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'.
...then what uber drivers are doing, by not being licensed black-cab operators, is against the law.
If I understand it correctly, London is a lot stricter with their drivers than most other cities, such that to simply drive a cab one must pass a fairly difficult testing process before being able to obtain a license.
At this point I'm not really sure why this is a Slashdot story anymore. It's about a livery company whose legally questionable practices and claims have drivers that are picking up hailed fares. There isn't even a technological angle on this aspect of the story, not that cell-phone dispatch is anything especially novel.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
"Uber's business model in an absurdly Luddite move"
Uber in Germany now does a registered Taxi service, where their drivers comply with all the taxi regs AND Uber still lets passengers book them.
In Germany it will pay the drivers registration, which is a mandatory step for all businesses and self employed people in Germany to ensure they have the proper business setup, taxes, and comply with the regs like insurance, vehicle standards, registrations etc.
This is a false dichotomy, Uber could offer a proper taxi booking service and comply with local laws, and does in countries where its banned.
But before Ubers trolls pop in with their "Uber is Rosa Parks" nonsense.
1) Ubers maps show fake taxis to lure people into booking. This is similar to Ashley Madison running fake women accounts to lure people to pay for their site. This is fraud.
2) Uber surge prices, Taxis are regulated prices.
3) If Uber is cheap now (largely by the advantage of not complying with laws), once its got the taxi market unregulated, it will take all the profits for itself... marketing 101. Taxi fixed pricing was introduced because once taxi monopolies formed, they ripped people off!
Uber is not breaking some unjust or unfair law. It's breaking basic taxi regs. It is not a Luddite business model, right now you can book taxis across many websites and they book LEGAL taxis, registered and compliant with taxi laws. Uber itself does this in some countries where it can't get away with breaking the laws.
Uber is not special, it just has a nastier political attack machine than most.
...but this article summary seems somewhat biased.
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?
Uber is paying Slashdot. I know this because I work for a news website that targets Eurocrats. Uber approached us for a spinsorship, but the deal fell apart because we would not sacrifice edirorial integrity (they wanted to be able to "guide" one article a day). One of our competitors, politico.eu, took the money and sure enough these kinds of articles started hitting their homepage. I think politico learned their lesson because they quit the relationship after six weeks, which was the contractual minimum Uber was after when they spoke with us.
I don't blame slashdot; Uber is offering a lot of money and their PR folks make it sound benign. After you sign they activate the fine print and make you publish shit (really, shit). However, that is what this scuzzy company has obviously done here and we should call them out in it.
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
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.'"