Slashdot Mirror
'Legacy' London Car Hire Companies Lawyer Up Against Uber
An anonymous reader writes with The Stack's report that: The London Private Hire Car Association (LPHCA) has engaged a major firm of lawyers to present its case against Uber in the UK capital, citing lack of continuous insurance checks, Uber's tax avoidance practices and even 'loitering' Uber drivers as reasons to impose regulations which would eliminate Uber's competitive advantage in London. A lot of Londoners like to have that competition around, though.
Uber wants to play in the UK, it can follow all the other laws which have been built up over centuries using common sense to protect the public. I hope they get heavily fined too for being so obnoxious.
While I do think taxi prices are too high, I still have a couple of problems with the uber approach. The main reason for the high prices are quite a lot of regulations imposed on classic taxi companies. Uber wants to take a piece of the cake without following the rules everyone else has to abide.
What I have read in the independant studies is that Uber drivers with their little GPS systems are just as good cost wise and in most cases drivewise as a full on London Cabbie who has studied "The Knowledge". The key is that while on some journeys the cabbie will be more proficient the extra cost more than evens it out with Uber. Except that because the Uber navigation system is getting better and better even that gap is narrowing. Also most journeys are pretty straightforward. You go out to main road A drive until near the destination, and then pull off main road A to the destination.
Then Uber brings the whole modern technology to bear. The app, the information feedback, etc. So about the only real thing left for the cabbies is to defend their monopoly seeing that they have potentially no natural advantage and thus no defence moored in reality. The problem with bending the rules of reality is that eventually they snap and the further and longer you bend them the worse the recoil will be. So at this point they might be able to modernize, take the hit on their monopoly value, take a hit on their wages and survive. But if they hold uber at bay for a number of years the flood will come in and will wash them away. Quite simply the harder they push back the harder reality will try to find away around. For instance a new batch of politicians might sweep into office with the promise of eliminating their monopoly. Thus on Monday they are safe and on Tuesday there is pretty much only Uber standing.
But the key argument that is used is that because the government granted them this monopoly it is the governments problem if they are ruined by taking it away. This holds no moral water; they thought that they were buying a licence to be able to ruthlessly exploit the people of London. They thought wrong. I have zero pity for what comes next.
Haven't we had this discussion multiple times before?
Yes, Uber gives you a lower price.
Yes, it creates competition.
Yes, they act against almost all local laws.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
Before anyone starts with the whole "medallion" thing, that's not a thing in London. If you want to publicly tout for business (i.e a black caps), you have to do "the knowledge" which is a very extensive and tough test for knowing your way around without a stanav. And no: having a sat nav is not remotely equivalent to actually knowing your way around
To be a vehicle hired otherwise (phone, internet), anyone can set up with the appropriate insurance and a few other bits and bobs. It's not hard and uber is not in any way "sticking it to the man". But surprise, surpirse, the other cabbies get pissed off when, despite the rather liberal regulations which never blocked uber from existing in London, uber still likes it's old unfair competition things like flat-out doing illegal stuff and avoiding tax.
At this point, it's known that uber will do anything for a buck, illegal or otherwise. If you use uber especially somewhere like London, you're part of the problem.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Fuck Uber for its practice that makes this site Uber news distribution point.
"Uber wants to take a piece of the cake without following the rules everyone else has to abide."
Fact is two people should be able to enter into their own contract without a jealous third party getting shitty that the buyer isn't forced to buy from their shitty overpriced monopoly. You want to go classic taxi? You are free to do so. The rest of us should be able to do as we wish.
The excuse for the taxi monopoly is you get clean cabs and a higher level of safety. So explain to me why a taxi license costs $1M? http://blogs.reuters.com/felix... It's sheer greed by government workers either to feather their own nests and fat government pension plans.
They are unjust laws designed to enforce an unfair monopoly. Fuck monopolies and fuck unjust laws. Martin Luther King, Jr.: "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
I'm not defending Uber, but what, as a passenger, do I gain by having the wetware in the taxi driver's head do the path-finding instead of the software on his computer? Even if the software is inferior right now it will continue to improve, unlike humans, and if the Uber driver takes longer to get me to where I want to go then I will continue to use his wetware competitors.
Yeh, but now we're calling the Taxi companies that complied with the law "Legacy" companies.... to pretend that the laws are "legacy" laws, and that Uber isn't just the latest version of the mini-cab trying to get around taxi-laws.
Tiresome word games.
Uber in Germany plans to comply with taxi laws and get its drivers a taxi license (which is really a check of the business/insurance/vehicle/person by the Chamber of Commerce). Just like every other taxi firm.
Before anyone starts with the whole "medallion" thing, that's not a thing in London. If you want to publicly tout for business (i.e a black caps), you have to do "the knowledge" which is a very extensive and tough test for knowing your way around without a stanav. And no: having a sat nav is not remotely equivalent to actually knowing your way around
No, it's better. Google knows where traffic is stacked up in real time. If there's been an accident and a lorry is across all lanes someplace, Google will know about it before a driver with "the knowledge" — it doesn't mean you're bloody omniscient. If you were, you wouldn't go into the cab business, because you'd be able to see that self-driving cars are about to eliminate it entirely and this is just a big wankfest to grab the last few years. Like you'd be an idiot to go into trucking right now, as a career.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It isn't a monopoly, since all the black cabs are not owned by one company. Try again.
"With their exclusive rights protected by the Public Carriage Office, and their rivals held back, London black cabs behave like any cartel — they squeeze their advantages for all their worth." http://www.spectator.co.uk/fea...
Uber is cheaper and quicker than black cabs: http://www.independent.co.uk/v...
In the age of GPS "The Knowledge" is a needlessly hard test which keeps most people out. https://www.washingtonpost.com...
London drivers say "The Knowledge" is better than a GPS http://www.theguardian.com/wor... but even before the age of GPS, most cities on the planet regulated taxi without such a test. Doctors do something similar with entrance boards which decide how many new doctors can enter a field. http://wallstreetpit.com/5769-... Rudimentary economics: any profession which restricts their numbers can charge more. Imagine if nurses, paramedics, firemen and cops set up their own mandatory boards what it could do for them.
Most cities restrict taxi numbers usually by restricting the number of licenses issued.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/6... FRANCE $270,000
http://globalnews.ca/news/1780... CANADA Was $360,000
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cost... AUSTRALIA Was $425,000
http://www.scmp.com/business/m... HONG KONG $1M
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... USA $1.2M
There's only one competitor that uses wetware: the black cabs. All the others are private hire companies and they use GPS, just like Uber. It's these private hire companies that are engaging the lawyers in this story, not the black cabbies, as they don't like the private hire companies either.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
American moron who does not realise this story is about minicabs, not black cabs.
London is horrible, back streets and shortcuts are what the knowledge teaches you, as they have to know about 30000 streets within 6 miles of Charing Cross (somewhere about the middle) and how they connect and the various annoying one way systems and what not. They also are the only cabs you can hail on the street, everything else must be booked via office, phone, internets etc. and they are legally required to take you on any journey of 12 miles (or something) slightly more from airports (some issues exist with south London and racism, because people suck). Also the city GPS reception issues exist. Black cabs are a part of London history and are the reason for the only section of 'drive on the right' road in London (outside the Savoy) so I don't see them going anywhere. Their pricing is also defined, they are the only ones allowed to use taximeters.
Uber is a minicab operation of which there are many, it just doesn't want to play by the same rules, it seems because 'the internet' and 'magic', but they are exactly the same as any other minicab, you set a pickup and a destination and they set the price, most minicab firms now send you texts with driver/vehicle information and in London will have one of the 'Private Hire' stickers for licensed vehicles (regulations brought in due to crime in unlicensed trade) with a licensed driver. The charges are not very high, hundreds of pounds, for any reasonable outfit to be able to afford them.
Yeah, self-driving cars in central London. That'll work, with all the roadworks, cyclists, pedestrians, buses, delivery vans, crossings, variable traffic controls based on congestion / time of day / both, road narrowing / widening, etc.. If you'd ever driven in any large town or city in UK (yes, even Milton Keynes) you'd know how silly that idea is.
I'll put it this way: surely you've seen footage of traffic going around L'Arc de Triomphe in Paris, or the Coliseum in Rome (if not, look it up. London has Marble Arch). Do you think a self-driving car, such as we have today or even in the next ten years can cope with that?
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Yeah, self-driving cars in central London. That'll work, with all the roadworks, cyclists, pedestrians, buses, delivery vans, crossings, variable traffic controls based on congestion / time of day / both, road narrowing / widening, etc.. If you'd ever driven in any large town or city in UK (yes, even Milton Keynes) you'd know how silly that idea is.
The silly idea is that humans, who fuck up driving all the time, are inherently better than computers plus remote human monitoring of exceptions.
Do you think a self-driving car, such as we have today or even in the next ten years can cope with that?
Yep. Why not? The computers are better at following rules than we are.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
they didnt have that argument ready in cut & paste format, when someone has to defend them like anons post it makes you wonder if uber is just a criminal front, which is cool and all, but we have to know who we are dealing with when addressing the issue, do we send the boys from Peckham or Scotland Yard to investigate them ?
Learn to compete on service and price you pieces of fucking shit.
The Knowledge is outdated and is easily replaced by GPS. Of course you need local knowledge but not 30,000 streets.
I rarely use black cabs as London's public transport system is excellent. The only cabs that I have been ripped off in were black cabs. Taking the long route or having no idea where they was going (Heathrow to Twickenham would you believe). The legally required to take you stuff is bullshit and you know it!
The design of a black cab is perfect for the job. Seats 5-6 people with luggage and easy to get in and out of.
The laws cover:
Business registration and taxes,
Vehicle safety
Driver background
Price fixed by local authority, no random 'surge pricing'
Meter and measurement conformity.
Laws require drivers pass extra driving test
Badges etc. so driver can be identified by passenger in case of issues.
There's nothing about these laws that is unjust and there was no angry mob demanding taxis be unregulated.
"Nobody gives a fuck about the argument that what Uber is doing is illegal, unless they are already anti-Uber."
No they don't give a fuck about Uber *UNTIL* Uber starts insisting that it doesn't need to follow the laws, and suddenly people are defending the fucking laws rather than have every corp screw us over with whatever random law they want to ignore.
Yet another corporation wanting to piss all over the consumer protection laws, and people are up in arms about it???? What a shocker!
Do you think a self-driving car, such as we have today or even in the next ten years can cope with that?
Yep. Why not? The computers are better at following rules than we are.
They might get there, but I don't think nobody in the field think they are anywhere near ready today. Ref. the story about how the Google car got completely stuck by the indecisive behavior of a cyclist. And 10 years are a very short time span to have infrastructure for self driving cars ready. But I do agree it at some point likely would be the best solution for city traffic to have self driving electric cabs (and delivery trucks) as the only traffic.
No one seems to have picked up the one thing that city hall seems to be worried about, which is real, which is congestion.
In a free market the streets would be extremely full of taxis (broadly defined) hanging around hoping to be closest at hand when someone needs transport, to the point where this is a significant nuisance for everyone else. It is for this reason (at least originally) that most cities limit the number of vehicles allowed to pick up
"street hail" custom. In London (and probably elsewhere in the UK) there is a separate category of vehicles which are allowed to do pre-booked runs (originally you'd have been booking by phone from a landline, so it was really quite different). There is, apparently a phenomenon of professional Uber drivers hanging around near likely pickup points (stations, airports) to the point where it does or might cause congestion, so the same rationale as applied to taxis would argue for somehow restricting this (eg the 5 minute rule would make it more sensible to be parked rather than cruising).
An alternative solution though would be to increase the congestion charge (a generic daily charge for using central London roads) and extend its reach until congestion dropped to acceptable levels. The money could be used to reduce other taxes. Even more extremely, they could just decide the number of vehicles they like in central London and auction off that many daily (or hourly) tickets instead of having a flat charge.
Exactly. People who don't trust navigation systems are fools. Nav systems know more than you do simply because they have more information. They have information about current traffic, accidents, construction, lane closures, etc. Combine that with a decent amount of human knowledge about a local area to fill in the gaps and it will be better than any "The Knowledge".
Before anyone starts with the whole "medallion" thing, that's not a thing in London. If you want to publicly tout for business (i.e a black caps), you have to do "the knowledge" which is a very extensive and tough test for knowing your way around without a stanav. And no: having a sat nav is not remotely equivalent to actually knowing your way around
I was going to make a before someone brings up the black cab's "The Knowledge" thing, but you bet me to it. London has always allowed these things called minicabs. You call a number, a minicab arrives and picks you up. These cab are completely different from Black Cabs, which are the only ones that can be hailed on the road. The minicabs drivers have not passed "the knowledge" and do pretty well. They are ubiquitous in london, as much as the black cabs.
Uber is a minicab that uses an app instead of a phone and is completely legal in london.
Anyone can drive a black cab after taking the knowledge test, there is no monopoly unlike your sh*thole country. Oh, and you can also set up or drive for a private cab company at any time. Go stick your stupid medallion system up your ass, because it's irrelevant to the rest of the world.
Fuck off with your pathetic shill "news".
If you want to compete, and many of us wish you do, stop feeding being complete wankers, using the media to push your propaganda. Operating without appropriate insurance cover is massive. You are operating illegally, you cunts.
All you Uber zealots and shill, please limit your usage of cabs to Uber. Sooner or later you and your family will be on the end of massive medical bills, none of which will be covered by your beloved illegal taxi service.
Wankers, the fucking lot of you.
People who trust sat navs blindly are also fools. Sure Google maps knows a lot more than me, which is why I use it extensively, but there's 3 journeys I do regularly that it consistently chooses the wrong route; it clearly doesn't know, or at least effectively apply what it knows enough, to consistently beat experienced drivers on routes they know (yet).
"At this point, it's known that uber will do anything for a buck, illegal or otherwise. If you use uber especially somewhere like London, you're part of the problem."
Well, said. Look at the comments: doesn't it look suspicious that the percentage of anonymous cowards here seems to be well over average?
The point is: yes, probably taxi regulations are suboptimal and, yes, Uber wants to throw all them off, disregarding if motivated or not, for their own profit, which shouldn't be tolerated.
There's, though, a point that I don't see usually highligthed and it is that, in the end, as Uber says once and again, it is not Uber the once driving the cars. But, still, governments are going against Uber and only against Uber, which shows it's not only Uber the one being greedy here, also governments.
In a sane scencario, governments would be after Uber on their contract relationship with drivers: are they following their due process? i.e.: drivers should be licensed (both to drive a car and operate a public transportation device), are they paying their taxes acording to local tax regulations? etc. *BUT* on the other hand, the onus of in fact being a private contractor and a taxi driver should be on the driver itself, which doesn't happen because government much prefers going after a single company than a thousand drivers and *that* part is unjust against Uber, no matter how is going everything else.
"I'm not defending Uber, but what, as a passenger, do I gain by having the wetware in the taxi driver's head do the path-finding instead of the software on his computer?"
It's been said that "two people should be able to enter into their own contract" as a defense for Uber in a same free-market environment.
But it is also a well stated fact that in such free-market environment, contracts need to be perfected by the two parties being in full knowledge of the transaction. Taxis, by its own nature, make very difficult to set this level on knowledge: you reach a city and take a taxi which, at least for you, is no different than a thousand others, and after your trip, chances to ever see that taxi again are slim: the end result is that the customer is at a huge disadvantage on this relationship so, in order for the service to even operate, it gets regulated to return a fair balance on customer's expectations.
Uber tries to blow off this balance for their own profit in a race to the bottom, and naively thinking that the invisible hand will straight things out is just that: naive.
Google "knows" where traffic is stacked up in real time.
Information about traffic conditions is supplied by humans, and can be absorbed by other humans. Adjustments to routes are made using algorithms programmed by humans, mirroring those already used by humans. Your argument comes down to, "Computers think better than humans!" which is false. They process faster than humans in a limited scenarios, but the onus is on you to provide proof - not a hypothesis based on what might become - for particular scenarios.
you'd be able to see that self-driving cars are about to eliminate it entirely
Eh, maybe we'll start getting there in a couple of decades. If I set my career based on where I'm going to be in 20 years time, I'd be retired.
Like you'd be an idiot to go into trucking right now, as a career.
Your faith is noted, and probably won't be rewarded.
Agree! Clearly there are some taxi trolls in this thread trying to silence critics of their monopoly. Well, too bad. Now the people have a choice and have spoken with their wallets.
Stop using nouns that are mostly used as verbs in the summary title, between this and the grounded f35 pilot post... Please start speaking them out loud to a coworker to test for coherency. Or something.
Someone help, my buggy whip business is being threatened by these new-fangled "automobiles"!!
-Joe Oldguy,
Buggy Whips Ltd.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Never said humans were better. But given the unpredictability of humans, putting self-driving cars in the same busy interchange as humans is guaranteed to end badly.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
http://journalstar.com/news/lo... http://www.nydailynews.com/new... http://www.nola.com/crime/inde... http://www.derbytelegraph.co.u... http://www.local10.com/news/mi... http://thenationonlineng.net/c... http://www.wowt.com/home/headl... http://www.nydailynews.com/new... http://ktla.com/2015/07/23/pol... http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/u... http://www.theage.com.au/victo... http://kdvr.com/2015/03/16/wom...
I'm not asking why we have regulation. I'm asking why the Londoners have regulation that requires taxi drivers to memorize the entire city map.
>I'll put it this way: surely you've seen footage of traffic going around L'Arc de Triomphe in Paris, or the Coliseum in Rome (if not, look it up. London has Marble Arch). Do you think a self-driving car, such as we have today or even in the next ten years can cope with that?
Excellent point, and one I've made repeatedly to no avail. People here on slashdot want self-driving cars soooooooo bad that they'll ignore anything that might harsh their buzz or introduce some of that goddamn reality into their wet dream of self-driving cars.
In my opinion the only way you'd ever get a self-driving car to navigate the L'Arc de Triomphe safely is if they were all self-driving cars in that traffic nightmare.
I've also mentioned the problems with roadworks, cyclists, pedestrians, buses, delivery vans, crossings, variable traffic controls and the like, but I'm usually shouted down and told that "smarter software" will deal with all that stuff. Somehow I doubt it.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
The problem is that there is no warrantie that Uber drivers / Uber is even making use of that lower denominator.
Do they have the car / insurance / licensing as required?
As for avoiding taxes, that is a whole different kettle of fish.
And that is solelly the responsability of the government with their inneficiency in curbing businesses to move profits to other countries in disguise.
Better just scrap the whole corporate tax and make sure all business pay a business rate based on activity. That is the only way to curb the unfair competition between international players and the mom/pops small business.
Listen, this is the way that the society you live in was built. People come up with laws to make the society better for everyone and people are expected to follow those laws. If you don't like those laws you are free to fight them using the same process. One such set of laws are the ones governing the taxi industry. They ensure there aren't too many cabs on the road so that it doesn't become dangerous, people can access cabs fairly in the eyes of the law even if they are challenged in doing so, and that the people and driver are adequately protected. These are good things. If you don't think these are good things then fight the law and good luck to you, but don't just ignore the law because then you're screwing over people who like laws that protect public safety.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Also, 'the knowledge' doesn't include real time traffic. Sat-nav + traffic + estimated future traffic patterns can fix a lot of issues.
You know what pisses me off? Half these Uber-defending-jackasses self-identify as Libertarians. It's because of this that I can understand the confusion on the part of sane people everywhere. I'm truly at a loss and really do think it's time to start with the new moniker. People, people are the damned problem. Give them something good and they'll shit on it, set it on fire, or otherwise ruin it. I guess I can live with that. It's when they complain and throw a temper tantrum afterwards, blame others for their behavior, and insist they be given a new toy because they still believe they're correct and unaccountable.
It's not even an age or generation thing. It's just people. I hate people. I'm glad I'm not one of them.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Yeah but in my experience the Knowledge seems to get us very little in practice. I have never been able to jump in a cab and not had to provide directions at some point during the journey. Capped off recently when the driver was Tweeting on his dash-mounted phone while driving down Euston Road. I don't like Uber, but the taxi drivers don't help themselves either.
The wetware question is off-topic as neither Uber nor mini-cab drivers are require to have "The knowledge"
However...
I am not a black cab driver, I have nowhere near the level of (dyanmic) London navigational knowledge to qualify.
I do regularly drive in London.
Like many people driving in London who are familiar with the areas they drive in I use sat nav for 2 reasons.
1) For entertainment (you want me to drive via where? Are you crazy?)
2) As a means of generating a time to beat for the journey.
In recent months I have had on several occasions had the navigational software suggest a route that would add 30 minutes driving time to the route I take (I had the time once and followed it out of curiousity) and that is 20 minutes more than just stopping the car and walking to my destination.
The problem with relying on non-wetware is that the "rules" it follows tend not to be changeable on the fly.
As I said at the beginning this has nothing to do with the original article. Uber in London allows you to book a black cab through their service (https://www.uber.com/cities/london) and the cost is that regulated by TFL. (https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/taxis-and-minicabs/taxi-fares)
This means that it looks like one can get the alleged benefits of Uber with the alleged benefits of a black cab. (It might be interesting to find out how easy it is to get an Uber ride south of the river - don't worry if you don't get the reference, it just means you are not familiar enough with London).
Most of what I know about Uber is from headlines and old news articles (i.e. not much).
The impression I have of them is probably wrong, but nonetheless probably one that several people share, that they avoid as many as possible of the existing methods of regulation put in place for the safety of passengers (this impression is contradicted on their website but it still lingers) and the welfare of drivers.
This worries me and several others as many years ago (as in decades) there were lots of issues with mini-cab companies (the sort of organisations that are now a part of LPHCA) and there was a lot of work done in terms of regulation of and compliance by the mini-cab companies which means that I feel they are trustworthy. On top of that they have a geographically fixed office and a land line number - theoretically I could speak to some heavies and go knocking on the door if there was a problem.
Can I buy a used black cab, do you know? I'd seriously buy one and have it imported and I'd be willing to pay pretty well for it. I'd almost certainly have to get it antique in order to register the thing as I refuse to own a trailer queen. I absolutely adore them but I've only been in one twice and, I must say, it was a number of years ago but the service was exact and perfect. I had no idea what the street was where I was (either time) and I simply flagged down a passing cab and told him my hotel name. He didn't ask any additional information but was very polite - including vast stores of cultural knowledge (or so it appeared to me).
It was pristine, in a way, and something I truly appreciate. I've since watched a documentary about their testing process (The Knowledge or something akin to that) and saw why he was as good as he was. This experience was repeated twice, I've only needed the service twice, but was impeccable. I can neither complain about the price, the service, or the server.
The vehicle was awesome. The second trip was interesting, we were on a small side street (I had been to a pub in what used to be a 'gin house' I understand) and not far from that old, round, theater that had something or other to do with Shakespeare. Anyhow, he did a U-Turn in the street while it looked to be much too small to do so. We're talking Moog style, or Subaru style, turning radii here. That was where I noticed how tight the suspension was and how well the vehicle must be maintained because it didn't appear to be new but was still in very good repair and was extremely well kept.
I didn't have much time (or think to) ask much about it but I did notice how well the vehicle appeared to be maintained and I can imagine that they see a lot of fairly rough usage.
What would be awesome is if you got a *something* if you manage to stump the driver (within reason). I seriously think those guys could compete with an optimized GPS and have the added benefit of not losing the signal when around tall buildings. However, if you stump the driver then you should get a t-shirt or something. Or a free fare. If such were the case then I'd do my best and try this out the next time I get the chance to visit. I'd take multiple rides just to see if I could stump the driver. I've not been back in nearly 15 years, that might almost be enough to make it a definite choice for an overseas adventure.
Anyhow, I'm not generally inclined to protect any sort of business and this really isn't the group targeting Uber or anything so it doesn't really apply, but it would be a shame to lose this service and rich history. I do hope they continue to remain in business and that the turmoil doesn't affect them. I don't know if they're even allowed to use a GPS? They certainly did not when I was able to use their services and that was part of the experience and charm.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
No, it's better.
Yes better, because it's better to have a bunch of people staring at satnavs rather than at the road. Brilliant idea!
Google knows where traffic is stacked up in real time.
My goodness! That's so completely new that I bet no one has thought about broadcasting real-time traffic information before over this thing I like to call "the radio". In fact the only part of london I ever knew by name as a kid was "the Hangar lane Gyratory" because whenever the radio was on, the traffic update would mention tailbacks at the Hangar lane Gyratory. Look seriously, taxis have had access to traffic information pretty much in real time for years and years and years. You've been even able to get it by text mediums broadcast as well.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Black Cabs, which are the only ones that can be hailed on the road
One of the complains is that the uber drivers are touting for business, which means they're illegally trying to be the equivalent of black cabs.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The point is: yes, probably taxi regulations are suboptimal and, yes,
I don't think they are. London's had a thriving taxi and minicab business for years.
There's, though, a point that I don't see usually highligthed and it is that, in the end, as Uber says once and again, it is not Uber the once driving the cars. But, still, governments are going against Uber and only against Uber, which shows it's not only Uber the one being greedy here, also governments.
How is the government being greedy here? If uber drivers are systematically causing problems then uber is at fault. Playing silly games with "oh they're not contractors its not OUR fault" doesn't cut it, because everyone realises that uber are in fact the problem and having contractors doesn't absolve you of responsibility.c.
*BUT* on the other hand, the onus of in fact being a private contractor and a taxi driver should be on the driver itself
Why? If uber is creating this situation, then they're responsible for it in every moral and ethical way.
Finally, will your opinion on the above if uber drivers are ruled to be employees?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Sat navs are responsible for so much poor traffic flow on the outskirts of the town I live that the local council has had to put up more and more signs to restrict the type, speed and behaviour of traffic.
A knowledgeable human planning a route will know which roads are smoothest, safest, widest, and typically emptiest, receive regular updates on current traffic conditions, and choose as appropriate for the vehicle and weather. A human using a sat nav is the very definition of deskilled labour, and does not have access to all the detailed information that sat nav systems don't either - and even if he did, it would take him too long to take it all in and process it vs already knowing it. Pro-Uber types are the sort of idiots who argue that no job requires skill because you can look up how to do anything on the Internet. "Surgeons? lol they are just salty because Uberdoktor is cheaper and enterprising freelancers can operate step by step by following the instructions on the screen... people who don't trust an expert system are fools... they know more than surgeons do because they have more information. They will be better than any 'medical degree'."
That is the complain from the black cabs, no one else in any news article (before today) has claimed this. I prefer to take this with a pinch of salt, no thanks.
Legacy? come on. how about License regulated taxi drivers lawyer up against illegal gypsy cabs.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Don't panic, Oldguy! Your post is important to us so has been placed in a queue. Please hold the line and our cartel will get to your post shortly. When we do one of our abusive taxi drivers guest-posting today will hiss and spit and swear at you and walk away with a smug smile on his face thinking he's won.
... it is a minicab company.
If Uber was a ride sharing company then the sharer would share - which means not charge at all, or at most charge for half the petrol used.
As soon as you charge more than that you are not sharing anymore, you are a taxi (do the knowledge in London) or a minicab (stick to the regs) or illegal.
I can see no problem with most of the regs - you want to know the driver can drive, has not been disqualified, passes basic pnc checks (not a wanted criminal), the car is safe and has proper insurance and you wont get ripped off on the fare.
Uber's reasonable complaint imo is that the TFL is under pressure to set a minimum 5m wait time.
Taxis are a quasi public service in most regions. The gov't requires taxi drivers to take fares that are virtually impossible to do profitably. Either the fare is so expensive that no rider could afford to pay (Think $300 to get home) or there are no drivers because there's so few fares at that time that the fares don't cover operating costs. You could argue that this is the way it should be, but only if you ignore that reality you like so much. How many of these late night fares are from folks that would otherwise be driving drunk?
The other bit of reality that Uber likes to ignore again rests on the quasi public nature of our civilization. Specifically we base the quality of life on several job perks Uber is actively trying to get out of (Minimum Wage, Health Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, Taxes to pay for social services, Business and Drivers Insurance, etc, etc).
Basically, Uber is only profitable when they externalize their costs, similar to what Walmart is doing by paying their employees so little they qualify for food stamps and local gov't's free healthcare. We could tax Uber to make up for this, but it's almost impossible with all the tax shelters unless we're willing to start making direct attacks on our Ruling Class (good luck with that).
Uber will go one of two ways: Either the whole house of cards will fall when people decide they have to uphold their end of the social bargain or an entire generation of workers will be driven into abject poverty by the race to the bottom.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
One Uber story a week is enough!
Yup. Or maybe we should say 'legacy' roads? Funny how 'legacy' means "shitty old shit" while a real actual legacy - infrastructure, a built world that people get to just be born into - goes totally unnoticed.
Most roads around here (Ventura County, USA) do NOT have real-time traffic information or any information about constructions, closures, etc. Just the main highways. Likewise in Los Angeles. Get off the freeways and major highways and you'll get a map - and that's it.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
During my evening commute in SIlicon Valley, the "real time" data shown in the Google maps app on my Android phone is useless. It's so inaccurate that it provides no value.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The arguments made against Uber here over many other threads have been really good. When criticizing other large corporations for the same type of behaviour but for the corporation's own benefit the arguments made here sounds weak because there is a sense that there is nothing much anyone can do about it. Which then brings us to why the arguments here are so strong, you know who you can affect to make a change in this, the common person who won't listen to this because they would notice that you're good at trying to force them out of using UberX but do nothing about the other corporations who are "wrong" in the same way. And so their is no motivation to give up on using UberX to make a stand when that message will be lost to other corporations keeping their heads down and in line to survive which then they're at a loss because they also can't save money with UberX.
UberX is making good margins and this is Slashdot, where many of you have the technical capabilities to make an app that would compete against UberX, and the reason there is no competition to UberX on that margin is because there are so many business regulations that not many is willing to go from worker to business owner and end up being "one of them".
Can I buy a used black cab, do you know? .
http://www.elitelondontaxis.co.uk/
Just one of many websites.
My friend;s dad owned one and had it painted up to advertise his pub. It was a lovfely ride as you'd expect but it was not that economical (it's very heavy) but it was a great thing to go to festivals or on long journeys in.
Awesome. Bookmarked - thanks. I'll look into it when I return home from my travels.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You've fatally misunderstood Uber's business model and why they do what they do.
Uber is not anti-regulation and does not engage in a "race to the bottom" where they ignore the fact that some cab drivers are crappy.
Rather, Uber is the regulator and prevents the race to the bottom in entirely different and more modern ways. Instead of using the (literally) steam-era approach of forcing cab drivers to memorise street maps, they use GPS. Instead of setting high and constant fees with mandated pickup to make prices predictable, they use global knowledge of supply and demand to show you a price ahead of time. Instead of attempting to judge a cabbies integrity and character through some bullshit interview process they gather real time feedback from actual riders.
To see Uber as anti-regulation is to miss the point. They are merely a much better regulator that uses 21st century tools.
Why doesn't Uber start an airline company. They can use large body planes, insurance for a small Cessna and little or no inspections. Also pickup at any gate as long as it is pre-arranged on a cell phone.
I think it might be helpful to point out exactly how customers might be disadvantaged by Uber in the London taxi market in relation to pricing.
The pricing problem passengers have always faced in taxis is that unscrupulous operators will overcharge after the fact, ie once the booking has started.
So the London system is set up to provide customers with a choice between two fundamentally different pricing systems, while ensuring they don't get ripped off:
1. Black cabs have a meter, with rates regulated by law, and with drivers (and cars) subject to extensive regulation. So as a passenger, you can hail a black cab in the street, jump in, and be broadly confident you'll be taken to your destination having paid the same amount you would have paid if another black cab had picked you up. There's a risk the driver might take you the long way round, but that's why the regulations exist -- to reduce that risk of being ripped off. So you don't know the bill at the start of the trip, but you do know it's going to be fair.
2. The private hire firms don't have meters. They've got to give you a price in advance, so you can choose for yourself whether you think it's a ripoff before you're committed. Then they've got to stick to the price even if they get stuck in traffic or need to take you the long way round. And you can book a private hire car in advance (and it will hopefully show up on time).
Because the former is more highly regulated than the latter, black cabs are given some specific advantages in the market: in particular, they can ply for hire (but they can't choose their fare).
Now, along comes Uber, and they want to provide you with a taxi service without playing by either the black cab or the private hire pricing rules.
They want to have the following advantages of a black cab:
- charge you an unpredictable amount
- ply for hire (in effect)
- no need to allow passengers to book in advance
And they want to have the following advantages of a private hire:
- set their own pricing structure, and have it vary unpredictably and be opaque to customers
- use vehicles that are not accessible, cannot complete a turning circle in 25ft, etc
- turn you down as a fare
Any way you look at this, it is a move to increase pricing power of the taxi company at the expense of the customer. If they wanted to solve the problem in London, they could achieve most of it in a heartbeat, by making binding legal commitments to TfL, subject to oversight, that pricing would never exceed the black cab metered tariff, that passengers would never be turned down by a driver, and start providing advance booking. Fat chance of that happening, though.
Incidentally, because my wife and I shared a home address and credit card account and both had Uber accounts, they arbitrarily decided to suspend each of our Uber accounts because they thought this was a security risk. How it makes any difference to them who pays an account so long as my money was good is a mystery to me. They then told me I could unsuspend the account if I scanned my passport details and emailed it to them! I told them to go whistle.
At least in the U.S. (and I'm pretty sure this is true in the UK as well), there is a clear legal distinction between cars that can pick people up off the street when hailed (cabs) and services that you can call for a ride (Uber). The cabs (like you) just want to bitch and moan that somehow, using an app on a phone to book a ride is the same as hailing a cab off the street, as opposed to, you know, calling for a ride on a phone... because an app on that same phone is different from using the phone to make a call, or whatever.
Furthermore, Uber insures drivers and passengers in most cases without ever being required to by any regulation. Can you imagine if Uber had a quasi-monopoly like the cab companies? It would take literally decades for a common-sense regulation like requiring insurance to actually be put into law -- that's the way government operates. With a private company, they see the demand for insurance and implement it as soon as they reasonably can, without some pork-laden bill being kicked from subcommittee to subcommittee for years like you have in government.
Just out of curiosity, does the navigation app pass "the knowledge" test?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
"Finally, will your opinion on the above if uber drivers are ruled to be employees?"
Will... change, I suppose you mean. My opinion wouldn't change but, since the situation changes it would also change the output required from my opinion: there wouldn't be a private contractor, therefore the only entity that have to be looked after would be Uber.
Note I'm not against Uber drivers being contractors -as long as they are not hidden hires, or employees. In any case, proper legislation applies.
"To see Uber as anti-regulation is to miss the point."
It dismisses regulations for their own profit no matter how intelligent your argument seems to you.
"They are merely a much better regulator that uses 21st century tools."
and naively thinking that the invisible hand will straight things out is just that: naive.
The advantage of Uber is it lets passengers rate the driver so other passengers can avoid bad ones and will preference good ones. You can't do that with taxis where you get whoever turns up. I've encountered some very dishonest taxi drivers in my time and plenty of media reports about taxi drivers raping passengers. This isn't about taxi drivers in tears they are worried about our safety. It's about them hating competition because people wouldn't be usng Uber if it wasn't better. Best way to solve this: repeal the laws that taxi cartels are using to keep out competition. Licensing should be cheap. Crime checks and insurance don't need to cost the vast fortunes taxi medallions are sold for in many countries. Been nice gravy train for government but the ride is over **Chicago to auction new taxi licenses, starting at $360,000** http://www.wbez.org/news/wanna...
What a nasty bunch these taxi drivers are! ‘I hope you get run over’: Black cab drivers target Uber’s female boss with sick Twitter trolling: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
Show me these "independant studies" or GTFO.
The knowledge doesn't just help the driver navigate, but gives them such an extensive knowledge that partial or even flat-out contradictory addresses can be resolved to real places, and the journey can continue. Falling drunk into the back of a black cab and muttering your street name and/or a bit or two of postcode, only to fall asleep and be woken outside your flat by a driver asking for a very fair price is simply not possible with Uber.
You've fatally misunderstood Uber's business model and why they do what they do.
Uber is not anti-regulation and does not engage in a "race to the bottom" where they ignore the fact that some cab drivers are crappy.
Rather, Uber is the regulator and prevents the race to the bottom in entirely different and more modern ways. Instead of using the (literally) steam-era approach of forcing cab drivers to memorise street maps, they use GPS. Instead of setting high and constant fees with mandated pickup to make prices predictable, they use global knowledge of supply and demand to show you a price ahead of time. Instead of attempting to judge a cabbies integrity and character through some bullshit interview process they gather real time feedback from actual riders.
To see Uber as anti-regulation is to miss the point. They are merely a much better regulator that uses 21st century tools.
Then why don't they do the good things you claim they do AND follow the laws passed by the democratically elected government of the jurisdiction they want to operate?
If Uber is allowed to ignore regulations for their illegal taxi business, then I should be allowed to paint my car up like a police cruiser, carry a gun and fine people for speeding/impeding traffic, or paint a van like an ambulance and charge people "surge pricing" for that adrenaline shot if they are having a heart attack? If they didn't want to pay a billion dollars for the shot or an aspirin, they shouldn't have had a heart attack or whatever.
If you want to say the regulations are out of date, make that case in a court of law - you are not allowed to ignore them until they are repealed.
If you don't like the laws applicable to a business in a community