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

81–90 of 609 posts

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#81

Post by Certhas »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #3

I don't understand why Uber can't get their shit together. In the US they have competition from Lyft and I can almost understand why they have to push the boundaries. In London they have very little competition and therefore don't need to engage is controversial business practices. Personally I don't see what my alternative will be if their service ceases, they have that little competition. Although I am kind of anno…

Where does the cost saving vs black cabs come from? Is it from drivers working for less mostly (I have seen example calculations that claim that)?

Then the fundamental innovation of Uber is not to make things more efficient but to eliminate labor laws, workers safe guards and unions.

In my books, your convenience is not really a good argument for getting rid of those.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#82

Post by kuschku »

denzil_correa wrote: post #51
xedarius wrote: post #20

Is this the first domino? Will France (and other European countries) then turn around and say, ah oui we too don't think Uber is fit to operate. Uber is pretty crappy in London, I had one the other night and the guy wasn't even the guy who's picture was on the app (yes the driver did not match the registered uber driver). This is before we even get onto the fact that he didn't know where he was going.

Germany has practically banned Uber for sometime now.

It’s not exactly banned – Uber could return at any time when they ensure that their drivers have insurance that is valid, and a driving license that allows for driving passengers around. In fact, the driving license part was even considered something where the officials would ignore the regulations, if Uber would just comply with the insurance part.

But Uber didn’t want that.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#83

Post by Nursie »

dandare wrote: post #66
Nursie wrote: post #40

If they can't or won't reform then excellent, let's be rid of them. I don't want to give any business to a company that are seeking to become a worldwide cab monopoly, and squirrel away any profits to the US. We have a perfectly healthy cab ecosystem in my city, app-driven and with fare competition and city regulation. Which I suppose is why Uber, though present, hasn't really taken off here. That said, talk of profi…

However, the article would greatly benefit from more factual information. What "threat to Londoners' safety and security"? Be specific please.

This does appear just to be a summary article and a bit more background would be good.

A click on the subject tag gives me some recent political criticism from the Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on taxis (who knew such a thing existed?) -

"It stands accused by the police of failing to properly handle serious allegations of rape and sexual assault of passengers.

It had to be dragged through the courts to recognise its responsibility to provide even the most basic rights and protections to Uber drivers. Its business model is based on saturating London's taxi and private hire market to drive its competition off the road."

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#84

Post by Herald_MJ »

gtsteve wrote: post #25
k-mcgrady wrote: post #3

I don't understand why Uber can't get their shit together. In the US they have competition from Lyft and I can almost understand why they have to push the boundaries. In London they have very little competition and therefore don't need to engage is controversial business practices. Personally I don't see what my alternative will be if their service ceases, they have that little competition. Although I am kind of anno…

There's MyTaxi, Gett and Addison Lee has an app. I used to use Hailo before it became MyTaxi. It's certainly not as cost-effective but what I did like were the flat-rate rides you could get. They weren't black cabs, but more like Uber Luxes or Uber Execs and probably 20% cheaper than black cabs. With Uber gone, I'm sure the market would provide something else.

Correct me if I'm wrong here: MyTaxi and Gett are solely for black cabs? This makes them a lot more expensive than private hire. Their UX is also slightly behind Uber's offering.

Addison Lee are also overpriced, and are not a company I'm willing to support due to their director's comments about cyclists and public transport.

One service you haven't mentioned here is Green Tomato, which have a tolerable app, but seem to have so few cars on the road that the wait time for a car is often a lot higher than Uber. Potentially this could be an opportunity for them if Uber truly do disappear from London.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#85

Post by vr46 »

collyw wrote: post #63
googleme wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could not disagree more - often times, especially if travelling with multiple people it is far more convenient, comfortable and can even be more affordable than taking public transport. While I agree that London has great public transport, Uber has been a game changer for myself and many people I know.

>"While I agree that London has great public transport" This must be a different London from the one I was in ten years ago.

Lived here all my life, no idea what you mean, it's always been great, and even when it was run-down it was still better than nearly all other cities at the time.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#86

Post by geocar »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #3

I don't understand why Uber can't get their shit together. In the US they have competition from Lyft and I can almost understand why they have to push the boundaries. In London they have very little competition and therefore don't need to engage is controversial business practices. Personally I don't see what my alternative will be if their service ceases, they have that little competition. Although I am kind of anno…

> none of these are as convenient or cost effective as Uber.

I disagree, and let me tell you why:

https://i.imgur.com/JITqdiP.png

I have blocked out the location of my home and the identity of my "driver", but this guy shouldn't be driving, let alone driving a passenger. I'm never riding Uber again.

> I can see the night tube getting a lot more use but I know quite a few people who don't like to take it after having more than a few drinks for safety reasons.

If you're too drunk to ride the drunk train/bus, there are cheap hotels all over London. Getting in a stranger's car who might not know how to drive (as I've noted), or worse (see below), is a terrible idea.

* http://nypost.com/2017/08/18/uber-driver-accused-of-raping-w...

* http://q13fox.com/2017/09/21/woman-accuses-uber-driver-of-ra...

* http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4815554/Uber-driver-...

* https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4251165/uber-driver-caught-bra...

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#87

Post by Symbiote »

pavlakoos wrote: post #34
k-mcgrady wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between driving another person from A to B and charging that person. As a comparison you can invite a friend to your house and cook for them. If you start charging people for that there will be food safety regulations etc. you need to comply with.

So perhaps adding the insurance for Uber drivers would solve the issue? I really don't see other reason. Except for the governments fighting with concepts which disrupt current, inconvenient and outdated state of things.

"Criteria failed: 2) Medical certificates"

That seems an a obvious requirement for the insurance, but Uber aren't complying.

Not everything needs to be seen with a negative (American?) view of government. Uber's competitors, including those with apps, have licenses.

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#88

Post by Angostura »

zimablue wrote: post #71
scaryclam wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, few people here in London bother with taxis. Public transport is very good, can be faster than sitting in traffic, and is cheaper. Most folks ordering taxis either don't know where they are going, missed the last train or are wealthy enough to not care about the cost. Uber literally made no impact on the quality if life to your average Londoner and won't be missed.

Public transport isn't great - often cramped and with delays. It's expensive - if anything involves bus then tube then for two people Uber Pool is often cheaper. Uber is often faster, and it's widely used and supports a massive amount of employment. Most people don't order taxis much daily true, but they do widely order Ubers because there's a massive price difference. And on nights out, taxis are often used because…

uberX from East London to Heathrow is £45-60.

The equivalent adult single fair is £5.10 or £3.10 offpeak.

> this post is so wrong it makes me wonder if you're living in a different London.

My thoughts exactly

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#89

Post by matthewrudy »

matthewrudy wrote: post #78
iam-TJ wrote: post #23

This is after the original (5 year) renewal in May 2017 was not granted and they only got a 4-month extension which expires Sept 30th. So Uber have been on-notice since May that they need to comply with the regulator's requirements for an operators license and haven't done so.

This is an important piece of information missing from the article. Namely this is not out of the blue.

Guardian article from may 2017.

Uber's London licence renewed for only four months

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/26/ubers-lon...

Re: Uber London loses licence to operate

#90

Post by pavlakoos »

Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #56
pavlakoos wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a new thing to me. I was driving in Germany several times with passengers and I didn't know my current driving license isn't good for it. I even rented a car at the airport and Hertz clerk haven't mentioned anything, despite seeing me approaching with friends. They only asked if there are drivers, not passengers. So how does it work?

> a single _paying_ passenger Not passengers in general. Your Hertz terms will clearly say that you're not allowed to use the car to carry paying passengers.

My bad. I missed that "paying" word.
Post reply on HN