See the excellent answer here [1].
Next up on that list for me would be the 'license'. I have a license that allows me to drive every (street legal) truck, up to 40t. I'm also allowed to drive busses (they fall under the same category), IF they're mostly empty (I think up to 8 people are okay) and it's not a commercial ride (i.e. 8 friends, not 8 paying passengers).
If I want to do something like that, I need an additional license. Like every cab driver does. This isn't something that Uber can cover. The might be able to require their users to have this license (and prove it), but .. that's part of what the court is trying to say here, for all I understand.
I understand the requirement for drivers to be licensed for what they're doing (accepting fares, just like how UberBlack drivers are required to be licensed hire car operators), but that's not what I was talking about.
In that case I'm confused. What _are_ you talking about?
This thread is about the reasons why Uber isn't legal and needs to start following the law. One requirement for that is the insurance, one completely different requirement is the license for commercial transport for each driver that .. well .. operates a cab. Whatever the company is called.
(Deep within my soul I really dislike this 'Hah, your laws are outdated and wrong, we will liberate you' type of services from abroad and I snicker every time German media talks about 'Uber' - a term that is usually connected to the German language, to über - being fined for being utterly careless (or reckless) about their operation in Germany. It's quite ironic in my little world)
I'm sorry. At this point I might need to pull the 'English as a foreign language' excuse card.
So.. 'Uber provides insurance. Is this not enough?' - 'No, because even IF (see the discussion elsewhere about whether that is actually the case. I'd trust the non-believers for now) they do, that is not enough to be safe. There are more regulations that are targeting safety. Like the license [1] for commercial transport, which requires a healthy driver (medical checkup), is limited to 5 years and needs to be renewed, makes sure that the driver has a clean record (both w/ the police and the relevant institute for traffic violations) etc. etc."
I'm unsure how that was NOT what you were talking about. "Is this, providing an insurance IF THAT IS REAL, not enough (to operate in Germany, to be 'safe')"? "No."
(I'd be glad to understand where we're not aligned. If this is a failure based on my reading comprehension skills I'd like you to point out what I missed so that I can improve here)
And if they do, what exactly is insured and how high is the coverage?
Can you point out to a credible source for this assertion of yours (which I find hard to believe), which is not an Uber blog entry, or some astroturfing organization?
See the excellent answer here [1]. Next up on that list for me would be the 'license'. I have a license that allows me to drive every (street legal) truck, up to 40t. I'm also allowed to drive busses (they fall under the same category), IF they're mostly empty (I think up to 8 people are okay) and it's not a commercial ride (i.e. 8 friends, not 8 paying passengers).
If I want to do something like that, I need an additional license. Like every cab driver does. This isn't something that Uber can cover. The might be able to require their users to have this license (and prove it), but .. that's part of what the court is trying to say here, for all I understand.
1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8256398