Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing • Hacker News Board

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

#401

Post by PaulRobinson » Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 6:02 PM UTC

quest88 wrote: post #391

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…

I don't know what I'm missing, but why not let customers decide if they want to use a lower standards for vetting service, and let drivers decide if they want worse working conditions. Note that I don't completely agree with your statements, but assuming they're true, my question still stands.

Because the UK - like most of Europe - believes the free market is a poor mechanism to protect vulnerable people from rape and physical assault.

I'm not being flippant here: customers have routinely shown that for lower prices they'll suffer almost anything, to the point that safer alternatives become uncompetitive.

TfL isn't asking for much here: just that drivers are vetted properly and consistently. Every other firm in London is asked to do it, and complies. If Uber can put them all out of business by saving money on not doing that, the market will make the industry less safe for passengers.

We have voted in people to ensure that doesn't happen, because we want protection from the free market, simple as.

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

#402

Post by peristeronic » Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 6:03 PM UTC

kd5bjo wrote: post #214

itamarst wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> "Pedestrian outside crosswalk not assigned goal of crossing street", "Tracking history not considered when classification changes", "Predicted path depended on object’s goal" To be fair, I could see myself implementing these sort of heuristics to get a working prototype. On the other hand, I deliberately avoid working on life-critical software because of how easily it can go wrong.

A human driver would also follow the same heuristic. That is why it was programmed that way. People don't assume people are going to randomly walk in front of their cars except at cross walks.

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

#403

Post by jammygit » Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 6:04 PM UTC

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…

Credit card payments are sort of scammy: they pay you 1% so they can charge vendors 3%

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

#404

Post by peristeronic » Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 6:05 PM UTC

known wrote: post #362

Uber should focus on running Electric Cars

Uber wouldn't do that, the drivers that use their own vehicles would.

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

#405

Post by PaulRobinson » Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 6:06 PM UTC

mkolodny wrote: post #244

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…

If it were true that this was all caused by black cab drivers pulling strings, Uber would have been thrown out of London years and years ago.

Multiple mayors - including the current PM who was once Mayor of London - have explained that there needs to be an open culture.

There are other private hire vehicle operator firms in London. Addison Lee is huge, and there are many, many "minicab" firms. They all comply with TfL's licensing and vetting procedures. Uber does not.

This isn't "black cabs vs Uber", this is "black cabs, Addison Lee, all the minicab firms, TfL and the Mayor of London demanding basic vetting procedures that everybody else does without question or issue".

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

#406

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 6:06 PM UTC

wutbrodo wrote: post #397

kd5bjo wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Pedestrian outside crosswalk not assigned goal of crossing street", "Tracking history not considered when classification changes", "Predicted path depended on object’s goal" To be fair, I could see myself implementing these sort of heuristics to get a working prototype. On the other hand, I deliberately avoid working on life-critical software because of how easily it can go wrong.

I work in AV eng/research, and reading the details of the Uber crash was utterly shocking to me in terms of the corners cut. I can get reflexively frustrated at the slowing of progress and pushing changes induced by our safety constraints and testing, but I've always been pretty happy with the choices we've made. Uber made multiple obscenely negligent choices that I don't think are remotely defensible. There are plen…

[deleted]

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

#407

Post by esotericn » Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 6:07 PM UTC

alkonaut wrote: post #315

You can't hail a regular taxi in London with your phone still ? Why? How do you get them? Call? Or do you have to wave your arms? It's been 10 years since you could first do it in e.g. Stockholm with normal licensed taxis. Edit what I mean are regular taxis, not "black cabs", "minicabs" etc. I mean the iconic taxis. If you can't hail those, why not?

Black cabs are the 'iconic taxis'.

You hail them with your arm, yes. This is quite fine and normal because there are millions of them.

Just like how you might signal for a bus.

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

#408

Post by product50 » Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 6:07 PM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #225

larnmar wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The black cabs in London were excellent but ridiculously expensive, which is why I’ve only caught one, like, once. Most people have to rely on minicabs, which were sketchy and unreliable. Uber was a huge boon to London.

Black cabs in the city are excellent, try hailing a black cab from anywhere not within 5-10 min walking from a major transportation hub like Pad, KingsX, Victoria, Euston and outside of the City's financial bubble.

The OP literally said it was excellent. But expensive. What is your point?

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

#409

Post by PaulRobinson » Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 6:09 PM UTC

kerng wrote: post #296

It seems that 43 out of 45000 drivers were able to drive illegally - it's bad, but not a horrific. Is there a time line available? Was this is in one year or overall since Uber's existance?

43 unlicensed drivers managed to put 14,000 passengers at risk.

London is not an easy place to drive, and many of those passengers would have been vulnerable: lone females, people who had too much to drink, etc.

You might not consider it horrific, but by London standards it is completely unacceptable.

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

#410

Post by PaulRobinson » Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 6:12 PM UTC

tomatocracy wrote: post #297

cnorthwood wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not entirely sure it's fair to say that London's minicab market was particularly corrupt. Uber's real success in London was marketing and investment meaning that it'd could grow rapidly, I believe Addison Lee had a booking app concept at the time, so not even that was particularly new.

Addison Lee is often more expensive than a black cab though. It's really more of a premium car service than a minicab firm.

As a regular used of "Addy Lee", I've found that's not normally true if you go for the standard cards (the Ford Galaxy): from my home to Euston is about £20 in an Uber, £35 in a black cab, and about £25 in an AL.

Given Addison Lee is not VC subsidised, you have to wonder how they're getting the price down, but I always choose AL when I can.