Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber London loses licence to operate

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 609 posts

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#251

Post by pbhjpbhj »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #22
pavlakoos wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there is a license for that: a driving license. And the one which is given allows to drive a car with passengers inside. It should be enough...

There's a difference between driving another person from A to B and charging that person. As a comparison you can invite a friend to your house and cook for them. If you start charging people for that there will be food safety regulations etc. you need to comply with.

In the UK we have an excellent 0-to-5 point rating scheme for all establishments that serve or prepare food. It includes Street food vendors, kiosks, even schools. All sellers are required to show their "number" at the front door or POS, you can verify it online. You used to be able to see the inspectors report too (sadly it seems they removed that feature and replaced with a summary).

It's an excellent system that warrants repetition in other industries.

Regulation done right greatly improves one's position soliciting services - I want to know if my driver has had recent accidents, speeding tickets, has poor health, doesn't pass a DBS check, can speak my language (very useful in cities you don't know), that their vehicle is safe.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#252

Post by PaulRobinson »

mittermayr wrote: post #240
PaulRobinson wrote: post #189

Londoner here. The license is not being renewed not because TfL isn't interested in innovation (they actively encourage it), not to retain power for the black cab drivers, and not because London isn't interested in companies like Uber operating here. It's because of the rapes. The Metropolitan Police (the part of the UK police force that polices London), has objected to their license. In 2015 alone, they had to deal…

Well, this is probably not the best point to base an argument on: "In the entire history of the hackney carriage (black cab) license - going back to 1662 - I know of only one case of a driver having been prosecuted for rape, about 5 years ago." Anecdotal, and also, "prosecuted" describes a very certain slice of the data. The following link extends into other companies and crimes, but it hopefully adds to your anecdot…

Those numbers include uber drivers, minicab drivers AND black cab drivers all lumped into one - they are people who described their occupation as "taxi driver" or some derivative.

It is fair to say that regulation in London has generally tended towards safer experiences for all.

I was in a car the other day where the driver bemoaned the paperwork. He came to London in the 1980s without knowing English and bought a car for £200 that had six months MOT left on it and would likely be scrapped at that point, and was operating as a driver the next day.

Now cars can't be older than 10 years, are MOT'ed every 6 months, the drivers are all having to do English proficiency tests for safety reasons, and as a result the whole system is better and safer.

Uber is actively trying to skirt around regulations, and is - in the eyes of the London police - not doing enough to protect women from sexual assault and rape compared to other operators, including other private hire and black cab operators.

They are undoubtedly doing so because of their data and experiences relating specifically to Uber as an operator, and not because they don't like Uber.

As such, Uber should be forced to respond by either amending, or ceasing operations. The regulator is doing their job.

And we need to be clear here: the number one reason the Police and TfL are giving are that you are far more likely to be raped by an Uber driver than you are a driver for another firm or black cab driver - if that were not the case, they'd be suspending licenses elsewhere too/instead.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#253

Post by kbart »

kofejnik wrote: post #237
kbart wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be due to the fact that in most parts of Europe there's a cheap and good public transport available, so cabs must compete with it too. In USA, there's not much to choose from, so cabs have local monopolies, hence higher price and lower quality service.

most taxi services in Europe are quite bad and hugely overpriced due to artificial monopoly, to the point that I try to stay away from the countries without Uber

From your description and my personal experience, only London falls under this category. What other cities do you have in mind?

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#254

Post by overcast »

Uber needs to license their software to existing companies. Stop trying to push cab companies out of business, and start trying to be cabOS. The user experience is why we use the thing, I don't give a rats ass who is picking me up, as long as they are safe and courteous. And they come pick me up with a few taps of a phone app.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#255

Post by shamas »

Nursie wrote: post #40

If they can't or won't reform then excellent, let's be rid of them. I don't want to give any business to a company that are seeking to become a worldwide cab monopoly, and squirrel away any profits to the US. We have a perfectly healthy cab ecosystem in my city, app-driven and with fare competition and city regulation. Which I suppose is why Uber, though present, hasn't really taken off here. That said, talk of profi…

"healthy cab ecosystem"? Have you lived in outer London? If you're out as far as one of the houses outside Brixton, the cab system isn't even in existence, let alone healthy.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#256

Post by danpalmer »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #189

Londoner here. The license is not being renewed not because TfL isn't interested in innovation (they actively encourage it), not to retain power for the black cab drivers, and not because London isn't interested in companies like Uber operating here. It's because of the rapes. The Metropolitan Police (the part of the UK police force that polices London), has objected to their license. In 2015 alone, they had to deal…

Some anecdata related to this – discussing with colleagues today, one mentioned that she had got into an Uber where the driver was clearly not the person registered with Uber, and the car was not the one she was told would pick her up. She mentioned another case she knew of where a driver was sharing the Uber registration with his cousin to earn more money.

This sort of activity severely impacts the safety and security of passengers, and makes Uber's job of helping the police that much more difficult as well. As far as I can tell, Uber doesn't care about these practices, or turns a blind eye to them.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#258

Post by necessity »

Nursie wrote: post #40

If they can't or won't reform then excellent, let's be rid of them. I don't want to give any business to a company that are seeking to become a worldwide cab monopoly, and squirrel away any profits to the US. We have a perfectly healthy cab ecosystem in my city, app-driven and with fare competition and city regulation. Which I suppose is why Uber, though present, hasn't really taken off here. That said, talk of profi…

Because having more options, knowing the identity and location of your driver, having a feedback mechanism to report mis-behavior and paying a lower price is bad for consumers. If you don't want it don't use it, stop imposing you will upon others.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#259

Post by chi18 »

Nursie wrote: post #40

If they can't or won't reform then excellent, let's be rid of them. I don't want to give any business to a company that are seeking to become a worldwide cab monopoly, and squirrel away any profits to the US. We have a perfectly healthy cab ecosystem in my city, app-driven and with fare competition and city regulation. Which I suppose is why Uber, though present, hasn't really taken off here. That said, talk of profi…

> I don't want to give any business to a company that are seeking to become a worldwide cab monopoly

Do you buy from Amazon? Essentially the same thing, and I for one use it regularly. Like you, I worried for a while about a monopoly, but I think capitalism will pan out.

Amazon and any other online retailer that can successfully provide massive selection, good product review system, and reliable and fast home delivery will drive a change in the landscape of retail locally. This will eventually lead to smaller local physical stores through agreements with those retailers where the most popular items are stocked.

(The exception for the short-term will be supermarkets. And you've already seen the attempts at transformation; many generic retailers are half-grocery store now. That's what they will become in full, if they survive. But, home delivery will take that over also, eventually.)

Uber had poor decisions made, but along with Lyft in the US, Mytaxi in the UK, etc.- these are the "early Amazons" of the transportation business. The old method that Taxi services use is no longer relevant now that anyone can find directions easily. London is somewhat unique in that some of its cab drivers are known worldwide as those that have incredible memories, and that's great, but they are the typewriters of the future- used by some, but not by most. All of the dispatch and directions have been automated.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#260

Post by trentnix »

kbart wrote: post #172
nikanj wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most Uber-sized companies squirrel the profits to tax havens in the Caribbean. Getting the profits to the reach of the US tax system would be unexpected.

That's why many people prefer small, local cab companies that pay license fees and taxes to a local budget.

They do? You sure about that?

Then why not just let them compete?

Post reply on HN