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

Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 520 posts

Re: Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

#191

Post by omarhaneef »

Something about this doesn't make sense to me.

I take it for granted that the staff at Uber would do anything not to lose the license. I am sure that, for 17 months, they've been investing heavily in security systems, ID verification etc. They must have followed up on every complaint. If I were them, I would have just manually followed everything that the Cabs do till I had a technology in place.

It also seems that the city is making some effort to give them space to improve: 15 months, then 2 months.

So then why didn't the gap close in time? Is this because the technology platform was so massive that turning it just took more time? Or is there something about the details that I can't see?

Edit: I start with the assumption that both Uber and the City are trying to do their best, and don't ascribe nefarious intent to anyone.

Re: Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

#192

Post by cal97g »

morrbo wrote: post #168
dominotw wrote: post #160

>At least 14,000 trips involved drivers who weren’t who the riders thought they were, any idea what the source of this info is? And not sure what the timeframe here is. Is it 14000 since Uber started operating in london?

IIRC you can complain (either on uber or uber eats) that the driver didn't look like their photo. It might be from that. Not sure how else they can get the info

I've had uber eats deliveries by a women when the user account was male. Not ideal.

Re: Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

#193

Post by gjulianm »

UK-Al05 wrote: post #178
gjulianm wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Above you said "they're doing it because they like working for Uber". Now you say it's just the best option they have. That's quite different > If uber wasn't their best option they simply move to a better job. Simply? You know there are costs and risks associated with changing jobs, right? > If you ban uber you simply remove the current best option for most people working for uber This is blackmail and using workers…

People who want Uber banned are often middle-class people following their left-wing ideology pretending to be on side of the working class worker. That or black cab drivers. If you actually listen to vast majority workers working Uber they're ok with it. They enjoy the flexibility and the lack of obligations. If people want more fixed work they can get it at the moment. Essentially you are taking the choice away from…

They seem very happy indeed. So happy they have recently striked over pay and conditions [1]. A MIT study also showed the big profits they have (26% make more than minimum wage in the US!) [2].

>Your imposing your own morals on people who don't want your morals.

You are wrong. It is not morals. It is the law. Uber is bypassing laws, full stop.

1: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/may/08/uber-driv... 2: https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/02/mit-study-shows-how-much-d...

Re: Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

#194

Post by HPsquared »

gorgoiler wrote: post #38
daneyh wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically i'd agree with your sentiment. Unfortunately I remember what getting around was like pre-Uber and that unregulated minicab companies are no better for workers exploitation or working rights and passenger safety...where is TfL(Transport for Londons) action on those firms? or the many uber clones that have popped up recently (Bolt, Kapten et al.) Uber is really an easy target for them. The alternative is the…

It seems pretty common for public policy (in your example, minicab provision and regulation) to first fail and then for the rise of Uber to be promoted by the faithful as an alternative solution. In reality, Uber’s existence, no matter what the company or its supporters might say, is simply a different way of highlighting the very same failure in public policy. The poor have no bread? Let them eat cake. The citizens…

Banning cake doesn't seem like the solution though - then there's nothing!

Re: Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

#195

Post by dominotw »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #187
dominotw wrote: post #160

>At least 14,000 trips involved drivers who weren’t who the riders thought they were, any idea what the source of this info is? And not sure what the timeframe here is. Is it 14000 since Uber started operating in london?

The number comes from Cognizant who were hired to conduct an independent review [1]. They found that 43 drivers out of 45,000 drivers skirted Uber's identity checks committing identity fraud. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/78827b06-0f6a-11ea-a225-db2f231cf...

ok thank you.

I don't have FT subscription. But 43 out of 45k drivers seems like a pretty good number, certainly not a ban worthy number.

Re: Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

#196

Post by mrtksn »

dominotw wrote: post #160

>At least 14,000 trips involved drivers who weren’t who the riders thought they were, any idea what the source of this info is? And not sure what the timeframe here is. Is it 14000 since Uber started operating in london?

I've seen in Turkish forums people discussing driving Uber in the USA through proxy accounts because they cannot do it themselves legally on a tourist visa or because they were banned.

I would guess that if this is a widespread practice it is only a secret to the outsiders. Probably an investigation can find a way to frame this known secret in a way that is legally accepted in the court of law.

Re: Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

#197

Post by phatfish »

Jommi wrote: post #126
oliwarner wrote: post #61

I don't usually use Uber —we live in a place where it just doesn't exist— but I've been exposed to it a couple of times this last weekend. It's private hire but worse. A family member booked. A driver committed. The wait got shorter. Then it got longer. And longer. And then our trip was cancelled without reason. Another was booked. Same gig. We had no opportunity to 1-star those drivers for being dicks. The third arr…

Is HN really the place to conflate a single digit amount of personal anecdotes into a reason why someone should not use an app? What year was this? Where was this? This comment is worth absolutely nothing without specifics, and even then its a tiny data point which cannot offer any real perspective on the current news about Uber in London.

I know this is just "whataboutism". But the exact same comments are being made against mini-cab/black cabs all over this thread.

"I rode a black cab once before Uber and it was awful."

I'll trust the research from TFL rather than random anecdotes from either side, thanks.

Re: Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

#198

Post by harel »

I'm not a fan of companies like Uber or AirBnB who attempt a violent takeover of a market. However, as a consumer who needs to get from A to B, or stay at some random city, I find those services invaluable. The black cabs in London are expensive, never around when you need them, and until recently might have refused card payments (now they just seem unhappy about it). At the very least I was hoping Uber would make that industry wake up and join the modern world, but instead they chose to protest and block roads. With Uber, I always have a car available within minutes and the prices are reasonable. I just hope that the competition will take their place (and driver mass) if they do end up leaving.

Re: Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

#199

Post by thathndude »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #187
dominotw wrote: post #160

>At least 14,000 trips involved drivers who weren’t who the riders thought they were, any idea what the source of this info is? And not sure what the timeframe here is. Is it 14000 since Uber started operating in london?

The number comes from Cognizant who were hired to conduct an independent review [1]. They found that 43 drivers out of 45,000 drivers skirted Uber's identity checks committing identity fraud. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/78827b06-0f6a-11ea-a225-db2f231cf...

Thanks for posting the raw numbers. London is citing this 14,000 number as if its egregious, but my initial reaction was: "Out of how many total?" Based on the numbers you're posting Uber was literally 99.9% compliant. That's definitely not "unfit."

This is politics plain and simple. And not the first time Uber has had to play the game. This same thing played out in 2017. The courts will side with Uber.

Re: Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

#200

Post by thathndude »

harel wrote: post #198

I'm not a fan of companies like Uber or AirBnB who attempt a violent takeover of a market. However, as a consumer who needs to get from A to B, or stay at some random city, I find those services invaluable. The black cabs in London are expensive, never around when you need them, and until recently might have refused card payments (now they just seem unhappy about it). At the very least I was hoping Uber would make th…

Yep. I'm always amazed at how quickly people crap on Uber. In hindsight it's not a particularly revolutionary service. But does everyone remember how much the Taxi system sucked?
Post reply on HN