[smsm42]

You realize you are avoiding the question. It would be very easy to assemble such statistics as Uber drivers are clearly identified and any court could easily request data about all Uber driving requests (anonymized if there are privacy concerns) and correlate them with reports of traffic incidents. I suspect, however, that there is no such data, and nobody even ever cared about gathering such data - local cartels screamed to local politicians for help, and politicians obliged by protecting the cartel from competition. All talks about "safety" is just as smokescreen as nobody actually did any safety studies and has any data. Otherwise we'd seen that data plastered everywhere, taxi cartels wouldn't miss that chance if they had it.

[jacquesm]

> You realize you are avoiding the question.

No, you're entirely missing my point. Uber does not exist as such, it is just an app. It does not have drivers on its payroll, it does not have a fleet of cars, it does not have - nor does it likely want - to collect accident statistics.

And as for that cartel, there is as far as I can see no such thing. All there is are a bunch of laws that Uber could choose to honour but has chosen not to.

If they comply with those rules and they are still banned then you could argue about cartels and such, until then that is premature.

[smsm42]

It may not collect the statistics - but people claiming it is unsafe should. Note that none of the Uber drivers is actually required to stop driving - they still can drive as much as they wish, however unsafe and dangerous they are. The only thing they can't do is to earn money. Is the money the thing that makes them unsafe?

>>> If they comply with those rules and they are still banned then you could argue about cartels and such, until then that is premature.

Sorry, that makes no sense. That's like saying "we're not banning blogging, we just require every blog would have an editor, a corrector, a staff of minimum five reporters, an HR department, a building and a printed paper copy, since the newspapers do it just fine, so we're just for responsible reporting". Of course the regulations protect the cartels - that's why these regulations exist in the first place, and saying "we just require them to follow regulations" is completely disingenuous - because following regulations is possible only by becoming part of the cartel.

[jacquesm]

You keep using the word 'cartel', taxi companies in Germany are not normally considered to be a cartel, merely a professional association. Just like there is no hotel cartel against AirBnb there is no taxi cartel against Uber.

Those are simply industries that have become regulated to some degree over time and now newcomers have decided that these regulations do not apply to them because they can get away with it, leaving their operators (drivers, airbnb hosts) to deal with the consequences.

That trick works, to some extent and in countries where there really are cartels in the hotel business and taxi services I welcome such developments. Millions of $ for a medallion are ridiculous, and rules solely created to keep competitors out are so too.

But the German taxi situation is not accurately described in that way.

[pgeorgi]

> But the German taxi situation is not accurately described in that way.

In fact PBefG §13(5) explicitly states that new applicants for taxi licenses are to be taken into account.

[Tomte]

My main argument is insurance.

It doesn't matter whether Uber rides are more dangerous or not. If something happens, the victim is left in the rain when it was an Uber ride.

"Private ride-sharing" is insured. "Uber ride-sharing" isn't.

And that's not because of old laws or lobbyism. That's because of all the standard insurance contracts that state clearly that they don't cover businesses, only private driving.

[Xylakant]

> It would be very easy to assemble such statistics as Uber drivers are clearly identified and any court could easily request data

Let me explain a little about the german law system (IANAL, so take it with a grain of salt). This is a preliminary injunction granted by request of a competitor. So what happens is that the court decides on the base of written arguments from the side requesting (this case roughly the union of german cab companies) and a "Schutzschrift" (written counter) from the accused (Uber). The court does not request anything. Uber could have provided such statistics if it wanted to, but since they have no bearing on this case I doubt it would have helped. The cited violations are all from the Personenbeförderungsgesetz and the court has preliminary decided that UberPop constitutes an illegal and unlicensed Taxi service. This is not about safety, it's about blatantly breaking a federal law.

Uber can appeal and the case will go to a regular court hearing where more arguments can be exchanged. Until then, the injunction can be enforced which is a severe blow for UberPop.

Now we can argue whether or not those regulations are sensible, but that's not for you, me or Uber to decide, it's a thing that gets decided in the Bundestag. Or Uber could restructure its service to comply with the law, but then it would not be as financially interesting as before.