London Has Decided To Ban Uber (recode.net)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

London Has Decided To Ban Uber (recode.net)

Posted by msmash on Friday September 22, 2017 @02:00AM from the tussle-continues dept.

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.

24 of 224 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

ride-hail company by fred6666 · 2017-09-22 02:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

Ride-hail company? What's that? It's a taxi company.
1. Re:ride-hail company by Wootery · 2017-09-22 02:09 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Legally it's not.
  Here in the UK, taxi driving and private-hire driving both require a special driving licence, with a background-check. Uber drivers don't have these.
2. Re:ride-hail company by fred6666 · 2017-09-22 02:10 · 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.
3. Re:ride-hail company by mjwx · 2017-09-22 02:14 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Well in English terminiology, we'd call them a minicab operation. Also on that, the fine article got one thing horribly wrong.
  
  it is one of the most regulated markets where Uber operates.
  For minicabs (private hire vehicles) London isn't. There are huge amounts of regulations for black cabs, but not minicabs. The difference between the two is that a minicab must be pre-booked and cant simply pick someone up off the street.
  
  What Uber has done is fail the most basic duty of care requirements for any employer by ensuring that their drivers are licensed and insured to a point where they can operate a private hire vehicle, it's not a stringent system as anyone who's ever taken a minicab could attest to. But that isn't what lost them their license, the bad part is that they haven't been responding to criminal activity in their vehicles, whether by their employees (the UK isn't buying that contractor malarkey) or by the passengers.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
4. Re:ride-hail company by mjwx · 2017-09-22 02:21 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Which is a trick they are using to avoid complying with the law. It doesn't make them something else than they are.
  Yep, they are a private hire transport company, or a mini-cab company in laymans terms. And you're right, they aren't complying with the extremely lax regulations for private hire vehicles. Its not a difficult thing to get a PHV (Private Hire Vehicle) drivers license and it is the drivers responsibility to get it, but the hiring company is still responsible for ensuring all drivers carry the correct license class and insurance. Uber has failed at that. But its the response or lack there of to complaints about criminal activity by drivers and passengers that has earned the ire of TFL (Transport For London). Uber has been permitted to skirt the rules on licenses and insurance for years, however when allegations of assault or theft go unanswered, thats when TFL can no longer ignore the situation.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
5. Re:ride-hail company by BasilBrush · 2017-09-22 02:39 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  UK Uber drivers certainly do have private hire badges.
  And Uber has a private hire company license in each UK city it operates in. That's what they have not been allowed to renew in London today.
6. Re:ride-hail company by BasilBrush · 2017-09-22 02:45 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Nope. According the UK law, Uber is a Private Hire Company. There's no such category as a Ride-Hail company in the UK.
  Only Taxis are allowed to accept flag downs on the street, and Ubers are not classed as Taxis. They operate on the Private Hire arrangement where cars must be booked in advance. Traditionally by ringing the dispatcher. But Uber has extended that to using the app instead of ringing.
7. Re:ride-hail company by Pax681 · 2017-09-22 02:45 · Score: 2
  
  Legally it's not.
  Here in the UK, taxi driving and private-hire driving both require a special driving licence, with a background-check. Uber drivers don't have these.
  Sorry you are wrong.. In Scotland you MUST have at least a private hire license and be in a car that has passed the "private hire MOT" which not only tests the vehicles mechanical soundness but also safety, hygiene, cosmetic condition. and drivers have to get checks to gain their license too.
  https://www.uber.com/en-GB/dri... note how they will assist you to get your private hire license for Edinburgh where I am.
  So legally ,YES IT IS a taxi service in Scotland. English law does not apply in Scotland!
8. Re:ride-hail company by BasilBrush · 2017-09-22 02:47 · Score: 2
  
  There is a special license in the UK, both for the company and each driver. It's called a private hire license (or badge for the driver).
  That's what Transport for London have refused to renew today.
9. Re:ride-hail company by SlaveToTheGrind · 2017-09-22 03:06 · Score: 2
  
  But that isn't what lost them their license, the bad part is that they haven't been responding to criminal activity in their vehicles, whether by their employees (the UK isn't buying that contractor malarkey) or by the passengers.
  That's actually not true. Uber was reporting the alleged incidents to Transport for London, the very governmental body that just took its license away. The logic TfL is employing (as far as I can make out, that Uber should have gone straight to the police when somehow neither TfL nor, more importantly, the passenger in the Uber seemed to think that was necessary) seems very strained and results-oriented.
10. Re:ride-hail company by mjwx · 2017-09-22 03:15 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Uber hasn't failed at that. Drivers need to have badges, and they need to get licensed car plates for the car from TfL. Otherwise you can't operate as a driver.
  I think you are assuming that Uber's actions in other countries have also been the case in the UK. But they haven't.
  Nice to see you didn't read my post and just substituted it with whatever you thought.
  
  1. It is the responsibility of the hiring PHV company to ensure all drivers comply with relevant licensing laws. PHV companies are not to hire drivers who do not comply with these regulations. Although this isn't the problem, TFL has been letting uber get away with not doing this for years.
  2. PHV companies must co-operate with police and investigators when a complaint has been made. PHV companies must also have an internal process for dealing with complaints. Uber has failed both of these duties as several complaints have been made to police and Uber did not follow them up. That is why TFL has taken the step not to renew their licenses.
  
  The article is terribly biased, but I've been following the issue for some time and this is not unexpected. Uber can skirt regulations, especially in London which is very business friendly, but when the rozzers got involved they should have taken it seriously.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
11. Re:ride-hail company by Archangel+Michael · 2017-09-22 03:15 · 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.
12. Re:ride-hail company by SlaveToTheGrind · 2017-09-22 03:55 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  So basically you've just backed up what I said.
  Well, no. You said, "they haven't been responding to criminal activity in their vehicles." That's clearly not true. The fact that their response was different than you would prefer is a different issue, one that I'm quite happy to discuss (and in fact did, but you ignored that part).
  
  TFL would have told them to report it to the police
  There's no "would have" here. Uber indeed did report the alleged incidents to TfL, and TfL indeed did NOT tell Uber to report them to the police. Again, I covered this in my first post.
  And once again, more importantly, if there was really CRIMINAL activity against a passenger, why didn't THE PASSENGER call the police instead of just (wait for it) filling out a feedback form in an app? Really?
  In addition to being implausible, the system you're is proposing is way too easy to hack. For example, a passenger gets pissed off at the Uber driver for whatever reason and wants to get even. Actually going to the police themselves would put them at risk of charges for filing a false police report, but in your system they could simply make a report to Uber and Uber would then be obligated to contact the police based solely on the word of the passenger (who now is shielded from liability since they didn't make the report to the police). The existing checks and balances in the system are there for a reason, and a system like yours would badly break them.
Re:English is an international invention by fred6666 · 2017-09-22 02:15 · 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.
A wise move by CustomBuild · 2017-09-22 02:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

From my perspective. Anecdotal evidence, but Iâ(TM)ve been hit more than once with the surge pricing scam. One particular Uber decided that it was $205.00 from JFK to mid-town Manhattan. I ended up taking a yellow for $65 plus tip. I like the concept of Uber and Lyft, but the execution feels greedy.
1. Re:A wise move by ark1 · 2017-09-22 02:48 · 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.
2. Re:A wise move by sinij · 2017-09-22 02:56 · 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.
learn the knowledge! by Joe_Dragon · 2017-09-22 02:33 · Score: 2

learn the knowledge
1. Re:learn the knowledge! by Chrisq · 2017-09-22 03:02 · Score: 2
  
  learn the knowledge
  Or buy a satnav. I'm the first to admit that a properly qualified London cabbie will do better than a satnav. They will be able to tell you things like - "it's one way, I can drop you off at the corner here and it's two minutes walk down there, or in this traffic I can drop you off at the door in ten minutes". The thing is that a satnav is 95% as good with a lot less investment, meaning much cheaper prices from a larger pool of drivers
Thats like saying prostutution laws... by Viol8 · 2017-09-22 03:08 · 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.
Re:Uber is awful, but what came before is even wor by serviscope_minor · 2017-09-22 03:09 · Score: 5, Informative

While Uber is abusive and socially dubious corporation,
Yes.
what came before is even worse.
WTF? No. The world isn't America. This is London.
London has had regulated minicabs (i.e. what Uber is) since about forever. If you didn't want to fork out for a black cab, you could use any one of the minicab firms. This ranged from the local dodgy one man band, to a local company with a reputation and a collection of taxis to a bigger company like Addison-Lee who had an app and GPS tracking for ages already.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Use Real Words.... by sdinfoserv · 2017-09-22 04:08 · 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.
1. Re:Use Real Words.... by omnichad · 2017-09-22 07:44 · Score: 2
  
  Taking someone you don't know, to a place you don't normally go - FOR MONEY - is a Taxi. period.
  
  So when has a limo company ever been called a taxi service?
Re: Government has no business allocating resource by plover · 2017-09-22 05:57 · Score: 2

If uber isn't paying the same entry fees to the market as existing taxis, then it is unfair competition for the taxis. However, it should be about opening the regulation since there is obviously a market need not being met by taxis. There is no stopping the taxi companies from investing in an app and backend analytics to direct routes and reserve rides. If taxis wanted to innovate, they would, but instead, they enjoy state protection.
It's not just "state protection". Taxi operators have sheltered themselves beneath a mountain of protectionist regulations and artificially limited numbers of licenses that they themselves lobbied for. Ostensibly the regulations were touted as "public safety measures", but they were designed expressly to prevent or delay actual competition from taking away their business. The result has been inflated prices for everyone, and full bank accounts for the taxi companies. Meanwhile, they publicly bemoan all the "regulatory burden" they have to operate under! And after all that phony acting, they still have the nerve to complain that a competitor is "unfair"? Entitled pricks, all of them. I hope Über / Lÿft / Whüever takes all their lunch money.

--
John