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

London's Uber Ban Is a Big Brexit Mistake

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 70 posts

Re: London's Uber Ban Is a Big Brexit Mistake

#51

Post by isr »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #47
ajdlinux wrote: post #22

TfL and the Greater London Authority being controlled by notable Brexiteers like Sadiq Khan, of course...

Sadiq Khan a notable brexiteer? I'm calling you a liar! Two options: You provide reputable sources to back this assertion of yours. In which case I will profusely, unconditionally and publicly apologize. Otherwise my assertion that you're a liar stands. Note that no English tabloid product, nor anything Breitbart counts as a reputable source in this context.

Sadiq was one the more public anti-Brexit campaigners, and was one of the anti-Brexit debaters in the main televised debates.

Translation: if you were from Blighty, you'd know that the previous poster was being sarcastic.

Re: London's Uber Ban Is a Big Brexit Mistake

#52

Post by pas »

cassowary wrote: post #46
furioussloth wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If so then they should mentioned incidences which lead to this suspicion. Both mayor and uber has failed to make it clear what the reason of contention is between them. The rules which uber is not following should have been listed instead of arbitrary statements like Uber failed to report crimes by their drivers . This can happen only if victim decides to report to uber instead of police which sounds very unlikely sc…

That's nonsense. If you have a dispute between you and a company, everyone will expect you to talk to the company first. If it turns out that your dispute relates to breach of the law (for instance, improper racial discrimination of clients), you might not necessarily realise you have the ability to report it to the police. To say it sounds like a very unlikely scenario to you makes it sound like you're trying to fin…

No, it's not.

If you have suffered something that you think is a crime, call the cops (in the UK they are pretty okay for these things).

If you had a very bad experience, but maybe not a full blown crime, you might decide to make a 1.0 star rating and complain to the company.

There could be systemic problems (racial discrimination), but even in those cases, there are concrete victims, that can report it to authorities (to the TfL for example).

Re: London's Uber Ban Is a Big Brexit Mistake

#53

Post by tigershark »

saurik wrote: post #44
tigershark wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What other ride-sharing company operates in London? Addison lee, kabbee and the multiple private cab companies can't offer the same service as uber when you need a ride on the moment. They are fine when you can book in advance, otherwise be prepared to wait half an hour or more.

The fact that there is only one barber, butcher, or baker (or candlestick maker... whatever) in town should not dissuade us from putting them out of business if they don't pay attention to safety regulations...

Then if safety is really the concern why taxis and cabs can operate given that they are way less safe than uber? I would rather use the safer option, but instead I'm forced to use the less safe options.

Re: London's Uber Ban Is a Big Brexit Mistake

#54

Post by ajdlinux »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #50
detaro wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

parent post sounds like sarcasm to me.

If so, my bad that I didn't get it. In any case it was not very sarcastically phrased. And given the bullshit people believe nowadays such things really need to be called out.

My apologies, I'm an Australian, and anything that an Australian says should be assumed to be sarcastic until proven otherwise.

Re: London's Uber Ban Is a Big Brexit Mistake

#55

Post by Grue3 »

mmel wrote: post #23
d--b wrote: post #16

Of course, Uber needed to be reigned in, but what matters is the symbol here. Black cabs are fairly expensive and mostly driven by white people (which is not the case for private hire vehicles: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/taxi-and-phv-demographic-stats.pdf ) People won't help feeling that this is a "Let's keep our good old ways and our white boys happy" move. The article is right in saying that this general cultural sh…

Why does 'the symbol' matter more than Uber's continual disregard for law and regulation around the world?

>disregard for law and regulation around the world

The same laws and regulations that just so happen to keep disadvantaged populations from moving up the social strata. How convenient. Uber might suck, but the regulations that deny poor people access to transport are much worse.

Re: London's Uber Ban Is a Big Brexit Mistake

#56

Post by detaro »

d--b wrote: post #16

Of course, Uber needed to be reigned in, but what matters is the symbol here. Black cabs are fairly expensive and mostly driven by white people (which is not the case for private hire vehicles: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/taxi-and-phv-demographic-stats.pdf ) People won't help feeling that this is a "Let's keep our good old ways and our white boys happy" move. The article is right in saying that this general cultural sh…

Isn't London full of other (=non-Uber) private hire companies and drivers?

Re: London's Uber Ban Is a Big Brexit Mistake

#57

Post by CaptainZapp »

ajdlinux wrote: post #54
CaptainZapp wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If so, my bad that I didn't get it. In any case it was not very sarcastically phrased. And given the bullshit people believe nowadays such things really need to be called out.

My apologies, I'm an Australian, and anything that an Australian says should be assumed to be sarcastic until proven otherwise.

In that case: Please accept my apologies.

I really took your comment at face value. It's just that the current trend of Obama being a muslim terrorist sympathizer, Hillary Clinton running a child porn ring out of a pizza parlor and other such utter shit (and a significant amount of people actually believing that) makes me want gnaw off the wall paper.

Mea culpa!

Re: London's Uber Ban Is a Big Brexit Mistake

#58

Post by marcus_holmes »

harry8 wrote: post #18
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #8

This same argument was made when Austin required fingerprinting for drivers and Uber and Lyft left. What happened? Their was a flourishing of new ride share companies, including a local nonprofit, RideAustin. Yes, at first, these apps were nowhere near the level of Uber/Lyft, but they quickly improved, especially RideAustin. The prices were slightly higher, but it seemed those prices reflected the actual cost of the…

This isn't sensible regulation. This is an outright ban, which is a whole different ball of wax. Is an outright ban "anti-innovation"? You can't do sensible regulation once you've banned entrants in favour of the taxis.

No. It's presented as an outright ban, but that doesn't mean what you think it means.

Uber is able to continue business while it appeals. As long as the appeal process is continuing (and it may well continue for years to the High Court) Uber can continue business as usual.

Uber can change its processes during the course of the appeal, and if they match what is required, the ban will fail.

This is a high-visibility, high-impact method of regulation that Uber can't ignore. Given Uber's habit of ignoring regulations it doesn't like, it seems entirely appropriate.

One of the largest problems that the UK has had with the EU is that EU-mandated regulations are not implemented by some EU member countries. This is against all the rules of the EU, but there's no enforcement.

In the UK, regulations are implemented and enforced. This is that enforcement in practice. One of the reasons London has flourished as a financial centre is because the regulatory agency doesn't mess around and does its job properly. This gives certainty, stability, and engenders trust in trading partners.

The article is entirely wrong, completely misunderstands what's happening here, and why.

Re: London's Uber Ban Is a Big Brexit Mistake

#59

Post by qbrass »

jonknee wrote: post #38
bsder wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, Uber and Lyft spent VC money to lobby the state government to override what the Austin voters decided. So much for the will of the consumer, eh? But, hey, that's what "DISRUPTION!" looks like nowadays, right?

> So much for the will of the consumer, eh? I think demand is a better proxy for the will of consumers than any law or legislation. If the citizens of Austin refuse to use Uber or Lyft they will disappear without any legislation.

The tourists have more sway as consumers than the citizens do. There's more of them, they're more likely to use a ride-sharing service, and they're more likely to choose Uber of Lyft over a local brand just from the name recognition.

Re: London's Uber Ban Is a Big Brexit Mistake

#60

Post by parent5446 »

tigershark wrote: post #53
saurik wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that there is only one barber, butcher, or baker (or candlestick maker... whatever) in town should not dissuade us from putting them out of business if they don't pay attention to safety regulations...

Then if safety is really the concern why taxis and cabs can operate given that they are way less safe than uber? I would rather use the safer option, but instead I'm forced to use the less safe options.

Are you saying Uber is the safer option? Did you miss the part where they are violating the safety regulations, and where cab companies are not?
Post reply on HN