The trouble with UBER is that under your normal car insurance policy, "commercial" journeys are not insured.  Think about that if you were to ever be in accident !

Secondly, UBER has had to withdraw from several markets because clients were raped by the driver.  Until UBER does a decent job of screening and following up drivers, who knows what will happen.

So its . . . UBER-off !

Poster, those are harsh remarks.

As a frequent Uber passenger I love their service and I've used it in multiple countries. Uber screens their drivers and you can rate them after the drive.

Did you ever use Uber?

True I can imagine that the insurance can give the drivers some problems since they are indeed using their vehicle as a commercial tool.

But the comment that they had to withdraw several market due to clients being raped, true there have been some cases that got a LOT of media attentian and it is dispicable but....Do you know how many people get raped, robbed or murdered by taxi drivers... google it and be horrified, you get over 4.500.000 hits... So for me that is not an argument.

I think they offer a good customer service and they only exist because the taxi companies just hire too many rude drivers.  Try getting a cab at the airport who accepts a credit card I wish you lots of luck. 

Now in Germany the cab companies did something much smarter then crying about Uber. In stead they opened a service that is LIKE Uber but with registered taxi's pre-pay by card, no cash hassle and a good app for your phone to use.

Despite The Scary Rape Headlines, Uber Is Probably Still The Safest Way To Order A Taxi

Read more:  http://uk.businessinsider.com/despite-its-problems-uber-is-still-the-safest-way-to-order-a-taxi-2014-12?r=US#ixzz3XHgKgqzE

Uber has been banned in the Indian capital New Delhi after a driver for the company was accused of raping a female passenger. 

The anti-Uber lobby — and there is one, literally composed of paid taxi company lobbyists — loves this stuff. For months, taxi companies have been making the case that a pre-booked ride from a professional driver is safer than a ride from Uber. Here's the head of the UK's private-car lobby saying exactly that.

But despite a series of recent high-profile incidents — some involving assaults allegedly committed by Uber drivers — Uber remains one of the safest, if not the safest, ways to order a car. 

Let's think through the mechanics in play when you get in a normal taxi.

To be a taxi driver in the UK, applicants need to undergo what's called a DBS check. That check searched for previous criminal convictions. Drivers in London also undergo a medical check to ensure that they're fit to drive. Every driver also has a unique identification number. 

Things are slightly different with Uber. First of all, drivers are given criminal background checks in the same way that normal taxi drivers are. But there are some important differences. For example, all Uber cars using the app are tracked using GPS, which means that the company has a record of every journey. 

Uber

There's also no cash involved with Uber, as payments take place through the app. And unlike taxis, you can't hail an Uber off the street. While hailing a taxi is convenient, it opens up passengers to unlicensed taxis operating illegally. And of course, even if you get a taxi from an official rank, you don't know who the person is at the wheel.

Uber also has a system in which passengers and drivers can rate and — if need be — identify one another. The company is notoriously vigilant when it comes to its driver ratings. It has been speculated that any driver that dips below a 4.7 rating out of 5 is deactivated by the company.

In the normal course of business, drivers and riders know only each other's first names. Riders get to know the cars, photos, and license plates of their drivers, too. It's all automatically recorded in the app. If a dispute arises (or an assault), Uber has a complete record of who was in the car, where the car went, and how long the journey was. That's much more identifying info than a taxi ride generates.

Uber's tracking isn't going to prevent crimes. While the idea of being tracked by GPS will deter some drivers from committing crimes, it's unlikely to stop them altogether. And in the recent rape case in New Delhi, local media reports that the accused driver didn't even have GPS tracking. So something there obviously went wrong.

But is Uber safe to use? Well, in general, yes. But that's not to say the app offers a completely secure experience. No company can do that. But the average Uber ride — with its GPS monitoring, cashless payments, real identity recording, and pre-booking — generates more information about who is in the car, and is therefore likely to be generally safer than a normal taxi.

Read more:  http://uk.businessinsider.com/despite-its-problems-uber-is-still-the-safest-way-to-order-a-taxi-2014-12?r=US#ixzz3XHgRRyoQ

Uber seems to still be running. Does anyone know when the appeal will be heard? Will it keep going in Geneva until the appeal is ruled?

Well Uber is not legal in several countries but they are still running.. so who knows :-)

Hi Poster,

Insurance might be an issue in some other countries (where people can become UBER drivers using their normal car) but in Geneva UBER only works with drivers that already have a commercial license and commercial vehicle so I don't think this applies in any way.

Oded

Rape is what I feel when I take a regular taxi in Geneva. Uber has saved me more than once when I've needed a ride after shopping, getting to meetings, etc. I recently used it in Rome and it was perfect. I have signed the petition and I am asking all my friends to do the same. 

The Tribune de Geneve has already noticed how clients are mobilizing: http://www.tdg.ch/economie/entreprises/petition-uber-geneve-succes-fou/story/10295046 

So far there are around 7100 people who signed the petition, they need about 2900 more.. come on lets all sign this thing and keep Geneva a bit more up to date.

https://action.uber.org/geneve/

It will be a sad day if UBER if forced to pull out of Geneva due to the taxi drivers' lobby. I'm all for UBER. 

The laws are supposed to protect people, but in this case, the geneva laws are used to protect the taxi cartel and keep us paying astronomical fees to arrogant taxi drivers. So I did vote, you should too. 

Already more then 12000 people have voted to keep Uber in Geneva, did you?

At nearly 55 years of age, I speak as someone who has used taxis for about 40 years and spent 10 years driving taxis in the UK.

I witnessed a similar backlash by the local taxi drivers (the ones with the lights on top that you hail in the street) when a new service started offering 'private hire' service (where you have to ring up and book the taxi) in my hometown. They used all the same arguments that we are hearing from the Geneva taxi-drivers, i.e., unsafe, uninsured, rapes, etc etc. All completely unfounded and borne from a laziness that comes from a monopoly where they can do as they please, when they please, how they please and, as with all monopolies offer exceptionally bad service and bad value.

In all my years of catching cabs I have been ripped off in several countries by 'normal' taxis, from airports and railway stations but have never once been ripped off by a privatly booked service. I hear similar stories from everyone else I know.

If the Geneva taxis feel a little bit of competition they should react by improving the quality of their cars, the quality of their service and the quality of their drivers, not to mention their prices, instead of trying to kill the opposition.

I've signed the petition for the sake of everyone living in and visiting Geneva. If you all had any sense you would do the same.

The arguement that UBER should stay because I'm just as likely to get raped in their cabs as I am a regulated taxi cab is priceless. 

Anyone know what the current UBER status is in Geneva: are they still allowed to operate?

And I think reading is not really an artform but reading and understaning is I see..

Could someone please explain in words of one syllable what this gobbledygook

means, please?

Ta ever so, R.

It means make a tiny bit of an effort to understand what you have just read before you make a twat of yourself by posting an inane comment. Simples

Thank you for today’s lesson.

May I ask another stupid question tomorrow?

"..true there have been some cases that got a LOT of media attentian and it is dispicable but....Do you know how many people get raped, robbed or murdered by taxi drivers."

I don't actually have a position on this issue. I use the bus. But the personal insult is enough to make me question the motives behind the UBER debate on this forum. For example, for those commenters who are 'pro' UBER, how many of you have had a financial investment in them?

Uber is not publicly traded, so no one here has any financial stake in them.

For me, Uber is just a good company that made a revolution in its category, and is making life easier for consumers. I think many others see it that way too, hence the strong support for Uber.

Your comment in the discussion was just silly, hence you received the reactions that you did. And now your follow up reaction, suggesting people's reactions are driven by a financial stake in Uber, is equally silly. Most people just support what Uber does.

"for those commenters who are 'pro' UBER, how many of you have had a financial investment in them?"

Not me. I just want a value-for-money service

Nir, I can confirm that UBER is still up and running - at least as of last night at 20:30. I got a ride from the airport. The driver told me that they are still able to operate. As of last night he mentioned they had received 14,000 signatures. This is 9,000 more than their intended goal. Let's hope that the petition works and the Geneva government makes the sensible decision to allow them to continue to exist in Geneva.

Not me, I have no money so nothing to invest :-) I just want good service and polite drivers who accept credit card payments with no hassle.. and at a reasonable price please.

My “financial investment” in UBER has consisted on using the service half a dozen times and realizing I saved a lot of money compared to the regular old, grumpy and cash-only taxis. One of those times the Uber car that showed up was actually a Geneva taxi (taxi sign on top). The driver explained that when he is coming back from dropping someone off he logs on to Uber and if there is someone on his way he picks them up and makes some money. The last time I used it in Geneva I got an amazing black Mercedes Benz with a driver who told me he is a private limo and that he uses Uber to make some money on his down time. He said Uber reminded him of the good old times when taxis offered a suit and tie service with clean cars. Both drivers told me “With Uber we earn less than as regular taxi/limo, but it’s definitely good for you as a customer”. So, in my mind this is a question of unlocking a monopoly and letting the marked decide and self-adjust. 

Could anyone explain as impartially as possible, or give a source for, the reasons for the government's decision?

I know that in some parts of the US Uber are in trouble for telling their drivers not to register their cars as commercial vehicles, despite the fact this is exactly what you are as a Uber driver. If that was the case here I would be in favour of a ban until they sort it out.

On the other hand I can well believe that the Geneva taxis would lobby to have it banned even without a good reason.

The government however can't just ban businesses arbitrarily, they must have some legal justification - anyone know what it is?

What makes you think that regular taxi drivers are screened?  Infact one of the perceived benefits of Uber is that drivers are more identiyable.  When I book an Uber ride then I know who will collect me in advance...I have their name, picture, community ranking and license plate.  An Uber customer was raped in India, but India's rape endemic meant that this would have been very difficult to avoid completely.

I've only used Uber once in Geneva, but it was a great experience....a lovely Mercedes limo, a friendly driver, and he even went to the effort of calling me the next day as someone left something on the back seat and he wondered if it was mine (it wasn't, but what a great thing to do). Everything was paid automatically by card, so no fumbling around for money.

Contrast that with the two surly Geneva taxi drivers who refused to take my elderly mother-in-law and me to anywhere in the rough vicinity of the old town from Cornavin on the day of the Escalade running races.

I've signed the petition.

I find it interesting that Geneva is going after Uber while not doing anything about car sharing sites like Covoiturage.fr aka Bla Bla Car.

As Oded noted, in Geneva, Uber only works with drivers that have a commercial license and commercial vehicle. However, sites like Bla Bla Car allow any driver to operate any route. For example, on Bla Bla Car, someone who works in Geneva can sell rides to Paris, Lyon, etc. in their personal car. It seems some people even make a living off of regular routes.

To my knowledge, Bla Bla Car verifies phone numbers, but does not track whether drivers have insurance, monitor their license plates, or track their routes via GPS, so it has even less oversight than Uber.

Covoiturage sites have been operating in Geneva much longer than Uber. And the city of Geneva even encourages their use on their Web site: http://www.ville-geneve.ch/themes/mobilite/voitures-motos/covoiturage-auto-partage/covoiturage/

But why doesn't Geneva go after these sites for the same reasons they go after Uber? Certainly all the concerns about Uber would apply to them as well. Is it because Bla Bla Car is French, while Uber is American, or because Uber is more successful and seen as a bigger threat?

(Financial disclosure: I have purchased rides on Bla Bla Car several times and have the Uber app but have never used Uber. I have not invested in either of these entities.)

We can always ask Pierre Maudet why he tackled Uber, might there be a financial connection from the other side?

https://www.facebook.com/pierremaudet.ch?fref=ts

I just posted this on Pierre Maudet's official facebook site;

And let's not forget the Swiss-created Tooxme service. I have the app but have never used the service. Radio silence about this as well. Bizarre.

http://tooxme.com/en/about-us/

In the end the market will succumb to new disruptive technologies. Same with airbnb and others. 

It's not bizzare at all. 

When UBER came, the taxi drivers created a strong lobby with lawyers and press noise and political pressure, so the law makers had to react. When tooxme and blablacar came, no one made any noise. It's human nature: if pressure is applied, there's movement. If no pressure is applied, things slip by

How best can we apply pressure, other than signing the petition?

Nearly half of the people in Geneva are expats and most of us would support services like Uber which can help us save some money in one of the most expensive cities in the world. Surely we are more numerous and have more economic clout than the taxi lobby.

Should we mobilize to block the Mont Blanc bridge?

Here's how UBER is proposing to do more on their site:

Vous voulez faire plus? Faites savoir à Pierre Maudet ce que vous en pensez:Facebook

Département de la Sécurité et de l’Economie - Contact médias
T. +41 22 327 94 12
M. +41 79 240 83 67
F. +41 22 327 92 15
E-mail: [email protected]

Keep mailing Maudet, or his political competition

Petition signatures are only valid if they are signed by a Swiss citizen. So 14k obtained signatures are useless in 95% of cases.

And only if they signed at 3 a.m. on a wednesday, while wearing the full military uniform of the Swiss Navy

You forgot to include “standing  to attention and singing the national anthem”.

Today the Tribune de Genève quotes Pierre Maudet that the city is in the process of creating a new law which will allow Uber to operate legally in Geneva. (http://www.tdg.ch/economie/entreprises/etat-veut-legaliser-activites-duber-geneve/story/20875585)

The TdG has also been helpful in reporting the number of signatures of Uber's petition (http://www.tdg.ch/economie/entreprises/La-petition-d-Uber-a-Geneve-remporte-un-succes-fou/story/10295046)

Today in the news; TOOXME announces retreat and reinvention: 

http://www.20min.ch/ro/news/vaud/story/26635215 

Great they are actually working on making Uber legal in Geneva,

http://www.20min.ch/ro/news/geneve/story/Maudet-travaillerait-a-la-legalisation-d-Uber-15541543

http://www.tdg.ch/economie/entreprises/etat-veut-legaliser-activites-duber-geneve/story/20875585

The 14.400 signees have helped! keep signing the petition here;

https://action.uber.org/geneve/sign

Bring me Lyft or some less aggressive and more ethical equivalent company and I'll sign the petition then, but then, they'd probably not be in the same situation then... :|

that's a lot of then.. ;)

Sorry, but many think Uber's only revolution in the field is not to care about local legislation and just pay the fines to gain greater market hold. I tend to agree.

Piere Maudet is clearly listening and is planning to change the Taxi law before summer ...

http://www.20min.ch/ro/news/geneve/story/Recadrer-le-systeme-des-taxis-pour-integrer-Uber-17764618

There's a substantial difference between Uber and covoiturage/ride-sharing sites. Specifically, the driver does not make a profit on covoiturage.

Such sites are specifically aimed at putting extra passengers in cars that are already on the road, and as such reduce traffic. So it's obvious why the government would encourage them.

I'm not anti-Uber but comparing them to covoiturage is misleading.

It does seem like while BlaBlaCar itself makes a profit, they intend for drivers to not make a profit.

However it sounds like the profit made by Uber drivers wasn't the main reason for ruling against Uber. Concerns (more likely scare tactics by the taxi lobby) were about things like passenger safety. If passenger safety was the real reason behind blocking Uber, then those concerns would certainly apply to BlaBlaCar and other covoiturage sites, since those drivers do not need to have commercial licenses, commercial vehicles, or undergo the same level of oversight as Uber drivers.

I support both Uber and covoiturage sites. But if passenger safety concerns are so important as to prevent Uber from operating, I'm not sure why those safety concerns would not relate to covoiturage sites. Whether or not the drivers make profits from the rides is irrelevant to that.

Jason, 

From what I read, UBER's issues in Geneva are not driven by passaneger safety or any other specific concern for passengers. Rather, it's driven by the Taxi lawyers digging up an older law (from before the time of smart phones and APPS) which, if applied striclty, means the way UBER puts its drivers and customers together is against the law. So it's just a technical thing, not a passanger concern. However, once the authorities were put in front of this, they didn't have a choice but to apply the law.  

I admit it was never made clear, at least in the articles I read, exactly what this law says. Maybe someone knows. 

Thanks Nir. It looks like under the law Uber is considered a "taxi dispatch centre," and that's where the issue was (http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/taxi-dispute_uber-banned-in-canton-geneva/41378582)

In that case, I'm not sure how Uber is different from the Swiss app Tooxme either.

Anyway, glad that they should be changing the law to fix this nonsense so Uber can operate legally.