Slashdot Mirror
London Black Cabs Threaten Chaos To Stop Uber
Bruce66423 (1678196) writes in with news about a planned protest by London black-cab drivers against Uber. "London black-cab drivers are planning to cause gridlock in the city to protest against car service Uber. The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association complains that Uber's drivers are using a smartphone app to calculate fares despite it being illegal for private vehicles to be fitted with taximeters. Transport for London has declined to intervene, because it disagrees that there has been a breach of the law. LTDA now plans to force the issue by holding the action in early June. 'Transport for London not enforcing the Private Hire Vehicles Act is dangerous for Londoners,' Steve McNamara, LTDA's general secretary, told the BBC. 'I anticipate that the demonstration against TfL's handling of Uber will attract many many thousands of cabs and cause severe chaos, congestion and confusion across the metropolis.'"
Does that mean the entire LBC can be defined as a terror organization and placed in whatever Britain's equivalent of Guantanamo Bay is?
This could be a doubly pointed demonstration: Uber becomes the defacto 'taxi' service of London, and the government shows exactly what will happen if anybody things to provoke demonstrations which might infringe upon the steady operation of infrastructure :)
These are the sellers of horse feed trying to fight cars not eating oats. Quite simply the day unoccupied driverless cars become a reality this entire job description will be struck from the registry. Driver of car will be right beside shoveler of coal.
We might not see this for a number of years, but what will make me laugh out loud will be when on the eve of driverless cars these same cabbies will inform us that, "People will feel safer and prefer a human cabbie."
As for Uber, the key of any new regulations should not be to protect cabbies, but to protect customers. I suspect that some dark spots with Uber will show up and thus need solving. But one of those dark spots is not the providing of much needed competition in our city's streets.
This is England. They'll be sentenced to funny walks and an ASBO.
Mostly random stuff.
Not really... the cabs are being artificially hamstrung by regulation that was put into place precisely because private people were doing bad things and thus government was lobbied/decided upon that regulation was required in order to protect public safety. So now there are a bunch of cabs which are following said regulations (likely at a pretty significant cost), and now this other organization is setting up a de facto cab company, but doesn't have to follow the regulation. Now... if the cab companies no longer had to follow the regulations and _still_ couldn't compete with Uber, then so be it. But as it is now you're comparing the performance of two race horses, but one of them has its legs tied together.
Yup. You are one hundred percent correct. But this is not a cab problem but something fundamentally wrong with present day implementations of democracy. I can say with absolute certainty that in my area that any decisions made by government that have a large corporate or wealth family interest then the government will act to in the rich family's/corporation's interest. The only time the government acts in some form of public interest is when there is effectively no monied interest.
Personally I think this why in the US abortion is such a big issue. It is largely an issue that has no monied interest (beyond the interest groups themselves) so politicians are off the leash on that issue. But look at the morning after pill. There was a monied interest behind that abortion related aspect so whoosh it was approved in 2 seconds. I am not saying that it is good or bad, just that normally anything involving abortion is normally full on trench warfare.
So in this particular case it will be interesting to watch the fairly well monied Uber fighting with the zillion somewhat less monied cab companies.
This debate is not happening because the politicians said, "Hey look the voters are pissed off with crappy and overpriced transport." They are having this debate because they were told to.
Our interests will not be part of the equation in any way at all.
Becoming a black cab driver in London isn't as easy as buying a car, and that's for several reasons:
- London's fucking big and fucking complicated. Having a satnav isn't necessarily enough to know where to take people, or especially how to get there efficiently
- Black cabs are a part of London's reputation, attraction and transport infrastructure. There's an implicit level of quality and reliability that the licensing is intended to create
- There are too many vehicles in London already, and black cabs get priority on many streets. For this reason black cab numbers are controlled
- Taxi drivers gain personal access to individuals that may be in a vulnerable state. Solo ladies, young people, drunk people
Does that make Uber wrong? Not necessarily. It may be cheaper, it may be easier, it may offer a broader range of potential vehicles.
It also adds traffic to roads not designed to cater for it - the transport system in London is geared around a certain level of private traffic and a certain level of black cab activity, and Uber shifts that relationship.
So no, customers are not property. This situation is also not as straightforward as you're trying to suggest.
We're not talking about satnav reliant random people with a car: Every black cab driver has to pass The Knowledge, comprising a comprehensive map of London and ability to calculate the most efficient route depending on roadworks / time of day / year *in their heads*. This takes years to master and is possibly the most difficult memory and spatial relationship exercise in the world. I doubt you could do it.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
They're expensive because they're worth it. Each black cab driver has passed an extensive testing process which demonstrates their intimate knowledge of the streets of London, being able to navigate through the maze of streets, using routes depending on traffic levels, construction, detours, etc. You can climb in to the back of a black cab, drunkenly mumble your address (or as much of it as you can remember) and the black cab will whisk you home. The black cabs themselves are designed for London streets - their acceleration, turning circles, and number of people they can carry are all optimised for London. They are tightly regulated, and it works - they are demonstrably the best taxi service in the entire world. They already have competition, and it pales in comparison to the professionalism of the fleet as a whole.
It is very clear that you have never set foot in a black cab in London. Not only do the drivers have to pass extensive (and expensive) training and testing, they are also vetted and held to a very high standard in order to obtain and keep their licenses. They KNOW London and how to get around, to a level which I have yet to see any GPS device/app (including Waze) compete with. Requirements Uber are completely bypassing, with the result being an unfair advantage. Black cabs already have an app, with which you can check availability (location of cabs near you on a map), book a cab (with information about the driver) and pay for the ride using any of your stored cards. It's called "Hailo" and I have used it on many occasions. Personally, I would always pick a black cab in London, over some random guy who signed up for using an app with a GPS device.
-kernel picnic-
You could not be more wrong. What they are doing is saying "we had to spend 3 years of our lives, studying and passed rigorous tests, which are repeated at regular intervals, with background checks and continuous scrutiny from "mystery shoppers", and can be kicked out of we mess up... And Uber thinks it's ok to ignore this and operate outside the framework we are forced to adhere to? Not a chance!"
-kernel picnic-
Also, in reality, you want the taxi services to be regulated. I've been to coutries where they are not, and the taxis there range from "you will get cheated" to "you will get raped, killed, and robbed". And that's a fact. No way a foreigner can use the local taxis. You free the business completely, competition will drive the prices low (which is a good thing), but the low prices will force the drivers to cheat, steal, and rob, as the only ones making a profit will be the ones who do. And no, i'm not a taxi driver. I hate having to pay the local super high taxi fares, but on the other hand, the service is first class. They are on time when preordered, the cars are nice and clean and safe. The drivers won't rob you, beat you, cheat you, or anything. They actually know their area, they also have navigators in every car, as well as the taxi centrals help. They are not allowed to refuse a drive because they don't feel like going to a direction where they won't find anyone to come back the other way.
I'm a New Yorker who makes frequent use of the yellow cabs here and has had the pleasure of using London cabs.
In NYC, it's basically the taxi's the are licensed. Any yellow cab has to have a medallion and they are expensive... often going for $750k+ USD. Once you have the medallion you can lease/rent it to just about any hack who qualifies for a drivers license.
In London, it's the drivers that are heavily regulated. The tests are notoriously hard and London cabbies either have or acquire neurology that is much more spatially oriented than normal.
The difference may be subtle to most people but it's important. When you get in a cab in NYC, you usually need to be explicit about the route that should be taken. Nefarious types will often take you through Times Square, Union Square, Canal Street or other traffic nightmares to run up the tab. London cabbies pride themselves (at least in my experience) on on knowing every last back road that will get you there that much faster.
So I see their point. They're a group of professionals.... who act like professionals. They've put a lot of time and effort into becoming such, I'd want to protect my turf as well.
So in this particular case it will be interesting to watch the fairly well monied Uber fighting with the zillion somewhat less monied cab companies.
They're not fighting the cab companies. They're fighting the black cab drivers.
London has a peculiar system. There are black cabs - which can be hailed on the street, within certain limits they are obliged to take you to your destination (so if they're waiting at a major station hoping for a lucrative fare and you want to go around the corner, they have to take you and lose their place in the queue at the station), and the fare is calculated by an installed meter and is relative to time and distance travelled. (There is a minimum fare)
Private hire cars must be pre-booked (the booking only has to be a few minutes in advance - typically you ring up the office and then they send the nearest car to pick you up), and they're under no obligation at all to take you when you call when they hear where you want to go.
Uber uses a metering system linked to an app. Black cabs are the only taxis allowed to have a meter fitted. TfL (Transport for London) have said they don't consider the app to be "fitted" and therefore the law banning other cars from having a meter fitted doesn't apply.
Black cabs also have to pass a rather impressive test. Within the area they're obliged to carry passengers, they're required to show they know every street, landmark etc. (Apparently, when they're examined, a favourite trick of the examiners is to ask them to do a journey where roadworks have temporarily closed the "usual" way and the drivers are expected to know about it and not just "follow the diversion" but take the best route knowing in advance that there are roadworks.)
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
seems like black cabs should be providing excellent service
They are rated as some of the best in the world.
if black cabs service is so much better than ubers, people will surely choose to use black cabs over uber. where's the problem?
really, they just want to use government to stifle competition.
They welcome competition, on fair terms. Tourists (a rather large market in London) have no way of comparing the service provided by the Uber cabs, and the licensed cabs. They have no way of knowing if the Uber driver is actually selecting the best (and cheapest) route for the journey and as Uber have no requirements for drivers to know the area they operate in, there will be plenty of times when the customers will be ripped off, without even knowing it.
-kernel picnic-
People keep arguing that London's black cabs are better than Uber and therefore Uber should not be allowed to compete with them. If London's black cabs are everything you say they are (and I believe you are correct), why shouldn't people be free to take the risks with Uber if they feel the lower cost is worth the risk?
I just don't get the argument, "Option A is better, so people should not be allowed to choose Option B." I understand your argument, but if the cabbies driving the black cabs are so much better than the competition from Uber, why do they need government regulation to keep Uber out of the market?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
To play the devil's advocate, it is bad for tourism and business if you don't have a taxi system that can be relied on to be safe and clean. And, from the tourism perspective, appearance of so is very important. This is most likely rooted in history, especially for a place like London, but I can see it making sense for a city like London to want to ensure that tourists can count on having a pleasant safe ride at a predictable price when taking a taxi.
Not that an Uber ride isn't necessarily so, but without licensing and regulation, there is no way to ensure you have that consistent experience, and even if Uber sets standards, they are outside the control of the city.
I think a little competition is good, but you still need a way to ensure that licensed, regulated taxis are still viable so that tourists and business travelers feel safe.
As a taxi driver in London I would be pretty pissed off if I had just spent three years of my life studying to pass a test and was laying out $500 a year to run my business and had to meet rigid standards because I was abiding by the law and others were allowed to ignore those same laws.