Uber London loses licence to operate • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#411

Post by urbanj » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 2:12 PM UTC

UK-AL wrote: post #409

vertex-four wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They already had a warning shot four months ago, when their license renewal was denied in favour of a temporary renewal for four months. This one is the next step in the process. Uber isn't magic - if there's pent-up demand for a company that fills Uber's boots, one will pop up. The issues TfL have with Uber aren't to do with the service they provide, it's failing to comply with TfL's administrative requirements. You…

There have been few companies that have tried. Some mentioned in thread. They all had trouble working with tfl. One company licenced their software with an existing cab company in order to work with them. TFL started an investigation and unlicensed the previously legally licenced private taxi company for no stated reason. Make no mistake they are activity hostile against innovation that could make taxi travel cheaper…

Suck it up, Brexit cunt.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#412

Post by aianus » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 2:16 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #183

salcoco wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You wanna pay £8 with card? Really?" That's when I stopped using black cabs.

"Yes", or if they make a fuss, report them - you've got their license number on the plate right in front of you, and actual accountability rather than an unaccountable star-review system.

Why would I pay more money for a higher chance of getting into an argument with some asshole cab driver instead of using Uber, saving money, and avoiding the hassle entirely?

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#413

Post by Jaruzel » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 2:16 PM UTC

UK-AL wrote: post #383

squigg wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but you will have to do more to explain your point on black cab user experience being horrendous. Whilst it can be hard to get a hold of one at times, in my experience of 20 years of using them, the user experience is great - the drivers are typically friendly and get you there as quickly as they can. I have used Uber many times in London and abandoned it months ago, as the drivers don't have the local know…

I've had black cab drivers insist that I can't use my card, and that I must get out. I've had cab drivers refuse to drive me to certain parts of London because it's inconvenient for them. They are also really expensive.

Black Cabs in London are wonderful, except:

1. When you need one at about 10pm in the City, and stand on the street corner for ages watching dozens of them go by with their lights off and no passengers.

2. When you are less than 1/2 a mile north of the Thames, and the cabbie refuses the ride because he 'doesn't go south of the river, mate'

3. Same as #2 but 'doesn't go north of the river, mate'

4. Same as #2 and #3 but for inside/outside the north/south circular ringroad.

5. Deliberately ignoring your route request, and then snarles the cab up in non-moving traffic all while the meter is still running (Black Cabs charge by time, not distance).

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#414

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 2:17 PM UTC

UK-AL wrote: post #409

vertex-four wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They already had a warning shot four months ago, when their license renewal was denied in favour of a temporary renewal for four months. This one is the next step in the process. Uber isn't magic - if there's pent-up demand for a company that fills Uber's boots, one will pop up. The issues TfL have with Uber aren't to do with the service they provide, it's failing to comply with TfL's administrative requirements. You…

There have been few companies that have tried. Some mentioned in thread. They all had trouble working with tfl. One company licenced their software with an existing cab company in order to work with them. TFL started an investigation and unlicensed the previously legally licenced private taxi company for no stated reason. Make no mistake they are activity hostile against innovation that could make taxi travel cheaper…

[deleted]

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#415

Post by pfarnsworth » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 2:18 PM UTC

mattlondon wrote: post #389

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…

> 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. Pardon? John Warboys - a registered black cab driver - was convicted of 12 rapes in 2009, and was thought to have carried out over 100. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Worboys David perry - a registered black cab driver - was convicted of…

Another example of how lazy people who don't want to do research are easily persuaded by the propaganda.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#416

Post by Jaruzel » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 2:20 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #182

vixen99 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that applies to tips?

"Tips" are not a thing for London taxis. It's not the US, the price is the actual price.

Well you kinda do... If he's done a good job (direct route, not taken the piss, been polite) then the custom is to round up the fare to the nearest £1.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#417

Post by cjsuk » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 2:20 PM UTC

astura wrote: post #316

cjsuk wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mugging is a colloquial term. Yes I did report the faulty reader. The reader was reading cards and acknowledging them ergo it wasn't faulty and I was charged correctly apparently. Unfortunately this was, to use another colloquial term, bollocks.

No, "mugging" is not a colloquial term for "overcharged" or anything else for that matter.

I’ve lived in London for over 35 years. It’s common parlance. That kebab shop was a mugging. You were mugged in the apple store. Etc etc.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#418

Post by vertex-four » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 2:21 PM UTC

UK-AL wrote: post #409

vertex-four wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They already had a warning shot four months ago, when their license renewal was denied in favour of a temporary renewal for four months. This one is the next step in the process. Uber isn't magic - if there's pent-up demand for a company that fills Uber's boots, one will pop up. The issues TfL have with Uber aren't to do with the service they provide, it's failing to comply with TfL's administrative requirements. You…

There have been few companies that have tried. Some mentioned in thread. They all had trouble working with tfl. One company licenced their software with an existing cab company in order to work with them. TFL started an investigation and unlicensed the previously legally licenced private taxi company for no stated reason. Make no mistake they are activity hostile against innovation that could make taxi travel cheaper…

Reading Taxify's side of the story alone reveals significant bias, and even that seems to suggest that what happened is that Taxify bought an existing company for its minicab license - which is practically bound to be a problem.

Why couldn't they find a customer to sell their product to without acquiring that customer?

The problem wasn't the app - it was the company bypassing the licensing process.

Interestingly, their link suggesting that hundreds of private hire operators are in the process of being reviewed does not say what they think it says, and does not in fact contain any statistics for private hire operators being reviewed.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#419

Post by dalbasal » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 2:23 PM UTC

Uber is such a contentious topic that a decision like this is ipso facto political.

There are [1] competitors (especially black cabs)that have a very strong interest to lobby against uber. [2] There are pro labour politicans that see Uber as workaround for labour laws, and the vanguard of a wider threat to labour norms. [3] Now, there are feminists and work culture interested people reacting to all the accusations about Uber's internal cultural issues.

Those aren't the quoted resons for the decisions, but they are a relevant political context.

The cabs were the first (and obviously self interested) objectors and Uber got used to fighting them and their politcal influence. This seems to have lead them down a cultural path. An agressive, ask-forgiveness-not-permission culture. A embattled rightous self image. "All the accusations against us are self serving incumbent bullshit!"

"Transport for London and the mayor have caved in to a small number of people who want to restrict consumer choice."

Disprupting taxis is/was the goal, so that antagonism was inevitable. On-demand labour is the method. Without that, they couldn't have grown like they did. The stuff they lost their liscence over,... that was an unforced error.

"reporting serious criminal offences, obtaining medical certificates and driver background checks." - also greyball

There's no good reason for Uber to lose a big market over that. Complying would not have disrupted their operations one bit.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#420

Post by kodablah » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 2:23 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #365

kodablah wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw those links, and can Google others as well when searching for Uber wrongdoing. I want their details, not a commenters. I saw the Tfl's statement which only had four abstract bullet points. What did they ask about Greyball and what was answered? Which unreported crimes and were there cover-up attempts by the company? In general, one might expect a level of detailed transparency in these rulings lest it's seen as…

I presume it's available somewhere, if one looks hard enough. london.gov.uk has a lot of detailed info, including minutes of transport committee meetings, various FOI requests (including an Uber one from earlier in the year - https://www.london.gov.uk/foi-disclosure-log/foi-uber-meetin... ) If there isn't enough already published then you could consider submitting an FOI yourself. --edit-- This may be interesting and…

Thanks! Digging now, but only finding a couple-statement motion and some congestion info by uber and separately by inrix.

If anyone has a link to the actual investigation/details, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I'll keep digging and if I find it I'll post it.