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

141–150 of 159 posts

Re: London black taxis plan congestion chaos to block Uber

#141

Post by pjc50 »

stuaxo wrote: post #56

So - >> TfL told the association last month that it believed Uber's vehicles were not strictly "equipped" with taximeters since there was not "some sort of connection between the device and the vehicle". Instead there is a device used for calculating how far it has gone, e.g. "metering"... this is a bollocks distinction.

It's correct, though; it's not attached to the drivetrain of the vehicle. Ruling that any GPS device capable of tracking distance constituted a "taximeter" and was therefore banned from private cars would be an unworkable disaster.

(Hmm, I wonder how Uber's metering copes with the Blackwall tunnel and the Woolwich ferry. My GPS directed me over the ferry once, resulting in a huge delay. Note that on the ferry a GPS would count as "moving" but a taximeter "stationary".)

Re: London black taxis plan congestion chaos to block Uber

#142

Post by ibmthrowaway218 »

lmm wrote: post #140
ibmthrowaway218 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the absence of a pre-agreed/fixed price most minicab drivers will charge based on a combination of distance/time measured using the vehicles trip-meter/odometer and a clock. That's not much different to what the Uber app is doing in (surge multiplier excepted).

Minicabs in London are required to be pre-booked, otherwise they're breaking the law. I can't say I've used them a lot but when I have I've always been quoted a price when booking.

I rarely ever agree a price when booking a minicab in advance, but I use the same minicab firms I've used for a long time so I know they're unlikely to rip me off.

Re: London black taxis plan congestion chaos to block Uber

#143

Post by ibmthrowaway218 »

twic wrote: post #103
ibmthrowaway218 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right to protest is also enshrined in UK law (within a huge number of constraints). Other (one-off or infrequent) protests such as Critical Mass certainly obstruct free passage along the highway, but they are tolerated.

Critical Mass isn't a protest, it's a procession, and it's not tolerated, it's operating perfectly within the rights of its participants: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/j...

Fair enough, but there's enough stupid/aggresive behaviour on the London CM for me (and a whole bunch of other cyclists I know) to stop attending it.

Re: London black taxis plan congestion chaos to block Uber

#144

Post by iaskwhy »

JamisonM wrote: post #129
iaskwhy wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

While I understand your point, my experience doesn't really follow that logic (I have lived in Lisbon for 25 years and I'm on my third year in London). In my experience, while it's usually sunshine, when it rains in Lisbon it does rain most of the day and it's usually not drizzle but heavy rain (which I believe is the reason why precipitation is so high in volume in Lisbon; Oporto is even worse) while in London it can drizzle every day for a couple of minutes and then stop and "clear" (clear London style, meaning less clouds) and then drizzle again hours later. I assume London's sky is more chaotic because we're in an island in the middle of the sea but I'm no expert on the matter.

I usually say my Portuguese friends about London: "It doesn't rain a lot but it rains every day. Thing is, by Lisbon standards we would never call this rain." :)

Another curiosity is how tough the winter is in both cities. In London it's the greyness and lack of sunlight for months and months. In Lisbon it's the heavy rains. I spent this last winter in Lisbon and it was most probably one of the winters with more precipitation. Humans exagerate, I know that, but it really felt like it (heavy) rained for almost six months. It stopped a few weeks ago, sunny Lisbon is back again at full throttle!

Re: London black taxis plan congestion chaos to block Uber

#145

Post by stuki »

buro9 wrote: post #57
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…

> 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…

Why would the 99% of people who are able to exit and enter a regular car, benefit from being carted around in a "fully accessible vehicle?"

What's wrong with simply providing a transportation allowance, or means tested reimbursements, to those few who may need it, and set it high enough that it becomes profitable for a reasonable fraction of car for hire drivers to equip their car to deal with them?

Re: London black taxis plan congestion chaos to block Uber

#146

Post by hobolobo »

LanceH wrote: post #107
hobolobo wrote: post #28

The impression is that Uber are somehow freeing customers from unscrupulous and gouging taxi drivers. Taxi customers aren't being freed, they're simply under new management.

They're obviously getting something out of it or they wouldn't be customers of the new service.

Just because they're getting something out of it doesn't mean it's a better deal all round. Amazon saves individuals money but that doesn't ameliorate the externalities that Amazon's business model create.

Re: London black taxis plan congestion chaos to block Uber

#147

Post by twic »

corin_ wrote: post #110
twic wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

90% would be an extraordinary profit margin. Virtually no business operates with a 90% profit margin. Startups certainly don't.

Ignore my numbers, my point was just that without knowing total amount spent on salaries, total net profit, and the tax rates on both, there's no way to state which is going to provide more taxes, and that therefore there's no point talking numbers on one side without the other side to match. (But yes, your point is accurate.)

And my point is that for any plausible set of numbers, you can state which will provide more taxes.

Re: London black taxis plan congestion chaos to block Uber

#149

Post by ZenPro »

Shivetya wrote: post #135
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…

There is no reason why someone cannot come up with a service to cater to the needs of the disabled. Hence, there is no reason to grant monopoly status just because you agree too. Uber should not have too. Now I can see granting some exceptions to companies that agree to do so, bus lanes and extra time idling. We can simply come up with more and more burdens until competition is impossible, its not hard. Everyone can…

>> There is no reason why someone cannot come up with a service to cater to the needs of the disabled. Uber should not have too.

It is very rarely I am disgusted by a sentence but you have achieved it.

Replace disabled with Blacks or Hispanics or Females or any group of society you want.

Seriously, take a pause and consider what you just typed.

Re: London black taxis plan congestion chaos to block Uber

#150

Post by ZenPro »

stuki wrote: post #145
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…

Why would the 99% of people who are able to exit and enter a regular car, benefit from being carted around in a "fully accessible vehicle?" What's wrong with simply providing a transportation allowance, or means tested reimbursements, to those few who may need it, and set it high enough that it becomes profitable for a reasonable fraction of car for hire drivers to equip their car to deal with them?

>> Why would the 99% of people who are able to exit and enter a regular building with stairs, benefit from ramps around a "fully accessible building?"

What's wrong with simply providing an allowance, or means tested reimbursements, to those few who may need it, and set it high enough that it becomes profitable for a reasonable fraction of supermarkets to equip their building to deal with them?

Fixed that for you.

Damn disabled people and their inconvenient needs. They should just be disabled elsewhere away from the commercial companies you hold dear.

Post reply on HN