ClosingADoor
Member
Obscene amount of regulation, until someone passes out from a medical condition and crashes their car, killing a few people, because he didn't get checked.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Uber might lose license in London if TFL decide not to renew (Up: not renewed)
- Thread starter jufonuk
- Start date
KarneeKarnay
Member
TFL will have every right to get the Police to stop any Uber cab from operating in the London area and impose a fine on Uber.
Plus usually how TFL acts, means the other cities will follow.
KarneeKarnay
Member
There are plenty of other apps you can use in London now. Uber was at the forefront, but lots of others exist now.
What
ExtremePopcorn
Member
There is all that regulation for bus drivers, train drivers, tram drivers etc. so why not for uber/taxi drivers.
I have only ever had bad experiences with Uber in Liverpool. Alpha and Delta aren't great but at least they come to the right fucking pickup spot every once in a while (seriously, how the fuck do you get lost finding the Everyman theatre?).
They are slightly cheaper but I'd sooner go with the private hire firms safe in the knowledge that if we crash we'd actually be fully insured. Also the fact that they don't give their employees basic fucking working rights rubs me completely the wrong way.
They are slightly cheaper but I'd sooner go with the private hire firms safe in the knowledge that if we crash we'd actually be fully insured. Also the fact that they don't give their employees basic fucking working rights rubs me completely the wrong way.
Spuck-uk
Banned
During the day, about ten minutes. At 4am, taken up to half an hour
Theyre one of the scummiest companies I know of.
Spuck-uk
Banned
I saw that program, it's insane. Arguably one of the hardest tests in the world, and studying for it permanently alters your brain structure
Thats quite a jump. No more Uber = more acid attacks?
Huw_Dawson
Member
Damn, folks here must think women are really so stupid that Uber even being allowed to operate is a threat to their wellbeing.
As folks say there are plenty of choices for private hire cars in London. There is less choice without Uber on the streets which is bad for competition.
If as folks say black cabs and other apps are better than Uber, use those instead and let Uber be completed out of the market. This snacks of short-sighted protectionism.
As folks say there are plenty of choices for private hire cars in London. There is less choice without Uber on the streets which is bad for competition.
If as folks say black cabs and other apps are better than Uber, use those instead and let Uber be completed out of the market. This snacks of short-sighted protectionism.
Spuck-uk
Banned
Sup fellow scouser. Delta aren't always perfect, but they're close enough in price that there's no chance I'm getting in an Uber
Better go with the contempt & arrest plan since stopping drivers didn't work here in Finland.
Daffy Duck
Member
Or you know maybe make Uber fix up?
nelsonroyale
Member
Good news if it isn't renewed. Not a fan of uber and its business model at all.
ClosingADoor
Member
Enforcing certain standards != protectionism.
And yes, if a company on multiple occasions fails to protect its customers, then the answer is not "let them use another company" it is to force them to become better.
Let's say a water company on occasion spills toxic waste in their bottled water. Do you go "just buy another product" or do you think this company should be forced to remove their products from being sold.
autumnleaf
Member
The Victoria line goes from Brixton and is on the Night Tube, and so many buses. What did people do getting home from there before Uber?
Wrestlemania
Banned
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/22/uber-ban-london-safety
Sadiq Khan on the decision.
Sadiq Khan on the decision.
I've seen a few here in London. They are rare enough for me to notice, but not rare enough for me to be surprised.
I hope Uber gets its licence back. The minicabs in my area are dreadful; consistently late and with drivers who can't follow a GPS. There aren't any black cabs in the area, nevermind the expense.
The libertarian hyper-capitalists elsewhere in Europe have whined in the same exact manner when they suddenly find out that workers rights are in the way for letting rich people exploit people to be their cheap perosnal driver.
They're basically "oh, so you're against innovation and progress, you're so outdated and old-fashioned that you're against *progress*" without ever actually addressing or understanding why Uber is such a shitty company. And all of these libertarian hyper capitalist politicians look like they stepped out a 80's Wall Street movie with suit and a tie while they're complaining that they can't exploit people for cheap labor.
Except when you factor in that Uber use outside investment money to subsidise taxi fares to the point where they can undercut rivals massively. Uber literally makes a loss on every fare and no firm can compete with that. If anything, allowing Uber to continue in their current form is short-sighted protectionism.
Uber isn't going anywhere. The points are quite specific and addressable, so I imagine there will be some fighting over them including legally, but in the end TFL and Uber will make some agreement on them.
(The points all seem entirely reasonable things for TFL to demand, even as someone who isn't anti-Uber.)
(The points all seem entirely reasonable things for TFL to demand, even as someone who isn't anti-Uber.)
Bony Manifesto
Member
You don't think a company like Uber, willing to lose as much money as it takes to establish dominance distorts the market somewhat? Even if Uber weren't undercutting wages and flouting regulations, nobody would be able to compete with them as a going concern anyway!
Wrestlemania
Banned
Yes let's ignore the risk to public safety issue and let our boners for the free market lead the way.
Huw_Dawson
Member
At the risk of sounding dangerously neoliberal, surely Uber should have the capacity to run its business how it sees fit and let consumers decide?
If consumers did not want the product Uber was selling they can go and hire a cab that has stronger background checks and whatnot.
Why remove choice from the consumer in a free market?
I do, for what its worth, see the argument about why banning Uber to force it to improve is good for public safety, but it's good for public safety at the direct cost to that public's ability to decide for itself on what services it wants to use. This is an unnecessary ruling that is anti-consumer.
This ignores the realities of trying to get by in an expensive city, where Uber has increased the mobility and quality of life for so many people.
Has Uber done a whole bunch of shitty things? Sure, but welcome to the world of transportation, especially motor transportation - its always been one of the shadiest businesses all over the world. Not an excuse, but it is what it is.
Black cabs are an overpriced racket operated by old boys who think they're doing you a favour and will often try to screw you over on the route if they think you aren't local. They massively under-report their income (shocking how often their card-reader is "broken") and cause you even more inconvenience. Oh, and its funny how the LTDA only insisted on mandatory card readers after losing their court case against Uber. These fuckers will not do anything to improve their service unless forced.
Night Tube? My girlfriend had two men expose themselves to her on the night tube over one weekend, no fucking way will she step foot back on there alone.
Night Bus? Not a chance, both the bus stops and buses themselves are incredibly dangerous.
Getting home is often a thing of dread for a lot of people (especially solo women and gay men), as it means 45 minutes of being on your guard and hoping somebody doesn't decide to be a twat (or worse). Safety is always going to be a trade-off between convenience and affordability, and I've yet to find a better compromise than Uber.
And its really interesting TFL never cracked down so hard on all the awful, shady mini-cab companies I used prior to Uber. An old one we used (4* Cabs) still kept their license after some of their drivers were convicted of moving weight. I wonder what the difference is there....
Wrestlemania
Banned
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ex-attacks-on-london-passengers-a7037926.html
And:
But yeah, let's just tut at them and let them carry on. The rapes will still happen, but it's their own fault for not picking another taxi company, after all.
jufonuk
not tag worthy
adding to the first post
tonysidaway
Member
Why stop there? Houses could be built much more cheaply, food prices would tumble, electrical goods would surely be so much better, without all those pettyfogging regulations. Let the customer decide.
/S
butzopower
proud of his butz
I didn't mean to state there'd be in increase, or even that the headline would be true. I can just see someone / tabloid blaming the city / TfL on someone getting acid attacked because they couldn't get an Uber.
Pagusas
Elden Member
Race to the bottom hurts everyone, especially the people that need the service the most. It makes them ripe for abuse, mistreatment, and puts them in danger.
I'm all for open markets, but there has to be a limit. Uber has skirted the limits far too often, and jumped over the edge many times. The culture of that company is an blite on humanity and needs more regulatory forces to step up and force it to change or die.
S'up!
Yes, we're pretty much covered up here, though I have seen more and more Ubers about, there's nowhere near as many as in Manchester
Spuck-uk
Banned
I took the tube (before like midnight) and or a (not black) cab, which was similar price to Uber, but didn't have an app. So did everyone else.
Or the night bus, which is fine, as long as you aren't scared of not-white people and/or the working class.
Thats a luxury of living in Liverpool. Taxis are super competitive and much cheaper than any other major UK city Ive been to. I moved over to the Wirral 3 years ago and local taxis are much pricier so I try to use Uber over here (on the rare occasion there are any in the area)
Huw_Dawson
Member
Being pro-choice is not being anti-regulation!
You used some interesting hypothetical industries too, so let's look at housing, say.
Suppose you have a housing industry made up of a huge number of competitive builders building a massive number of homes. It's a super fluid environment where the customers have a huge amount of choice. If the industry is competitive, the consumer has massive power over the corporation. So if Shonky Builders makes shonky homes then nobody would buy from them. Shonky Builders can go out of business and no more shonky homes are built. However, in the real world it's a lot less fluid than that, consumers have far less power, so the government, the voice of the consumer, steps in to make sure that the weak competition does not lead to poor consumer choice. The government's job with regulation is to handle what consumers themselves cannot.
Of course you want to consider group health too for housing as houses last a long time and a badly built house has impacts on a wider area. And obviously extremely dangerous industries like nuclear, gas or electricity require regulation. So there are extra-market concerns too that impact on regulation.
In taxi firms though you have a competitive and fluid market where small businesses and large ones can compete freely and the consumer has lots and lots of choice. So why then does the government need to step in to help the consumer when the consumer has all they need to make their own choices and regulate the market via their wallets?
What you want is either competitive markets or well-regulated ones to keep the consumer, who is the most important person in all of this, as empowered and as happy as possible. I think this decision does nothing for the power of the consumer, weakens the taxi market and thus makes regulation a self-reinforcing loop - less firms, less power for consumers, so the government has to make it less likely the remaining companies can exploit their power to lower standards.
entremet
Member
Because they're independent contractors. That's the scam as it were.
Wrestlemania
Banned
Because:
But sure - just renew their license and let them continue. The market will sort it out.
Spuck-uk
Banned
There's a joke here about that being a tax on wools.
Part of the reason Uber took off in the US seems to be just how astonishingly shit the local cabs are (that and ignoring all the regulations and hoping they don't get called on it)
What happened:
Uber came in on Boris' watch. A "light touch" approach was taken. Uber took the piss (see the charges in the letter above).
Khan was elected. Said "Get your shit in order, Uber. Here's a 4 month license while you straighten things out.
The 4 months is up. Uber did not get their shit in order.
Huw_Dawson
Member
Or alternatively it highlights how awful TFL is, when by removing the licence it is removing the income of 40k people.
Why can't the market sort it out. Uber has these major issues, surely folks can go to another taxi firm?
Half this thread is talking about how this isn't the end of the world as London has such a wide variety of transport options. Surely by those transport options, folks have all they need to avoid Uber if they don't like the idea of taking taxis that lack background checks and whatnot?
Again, I think this is actively harming the consumer in a bid to protect the consumer. It's completely backward logic.
ronaldthump
Member
uber should have done their due diligence and reported the drivers to the police. They're not above the law. I wouldn't want my kids/spouse out there with some sort of criminal/sexual predator.
The balls in their court. They can appeal and address the clauses that got the renewal revoked.
Its not quite over ye but it could be
The balls in their court. They can appeal and address the clauses that got the renewal revoked.
Its not quite over ye but it could be