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

241–250 of 520 posts

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

#241

Post by jclos »

thinkindie wrote: post #217

have you ever wondered what makes services like Uber affordable? 1) underpaid drivers 2) VC money dropped into an otherwise unsustainable business I'm pretty sure Uber will raise prices the moment it kills the competition

The affordability is only one thing that draws people to Uber. The convenience of the app and the fact that the fare is prepaid (and therefore there is no incentive for the driver to fuck around to inflate their fare) are imho at least as important. If the fare is known in advance I can make an informed decision about whether I can afford this ride. Taking a normal taxi is just always a gamble: will they try to win me over by taking the short route? Will they try to fuck me over? Will they get far and then say that they only accept cash, thus driving me to an ATM and charging even more? Who knows!

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

#242

Post by omarhaneef »

itamarst wrote: post #201
omarhaneef wrote: post #191

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 t…

You would think Uber Autonomous Vehicles group would do everything they can not to hit pedestrians. Yet according to the NTSB, previous to killing a pedestrian in Arizona Uber had a weak safety culture ( https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Documents/2019-HWY18MH010-B... ). Even worse, "Pedestrian outside crosswalk not assigned goal of crossing street", "Tracking history not considered when classification changes", "Pred…

That is a very cynical view, one I do not share, but one that it seems is shared by most people here.

But, for the sake of argument, let me grant you that some large subset of the decision makers were callous about these safety concerns.

I don't know how they would still not be sensitive to the need to respond to the authority that has only conditionally let it have its license back. I mean, that sort of threat has a tendency to focus one, even if one is cynical about their motives.

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

#243

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

maxehmookau wrote: post #226

I'm always amazed at how fatalist about this sort of thing Londoners are. Like losing Uber will be a massive problem for a huge portion of the population. London has, by FAR, the best, cheapest and most efficient public transport in the entire UK. Uber is, yeah, cheaper than a black cab but also why is it cheaper? Worse working conditions, VC-subsidised, lower standards for vetting (as we've seen here!) It's not sust…

> Uber is, yeah, cheaper than a black cab but also why is it cheaper?

Another huge reason is that black cab drivers need to pass The Knowledge, a test of London streets, that often takes 3-4 years of study to pass, and AFAIK the requirements for this test haven't changed in the age of smartphones. This is utterly absurd with modern GPS, and just serves as protectionism and a false barrier to entry for new drivers.

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

#244

Post by mkolodny »

omarhaneef wrote: post #191

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 t…

One possibility is that, as in the US [0], the London taxi industry has a lot of sway in politics. I'd guess that the taxi lobby had a lot to do with this decision.

“Any London politician wants the black cabs on their side. They carry a political and electoral clout that is way beyond their numbers. There is nothing secret about that,” says Daniel Moylan, who was deputy chairman of TfL under Mr Johnson. [1]

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/31/the-t... [1] https://www.ft.com/content/41a0ff40-a383-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c9...

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

#245

Post by harel »

thinkindie wrote: post #235
harel wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why I differentiated my like and dislike. As a consumer, it's a service I use. I would use anyone who gave me that service and driver-mass. As a citizen of the net, I dislike them for their practices. But to be perfectly honest I rather call an uber than stand in the rain waiting for a black cab.

i understand that, but we should also understand that black cabs don't have softbank showering billions to subside uber rides and at the same time squeeze any possible costs out of their drivers.

I totally get that. And you know what, If black cabs were nicer, not THAT expensive, and, available(!) I'd be happy to use them. But they are, like all unionised services, stuck in the 70s. I don't mind paying more. I do mind paying a LOT more for less. I am totally aware Uber is subsidised. But what makes uber uber, is their availability and ease of use.

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

#246

Post by harel »

crazygringo wrote: post #231
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…

> who attempt a violent takeover of a market What is a "violent" takeover? What would a nonviolent takeover be? I'm all for new companies providing better services to consumers. If they take over a market, isn't that because the existing market wasn't meeting consumer needs? A new company taking over a market is generally a good thing, the creative force of capitalism itself. (Provided it's not done by ignoring legit…

Why do people have the need to take over a market in the first place? There is room in such a big market for many players. Big and small. This obsession with growth is not healthy. I don't care if Uber takes me or Lyft, or Kapten. No brand loyalty here. I do care that SOMEONE takes me safely and at a reasonable price.

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

#247

Post by eggy »

If the concern over rider safety was that somebody could pose as an Uber driver and update a photo to make it work, why are black cabs not also deemed unsafe? Couldn't somebody borrow a friend's black cab, slap on a fake photo, and work the city? Maybe a stretch, and more work, but the same concern is there, no? I guess the black cabs have some powerful lobbyists in parliment? Yellow taxis in NYC were a monopoly, and medallions cost a fortune, and somehow it seems to have settled down a bit. Some latecomers to the medallion gig lost a lot in the transistion, but isn't that true of any new jump in technology or service?

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

#248

Post by folkrav »

BWGB wrote: post #236
crazygringo wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who attempt a violent takeover of a market What is a "violent" takeover? What would a nonviolent takeover be? I'm all for new companies providing better services to consumers. If they take over a market, isn't that because the existing market wasn't meeting consumer needs? A new company taking over a market is generally a good thing, the creative force of capitalism itself. (Provided it's not done by ignoring legit…

Agreed. Black cabbies have had it good for such a long time, cash in hand, monopolising the taxi business in London . I got in a cab booked using a taxi version app and the driver complained about paying % fee to the app and only getting paid once a month. Welcome to the rest of the world where people pay taxes and only get paid at the end of every month.

> Welcome to the rest of the world where people [...] only get paid at the end of every month.

Wait, what? You get paid once a month? Is this a UK thing? Every single job I've had over here (Canada) was either once every two weeks, or two times a month.

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

#249

Post by quaquaqua1 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #243
maxehmookau wrote: post #226

I'm always amazed at how fatalist about this sort of thing Londoners are. Like losing Uber will be a massive problem for a huge portion of the population. London has, by FAR, the best, cheapest and most efficient public transport in the entire UK. Uber is, yeah, cheaper than a black cab but also why is it cheaper? Worse working conditions, VC-subsidised, lower standards for vetting (as we've seen here!) It's not sust…

> Uber is, yeah, cheaper than a black cab but also why is it cheaper? Another huge reason is that black cab drivers need to pass The Knowledge, a test of London streets, that often takes 3-4 years of study to pass, and AFAIK the requirements for this test haven't changed in the age of smartphones. This is utterly absurd with modern GPS, and just serves as protectionism and a false barrier to entry for new drivers.

This comment is based as can be. I don't care if my driver has memorized the streets 100%. I just want a ride down the street for a halfway reasonable price, and the reason I probably want it is because a car is a bit faster and much more lazy/convenient to get there, especially with 3 friends who don't feel like power walking and changing trains twice.

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

#250

Post by Jommi »

lhopki01 wrote: post #164
djohnston wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it costs 100 quid to go from heathrow to zone 3 via black cab, and about 35 for uber. "Uber of course go with phone you then just don't show if they don't like the route and waste half and hour of yours. At least it was a two way conversation with a cabbie." I completely disagree. The uber app shows the route the driver is taking and offers way more transparency than a black cab.

It doesn't matter if it shows the route. Uber in my experience will side with the driver if they take a bad route. I was swindled for triple the price because of a fictitious gas leak. Driver took a very circuitous route that just so happened to take in some very fast roads to increase distance and price. When I complained to Uber they just said it was a normal route. On the map the route looks like a sickle. How can…

I feel like you're not giving us all the details of this case. What do you mean by fast roads? Uber calculates price on both distance and time, so fast rides can also be to your advantage. How do you know the gas leak was fictitious?
Post reply on HN