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

London black taxis plan congestion chaos to block Uber

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 159 posts

Re: London black taxis plan congestion chaos to block Uber

#121

Post by bananas »

cjrp wrote: post #61
bananas wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is pretty good at that too and knows what the traffic is before you get there. It's impressive but no more impressive than navigating a 4 million line software product intuitively...

Google isn't (yet) quite as good at predicting traffic though. For example, a cabby would know that if a Chelsea game's finishing at 5pm, he should avoid Stamford Bridge.

TFL and AA road watch know that so there is no reason Google couldn't. It's all data - after all the cabby most likely got it from the same data through a different aggregation medium (radio/paper).

Re: London black taxis plan congestion chaos to block Uber

#122

Post by tragic »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #96
aspidistra wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither the Channel Islands nor the Isle of Man are in the UK.

Sure, they are 'crown dependencies'. What's the appropriate term to use instead of 'UK' to include all such fiddly bits? rmc's logic is sound, they just made a mistake of terminology.

It's a moot point. For all practical purposes, and with some exceptions, tax havens around the world are run out of London, by our substantial and much-admired financial services sector.

So, as far as I'm concerned, the correct term for all those fiddly bits - constitutional niceties be damned - is 'the City'.

Re: London black taxis plan congestion chaos to block Uber

#123

Post by alistairSH »

jgrahamc wrote: post #52
casca wrote: post #22

The Black Cabs in London have a long-standing monopoly on picking people up on the street and providing a metered journey. This is mandated by law. To become a black cab (not always black in colour) driver, it is necessary to take an advanced test called The Knowledge where you are expected to know every London street and landmark along with best routes based on random street closures. It takes about 3 years to study…

One of the key benefits of The Knowledge is that I can jump in a black cab in London and say "Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons" and have a driver who can instantly decide which way to go... 1. Without asking for any clarification 2. Without typing a bunch of stuff into a GPS device 3. And with knowledge of time/space specific optimizations Yes, black cabs are not cheap. You are getting a very specific service for…

Meh. My last black cab experience was supposed to take me from Paddington Station to the Marriott Marble Arch. The cab dropped me at Marriott Park Lane and sped off before I realized he had left me at the wrong hotel.

I'm convinced he did this on purpose. It was rush hour, there was a bomb scare nearby, and I assume he didn't want to sit in traffic. Of course, if he had just explained that to me, I would have been happy to walk the remaining few blocks. Instead, I was just left at the wrong location and a bit confused.

So much for "The Knowledge".

Re: London black taxis plan congestion chaos to block Uber

#124

Post by claudius »

Karunamon wrote: post #101
lmm wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're either a minicab offering pre-booked journeys or you're a taxi with a meter. If Uber is claiming they're a pre-booked journey service rather than a taxi then yes, they shouldn't be using meters and that would be illegal. If you want to change the law then by all means write to your MP or whatever, but in the meantime the law as it is should be enforced, even against fashionable companies.

> but in the meantime the law as it is should be enforced This attitude puzzles me greatly. Rule of law is a principle, not a dogmatic application of The Rules Über Alles. Crap laws should be ignored.

> Crap laws should be ignored.

So who gets to decide which laws are “crap laws” and which laws are proper laws that should be obeyed? Last time I checked, this was usually not the job of some random startup firm but rather the responsibility of parliament. You can argue that sometimes it is appropriate to fight against specific laws by ignoring them if the cost of not doing so vastly outweights the cost of lowering the authority of the law. I don’t think taxi laws fall into that category – if the current laws required all drivers to be white, I could maybe understand fighting that law by disobedience, but otherwise?

Re: London black taxis plan congestion chaos to block Uber

#125

Post by paulrov »

msy wrote: post #72
buro9 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any advances that Uber makes will benefit all mini-cab companies and most importantly, passengers. Except for all of the disabled ones, the wheelchair users, the ones who only wish to travel a very short distance and are unable to do so alone (the pregnant, mothers with pushchairs, the extremely inebriated, elderly, injured, etc). The monopoly and some privileges (bus lane access, pick up fares anywhere) is granted…

Black cabs have no obligation to pick up fares and will regularly refuse to take trips that they feel are inconvenient or they think will likely result in a return journey without a fare, even after you're in the cab. Want to go south and it's near the end of the driver's shift and he lives north? Back to waiting for you. This is in comparison to the NYC system where once you're in the cab, they're obligated to take…

> Black cabs have no obligation to pick up fares and will regularly refuse to take trips

As anyone trying to get a cab after 10 knows

"naaaaahhhhh mate" is all you're going to hear at times

Re: London black taxis plan congestion chaos to block Uber

#126

Post by paulrov »

jgrahamc wrote: post #52
casca wrote: post #22

The Black Cabs in London have a long-standing monopoly on picking people up on the street and providing a metered journey. This is mandated by law. To become a black cab (not always black in colour) driver, it is necessary to take an advanced test called The Knowledge where you are expected to know every London street and landmark along with best routes based on random street closures. It takes about 3 years to study…

One of the key benefits of The Knowledge is that I can jump in a black cab in London and say "Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons" and have a driver who can instantly decide which way to go... 1. Without asking for any clarification 2. Without typing a bunch of stuff into a GPS device 3. And with knowledge of time/space specific optimizations Yes, black cabs are not cheap. You are getting a very specific service for…

"The Knowledge" is highly overrated, many times I've encountered cab drivers who turned out to be absolutely clueless or glued to their GPS and confused.

End up directing them myself half the time

Re: London black taxis plan congestion chaos to block Uber

#127

Post by bananas »

gadders wrote: post #33
return0 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in 2014, there should be no need to make people memorize those thing to the risk of their heads exploding. Maybe if the Black Cabs had used their network to create an AI-powered optimal route-finding system, they wouldn't be afraid of competition.

Ha. I'd be interested to see anyone manage that. On top of this, in central London it's pretty built up so SatNav doesn't always work in the canyons between buildings.

Works fine with Google Maps for me, even in blackwall tunnel. I think there is some inertial navigation through device accelerometers as well.

Re: London black taxis plan congestion chaos to block Uber

#128

Post by claudius »

snitko wrote: post #118
nodata wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is that cheapest must be best? Try safety of the passenger, upkeep of the vehicle, all the other reasons mentioned elsewhere on this page...

My argument is that market should decide. If some people want cheap and unsafe, let them have it. If some people want expensive and licenced - let them have it too. In Europe and the US you currently have a situation where those who want a cheaper ride essentially subsidize those who value safety more. That is in no way fair.

> My argument is that market should decide.

Or maybe, just maybe, the people should decide instead of random companies who don’t pay taxes. And ‘the people’ usually decide by voting for their favourite MP who can then implement their wishes. Laws regarding regulation of taxis did not fall down one day and then were accepted as the god-given rights of taxi drivers but were implemented because the general population thought them to be a good thing™.

It’s not up to Uber to decide otherwise.

Re: London black taxis plan congestion chaos to block Uber

#129

Post by JamisonM »

iaskwhy wrote: post #100
MRSallee wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rains a lot in London.

It's one of my missions to correct this falacy. The number of days with rain in London is just around average and the overall precipitation is quite low. Here's an example with data comparing London and Lisbon (which people usually believe is always sunny): Rainy days per year in London: 110.4 Rainy days per year in Lisbon: 117.0 Precipitation (mm) per year in London: 591.8 Precipitation (mm) per year in Lisbon: 774…

Check out the mean sunshine hours in those tables to figure out why Lisbon is perceived to always be sunny, it is because it is. Literally twice the sunny hours a year.

There is a pretty big difference between 12 hours of cloud and drizzle and 2 hours of steady rain followed by 10 of sunshine in terms of the human misery factor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_duration

Re: London black taxis plan congestion chaos to block Uber

#130

Post by snitko »

claudius wrote: post #128
snitko wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My argument is that market should decide. If some people want cheap and unsafe, let them have it. If some people want expensive and licenced - let them have it too. In Europe and the US you currently have a situation where those who want a cheaper ride essentially subsidize those who value safety more. That is in no way fair.

> My argument is that market should decide. Or maybe, just maybe, the people should decide instead of random companies who don’t pay taxes. And ‘the people’ usually decide by voting for their favourite MP who can then implement their wishes. Laws regarding regulation of taxis did not fall down one day and then were accepted as the god-given rights of taxi drivers but were implemented because the general population th…

I just don't understand, how is it that in your mind voting is a better way to let consumers decide than actually giving them choice? Alright, let me stop right here. I know where this is going. You like state and regulations. I don't. I think each individual should decide on his own with his own money he spends or doesn't spend.
Post reply on HN