Yet Another Cycling Forum

General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: Wowbagger on 22 September, 2017, 11:26:06 am

Title: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Wowbagger on 22 September, 2017, 11:26:06 am
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/22/uber-licence-transport-for-london-tfl

Subject to appeal...
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Greenbank on 22 September, 2017, 11:41:01 am
I don't know how long the appeal process takes, but I'm sure Uber will launch their appeal close to the 30th so they can continue to operate whilst the appeal process is going on (the existing law has this provision).

Given that the current license was a 4 month extension of their older 5 year license I wouldn't be surprised if they negotiate yet another extension whilst this is sorted out.

And then I'm sure the problems identified (crime reporting, medical certificates, DBS checks, greyball) will be smoothed over by the increase in license fee from the £3000 they paid 5 and a bit years ago to the ~£3,000,000 that they need to pay now as they have over 10,000 vehicles registered.

Can't begin to imagine how hard a loss of license, even for a few weeks, would hit the tens of thousands of Uber drivers in London.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 22 September, 2017, 01:23:32 pm
Quote
The current licence expires on 30 September but Uber has 21 days to appeal and can continue to operate until that process expires.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 22 September, 2017, 01:25:56 pm
There was something similar in Poland but I didn't read the details.

Edit: It's that a new law is being brought in requiring agents and go-betweens in passenger transport to obtain a licence. At the same time licences for individual taxi drivers are being made cheaper and easier to obtain.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Greenbank on 22 September, 2017, 01:42:15 pm
Quote
The current licence expires on 30 September but Uber has 21 days to appeal and can continue to operate until that process expires.

That's badly paraphrased in the article, it makes it sound like the appeal process must be completed within 21 days. The original is:-

"
The Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 includes provision to appeal a licensing decision within 21 days of it being communicated to the applicant. Uber London Limited can continue to operate until any appeal processes have been exhausted.
"

They have 21 days from now (assuming it was communicated to the Uber today) to start their appeal(s).

If they don't launch their appeal before the current license expires on September 30th then they'll have to stop operating on that date (it's not clear what time on that date the license expires). They could only continue to operate after 30th September if they do launch an appeal, so not launching it before the current license expires would be very foolish.

The only thing that makes sense is to launch the appeal as close to the license expiry date as possible to maximise the amount of time to get prepared for the appeal process (which takes an unspecified amount of time).
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 22 September, 2017, 02:11:17 pm
I interpreted it as meaning Uber have 21 days from now to launch an appeal and can continue operating as long as the appeal is still underway. What it doesn't say is whether there's any limit on the duration of the appeal hearing.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: ian on 22 September, 2017, 04:58:43 pm
I confess I use Uber a lot, it's handy and effective and a lot, lot cheaper than ordinary taxis (more so in London, where black cabs are extremely pricey). Plus a black cab tried to kill me once and though I'm not supposed to blame them all, they don't make it easy. But thankfully I suppose their rigorous licensing scheme ensures that they're not driven by, oh, serial rapists or anything.

That said, I think Uber should be subject to same rigorous rules, but equally black cabs shouldn't get a pass either. It's the 21st century and we have satellites and all kind of cool stuff, so yeah, it's cool they know the A-Z but somewhat redundant.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Jakob W on 22 September, 2017, 09:07:18 pm
As a company, there's a lot to dislike about Uber - they give Addison Lee and the LTDA a run for their money - but on the very few occasions I've used Uber in London, I've had exemplary service. One in particular was the most skilled and relaxed driver I've ever been in a car with, who had some kind of Zen magic approach to South London traffic.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Genosse Brymbo on 22 September, 2017, 09:58:29 pm
... (more so in London, where black cabs are extremely pricey)...
And even more so when they short change you.  When I next need a taxi in London it won't be a black cab.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Asterix, the former Gaul. on 23 September, 2017, 07:19:33 am
Quote
If they don't launch their appeal before the current license expires on September 30th then they'll have to stop operating on that date (it's not clear what time on that date the license expires).

It'll be midnight.. All Uber taxis will be turned into pumpkins, which will be handy for Hallowe'en.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: barakta on 23 September, 2017, 09:12:43 am
I don't like Uber's shared-responsibility no-shared-liability model, exploitation of employees or lack of tax paying model amongst other things, but I'm seeing discussions that suggest banning them is racialised in that Uber is banned whereas Amazon and other orgs which are dodgy as fuck too aren't treated in the same way and that People of Colour rely on Uber because other services WON'T serve them and their communities in the same way (I know many black folk who say standard cabs won't stop for them, and other minicabs won't come to certain areas).

https://twitter.com/sunnysingh_n6/status/911171124616138752

I do agree that London's black cabs have a lot of lobbying power and can be dodgy as fuck. 

Somewhere else I was reading that to do the Knowledge you need money, education, time etc which many folk who work for Uber etc don't have.

I'd love to see some of the good things about Uber used without the nasty horrible bits cos I'm sure that could be done well. Same for things like AirB&B, Deliveroo etc.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Biggsy on 23 September, 2017, 10:09:12 am
I'm fucking furious about this.  Uber has made a great improvement to my parents' lives that are very hard because of disability and chronic illness.

The standard UberX service is great for my mum as we can get a car within 5 mins any time and see where it is, so there's no worry about it arriving too early (like happens with ordinary mini cabs), no need to book in advance, and I can follow her progress from home through the app, etc, etc.

Also the Uber Access service - with specially adapted vans to take a passenger seated in their wheelchair - has been invaluable for my dad who can hardly get in an ordinary car.  It's not even any more expensive than UberX.  Hospital-supplied transport, Dial-a-Ride, etc, just don't provide the same level of convenience.  And convenience is very important when you're as ill and disabled as my parents.

Anyway, regardless of all that, even for ordinary healthy able-bodied people, it's just ridiculous to go backwards and not use current technology for booking and managing minicab use.  Because that's all Uber is, basically.  It's just a big minicab service that happens to use highly efficient systems.  The operators and drivers have the same licences and checks as old-fashioned minicab ones AFAIK.

Ok, if safety needs to be improved, then improve it.  They will not get away with throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  There will be massive demonstrations of all sorts and Kahn hopefully will eventually resign.  He'll never be re-elected anyway.  I'm embarrassed that I voted for him.  I must have been ignorant on his policies.  My mother (with generally opposite political views from myself) says this would never have happened under Boris, and she's right.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Asterix, the former Gaul. on 23 September, 2017, 10:41:18 am
Uberexit? 

 
Quote
do agree that London's black cabs have a lot of lobbying power and can be dodgy as fuck. 

As do York cabs.

However, why shouldn't Saddiq Khan stand up to a corporation in a bid to get conditions for its workers improved? 

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/9fecd0145daddd05480414f4159fffccf3fc0030/0_74_4368_2621/master/4368.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=5abcecb783088807cb0ee508e99e9fef)

They were warned, May 2017:

Quote
United Private Hire Drivers, which says it has 1,200 members and organised a go-slow protest blocking roads in the capital in November last year, is calling on Transport for London to insist Uber and other minicab drivers are guaranteed basic employment rights, including the minimum wage and holiday pay, under the terms of its new five-year licence.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/09/uber-licence-drivers-gmb-transport-for-london (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/09/uber-licence-drivers-gmb-transport-for-london)

Boris Johnson siding with an American Corporation?  You bet he would.

 
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Asterix, the former Gaul. on 23 September, 2017, 10:43:06 am
Anyway, why is this in the cycling section?  Vroom or  :demon: POBI :demon:?
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Biggsy on 23 September, 2017, 11:04:53 am
The drivers deserve a higher share of the Uber takings, but taking away their opportunity to earn anything at all (from their chosen line of work) is not helping them!!.  40,000 people will be suddenly unemployed if the ban goes ahead.

Some new legislation may be needed to improve the rights and earnings of the pseudo-self-employed in general.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: mcshroom on 23 September, 2017, 12:14:32 pm
It's not a ban. Uber are not, in the opinion of the licencing authority, meeting the requirements to be allowed a licence to operate. Those requirements being around safeguarding. This is after having already having been given a 4 month extension to allow them to get their house in order, and still with an option to appeal.

After all that time, if they cannot still meet the standards that other operators are expected to, then why should they be given a license to operate?
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Biggsy on 23 September, 2017, 12:47:10 pm
No time for pendantics.  It's a ban.  And they're as safe as an average old-fashioned little minicab firm.

I've also got no time to read any more replies.  By bye for now.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: mcshroom on 23 September, 2017, 12:57:41 pm
It's about who is doing what. If they were being banned then the authorities would be stopping Uber from doing things that normally they would be allowed to do. Not granting a licence is because Uber aren't doing things they (and other operators granted licences) are required to do.

How it's described loads the debate.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Sergeant Pluck on 23 September, 2017, 12:58:18 pm
It's not a ban. Uber are not, in the opinion of the licencing authority, meeting the requirements to be allowed a licence to operate. Those requirements being around safeguarding. This is after having already having been given a 4 month extension to allow them to get their house in order, and still with an option to appeal.

After all that time, if they cannot still meet the standards that other operators are expected to, then why should they be given a license to operate?

Quite.

If only the 400,000 people who have already signed the petition understood that.

They aren’t going to lose their licence. They’ll meet, or make some reasonable attempt to meet, the requirements and all will carry on as before, and those that for whatever reason need to curry favour with the black cabbies will have achieved their aim.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: mattc on 23 September, 2017, 12:59:48 pm
Driver has his say:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/23/over-uber-london-driver-fares-rivals-work
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Veloman on 23 September, 2017, 01:13:02 pm
Driver has his say:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/23/over-uber-london-driver-fares-rivals-work

Very insightful article and particularly the last comment about paying quite a bit of money on an evening out and then expecting to pay very little for a lift back to wherever.

A business model aimed to crush the opponents and then survive as the prime provider of a service will always have to result in savings and it is how you achieve them. Uber appear to be achieving that by some methods that have been exposed as not meeting certain expected standards.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Jaded on 23 September, 2017, 01:17:36 pm
I hope this link is good beyond the paywall.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/when-the-penny-drops-on-bodega-it-will-too-late-to-save-local-shops-2rxnmt58k?shareToken=8d2c9b60d55c5d57fccf801295e87184

Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Peter on 23 September, 2017, 01:22:34 pm
Yes, it is, J.  And very good, too.  Thanks.

Peter
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: madcow on 23 September, 2017, 05:02:28 pm
Uber's response to the announcement has not been to accept responsibility for it's own fate but instead it has tried to mobilise sympathy for all those drivers who will be out of work.
Yet not that long ago Uber was telling an employment tribunal that drivers were not employed by Uber and therefore were not eligible for sick pay, pensions or paid holidays. Go figure.

Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Veloman on 23 September, 2017, 06:02:08 pm
I hope this link is good beyond the paywall.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/when-the-penny-drops-on-bodega-it-will-too-late-to-save-local-shops-2rxnmt58k?shareToken=8d2c9b60d55c5d57fccf801295e87184

And the use of online sources for cycle related stuff is fairly obvious amongst users on this Forum that include me via Rapha, Wiggle or Ribble. I also use local bike shops and often source something from them even though I can get it quicker and cheaper online. Online sourcing for other goods is rife and sometimes necessary as it is the only means of sourcing it. I am currently waiting for a piece of kit that my local bike shop is providing that I could have got next day from Wiggle. They are ordering it from supplier and even showed me the price the supplier was demanding. The mark-up, using what Wiggle charge is not massive and the shop was somewhat surprised. No way can they match prices available at Wiggle/Ribble for other more expensive such as SRAM E-Tap. But they will repair your bike when you break it.

So where is the Uber connection? Well firstly, I would hope the online stores treat their workers appropriately and not as shoddy as Uber appear to do as outlined by Madcow. Secondly, if we always source the cheapest then we must accept that sooner or later those with more overheads will not survive and will disappear, which appears to be the business plan of folk like Uber as outlined by the former Uber driver in the Guardian article. If we join the race to the bottom, in terms of cost, then we must accept what goes with that and take our responsibility for helping create it and if Uber is considered a shoddy employer bordering on slave labour for some, then those using the service must accept they are supporting that.

I note Mayor of London is suggesting folk direct their anger at Uber rather than TfL for doing their job. Many folk suggesting Uber follow the rules and do as they were told to do. It appears they believe they are a law unto themselves.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 23 September, 2017, 06:20:54 pm
During recent terrorism attacks in London, Uber tripled the fares. They said it was 'due to demand'.

Black cabs offered free rides to anyone needing transport out of the affected areas.

Fuck Uber
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Greenbank on 23 September, 2017, 07:45:33 pm
Uber's surge pricing is done algorithmically and automatically. It doesn't rely upon a human to enable it but it does rely upon a human to disable it in a situation like this. They did that and said they'd refund everyone who was charged surge pricing because of this incident.

Here's what happened after London Bridge:-

http://www.cityam.com/265915/london-bridge-attack-uber-refund-journeys-those-caught

Quote
However, the company said it disabled the "dynamic pricing" as soon as it was aware of the incident, in the area affected around London Bridge and then across central London.

Uber has said it will refund the rides of anyone who used the app in the area.

...

"As soon as we heard about the incident we immediately suspended dynamic pricing all around the area of the attacks - and shortly afterwards across the whole of central London - just as we did following the attacks in Manchester and Westminster.

"We are also ensuring all rides from around the affected area were free of charge. Our team is also working with the Metropolitan Police to help them get any footage from drivers who were in the area at the time.”

And a similar response after Parson's Green:-

http://www.ibtimes.com/parsons-green-explosion-uber-surge-pricing-began-company-will-refund-users-2590465

Hate Uber for lots of other reasons (corporate tax evasion, etc), but not that one.

Also it's also funny that two of the items that TfL are not happy about (medical certificates and DBS checks) are TfL's responsibility not Uber's. To apply to be an Uber driver you have to first apply through TfL to be a private hire operator and it is TfL that does those specific checks.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: David Martin on 23 September, 2017, 10:38:14 pm
Uber's response to the announcement has not been to accept responsibility for it's own fate but instead it has tried to mobilise sympathy for all those drivers who will be out of work.
Yet not that long ago Uber was telling an employment tribunal that drivers were not employed by Uber and therefore were not eligible for sick pay, pensions or paid holidays. Go figure.

This pretty much dictates my response to this. The company are using a 'loophole' in creating a working relationship that is exploitative. It is pretty much the same as used by many companies 'subbing' professional drivers - DPD, yodel, Amazon Logistics etc.

The long term subcontracting pretence instead of direct employment  is being used to exploit some of the most vulnerable to the benefit of the unwitting middle class.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: madcow on 23 September, 2017, 11:01:51 pm
Uberexit? 

 
Quote
do agree that London's black cabs have a lot of lobbying power and can be dodgy as fuck. 

As do York cabs.

However, why shouldn't Saddiq Khan stand up to a corporation in a bid to get conditions for its workers improved? 

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/9fecd0145daddd05480414f4159fffccf3fc0030/0_74_4368_2621/master/4368.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=5abcecb783088807cb0ee508e99e9fef)

They were warned, May 2017:

Quote
United Private Hire Drivers, which says it has 1,200 members and organised a go-slow protest blocking roads in the capital in November last year, is calling on Transport for London to insist Uber and other minicab drivers are guaranteed basic employment rights, including the minimum wage and holiday pay, under the terms of its new five-year licence.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/09/uber-licence-drivers-gmb-transport-for-london (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/09/uber-licence-drivers-gmb-transport-for-london)

Boris Johnson siding with an American Corporation?  You bet he would.

Bojo actually had Uber in his sights when he was Mayor but Cameron pressurised him to put off doing anything. The fact that Uber's head of PR was a godmother to one of Dave's offspring was entirely coincidental. Uber had a direct line to Downing Street so I reckon that outguns the LTDA as a lobbying weapon. Google "Boris Johnson Uber".
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Asterix, the former Gaul. on 24 September, 2017, 06:37:27 am

Nay, Good Sir, I respectfully do suggest that you may be mistaken in what you say.  Altho he is an honourable man, Mr Johnson was not so clear on the matter.

POBI version:

(click to show/hide)

edited for those not POBI-proofed.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Pickled Onion on 24 September, 2017, 08:44:29 am
I have no sympathies for Uber, and a lot of their failings have been noted above. But black cab drivers also work on zero hours/self employed, fail to pay the right amount of tax, "break the law in lots of minor ways", are not always background-checked properly, etc. They are also extremely lacking in any  drivers who are not bigoted older white men: trying to hail a cab as an BME or LGBT person can be a very different experience to that of a straight white person.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 24 September, 2017, 12:17:02 pm
I don't like Uber's shared-responsibility no-shared-liability model, exploitation of employees or lack of tax paying model amongst other things, but I'm seeing discussions that suggest banning them is racialised in that Uber is banned whereas Amazon and other orgs which are dodgy as fuck too aren't treated in the same way and that People of Colour rely on Uber because other services WON'T serve them and their communities in the same way (I know many black folk who say standard cabs won't stop for them, and other minicabs won't come to certain areas).

https://twitter.com/sunnysingh_n6/status/911171124616138752

I do agree that London's black cabs have a lot of lobbying power and can be dodgy as fuck. 

Somewhere else I was reading that to do the Knowledge you need money, education, time etc which many folk who work for Uber etc don't have.

I'd love to see some of the good things about Uber used without the nasty horrible bits cos I'm sure that could be done well. Same for things like AirB&B, Deliveroo etc.
Banning Uber is racialised? Very odd. Isn't taxi driving, in big cities which draw people from all over the world, like London, traditionally a recent immigrant job? Certainly in Bristol many, maybe even most, taxi drivers are Somali and Sudanese refugees.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: hellymedic on 24 September, 2017, 12:25:03 pm
I think The Knowledge deters many recent immigrants from driving 'black' taxis, though minicabs seem to employ many immigrants.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 24 September, 2017, 12:39:46 pm
I hope this link is good beyond the paywall.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/when-the-penny-drops-on-bodega-it-will-too-late-to-save-local-shops-2rxnmt58k?shareToken=8d2c9b60d55c5d57fccf801295e87184
The link works but I'm struggling to see the connection with Uber other than their Silicon Valley origins. Are you considering 'local taxis' to be a local service? Uber are disrupting employment practices, in as far as I can see a way already done by many other 'non employers', but the link with the service as experienced by the passenger is not clear.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 24 September, 2017, 12:43:14 pm
As for safety checks on drivers and such, the last time I used a taxi, which was last summer, it was a local company I'd used before and the driver they sent was in his own car, no taxi plates, no meter.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Mr Larrington on 24 September, 2017, 02:50:36 pm
Ryanair asks Uber drivers if they’d like to try flying a plane (http://newsthump.com/2017/09/23/ryanair-asks-uber-drivers-if-theyd-like-to-try-flying-a-plane/).
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Jakob W on 24 September, 2017, 03:26:23 pm
ISTR that London black cab drivers are ~80% white, whereas minicab drivers (including Uber's) are ~80% BME. I'm not quite sure why many users claim Uber is safer than a trad minicab - is this to do with the way other people can track your progress on the app?
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: barakta on 24 September, 2017, 04:15:10 pm
I know many local cab firms have apps where you can track the driver, make of car, plates, driver ID and  your location etc by an app too so it's not just Uber although I think they may have inspired many local firms to up their game in this regard which I consider no bad thing. One thing deaf friends who can't speak like about Uber (I've never used them as the main hailer) is that you can say where to drop off via the app which is a great feature altho in the olden days my deaf mates used their phones with sms text messages and pointed to the screen or scrawled notes and taxi drivers were great about that so it's all swings n roundabouts in terms "people get by".

I would like to see more of the GOOD things about Uber made normal in the sector and the bad things like tax dodging, poor employment practices, shitty liability dodging etc eliminated.  I would like to see taxi drivers given FAIR employment and if that costs more to the user then so be it, we should pay what it costs for a fair service as users and we should know why it costs what it does and why services offering less are dodgy and breaking the law and will/should be stopped.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Pickled Onion on 24 September, 2017, 05:38:47 pm
I'm not quite sure why many users claim Uber is safer than a trad minicab - is this to do with the way other people can track your progress on the app?

Not a London point, but when I was in Bogotá the strict advice was never, ever hail a cab on the street unless with a Colombian. Despite uber being officially "illegal" in Bogotá it was the recommended safe way to travel, because of the tracking from before you even get into the car. As barakta says, the things uber is good for should be taken on board by other providers, then there will be proper competition rather than the silly closed-shop tactics TfL is attempting.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Asterix, the former Gaul. on 24 September, 2017, 08:26:49 pm
 "in Bogotá the strict advice was never, ever hail a cab on the street "

When I used to go to Greece (before the crash) it was also very unwise in Athens to get a taxi other from off a cab rank.  Once, very early, we got a taxi from near the cab rank and got charged 3x the proper rate.  He also dropped us off on the wrong, dark side of the bus station and I kept a very close eye on him and our luggage. 

Driving a taxi offers many opportunities for criminals.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: ian on 25 September, 2017, 09:48:53 am
As for safety checks on drivers and such, the last time I used a taxi, which was last summer, it was a local company I'd used before and the driver they sent was in his own car, no taxi plates, no meter.

I didn't think minicabs needed a meter (in most places), I thought you just agreed a fare in advance (when booking, as you can't hail them). They should display their identification and details though.

I don't agree with some of Uber's practices re employment and taxes but these are things – as ever – that governments have control over. That are, after all, responsible for the loopholes that companies expose. That said, black cabs in London are precious about their monopoly and London is rather unusual – in most countries (other than the far-east), taxi driving is a immigrant job. The knowledge, of course, is one of those tools used to keep out new entrants. A level playing field should be level for all, not favouring the current black cabs.

The consequence of taking a lot of cabs off the road (though I'm sure Uber will figure out how to stay on the road) is that more people will use illegal cabs, because black cabs are uproariously expensive and never around when you need one (try hailing one at 11pm; however, they'll spend 9am-10pm blocking up every street in central London).

I've always used Uber abroad and never had some of the issues I've had with local firms (overcharging is a tradition, I've lost track of the number of countries I've been overcharged in, before Uber I used to book cars in advance).
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 25 September, 2017, 10:13:06 am
It wasn't a minicab – I'm not sure that minicabs as such even exist outside London – just a phoned for in advance taxi, nor was the fare agreed in advance either, though it seemed reasonable. I reckon what happened is they just ran out of cover so got old Trev, you know the bloke who used to work for us a couple of years ago, to do the Sunday morning pick up.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Samuel D on 25 September, 2017, 10:36:05 am
… it's just ridiculous to go backwards and not use current technology for booking and managing minicab use.  Because that's all Uber is, basically.  It's just a big minicab service that happens to use highly efficient systems.

The proof that that’s not true lies in Uber’s desperate attempts to persuade American courts that it is not an employer. Why should being an employer hinder the use of app-based hailing and other efficient technology?

The app is only a novel but now-trivial front end to a basic business model that is neither fair nor sustainable.

On the sustainability point, Uber lost about $3 billion last year and is starting to make some pretty desperate-looking bets. The Economist recently predicted Uber will be gone in 3–5 years unless they pull off a successful pivot – but they had no sensible suggestions. What options do you see? Self-driving cars are twenty years away despite hysteria to the contrary.

Some new legislation may be needed to improve the rights and earnings of the pseudo-self-employed in general.

Understatement of the thread.

The long term subcontracting pretence instead of direct employment  is being used to exploit some of the most vulnerable to the benefit of the unwitting middle class.

Indeed. I wonder why 96% of Uber drivers quit within a year.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: ian on 25 September, 2017, 11:22:13 am
It wasn't a minicab – I'm not sure that minicabs as such even exist outside London – just a phoned for in advance taxi, nor was the fare agreed in advance either, though it seemed reasonable. I reckon what happened is they just ran out of cover so got old Trev, you know the bloke who used to work for us a couple of years ago, to do the Sunday morning pick up.

Then that would be illegal – all cab drivers, minicab or Hackney, have to be registered with the local council and should display their details and mugshot. Minicabs are just the ones you have to prebook. Hackney cabs are the ones that have meters and you can hail or linger outside the train station awaiting fares.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 25 September, 2017, 11:32:25 am
Yes, of course it's illegal. The point is you can end up with an unlicensed driver through Uber, a traditional private hire taxi or even a hackney cab (though I'd imagine the last is least likely).
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Asterix, the former Gaul. on 25 September, 2017, 03:09:39 pm
What options do you see? Self-driving cars are twenty years away despite hysteria to the contrary.



Duly noted ;)  Samuel D said..

Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: orienteer on 25 September, 2017, 03:23:42 pm
Interesting article about how Uber operates:

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/understanding-uber-not-app/ (https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/understanding-uber-not-app/)
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: jsabine on 26 September, 2017, 02:08:37 am
Interesting article about how Uber operates:

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/understanding-uber-not-app/ (https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/understanding-uber-not-app/)

That is a splendid piece.

In particular, I'd suggest that Biggsy reads it, and reconsiders his earlier political grandstanding. City-wide booking is definitely a good thing (and making it app-based is convenient), and the wider availability of accessible vehicles is clearly also good, but it's really not about wanting to "go backwards and not use current technology for booking and managing minicab use" - among other things, it is about whether or not Uber accepts that it's a minicab firm, and has to comply with the rules that apply to every other minicab firm.

Ok, if safety needs to be improved, then improve it.  They will not get away with throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  There will be massive demonstrations of all sorts and Kahn hopefully will eventually resign.  He'll never be re-elected anyway.  I'm embarrassed that I voted for him.  I must have been ignorant on his policies.  My mother (with generally opposite political views from myself) says this would never have happened under Boris, and she's right.

(That's Khan not Kahn, of course.)
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: ian on 26 September, 2017, 07:48:59 am
Yes, he probably gets quite angry if you spell his surname wrong.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: mattc on 26 September, 2017, 10:30:52 am
Yes, he probably gets quite angry if you spell his surname wrong.
What, on an internet forum about cycling? I think that's unlikely to trouble him greatly.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 26 September, 2017, 11:43:30 am
It explains Uber's operating model and some of TfL's objections to them. But there's also this:
Quote
This setup may seem unwieldy, but it is deliberate. In part, it is what has allowed Uber to blur the boundary between being a ‘pre-booked’ service and ‘plying-for-hire’ (a difference we explored when we last looked at the London taxi trade back in 2015).
In that respect at least, good for Uber. Probably. The distinction is so artificial and created by rather than reflected in regulations. In most of the world a taxi is a taxi, subject to the same regulations and using the same fares whether you pick it up in the street or call for it to come to you.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: ian on 26 September, 2017, 11:46:37 am
Yes, he probably gets quite angry if you spell his surname wrong.
What, on an internet forum about cycling? I think that's unlikely to trouble him greatly.

Jesus, this group is a tough crowd. That's the best fucking joke I can do before 8am.

ETA: it's not literally a fucking joke. I don't do those until after lunch.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: mattc on 26 September, 2017, 12:54:09 pm
Yes, he probably gets quite angry if you spell his surname wrong.
What, on an internet forum about cycling? I think that's unlikely to trouble him greatly.

Jesus, this group is a tough crowd. That's the best fucking joke I can do before 8am.
;D

Sorry Ian; not a tough crowd at all. Just a thick-headed one.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Asterix, the former Gaul. on 26 September, 2017, 05:52:43 pm
You Khan please every one :'(
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Greenbank on 26 September, 2017, 08:58:28 pm
(https://media.tenor.com/images/c5d137089a29c826ef5b14d2327721de/tenor.gif)
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: hellymedic on 26 September, 2017, 09:50:30 pm
I think both people named Kahn and Khan might get miffed if their names were mutually mistaken.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Samuel D on 27 September, 2017, 08:31:42 am
(https://media.tenor.com/images/c5d137089a29c826ef5b14d2327721de/tenor.gif)
Looks like Ullrich to me.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 27 September, 2017, 02:46:44 pm
Saw an advert for Slide today, just to remind me they're still around. I haven't used it but it would seem to be a competitor to all of Uber, conventional taxis and buses.
http://www.passengertransport.co.uk/2016/11/taking-a-ride-on-slide-a-new-option/

I suppose it could be called a shiny, sophisticated version of a maxicab, the type of "passenger aggregator" vehicle that's common in less shiny countries.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: ian on 27 September, 2017, 03:19:56 pm
Uber just works and is widely available, so I can grab a taxi in a few clicks with the same app whether its NYC or Nairobi, and I don't have to do the usual haggling that comes with taxis in far-flung domains. In other areas, there's similar system (I use Lyft quite a lot in the US). It's a bit like Amazon, it's just bloody convenient. Even more so for work, as it just gets billed direct to my corporate card, no bother with receipts and tips, it just pops up in my inbox.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Asterix, the former Gaul. on 27 September, 2017, 04:23:03 pm
It is a bit like Amazon* in that they are also criticised for the working conditions of their staff.  It has made some changes of a fairly superficial nature without the involvement of a London Mayor.



* interesting fact:  there is a river also called Amazon, somewhere in S. America.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: mattc on 27 September, 2017, 07:39:22 pm
OK, here's a fucking stupid question. I don't live in that london, and haven't followed the history of all this, but that's no excuse - feel free to kick me. If you like telling people on the internet just how fucking stupid their question is, roll-up:


Why didn't Ye Grand Olde Guild of Black Cabbes set-up app-based booking 10 years ago?

<fx:turns off computer and runs>
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Jakob W on 27 September, 2017, 07:43:22 pm
They sort of did, but it was a) clunky compare​d to the Uber app, and b) you were still paying black cab prices. Uber's USP was that it combined minicab pricing with black cab convenience.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 27 September, 2017, 07:52:46 pm
Strikes me that "black cab convenience" is only true in city centres anyway. In other places, including quite central areas of even large cities, it's quicker and easier to phone for a cab to come to you than go out and find one.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: ian on 27 September, 2017, 08:41:28 pm
Uber makes it a lot easier than phoning even. You just look pull out your phone and it tells you if there's a car around (and where it is, and how long it will take to meander to your destination, and show it happen in real time). Most of them are even integrated into Google Maps (probably Apple Maps too, but I've never managed to disentangle my way through its bizarre UI – just fucking give me a 'directions' button, m'kay?)

I mostly use the local cab firm here in the Surreylicious jungles because they hover outside the train stations and it's a fiver-ish back to the Asbestos Palace. Also for the airport because I know the drivers, I have an account, and it's not my money I'm spending.

As to why someone else didn't do it, you can say the same for anything. The most overlooked thing in business success is doing what you do at the right time to be doing it. The confluence of ubiquitous mobile access, GPS-enabled phones, and mapping apps/mobile OS with decent enough APIs for Uber and their ilk to integrate with.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Ham on 27 September, 2017, 09:23:40 pm
OK, here's a fucking stupid question. I don't live in that london, and haven't followed the history of all this, but that's no excuse - feel free to kick me. If you like telling people on the internet just how fucking stupid their question is, roll-up:


Why didn't Ye Grand Olde Guild of Black Cabbes set-up app-based booking 10 years ago?

<fx:turns off computer and runs>

If you read the interesting article linked up there somewhere, you will find out that the inspiration for Uber came out of the black cab driver's app, Hailo, taking business across the water.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: telstarbox on 27 September, 2017, 10:03:56 pm
I use Uber occasionally for late night journeys within Greater London.

For me the competition is not black cabs (expensive and not always available especially in suburbs) but a tortuous and/or slow public transport journey.*

Uber's app/service is very well designed from a user viewpoint, but it wouldn't be impossible for another company to set up something similar if they could get a critical mass of drivers.

*Which can generally be beaten by bike if the weather's good and I haven't had too many beers.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: telstarbox on 27 September, 2017, 10:08:59 pm
Also, this is a very comprehensive article on the legalities of black cabs, traditional minicabs and how Uber operates as two related companies:

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/understanding-uber-not-app/
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Jaded on 27 September, 2017, 10:11:55 pm
There's no problem with the service aspect of what Uber does.

The problem is the way it does it.

Someone else buys the hardware and provides the service. They think they are on to a good thing until they think about it.

Uber set themselves up to pay as little tax as possible, pay as little as possible to the providers and take trade through low prices.

The public love low prices and clamour for them.

Sadly low prices are not always sustainable in a societal way.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Greenbank on 28 September, 2017, 08:53:05 am
Why didn't Ye Grand Olde Guild of Black Cabbes set-up app-based booking 10 years ago?

As others have mentioned, they did.

It doesn't work as well for black cabs for several reasons:-

1) One of the major conveniences for Uber is the guarantee that the fare you pay will be fair (and the app shows you up front what the expected cost will be) and, most importantly, you don't have to deal with money when the journey ends, you simply get out of the car and say thank you. (If you want to add a tip the app now provides you a way of sending the driver a tip, you can do this weeks after the ride and the driver has no way of knowing who the tips come from, they simply get a lump sum of tips come through every so often.)

With black cabs you never know how much it's going to cost until you ask the cabbie and even then it can vary massively (and it's going to be much higher than a minicab/Uber because of the TfL mandated tariffs). Then you've got the faff of paying (their card machine, which they are obliged to have, is rarely working, see point 2 below) and tip expectation (cabbies saying sternly "You really want the change?", etc).

2) Here's the biggie: Cabbies want to take cash. They don't want card payments, they don't want an auditable trail of income, they don't want taximeters that log everything and upload it somewhere. All because many/most black cab drivers under-declare their income to pay less personal tax.

They are worried that a few card payments will quickly escalate into every journey being a card payment and for those that under declare their income this would mean a loss of income (as they'd bring in the same but pay more tax). Users who book through an app are way more likely to want to pay by card (or even via the app).

Uber provides a full income trail for the drivers, so those drivers can't hide from their tax burden.[***]

3) It's much nicer to sit in the back of a car than it is a black cab.
* Not least the conversation, *anecdata klaxon* but I've only ever had pleasant conversations with Uber drivers and none of the racist/anti-cyclists/etc shit I often hear from some black cab drivers.

--

There are a whole slew of other pros and cons of Black Cabs vs Ubers.

The Knowledge is useful, it's nice to just jump into a black cab and say "The Civil Service Club please" and they just know where to go. But...
* Many black cabs have a GPS app (such as Waze, which many Uber drivers use) showing traffic congestion, so they can use that to plot a route around it
* I've seen the Knowledge abused several times. One time the driver specifically picked a route that was full of traffic to maximise his fare, he had assumed that myself and a colleague were out of towners as I let my (foreign) colleague do the talking (they'd never been to London before and wanted to hail a black cab, etc). It was still relatively direct, but had obvious choices to make the time much longer than it needed to be.
* With an Uber you've already given them the destination (although they sometimes ask for the postcode so they can stick that in Waze to get a better route than the Uber app suggests). Setting the exact pick up point is also brilliant, especially for tricky locations that are hard to describe.

Uber's corporate responsibility needs some work. If anything Starbucks/Amazon/etc have proven that the furore over tax avoidance/minimisation doesn't really harm your brand, so there's little point in doing anything other than saying you'll do something about it and maybe pay a seemingly sizeable (but still tiny in relative terms) chunk of corporation tax the next year. Driver's employment rights are another consideration although it is just a great scaling up of how most (much smaller) minicab firms are run. Most worrying is the semi-obvious plan to drive smaller companies out of business (and just convert the drivers over to Uber) with subsidised prices and then, eventually, raise the prices (and bring the company into profitability) once most of the competition has gone; personally I think the driver-less car end goal is a bit of a pipedream that is used to deflect attention away from what is going on right now.

It's very unlikely (I've been burned twice recently on big decisions - Brexit / Trump - so not going for all out "no chance") that Uber will not be granted another license, maybe it'll be another several month extension at first, but I really do doubt that Uber will have to stop operating in London for any length of time because of this. They are already in talks with the Mayor and TfL so I expect something to be sorted out relatively soon. It's certainly ballsy of Sadiq Khan to stand up to them like this (and as the article above mentions several times) Uber haven't had to face up to a licensing authority with this much power and financial backup before, and I'm glad Tfl/Khan have as the other issues (crimes reported against drivers) is a major concern across all taxi/minicab companies (not just Uber).

--

*** I wonder who is responsible for the bigger portion of unpaid tax? Black cab drivers (as a whole) because of tax *evasion* by under reporting income from some of them, or the tax *avoidance* of Uber's slice representing the London operation.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 28 September, 2017, 09:27:51 am
Uber haven't had to face up to a licensing authority with this much power and financial backup before,
Really?
http://www.politico.eu/article/uber-wins-appeal-against-ban-in-italy/ (http://www.politico.eu/article/uber-wins-appeal-against-ban-in-italy/)
That's a fairly major licensing authority - an entire country.

There is a lot of crap talked in comments (not here) about the TFL and this ban. I've read so many comments saying things along the lines of "Why have TFL done this so suddenly, it is unfair?". This ignores the fact that Uber were warned and given a conditional 5 month extension. They didn't clean up their act so the refusal to renew is entirely proportionate.

Uber are operating a business model that is well known - drive (sic) all the competition out of business, then jack up the prices. Currently they lose money on nearly every journey.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: ian on 28 September, 2017, 09:57:17 am
Would they jack up the prices as much as current black cab rates? I doubt that's possible.

I'd agree with some of criticisms of their business and taxation practices, but that's for governments to enforce. Assuming businesses will volunteer to pay more tax is a highway to nowhere. I'd also agree that Uber must meet the expected standards. But then I'd rather black cabs lost their special status too.

Good point about the drivers, I've never had a bad experience. And more importantly never had to listen to LBC.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Greenbank on 28 September, 2017, 10:42:22 am
Uber haven't had to face up to a licensing authority with this much power and financial backup before,
Really?
http://www.politico.eu/article/uber-wins-appeal-against-ban-in-italy/ (http://www.politico.eu/article/uber-wins-appeal-against-ban-in-italy/)
That's a fairly major licensing authority - an entire country.

From: https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/understanding-uber-not-app/

"
TfL aren’t just a transport authority. They are arguably the largest transport authority in the world. Indeed legislatively speaking TfL aren’t really a transport authority at all (at least not in the way most of the world understands the term). TfL are constituted as a local authority. One with an operating budget of over £10bn a year. They also have a deep reserve of expertise – both legal and technical.
"
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 28 September, 2017, 11:17:40 am
Would they jack up the prices as much as current black cab rates? I doubt that's possible.

I'd agree with some of criticisms of their business and taxation practices, but that's for governments to enforce. Assuming businesses will volunteer to pay more tax is a highway to nowhere. I'd also agree that Uber must meet the expected standards. But then I'd rather black cabs lost their special status too.

Good point about the drivers, I've never had a bad experience. And more importantly never had to listen to LBC.
I've had an uber taxi get lost in Leeds (his satnav took him miles out of the way, had to suggest a route for him back into the city), and in London. The satnav tried to send him down a cycle path, had to manually talk him round the route into battersea park.

The black cabs are just too expensive for their own good. We all know that.

Uber are operating in York and anecdote says they are charging as much as the local minicab firms.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Greenbank on 28 September, 2017, 11:18:59 am
Would they jack up the prices as much as current black cab rates? I doubt that's possible.

Of course not, that'd be madness and would leave the door open for someone to come up with a rival that didn't price gouge that much. The drivers would just register with both companies (as many drivers currently do now with a minicab firm and Uber separately).

Uber's main distinguishing feature over the competition was the disintermediation play. Instead of being an app that sat as an intermediary between the user and minicab firms/drivers and took a slice of the fee (like Hailo and Gett do), it was the app AND the minicab firm AND handles all of the money. That's how they will always be able to undercut the majority of the competition (even after they have to raise prices to stop burning VC cash).

Uber's dominance will affect four major groups of people:

a) Black cab drivers. But if they continue as they have been led by the LTDA (as is) then they're done for. They've been protected for years but that protection simply doesn't work with modern technology. Most of the limiting factors are foisted on them (fares, vehicles [although this is good in terms of disabled access - but as some people here have commented Uber and other minicab companies do offer a good service for disabled users], and expensive training [The Knoweldge]).

IMHO they need:-
* Cleaner/greener vehicles (with a big incentive for the vehicle to be disabled friendly)
* The ability to treat the TfL tariffs as a maximum (although some do this now since there's no record of fares paid) I've haggled a black cab fare down (prior to the journey beginning)
* Hailo/Gett style app with driver ratings to try and disincentivise twattish behaviour

b) Minicab firms. The drivers will leave or split their time between the minicab company and Uber, but it's the existing minicab firms that will suffer the most as a bulk of their business disappears. They'll probably still live on for longer haul journeys (airport runs and commercial couriering jobs) where they are still the cheapest convenient option beyond public transport.

c) The drivers themselves. Almost every Uber driver I've spoken to really likes working for Uber. They usually cite the freedom it gives them, can work when they like, not being tied to specific hours, don't have to book holiday time, etc. They like the security of not having to handle money, or have people run away from them. The rating system reduces the risk of having nightmare clients. Maybe they're worried that I work for Uber and if they say something different I'll report them somehow, so maybe I'm not getting the whole truth.

However, with such freedom comes a lack of security. The market can be flooded by new drivers and there's no guarantee of income. Uber can put up the price and cut demand (but maintain or even increase its income). Uber can put down the price and cut the income for the driver. Uber can be dicks and have their license renewal refused, or revoked and thousands of drivers are stuffed. All things beyond the control of the driver.

There's no holiday or sickness pay, which is something Uber could address; e.g. stick an extra 10% on each fare and ringfence that (per driver) as a fund to cover any sickness and holidays. But this isn't a problem specific to Uber, it's a problem specific to all of the gig economy companies (Deliveroo, etc). Existing employment law doesn't really cope with this setup very well so that needs reform/updating too.

d) The punters. When they jack up the prices, and there's less competition to turn to. It'd be very bold of TfL to introduce caps/tariffs on/for minicab (e.g. Uber) fares but it could be possible.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 28 September, 2017, 11:37:23 am
Would they jack up the prices as much as current black cab rates? I doubt that's possible.

I'd agree with some of criticisms of their business and taxation practices, but that's for governments to enforce. Assuming businesses will volunteer to pay more tax is a highway to nowhere. I'd also agree that Uber must meet the expected standards. But then I'd rather black cabs lost their special status too.

Good point about the drivers, I've never had a bad experience. And more importantly never had to listen to LBC.
I've had an uber taxi get lost in Leeds (his satnav took him miles out of the way, had to suggest a route for him back into the city), and in London. The satnav tried to send him down a cycle path, had to manually talk him round the route into battersea park.

The black cabs are just too expensive for their own good. We all know that.

Uber are operating in York and anecdote says they are charging as much as the local minicab firms.
I've just checked an Uber price for the last taxi journey I did. Their estimate is £8-£11 for UberX or £11-£15 for UberXL and UberExec. I paid £7 with a local firm (who sent an unmarked car/driver... ).
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: ian on 28 September, 2017, 11:55:40 am
I think in general they charge around the same rates as minicabs, it's the metered cabs they severely undercut. I did Lisbon airport to my hotel the other day and that was €19.20 in a metered cab vs €8.42 by Uber. In San Diego, from the airport of it was $24 plus tips vs. $8.

And for the behemoth, Central London to the Asbestos Palace cost my wife £150ish in a black cab (I've never dared try!). £35 by Uber.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Tom M on 28 September, 2017, 12:04:28 pm
In an Uber related anecdote, the girlfriend was at one time living in London, and in a rather 'refreshed' state at the end of the night summoned an Uber to take her home. Except her 'home' location was set still as her family home near to Dudley. She fell asleep in the back and only awoke on the M6 somewhere near Birmingham.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 28 September, 2017, 12:08:31 pm
Just found the maximum fare rates for hackneys in Bristol.* Looks like the low end of Uber rates are pretty much in line with those, though obviously they're free to undercut or charge more as they like.
https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/34604/Final%20Agreed%20Tariff%20Card%20Oct%202013.pdf/3e4dcdd6-9b4d-4712-9b2c-620328aabaf2

*Zoinks, it's ACB v ACH all over again and this time it's official!
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 28 September, 2017, 12:10:11 pm
But let's not forget their licence in London has been rejected for delays in reporting criminal allegations against their drivers to the police, possible fiddling of medical certificates and alleged regulatory interference, not anything to do with fares.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Greenbank on 28 September, 2017, 12:34:57 pm
But let's not forget their licence in London has been rejected for delays in reporting criminal allegations against their drivers to the police

Agreed, and this is the single easiest thing for Uber to resolve. Previously they were relying on the reporting they were making to TfL but this obviously isn't enough:-

One bit though from https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/understanding-uber-not-app/ (emphasis mine):-

"
The first of these related to a ‘road rage’ incident in which the driver had appeared to pull a gun, causing the passenger to flee the scene. Uber dismissed the driver, having determined that the weapon was a pepper spray, not a handgun, but failed to report the incident to the police. As a result, the police only became aware of the incident a month later when TfL, as operator, processed ULL’s incident reports.

At this point, the police attempted to investigate (pepper spray is an offensive weapon in the UK) but, the letter indicated, Uber refused to provide more information unless a formal request via the Data Protection Act was submitted.
"

They make it sound like complying with the DPA (refusing to give out protected personal data unless a formal request is provided) is a bad thing.

, possible fiddling of medical certificates

None of which Uber itself deals with. That's something between the driver and TfL directly (and/or via a third party agreed by TfL), same with the DBS certification. The dodgy GPs offering medical certificates are not Uber's problem either.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tfl-accused-of-using-bogus-charge-to-strip-uber-of-its-licence-a3642491.html

and alleged regulatory interference, not anything to do with fares.

Greyball was a major fuckup, there's nowhere for them to hide on that although I'm not sure of its specific relevance to Uber in London. If they were licensed and complying with the regulations then they should have no problem with people working for the regulators from using their service. I think they're getting beaten up for Greyball existing, not for it being used in London (I don't think there is an evidence that it has been used in London).
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 28 September, 2017, 12:53:14 pm
The impression I got from those London Reconnections articles was that because Greyball had been used that way in some US cities, TfL were deeply suspicious of it although nothing could be proven in London. That its existence was, in effect, a greyball against the company from a regulator's point of view.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Greenbank on 28 September, 2017, 01:27:59 pm
The point of Greyball is that it was an attempt to get away with operating without a license in Portland (and some other US cities), by making it hard/impossible for agents of the regulator to get rides on the service to gather evidence. And despite getting caught Uber are still able to operate in Portland (I wonder how much that cost and who received what...)

Uber (London) has only ever operated under a valid license, so Greyball isn't really relevant as Uber would have had no reason to deploy it in London - they weren't hiding from anything.

(Uber could, theoretically, have drivers that didn't have a private hire license, but that would be suicide for the London operation. So I suppose TfL might want to have its own employees be able to take random journeys to gather their own evidence of whether drivers are legit or not, but that's much different from knowingly operating without a license. Also the tactics used to identify the transportation agencies employees in Portland, in order to greyball them, wouldn't work anywhere near as well in London: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyball and now that Greyball is known it should be quite obvious to anyone that has used Uber whether they have been Greyballed or not.)

Also, from that article, the point of Uber's separation between Uber BV (the Dutch app company) and Uber London Limited (the minicab firm that gets all of its jobs from Uber BV) is that it is Uber London Limited that requires the operating license from TfL, not Uber BV. ULL doesn't have Greyball itself as it isn't in charge of the app. TfL might find they have no legal right to deny ULL an operating license based solely on the actions of a separate legal entity (Uber BV) no matter how awful their practices are (or have been).
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 05 October, 2017, 12:43:37 pm
Uber will fail in its bid to become the Amazon of taxis, says someone.
Quote
So can Uber afford to become ethical? Its growth to date has been so costly that even after the raft of regulations it has managed to sidestep, and measures forcing down the income of its drivers, it is losing billions every year. In a properly regulated market, in which Uber has to give its drivers appropriate employment protections, and passengers the safeguards they need, its goal of apparently aping Amazon becomes even harder.

If Uber can achieve market dominance before it runs out of funding, the inefficiencies in its model cease to matter. Society will simply have to carry the cost of higher fares and lower driver wages.

If it fails to achieve near monopoly status and has to continue to compete against local firms, in my view it has little hope of ever repaying its investors. For customers that travel to different cities frequently, Uber’s scale gives them a clear edge. For everyone else, is an app slightly shinier than its competitors’ clones enough to outweigh the higher fares that should come with Uber’s model?

Should Uber ultimately fail, it would open up the possibility of a taxi company fit for the 21st century: one that harnesses the possibilities of digital technologies not to enrich venture capital, but drivers themselves, in the form of cooperatives like the one currently developing in the absence of Uber in Austin, Texas.
http://www.citymetric.com/business/uber-trying-be-amazon-it-ll-fail-3374

I like the way he ends on an optimistic note.
Title: Re: Uber loses London licence
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 02 July, 2018, 12:40:55 pm
They've got it back. But "TfL have won."
https://www.citymetric.com/transport/uber-just-got-its-licence-back-London-tfl-regulation-real-winner-here-4012