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

321–330 of 609 posts

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#321

Post by mittermayr »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #284
mittermayr wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but not taken seriously by cab drivers. I've had many broken card machines in a black cab, and when challenged, it almost always lead to a, "alrite, get out mate" — or a, "well I can try if it works again, it didn't earlier..." I didn't report them, and with their ongoing nonsense and this now, I'll definitely make sure I will from here on forward.

You absolutely 100% must report them. Seriously. Every time. It's the only way we make it better for everybody. The requirement for it to always be available is a new one - it was introduced in recent months. So if your experience pre-date that, that behaviour may have changed. If it hasn't you absolutely 100% need to report the driver to TfL.

Was after October last year, I should've reported and will do so now. It's a bit intimidating to take a photo of the license, but I guess it's easier when outside the cab. Which is, again, one more thing I like about Uber, I open the app, and it's all there. If a driver takes a wonky route, I complain and don't need to proof it much and get into an argument with the driver, the evidence is there, I merely deal with customer support, and I always get my money back.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#322

Post by vertex-four »

microcolonel wrote: post #165
Nursie wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Who said anything about them seeking to become a worldwide cab monopoly? They behave as if they are attempting this, IMHO. >> They are a cab company I believe, depending on which way the wind was blowing, they might dispute this. Their argument is that they are not a cab company, merely a service for connecting drivers and potential passengers. This is how they avoid pesky things like employment laws. >> Any other…

> They behave as if they are attempting this, IMHO. Every rational company should behave as if they're attempting to become a monopoly, this is a completely meaningless point to argue either way.

I know plenty of small - and, actually, big - companies which have reasonably good relationships with their competition, actually. Craft breweries regularly collaborate with each other, as an example - even those which have taken significant capital investment.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#323

Post by lucaspiller »

moomin wrote: post #241
bsmithers wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We have a perfectly healthy cab ecosystem in my city, app-driven and with fare competition and city regulation Sure, but that doesn't exist in the majority of cities. The user experience is why I use Uber.

Uber's rhetoric doesn't seem appreciably different in London from elsewhere. And yeah, I'm a Londoner, don't really feel the need for Uber to exist in my area.

Here in Vilnius I feel the same. Uber was late to the game (which is weird as they have an engineering office here) so there were a number of other apps launched by local companies that worked with the existing taxi companies. They provided exactly the same service (mobile app where you can specify pickup and drop off locations, and card payment) as Uber, so when they finally launched it wasn’t a big deal.

It’s been two years since Uber launched and they still haven’t really taken off, mainly because they are a lot more expensive than the other apps and don’t have as many cars. Although Uber’s cars are a bit nicer (executive car vs 10yo Prius), people here are cost sensitive so that isn’t really a selling point.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#324

Post by overcast »

throwaway287391 wrote: post #282
overcast wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had a terrible experience my first trip to London with black cabs. Headed to Heathrow express, late for flight as it is, He tells me 3/4 of the trip through, no cabs accept credit. We pull up to a stop light, and a cab directly to our left, has "we accept credit" on the window. So now I'm sitting here driving around with the cab guy to find an ATM at 5am just to pay him.

I've learned to always, ALWAYS ask when I first step into a cab whether they accept card payments, anywhere in the world. As far as I can remember, every time I've done this the answer has always been "yes" and the card payment worked without a hitch at the end of the ride. Yet just about every time I took a cab without asking about cards upfront, the driver would tell me his reader isn't working and he'd have to dri…

I was half drunk / no sleep at the time. I probably did ask them, or just assumed like every other cab in the civilized world takes them. Anyhow, horrible.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#325

Post by throwaway287391 »

jackvalentine wrote: post #298
throwaway287391 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've learned to always, ALWAYS ask when I first step into a cab whether they accept card payments, anywhere in the world. As far as I can remember, every time I've done this the answer has always been "yes" and the card payment worked without a hitch at the end of the ride. Yet just about every time I took a cab without asking about cards upfront, the driver would tell me his reader isn't working and he'd have to dri…

Many places (check in advance!) require the driver to be upfront if their card reader isn't working or you're not obligated to pay. It's amazing how those finicky card readers miraculously start working when you say 'oh well, too bad I guess' and step out of the car!

That's a great strategy too if you know the law is on your side and are bold enough to pull it off. But I'm pretty non-confrontational (even when dealing with people I know are trying to cheat me) and when I take a cab I'm usually in an unfamiliar place where I didn't have the foresight to check on the cab regulations beforehand, so I'm going to stick with mine :)

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#326

Post by codeulike »

grecy wrote: post #79
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…

> a company that are seeking to become a worldwide cab monopoly Who said anything about them seeking to become a worldwide cab monopoly? They are a cab company, expanding globally. Any other company can do that too, if they want.

They are losing money at the moment, despite their 'success'. It is theorised that the only way they could become profitable is through monopoly and price rises.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#327

Post by Nursie »

alexasmyths wrote: post #306
Nursie wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> The Taxi business in every city is a 'monopoly'. Shares in this 'rent seeking entity' are bought by owning 'medallions'. This is just not true, and the medallion system doesn't seem to exist outside of the US. The rest of your post is just as much nonsense. There's a whole list of reasons Uber are having this happen, and none of it's political. Oh, and according to Uber, they aren't jobs - or else they'd have to c…

" they aren't jobs" Just 'let them eat cake' then? This is really quite insulting to the 20 000 - 40 000 people who are about to lose their source of income - most of them at the lower end of the economic scale - and the millions of users of Uber for whom Black cabs are just too expensive, because medallions or not - the system is de-facto a controlled economy. I highly doubt that a fairly operationally competent ent…

>> I highly doubt...

Yet that's exactly what has happened in multiple markets now. Uber have a history of pulling this stuff.

--edit-- and now I'm back at a real keyboard:

>> This is really quite insulting to the 20 000 - 40 000 people who are about to lose their source of income

So by that logic we should allow any company to continue to operate, regardless of how badly behaved?

I don't think this argument has much merit, especially when unemployment is at a record low and there is clearly a lot of appetite for services in this sector.

>> i.e. a populist action.

Which must mean it's wrong, obviously? That couldn't be a wave of information coming to light about how bad they are, and how they are not in line with regulations?

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#328

Post by kodablah »

Nursie wrote: post #318
erwan wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This decision has officially nothing to do with tax evasion/optimization. It is on grounds of consumer protection that Uber's licence is not being renewed. Anyone who has taken a black cab should immediately understand the hypocrisy motivating this decision. The user experience is absolutely horrendous and there's no good tracking system to make black cab drivers accountable. In short, as everyone knows, it is just a…

I didn't mention taxes, but it seems to be explicitly about non-cooperation in criminal matters, workers rights and all sorts of other areas. Black cabs are far from a monopoly, and Uber are far from the only alternative.

> ...it seems to be explicitly about...

The BBC article is a bit light on details. Do you have a link where I can read the detailed license revocation reasons so I can make my own judgement?

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#329

Post by jamiegreen »

vertex-four wrote: post #303
jamiegreen wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience does not match what you are saying. I was always taught that (unless a service charge is already included) you should tip 10-20% in good restaurants. Not to tip I believe is generally seen as rude/a sign that service was bad.

Of course, most of us don't regularly eat in "good restaurants" - pretty much anything on the high street/your local shopping centre isn't, and anywhere you can get a meal for under £15 a head before drinks doesn't count as a "good restaurant", in my books.

I mean where you draw the line is up to you, but if there are three of you x £15, plus drinks lets say total of £64 , I would normally round it up to 70. By good restaurants I meant anything that isn't fast food (Subway, McDs). But perhaps I am not a typical customer, I don't know.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#330

Post by AsyncAwait »

foldr wrote: post #291
AsyncAwait wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my city, especially as a disabled person, I've had vastly better experience with Uber than with regular cabs. Just being able to indicate precisely where to stop on a map is an incredible improvement for me over having to provide instructions to a cab driver who can't find the spot. Not having to deal with cash, drivers more willing to help etc. gives me a much better experience with an Uber.

London cabs can be hailed using apps and accept card payments, so Uber has no real advantage in those respects in London.

My concern is more about the precedent that this sets for other cities to follow suit.
Post reply on HN