Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
reddog

Uber ban in London. London living in the past?

Recommended Posts

Interesting development.  Uber did not get it license renewed (Uber have appealled, so not in immediate effect)

 

My personal opinion is London is living in the past with all this hackney carriage test nonsense, it is not 1917.

 

Is this another sign of London losing its edge as a forward looking city?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Reddog. They are a fecking awful company. If this is the future of employment, then we are all fecked.

And what's all this forward-looking b*llocks? After Brexit, we'll need to turn London into a Victorian Theme Park with the authentic smell of horsesh*t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Slimline said:

Banker owned, decision will be overturned come the appeal....

Yes, George Osborne's sponsor and Uber investor Blackrock will see to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uber: London drivers must use hybrid or fully electric cars from 2020

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/08/uber-london-hybrid-fully-electric-cars-2020-vehicles

I don't know about the behaviour of Uber as a co, but I imagine they are as ruthless as the rest of them to compete.

 I do know I prefer a co that has 10'000 's of hybrid cars rather than 10,000's of black cab / minicab diesel Nox fume baby killers.

Edited by Saving For a Space Ship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC:

Quote

Uber's general manager in London Tom Elvidge said: "To defend the livelihoods of all those drivers, and the consumer choice of millions of Londoners who use our app, we intend to immediately challenge this in the courts."

Note, he says 'those' drivers, not 'our' drivers, because of course Uber claims it does not employ any of the 40,000 Uber drivers in London thereby avoiding any employer costs for them. As for consumer choice, there is not a shortage of transport options in London and I hope this ruling encourages rivals like Lyft to start operating here. Uber does little for customer choice if it exploits the system to put existing operators out of business. Oh, and the cost to Uber of their license to operate in London over the last 5 years? £3000. How much UK tax did it pay in 2015? £411k or 1.8% of turnover. It is time that national governments stood up to global tech companies and made them act as good corporate citizens, not pirates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, reddog said:

Interesting development.  Uber did not get it license renewed (Uber have appealled, so not in immediate effect)

 

My personal opinion is London is living in the past with all this hackney carriage test nonsense, it is not 1917.

 

Is this another sign of London losing its edge as a forward looking city?  

The complete opposite I would suggest. Uber isn't a new model it's a very old model we were great at it - it was called our empire. Bludgeon your way into a market., In the modern global world that is through a few (very few) global companies that have access to insane amounts of capital (it used to be armies and Navies)

Pay nothing in tax or route to minimise - servers in San Fran, billing in Holland or Luxembourg. You pay nothing towards the environment that enables you to operate that has been built with the sweat and blood of generations in the belief their children and grandchildren will have a stake in it. Employ no one so they are zero hours contract or contractor slaves.

You are right it isn't 1917 where social mobility and opportunities were about to get better beyond peoples dreams. It is 2017 where it is starting to dawn on every generation that the gig economy is shite for everyone bar a few. The download everything for free, 5 t-shirts in Primark for a fiver, £10 flights across Europe (don't get me started on the Ryanair fiasco, interestingly not a great deal of support for the passengers on phone in's yesterday who generally came across as whinging morons.) is a zero sum game for all bar a few

The black can trade wasn't and isn't perfect but to destroy it so a P*** pa from Croydon can get home cheaper on a Friday night from Liverpool St - isn't the answer on so many levels - morally, socially and economically.

So in actual response to your question - it is a sign that London is a forward looking city, it welcomes competition and is one of the best places in the world to operate. But that competition has to be fair and within our framework

If that smacks a little of protectionism so be it. Its a stand and I for one am proud to be a Londoner today. Globalisation and unfettered adoration of global brands is destroying our society if you can't see then you are truly in the matrix.

Edited by Greg Bowman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Saving For a Space Ship said:

Uber: London drivers must use hybrid or fully electric cars from 2020

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/08/uber-london-hybrid-fully-electric-cars-2020-vehicles

I don't know about the behaviour of Uber as a co, but I imagine they are as ruthless as the rest of them to compete.

 I do know I prefer a co that has 10'000 's of hybrid cars rather than 10,000's of black cab / minicab diesel Nox fume baby killers.

Enjoy your race to the bottom it won't be pretty because as a first world citizen you started at the top

 

2 minutes ago, Orsino said:

BBC:

Note, he says 'those' drivers, not 'our' drivers, because of course Uber claims it does not employ any of the 40,000 Uber drivers in London thereby avoiding any employer costs for them. As for consumer choice, there is not a shortage of transport options in London and I hope this ruling encourages rivals like Lyft to start operating here. Uber does little for customer choice if it exploits the system to put existing operators out of business. Oh, and the cost to Uber of their license to operate in London over the last 5 years? £3000. How much UK tax did it pay in 2015? £411k or 1.8% of turnover. It is time that national governments stood up to global tech companies and made them act as good corporate citizens, not pirates. 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Errol said:

I would expect a strong appeal. This is only the beginning.

46 allegations of rape by their drivers were (in the pipeline) mentioned on LBC this morning. Some convictions already.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/uber-driver-rape-drunken-women-pick-up-bar-jahir-hussain-east-london-jailed-12-years-convicted-taxi-a7837686.html)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/uber-drivers-accused-of-32-rapes-and-sex-attacks-on-london-passengers-a7037926.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/taxi-drivers-uber-charged-violent-sexual-offences-london-a6988286.html

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/vv598m/uber-drivers-are-at-the-center-of-another-rape-allegation-storm

 

By calling them self-employed Uber thinks it absolves itself of doing background and criminal checks on their drivers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing devils advocate a little.  Is driving really a skill?  There are about 1.5 billion people in the world that can drive, having a protectionist licensing system isn't helping travelers or people with relatively low skills earn a living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, reddog said:

Playing devils advocate a little.  Is driving really a skill?  There are about 1.5 billion people in the world that can drive, having a protectionist licensing system isn't helping travelers or people with relatively low skills earn a living.

No, but knowing where you are going and the ability to converse in the national language is generally considered the minimum level for taxi drivers.

Uber biggest fault is their approach and the background checking of its employees. The duty of care is a fundamental right to paying customers and Uber simply cannot wash their hands of it saying not us guv these people are self-employed.

It's why their appeal will crash and burn spectacularly. London is not the first city to have hoofed them.....

 

https://www.cntraveler.com/story/where-uber-is-banned-around-the-world

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, reddog said:

Playing devils advocate a little.  Is driving really a skill?  There are about 1.5 billion people in the world that can drive, having a protectionist licensing system isn't helping travelers or people with relatively low skills earn a living.

There are about 1.5 billion people in the world who can aim a motor vehicle, that's not the same as driving it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Greg Bowman said:

The complete opposite I would suggest. Uber isn't a new model it's a very old model we were great at it - it was called our empire. Bludgeon your way into a market., In the modern global world that is through a few (very few) global companies that have access to insane amounts of capital (it used to be armies and Navies)

Pay nothing in tax or route to minimise - servers in San Fran, billing in Holland or Luxembourg. You pay nothing towards the environment that enables you to operate that has been built with the sweat and blood of generations in the belief their children and grandchildren will have a stake in it. Employ no one so they are zero hours contract or contractor slaves.

I rather like your analogy with colonialism. The likes of Uber sail up and innocently offer to trade. We hand over access to a rich market built up over generations. We hand over things as precious as gold because we have never stopped to consider its value. In return we get little more stupid trinkets and glass beads - in Uber's case, the ability to take the cheap ride to Croydon you describe, which is admitedly slightly more valuable than a free Facebook page in exchange for all your data. In the Colonialism for Dummies textbook I believe we can now expect a show of force and an attempt to disrupt the existing power structure. I've never read of a coloniser simply getting back in their ships and sodding off. I doubt Uber will do that either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sawitcoming said:

There appears to be a cover up of similar allegations for black cab drivers though.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-minicab-drivers-claim-tfl-hiding-data-sexual-assaults-taxis-they-are-demanding-truth-1544945

Here is a good resource for Uber / Lyft incidents

http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/rideshare-incidents

Black Cab Drivers are subject to background checks as part and parcel of their personal licence. Not to say some have offended in the past as I would expect some have but the figures are not comparable with Uber.

The article may well be white noise designed to confuse. It seems to be short on facts and long on allegations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Greg Bowman said:

The complete opposite I would suggest. Uber isn't a new model it's a very old model we were great at it - it was called our empire. Bludgeon your way into a market., In the modern global world that is through a few (very few) global companies that have access to insane amounts of capital (it used to be armies and Navies)

Pay nothing in tax or route to minimise - servers in San Fran, billing in Holland or Luxembourg. You pay nothing towards the environment that enables you to operate that has been built with the sweat and blood of generations in the belief their children and grandchildren will have a stake in it. Employ no one so they are zero hours contract or contractor slaves.

You are right it isn't 1917 where social mobility and opportunities were about to get better beyond peoples dreams. It is 2017 where it is starting to dawn on every generation that the gig economy is shite for everyone bar a few. The download everything for free, 5 t-shirts in Primark for a fiver, £10 flights across Europe (don't get me started on the Ryanair fiasco, interestingly not a great deal of support for the passengers on phone in's yesterday who generally came across as whinging morons.) is a zero sum game for all bar a few

The black can trade wasn't and isn't perfect but to destroy it so a P*** pa from Croydon can get home cheaper on a Friday night from Liverpool St - isn't the answer on so many levels - morally, socially and economically.

So in actual response to your question - it is a sign that London is a forward looking city, it welcomes competition and is one of the best places in the world to operate. But that competition has to be fair and within our framework

If that smacks a little of protectionism so be it. Its a stand and I for one am proud to be a Londoner today. Globalisation and unfettered adoration of global brands is destroying our society if you can't see then you are truly in the matrix.

Smashing post. People could erroneously conclude that London has it in for private hire apps in general. As you say, it's reasonable to expect Uber to abide by the same rules as everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, geezer466 said:

Black Cab Drivers are subject to background checks as part and parcel of their personal licence. Not to say some have offended in the past as I would expect some have but the figures are not comparable with Uber.

The article may well be white noise designed to confuse. It seems to be short on facts and long on allegations.

Checked maybe. The figures do not speak for themselves because they are not released. If you read the article the minicab guys claim that there are more from the black cab guys. Minicab guys threatened with litigation if they publish again. 

I would rely more on a rating system to provide timely and ongoing checks on a driver than a background check (I assume it is a one-time check)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Si1 said:

Smashing post. People could erroneously conclude that London has it in for private hire apps in general. As you say, it's reasonable to expect Uber to abide by the same rules as everyone else.

Which rules have Uber broken?

If the government wanted to tighten up employment and tax legislation it could.

The reason Uber can pay poor rates to drivers and offer terrible terms is because the labour market is poor and drivers have no better options. That's not Uber's fault. Banning Uber will make those drivers unemployed. Is that better for their quality of life?

Lobbying the government to refuse your competitor a license is like something out of the medieval guild system.

Edited by Dorkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Greg Bowman said:

The complete opposite I would suggest. Uber isn't a new model it's a very old model we were great at it - it was called our empire. Bludgeon your way into a market., In the modern global world that is through a few (very few) global companies that have access to insane amounts of capital (it used to be armies and Navies)

Pay nothing in tax or route to minimise - servers in San Fran, billing in Holland or Luxembourg. You pay nothing towards the environment that enables you to operate that has been built with the sweat and blood of generations in the belief their children and grandchildren will have a stake in it. Employ no one so they are zero hours contract or contractor slaves.

You are right it isn't 1917 where social mobility and opportunities were about to get better beyond peoples dreams. It is 2017 where it is starting to dawn on every generation that the gig economy is shite for everyone bar a few. The download everything for free, 5 t-shirts in Primark for a fiver, £10 flights across Europe (don't get me started on the Ryanair fiasco, interestingly not a great deal of support for the passengers on phone in's yesterday who generally came across as whinging morons.) is a zero sum game for all bar a few

The black can trade wasn't and isn't perfect but to destroy it so a P*** pa from Croydon can get home cheaper on a Friday night from Liverpool St - isn't the answer on so many levels - morally, socially and economically.

So in actual response to your question - it is a sign that London is a forward looking city, it welcomes competition and is one of the best places in the world to operate. But that competition has to be fair and within our framework

If that smacks a little of protectionism so be it. Its a stand and I for one am proud to be a Londoner today. Globalisation and unfettered adoration of global brands is destroying our society if you can't see then you are truly in the matrix.

THIS ^^^^ with bells on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure when the Hackney Carriage came into existence in its earliest forms that it was largely unregulated. Over time it has become regulated to try to prevent those problems. 

Uber and any other innovator should be treated the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

Which rules have Uber broken?

If the government wanted to tighten up employment and tax legislation it could.

The reason Uber can pay poor rates to drivers and offer terrible terms is because the labour market is poor and drivers have no better options. That's not Uber's fault. Banning Uber will make those drivers unemployed. Is that better for their quality of life?

Lobbying the government to refuse your competitor a license is like something out of the medieval guild system.

As I understand it, they've been tardy in terms of proper enforcement of DBS c checks. Since any other operator is to abide by these rules then I don't see why Uber should be given leeway.

But I do agree the possibility exists that there a black taxi lobby trying to protect its market. I'm clearly not in favour of this in itself and am interested to hear evidence either way that supports or diminishes this possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Si1 said:

As I understand it, they've been tardy in terms of proper enforcement of DBS c checks. Since any other operator is to abide by these rules then I don't see why Uber should be given leeway.

Fair enough. So once Uber have sorted this out in a few weeks they will presumably get their licence back. Not much of a victory for the black cabs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dorkins said:

Fair enough. So once Uber have sorted this out in a few weeks they will presumably get their licence back. Not much of a victory for the black cabs.

It might take more sorting out than that to implement auditable processes and evidence trail to cover this, that my wild guess anyway. But yeah, in general. Fumbling in the dark a bit tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 293 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.