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.

So this is a thing.

Seems Uber have 21 days to appeal, then they're done so far as London is concerned.

BBC News wrote:Uber will not be issued a new private hire licence, Transport for London (TfL) has said.

TfL has concluded the ride-hailing app firm was not fit and proper to hold a private hire operator licence.

Uber's conduct demonstrated a lack of corporate responsibility which could have potential public safety and security implications, it said.

Uber said the decision would "show the world that, far from being open, London is closed to innovative companies".

Uber has 21 days to appeal, during which it can continue to operate.




Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said in a statement: "I fully support TfL's decision - it would be wrong if TfL continued to license Uber if there is any way that this could pose a threat to Londoners' safety and security."

General secretary of the Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association Steve McNamara: "The mayor has made the right call not to relicense Uber."

"We expect Uber will again embark on a spurious legal challenge against the mayor and TfL, and we will urge the court to uphold this decision. This immoral company has no place on London's streets".

Mayor's in bed with the taxi men.

Don't knock the Black Cab drivers of London.

It's not simply a matter of buying the appropriate vehicle. There's The Knowledge, whereby they need to learn all the roads in London off by heart, and demonstrate they know the best routes to boot.

Then there's needing an actual taxi license, which includes a full background check. Any history of violence or less pleasant? Yeah, you're not getting that license.

Uber? None of that required.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quick, rough comparison?

A Black Cabbie is the equivalent of a carpenter selling hand carved furniture.

Uber is a bloke with an Allen Key and some Ikea instructions.

Totally different level of skill and professionalism.

I browsed around on FB, and there's a lot of people screaming about the evils of this decision. About 90% of the arguments in favour of Uber though, seem to boil down to 'They're cheaper than a black cabbie and more convenient'. Which is great and all, but I don't buy that as a reason for Uber to dodge all taxes regulations. There are plenty of alternative companies who do effectively the same thing as Uber in terms of usability and price (Addison Lee, for example) who also comply with the necessary regulation.

Markets abhor a vacuum. Now Uber is gone, such companies (or a new one) will come to fill it in short course, and with luck, the replacement won't be half as exploitative.

This is a good thing.Taxi drivers should be reliable. There is lots of unscrupulous guys out there.

It's great that Uber are getting a boot up the rear, but London taxi drivers have been the bane of my life for years

God knows what they have against Scottish banknotes


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
This is a good thing.Taxi drivers should be reliable. There is lots of unscrupulous guys out there.

Taxi drivers the world over are generally loathed. They charge you money just for getting in the damn thing


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
I browsed around on FB, and there's a lot of people screaming about the evils of this decision. About 90% of the arguments in favour of Uber though, seem to boil down to 'They're cheaper than a black cabbie and more convenient'. Which is great and all, but I don't buy that as a reason for Uber to dodge all taxes regulations. There are plenty of alternative companies who do effectively the same thing as Uber in terms of usability and price (Addison Lee, for example) who also comply with the necessary regulation.

Markets abhor a vacuum. Now Uber is gone, such companies (or a new one) will come to fill it in short course, and with luck, the replacement won't be half as exploitative.

I nearly got run over by a black cab years ago, and on another occasion, my booked black cab never turned up at the designated time, and I nearly missed my flight.

I'm sure you don't want to hear my tales of woe involving black cabs, of which there are many but it's hard to sympathise with cabbies when you've suffered what I've suffered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Don't knock the Black Cab drivers of London.

I am and I will, mad doc

Bunch of pirates

Ive stopped using american cabs altogether after being shown uber.

We were in Seattle a few months back, and we wanted to check out some sights in AM before we had to go get on our cruise ship later in the afternoon. We asked the kid at the front desk if he could get us a cab to take to the space needle, and got all snooty and was like "You mean you can't just use Uber?"

Made me feel old :(

We ended up using Uber, it was real easy. one of our drivers was a former cab driver, and he said he can't make money in a cab anymore, uber is the way it's done now. I like Uber in general, but yeah there's some scary people out there. I'd only use it if there was no other option.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Quick, rough comparison?

A Black Cabbie is the equivalent of a carpenter selling hand carved furniture.

Uber is a bloke with an Allen Key and some Ikea instructions.

Totally different level of skill and professionalism.

Well, given that comparison, a lot of people prefer ikea, especially if they don't need, want, or can afford hand carved furniture.

On the one hand this really does give off anti-competitive vibes, but then some of the things I've read about über suggests their business practices are real shady.

Taxis being out competed because someone has found a better, more efficient way of running things is one thing, but if the competition is cheaper because they're sidestepping safety standards, licensing requirements and massively exploiting/ignoring employment legislation is a different matter.

Uber also the use equivalent of a Meter to work out the fare. In London, such is the sole preserve of the Black Cab.

Me? Never used Uber, likely never will. I'm far from impressed with their business practices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For clarity, I do have absolute sympathy with the drivers.

That's more than a few people back in the dole queue through no fault of their own.

No Uber for your you. You Uber is Unter!

 Jadenim wrote:
On the one hand this really does give off anti-competitive vibes, but then some of the things I've read about über suggests their business practices are real shady.

Taxis being out competed because someone has found a better, more efficient way of running things is one thing, but if the competition is cheaper because they're sidestepping safety standards, licensing requirements and massively exploiting/ignoring employment legislation is a different matter.

This is the thing. You'll note I didn't even mention black cabbies in my first post. The reason Uber has been slapped down when none of the other minicab firms with apps have been is because they simply don't vet their drivers properly, they try and pretend that they're not the employers so that they can sidestep relevant employment law, and there are questions over whether if they're not technically an employer, they should be legally using the various charging methods and privileges that they do. Not to mention the issues of identity verification and safety regulations.

There are other firms who tick the appropriate boxes in these ways and still let you book a minicab conveniently through an app. The reason why they still have their licenses and Uber does not is because they take their duties as a company and employer seriously. They are the ones who will fill the gap Uber has now left, and rightly so. Perhaps they might charge 10% more in able to allow them to meet those obligations, but saving the customer 10% is not a sufficient reason to allow the law to be broken. It's there for a reason, as Grenfell has proven.

There are some people I see on Twitter/Facebook who seriously need to question why Uber is in this position to begin with, rather than slinging mud at TFL.

The idea that they should be functionally let-off, purely because they have a practical monopoly on taxi service in the City and would inconvenience thousands, would be more valid had they not neglected to begin reforms after every time they'd been caught out. They've been allowed so much time and so many opportunities that TFL have been forced to bring the hammer down, because nothing else has worked.

Uber have put themselves in this mess, and whilst their absence will obviously cause ripples, it's hardly fair to give them yet another Get Out Of Jail Free card purely because lots of people use them.

They've wasted all the benefit of the doubt and goodwill that they've been given. This is a necessary last resort.

I'll agree with a lot that's been said here

While TFL may well be rubbing it's hands with glee at being able to cancel Uber's licence the reason they're able to do so is Uber's fault entirely

If they'd followed the rules (or even made a better job of trying to do so) they'd not be in this position, but failure after failure to comply and little or no inclination or ability to change means this is the inevitable conclusion

On the subject of monopolies......Uber are exactly how one is built, outside of regulation.

They may well be cheaper and more convenient, but look at what they're side stepping to achieve that.

All boils down to the difference between price, and value.

Although I work in London, I don't use any kind of taxi service. My coach drops me off and picks me up in Canary Wharf, which is where I need to be five days a week.

But, should I need to get a taxi, I would never take an Uber. I'd hail a Black Cab, precisely because of The Knowledge. If there's a traffic jam, a Cabbie will know their way round it, whilst keeping the cost as low as possible.

Uber? Not so much. They all depend on Sat Nav. Whilst the price quote will always be the price I pay.....that of feth all use when I'm forced to run late.

And what price that? If I need to make a connection, a Black Cab is my best chance. If I need to make an interview? If I need to meet someone somewhere? That's stuff Uber just can't offer, because they rely on Sat Nav.

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.

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.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
I'll agree with a lot that's been said here

While TFL may well be rubbing it's hands with glee at being able to cancel Uber's licence the reason they're able to do so is Uber's fault entirely

If they'd followed the rules (or even made a better job of trying to do so) they'd not be in this position, but failure after failure to comply and little or no inclination or ability to change means this is the inevitable conclusion

If they had made the changes and followed the same rules as the other companies. Not flouted the laws, employment laws and the security and vetting.

They have been kicked out quite a few cities and other places for various rules breachs. It's not the first time that this has happened.

 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.

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.

 djones520 wrote:

 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.

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.

Maybe they should comply with the TFL rules and they would fine to operate in the city.

As I said, vetting and such has had them kicked out at least one other large city in thr US.
They also had issues in cities like Paris and Madrid.

 djones520 wrote:

 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.

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.

Statistically speaking, Grenfell tower was a single tower block that caught fire out of thousands of such buildings, and killed less than a hundred people out of a London population of 8.5 million. Nothing to see or worry about there either, amirite?

Safety regulations exist for a reason, to keep the general population away from unnecessary harm. Given the extremely low rates of rape and robbery associated with licensed cab drivers in comparison to Uber ones, the logic and need for such regulations exist is quite evident. There is a time and a place for complaining that red tape is unnecessary and strangles innovation. In the case of Uber, it's just an excuse by a ruthlessly exploitative company because they're trying to milk the maximum profits through avoiding regulation instead of competing fairly.

I suppose using an Uber is like buying a greasy kebab from a shady part of the city. You might be okay, but you might get poisoned.

I'm glad something is being done about it, you don't follow the rules? Out you go.

Ketara wrote:The reason why they still have their licenses and Uber does not is because they take their duties as a company and employer seriously.

Uber doesn't want to be an employer. They want all their drivers to be "freelancer" and Uber to be the rent-seeking middleman who gets a cut of every transaction.

They got into trouble due to disregard for regulations and for pushing all the risk on the drivers, like ignoring the insurance a professional driver needs (and not being responsible for the car's maintenance). They also use their surge pricing (I think that's how it's called) to discriminate against certain groups of people (or even just to extort higher profits even when there's no increased demand) and there have been examples of their drivers ignoring "unwanted" (meaning black) passengers.

If they want to be a taxi company they could comply with the regulations like any other taxi company and do a better job on an even playing field but they wouldn't like the cost of that. Then there's their toxic corporate culture, that'd be a topic in itself.

It's just a shame that Taxi's are such a massive rip off. There is no reason for a 20 min cab ride to cost 35 quid.

Private cabs tend to be much cheaper.


Uber hasn't taken off much in the land of our fathers, apart from Cardiff. Swansea has several private taxi firms and they are all much cheaper than Black cabs.

Mario wrote:

Ketara wrote:The reason why they still have their licenses and Uber does not is because they take their duties as a company and employer seriously.

Uber doesn't want to be an employer. They want all their drivers to be "freelancer" and Uber to be the rent-seeking middleman who gets a cut of every transaction.

They got into trouble due to disregard for regulations and for pushing all the risk on the drivers, like ignoring the insurance a professional driver needs (and not being responsible for the car's maintenance). They also use their surge pricing (I think that's how it's called) to discriminate against certain groups of people (or even just to extort higher profits even when there's no increased demand) and there have been examples of their drivers ignoring "unwanted" (meaning black) passengers.

If they want to be a taxi company they could comply with the regulations like any other taxi company and do a better job on an even playing field but they wouldn't like the cost of that. Then there's their toxic corporate culture, that'd be a topic in itself.

Maybe they might change mind if you offered a UK wide shutdown if not sort there stuff out, vetting, employment rights and legal insurance and also to taxi standards of cars maintaine and checks.

That might get there attention.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Don't knock the Black Cab drivers of London.

It's not simply a matter of buying the appropriate vehicle. There's The Knowledge, whereby they need to learn all the roads in London off by heart, and demonstrate they know the best routes to boot.

Then there's needing an actual taxi license, which includes a full background check. Any history of violence or less pleasant? Yeah, you're not getting that license.

Uber? None of that required.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quick, rough comparison?

A Black Cabbie is the equivalent of a carpenter selling hand carved furniture.

Uber is a bloke with an Allen Key and some Ikea instructions.

Totally different level of skill and professionalism.

Not to mention, the Black Cabbies actually undergo changes to their brain architecture over time.... (Seventeen years later, and I still remembered the article, speaking of odd brain architecture....)

The Auld Grump

Mario wrote:

Ketara wrote:The reason why they still have their licenses and Uber does not is because they take their duties as a company and employer seriously.

Uber doesn't want to be an employer. They want all their drivers to be "freelancer" and Uber to be the rent-seeking middleman who gets a cut of every transaction.

They got into trouble due to disregard for regulations and for pushing all the risk on the drivers, like ignoring the insurance a professional driver needs (and not being responsible for the car's maintenance). They also use their surge pricing (I think that's how it's called) to discriminate against certain groups of people (or even just to extort higher profits even when there's no increased demand) and there have been examples of their drivers ignoring "unwanted" (meaning black) passengers.

If they want to be a taxi company they could comply with the regulations like any other taxi company and do a better job on an even playing field but they wouldn't like the cost of that. Then there's their toxic corporate culture, that'd be a topic in itself.

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

'Some people' - not 'people'.

I would rather walk than use Uber.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* And have, with a backpack. In the rain.