive insurance from taxi drivers, as well as background checks as means to preventing future costs, or as part of a deal. Thing is, Travis Kalanick and his ilk are trying to restrict our freedom to choose what's right for our community, as if there's only one way to run an economy, and as if they know what it is.
Color me cynical, but I think that most of opposition to Uber stems not from desire for safety but simple desire to protect the incumbent profits.
Moreover - the 'community' isn't really choosing anything. Instead it's some crony local politicians in the pocket of taxi lobby. If you want to do a referendum on whether Uber should be operating - I'll agree on the 'community' stance. Otherwise it's the minority who have the most to lose advocating against it.
That's a tricky position to take, as a political habit.
The problem with defining 'worker happiness' some way is that if unhappiness entitles you to something unhappiness can be achieved. What about the happiness of those who would like to be a worker, but can't because it conflicts with existing worker happiness?
Workers are ann entrenched interest group (or even class, to borrow more Marxist language) and they are interested in maintaining the way things are. The loudest are reactionary, preferring to go back to the way things were.
The unionized factories of 2 generations ago were not the pinnacle of human civilization.
But here's precisely the role of politics. If more workers would mean no one can make a sustenance, then maybe it's society's role to tell the newcomers, "look for something else". Or maybe it's the opposite, and when all interests are considered, it's best to let the incumbents shave a few percents off their income. But this kind of decision is exactly what politics is for. I wouldn't want to let a Silicon Valley brat with tons of VC money behind him to decide that for me in the name of "innovation" (here we're starting to see how "innovation" is being used as an instrument to restrict freedom).
I don't understand this approach. It's as if we'd never seen politics or economics in action and therefore our best guess comes from musings.
Democracy does not equal the will or the good of the people in some hermetically perfect way. The reality is that in both economics and democracy entrenched culture, institutions and interest groups gain power. They guard it and enlarge it. They quickly develop the belief that they are entitled to it.
The 'good of society' even if it could be understood objectively is not represented in the volumes of trade policy enacted into legislation after months of committees, "consultations" and such.
Political power is the oldest currency. You call innovation a euphemism used to justify things. I call these authorities euphemism.
Incidentally, I lean very left on a lot of things. I am a European. I am pro-EU and I think that the true goals of the EU, solidarity, peace and open borders are a genuinely worthy goal. What I reject is this rule-by-beaurocracy mindset enabling and encouraging letters of objection to your neighbor's lawn furniture.
In any case, it's very easy to launch accusations from your 1,000m high, drone's eye view that these people should just shave a percentage off their margin. It's not about shaving a few percentages point. It's about shaving themselves out of existence in order to allow old, decrepit and corrupt institutions another few years at the trough.
Yeah, democracy sucks, but being ruled by VCs carrying the BS banner of "innovation" is far worse. What you see as corrupt institutions, I see as the possibly outdated results of many years of political bargaining, which -- like everything else -- requires the occasional shakeup. But I'd much rather this shakeup happen as a result of new, better, interest groups forming, than as a result of companies who have zero interests other than their own profit.
I don't know -- that's up to society to decide. If the people think Uber is harmful, they have a right to ban it. At the end of the day, it's up to the people to come up with some bargain that will direct their society in the direction they want. And if society decides one way, but some people prefer it another, well in this case the choice is easy: if riding or driving Uber is so important to them, they can try and move to another country/state/region where Uber is welcome. It's a bit like asking, but what about people who would really like to pay less taxes?
If we don't like our civilization, we're free to rebel. It would be sad, though -- at least in my opinion -- if the cause for rebellion would be a "ride-sharing" app that's become so synonymous with spoiled consumerism.
then maybe it's society's role to tell the newcomers, "look for something else"
On the other hand, there's almost 5 million people in Spain "looking for something else". Many of whom have already exhausted their unemployment benefits.
I wouldn't count on Uber and Travis Kalanick to help you there. That's a job for you, through your politicians, and it seems that, for the moment, you want to tell Uber, "Thanks, but no thanks". That's your right, and it's got nothing to do with stifling "innovation" or "progress", because Uber's got nothing to do with either of those things. It's nothing but a different (and I think, particularly exploitative) form of employment (packaged in arrogance and disdain for the law and the people who make it), which may, or may not be right for Spain.
How does "government" know exactly when to tell people to look for something else?
Do you think it's possible that the "insiders" might try and influence the state to get them to tell that to newcomers in order to gain a bigger share of the pie for themselves?
> How does "government" know exactly when to tell people to look for something else?
I'm not sure why you put government in quotations, but the government doesn't know; it's supposed to decide through bargaining.
> Do you think it's possible that the "insiders" might try and influence the state to get them to tell that to newcomers in order to gain a bigger share of the pie for themselves?
Sure, but that's the name of the game. I would hope that politicians who want to get reelected support sensible policy (or at least a sensible "grand bargain"). The way the game is played sucks, but it's a lot better than living at the mercy of those who have more means (not that it isn't like that anyway, but at least democracies give people the power to organize and form an opposing power to capital).
I'm certainly not someone who has bought into the 'Austrian school' of economics, nor "market fundamentalism" in other forms, but some of their ideas were pretty good:
And as a consequence I think that markets are a more efficient way of calculating some things like "how many people should be taxi drivers" than government planning.
Government planning and government regulation are two very different things. Regulation is an iterative process, where the market is allowed to determine some things, and then society tries to correct the flaws and to better direct the outcome. The economy is like a river that starts out as a natural process (or, at least something that's hard to control), and along its flow, people may divert it or dam it to make sure it provides the desired benefit and to prevent possible harm it may cause.
This position makes no economic sense. Consumers are the end goal of an economy. Workers are just a means to meet consumer demand. Eventually, through automation, we may not even need any workers at all. You can artificially raise wages up to a certain point, but it's not at all clear that this is good for the economy as a whole. E.g. unemployment for workers whose labor isn't worth that much, higher prices for consumers, etc.
A better alternative is something like a basic income. Something that helps all people, not just people who have jobs with high demand. And is payed for by taxing the entire economy, not just businesses that coincidentally employ a lot of workers (or indirectly, their consumers.)
Exactly, the price for a driver spot is driven by demand, it's not expensive just by law.
Traditionally, getting a driver license in Spain has always been like signing for a relatively well paid and secure job for life. And moreover, there is no need for any investment learning any particularly difficult skill. This is all supported by ridiculously high fares backed by regulations.
This is not to put the blame on taxi drivers, I truly believe they are choosing a honest option to make a living. But considering that an important factor, if not the most important, for the Spanish economical crisis is the inability to adapt to a global economy, with this kind of actions, the message the government is sending is: "don't invest your time learning to code, or getting engineering degrees because we are still trying everything in our hand to keep traditional professions secure and well paid, not like those new risky technological jobs". The average Spanish programmer is in a more precarious situation than anyone with a highly regulated unskilled profession.
Here in Spain, I'm constantly seeing measures to try to maintain the old ways of living at any cost with total disregard about how the rest of the world is evolving. I'm not claiming globalization is good or bad but it's happening, and if the Spanish government keeps trying to hide it from its population with more debt, in the long term, it only means less economical competitiveness for the country and slimmer chances to catch up with the rest of the world in the future.
Defending these minority groups only means more poverty overall for everyone in Spain.
If the government sides with Uber it loses the money he get from the (outrageously expensive, like you said) licenses, and has a lot of unhappy voters (taxi drivers).
What would it gain ? Better service ? Lower prices, more fares ? Happier citizen ? That is really all to be demonstrated.
It´s a very rational decision in my opinion, on part of the government, although I might not agree with it.
On the human side, I agree that taxi drivers deserve sympathy, but no more than other owners of traditional businesses that are made obsolete by progress (small CD shop owners, bookstores, photo development shops)...
The councils(not the goverment) sell/auctions a tiny fraction of licenses. There's a secondary market where license owners sell them, usually when they retire.
You have to bear in mind that Amazon was not in Spain until just a couple of years ago because you know, the law here is very much pro-publishers. This move is not a surprise for us Spaniards. A real pity.
On the other hand, taxis here in Spain are nowhere near the chaos they seem to be in Manhattan or SF. They are usually rather clean (not necessarily shiny but decently clean) and drivers tend to be agreeable (there are exceptions, as in everything).
Can't agree with your point here. It's extremely common to get ripped off by taxis in Spain. There is no incentive for them to be agreeable with foreigners.
Not in Barcelona, at least, since fare prices are shown in the windows (IIRC this is also the norm in the UK, and I thought this was also done Spain-wide, but it's been a while since I took a taxi outside of Barcelona.) Of course, nothing prevents the taxi from driving around needlessly. But this can happen anywhere, Uber or no Uber.
When I took a taxi in barcelona the taxi driver held my luggage hostage and insisted on a flat fee instead of the meter when we arrived at the destination. I had no working mobile phone so there was not much I could do but pay him.
An anecdote but I doubt it's the only time that happened.
I doubt it too, but in highly regulated places (like Spain is, sadly for many affairs, luckily for some others) you could just pick the taxi number (they are always shown outside, license plate would work too) and complain against the city/company. Losing their mean of living is a pretty scary thing.
As a matter of fact, I've taken 2 taxis in the UK and was scammed in one of the trips (first one actually), the second one was nice. Shit happens, everywhere.
At Cabify we actually get around this issue by calculating the price from the distance of the optimal route between pick-up and destination using Open Street Maps. This incentivises drivers to take the most efficient route and attempt to avoid traffic jams.
Works great! You just sit back and relax while the driver figures out how to get to the destination. Totally avoids the usual stress when a taxi driver takes a wrong turn.
Yup. In Poland the rule of thumb is that you order a taxi from a taxi network - the ones parked outside airport or train stations are usually scammers.
It is indeed true that taxi licenses in Spain are so outrageously expensive that taxi drivers have to take a mortage big enough to buy a house, to pay for it.
There are certain industries in Spain which have legal barriers of entrance, so that it is very difficult for newcomers to get in, such as pharmacies and taxis. Think of it like a mafia.
That said, it has been proved on a TV programme, that a spanish-looking person taking a taxi, the taxi took a short route, and a foreign looking person taking a taxi from the same place to exactly the same destination, the taxi took a much longer and expensive route.
That said, it is my opinion that taxi driver and truck driver as a career has its days counted, in the light of innovations such as self driving cars. Obviously there will be a fierce (and presumably violent) opposition to the introduction of such disruptive technologies, they will lobby as a group (or as a mafia) trying to avoid that overtaking the market, but in the end those technologies will win.
So in the end, it is irrelevant if Uber can or can´t operate now in countries like Spain, because taxi drivers have no future.
The only hope for smart taxi drivers will be to buy a self-driving car and operate it 24hours a day (that is, embrace innovation as opposed to resist it, resistance is futile), while working themselves on something else, or just enjoying life.
I'm just wondering: facing such explicitly adverse government, what is the point of trying? Do you think Uber should sit that one out, and wait success abroad to change people's mind, or have foreign tourists used to Uber beg for the service to come back?
I can’t imagine a change in public opinion in favor: the country that has massive official unemployment, systemic black market: the “sharing economy” cannot be more popular than now. One PR strategy would be to denounce the undeclared equivalents, drivers who offer rides without any licence or control; have the obvious accident happen (unceremonious driver, riders running away) and blow it out with a PR campaign; Uber could then present as the savior, and an needed control over the unscrupulous drivers and riders.
I take a fair amount of taxis and Uber. Except on some cases*, my experience with Uber is always vastly superior than it is with taxis: from the conversation to cleanliness, efficiency, etc. Specially in Spain.
I agree that Uber needs to have the same fiscal treatment as taxis do, but making the service illegal is beyond ridiculous, and a very sad way to try to stifle innovation (which will end up finding its way anyway).
Why do you think Uber is an "innovation"? It's simply an unregulated, unsafe and uninsured taxi service. It's just like those illegal scalpers offering rides in any airport, except with a smartphone app. That's not innovation (useful and popular taxi apps existed before Uber), and whatever it is, it's not being stifled. Uber is free to apply for permits just like everyone else. I think that instead of being sad you should be proud that your country doesn't automatically adopt any potentially harmful idea that comes from America.
They changed their coverage only recently after being pressured by the public and the government to do so: http://time.com/25397/uber-lyft-sidecar-insurance/ (and regulations will soon force them to do so). I'm not sure what the situation in Europe is, but the Uber's wording suggests that only actual rides are insured.
Okay, do you have any citation for the claim that UberPOP in Spain is unsafe or uninsured?
This link seems to say that neither of those fears is true for Brussels: http://blog.uber.com/uberpopfactsbxl ... I can't find a similar post for Spain, but then, I'm not the one who bears the burden of proof.
I don't know where you have taken taxis in Spain, but all taxis I've taken in Barcelona are incredibly clean and the drivers are incredibly efficient (given that I'm Spanish and know the best routes for these trips, too, of course)
Just upon arriving to Barajas Airport in Madrid, I went outside to the taxi area and could delight myself with taxis not respecting the queue (allowing clients instead of referring them to the head of the queue) and the image of two taxi drivers fist fighting for some clients. Yup.
Not to mention they wanted to charge me over 100 euros for going from the Airport to the main train station.
From my experience the taxi industry of Spain is highly inefficient and overpriced.
In Barcelona there is someone taking care of the queue always (I think if a taxi driver allowed clients without due respect to the queue he'd lose airport access rights, so lose a lot of money), and the price for airport-City centre is written in the windows so you see it before entering (and also seen in the inside, it's a fixed price with minor variability depending on day of the week) So, from what I've seen here it's unlikely I'll be taking taxis in Madrid, but will keep using Barcelona taxis when I need them.
I don't see what the problem is. In Spain the rule is that you need a taxi license to be a taxi driver or you'll get fined. Uber pretending they don't need one is bullshit.
I don't want to be a wet blanket, but it seems to me that a better business model would be to make sure your entire company isn't operating illegally most places it exists (AirBnB, Uber / Lift).
I live in Spain. I hate spanish laws. Living here is like living in socialism. 3 months to create your company because of bureaucracy, laws agains Airbnb and Uber, we want some liberty.
It would be nice to be able to find a "sane" taxi-driver in Spain. Many (most) of them drive like crazy and they are all listening to very loud football on the radio.
I've used Madrid taxis dozens, maybe more than a hundred times. What I have to say: driving is not crazier than any other non-taxi Madrid driver, including me when I had a car.
Anything annoying they stop it as soon as requested. My experience is I have to expressly allow them to turn radio on.
What I don't like: about at least a 15% of rides, the driver tries to take the (very) long way. A couple of times I've demanded them to 'stop me right here'. That's sad for the majority of good drivers out there, but still a problem and forces me to be extra careful, while I'd rather relax and enjoy the landscape.
I believe that's part of their value proposition. I enjoy pulling out from them how far right-winged they are by throwing out franquist bullshit all the time. They make my day.
I don't use taxis very often but I've never found a stereotypical taxi driver in the 10-20 times I've used them (I live in Madrid). They were all polite, their cars were clean and had no music/radio or it was set to a low volume.
I've used MyTaxi or Hailo many times in the past few months here in Madrid and have had 0 issues with taxi drivers. I'm not saying there are no taxi drivers like the ones you described above, but I think it's a minority.
I've booked a single taxi journey in Spain, and it was one of the most frightening experiences in my life. The guy was chasing pedestrians and would have run over several of them had they not jumped. He got us to where we were going quickly though.
I live in Madrid and I'm totally ashamed about this.
I used Uber a couple times, the second one this friday, and I friend and I asked the driver what will he do about the fines that will start happening this monday. He just said that he will probably stop driving.
I love these new kind of services and this is not the way to boost innovation.
Do you live in the same Madrid as me? I can't figure out what kind of 'innovation' Uber is bringing to the table.
There are plenty of taxis and free services for you to book one, I have never waited more than 10 minutes to get one, and most drivers are respectful and will turn the radio off or leave you alone if you say so. You can even ask them to take a particular route and they won't have any problem in doing so
Recently Uber started its operation in Poland, in Warsaw. For 2 days that was a news, but later nobody paid much attention on it.
In Poland in order to become taxi driver one needs to fulfill a number of conditions (only people who never comitted a crime are allowed a licence, must be physically and mentally healthy) a then pass the "city knowladge" exam. Exam is obligatory only in cites larger then 100K. And that's all.
Due to competition taxi prices are kept on resonable level, so taxi companies are competing by having nicer cars, being highly available (wating for a taxi longer then 10 min is unusual), offering loyalty cards, cummulative invoicing at the end of the month, etc.
Uber can compete with lower prices - they have promised to be 20% cheaper. It is not clear however cheaper from which price - premium taxi companies (about 60 cents per kilometer) or cheap services (40 cents per kilometer).
There are other questions as well - would Uber be able to provide invoices, if not, it is not a deal for many people.
Even if I pay less (10% less?), I don't think I will risk riding with someone who might be totally unfit for the job and does not know city. Plus if something goes wrong I am not sure how Uber is going to handle that.
So, basically, Uber is one more taxi company out of 25 with fancy way of calling taxi, so there is no reason for other companies to protest.