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

Uber London loses licence to operate

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 609 posts

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#581

Post by dang »

tresp wrote: post #400
AsyncAwait wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my city, especially as a disabled person, I've had vastly better experience with Uber than with regular cabs. Just being able to indicate precisely where to stop on a map is an incredible improvement for me over having to provide instructions to a cab driver who can't find the spot. Not having to deal with cash, drivers more willing to help etc. gives me a much better experience with an Uber.

Corporations are paying people to post on HN as well as reddit now adays??

This breaks the HN guidelines badly. Please read them and don't do this again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#582

Post by noobermin »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #569
Anderkent wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's ethical about state-supported oligopolies?

If I have to pick between Silicon Valley oligopolies and state sponsored ones, I'll take the state; at least they're trying to protect their citizens. What's ethical about letting Silicon Valley unicorns plunder world markets? While not a popular topic here, Silicon Valley is starting to become the enemy.

SV is becoming the establishment the set out to "disrupt." Twice the son of hell.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#583

Post by tomblomfield »

tomblomfield wrote: post #372

I don't think the Mayor of London or TfL really expect to shut down Uber. It would be a deeply unpopular move. There's an acceptance that Uber has improved things for riders, albeit at the expense of the Black Cab industry, and London wants to welcome innovative technology firms. However, I also suspect that Uber hasn't been as co-operative as TfL would like on several issues mentioned, and so this feels like a warni…

See the difference in tone between London GM: "We are sure Londoners will be as astounded as we are by this decision. By trying to ban the app from the capital, the Mayor and Transport for London have caved in to a small number of people who want to restrict consumer choice."

And Dara, new CEO: "Going forward, it’s critical that we act with integrity in everything we do, and learn how to be a better partner to every city we operate in. That doesn’t mean abandoning our principles—we will vigorously appeal TfL’s decision—but rather building trust through our actions and our behavior. In doing so, we will show that Uber is not just a really great product, but a really great company that is meaningfully contributing to society, beyond its business and its bottom line."

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#584

Post by DanBC »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #269
moomin wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber's rhetoric doesn't seem appreciably different in London from elsewhere. And yeah, I'm a Londoner, don't really feel the need for Uber to exist in my area.

In my city, especially as a disabled person, I've had vastly better experience with Uber than with regular cabs. Just being able to indicate precisely where to stop on a map is an incredible improvement for me over having to provide instructions to a cab driver who can't find the spot. Not having to deal with cash, drivers more willing to help etc. gives me a much better experience with an Uber.

In the UK Uber (and other private cab companies) keep being sued for not taking wheelchairs or dogs, or trying to charge extra for doing so.

Here's an interview with a woman who got uber drivers prosecuted: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0783lhl

Here's another article about the same woman: http://metro.co.uk/2016/04/19/blind-woman-repeatedly-turned-...

A different case: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-30523449

And another: http://metro.co.uk/2011/02/28/blind-yvonne-saint-john-guide-...

Uber is far from unique in refusing service dogs or wheelchairs. It seems the rules are more clearly explained to regulated taxis than they are to less regulated minicabs.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#585

Post by cjsuk »

isostatic wrote: post #573
sammoth wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way are Oyster cards/credit not refundable?

Don't you have to take them to a ticket office?

Only works in some stations and most refuse to deal with it. The there’s the online refund system which is unable to process a refund half of the time.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#586

Post by DanBC »

astura wrote: post #438
cjsuk wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve lived in London for over 35 years. It’s common parlance. That kebab shop was a mugging. You were mugged in the apple store. Etc etc.

I consulted three dictionaries, including a British one, before writing that comment. Your use very fringe at best and is very inappropriate anywhere else, as it was pointed out to you.

You might find this interesting: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/20477/what-exact...

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#587

Post by lmm »

thecrazyone wrote: post #513
aianus wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would I pay more money for a higher chance of getting into an argument with some asshole cab driver instead of using Uber, saving money, and avoiding the hassle entirely?

So on-point. Let markets figure it out. All this central planning is annoying me a lot these days

Safe driver-hiring processes are a lemon market.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#588

Post by OJFord »

caoilte wrote: post #521
sol_remmy wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Frankly, it happened in Austin. Lyft and Uber threw a hissy fit and the market was happy to fill in the gaps. Good luck with that, the markets are not remotely comparable: Austin: 900k pop; In a red state known for low regulatory burden; No established mass transit to compete with; No established tax companies London: 8.8M pop; High regulatory burden; City's incentive: each Uber rider is a potential lost customer f…

The only incentive TFL has is to make travel as efficient as possible. The underground is way too crowded, but so are the roads (mainly because of taxis these days). This makes Uber a better bet than taxis (more efficient) buses better than both, bikes best of all and something in between a nirvana. However, none of that matters as long as Uber think they're above the law.

> The only incentive TFL has is to make travel as efficient as possible.

TfL has the incentive to follow London mayoral policy; the MoL has concerns beyond travel.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#589

Post by jawbone3 »

sol_remmy wrote: post #510
vertex-four wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Perhaps it would be difficult to replicate what Uber did in SF and other US cities without breaking regulations - but in London, their model is perfectly replicable, as evidenced by the fact that they were originally given a license by TfL.

But here's an even better model: 1. Do a good job 2. Consumers use your service & rely on you 3. Wait for the government to try to shut you down 4. Consumers will back you 5. Government backs down & lets you do what you want

Something else that can happen is that citizens side with their elected representatives and start boycotting you in significant numbers.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#590

Post by legacynl »

henryaj wrote: post #551
foldr wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's not going to be much public pressure on TfL to reverse this decision. Most Londoners don't use Uber, and there are plenty of alternatives.

391,499 Londoners (and counting) beg to differ: https://www.change.org/p/save-your-uber-in-london-saveyourub...

Who wants to bet this petition has been started by Uber itself? How many of these votes are bought?
Post reply on HN