It is becoming increasingly difficult for legislators to keep up with innovations and technological developments. Sometimes the ink is not yet dry, or the legal text is already in need of renewal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An example of a law that has quickly proved outdated is the Taxi Act of 2011.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This law was introduced in response to the failed liberalisation of the taxi market in 2000. At the time, consumers were by no means reaping the benefits of this free market. Short trips were often refused, prices rose and the quality of transport deteriorated badly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To improve quality, the new Taxi Act of 2011 stipulated that taxi drivers could carry customers in the boarding market only if they joined a group of drivers licensed by the municipality. A fare system was introduced and customers could not be refused. Boarding had to take place at a taxi stand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, that same boarding market came under severe pressure with the rise of mobile apps, such as Uber. With this app, boarding at the stand becomes unnecessary and the customer can simply call the nearest taxi. They can also opt for a luxury car or - in big cities - an unlicensed Uber pop-snorder. The stand culture, and with it the Taxi Act 2011, seems to be pass\u00e9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fortunately, the State Secretary recently recognised this and decided to relax the Taxi Act and give room for innovations. The condition, however, is that the principles of the law, namely creating a taxi market that is affordable, accessible and sufficiently safe for users, are not compromised. Innovators now no longer have to feel hampered by the letter of the law but can pursue the law's goals in their own way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is no place for the service Uberpop, which offers taxi services by private individuals, according to the state secretary. A return to the period around liberalisation is feared. Yet the last word on this has not been said. Last month, a Green Left motion was passed by the House of Representatives instructing the cabinet to investigate the extent to which Uberpop services could still be allowed. If Uberpop manages to offer affordable, low-threshold and sufficiently safe services, there might be a future for Uberpop in the Netherlands after all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mr David Penn<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Het wordt voor de wetgever steeds lastiger om de innovaties en technologische ontwikkelingen bij te benen. De inkt is soms nog niet droog, of de wettekst is alweer aan vernieuwing toe. Een voorbeeld van een wet die snel achterhaald is gebleken, is de Taxiwet uit 2011. Deze wet werd ingevoerd als reactie op de mislukte […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3392","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bestuursrecht"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3392","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3392"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3392\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3392"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3392"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3392"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}