Uber Lose licence to Operate in London

OnDraught · 22-09-2017 02:39PM

Robxxx7 wrote: »

Quite a few ... being one myself

The problem with uber is that they are totally unregulated..and i believe that any public transport needs to be regulated to help keep their passengers safe ...
There have been far too many stories of uber drivers not knowing where they are going, driving wrong way up one way streets, some with criminal records etc ..
I'm not saying that Black cabs are the be all and end all .. but you do pay extra for knowing you are getting into a safe environment with someone who knows where they are going ... They need competition to help drive down prices but it needs to be regulated ... maybe Uber mk2 will be that ..

How can they go the wrong way when they have to follow the directions on the app?

I also don't know if you're aware of the leaked "Fake Taxi" footage coming out of the black cab industry in London. It's really sleazy.

I've only used it in France during the Euros last year and it was a godsend in Paris for being able to know what your fair will be before you book a cab.

It was even better in Lille when there was no taxis at all and locals were trying to rip fans off by offering to drive them to wherever they were staying for mad prices at 5 in the morning. This led to the most dangerous situations I saw the whole time I was there.

If the normal taxi companies can't provide a service equalling that they shouldn't be in business. That's without even mentioning the price.

The Backwards Man · 22-09-2017 02:41PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You said that they weren't playing far and yet TfL allowed them to operate.

TfL allowed them to operate on condition they adhered to the criteria set down for granting private hire drivers a licence to operate.

They didn't, thought they would get away with a fine and carry on, as often happens with bully boys spending other people's money, but instead TfL have refused to renew their licence.

Where's the cronyism on the city of London's part there?

ancapailldorcha · 22-09-2017 02:43PM

The Backwards Man wrote: »

TfL allowed them to operate on condition they adhered to the criteria set down for granting private hire drivers a licence to operate.

They didn't, thought they would get away with a fine and carry on, as often happens with bully boys spending other people's money, but instead TfL have refused to renew their licence.

Where's the cronyism on the city of London's part there?

Surely the logical thing to do would have been to update the regulations and/or increase the sanctions.

The cronyism comes from the ludicrously expensive black cab racket which will now face less competition than before.

Robxxx7 · 22-09-2017 02:47PM

OnDraught wrote: »

How can they go the wrong way when they have to follow the directions on the app?

I also don't know if you're aware of the leaked "Fake Taxi" footage coming out of the black cab industry in London. It's really sleazy.

I've only used it in France during the Euros last year and it was a godsend in Paris for being able to know what your fair will be before you book a cab.

It was even better in Lille when there was no taxis at all and locals were trying to rip fans off by offering to drive them to wherever they were staying for mad prices at 5 in the morning. This led to the most dangerous situations I saw the whole time I was there.

If the normal taxi companies can't provide a service equalling that they shouldn't be in business. That's without even mentioning the price.

I hear you ...well aware of the fake stuff doing the rounds ... but was in a car myself once where not only did we go up a wrong way street but i had to give directions on where i wanted to go ... happened to a few friends also ... now it might be due to the area we were in or just pure bad luck ... I'm all for competition but wants to rules/regulation put there to ensure that the car you are getting into is a safe environment .. But i get what you are saying ..and i guess we all have different experiences

The Backwards Man · 22-09-2017 02:50PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Surely the logical thing to do would have been to update the regulations and/or increase the sanctions.

The cronyism comes from the ludicrously expensive black cab racket which will now face less competition than before.

The logical thing would be for Uber to obey the regulations. Surely if it's that much of a racket they would still make huge inroads even if they played by the book?

Dravokivich · 22-09-2017 02:51PM

Bambi985 wrote: »

They absolutely are not, uber are by a country mile far cheaper than any taxi or hackney service you'll get in London and most importantly, you can order them via an app and they'll be there within minutes. I can't think of anyone I know in London myself included that doesn't rely on them as a main method of transport outside of TFL.

Londoners are losing their minds over this and somehow I don't think it's going to be tolerated very long.

They've only had a trial since May. How dependent on this service could one be within a few months?

Tabnabs · 22-09-2017 02:55PM

TfL said that it had rejected the company’s application to renew its licence because “Uber’s approach and conduct demonstrate a lack of corporate responsibility” in relation to reporting serious criminal offences, obtaining medical certificates and driver background checks.

The licensing body also said it was concerned by Uber’s use of Greyball, software that can be used to block regulatory bodies from gaining full access to its app and undertaking regulatory or law enforcement duties.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/22/uber-licence-transport-for-london-tfl

It's the thinnest of grounds to revoke a licence to trade and deny 40,000 drivers a means to make a living. The powerful unions and lobby groups have done their work well and ring-fenced their monopoly. Uber's dramatic rise in popularity and success in London is a clear testament to what can be achieved when state bodies back off and let the consumer decide what they want. It's a black mark on London's reputation as a progressive and open city.

Skylinehead · 22-09-2017 02:58PM

Doltanian wrote: »

Saddiqh Khan the Muslim Mayor of London in another disgusting anti-Semitic attack on Uber a company built primarily by Jewish-Americans..

Doltanian wrote: »

He's Labour, he is more concerned with banning adverts of bikini models and furthering the Islamist cause.

Yeah, don't post in this thread again.

Woden · 22-09-2017 02:59PM

They've been around for longer than that. Looking at the history in the app my first uber trip in London was almost 2 years ago.

It's not liked only because it is cheap. It's also really convenient and generally a good experience. On top of that it's the same app used anywhere not just within the UK.

The Backwards Man · 22-09-2017 03:02PM

Tabnabs wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/22/uber-licence-transport-for-london-tfl

is a clear testament to what can be achieved when state bodies back off and let the consumer decide what they want.

Monorail

LuckyLloyd · 22-09-2017 03:04PM

TfL considers that Uber's approach and conduct demonstrate a lack of corporate responsibility in relation to a number of issues which have potential public safety and security implications. These include:

Its approach to reporting serious criminal offences.
Its approach to how medical certificates are obtained.
Its approach to how Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks are obtained.
Its approach to explaining the use of Greyball in London - software that could be used to block regulatory bodies from gaining full access to the app and prevent officials from undertaking regulatory or law enforcement duties.

Summary of TFL's reasons for withdrawing the licence. Good riddance.

Digital Solitude · 22-09-2017 03:05PM

No word on a myTaxi or Kabby ban, despite being rivals to Uber, there's another few companies that offer very similar services I can't remember the name of too.

Don't see how it can be lobbying or cronyism when competitors aren't affected, only Uber.

The Backwards Man · 22-09-2017 03:06PM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

TfL considers that Uber's approach and conduct demonstrate a lack of corporate responsibility in relation to a number of issues which have potential public safety and security implications. These include:
Its approach to reporting serious criminal offences.

Its approach to how medical certificates are obtained.

Its approach to how Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks are obtained.

Its approach to explaining the use of Greyball in London - software that could be used to block regulatory bodies from gaining full access to the app and prevent officials from undertaking regulatory or law enforcement duties.

I think by 'approach' they mean lack of.

The Backwards Man · 22-09-2017 03:07PM

Digital Solitude wrote: »

No word on a myTaxi or Kabby ban, despite being rivals to Uber, there's another few companies that offer very similar services I can't remember the name of too.

Don't see how it can be lobbying or cronyism when competitors aren't affected, only Uber.

Are they openly flouting regulations like Uber? If so, you have a fair point. If not, maybe not.

ancapailldorcha · 22-09-2017 03:11PM

The Backwards Man wrote: »

The logical thing would be for Uber to obey the regulations. Surely if it's that much of a racket they would still make huge inroads even if they played by the book?

I think regulators should be able to evolve with the markets that they're regulating. Uber didn't invent the business of dodging the rules. This is an industry that's about to be completely revolutionised very soon by automated vehicles so if TfL can't handle a bit of lawyering by Uber then London's transport infrastructure is in trouble.

Digital Solitude · 22-09-2017 03:21PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think regulators should be able to evolve with the markets that they're regulating. Uber didn't invent the business of dodging the rules. This is an industry that's about to be completely revolutionised very soon by automated vehicles so if TfL can't handle a bit of lawyering by Uber then London's transport infrastructure is in trouble.

Where do you draw the line on "lawyering the rules"?

Bit of a ridiculous statement imo

A Little Pony · 22-09-2017 03:22PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Pretty disgusting example of cronyism here to protect the absurdly overpriced Black cabs. Khan is supposed to be a pro-business mayor.

Khan doesn't know what he is doing. He is the worst Mayor of all time. London is a mess with knife crime, thugs on bikes going around terrorizing people, Islamist terrorism is off the charts this year. Do not expect him to be competent on anything.

LuckyLloyd · 22-09-2017 03:23PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think regulators should be able to evolve with the markets that they're regulating. Uber didn't invent the business of dodging the rules. This is an industry that's about to be completely revolutionised very soon by automated vehicles so if TfL can't handle a bit of lawyering by Uber then London's transport infrastructure is in trouble.

Meh, think that argument is pretty impoverished. When you dodge the rules on a giant industry disrupting scale it's going to be noticed. And when your alterations to the rules damage the integrity of the industry or sector you're operating in then just because you want it a certain way is far from a compelling argument for change. And 15 - 20 years into the future is hardly a relevant concern for this case right now.

Not buying it. It's cheap though, everything else be damned.

Dravokivich · 22-09-2017 03:24PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

Khan doesn't know what he is doing. He is the worst Mayor of all time. London is a mess with knife crime, thugs on bikes going around terrorizing people, Islamist terrorism is off the charts this year. Do not expect him to be competent on anything.

Why would anyone think that's his fault? Does he need to spear tackle a kid or something, as Borris has done?

OnDraught · 22-09-2017 03:26PM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Meh, think that argument is pretty impoverished. When you dodge the rules on a giant industry disrupting scale it's going to be noticed. And when your alterations to the rules damage the integrity of the industry or sector you're operating in then just because you want it a certain way is far from a compelling argument for change. And 15 - 20 years into the future is hardly a relevant concern for this case right now.

Not buying it. It's cheap though, everything else be damned.

It's a lot more than just cheap though. They provide a more predictable, more reliable and arguably in my experience a safer service.

Mint Sauce · 22-09-2017 03:26PM

An awful lot of assumptions on this thread, yes Black Cabs are rediculesly expensive, but the mini cabs were and still allot cheaper, unfortunately with Uber mini cabs being cheaper still, this did away with a lot of the mini cab offices, from places other than near to tube stations, and even some of them went. As for the black cabs not taking credit/debit cards, allot of them now do.

Most people I know living in London, use(d) Uber over the traditional mini cab, even using them to book cabs for friends and family, was even tempted to download the app my self for my visits, until I heard the news some time ago that they were on the way out. Seemed their regulation or lack of, for screening, and background checks on their drivers was the ultimate downfall.

ancapailldorcha · 22-09-2017 03:34PM

Digital Solitude wrote: »

Where do you draw the line on "lawyering the rules"?

Bit of a ridiculous statement imo

A lot of companies do this. I'm not defending it but it happens and it's not unreasonable to expect regulators to keep up.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Not buying it. It's cheap though, everything else be damned.

This was never my point. I wasn't aware of the practices you highlighted above. However, 3.5 million Londoners use Uber and tens of thousands of people drive for them. A functioning transport market requires competition. There must have been an option for dealing with Uber beyond refusing to renew their licence to operate.

whomitconcerns · 22-09-2017 03:38PM

This is a very bad thing for the cost of transport in London. Where I'm living is 4 miles from London bridge, That's a 40£ taxi journey or a 12£ uber... This will severely detriment or transport options. I'm no uber lover but there isn't any other options.

Billy86 · 22-09-2017 03:41PM

They seem like a great service, but I would advise people to listen to The Dollop podcast on them, very entertaining and good god they're an evil company (their Enron episode is also excellent and covers a lot of stuff others missed out on or overlooked).

whomitconcerns · 22-09-2017 03:41PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Pretty disgusting example of cronyism here to protect the absurdly overpriced Black cabs. Khan is supposed to be a pro-business mayor.

Khan doesn't know what he is doing. He is the worst Mayor of all time. London is a mess with knife crime, thugs on bikes going around terrorizing people, Islamist terrorism is off the charts this year. Do not expect him to be competent on anything.

Just wow..... So much wrong with that sentiment...

Digital Solitude · 22-09-2017 03:43PM

whomitconcerns wrote: »

This is a very bad thing for the cost of transport in London. Where I'm living is 4 miles from London bridge, That's a 40£ taxi journey or a 12£ uber... This will severely detriment or transport options. I'm no uber lover but there isn't any other options.

Public transport? Kabbee? MyTaxi? Walking? Cycling?

MyTaxi have cut their fares in half, looks like a great thing for prices in London to me

ancapailldorcha · 22-09-2017 03:44PM

Billy86 wrote: »

They seem like a great service, but I would advise people to listen to The Dollop podcast on them, very entertaining and good god they're an evil company (their Enron episode is also excellent and covers a lot of stuff others missed out on or overlooked).

My concern is for London's transport market. I couldn't care one sniff for Uber or Tavis Kalanick myself, I just don't want to see prices soaring.

Wossack · 22-09-2017 03:46PM

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Monorail

I hear those things are awfully loud

whomitconcerns · 22-09-2017 03:48PM

Digital Solitude wrote: »

whomitconcerns wrote: »

This is a very bad thing for the cost of transport in London. Where I'm living is 4 miles from London bridge, That's a 40£ taxi journey or a 12£ uber... This will severely detriment or transport options. I'm no uber lover but there isn't any other options.

Public transport? Kabbee? MyTaxi? Walking? Cycling?

MyTaxi have cut their fares in half, looks like a great thing for prices in London to me

What i said was it cuts options. When you need to get from Paddington to where I live it's 3 tube changes and a bus and takes 75 mins at least. An uber takes 45 mins and is for to door. Kabee and mytaxi cost over 40£ for that journey. Uber was about 23£. Walking and cycling not an option on that journey

Billy86 · 22-09-2017 03:52PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

My concern is for London's transport market. I couldn't care one sniff for Uber or Tavis Kalanick myself, I just don't want to see prices soaring.

I fully get that, but prices soaring with no viable competitor is the exact and explicit long term goal of Uber and they've gone to some seriously dodgy lengths to influence politicians and eradicate their competition in certain areas.

Uber Lose licence to Operate in London

Comments