Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Uber deem to have some dodgy practices, like software designed to 'greyball' people they didn't want using their services, specifically anyone in law enforcement. Makes you wonder why they hate scrutiny.

Fact is that there are many forms of public transport in London and other taxi companies can be found too. Most defence of Uber is rooted in just wanting to pay less.

Frazzled wrote:yet people would rather use them or just gnaw their own arms communications off before taking a cab.

Build better public transportation. Then taxis need to improve their service to be viable and parasites like Uber become worthless (and as a bonus you get a more efficient transportation system and better air quality). There, problem solved.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Uber deem to have some dodgy practices, like software designed to 'greyball' people they didn't want using their services, specifically anyone in law enforcement. Makes you wonder why they hate scrutiny.

Fact is that there are many forms of public transport in London and other taxi companies can be found too. Most defence of Uber is rooted in just wanting to pay less.

To be fair, at least from an American perspective, services like Uber/Lyft aren't just cheaper, they're also usually more convenient. and/or faster as well.

I'm not a fan of Uber's business practices, their management, or many aspects of their model, but the fundamental concept of what they do is the future, and from a consumer perspective, is dramatically superior to most other options.

While I'm not familiar with London in this regard, for me, I can take public transit to the airport 15 miles away for $5...but it'll take two hours and I'll have to take a bus to the transit center to hop a train. I can call a cab, but it'll be probably 20-30 minutes before they arrive (since they don't really cruise the outside of downtown or the airport itself) and it'll be $70, potentially $100 if there's bad traffic, and not much recourse if service sucks. I can call an Uber/Lyft driver and have them at my place in 5 minutes (and can see where they are and how far out they are through their app) and be a $35 ride, $50 in bad traffic, and provide a rating for the service, good or bad, and payment can be done through the app instead of having to actually deal with a transaction (using cash or card) in the car which can add time.

It's not just the cost, the convenience, information, speed, and feedback aspects are also all dramatically greater for the consumer.

 Vaktathi wrote:

It's not just the cost, the convenience, information, speed, and feedback aspects are also all dramatically greater for the consumer.

I don't think anybody's saying it isn't convenient, or even at a very nice price for the consumer. Ultimately, the question is whether those two aspects should outweigh public safety and permit Uber to exploit their workforce.

If you stripped all building regulations away from construction companies and allow them utilise slave labour, they'd doubtless be able to throw up buildings three times as fast and a fraction of the cost. But we, as a society, deem that undesirable, both on ethical grounds for the employees, and safety grounds for the buildings. It's no different here. The law draws a line and says, 'These are the regulations your democratically elected representatives have set and they must be followed'. If there's no clause that says, 'except for Uber because they're special due to being cheap and convenient', then tough luck for them. Anyone is free to attempt to change where we draw those lines as a society, but then they change for everyone. Not just Uber.

And if they refuse to follow them? Goodbye, the market will fill the gap shortly, you won't be missed, but you will be forgotten.

 Ketara wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

It's not just the cost, the convenience, information, speed, and feedback aspects are also all dramatically greater for the consumer.

I don't think anybody's saying it isn't convenient, or even at a very nice price for the consumer. Ultimately, the question is whether those two aspects should outweigh public safety and permit Uber to exploit their workforce.

If you stripped all building regulations away from construction companies and allow them utilise slave labour, they'd doubtless be able to throw up buildings three times as fast and a fraction of the cost. But we, as a society, deem that undesirable, both on ethical grounds for the employees, and safety grounds for the buildings. It's no different here. The law draws a line and says, 'These are the regulations your democratically elected representatives have set and they must be followed'. If there's no clause that says, 'except for Uber because they're special due to being cheap and convenient', then tough luck for them. Anyone is free to attempt to change where we draw those lines as a society, but then they change for everyone. Not just Uber.

And if they refuse to follow them? Goodbye, the market will fill the gap shortly, you won't be missed, but you will be forgotten.

I get all that, I was just responding to the point about people liking Uber just because it's cheaper. The fundamental concept of what they do is sound, the march of technology has made the taxi as we've known it for the last 70 years a dead man walking, Uber's particular flavor has issues, and there's a reason I don't user Uber myself, I totally agree with that, but the law is also going to have to change eventually to incorporate the new reality that technology has brought forth.

Another devastating blow against western civilization with this decision.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

It's not just the cost, the convenience, information, speed, and feedback aspects are also all dramatically greater for the consumer.

I don't think anybody's saying it isn't convenient, or even at a very nice price for the consumer. Ultimately, the question is whether those two aspects should outweigh public safety and permit Uber to exploit their workforce.

If you stripped all building regulations away from construction companies and allow them utilise slave labour, they'd doubtless be able to throw up buildings three times as fast and a fraction of the cost. But we, as a society, deem that undesirable, both on ethical grounds for the employees, and safety grounds for the buildings. It's no different here. The law draws a line and says, 'These are the regulations your democratically elected representatives have set and they must be followed'. If there's no clause that says, 'except for Uber because they're special due to being cheap and convenient', then tough luck for them. Anyone is free to attempt to change where we draw those lines as a society, but then they change for everyone. Not just Uber.

And if they refuse to follow them? Goodbye, the market will fill the gap shortly, you won't be missed, but you will be forgotten.

I get all that, I was just responding to the point about people liking Uber just because it's cheaper. The fundamental concept of what they do is sound, the march of technology has made the taxi as we've known it for the last 70 years a dead man walking, Uber's particular flavor has issues, and there's a reason I don't user Uber myself, I totally agree with that, but the law is also going to have to change eventually to incorporate the new reality that technology has brought forth.

The law doesn't need to change. TFL had no problem with the technology Uber were using (apart from the bit for avoiding oversight). It was with their business and employment practices. Other minicab companies in the U.K. offer the same. We have a local company in Oxford that offers almost exactly the same kind of app, offering online booking and tracking. What they also do is ensure its taxis are road legal, its drivers have passed vetting requirements and it pays legal minimums. Things uber does not do.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

It's not just the cost, the convenience, information, speed, and feedback aspects are also all dramatically greater for the consumer.

I don't think anybody's saying it isn't convenient, or even at a very nice price for the consumer. Ultimately, the question is whether those two aspects should outweigh public safety and permit Uber to exploit their workforce.

If you stripped all building regulations away from construction companies and allow them utilise slave labour, they'd doubtless be able to throw up buildings three times as fast and a fraction of the cost. But we, as a society, deem that undesirable, both on ethical grounds for the employees, and safety grounds for the buildings. It's no different here. The law draws a line and says, 'These are the regulations your democratically elected representatives have set and they must be followed'. If there's no clause that says, 'except for Uber because they're special due to being cheap and convenient', then tough luck for them. Anyone is free to attempt to change where we draw those lines as a society, but then they change for everyone. Not just Uber.

And if they refuse to follow them? Goodbye, the market will fill the gap shortly, you won't be missed, but you will be forgotten.

I get all that, I was just responding to the point about people liking Uber just because it's cheaper. The fundamental concept of what they do is sound, the march of technology has made the taxi as we've known it for the last 70 years a dead man walking, Uber's particular flavor has issues, and there's a reason I don't user Uber myself, I totally agree with that, but the law is also going to have to change eventually to incorporate the new reality that technology has brought forth.

The law doesn't need to change. TFL had no problem with the technology Uber were using (apart from the bit for avoiding oversight). It was with their business and employment practices. Other minicab companies in the U.K. offer the same. We have a local company in Oxford that offers almost exactly the same kind of app, offering online booking and tracking. What they also do is ensure its taxis are road legal, its drivers have passed vetting requirements and it pays legal minimums. Things uber does not do.

The issue was they where not following the regulations and strict rules that regular taxi drivers and others had to, and there cars.

The rules are very strict. A out headlight bulb can mean it needs to be replaced before back on road working in most extreme versions. They also have to be checked every so often, and other legal things round private hire cabs.

Also I saw uber might be caving.

Uber are willing to make concessions.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-41378516

It sounds like London has good enough alternative options to Uber. Out here taxis are so bloody expensive I only ever get them when work is paying for it and public transport is a nightmare unless you're just trying to get in and out of the city centre.

The last time I needed a taxi outside of work was when I hurt my leg and had a 45 minute walk up a steep hill to get back to my mate's place. after waiting 2 hours and being repeatedly told "it'll be there in 20 minutes" by the company I just ended up limping up the hill anyway, useless bastards.

Uber doesn't compete with taxis for me because I rarely consider taxis an option in the first place.

It'd be nice if a middle ground could be found where some of the taxi's overheads are trimmed back so they can compete on price while keeping some of the more important things like background checks for employees and letting drivers keep more of the money. At the moment for the convenience and price of an Uber I'm willing to gamble though.

 Steve steveson wrote:


The law doesn't need to change. TFL had no problem with the technology Uber were using (apart from the bit for avoiding oversight). It was with their business and employment practices. Other minicab companies in the U.K. offer the same. We have a local company in Oxford that offers almost exactly the same kind of app, offering online booking and tracking. What they also do is ensure its taxis are road legal, its drivers have passed vetting requirements and it pays legal minimums. Things uber does not do.

Precisely. There are several more or less local Uber-like apps out there and for the most part they don't run with any serious problem other than pissing off the cab drivers.

I happen to know someone at the firm representing Uber in Spain. Which for a while was paying their drivers fines for operating a commercial service with a private vehicle.

They were breaking the law with full knowledge just for the publicity since at some point they grew tired of paying fines and just registered themselves as a rental car with driver service which is the proper legal course of action.

Uber still gets caught from time to time with unregistered drivers/cars/etc but now they operate normally and within legal boundaries (at least for the time being)

It seems to me to be quite telling that the defences of uber are based on uber's tech, not the actual company itself. I agree that the tech underpinning uber and the market structures that allow driver supply to move with demand are excellent and will produce a much cheaper taxi industry. But that doesn't mean the company itself is good, or that it has to be the company that will bring that tech in to the mainstream.

There's nothing stopping uber's tech being used in a way that follows employment laws and regs that improve passenger safety. It's uber isn't doing that because they have a disfunctional, almost socipathically irresponsible corporate culture. And what's really bad is that they follow these beliefs to the point of self harm, battling the City of London through the courts and losing the ability to do business there is a vastly greater cost than just checking their drivers for prior criminal records.

Just a few years ago uber was positioned for dominance of the market. But their own failings have opened the door for endless copycats to form and challenge uber, copying the uber model but with an element of corporate responsibility.

 djones520 wrote:
With an average of 300,000 (and thats rounding WAY down) Uber rides a month given in London, that comes out to 1 per 100,000. Not exactly that high of a number all things considered. I swear, it seems people get so worked up over such statistically small numbers.

You should write the copy for Uber.

"Uber. Only 1 in 100,000 of our passengers get raped."

Even as an Uber driver myself it's always difficult for me to pick sides in this kind of dog fight. On the one hand taxi services are cancer- unscrupulous, exploitative cancer. On the other hand Uber's entire business model is cancerous. The entire "dude you work for us but you're not """"really""""" an employee so we don't have to pay for benefits or anything :^)" mindset is totally destroying the workforce.

What I wonder is why we haven't got the best of both worlds yet. Taxi companies have spent all this time bitching about Uber/Lyft while ignoring what made them special in the first place. If taxi services offered flat rates and a feedback system to punish gakky drivers, more people would be inclined to ride fething taxis.

Can't speak for the US, but here in the UK Taxi fare rates are set by the local council - so it's not the taxi companies or individual drivers doing the ripping off.

Ahhhh, I see. Over here it's wild west. I don't know if the rates are regulated, but I don't know if it would matter. Taxis make their money by stretching the ride out sooooo long that they rack up mileage to charge you for. Hate that gak.

I don't know if taxi pricing over here is regulated or not, but there's definitely plenty of bastard drivers who will drive extra slow at low speed (because at low speed the meter is based off time) and aggressively at high speed (because at high speed the meter is based off distance). Admittedly Australian drivers are by and large crap these days anyway though so taxis are far from the worst drivers on the road.

 Ketara wrote:
Uber is useful if you've been out drinking heavily until 2am and live off the night bus/night tube track and need a cheap ride home.

Unfortunately, this is also why there are statistically about three rapes a month in London alone from Uber drivers (as opposed to none whatsoever from black cabbies, and virtually none from minicab drivers). I'm consistently amazed that drunk women still book cabs through that app quite frankly, one would think your personal safety rated an extra eight quid for your fare. Penny wise and pound foolish, etc etc.

Do you have a source on this? I'm surprised, because doesn't it mean the driver will be easily convicted to an extremely long prison sentence, since it can readily be proven that they were the one who picked up the woman?

When I hung out with legoburner for a day in London, we took a cab then an Uber, and the latter seemed a much better experience to me, for much less money, to boot. I'm all for proper vetting of drivers, but the idea of reverting to only cab use (that some people, but not all, were posting) sounds really backwards to me.

 RiTides wrote:


When I hung out with legoburner for a day in London, we took a cab then an Uber, and the latter seemed a much better experience to me, for much less money, to boot. I'm all for proper vetting of drivers, but the idea of reverting to only cab use (that some people, but not all, were posting) sounds really backwards to me.

That's not happening. I've used Addison Lee in London and it's done the whole hail-a-brand-new-vehicle-through-an-app thing without breaking the law in the process.

MyTaxi, Gett, Cabify in Spain and Latin America, there's even a local Uber-thing in Morocco that works better than the real thing.

 RiTides wrote:
Do you have a source on this? I'm surprised, because doesn't it mean the driver will be easily convicted to an extremely long prison sentence, since it can readily be proven that they were the one who picked up the woman?

Uber drivers accused of 32 rapes and sex attacks on London passengers over the past year | The Independent

That article was from last year. There's a more recent one (which I'm trying to find) that highlights that some people are 'sharing' Uber driver accounts - so while the account is in name X, person Y is actually driving (because no-one checks the photo...)

beast_gts wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
Do you have a source on this? I'm surprised, because doesn't it mean the driver will be easily convicted to an extremely long prison sentence, since it can readily be proven that they were the one who picked up the woman?

Uber drivers accused of 32 rapes and sex attacks on London passengers over the past year | The Independent

I can't view the link right now, but how does that compare to taxi drivers over the same period?

beast_gts wrote:
There's a more recent one (which I'm trying to find) that highlights that some people are 'sharing' Uber driver accounts - so while the account is in name X, person Y is actually driving (because no-one checks the photo...)

Surely that just comes down to an enforcement thing? Taxi drivers could do the same thing if there was no enforcement ensuring a license was actually being used by the correct person.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
What I wonder is why we haven't got the best of both worlds yet. Taxi companies have spent all this time bitching about Uber/Lyft while ignoring what made them special in the first place. If taxi services offered flat rates and a feedback system to punish gakky drivers, more people would be inclined to ride fething taxis.

Other taxi services have used flat fees and driver feedback, in limited amounts. Not to the extent uber have, I'll grant you, but I don't think that's the key uber strength. What really sets uber apart is the variable pricing model, being able to have drivers choose to enter and leave the market as prices rise and fall is an amazing thing, probably the cleanest market we've seen for a service.

I don't think it's actually that easy for old taxi companies to just switch to uber's business model. Companies have momentum, built in cultures, and contracts written in place. It's why I think the future will probably be a range of new companies, most of which haven't even been started yet, built around uber's core business model, but without all the douche parts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I don't know if taxi pricing over here is regulated or not, but there's definitely plenty of bastard drivers who will drive extra slow at low speed (because at low speed the meter is based off time) and aggressively at high speed (because at high speed the meter is based off distance). Admittedly Australian drivers are by and large crap these days anyway though so taxis are far from the worst drivers on the road.

One of the biggest issues with taxi prices here in Australia is that government controlled taxis by only issuing a limited number of taxi plates. It was originally meant to be a form of regulating the industry, but once government realised it could sell the plates it became a revenue raising exercise, and then when they realised they could make more money by only releasing a small number of plates they did that. Then it got even worse as the private sector realised that artificially lowered plate numbers might let the government charge more, but nowhere near what they were actually worth. This meant governments were releasing tiny amount of new plates each year, and charging ten or twenty grand, which a handful of politically connected buyers would buy, with an actual market value of up to a quarter million.

And the way they collected on that quarter million was by charging excessive taxi fees. Studies have shown without that taxi plate rort taxi fees could have been half what they were. Which uber then went about proving, because they simply ignored the taxi plate regs by claiming it was ride sharing. It wasn't ride sharing, obviously, and they lost every court case they fought, but the state govts were keen to undo the taxi plate mess and move to something more like uber, so they were given pass from buying plates.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Most of my taxi experiences have been smelly, dangerous rides where they weave in and out way too fast, talk fast, and charge you an arm and a leg. Uber is cheap, relaxed, the cars have all been nicer than any taxi I've been in, and the drivers have been way more pleasant. Taxis suck. They're the ones who should get the boot.

apparently europe has a different standard of transportation then our fair united states

 RiTides wrote:

Do you have a source on this? I'm surprised, because doesn't it mean the driver will be easily convicted to an extremely long prison sentence, since it can readily be proven that they were the one who picked up the woman?

I pulled the stats somewhere off the web, but sadly don't have the time to dig them up again. Getting ready for work, and all that malarkey. I found it significant however, that there were about two cases of rape from black cab drivers in about four years as opposed to the Uber monthly stats.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41400745

I laughed at this article today:

When asked why Uber considers its drivers to be independent small businesses he said: "They have complete control and autonomy of how they work on the app.

"So, they can pick how many hours they work, there are no set shifts, there's complete control of how they use it, and it's this flexibility which is the reason why they really enjoy working with Uber."

What they've just effectively argued is that giving someone a zero hours contract should mean you don't count as an employer. Which is utterly ludicrous, and shows them for the bare faced morally devoid capitalists they are.

It's not a zero hours contract. A zero hours contract is a contract of employment with no minimum set hours. That's quite different from what Uber are doing (or claim they are doing). One of the requirements of being a self employed contractor is that you cannot be obligated to work particularly hours or in a particular place and that you choose how and where you work as less not as you complete the task you have been contracted to do. It is a bit of a gray area, but on this basis Uber are not an employer. There are many other requirements to being a contractor rather than an employer, so I am sure there are other reasons why Uber has been found to be an employer, but this is not one of them. It's something to do with the booking app, which I guess is something to do with choice of how you perform the work.

I'm guessing it has to do with the amount of control they insist on having over the drivers.

 Steve steveson wrote:
It's not a zero hours contract. A zero hours contract is a contract of employment with no minimum set hours. That's quite different from what Uber are doing (or claim they are doing). One of the requirements of being a self employed contractor is that you cannot be obligated to work particularly hours or in a particular place and that you choose how and where you work as less not as you complete the task you have been contracted to do. It is a bit of a gray area, but on this basis Uber are not an employer. There are many other requirements to being a contractor rather than an employer, so I am sure there are other reasons why Uber has been found to be an employer, but this is not one of them. It's something to do with the booking app, which I guess is something to do with choice of how you perform the work.

Correct me if I am wrong, but under a zero hours contract, you cannot be obligated to work anything whatsoever either. The entire point of a zero hour contract is that neither party is under a contractual obligation to perform any kind of service that they don't want to. Certainly, that was my reading of my zero hours contract back when I had one. Literally every word in Uber's justification above applied to my job at the time.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Even as an Uber driver myself it's always difficult for me to pick sides in this kind of dog fight. On the one hand taxi services are cancer- unscrupulous, exploitative cancer. On the other hand Uber's entire business model is cancerous. The entire "dude you work for us but you're not """"really""""" an employee so we don't have to pay for benefits or anything :^)" mindset is totally destroying the workforce.

What I wonder is why we haven't got the best of both worlds yet. Taxi companies have spent all this time bitching about Uber/Lyft while ignoring what made them special in the first place. If taxi services offered flat rates and a feedback system to punish gakky drivers, more people would be inclined to ride fething taxis.

This. It's hard to feel bad for Uber cause they're kind of dicks, but I also really really hate taxis cause they're dicks too.

Part of why I find the whole "uber vs other taxi services" debate to be kind of dumb. Yeah uber is irresponsible, but come on. The entire industry is structured like Jig Saw testing our will to live

 sebster wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
What I wonder is why we haven't got the best of both worlds yet. Taxi companies have spent all this time bitching about Uber/Lyft while ignoring what made them special in the first place. If taxi services offered flat rates and a feedback system to punish gakky drivers, more people would be inclined to ride fething taxis.

Other taxi services have used flat fees and driver feedback, in limited amounts. Not to the extent uber have, I'll grant you, but I don't think that's the key uber strength. What really sets uber apart is the variable pricing model, being able to have drivers choose to enter and leave the market as prices rise and fall is an amazing thing, probably the cleanest market we've seen for a service.

I don't think it's actually that easy for old taxi companies to just switch to uber's business model. Companies have momentum, built in cultures, and contracts written in place. It's why I think the future will probably be a range of new companies, most of which haven't even been started yet, built around uber's core business model, but without all the douche parts.

Oh, of course. It's not easy to change the entire paradigm of your business model overnight.

"At a stroke of a pen, what the mayor has done is risked 40,000 jobs and of course... damaged the lives of those 3.5 million Uber users." - Prime Minister Theresa May

Uber ruling puts jobs at risk, says Theresa May

I see May's from the same line of thinking that a slap on the wrist is an appropriate response to any transgressions. She's selling Uber as being necessary for diversification in the market, whilst downplaying their un-moral activities (though to keep the political talk going also says how great Taxi drivers are).

Given May's popularity I wonder if her weighing in is a boost to Uber or not? I see her jumping in on one side and start looking at the other lot are saying.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Surely that just comes down to an enforcement thing? Taxi drivers could do the same thing if there was no enforcement ensuring a license was actually being used by the correct person.

Like the kind uber are now losing their license over for refusing to perform? Yeah, pretty much.

The obvious answer to May: If driving an uber is a job, the employer must follow the same rules as everyone else, so good on the mayor for forcing them to do just that.