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'.
...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?
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
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.
Can you be picked up after calling a friend to come get you? If yes, why not when you "call" an Uber?
Because you're paying the fucking Uber driver.
I really can't believe that people are still trying to pretend that Uber is just a ride-sharing service like giving your dear old mum a lift to the shops.
It's a commercial service, and therefore should be treated the same as other commercial transportation services.
Contrary to what the libertarians/extreme right wing free marketers think, not all human interaction is based on the cash nexus.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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
The question is, is Uber comparable to a Minicab service. And if it is, how come the drivers do not have to pass the same checks as other minicab drivers? Looks like a Minicab service to me.
First, the background checks are meaningless, and Uber also does meaningless background checks, so they have parity there. They also get logged via the Uber app, so there is the digital equivalent of "a paper trail allowing them to be located quickly if they are involved in crimes". Actually, while you're transporting a fare the app actually tracks your activity, so it's even better than what the minicabs have. So all that's missing is licensing and regulation of the offices, but since Uber cars operate completely different to taxis, there's no need for that.
If the state wants public transportation to serve the disadvantaged and handicapped, then the state should provide it, at the people's expense. It shouldn't be pushed off onto an industry attempting to serve willing customers in a voluntary arrangement. So that blows away the last argument.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The background checks are not meaningless. Uber's might be, but the state ones are anything but. Being logged in to an app is clearly not the same thing as having your entire registration, license, insurance, and tax details in the public carriage office's systems.
If Uber wants to play the game, they have to play by the rules. Taxis in London are currently very well regulated, and it shows. Uber can't just complain and pay off websites to speak favourably about them in hopes that an already-working system will be degraded to allow their business model to shit over everything and everyone.
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.