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.
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.
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.
It isn't a monopoly, since all the black cabs are not owned by one company. Try again.
Fact is two people should be able to enter into their own contract
So buy up all the roads you're going to be using, and select anyone you want to drive you along them. Now everyone involved in the contract is in agreement, otherwise...
The rest of us should be able to do as we wish.
...wanting to "do as you wish" with other people's property makes you a thief and a leech.
The excuse for the taxi monopoly
There is no monopoly in London. There are regulations for black cab drivers (which you can hail in the street), and regulations for private car hire (where you call up / use an app / whatever).
So explain to me why a taxi license costs $1M?
This is about London, not the USA.
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.
>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...
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."
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.
... 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.
Untill plane with 300 people crashes into ocean like Malasian one did, then everybody screams "regulation!"
This is pretty much how we ended up with taxi regulations.
With unregulated taxi services you quickly reach the problem of oversupply. There are only really two ways of dealing with oversupply, 1) regulation or; 2) violence. Having lived in both a well regulated developed, western city (in Australia) and a developing, unregulated city (in both Thailand and the Philippines) I can say that regulation with all its prices and pitfalls are better than armed taxi gangs enforcing their turf.
Western nations experienced the problems with taxi gangs many generations ago, this is why we have regulations and people who've never lived in place like Phuket have no idea how bad it gets. Thailand manages to do public transportation very well, from the highly organised system of Bangkok to the ad-hoc Baht buses prevalent in smaller cities and towns, however in Phuket there is practically no public transport because whenever the government attempts to set up any municipal buses. the taxi gangs (AKA tuk tuk mafia) stop them, pull them over and beats the shit out of the drivers (if they're lucky, it ends at a beating). This is the kind of system that exists without regulation.
Having experienced both, I'd definitely prefer an over-regulated system to a non-regulated system.
Uber however is a self correcting issue. In a place like Australia all we have to do is wait for them to have an accident. Regulations protect taxi companies from being bankrupted by insurance claims by limiting their liabilities, the government will extend no such courtesy to Uber as they have chosen to ignore regulations. So as soon as they have 1 serious accident in a place like Australia, England or Germany the insurance companies will tear Uber to shreds. Their war chest might be enough to survive one such encounter, but two will kill them.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.