Uber have been kicked out of London

Well well..

This situation has been brewing for a few years regarding Uber and it's operations within the city of London.

The iconic Black Taxi drivers have been on the case to ban uber for a few years now and possibly they will get their wish.

Uber currently has around 40 thousand mini cabs on its books working within London and from September 30th their Licence to operate is not being renewed.

This was due to a string of high profile sexual abuse cases by Uber drivers and also major concerns of how the company was operated.

www.bbc.com...

www.theguardian.com...

There was massive pressure from the Black taxi trade to "get Uber out" mainly on the grounds of a Black taxi being the only vehicle in London that can charge a fare on a meter and it was argued that the Uber app was doing this?..

The issue in London now is that a majority of regular Mini cab offices have been put out of business by Uber and since the Mayor has capped fare increases on public transport that many feel where totally unsustainable it will certainly mean more people coming onto the network. Time will tell if other capital cities will follow in the same direction??...

RA

This seems like a witch hunt against a better, and therefor threatening business model.

Kind of pathetic, if you ask me.

Good. I am glad.

Well done to the proper cabbies stopping this race to the bottom in terms and conditions of employment.

Only a fool would pick a non black cab in London.

They train for ages, know every street, are checked against the criminal records bureau and the fares they can charge are heavily regulsted.


uber makes money for it's owners and drives ordinary minicabs out of business by exploiting the labour of those who drive for it.

a reply to: slider1982

Considering the situation in London, I'd guess this was done to protect the consumer. My father travels to London several times a year and reports he would never use Uber in London and ONLY uses the Black Taxi Cabs. For a lot of reasons, the licensing of Uber ran seriously counter to the policy guidelines that are applied to the Taxi industry in London.

a reply to: slider1982

Just the black taxi drivers? Must be a lot of them.

originally posted by: Jefferton
This seems like a witch hunt against a better, and therefor threatening business model.

Kind of pathetic, if you ask me.

That is all it is... a better and more efficient system is threatening the existing cabbie cartel.

With that said, my understanding is that the black cabs in London are well run and professional. The black cabs are far superior to the craptastic taxi industry in the US. No one with a straight face will argue regular cabs are better than Uber in the US.

It really doesn't matter though how great the black cabs are as consumers are saying the prefer Uber.

It's actually a pretty sh_itty situation, you won't get a black cab on a busy rainy night.

Cabbies rip people off, the fees might be regulated, but who cares? It's still frickin' expensive. Way more expensive than Uber.
Sefety? Every time I take Uber a nice new Mercedes comes for me within 2 minutes... I wonder, would I be safer in an old black cab that is uncomfortable to even sit in, and a car accident in such a car would have definitely worse consequences ... OR a brand new german-made luxury car?

Cabbies hate going to South London, if you plan on going there at night, well... you are usually out of luck.

Uber is a nice choice for people, let cabbies rip off Banksters in the City whilst we, the middle class, can enjoy luxury cars for half the price, and you can get Uber comfortably with a few clicks on your iphone and pay via PayPal (secure af).

Seriously, try catching a cab on a busy chilly Sunday night at around midnight (the Tube no longer in operation) at around Leicester Square - Trafalgar Square - Charing Cross area... NO CHANCE.
Currently there is some sort of construction underway in front of Charing Cross, so if you think free Cabbies are parking there, you are wrong. No free cabbies in that area atm. Uber being the only choice.

originally posted by: Jefferton
This seems like a witch hunt against a better, and therefor threatening business model.

Kind of pathetic, if you ask me.

You nailed it...absolutely pathetic.

When someone comes along with a better idea then you either adapt or die. That is how we progress as a society. Government should not be in the business of placing barriers or restricting access to competition.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: slider1982

Just the black taxi drivers? Must be a lot of them.

There's about 150,000 of them. The black cabs are known as Hackney Black Cabs. They are custom built chassis, with a turning radius small enough to do a 180 degree U turn in a two lane road. The main advantage is that the passenger cab is designed for large suitcases and a large number of passengers. They are iconic across cities in the UK as they have to be licensed and the driver has to know all the roads. You can simply hail a taxi on the road off from the pavement if they have the "for hire" sign on.

The hazard in London is that some people with a regular dark colored cars, pull up in a taxi rank with a queue of rather inebriated people from a nightclub waiting, take someone and just drive off to god knows where and mug, rape or murder them.

I've taken taxi services in Silicon Valley and the waiting times was awful. Whenever I booked a taxi, I was told I would have to wait 30 to 45 minutes by the despatch office. Tried another firm, and it was the same despatch office. Same happened on the third and fourth times. So I can see why Uber is popular.

Silicon Valley does have ride sharing taxi-buses that operate from the airport. They were cheaper that a regular taxi but the route was dynamically generated, so you just spent the evening going all over the place.

Amazon , Google , Facebook etc etc are also lined up for punishment too .

Go back to minicabs using homegrown online boooking system .

originally posted by: Jefferton
This seems like a witch hunt against a better, and therefor threatening business model.

Kind of pathetic, if you ask me.

Have you ever thought that Transport for London, who made this decision, might have had a better idea of what their decision entailed than you have?

Uber might well have had an innovative business model. Sadly, they didn't bother to make sure it met the minimum legal standards necessary to get its licence renewed. Instead, Uber chose to rip off its "freelancers" and endanger its customers. As a result, it got the boot.

If Uber wants to go away and accept the fact that it will have to make some serious ethical changes to its corporate culture if it still wants access to the lucrative London market, then it can always make a new application and prove that it has reformed.

originally posted by: slider1982
Well well..

This situation has been brewing for a few years regarding Uber and it's operations within the city of London.

The iconic Black Taxi drivers have been on the case to ban uber for a few years now and possibly they will get their wish.

Uber currently has around 40 thousand mini cabs on its books working within London and from September 30th their Licence to operate is not being renewed.

This was due to a string of high profile sexual abuse cases by Uber drivers and also major concerns of how the company was operated.

www.bbc.com...

www.theguardian.com...

There was massive pressure from the Black taxi trade to "get Uber out" mainly on the grounds of a Black taxi being the only vehicle in London that can charge a fare on a meter and it was argued that the Uber app was doing this?..

The issue in London now is that a majority of regular Mini cab offices have been put out of business by Uber and since the Mayor has capped fare increases on public transport that many feel where totally unsustainable it will certainly mean more people coming onto the network. Time will tell if other capital cities will follow in the same direction??...

RA

This is nothing more then the unions (again) who can't stand to see a cheaper alternative!

Sadiq Khan and TFL have effectively just put 40k people out of work now. Good old 'labour' men

It is a disgrace. 'London is open for business'... Yeah right. If you think I am paying £60 for a trip down the road then you can forget it, I would rather walk

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: Jefferton
This seems like a witch hunt against a better, and therefor threatening business model.

Kind of pathetic, if you ask me.

Have you ever thought that Transport for London, who made this decision, might have had a better idea of what their decision entailed than you have?

Nope. I'm pretty sure I'm right.

a reply to: Necrose

Truth! Black cabs are insanely expensive and they absolutely hate going south of the river...why I don't really know as Tottenham and Harlesden are every bit as bad as anywhere south. Have never been turned down by an Uber driver but I've certainly had black cabs switch the light off or speed past before.

a reply to: slider1982

This was due to a string of high profile sexual abuse cases by Uber drivers

I bet it would be interesting to see the stats on those drivers... Wonder if the Khanman is worried about something...

Regulate them better you filthy communists. Uber is SO much better around here than a normal taxi. It's cheaper, the cars are far nicer, the cars are actually CLEAN, they often have free bottles of water, and the drivers are polite or pretend to be because they worry about their rating.

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: Jefferton
This seems like a witch hunt against a better, and therefor threatening business model.

Kind of pathetic, if you ask me.

Have you ever thought that Transport for London, who made this decision, might have had a better idea of what their decision entailed than you have?

Uber might well have had an innovative business model. Sadly, they didn't bother to make sure it met the minimum legal standards necessary to get its licence renewed. Instead, Uber chose to rip off its "freelancers" and endanger its customers. As a result, it got the boot.

If Uber wants to go away and accept the fact that it will have to make some serious ethical changes to its corporate culture if it still wants access to the lucrative London market, then it can always make a new application and prove that it has reformed.

You really believe that heap of crap?

Trust me, the unions cried because it was too cheap, thus it was refused a licence. I am willing to bet my life on this being the reason

originally posted by: fusiondoe

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: Jefferton
This seems like a witch hunt against a better, and therefor threatening business model.

Kind of pathetic, if you ask me.

Have you ever thought that Transport for London, who made this decision, might have had a better idea of what their decision entailed than you have?

Uber might well have had an innovative business model. Sadly, they didn't bother to make sure it met the minimum legal standards necessary to get its licence renewed. Instead, Uber chose to rip off its "freelancers" and endanger its customers. As a result, it got the boot.

If Uber wants to go away and accept the fact that it will have to make some serious ethical changes to its corporate culture if it still wants access to the lucrative London market, then it can always make a new application and prove that it has reformed.

You really believe that heap of crap?

Trust me, the unions cried because it was too cheap, thus it was refused a licence. I am willing to bet my life on this being the reason

No doubt they would. But London is an expensive place to live. Maybe cab drivers don't want to live in the sketchy parts of London either. It seems OK for bankers, MP's and restaurant owners to make mega-bucks, but not cab-drivers?

Uber's business model is a basically a parasite. Company has intentionally violated every law on the books and knowingly evaded billions in taxes. Just use other apps if you so keen on apps. Better service, cheaper prices, good riddance.

a reply to: eventHorizon


In Chicago, there's a push to begin fingerprinting and background-checking all ride-share drivers, and driver applicants. There are approximately 22,000 in the metro area. Due to Chicago being a "sanctuary city" more drivers with "questionable" backgrounds are signing up. Particularly with Uber, because the requirements are more lax, than at the other companies, like Lyft.

Most of the black cab drivers are self employed, so not unionised in the way of , say miners or railway workers.

The idea that replacing decently paid people with often sub minimum wage folks is a good thing is just bizarre.