Slashdot Mirror


London Has Decided To Ban Uber (recode.net)

Johana Bhuiyan, writing for Recode: Transport for London, the taxi regulating service in London, announced today that it would not be renewing Uber's license to operate because of concerns over the company's "lack of corporate responsibility" in relation to public safety issues. The ride-hail company, which launched in London in 2012, is appealing the TfL's decision and will be allowed to continue to operate until a court makes a decision on that appeal. That process could take months. London is a significant market for Uber: The company says there are 40,000 drivers and 3.5 million riders on its platform in London. And like New York City, it is one of the most regulated markets where Uber operates. Unlike most markets across the U.S., Uber drivers in London and New York City are required to participate in government administered background checks.

11 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. ride-hail company by fred6666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ride-hail company? What's that? It's a taxi company.

    1. Re:ride-hail company by fred6666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which is a trick they are using to avoid complying with the law. It doesn't make them something else than they are.

    2. Re:ride-hail company by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are correct, it is all a bunch of government definitions for the purposes of regulations to control / manipulate commerce.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  2. Re:English is an international invention by fred6666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No. English is successful because the British Empire was successful, and after that the United States.
    It could be the crappiest language in the world, it doesn't matter, as long as it's the language of the super power.

  3. Re:A wise move by ark1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What is great is that you know the price in advance with Uber. If you are not happy you can choose alternatives.

  4. Uber is awful, but what came before is even worse by sinij · · Score: 1, Insightful

    While Uber is abusive and socially dubious corporation, what came before is even worse. I hope people remember how incestuous and overpriced traditional "regulated" plated cabs were. The only reason we have seen some degree of normalization there is because they are forced to compete with Uber.

  5. Re:A wise move by sinij · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hate to defend Uber, but they told you $205 upfront, BEFORE you got into the cab. Then you could decide what to do with that information. Before Uber days, cabs would charge you outrageous prices AFTER you arrived.

  6. Thats like saying prostutution laws... by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... should be based on how much income the brothels make. Sometimes the minority of I'm-all-right-screw-you-jack types have to put up with the majority not wanting their city to descend to the lowest ethical common denominator.

    I have no problem with the technology uber use, its the future, but the company itself is a disgrace and I'd be quite happy to see it go bust.

  7. Hooray! by JohnFen · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Let's hope this is the start of a trend.

  8. Use Real Words.... by sdinfoserv · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Ride Hail Company" - I am sick and tired of people using euphemisms in a lame attempt to side track reality. (Alternate Facts?) .. Taking someone you don't know, to a place you don't normally go - FOR MONEY - is a Taxi. period.
    The problem with Uber is a corporation who's revenue model is built by taking pay and benefits way from the lowest link (the driver) and burdening them with expenses (their own car) and all liability all the while attempting to side step protections and taxes put in place by local governments.
    It's a sham and a parasite and it's creators need to be sitting behind bars next to martin shkreli.

  9. not safety, but cronyism by ooloorie · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If people felt unsafe using Uber, Uber would lose riders, and if Uber drivers were unsafe, they wouldn't get insurance. Given Uber's constant tracking of both drivers and passengers, you're probably safer in an Uber ride than in a taxi.

    No, Uber bans are simply about money and power, using "public safety" as a smokescreen: the London city government wants to force people to send money in the direction of their political cronies: taxi operators, unions, public transit monopolies, because they know full well that Uber can hurt all those government-imposed monopolies badly.