fbpx

Month: April 2021

Vídeň má jedno z nejlepších nádraží v Evropě

Mezi nejlepší vlaková nádraží v Evropě patří podle žebříčku European Railway Station Index 2021 i vídeňské hlavní nádraží, které se umístilo na druhém místě hned po německém Lipsku. Moderní nádraží zaujme nejen architektonicky, ale především kvalitou nabízených služeb  pro cestující.

Žebříček Consumer Choice Center

Ve svém žebříčku hodnotila organizace Consumer Choice Center celkem padesát největších evropských nádraží. Kritérii hodnocení byla např. dostupnost nádraží, čistota, nabídka restauračních zařízení, počet cílových destinací a také bezplatné připojení k internetu.  Vídeň ské hlavní nádraží se tak umístilo hned po Lipsku na druhém místě. Na třetím místě Vídeň následovalo londýnské nádraží St. Pancras, o čtvrté místo se letos dělí amsterdamský Centraal s Kazaňským nádražím v Moskvě.

Vídeňské hlavní nádraží

Vídeňské hlavní nádraží, které bylo slavnostně otevřeno v říjnu 2014 a postupně nahradilo dvě dřívější hlavová nádraží, je největší a také nejmodernější nádraží v Rakousku. Vedle letošního mezinárodního ocenění, které se zaměřilo především na úroveň nabízených služeb, je nádraží i ekologicky a architektonicky zajímavou stavbou. Díky začlenění fotovoltaiky, geotermální energie a ekonomického dálkového vytápění a chlazení bylo nádraží oceněno jako Udržitelný projekt města Vídně 2014.

Architektonicky nádraží zaujme především svou výrazně tvarovanou dynamickou střechou, ani interiér ovšem nepokulhává. Veškeré haly a schodiště jsou velkoryse široké a přehledné a tudíž také bezpečné. V okolí nádraží navíc vznikla i moderní čtvrť pro více než 20 500 obyvatel a pracujících. Okolí nádraží se tak díky citlivé modernizaci stalo jedním z nových center Vídně.

Originally published here.

We don’t need content quotas

Streaming platforms and consumers should make their own decisions…

A number of countries and regions are already applying entertainment content quotas. This means that a certain percentage of audiovisual content on broadcasting channels needs to be local. This rule already exists in France, for radio broadcasters.

For private radio stations, there are rules on the broadcasting of French-language songs. It states that: “the substantial proportion of musical works in French or interpreted in a regional language used in France must reach a minimum of 40% of French songs, at least half of which must come from new talent or new productions, broadcast during significant listening hours by each of the radio broadcasting services authorised by the Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel, for the part of its programmes composed of variety music. ” 

Since July 2016, the law has been supplemented by new provisions:

Firstly, the addition of a third ad hoc derogatory regime for so-called “musical discovery” radio stations: at least 15% of new French-language productions or new French-language talent Secondly, the introduction of a malus aimed at excluding some of the broadcasts of the ten most scheduled French-language titles, those that account for more than 50% of total French-language broadcasts, from the calculation of compliance with the obligations to broadcast French-language songs. Lastly, the creation of a bonus allowing the overall quotas for French-language songs to be adjusted downwards by up to five points, subject to compliance with several cumulative conditions relating in particular to substantial and quantified commitments to promote diversity in music programming.

It really needs the French to make a radio station so downright bureaucratic, and its music awfully controlled. Like French music or not, I cannot for the life of me understand a system in which the government comes into your station and decides of which origin your audio-content needs to be. It isn’t just dystopian, it’s downright authoritarian.

Mexico is currently debating new rules that would require a national content quota of 15% (“content or video generated by an individual or corporation with a majority of funding of Mexican origin”). The fact that the EU also deals with an audiovisual content quota for local content is inspirational to other countries. Developed countries having a rule often allows legitimacy to nationalistic rules in other regions. The term “nationalistic” is carefully chosen here, because in essence the government is making broadcasters discriminate on purpose.

On what basis could anyone in the European Union argue that consuming European audiovisual content is in any way preferable to a movie from South Africa or a song from Malaysia? Is this the European equivalent of supporting cultural diversity, supporting audiovisual access for our expat communities, and assisting content creators in developing nations?

Yes, the United States indeed dominates the streaming markets with its films and its music. The question is whether we — or any other country for that matter — is right in believing that boosting our cultural sector happens if we force broadcasters to favour our content by law. The EU is the most significant consumer region on the planet; if anything, it should be easier for our content providers to satisfy the need for local music and films.

Celebrating our cultural diversity is not a bad thing. While it is great when local artists make it on the big screen, or land their hit in the charts, it is not a tragedy if they do not. Art is not a national possession, it is an internationally cherished part of our lives. Government ought not appropriate it.

Originally published here.

To tackle illicit trade, let’s smash taxes


Last year, the Irish Revenue seized more than €32m worth of illegal cigarettes, 326 weapons, a crocodile head and a turtle shell, among other assorted contraband items. Alcohol has also been smuggled in massive quantities, with over 764,174 litres worth €4.17m seized in 2020 alone.

As criminals continue to improve their methods of concealment, the scope of undetected activities expands further. We should all be concerned by this. Not only do black markets bypass all regulatory oversight, meaning there are no controls for safety or quality, they create an incentive and funding model for additional criminal behaviour, such as arms or human trafficking, while also depriving the government of tax revenue and putting legitimate businesses at a disadvantage.

There is no silver bullet for solving this enormous challenge, and the Irish government should start by implementing smarter anti-illicit trade policies. But it should beware that many of these black markets evolve as a reaction to overregulation and over-taxation, which is something that the government could, with the right political will, address relatively easily.

We know that illicit trade is, in many ways, a consequence of restrictive policies such as sin taxes, which drive criminals to provide consumers with a cheaper alternative. Ireland’s policies, such as the recent 50-cent increase in excise duty on a packet of cigarettes, likely plays to the benefit of smugglers seeking quick profits, while doing very little, if anything, to help people quit smoking.

If the government’s aim is to reduce smoking, it could endorse reduced-risk nicotine products, like e-cigarettes and vaping, through reduced taxation and more accurate public information campaigns on the relative health benefits. Not only would this achieve the broader goals put forward by public health regulators, as research by the European Policy Information Center has found, but it could also help discourage the illicit trade of tobacco.

Within Europe, regulatory disparity encourages the illegal flow of cigarettes from low-cost countries such as Belarus and the Ukraine into the European Union. In Minsk, for example, the price of a pack is around 1.40 EUR, ten times cheaper than in Ireland. In November last year, over 5.5m cigarettes originating from the Ukraine were seized at the Dublin Port ,with the budget loss estimated at around €2.5m.

Smugglers exploit these countries’ territorial proximity to the EU, and by entering through countries such as Latvia, counterfeit tobacco products can make their way into western Europe.

Of course, black markets exist not only because there are groups willing to take the risk of smuggling products across borders, but because there is demand for overregulated products. Surveys aren’t everything, but one conducted by iReach did find that 70 per cent of adults (including 67 per cent of non-smokers) in Ireland agree that it is “understandable” that consumers might choose not to buy cigarettes and tobacco from legitimate retailers in Ireland. 

Tobacco high-cost countries such as Ireland are especially vulnerable to criminal activities, and while detection efforts should be extended, the government should consider taking decisive steps in the form of tax cuts or, at the very least, abstaining from further tax increases. 

The evidence to support this is compelling. A 2010 study published by CIRANO in Montreal found that each additional dollar in taxes raises the propensity to resort to consuming contraband cigarettes by 5.1 per cent, while each additional dollar in tax cuts decreased it by 5.9 per cent. It is clear, therefore, that higher taxes increase the attractiveness of the black market, and that the deeper the tax cuts, the higher the likelihood of stopping smuggling. 

The overarching goal behind excise tax increases, regulators claim, is to reduce smoking rates in Ireland. While it is true that the cigarette prevalence in Ireland has been consistently dropping, this doesn’t mean that if the government were to cut taxes the rates would shoot back up. 

The Irish government need only look to Canada where, in 1994, the government slashed taxes on cigarettes to tackle the booming illicit trade and, despite alarmist expectations at the time, the prevalence of smoking dropped and continues to fall. Illicit trade has since also significantly decreased.

In order to piece together a more coherent strategy, the Irish government should continue to target the supply side of the illicit market, but it would be a mistake not to consider significant tax cuts and smarter regulation. A multi-pronged approach will be the only way to reduce illicit trade and avoid the problems associated with it.

Originally published here.

Pravda

Toto sú top stanice Európy: V čom sú lepšie ako tie slovenské?

Dojmy cestujúcich, preplnenosť nástupísk, čistota, dostupnosť z mesta, počet priamych spojení – to sú kritériá, na základe ktorých vybral Consumer Choice Center 50 najlepších európskych železničných staníc.

Na umiestnenie staníc v rebríčku mala vplyv aj dostupnosť služieb hromadnej dopravy, konkurencia vlakových spoločností, kvalita reštaurácií a obchodov na stanici, zrozumiteľnosť a prehľadnosť značenia, priemerný počet štrajkových dní, salóniky prvej triedy a prístup na nástupištia.

Vo všetkých týchto hľadiskách vyšla najlepšie stanica St. Pancras International v Londýne. Zavážil najmä nízky počet štrajkových dní, vysoké pohodlie cestujúcich a medzinárodná konektivita.

Na druhom mieste sa umiestnila stanica vo švajčiarskom Zürichu a na treťom vlaková stanica v Lipsku. Štvrtá je rímska Roma Termini. Na piatom až siedmom mieste sú nemecké stanice – mníchovská, hamburská a Berlínska.

Milano Centrale si vyslúžilo ôsmu priečku, nasleduje moskovská Kazanská a hlavná stanica vo Frankfurte.

Celkovo si najlepšie v rebríčku viedlo Nemecko, tamojšie stanice obsadili polovicu z prvej desiatky miest, a to najmä vďaka nízkemu počtu štrajkových dní, početným spojeniam s ďalšími destináciami, dobrej dostupnosti pre cestujúcich na invalidných vozíkoch a rôznym nákupným možnostiam, ktoré uľahčujú čakanie.

Kompletný index európskych železničných staníc si môžete pozrieť tu.

Originally published here.

Fake pesticides threaten consumer health

Counterfeiting is a real problem…

European institutions, particularly on the European Parliament’s legislative level, constantly debate and seek to regulate the use of crop protection tools. The catalogue of available products is getting thinner every year, which has been criticised by farmers. However, making chemical compounds or products illegal does not automatically rid the market of their presence. In fact, the ill effects of prohibition apply to the agricultural sector to the same extent as other consumption areas. 

In 2018, the European Union Intellectual Property Office stated that €1.3 billion are lost every year in Europe due to fake pesticides. This translates to €299 million and 500 jobs lost per year in Germany, €240 million and 500 jobs each year lost in France, and €185 million and 270 jobs lost annually in Italy.

In 2018, EUROPOL revealed that some 360 tonnes of illegal or counterfeit pesticides were seized in Europe in a joint effort with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). Counterfeit pesticides, now estimated to represent 14% of the European crop protection market, pose serious health risks to consumers. They are not subject to the rigorous safety assessments of food safety authorities. Adding to that, untested products can also lead to considerable harvest loss, resulting in less food security for European consumers.

Recent numbers make the 2018 statistics pale in comparison. In 2020, EUROPOL stated that 1,346 tonnes of counterfeits, illegal, and unregulated products had been taken off the market, or the equivalent of 458 Olympic-sized pools, with a total worth of €94 million of criminal profits seized. In the illegal trade raids, one can also notice an uptick in seizures of illegal pesticides, which relates to non-approved products. Year after year, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) records the presence of unapproved pesticides in European food. As a result, there have been calls upon member states to increase their inquiries into the imports of non approved pesticides into the European Union. In an effort to tackle this problem at its roots, we believe that a re-evaluation, conjointly with farmers associations, of the approval of these substances is a sensible solution. Suppose the European Union or member states outlaw a chemical substance due to health concerns, yet the ban results in an uptick in illegal trade with absolutely no safety assessment. In that case, a sensible compromise solution that takes into account the worries of producers while respecting the safety of consumers is in order.

Note on the illicit trade with fertilisers: In 2012, the Danish newspaper “Politiken” published an extensive report on the prevalence of illicit trade with fertilisers, which triggered a question to the European Commission about the extent of this problem. In a written answer, the Commissioner in charge replied in July of 2012 that Berlaymont was not aware of illegal trade in this area, and assured the necessary observation and enforcement mechanism were in motion to avoid it. Given the extent of fraudulent trade with organic food and the prevalent spread of fake pesticides, we believe that an investigation into the existence of illicit fertilisers in Europe is opportune.

Illicit trade is a significant challenge for societies in today’s globalised world. From cosmetics to medicines and agricultural products, illicit trade is putting millions of consumers around the globe at risk. The scope of the problem is transnational, and, therefore, the cost of misguided policies is very high. Our goal should be to create and sustain the conditions under which there would be no incentive to turn to the black market. This can be achieved by reducing tax burdens, enhancing branding and marketing freedom, introducing harsher penalties for fraudulent trading practices, and ensuring transparency across the EU.

Originally published here.

Independent Women's Forum

The Philippine Government’s Attack On Breast Milk Substitutes

Be it sin taxes, vaccine procurement bans, or various marketing bans, the underlying goal behind such interventions is to prevent consumers from making certain choices and scapegoat the supply side.

The pandemic has intensified some governments’ pursuit of even more control over our lives, and access to vaccines has been used as a tool to take revenge on businesses seen as a threat to public health. An odious draft private sector vaccine procurement ban in the Philippines is a great example of how far policymakers can go if allowed to push their paternalistic agenda.

The proposed prohibition states that the Filipino National Task Force (NFT) and Department of Health (DOH) would review all requests from private companies who wish to procure vaccines and ensure these businesses are not “related to the tobacco industry, products covered by the National Code of Marketing of breast milk substitutes, breast milk supplement and other related products or other products in conflict with public health.”

Although fortunately, the ban was dropped by the Philippine government in the end, the fact that such ideas have a place in a world crippled by the pandemic is alarming. The rollout of vaccines has given us a chance to revitalize global prosperity and attempts to block those efforts by channeling the nanny state endanger our global wellbeing. As of March 31st, only 0.67% of Filipinos were vaccinated compared to 60.60% in Israel. The unethical paternalism that lies at the core of the proposed Philippine government ban would have slowed down the vaccine rollout even more.

Be it sin taxes, vaccine procurement bans, or various marketing bans, the underlying goal behind such interventions is to prevent consumers from making certain choices and scapegoat the supply side. Moreover, most of the time, the origin of these restrictions can be traced back to the World Health Organization’s recommendations.

The said ban demonstrates this very explicitly: it targeted breast milk substitutes for a reason. In August 2020, Francisco Tiongson Duque III, the Philippines Health Secretary, called on Filipino women with suspected and/or confirmed COVID-19 to continue breastfeeding. The secretary’s rhetoric mirrors that of the WHO and UNICEF, who stressed the importance of remaining committed to exclusive breastfeeding even during the pandemic.

The WHO’s witch hunt after breastmilk substitutes is hardly new. In March 2020, together with UNICEF and the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), the WHO urged countries to ban the promotion of breast milk substitutes, including advertising and distribution of free samples while also pressing women to continue breastfeeding.

In a piece I wrote last year, I argued that, while the WHO deserves praise for drawing attention to the important issue of breastfeeding, pressuring women to continue to breastfeed during the COVID-19 pandemic while at the same time denying them information on alternatives is inhumane. Our lifestyle freedoms are fragile and hence easy targets for the WHO and alike interventions.

It is not the job of the government to decide how to breastfeed, and neither is it to prevent businesses it simply doesn’t like from getting the COVID vaccine. The Philippines’ draft ban is a lesson in how far the nanny state can go. As we move forward, it is crucial to remember that if it weren’t for the WHO’s covering up of China’s lies about the pandemic, we wouldn’t be spending our days in lockdowns, and thousands of deaths would have been avoided. As such, the WHO is hardly the best source of advice on breastfeeding and lifestyle freedoms.

Originally published here.

2021年版ヨーロッパの素晴らしい駅ランキングが発表

1位はドイツのライプツィヒ中央駅、路線数やサービスの充実度で評価

鉄道駅の素晴らしさを測る方法はいくらでもある。例えば、行き先の豊富さ、ホームへのアクセスやナビゲーションが容易であることは重要だろう。ただ、何より我々にとって重要なのは、車内で楽しむ軽食やビールをそろえるためのショップや飲食店がどれだけ充実しているか、ということかもしれない。

ヨーロッパについては、そうした要素が網羅された駅を、『European Railway Station Index』というランキングで知ることができる。最近、その2021年版が発表された。

このランキングは、消費保護団体であるConsumer Choice Centeが、ヨーロッパ大陸にある主要な50カ所ほどの駅をさまざまな要素に基づいて毎年ランク付けしているもの。特に鉄道ファンは、毎年の発表をとても楽しみにしている。

2021年のナンバーワンに選ばれた駅は、ドイツの都市、ライプツィヒの中央駅だ。リサーチャーたちは、この駅を選んだ理由を、国内路線の数が多く、ショップやレストランも充実しているからとしている。まっとうな選考理由だ。

2020年に1位だったロンドンのセント・パンクラス駅3位に転落。ブレグジットとは、おそらく関係はない。そのほかトップ5に入ったのが、2位がウィーン中央駅、4位はアムステルダム中央駅とモスクワのカザンスキー駅だった。10位までのランキングは、以下の通り。

European Railway Station Index 2021（Consumer Choice Center発表）

1. ライプツィヒ中央駅
2. ウィーン中央駅
3. セント・パンクラス駅（ロンドン）
4. アムステルダム中央駅
4. カザンスキー駅（モスクワ）
6. フランクフルト中央駅
6. ミュンヘン中央駅
8. クールスキー駅（モスクワ）
9. ミラノ中央駅
10. バーミンガム・ニューストリート駅

全51駅のランキングはこのページからダウンロードできる。いつか再び気軽に訪れることのできるヨーロッパ旅行に向け、食やビールも充実させた鉄道旅を計画するためのリストとして、見てみるのもいいかもしれない。

Originally published here.

Coalition Letter in Support of Mileage-Based User Fees for US Highway Funding

Dear Member of Congress,

As Congress considers surface transportation reauthorization, its top priority should be restoring the longstanding users-pay/users-benefit principle for highway funding. Further increasing the reliance of the Highway Trust Fund on revenue streams untethered from use, as well as general fund bailouts, would not only fail to address the core fiscal challenges of the present, it would threaten the future health of America’s highways.

Congress should closely examine lessons learned in the numerous ongoing state road usage charge pilot programs and build any future federal trials upon those findings, including ensuring that all forms of surface transportation are covered, including heavy trucks and passenger vehicles. A federal road usage charge trial should be nationwide in scope and done in cooperation with the states, building on best practices developed across the states, and should focus on replacing fuel taxes.

When Congress passed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which created the modern Interstate Highway System, this was coupled with the Highway Revenue Act. The Revenue Act established the Highway Trust Fund, which authorized the Treasury to collect taxes on producers and importers of fuel, who then pass most of that tax burden on to road users.

Set at a per-gallon rate, the rationale for the taxes was to link highway use with highway infrastructure investment. Prior to the creation of the Highway Trust Fund, federal-aid highways were funded out of general revenues and drivers did not bear the costs of the infrastructure they used. In addition, all federal taxpayers—even those who did not drive—were thereby forced to pay for highways.

Adhering to the users-pay/users-benefit principle is superior to general revenue funding for a number of reasons:

  1. Fairness: Highway users benefit from the improvements their user fees generate.
  2. Proportionality: Users who drive more pay more.
  3. Self-limiting: The imposition of a fee under which proceeds may only be used for the specified purpose imposes a de-facto limit on how high that fee can be.
  4. Funding Predictability: Highway use and therefore highway user revenues do not fluctuate wildly in the short-run.
  5. Signaling Investment: Because revenue roughly tracks use, the mechanism provides policy makers with an important signal as to how much infrastructure investment is needed to maintain a desired level of efficiency.

Congress should also make clear what the users-pay/users-benefit principle is not intended to do:

  1. Road usage charges should replace fuel taxes, not supplement them.
  2. Road use charges are not a tax, but a user fee.
  3. Any users-pay/users-benefit program is not intended to force behavioral change, nor should the program have any environmental or social goals beyond the adequate funding of the Trust Fund.
  4. User fees are not a surveillance program and best practices being developed at the state level ensure that users’ data are protected from misuse.
  5. User fees are not intended to force rural drivers to pay more, any more than fuel taxes punish rural drivers who tend to drive longer distances in less fuel-efficient vehicles.

For these reasons, we urge you to prioritize protecting and strengthening the users-pay principle in the 2021 surface transportation reauthorization and support the development of a nationwide, interoperable road usage charge trial.

Sincerely,

Iain Murray
Vice President for Strategy
Competitive Enterprise Institute

The Honorable Andrew H. Card, Jr.
Former White House Chief of Staff, United States Secretary of Transportation

Douglas Holtz-Eakin
President
American Action Forum*
*Affiliation for identification purposes only

Hon. Samuel K. Skinner
Former United States Secretary of Transportation

James L. Martin
Founder/Chairman
60 Plus Association

Saulius “Saul” Anuzis
President
60 Plus Association

Steve Pociask
President / CEO
American Consumer Institute

Ike Brannon
President
Capital Policy Analytics

Andrew F. Quinlan
President
Center for Freedom and Prosperity

Matthew Kandrach
President
Consumer Action for a Strong Economy

Yaël Ossowski
Deputy Director
Consumer Choice Center

Ian Adams
Executive Director
International Center for Law & Economics

Brandon Arnold
Executive Vice President
National Taxpayers Union

Adrian Moore, Ph.D.
Vice President of Policy
Reason Foundation*
Former Commissioner, National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission
*Affiliation for identification purposes.

David Williams
President
Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Roslyn Layton, PhD
Aalborg University
Senior Contributor, Forbes

Tom Giovanetti
President
Institute for Policy Innovation

FULL PDF

Aus Sicht der Passagiere: Das sind die besten Bahnhöfe Europas

Eine Verbraucherschutz-Organisation hat die 52 größten Bahnhöfe Europas auf ihre Passagierfreundlichkeit hin untersucht: Wo lässt es sich gut warten, wo stimmt auch die Infrastruktur für Menschen mit Behinderung? Drei deutsche Bahnhöfe schaffen es unter die Top Ten.

Platz 10 mit 86 Punkten: Gare Montparnasse Paris, Frankreich
Unter die Top Ten schaffte es im Ranking der Verbraucherschutz-Organisation Consumer Choice Center als einziger der Pariser Bahnhöfe der kleinere Gare Montparnasse – im Gegensatz zum Gare du Nord, dem mit 292 Millionen Fahrgästen pro Jahr geschäftigsten in Europa.

Bahnhöfe sind Durchgangsstationen, an denen man nie lange bleiben möchte. Doch oft zwingen Verspätungen oder Zugausfälle zu langen Wartezeiten. Dann zeigt sich, wie gut das Umfeld wirklich ist: Gibt es genügend Restaurants, Läden und Lounges?

Die Verbraucherschutz-Organisation Consumer Choice Center mit Sitz in Washington D.C. hat jetzt ihren jährlichen European Railway Station Index für 2021 vorgelegt. Darin werden die 52 großen Bahnhöfe Europas mit deren Infrastruktur genauer untersucht.

Für die Bewertung spielen Kriterien wie deren Fahrgastzahlen, die Zahl der nationalen und internationalen Verbindungen, die Sauberkeit, Ausschilderung und die Anzahl der Fahrstühle eine Rolle. Aber auch der barrierefreie Zugang für Rollstuhlfahrer, die Anbindung an den öffentlichen Personennahverkehr, die Zahl der Restaurants, Läden für die Versorgung und Rideshare-Möglichkeiten werden berücksichtigt und fließen in den Index ein.

In der Gesamtauswertung landeten drei Bahnhöfe in Deutschland unter den ersten zehn. Einer davon führt die Gesamtstatistik an: der Leipziger Hauptbahnhof. Er erreichte die höchste Punktzahl und 116 von 131 möglichen Punkten.

Originally published here.

Ban cycling and walking to help Brussels’ taxis

The recent decision to ban Uber from the streets of Brussels was very clearly a political move to support the taxi industry and the transport unions. As such, it makes sense to also introduce some extra measures to support the taxi industry further – namely by removing any extra unfair and undue competition from the streets.

To this end, I propose that Minister President Rudi Vervoort should also consider banning other competition to the cities taxis. Namely; cycling, driving and walking. Such measures could just as easily be justified for safety or environmental reasons.

The easiest of all these would be cars. It would be environmentally prudent to ban cars from the streets of Brussels as not only do they pollute our planet by releasing greenhouse gases from their exhaust, but also because they clog up the streets and prevent taxi’s from taking their clients from point A to B in good time.

Further still are the safety implications, in 2019 there were 3,924 traffic accidents in Brussels, and 37,699 in the entire of Belgium. It’s clear that people cannot be trusted to own and drive their own cars, so perhaps Minister President Vervoort should consider banning them altogether for the sake of public safety.

Equally it’s clear that bicycles are a hazard to the public. Cyclists make up 15% of road traffic accident victims. In 2019, a total of 95 cyclists were killed in accidents. It’s clear that people cannot be trusted to cycle safely. What’s more is that they are increasingly becoming a nuisance to taxi drivers, with more and more road space in the city being selfishly given over to cyclists. Which means that there are less roads for taxi’s to stop and pick people up from.

Finally, in order to well and truly break the competitive racket that is preventing taxi drivers from doing their jobs, the Brussels Regional Government should consider implementing new regulations to ban walking within the city. Pedestrians are increasingly taking over the roads, with areas such as Grand Place, Rue Neuve, and Boulevard Anspach being turned over the two footed hoards – when before it was the free domain of the automobile.

Of course none of these suggestions should be taken seriously, and indeed nor should the protectionist ban on Uber either. There are serious points to be made, both of the image of the city and of the ease of use.

In the first instance, the banning of Uber has made Brussels look like a technophobic city, afraid to embrace the opportunities afforded too it by the fourth industrial revolution. Already Brussels lags behind many other global cities when it comes to the fourth industrial revolution. 

According to the Consumer Choice Centre, Brussels ranked lower than Tallin, Riga, Vilnius, Tbilisi, Moscow, Kyiv, Warsaw and Helsinki in their sharing economy index.

The second point to make is the way in which the ban disproportionally affects younger denizens of Brussels – millennials and zoomers in particular. Increasingly young people are turning away from driving, with those of us who live in the city centre not seeing the need to own a car at all. Using Uber was an easy, and much cheaper, way of getting around, especially to those places which are not serviced by Brussels very limited mass transit system.

Uber could pick you up from any neighbourhood, which is a bonus when quite often there aren’t conventional taxis around – especially late at night/early in the morning.

By way of a recent example. For me to get to a recent hospital appointment, I had a choice between a taxi, an Uber and metro. The taxi would have cost me €20 more than the Uber and had me arrive in the same amount of time. Whilst the metro would have been cheaper, it would have added an extra 20 minutes to my journey – additionally it would not have been socially distanced.

In pre-COVID times, Uber was also the most convenient route for most people to get to and from the airport as well. Quicker than the train, and much more convenient when carrying large bags, whilst at the same time an average €40 cheaper than the taxis. Visitors to Brussels in the future will now be greeted by a €60 taxi fee when they want to travel to the city centre – not a very welcoming prospect.

The ban on Uber was, and still is, an idiotic move by the government of Brussels. The city now looks technologically backwards, expensive and consumer unfriendly. The regional government should seriously reconsider the ban, or at the very least liberalise the licence system to allow more competition in the market outside of the state monopoly. If former soviet states can do it, then so can liberal Belgium.

Originally published here.

Fun Police

ConsEUmer Podcast

Consumer Choice Center Cast

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

Contact Info

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2024, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Scroll to top
en_USEN
it_ITIT pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE en_USEN