Four Dutch Uberpop Taxi Drivers Arrested, Fined 282
An anonymous reader writes with news that authorities in the Netherlands have arrested four drivers sharing their car for money through the Uberpop app. The drivers were then released with a fine of EUR 4,200 (USD 5,300) each and further threatened with additional fines of EUR 10,000 (USD 12,600) for each time they might be caught doing it again. While similar bullying applied to short rentals of private rooms through sites like Airbnb hasn't had the same success so far the thoughts go to the fined drivers, hoping they won't ever be caught carrying their grandmother to the supermarket then have to explain how they dared. Uber says it will "fully support" the affected drivers."
News at 11. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not legal just because you saw it on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
But "on the internet" makes for an entirely different legal situation. At least according to a lot of laws passed recently.
Re:News at 11. (Score:5, Funny)
TCA, the largest 'traditional' taxi switchboard used to stand for "Taxi Criminals Amsterdam', not 'Taxi Central Amsterdam'.
Much of the TCA 'staff' had 2-3 feet dossiers at the local prosecutors.
Uberpop is a threat to local mafia.
Need I say more?
Re: (Score:2)
Uberpop is a threat to local mafia.
They're a threat to all scumbag "taxi" drivers, not just TCA. Uberpop will soon come to Haarlem :)
Re:News at 11. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes indeed. If you're a tourist coming to The Netherlands, expect to be severely ripped off when when using a taxi. Not only are the taxi drivers generally obnoxious and sometimes downright hostile, there's no alternative other than the few privileged companies that are allowed to pick up travelers from Schiphol airport.
A 30 minute ride will quickly add up to over 150 Euros and there's no recourse if there is any disagreement
Rent a car if possible or take the train. It's cheaper and saves you a lot of hassle.
Re: (Score:2)
or take the train
How? You can't even buy normal tickets anymore in The Netherlands.
Re:News at 11. (Score:4, Informative)
How? You can't even buy normal tickets anymore in The Netherlands.
You can get a ChipCart (I think that's the name) at the airport or at Central Station, then use that to ride the trains. You check in at readers on the platform before you board, check out when you get wherever using the same technique and it deducts money from your card.
You can use that same card for buses, trams, trains, etc. You can keep it and use it again when you come back.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to buy an "OV-chipkaart" (public transport chip card) to get anywhere by train. If you use the train only incidentally, you can buy a paper ticket with a chip on it. You have to check in and out with it, but for the rest it's the same limited functionality.
The chipcard has been met with criticism since its inception, though. Aside from the usual privacy concerns, it's poorly implemented. You have to check in and out between different transport companies, for example. And of course the compani
Re: (Score:2)
How? You can't even buy normal tickets anymore in The Netherlands.
You can get a ChipCart (I think that's the name) at the airport or at Central Station, then use that to ride the trains. You check in at readers on the platform before you board, check out when you get wherever using the same technique and it deducts money from your card.
You can use that same card for buses, trams, trains, etc. You can keep it and use it again when you come back.
I've had trouble buying train tickets in NL - my memory said it was a combination of the train company not accepting bank cards without chips in them as well as refusing visa / mastercard.
Perhaps someone in NL can clarify.
Re: (Score:2)
The money doesn't expire, it is written on the card. That was done as an insurance against network failures. That's why when the first cards got hacked the saldo could be increased with a RFID writer. The card does expire after several years though.
Creditcards are generally seldom used in The Netherlands because our own banking cards charge much less costs. Don't expect to be able to pay with a credit card in most shops, especially outside the tourist areas. Cash is king.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is nonsense. You can still buy paper single use cards, but now they have a little chip in them (and they cost a bit more).
I do think that the single use tram cards are way too expensive (2,70), but that's a different matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: News at 11. (Score:3)
It's not legal when the people already in the field have grandfathered rights to screw over the competition.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not legal just because you saw it on the internet.
There are plenty of apps which will hail a licenced cab, e.g. Hailo. It's the car and driver that matter and not the manner in which they were dispatched.
Biased summary (Score:4, Informative)
What kind of person bills his grandmother for taking her to the supermarket? Jeezz...
Repeat after me: "it's against the law to drive people around for money without the proper credentials".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You do realise that the whole reason this is a story at all is because the law is perceived as bad. It's not that people don't know the law; it's that this law is, at best, a bad joke.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But that doesn't make it right.
Its what makes society function. Not every "outdated law" can be compared to the civil rights movement. Some bad laws you live with, because the alternative of everyone determining which laws apply to them is called anarchy, and works well for noone.
Re:Biased summary (Score:4, Insightful)
But that doesn't make it right.
Its what makes society function. Not every "outdated law" can be compared to the civil rights movement. Some bad laws you live with, because the alternative of everyone determining which laws apply to them is called anarchy, and works well for noone.
I think you'll find that most people don't consult "the law" as a benchmark for determining their behavior. Saying that "the law" is what makes "society function" is a classic example of the correlation equals causation logical fallacy. Just because a law prescribes or proscribes a particular behavior, doesn't mean it is the motivating force for undertaking or abstaining from such behavior.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you'll find that most people don't consult "the law" as a benchmark for determining their behavior.
Right! And a lot of people are part of the reasons we have laws: Because they tend to work towards the breakdown of society, and we need the cudgel of law and order to restrain them.
That doesnt mean all laws are good or well written, but again, if the benchmark for what is legal is your own preference, you are a parasite on society to that same degree.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious - does that apply to marijuana users? If so, how was illegal marijuana use fundamentally different than this?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious - does that apply to marijuana users? If so, how was illegal marijuana use fundamentally different than this?
Good point! In fact you prove exactly the opposite of what you want. Marijuana sale is somehow legalized in the Netherlands. OK, it's a bad law, as it legalizes only selling to customers. The production is still illegal, selling to the shops is illegal, so this is really stupid. But from the customer side it is legal. That's what makes it good.
Uber is not legal, because it is not good for the customer. It may be cheap, and as long as all is good and well I guess everyone is happy. But then there is an accid
Re: (Score:2)
Are you seriously going to fall back to the appeal to law fallacy? Because that's what it looks like you're implying here.
"Appeal to law fallacy"? These drivers fought the law, and the law won :-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What kind of person bills his grandmother for taking her to the supermarket? Jeezz...
Repeat after me: "it's against the law to drive people around for money without the proper credentials".
Your bit about "without proper credentials" makes it sound like all that's needed is for a driver to apply for a license and meet some objective requirements like driving records, vehicle inspections and insurance. If that were the case, you'd have a lot more folks siding with the law.
Instead, in order to pick up a fare in Amsterdam [amsterdam.nl], you need to meet some other arbitrary requirements, chief among them being a member of a TTO ("Regulated Taxi Organization") with at least 100 cars. And to pick up a fare from
Re:Biased summary (Score:5, Informative)
The arbitrary requirements you linked are to be allowed to use buslanes and taxi parking spaces in Amsterdam not to be a taxi driver in the Netherlands (it explicitely says that taxi drivers from outside Amsterdam are still allowed to drive into and out of Amsterdam without the "Taxxxivergunning"). So how about some information on the real requirements? Another page [amsterdam.nl] on the same site you linked mentions e.g. the "regels van de Wet Personenvervoer 2000" but my Dutch is not the best.
At least in Germany the "proper credentials" do include e.g. a special driver license [wikipedia.org] which includes a medical analysis, a police clearance, a check of the driving penalty points registry, check of local knowledge, ... .
Re: (Score:3)
At least in Germany the "proper credentials" do include e.g. a special driver license [wikipedia.org] which includes a medical analysis, a police clearance, a check of the driving penalty points registry, check of local knowledge, ... .
That would be a license that allows you to transport up to eight passengers commercially. No idea if you need such a license in the UK, never bothered to find out, but my UK car insurance doesn't cover commercial transport of passengers, and an insurance that does is _significantly_ more expensive than the one I have. Which means I would be illegally driving without insurance if I drove people around for money.
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't have any problem with any of the requirements you've listed at the end there, so long as they are administered objectively and impartially. They all seem unobjectionable.
But providing favorable treatment to some licensed taxi companies over others -- such as the use of taxi stands and spaces -- rubs me as unjustified favoritism.
Re:Biased summary (Score:5, Insightful)
And frankly I think this is a good thing. Getting in a car with a stranger can be a dangerous act. Knowing that the marked taxi that you are getting in is, most likely, driven by a vetted individual, maintained to at least a minimum standard, fitted with cameras and tracking equipment, all mitigate some of that risk.
I don't care that you can drive your car on the road. Just because you do that doesn't mean you get to be a taxi. You state that being a member of a TTO of 100 or more is arbitrary. I say that it means the government has a single point of inspection and contact to manage a large number of vehicles. As for the professionalism, it is much harder to define. But if you want to be a busker in Brisbane city for example you need a license. There is absolutely no cost in getting that license but you have to do an audition. Basically it is the council deciding are your professional enough, and again no issue from me.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you're really scared of cars. You must be terrified to sacrifice liberty for security so readily.
This has nothing to do with product quality regulation. Product quality regulation is great and all, and a simple commercial drivers license would cover that. This is artificial scarcity. This is fucking the passengers and small businesses so that the large corporations make money. Why would you support that?
Re: (Score:3)
Because in Australia, where I live, it isn't about that. I don't know what taxi services are like in the US, but here I wouldn't change them. We have a commercial drivers license and we have taxi licensing and a centralised booking and ordering system which frankly works very well.
I see no benefits to me to having an unregulated taxi operator working here.
Re: (Score:2)
So price doesn't come into it then? Freedom to start your own small business (assuming you have a CDL) doesn't come into it then? What you really want is a government-appointed driver for a government-appointed car to take you to your government-approved destination at the government-approved time? Isn't that what busses are for?
Re: (Score:2)
I obviously see it differently. Yes price is a factor. But Australia went to regulated taxis for safety reasons. Both that safety of the driver and the passenger. Here most taxi drivers are their own business and operate under the banner of the major brands.
Also I don't see how I am being taken from a government approved start to finish? Unless you mean a street address? I think you are stretching a bow here. Regulation is not inherently bad
Re: (Score:2)
Regulating product quality is fine. Regulating who's allowed to buy and sell (government-granted monopolies) is inherently bad.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a product, it is a service. So ergo the only way to regulate the service is to regulate the person doing the selling.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes, but you can do that in an open an objective way that anyone with a car can qualify for, if the goal isn't monopoly-granting. If someone who's currently working as a taxi driver can't trivially become a legal Uber driver (assuming his insurance carries over), or just start his own service or whatever -- that is, it's the driver, not the business, who qualifies -- then it's all a sham to stuff corporate pockets.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a product, it is a service. So ergo the only way to regulate the service is to regulate the person doing the selling.
And you can regulate the person doing the selling and the car he's driving without favoring one person over another or empowering a cartel.
Falling into the "regulation-bad" "regulation good" dichotomy is really killing us here. Regulating the driver's record, the vehicle and his insurance is eminently sensible. Beyond that, it's just protectionism.
Re: (Score:2)
I obviously see it differently. Yes price is a factor. But Australia went to regulated taxis for safety reasons. Both that safety of the driver and the passenger. Here most taxi drivers are their own business and operate under the banner of the major brands.
Also I don't see how I am being taken from a government approved start to finish? Unless you mean a street address? I think you are stretching a bow here. Regulation is not inherently bad
This is bullshit. Each state racket has their own scheme of licensing, it isn't unified across the continent. As for most taxi drivers owning their own business; you'll more likely find that the licenses are owned by (and traded amongst) a class of wealthy investors who wouldn't see fit to sit their arses in the driver's seat of a cab.
The drivers are likely to be impoverished newly minted immigrants who get paid a pittance and, typically lacking in local language fluency, get fleeced when legal things go a
Re: (Score:2)
Liberty requires a functioning society and the rule of law to protect it. How bout we start with "its currently illegal, and not causing any gross injustice, so you obey the law"?
Because otherwise, its not liberty you like, but license.
Re: (Score:2)
What part of "Getting in a car with a stranger can be a dangerous act" did you fail to understand?
Re: (Score:2)
And frankly I think this is a good thing. Getting in a car with a stranger can be a dangerous act.
They background check their drivers. IIRC you see a picture of them and a profile before they can even pick you up.
You know more about these drivers than you would know about the taxi driver who is coming to get you.
Re:Biased summary (Score:4, Informative)
Uh huh...
NBC recently tested Uber’s background checks by putting forward reformed criminal Beverly Locke, who bragged about her “three-page rap sheet”, as an UberX driver. Locke, on probation after nearly beating a woman to death, had prior convictions for burglary, drugs and assault, but was hired to be an UberX driver after filling out the online application.
But this is where regulation comes in. I have no trust in Uber. I mean my should I? There have a vested interest in approving drivers. The regulator however does not. A regulators signoff on a person is worth something to me, seeing their picture on Uber's website is now.
liability issues do you want to be a victim and??? (Score:2)
liability issues do you want to be a victim and be left to fend for your self?
http://www.theverge.com/2014/3... [theverge.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't speak Dutch, but usually these laws make a distinction between a taxi, that charge in arrears, park at taxi stops etc and private hire services like limos.
The objective requirements you talk about is all you generally need to provide private hire services.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of person bills his grandmother for taking her to the supermarket? Jeezz...
Apparently, this is quite common in impoverished areas where the grandmother and lots of relatives may be living in shared space and the grandmother incapable of driving, but she needs to buy groceries for herself, and possibly some children whose care has been foisted on her, BUT everyone else does their own shopping.
The kids will bill the parents/GPs for everything, and depending on the circumstance, even charge th
Re: (Score:3)
Repeat after me: "it's against the law to drive people around for money without the proper credentials".
No society based on consent can *enforce* laws a significant portion of the public disagrees without commensurate erosion of state legitimacy or otherwise moving of needle from "consent" toward "force".
Either stepped up enforcement actions bring about increased pressure to change the law or otherwise resolve disagreements by amicable compromises such as reduction in licensing burdens or the industry goes underground where state looses visibility and ability to regulate while wasting resources and good will
Re: (Score:2)
No society based on consent can *enforce* laws a significant portion of Slashdot readers disagrees without commensurate erosion of state legitimacy or otherwise moving of needle from "consent" toward "force".
FTFY. Slashdot-dwelling Randbots are against it, not Dutch public.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
All of them, if we're serious about this democracy game we claim to be playing.
If you're going to say that the government owns the roads, then the government is separate from and rules over the people. We have a word for that, it's called Feudalism.
Re: (Score:3)
So why have a drivers license in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whereas you've already slid all the way down a slippery slope of your own and now stand hip-deep in False Equivalence.
Keep up the good work.
Well (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Image perception is the reason you may be able to trust them. They'll fail in all regulated markets if their attitude is "if you get fined, too bad"
Bullying (Score:4, Insightful)
While similar bullying...
Enforcing laws is bullying?
Re: (Score:2)
Depends entirely on the law.
Re: Bullying (Score:2)
For a lot more examples of this, look up "Hollywood" and "rights holders".
Re:Bullying (Score:5, Interesting)
Getting tired of this shit (Score:5, Insightful)
The level of astroturfing for Uber is getting ridiculous. I was sympathetic at first, because I can see how the existing monopolies are bad, but:
a) They aren't even trying to change the laws, they're just ignoring them. There are some laws that are so bad civil disobedience is a valid tactic. This is not one of those laws, and even then, when you do civil disobedience you're supposed to *accept* the legal punishment, because you *did* break the law.
b) They're astroturfing like crazy to frame the debate as "the common man versus the big bad taxi monopolies" when it's really "big international web-based corporation versus big local corporations". I don't care how many times you make sockpuppet comments about it, nobody's getting arrested for driving their grandma to the grocery store. People are getting arrested for running unlicensed taxicabs.
Licensing taxis is a good thing. The current laws may be overly-restrictive to protect existing businesses, but the spirit of the law is good. Uber? You're not. Any sympathy I once had is gone, purely because of your PR tactics. I was already unlikely to be a customer (I *have* my own car), but now I'm definitely not going to.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the insightful comment. I had no opinion on the matter (and no mod point, alas!), but you've
shed some light on it, at least. And prodded me to read up on Uber a bit, and what they're up to. Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't agree more. There is nothing inherently good about Uber and some of their tactics are down right scummy.
Uber has been issued a cease and desist here in Brisbane, will be an interesting one to watch as taxis here is Australia are pretty damn good. They are far from perfect of course but they are clean, and reasonably timely. The real issue with them is the system creaks under the load on a Friday and Saturday night.
Uber seems to be fitting under UK existing law (Score:2)
http://green.autoblog.com/2007... [autoblog.com]
is an alternative outcome - registration to avoid London's congestion charge (for driving in the street
Re: (Score:2)
Not knowing the intricacies of UK rules, what you mention still means that not just anyone who happens to own a car may start offering rides for pay.
The key is "Licensed Hire Vehicles" - they're licensed, so there must be some requirements for those that do not apply for normal private cars. Probably extra driving course and insurance, that kind of things. And as soon as they're licensed, they're legal to drive people around.
The problem of most Uber drivers is that they are not licensed to carry paid passen
Re: Getting tired of this shit (Score:2)
I wish Silicon Valley would start developing market schemes like this for the medical field. How often do I take cabs? Now how often do I stuff the pockets of the Pharma monopoly?
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing requiring you to go to registered doctors or official hospitals.
When getting sick, why don't you fly over to Africa (the plane tickets cost you about as much as a night in hospital in the US), and ask some witch doctor to treat you (his fees for a full treatment may be less than what your regular doctor will charge you for a consult)? Maybe it's because you hope to get a proper treatment at your registered doctor, who you know has finished a rigorous training, and that the hospitals you're t
Re: (Score:2)
What laws have they broken in Amsterdam? Do you know? The article doesn't seem to know either. Limousines seem to operate fine in Amsterdam. Limousines are just not allowed to use the taxi stands. Why is Uber not allowed to operate the same way as limousines?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care how many times you make sockpuppet comments about it, nobody's getting arrested for driving their grandma to the grocery store. People are getting arrested for running unlicensed taxicabs.
It is not that simple in today's mobile world and the sharing economy.
Tell me along where in this strata of events does driving in your car become illegal, because it seems to be an awfully fuzzy line to me
Re: (Score:2)
All they are doing is providing an app that connects two parties, one of whom needs a ride and the other who doesn't mind giving a ride.
Selling a ride, not giving a ride.
Re: (Score:3)
The line is when the payment goes from "covering expenses" to "generating profit".
Re: (Score:2)
At that point, because its no longer an agreement between friends.
How about this appropriate analogy?
I cook a meal.
I cook a meal and invite you over to eat it with me as a date.
I cook a meal, invite you over to eat it with me as a work thing.
I cook a meal, invite my friend and my friend invites you to go in his stead.
I cook a meal, invite my friend and my friend invites you to go in his stead, and you offer to reimburse me.
You co
Re: (Score:2)
See the point here? Uber IS NOT RUNNING A TAXI SERVICE. All they are doing is providing an app that connects two parties, one of whom needs a ride and the other who doesn't mind giving a ride. So how do you make this illegal?
Germany has the nice law principle that it doesn't matter how you dress it up and what you put into your contracts, what matters is what actually happens. So it's clearly a taxi service.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the last one:
I agree to drive you to the airport and although I don't know you personally my friend introduced us and I trust him, and you agree to reimburse me and pay me a profit for the journey.
That's where it becomes illegal. Right there. That precise line. The one you conveniently missed out. Weird, huh?
Re: (Score:2)
Uber said it will pay all fines [nos.nl] forced upon its drivers by the authorities. Meanwhile the government said it will greatly increase the fines for multiple offenses by these same drivers, should they occur. I am with the government here, and welcome such regulation, as opposed to Uber's 'rating system' for driver's, or whatever Uber calls it.
Full disclosure, I'm a bicyclist and a pedestrian, and I feel threatened lately with the increase of in-car gizmos, and I believe only government will help people like me
Re: (Score:2)
You are completely right. I came here to say something to similar effect. The "share economy" is just shifting the employer's risk from employer to employee, almost returning labor to hour or piece wages. It's not sharing, it's another way of getting profit. So if Uber wants to sell taxi rides, they can get a license like everybody else.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Some people have also been living in a city and needing the occasional hired ride since before Uber and Lyft were around and remember well just how damned awful the medallioned taxis are. Seriously... screw the taxis. A pox upon their houses and I hope Uber or Lyft or Sidecar or whoever really does run them out of business entirely. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Yeah, I'm opposed to the laws that prop up the legacy taxi companies; but I've no love for the libertarian fringe. The ride-share compani
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Getting tired of this shit (Score:2)
Except this is not a race to the bottom. The ride share services are offering a higher quality product at, at least in the case of Uber, a premium price. It's the cabbies who are, and have been for many years, the bottom of the barrel.
Re: (Score:2)
The laws are behind & protectionism is alive a (Score:2)
The vested interests will also complain about fair competition. The problem with that is you can't stop more efficient businesses forever. Holding them back too long creates more problems when the crash finally comes
In the end the laws are just behind. There are all this under used goods and services in the cities. (Cars idle all day at work, rooms empty while people
wtf is up with that summary (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's dubbed "astroturfing": a form of propaganda whose techniques usually consist of a few people attempting to give the impression that mass numbers of enthusiasts advocate some specific cause. They are also completely ignoring the fact that nobody else wants it to be legalized. That /. publishes it, is the result of a lousy, commercialized editorial policy, and another illustration that you cannot trust sources that offer you new for free.
Bullying? (Score:2)
As intended (Score:2)
It was very obvious this was going to happen. Authorities even announced they would take action, and Uber has been very public about going to start this service and that they would pay any fines.
I don't know what the playbook of Uber and the transport inspection services are, but it is obvious that for both sides have these fines as part of it.
This makes it possible for Uber to fight it out in the courts, and will likely trigger discussion in the parliament that may lead to changes in the laws.
Apples and Oranges (Score:2)
"the thoughts go to the fined drivers, hoping they won't ever be caught carrying their grandmother to the supermarket then have to explain how they dared"
Unless they're planning on charging granny for the trip to the supermarket, this isn't relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Free markets are only optimal for exploiting resources...
That's a very astute observation, OTOH; OPEC is not a free market, it's a cartel. A free market is one where anyone is free to participate, it has nothing to do with the quantity or quality of regulation.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Life's not all about cheap dope and Eastern European hookers. Native Dutch have been leaving the Netherlands for years.
"Last year, 144,175 people emigrated, the paper says, quoting figures from the national statistics office CBS. In 2011, nearly 134,000 people left and in 2010, 121,000."
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/a... [dutchnews.nl]
Re:I'm sorry (Score:5, Informative)
Life's not all about cheap dope and Eastern European hookers. Native Dutch have been leaving the Netherlands for years.
"Last year, 144,175 people emigrated, the paper says, quoting figures from the national statistics office CBS. In 2011, nearly 134,000 people left and in 2010, 121,000."
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/a... [dutchnews.nl]
To put this into perspective, the Netherlands has a population of 16.8 Million people. 150,000 aren't even 1% so that's pretty normal for emigration. Hardly the crisis you're making out.
I'd be willing to bet a good proportion of those would be Dutch retiring to some place warmer with cheaper prostitutes like Thailand (Thailand seems to be the go-to place for European retirees, Americans usually end up in the Philippines, we Australians have infested both places).
Re:I'm sorry (Score:5, Informative)
And yet net migration remains positive. In 2013 144,175 people left and 197,241 came. So a little over 50k people decided it was a better place to live overall. Helps if you get both numbers.
Re: I'm sorry (Score:2, Insightful)
50k found it better than Syria, Somalia, Iraq and other war torn countries they are escaping ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, the followers of fuhrer Geert Wilders are reporting in. For the non-Dutch readers, his main (and nearly only) party program is that everything that goes wrong is the muslims fault.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm sorry (Score:5, Informative)
Your own property? yes, feel free to drive without a permit *ON* your own property. Public roads aren't such.
Re:I'm sorry (Score:4, Insightful)
It is a bloody insult that you need a permit to drive someone from A to B *IN YOUR OWN PROPERTY*.
Thing is, a taxi is usually treated as a form of public transport. The standard that you the driver and your vehicle are held is consequently that much higher. That's why the regulation exists.
It's bizarre that you conflate the issue with how much tax someone might pay on their wages.
Re: (Score:3)
Keep Uber going. Just let the cab companies compete fairly. Either get rid of regulations on cabs or add them to Uber.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong again.
In the Netherlands, you may pay 30% taxes, but on top of that come contributions to the welfare system, since you are insured against unemployment by law.
Typically, the average worker cost the employer about 3 times as much as the employee will receive netto on their bank account. This because employers pay a large amount of healthcare costs and other things.
So, for the average worker, they will see their salary `taxed` by about 65-70%. Just, they don't call it tax but insurance fees. As your in
Re: (Score:2)
For some bankers and other money-grabbing "managers" I would say it is far to little.
Re: (Score:2)
And to add to that the taxi's in Amsterdam are run by the police in every way except legally. The police work for Ajax and Heineken. Their main function is to destroy any new criminal acts or people muscling in on somebody's scam. Ergo no Uber.
Re: (Score:3)
He borrows my car once a month to drive his grandma to do her monthly shopping and she usually gives him some money.
I hope you checked that your insurance covers this. Would be sad if grandma is involved in an accident and no insurance covers the cost. It might mean financial ruin for your friend and his grandma.
Re: (Score:2)
What if a licensed taxi driver would use the app to make some extra money in his spare time?
Uber pays its drivers really badly, so this isn't going to happen. There are also regulations about maximum working hours, you don't want to be driven by someone who already has been driving for 16 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't see the difference between:
A driver and his car, going from A to Z, stops on the way to pick someone up who's going from F to X, who reimburses them fuel money
and
A driver is requested by a person to pick them up at F and drive them to X, where a fee including a profit is demanded.
It's not just money.