Slashdot Mirror
London Mayor Boris Johnson Condemns Random Uber Pick-Ups
An anonymous reader writes: The mayor of London Boris Johnson has written a column in the Daily Telegraph condemning the way that Uber drivers in the UK capital can effectively circumvent black cabs' legal monopoly on being hailed by random passengers. Whilst supporting the principle of free enterprise, Johnson has no solution to the legal quandary, except to hobble Uber's business model in an absurdly Luddite move, or else level the playing field and condemn the well-outfitted but expensive black cab trade to extinction. Johnson is reluctant to ask such a thing of Parliament, noting that many people there don't 'have apps'.
Can you be picked up after calling a friend to come get you? If yes, why not when you "call" an Uber?
Just saying "legal monopoly" doesn't mean much without details.
I've been to London a number of times. I think London is the only city I've ever been where I really liked the cab system (black cabs specifically that is) - the drivers are friendly, the cars in great shape and clean.
But even so, what if you can't find one? If you call (if you can call) you might be waiting a long time, or have to walk a while to where you pick one up.
London is I think a model city where the black cabs and Uber can co-exist really well - because the black cabs already set a high bar of service, they are actually worth what the charge. Uber would take away minimal business from the black cabs overall, basically people who were really cheap or couldn't find a cab.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...but this article summary seems somewhat biased.
So why do these rants keep getting selected? There is only one reason: some of the moderators are Uber fans, and they want to keep flogging this dead horse. It's now about promoting a specific ideology, not about geek news.
This time let's talk about the failure of the selections system and institutional bias. That's the real issue here.
Why is Snark Required?
This subject seems to get pushed here ridiculously frequently. Every story is excessively shrill in support of Uber, with no objectivity (on Slashdot, hah!) or balance. Is some of Uber's big budget being spent here on astroturfing?
require personal auto-insurance to not only cover it, but to have it as legal since it doesn't really cross into "commercial" territory at such a low level.
fuck off, my insurance premiums are high enough as it is, no way I am subsidising Uber drivers, that a too cheap or don't care enough about regulations, to keep them insured.
What about the coward who's post was selected in the first place?
Why is Snark Required?
I have taken Uber three times. Aside from the first (free) ride, the charge for the ride has been 5X of the "estimated price.
Oh, and their driver pulled away immediately after "stopping" for the pickup. They charged me $10 for the "abandoned" ride-call.
Fuck Uber. Taxis – fully regulated & taxed – are indeed cheaper and more reliable.
Regulations exist for a reason
Let's get one thing straight, in almost all jurisdictions where taxi's are regulated, Uber is not a "revolutionary" taxi company, it's not even a taxi company, it is a plain old 'limousine' company.
You book the limo over the internet and a sub-contracted driver+car turns up at an agreed time and place. Uber's "freedom loving" marketing strategy is to use the "on a computer" fallacy to undermine the existing market such that they can rebuild it in their own image. The people who will be hurt most by their racketeering are the workers, ie: the drivers in both camps.
This is just clever marketing in that the way to win an unwinnable argument is to convince the audience it is all about a higher morality, in this case Uber paints itself as a "Heavyweight freedom fighter for the little guy", IMO nothing could be further from the truth.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Enough calling these battles Luddite. No government is talking about banning mobile apps to organise businesses, or automated cars/more efficient services. What they are doing is banning an ILLEGAL business model which is trying to establish a monopoly. History has shown us time and again that the only monopolies which should exist should be government owned monopolies. The Taxi industry is one of these monopolies. Power companies, water companies, and telecommunications infrastructure companies are all entities which should be government owned/run to achieve wider economic objectives than just short term profit. America has spent hundreds of billions of dollars trying to get the telcos to upgrade to fibre and it hasn't worked. If the US government had said screw you, and built the fibre directly, the USA would have had FTTH to every home in the early 2000s. This fantasy that UBER is some magical company with amazing ideas that should just take over the world is retarded. We KNOW UBER is planning to sack all their drivers once the cars are automated. Their CEO has admitted this many times. It would be much better for the UK/US/AUS governments to own the automated cars and booking systems and capture the revenue from the automated car services, than allowing more wealth be siphoned out of their respective economies to a couple of billionaires in North America. UBER's business model is predatory, monopolistic and exploitative, and they're selling it under the guise of convenience/cost. These people are planning to take on the entire transport industry once they've taken out taxis. Expect them to start going for freight/road/rail services next. There is a strong humanist argument that as we phase out entire industries for automation, that the profits raised from those automation efforts be used to raise the living standards of everyone, not just a tiny minority that came up with an obvious idea. This is only going to get worse as we start to automate all service/manufacturing/primary production jobs. UBER really is the test case for how we deal with phasing out entire workforces and replacing them with no new jobs.
You make it sound like whatever is legal is moral, and whatever is illegal is immoral.
As has been mentioned repeatedly with Uber it is in almost all countries. The claims about unjust laws get repeated even when the case in question only requires one or more of: A certificate of good conduct for the driver, a business insurance for the car, a certified taximeter or restrictions against price gouging ( a.k.a Uber surge pricing ). Uber has no plans to follow any law that inhibits their profit in any way.
You make it sound like whatever is legal is moral, and whatever is illegal is immoral. If only the world were that simple.
Yeah, blah blah, Uber fans always trot this out. Was Rosa Parks wrong to break the law about where black people sat on a bus? No, therefore anyone can break any law they disagree with.
It is both idiotic and insulting to compare a commercial undertaking trying to gain illegal arbitrage with civil Rights activists and those who practise Civil Disobedience to protest about genuinely unfair laws.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I think its an intentional pun, and quite a good one. Sort of like advertorial and slashvertisement.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
There could be a compromise. American in the U.S. here.
How about allowing the legalization of it as a "hobby"? If someone earns less than $2000 (USD) per year, require personal auto-insurance to not only cover it, but to have it as legal since it doesn't really cross into "commercial" territory at such a low level.
I'm all in favor of them doing it as a hobby as long as they don't collect money for it. If they collect money, then they need to abide by the regulations.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.