Slashdot Mirror
London Regulator Says Uber Is Operating Legally
An anonymous reader writes London's transportation regulator has ruled private-driver provider Uber is operating within the law. Licensed taxi drivers in London last month staged a protest urging Transport for London to find that Uber's mobile app acts as a taximeter, which is illegal for use by private-hire vehicles. "TfL said in a statement: 'In relation to the way Uber operates in London, TfL is satisfied that based upon our understanding of the relationship between the passenger and Uber London, and between Uber London and Uber UV, registered in Holland, that it is operating under the terms of the 1998 PHV(L) Act.' The decision was welcomed by Uber's general manger in the UK and Ireland Jo Bertram as a 'victory for common sense, technology, innovation — and above all, London.'"
I wonder how much of this is attributable to the Streisand Effect. I expect that with the generic name Uber it didn't stand out as meaning anything to most non-tech consumers (or even many tech-types for that matter) but the protests made the news and made taxi service harder to come by, planting the name in consumers' minds and giving them a reason to use it.
The smartest thing that the cabbies could have done was to step up their game as far as their service, doing as good a job as possible to show why they're professionals and deserve to be paid as such, compared to any-random-driver that Uber could deliver. Unfortunately hindsight is 20/20...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Uh, I don't think the United Kingdom has any Republicans, or at least none with any particular political power...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Uh, I don't think the United Kingdom has any Republicans, or at least none with any particular political power...
The United Kingdom itself doesn't have any political power.
I am finding this difficult to understand... How about a good old-fashioned car analogy?
I was walking down Fleet St in London on the day of the taxi protest, and the roads were just a great line of taxis... and it was wonderful! No traffic - not moving anyway - and everyone walking as though it was a great boulevard. Nice and quiet and safe, taxi drivers standing around chatting to anyone who came within range.
And I thought, "wouldn't it be great if it was like this every day?" .... and now it sounds like it might be, because they'll not take this ruling quietly! But I much prefer taxis parked in long lines than zipping around trying to hit everyone, so for now, it's all good.
...agree with the decision or disagree. But what's the deal with every legal matter, ever, requiring the involved parties to make public statements that sound like they're on the junior high debate team?
"The decision was welcomed by Uber's general manger as a 'victory for common sense, technology, innovation - and above all, London.'" No - the end of WWII was a victory for London. This is just one more thing Londoners can spend their money on.
"Aereo CEO and founder Chet Kanojia said, 'We are disappointed in the outcome, but our work is not done. We will continue to fight for our consumers and fight to create innovative technologies that have a meaningful and positive impact on our world." No, you're basically a cable company. A meaningful impact would be finding a cure for Alzheimer's.
Are canned statements like this actually effective in convincing the public that your pet project is inextricably linked to the survival of humanity itself? 'Cause to me, they just make you sound like a disingenuous prick.
Even better: this cliche soundbite garbage seems to be the only language spoken by our elected representatives, as well. Why not hire an orchestra to play ominous music in the background, while you're at it? It saddens me to see supposed leaders and captains of industry acting like pre-teens. It speaks poorly of us as a race.
I guess Uber UV is registered in the Netherlands, not Holland.
Sig?
I think they would be happy with a level playing field...
Uh, I don't think the United Kingdom has any Republicans, or at least none with any particular political power...
Maybe not American Republicans... But the UK is currently in the grips of a Conservative government (that party is actually called the Conservatives but commonly referred to as the Tories) and much like the US conservatives, they hate the working class with a passion.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
the fat, racist, overpriced cabbies happy! "They come over 'ere, with their apps and technology... you can't beat the knowledge". Turns out, you can; you just need to know where you are, where you're going, and how to get there. Works fine when I'm travelling abroad; why do you suppose it should stop working in London? (North London at that; they don't like driving South of the river...too many darkies, right fat boy?)
Uh, I don't think the United Kingdom has any Republicans, or at least none with any particular political power...
British republicans are av fringe group, as you would expect the term "republican" has an entirely different meaning in a monarchy, constitutional or otherwise.
And the dems will try to make it so poor people can get free cab rides paid for by my hard earned tax dollars.
Both political parties suck, but lately the GOP has been a bit more sane, at least when it comes to economic issues.
I avoid using cabs, despite the fact that two of my family members drive them for a living.
Sorry, they are expensive, inflexible and provide little advantage in somewhere like London. When you do need them (Tube strikes, etc.,) they are impossible to use.
I've spent an evening walking home from the theatre with a lady with severe knee problems trying to hail a cab. We'd had to help them them to the underground station before we found one that would stop (even when they were showing as available). We were sober, well-dressed, just stepped out of the Royal Albert Hall, had a lady in obvious pain on our shoulders, had waited 20 mins to avoid walking / crowds and in the end made it to our destination before we could hail one.
The last time a train of mine was cancelled, I was on my way to a filming of a TV show in the afternoon. I came out of the train station 30 mins after I should have been on a train further into London, and there were four cabs waiting. All refused to take two people deeper into London because "they'd have to drive back" - it was the middle of the afternoon, so it wasn't like they wanted to get home. In the end, we ran home, got in our car, drove to the place and got there just in the nick of time.
I just don't see the cab in the future of a city like London. We're famously rude as a nation, and cabbies are probably among the worst. They are only there for gullible tourists, from what I see. Sure, there will be exceptions, but the fact is that I've avoided cabs for 15 years and when forced to use them, haven't been able to.
Last time I used one was when my boss was paying for me to come to a meeting with him and we went about 800 yards in one. I'm just glad I wasn't the one paying, and if I remember, we walked back.
There is a distinction between "Hackney Carriage" and just a private mini-cab in terms of service - the mini-cab will generally turn up when you book them and will know where they are going to and not refuse it. But London taxis? Forget it. All this is is confirmation that some guy who wants the job tries harder to help you than someone who has a protected living and specialist privileges.
Republicans? Are they people who used to run pubs, gave it up, and then got back into running pubs again?
I don't think they hate people who make a living - they're just trying to serve up some booze.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
I thought it was Labour that try to make the rich richer and accept back-handers from industry leaders? Or was it the LibDems? Maybe I'm just getting confused, but it seems like they're all equally sleazebags and they'll say whatever they think people want to hear.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
I think republicans are people like gerry adams and martin mcguinness. Who actually do have a modicum of power these days.
I believe, the Green Party (with 1 MP) has an official policy of republicanism, so technically there is at least one. I gather a few other MPs support this as well. Of course this is a pedantic reinterpretation of what republicanism means.
They're over in Ireland - we don't really take them seriously. Even when they were exploding US-funded IRA bombs, we just kept a stiff upper lip and refused to be scared by them (I still can't believe that they failed to explode Thatcher with that Brighton bombing).
It makes me laugh that the USA used to be so happy to fund terrorism and now they get so crazy scared of terrorists that they allow their government to run rough-shod all over their constitution.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
The reason your rat in a maze approach works is because you're not trying to optimise for time, just motion.
Time.
Google maps or whatever Uber drivers are using is not better than the Knowledge.
Your lack of the fundamentals really does remove you from any debate on the matter.
I thought it was Labour that try to make the rich richer and accept back-handers from industry leaders? Or was it the LibDems? Maybe I'm just getting confused, but it seems like they're all equally sleazebags and they'll say whatever they think people want to hear.
I think you've summed up the whole of politics in that last sentence of yours there. We rarely see it described so succinctly.
"Is the Chief Priest an Offlian? Do dragons explode in the wood?"
Except the vast majority of British Conservatives regard America Republicans as slightly loony extreme right wing. They have far more in common with the Democrats which goes to show how right wing American politics is.
I believe, the Green Party (with 1 MP) has an official policy of republicanism, so technically there is at least one. I gather a few other MPs support this as well. Of course this is a pedantic reinterpretation of what republicanism means.
In fairness, the US's Democratic party has an official policy of republicanism. Every Democrat elected official from President Obama on down was, tautologically, either elected by individual voters, or selected in some manner to fill an unexpired term. In either case, the Democrat elected official is charged with voting on behalf of their constituents; their constituents don't get to vote themselves.
Also of note, the US's Republican party has an official policy of support for a democratic system of government. Republicans believe that the best way to select elected officials is generally in a "one man, one vote" style election (the exceptions are for things like unexpired terms.)
TLDR: The US is a democratic republic. The two primary political parties picked pleasant sounding names that have never had anything to do with issues they support.
the US's Democratic party has an official policy of republicanism. Every Democrat elected official [...] is charged with voting on behalf of their constituents; their constituents don't get to vote themselves.
"Republic", at least for the past few centuries, doesn't mean representative democracy. It just means you don't have a monarchy. So while Democrats are indeed republicans, it has nothing to do with the system of democracy that your specific republic uses.
Republicans believe that the best way to select elected officials is generally in a "one man, one vote" style election
Except for the whole gerrymandering thing.
Your claims are not mutually exclusive. Labour have had some shady dealings in the past, as have the LibDems (but less so). Both Labour and the LibDems have not engaged in the anti-poor-people tactics of the Conservatives in levels anywhere near as great. This is evident in the cuts to public spending by the Conservatives (which hurts poor people most), the attacks on unions, and the spates of privatisation.
"Republic" doesn't mean what you think it does. It has nothing to do with democracy. It simply means a country that is not ruled by a dynastic leader. That's it.
So both parties have an official policy of republicanism if they are not actively seeking to replace the president with a leader chosen by dynasty.
The difference is that Labour and Liberal Democrats have to do that in secret, where as the Tories include it in their manifesto.
...how in the case where two groups of people doing essentially the same job are subject to entirely different rules and regulations is "a victory for common sense" ?
If you can't live within your means the cuts are going to happen one way or another whether you want them to or not. The current method is simply to inflate the currency (print or borrow) until it is worth less. That monthly welfare handout drops in buying power even as they increase the dollar/pound amount on the check.
If you think either part is "pro-working class/poor" you are an idiot. They are "pro" themselves and that's it.
Spending cuts targeting benefits that haven't cut the debt or deficit (go read the government stats) are politically motivated. And you sir, by name calling, have already lost the argument.
*cough* Bush
It's all of them. Now move on.
Requiem for the American Dream
I didn't say it does. The Democratic and Republican parties agree, as their official positions, that the United States should be governed as a democratic republic. (Note the small letters on both adjectives.) No shit the Democrats are "in favor of democracy" and the Republicans are "in favor of republicanism." However, the Democrats are ALSO "in favor of republicanism" and the Republicans are ALSO "in favor of democracy." To an outside observer from a country whose political parties have more meaningful names, this isn't necessarily obvious. In the UK (where the parent poster seems to be from), some of the more major parties have more meaningful names. (For example, the "Labour" party picked their name because they claims to support policies that are better for "Labourers" than business owners.) That's the contrast I was drawing.
Anyone know where Goog gets this info? From some public traffic report, or by polling/interpreting data from local mobile devices?
Sinn Fein are a republican party, but very different to the US Republican Party. They are the second largest party in Northern Ireland, and want Northern Ireland to be part of the Republic of Ireland rather than the UK. They sit as part of the European United Left–Nordic Green Left in the EU Parliament, so very much to the left of the US Republicans.
?????? what a childish comment
They hate the working class. And you know this for a fact?