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

591–600 of 609 posts

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#591

Post by snthd »

vizzah wrote: post #181
crtasm wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their previously voiced views on cyclists should be taken into account though. http://road.cc/content/news/56999-addison-lee-chairman-airs-... The Keen Group have always been reliable for us (but could hold similar views for all I know)

You can downvote, but I hate cyclists in cities , because many of them break road rules. They think of themselves as neither pedestrians, nor vehicles. When they drive on pavements, they presume being pedestrian and expect to be treated equally (even though they operate a large mass of steel, often with high speeds, enough to cause serious injuries). When they are on the road, they like to be pedestrians and cross tr…

Better to have the selfish people on bikes than in cars.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#592

Post by stuaxo »

ubernostrum wrote: post #550
twic wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're talking about a license in the sense of a right, like a copyright or patent license, or a license to drill for oil somewhere, then yes. But this is a license in the sense of regulatory approval of a specific organisation, which is not something it's proper to buy and sell. You can't buy someone's driving license, gun license, medical license, license, etc.

In the insurance field "acqui-license" deals, like "acqui-hire" in tech, are not impossible or even necessarily discouraged. Every US state has its own set of regulations for who can be issued a license to sell insurance, and usually it's easier from a bureaucracy perspective to maintain the license once you have it than it is to get a new one. So buying and selling of companies solely for their existing insurance li…

Sure, though The UK is another regulatory regime again.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#593

Post by gjjrfcbugxbhf »

mining wrote: post #432
gjjrfcbugxbhf wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that in UK approx 95% of such offences are carried out be people with no prior convictions - so you don't weed out that many attackers this way.

If that 95% assumes that people undergo background checks, my assumption is that number might decrease.

95% is sexual crimes in UK in general.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#594

Post by tim333 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #219
tim333 wrote: post #158

As one of the 3,500,000 users I hope they sort it out. I've not heard any demands from us fellow Uber users to have the service banned for our own protection. The assaults and muggings which happen are usually because someones walking sometime's because they can't afford a cab.

I think you'll find sexual assault happens because an assailant sexually assaults someone, not because someone can't afford a black cab. Do you really consider it acceptable for Uber not to do legally required background checks (DBD, health)?

I think Uber should do background checks. I think the chances of sexual assault are considerably higher walking down the street than getting a cab/Uber the same distance.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#595

Post by vkou »

jaredklewis wrote: post #571
twic wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're talking about a license in the sense of a right, like a copyright or patent license, or a license to drill for oil somewhere, then yes. But this is a license in the sense of regulatory approval of a specific organisation, which is not something it's proper to buy and sell. You can't buy someone's driving license, gun license, medical license, license, etc.

Not sure the drivers license is a fair metaphor. That makes some sense: the government is saying this particular individual appears to be capable of driving. People change (thus the need for periodic renewals) but usually don’t change so dramatically that they can no longer drive. But how does regulatory approval work with institutions? Institutions are ever changing, and like the ship of Theseus, eventually the orig…

Typically, every year, or every X years, you undergo an audit, that verifies that your processes are still compliant.

Yes, the edge case of "Fire everyone and hire some other people" does not trigger re-licensing. Also, hardly anybody does this, in order to do anything other then downgrade employees to contractors, or union-bust. That's because 99% of the time, companies, even with a lot of turnover, don't change their business processes out of the blue.

99% of the time, when they are being acquired for their licenses, they do.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#596

Post by pbhjpbhj »

tim333 wrote: post #594
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you'll find sexual assault happens because an assailant sexually assaults someone, not because someone can't afford a black cab. Do you really consider it acceptable for Uber not to do legally required background checks (DBD, health)?

I think Uber should do background checks. I think the chances of sexual assault are considerably higher walking down the street than getting a cab/Uber the same distance.

I'm not so sure, we'd need to look at statistics for that.

Regardless background checks should be done; just like cleaning checks in commercial kitchens, you may be more likely to get sick from home cooking, that seems largely irrelevant.

Another analogue: Most child sexual abuse is by family members, I don't see that as a reason not to do background checks on care workers.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#597

Post by vidarh »

Anderkent wrote: post #528
vidarh wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In nearly 20 years of relying extensively on black cabs as I don't have a drivers license, I've never experienced a single one of the above. Sounds like you're exceptionally unlucky.

Let me guess: you're white, male, in your 30s+, and usually in a suit when calling a cab?

Rarely in a suit. The rest, yes, but the same also applies to my black ex, who incidentally also uses taxis far more than me. No doubt there's plenty of racism in the UK, but of all the places she's complained about racist behavior, black cabs has never been of them. Maybe we've just been lucky. Or maybe you've been extremely unlucky.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#598

Post by Nursie »

isostatic wrote: post #574
Nursie wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree to some extent. Having a single app you can open, regardless of what city or even country you're in, and knowing you'll get a good service at a good price, that's a great idea! The behaviour of Uber has been terrible, and it's a shame they don't operate much more like a passenger->service matching system with ratings, rather that operating their own fleet kinda-sorta-maybe (but they're all self-employed!)

Mini cab drivers are often self employed, they pay a "radio fee" for the booking office, provide their own vehicle, licensing etc, have fares set centrally, and they keep their fares (and take cash to avoid paying tax). How is uber any different?

On that regard I would say that the court case a little while back about the employment status of uber drivers might have some bearing. IIRC they demanded some drivers be available at certain times, and did other things that put the lie to "self employed" status.

Don't get me wrong, I know all the shady shit that goes on in this direction with delivery drivers etc, and I expect at some point we're going to end up with a big shift in the rules.

With Uber it's just one of many things that I dislike about them.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#599

Post by Nursie »

isostatic wrote: post #575
tigershark wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience Addison Lee, Kabbee and the other private mini cabs are completely useless for uber use case. Unless you booked them in advance you need to be prepared to wait up to 30 minutes or more. With uber I can request a ride and I'm pretty sure that at worst in 5 minutes I'm inside the car.

And you're just as likely to be attacked/raped/whatever with a local minicab firm, probabpynmore as there's less tracking of what's happening.

Odd then, that the police are specifically calling out Uber for non-cooperation on this, and a failure to put proper checks in place.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#600

Post by kbart »

leot wrote: post #489
kbart wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of local cab companies in my city also let you rate a driver now, so it's not a unique selling point of Uber anymore.

When was the last time you rated a local cab? If no one uses the system it might as well not exist.

Last night, actually.
Post reply on HN