Understanding Uber: It's Not About the App

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/understanding-uber-not-app/

by porker • 9 years ago

221 237 9 years ago

pjc508• 9 years ago

Was just about to post this myself, it's an excellent summary of what the dispute is really about. Also includes some history; I hadn't realised that Hailo was British in origin, or that TfL had the same legal structure as a local authority.

rahimnathwani12• 9 years ago

"it's an excellent summary of what the dispute is really about"

Except that, like other articles I've read about the dispute, it talks only about Uber/ULL and its transgressions in isolation. Stats about number of offences are provided, but without context. Where are the comparable numbers for other minicab firms (of which there are many)? Are ULL's offences per ride/mile higher or lower than the worst/best/median minicab firm?

pjc508• 9 years ago

The issue is not the quantity, but the inaction, as explained: once made aware of the incidents, Uber should have reported them to the police.

(Also the operation of "greyballing"!)

zimpenfish4• 9 years ago

it talks only about Uber/ULL

Well, yeah, they're the only ones currently trying to renew their license.

Where are the comparable numbers for other minicab firms (of which there are many)?

Utterly irrelevant when it comes to renewing Uber's license. Much like if I was to apply for, oh, a pharmacist license and using "But Frank has dealt more meth than I have!" as justification. Utter nonsense.

gadders• 9 years ago

Well, it doesn't mention the GMB union that covers taxis, and the union's support for the Mayor of London.

rahimnathwani12• 9 years ago

"Indeed if TfL have any kind of ulterior motive for their actions, it is simply that they dislike the impact Uber are having on congestion within the capital"

As compared with official London taxis (aka 'black cabs'), cars operated by Uber:

1) After dropping off a passenger, drive to their next pickup point (vs. black cabs which drive around for an average of 25 mins waiting to be hailed).

2) Pay the London congestion charge (vs. black cabs which are exempt despite the fact that they're generally on the road for about 10+ hours per day than the average car, and spend a far greater proportion of that total time within the congestion charging zone).

mbrookes2• 9 years ago

3) Are typically petrol (gas) rather than diesel, and are often hybrids (less pollution).

Edit: Not significantly smaller, as pointed out below 4) Are typically more compact than a black cab - take up less road space

So no, it's not about congestion in that sense. What the author appears to be suggesting is that there are more cars on the road plying for the same trade, and the more journey miles taken in an Uber, the more idle time a black cab will spend waiting to be hailed - either congestion on the road, or congestion in the taxi ranks.

However, if that were the true ulterior motive, that could be applied to any car service that competes with black cabs, not just Uber.

rahimnathwani12• 9 years ago

5) Don't drive in bus lanes (black cabs can and do drive in most bus lanes; other cars cannot, regardless of number of passengers).

cannam• 9 years ago

4) Are typically more compact than a black cab - take up less road space

I thought "that can't be right, black cabs aren't all that big". And a quick search suggests that a Prius and a TX4 black cab are pretty much the same length - 454cm (Prius) vs 458cm (cab).

The black cab is 18cm wider, which may make a difference, although length seems the more significant dimension here. And black cabs are much taller of course.

rootlocus7• 9 years ago

vs. black cabs which drive around for an average of 25 mins waiting to be hailed

I'm not from London, but where I'm from, cab drivers don't "drive around" until the next ride. That's a terrible waste of gas. We have special reserved parking for them, usually close to places of interest (next to bus stations, malls, etc.). This is one of the reasons there is a limited number of licenses available per city. Uber drivers can't use these parking slots.

How about the fact that black cabs wait to be hailed longer period of times because people choose Uber drives, thus adding more cars on the road instead of using the ones that are already there?

lugg• 9 years ago

How about the fact that black cabs wait to be hailed longer period of times because people choose Uber drives, thus adding more cars on the road instead of using the ones that are already there?

You can't be serious..

- Price

- Accessibility

- Customer service

To name a couple.

rahimnathwani12• 9 years ago

'I'm not from London, but where I'm from, cab drivers don't "drive around" until the next ride.'

Then perhaps my points don't apply to wherever that place is. But I'm talking about London, and never claimed to be stating universal truths :)

Nursie10• 9 years ago

The implication is that the subsidised fares Uber offers are leading more people to use individual road transport.

Why do people frame this as "Uber vs Black Cabs"?

That completely misses out on the wider context of transport in London as a whole.

rahimnathwani12• 9 years ago

Why do people frame this as "Uber vs Black Cabs"

I can't speak for others, but my tuppence as someone born in London, and who lived there for >30 years:

1) Black cabs are really expensive. So much so that I can count on one hand the number of times I've paid for one out of my own pocket.

2) Black cabs, despite the terms of their licence, are known to refuse to pick you up if they're going the other way, or refuse a fare if you're going to South London (where I was born).

3) I used to drive to and from work every day. Part of the journey took me along the A4/M4 towards Heathrow. There was a traffic jam every day, going home from work (towards Central London). This busy road had a bus lane. I don't recall ever seeing a bus going past me in that lane, but plenty of black cabs did. I don't see why a black cab should get to skip past the rest of us waiting 20 mins in traffic.

4) There are many taxi ranks where taxis wait for fares. For example, near Kings Cross station. 100% of the drivers leave their diesel engines running whilst they're waiting, right next to the pavement where people are walking. I don't like this unnecessary local pollution as I'm walking by.

5) Congestion charge (see my original comment).

Overall, my point is this: Uber and minicab firms work within the same road usage framework as other car owners. Black cabs are somehow exempt from this (which is unfair to begin with) when, given the time they spend on the road waiting to find a passenger, they cause much more congestion and pollution per passenger-mile than other cars.

andygates2• 9 years ago

At least in part: Because Uber frames it as "Uber vs Black Cabs".

criddell• 9 years ago

I don't understand why there aren't more governments challenging Uber on their subsidized fares. Doesn't that fit the definition of dumping?

vertex-four7• 9 years ago

The goal of the congestion charge is not to make money off cars in London - it's an attempt to reduce the number of cars in London. The number of cabs is limited largely by the complexity of The Knowledge, while the number of minicabs is rather less limited, so in conspiracy theory land, TfL have motive to ban minicab operators wherever possible.

In any case, it's very unlikely that this is an ulterior motive - there's no reason why the problems aren't exactly what was listed, i.e. mostly administrative failures on Uber's part where other minicab companies are more cooperative with the license requirements.

tomp4• 9 years ago

it's an attempt to reduce the number of cars in London

Not sure if that's true. I think it's mainly to reduce the polution in central London. Otherwise, electric/hybrid cars wouldn't be exempt but charged the same amount!

lhnz3• 9 years ago

  > mostly administrative failures on Uber's part where 
  > other minicab companies are more cooperative with
  > the license requirements.

But TfL inspectors gave Uber the green light ten times [0] including recently before suddenly deciding to ban them. There doesn't seem to be a history of repeated administrative failures here.

[0] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tfl-inspectors-gave-uber-...

rahimnathwani12• 9 years ago

"The goal of the congestion charge is not to make money off cars in London - it's an attempt to reduce the number of cars in London."

Surely the goal of the congestion charge is to, you know, reduce congestion. One way would be to reduce the number of cars simultaneously on the road during periods of congestion. Excluding black cabs from this incentive structure does a disservice to Londoners.

efsavage• 9 years ago

The goal of the congestion charge is not to make money off cars in London - it's an attempt to reduce the number of cars in London.

Initially, yes. But it's now a revenue stream, and it's really hard for governments of any philosophy to gracefully accept a loss of revenue.

There is also the Shirky Principle: "Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution"

reallydoubtful• 9 years ago

Your second part is not true. As the blog post makes clear, Uber cars drive under the license of a minicab firm (as personal hire vehicles), and are therefore exempt from the congestion charge.

Given your first point, could you please share the like-for-like data on uber vs. black cab time spent waiting to be hailed/booked? That sounds very interesting.

monkeyprojects4• 9 years ago

2 isn't true private hire cars are equally exempt see https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congestion-charge/discounts...

rahimnathwani12• 9 years ago

I stand corrected. Sadly it's too late for me to edit my original comment.

lozenge3• 9 years ago

Black cabs are limited in number due to the difficulty of the Knowledge test. Ubers aren't limited in number and Uber makes no effort to discourage excess drivers from logging on. (If it reduces the average wait by 10 seconds, it's worth it in their eyes, as it costs them nothing. The congestion cost is externalised.)

Uber also sends push notifications to drivers to go to specific areas to prevent surge pricing.

CamelCaseName2• 9 years ago

Great article. That Uber drivers of London alone have been accused of 32 sexual assaults in the past year [1] is hard to swallow.

Also, it sounds like Uber would be better off targeting public outrage towards the mayor. Any thoughts on why they went after TfL and not where the power actually resides?

[1] https://www.google.ca/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/uber...

AsyncAwait2• 9 years ago

They started a petition [1], that is directed at the mayor.

[1] https://www.change.org/p/save-your-uber-in-london-saveyourub...

pbhjpbhj2• 9 years ago

the livelihoods of 40,000 drivers

Uber are fully supporting the livelihood of 40k drivers? Doesn't seem likely. They're depressing the market price whilst simultaneously creaming off more of that price for themselves, that surely leaves drivers over all worse off.

What sort of pension are Uber's employees getting, the one's whose livelihood Uber are taking care of? What sort of holiday pay do they get? Do they get perks above the lowest legal level?

detaro2• 9 years ago

TfL is a faceless bureaucracy, and while I think they don't have a terrible reputation many people have some reason to be unhappy about them. Makes an easier target than the mayor who is a quite popular figure and might be able to shrug off attacks against him personally relatively easily (e.g. by simply backing TfL without getting personally involved).

aaron695• 9 years ago

Of the 154 assults. So you could say the vast majority were not in Uber?

corford6• 9 years ago

Read the article. It's not about the quantity of assaults, it's about Uber not reporting them to the police.

tryingagainbro• 9 years ago

That Uber drivers of London alone have been accused of 32 sexual assaults in the past year [1] is hard to swallow.

How does that compare to the regular population?

zimpenfish4• 9 years ago

It doesn't matter because Uber are the ones trying to get their license renewed.

(What is it with the rampant "whataboutism" defending Uber?")

hycaria3• 9 years ago

Oh wow, that article is so bad.

Uber drivers are accused of sexually assaulting or raping customers almost three times a month, according to new figures which have outraged rape campaigners.

I could point out that accusation is not proof of guilt, but that's not what's bothering me the most. My problem with this article is that no referential is provided : frequency of accusations of others cab services providers (we have a count, no frequency) ? total number of fares at Uber vs other cabs (is it more than a fifth ?) ? Or alleged sexual assaults in London for a month ?

Sometimes this bad journalism looks so deliberate...

CamelCaseName2• 9 years ago

I think part of the problem is that these just occurred in 2016. In combination with Uber supposedly keeping information and not reporting assaults (according to the submitted article) it makes it very difficult to make a good comparison.

Someone else asked how Uber assaults compare to the general population and I honestly can't find much apples-to-apples information.

Doctor_Fegg• 9 years ago

London Reconnections is consistently good. For anyone interested in public transport, it's worth disappearing down the rabbit-hole of their previous articles. (It also has a better-than-average comments section.)

monkeyprojects4• 9 years ago

If anyone is in project management the story about Kings Cross at Christmas 2015 is must read article on how what seems like the best contingency plans can go wrong https://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/know-run-story-behi...

dingo_bat6• 9 years ago

Most of all though remember: it is not about the app.

Yeah, we get it; it's about bureaucracy and regulation, and you fucking peasants will do as we say.

I hope Uber does what they usually do in these cases: ignore this bullshit and continue providing value to common people.

Djvacto2• 9 years ago

I mean, I wouldn't say that unreported sexual assaults is "bullshit". That's serious stuff, and they didn't report it to the police.

Nursie10• 9 years ago

And I hope that continuing that behaviour gets them banned from more countries.

They aren't providing value for "common people", they are trying to capture the market with massive subsidies. That itself is cause for a huge amount of concern.

strictnein• 9 years ago

Which "massive subsidies" are they receiving, exactly?

dingo_bat6• 9 years ago

subsidies

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

AsyncAwait2• 9 years ago

They aren't providing value for "common people", they are trying to capture the market with massive subsidies. That itself is cause for a huge amount of concern.

Your overall concern is valid, but I'd disagree with them not providing value. They're significantly cheaper, cleaner and more accessible than regular cabs in many places, but I agree this is likely to change once they have a monopoly.

corford6• 9 years ago

I don't think you could be more wrong.

Quote from the Mayor:

“I want companies that abide by the rules, I want companies that innovate, harbour new technologies, I want disruptive technology coming to London but you’ve got to play by the rule,” he said. Khan stressed the decision over Uber’s licence had been taken by experts at TfL and should not be subject to political interference, when asked whether he would have talks with the company.

Taken from: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/25/uber-tfl-co...

dingo_bat6• 9 years ago

Isn't this the same guy who said terrorism is “part and parcel of living in a big city”[1]? Yeah forgive me for trusting Uber more than him. Violent terrorists killing innocents is all fine, attacks have become a monthly affair in London. But oh my! How dare Uber flout our ridiculous anti-people taxi regulations and charge people a reasonable fare?!

Also, quoting the Mayor doesn't prove anything. He has veto power over TFL, he can tell them to do anything. Your argument is just an appeal to authority, in this case an authority with a huge conflict of interest and a proven track record of not giving a fuck about common citizens.

1. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sadiq-khan-lo...

WisNorCan5• 9 years ago

Of all the things that have been revealed about Uber, this is among the worst:

“The facts are that on the 30 January 2016 a female was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver. From what we can ascertain Uber have spoken to the driver who denied the offence. Uber have continued to employ the driver and have done nothing more. While Uber did not say they would contact the police the victim believed that they would inform the police on her behalf.

On the 10 May 2016 the same driver has committed a second more serious sexual assault against a different passenger Again Uber haven’t said to this victim they would contact the police, but she was, to use her words, ‘strongly under the impression’ that they would.”

Horrible things will happen at scale. But here Uber was directly involved in enabling sexual assault and misleading the victim.

EDIT - some comments believe that this is overly harsh in judging Uber:

1) Uber has had ongoing issues with sexual assault in the US preceding this event. If preventing sexual assault was a priority they would have designed the right policy. Lack of strong policy on sexual assault is an explicit choice:

“firstly it seems they are deciding what to report (less serious matters / less damaging to reputation over serious offences) and secondly by not reporting to police promptly they are allowing situations to develop that clearly affect the safety and security of the public.” *

2) If a serious crime (like this one) is suspected, companies have an obligation to report this and not just conduct their own investigations which will have an inherent bias.

3) Both passengers came away with the impression that Uber was going to take action. If Uber had no intent to take action, this made the situation worse by reducing the likelihood of direct reporting and enabling further sexual assault.

* https://cdn.londonreconnections.com/2013/12042017-NB-to-Hele...

kemerover6• 9 years ago

People should report crimes to police, they shouldn't report them to school or company. Everyone who tells the opposite enables sexual assault. Uber is not at fault in this situation and it doesn't enable anything.

pjc508• 9 years ago

This is not what the Metropolitan Police think. https://cdn.londonreconnections.com/2013/12042017-NB-to-Hele...

Retra• 9 years ago

Businesses should also report crimes to the police. A business who does the opposite enables sexual assault. Uber is at fault in this situation and directly enables sexual assault.

The only difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying is that I imply Uber is run by people and you imply they are a force of nature (or something.)

wukerplank• 9 years ago

Uber is not at fault in this situation

Keeping a sexual predator as a driver is the right choice?

tomp4• 9 years ago

But here Uber was directly involved in enabling sexual assault and misleading the victim

I can't really comment on the "misleading" charge (and it seems pretty vague in your quotes as well), but "directly involved in enabling sexual assault" is FUD like no other - if that's your claim, then every employeer is "directly involved"!

At the end of the day, Uber isn't (and shouldn't be) responsible (nor qualified) for solving (sex) crime - the police are!

pjc508• 9 years ago

Uber can't deflect responsibility for this onto the police if they refused to pass it on in the first place and then didn't provide information when asked.

buro92• 9 years ago

At the end of the day, Uber isn't (and shouldn't be) responsible (nor qualified) for solving (sex) crime - the police are!

This is the point of the article.

ULL is regulated by TfL and are required to report serious crimes to the police in a timely manner.

They haven't done so, by their own policy, and this has resulted in repeat offences of sexual crimes.

You may now say "the victim should report it", but be aware that you will be blaming the victim here, and the victims did report it... directly to Uber. Uber, who are required to notify the police and failed to do so in a timely way and that allowed repeat offences to occur.

yeukhon2• 9 years ago

There are two parts to this. First, we don't know how the conversations went between Uber and the vitcims, because both viticms seen to have the impressions Uber would report this to the police, which is odd given the viticms should report to the police first. But on the other hand, Uber should work with the viticms to ensure the viticms are reporting to the police. Imaginr you were sexually assaulted on the train, on campus, or at work, not only you should contact the police yourself, but the administration should engage in aid. A train station worker shouldn't just stand next to a vitcim and say well the alleged attacker denies it so we are lettig the attack go. If you were assaulted at work, you should find someone you can trust and go to either the HR and call the cops. Uber is not responsible for the attack, but as a company it has the responsibility to take every claim seriously, and ensure law enforcement is involved, because Uber's reputation and customer trust are at stake. Every company should have a crisis protocol.

On the other hand, I can't think of better example than Uber's toxic company cultute. Harassments gone to blackhole with HR....

eyko3• 9 years ago

Here's Uber's respose to the Met Police's letter with their version of the story: https://www.uber.com/en-GB/blog/how-uber-in-london-works-wit...

A complaint was made that, following a trip, a driver got out of the car and hugged a female passenger. This violates our community guidelines and the driver was prevented from using our app while we investigated. He was subsequently given clear direction concerning his alleged behaviour prior to being reinstated on the app. When a second complaint was made some time later, of the same driver touching a rider’s leg, it was decided that we could no longer maintain our partnership with the driver and he was permanently stopped from using our app. At the same time we informed TfL of the allegations in order that they could consider revoking his private hire licence and prevent him from working with any other operators in London. We deal with all complaints on a case by case basis but swiftly identify and deal with any pattern of alleged behaviour such as this. As stated above, we also advise individuals to report incidents to the police and support them in doing so.

theptip• 9 years ago

From the OP:

Both cases were charged as sexual assaults and are at court next week for hearing... While Uber did not say they would contact the police the victim believed that they would inform the police on her behalf.

The fact that the victim thought Uber would contact the police, and that the prosecutor has decided there's a case to hear, suggests that this was more than "a hug". We don't have all the information here, but I'm quite uneasy with this downplaying of a potential sexual assault (one that is currently being heard in court).

Uber hold a position not to report crime on the basis that it may breach the rights of the passenger. When asked what the position would be in the hypothetical case of a driver who commits a serious sexual assault against a passenger they confirmed that they would dismiss the driver and report to TfL, but not inform the police.

Regardless of whether the individual case doesn't sound bad in Uber's telling, their stated position on a hypothetical serious sexual assault is very concerning. Either way it shows either disregard or ignorance for the regulatory environment under which they operate. (It sounds to me like ignorance, since they did report the driver to TfL, and neglected to inform the police as required).

ptero• 9 years ago

Uber is under obligation to report serious crimes to the police. From their description though, I am not sure it qualifies:

A complaint was made that, following a trip, a driver got out of the car and hugged a female passenger

I bet it was unpleasant, uncomfortable, unprofessional and a bunch of other "un"s but does getting hugged on a street (not when confined in a car) supports a serious crime claim in the UK or US? This is an honest question, I would really like to know the answer.

grecy• 9 years ago

How often do you think this kind of thing happens with regular taxis? public transport?

My gut says it's extremely common, you just are not hearing about it.

wavefunction• 9 years ago

Well between the established facts with Uber and some internet person's "gut feeling" I guess I would discount the latter.

I can't even believe people are making excuses for Uber like this.

WisNorCan5• 9 years ago

I am not following your defense of Uber. Let’s assume sexual assault is equally common among Uber drivers and regular taxi drivers.

It is still not material to the complaint. The complaint is that regulators are getting adequate and timely reporting from regular taxi companies so they can investigate. But not from Uber. This is leading to unnecessary safety issues for Uber riders.

weego• 9 years ago

Your argument suggests that it's acceptable to expect businesses to a race to the bottom on safety, peace of mind and quality.

enraged_camel• 9 years ago

This is the worst kind of what-aboutism. You should be ashamed.

rorykoehler2• 9 years ago

I don't understand what reality a person lives in where their first response after a crime as serious as sexual assault is to go complain to Uber rather than go directly to the police. That said Uber should have advised the victim to contact the police immediately.

DanBC10• 9 years ago

You don't understand the reality of sexual assault, where many victims don't report to police because of precisely the kind of bullshit dismissal we see in this thread.

WisNorCan5• 9 years ago

"Shock and numbness: Feelings of confusion, being easily overwhelmed, not knowing how to feel or what to do, feeling “spacey” or “out of it.” You may react in a way that is similar to your reactions during other crises in your life (for example with tears, irritability, nervous laughter, withdrawing)."

https://sapac.umich.edu/article/161

anduniz• 9 years ago

The choice of words is the key. “He sexually assaulted her” actually means “he gave her a hug”. It’s evident she wouldn’t report something like that to the police.

Reporting an unwanted hug (to the police, not to the media) as a “sexual assault” is clearly not going to fly.

vonnik• 9 years ago

And even more damning:

"In total, Uber had failed to report six sexual assaults, two public order offences and one assault to the police. This had lead to delays of up to 7 months before they were investigated. Particularly damning, with the public order offences this meant that in both cases the prosecution time limit had passed before the police became aware of them."

ringaroundthetx• 9 years ago

Context:

When a local cab driver does anything like this, it is local news implicating a small local company if that.

When an uber driver does anything like this, it is international news.

I think this should factor in to your risk assessment of using Uber versus any other service.

KekDemaga• 9 years ago

If a serious crime (like this one) is suspected, companies have an obligation to report this and not just conduct their own investigations which will have an inherent bias.

Why are rape accusations ever investigated outside of a legal context by police? They do the same thing in colleges and it boggles my mind how anyone would think that's a good course of action.

DanBC10• 9 years ago

I'd be interested to know what rights, in English law, Uber think are being breached here:

Uber hold a position not to report crime on the basis that it may breach the rights of the passenger. When asked what the position would be in the hypothetical case of a driver who commits a serious sexual assault against a passenger they confirmed that they would dismiss the driver and report to TfL, but not inform the police.

pjc508• 9 years ago

They've probably misinterpreted the Data Protection Act, which is the normal excuse an organisation gives for not providing information.

rmc• 9 years ago

(i) British law, not English law.

(ii) Perhaps they think it's a privacy violation to share the drivers personal data with the cops, or maybe defamation?

matthewheath• 9 years ago

(i) British law, not English law.

English law is technically correct here. British law would be something that applies to England, Wales, and Scotland collectively.

In this case, London taxis are regulated by the London Cab Order 1934, and minicabs are regulated under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, so this is law that only applies to England (Wales and Scotland have other acts that apply.)

DanBC10• 9 years ago

England is a sub-set of Britain, so if it applies to Britain or the UK it probably applies to England. That's definitely not true the other way round.

jorvi• 9 years ago

I don't know the situation in London, but Uber in general has improved 2 situations immensely:

1. Normal cabs are horrible. The drivers are often rude, always try to price gouge or even outright trick you. There is no rating system, meaning no public 'oversight'. Hell, cabbies always tried to get rid of regulations, but now that there's Uber they use it like a weapon: that alone should tell you enough about how scummy and opportunistic they are.

2. Booking a ride in a foreign country. Many drivers don't speak English, so good luck explaining where you want to go. You also usually have no idea what a typical fare should be, so (especially around airports) prepare to be hoodwinked.

In contrast, Uber has a set price, easy way to hail and a rating system that works beautifully. Before Uber, I hated cab rides. Now it's a pleasure.

fastball• 9 years ago

Did you read the article? Nobody is denying either of those points.

Though generally in London the standard for taxis has been much higher for a long time, primarily due to The Knowledge and the high price of black cab vehicles.

FabHK7• 9 years ago

Well, let me just go ahead and deny the first point. Normal cabs are horrible in some jurisdictions and places (try getting a cab at Manila airport, Denpasar (Bali) airport, Singapore, Addis Abeba).

In other places, where they're well regulated, they're perfectly fine by and large (London, Germany, Hong Kong).

TomK32• 9 years ago

I'm still surprised Uber isn't being rejected simple for the reason that they are making a huge profit to drive out (no pun intended) competition.

Something that made me laugh:

"... Uber are a bully. Unfortunately for them, TfL are an even bigger one."

and of course it's all down to this:

"It is also worth noting that all TfL really wants Uber to do is comply with the rules. Despite the image that has been pushed in some sections of the media, TfL has not suddenly become the champion of the embattled London cabbie (many of whom would laugh heartily at the idea)."

jk563• 9 years ago

I assume you mean a huge loss?

m3rc2• 9 years ago

Well, some people at Uber are making a lot of money.

raverbashing• 9 years ago

Relevant: http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/ubers-new-ceo-...

camus2• 9 years ago

It's extremely painful to see people defending or justifying Uber's actions on HN. You can absolutely find Uber useful, and if you do and you are a Londoner, you can contact Uber to ask them to revise their policy when it comes to collaborating with the police in case of sexual assault instead of defending the indefensible.

There is something very wrong with a community where people think Uber's actions are normal. It's extremely unsettling.

Uber has always been an "HN favorite", but there are limits... Some comments here are just insane and completely out of touch with reality, or just don't take sexual crimes seriously, which is even worse...

It's very interesting to compare some extracts taken from a similar thread that apparead some time ago about Uber being temporarly banned in Italy to the tone in the comments here:

"Innovation almost always sidestep regulations, by definition", "Italy is not a place for innovation", "few corrupt lobbies that are against innovation and competition" , "US consistently outperforms the EU in GDP growth and innovation", "Forcing innovators to "respect the law" squarely is basically killing innovation".

I don't see anybody blaming the UK for being anti-innovation here. Why?

freeone3000• 9 years ago

Because the facts don't support it. There are a number of app-based minicab services that are able to comply with TfL regulations. Uber here is failing an extraordinarly low bar - report serious crimes when your drivers commit them, do not implement a system to decieve regulators. The regulators are not coming down Uber-like apps in general, or on some theoretical - they are coming down on Uber in particular for its history of action, with evidence-backed specifics.

lewis500• 9 years ago

"it seems that every journey only covers 41% of the costs involved in making it."

This statistic is dumb.

There is a distinction between marginal and average cost. Uber's marginal costs are negligible, except for the new markets and products where they pay the driver's fare rather than collect a portion. The "costs involved in making" a trip are born only by the driver. Uber's marginal costs are only the probability they have to refund the fare for whatever reason, or get sued or something.

This might seem academic, but recognizing it belies the idea Uber will one day have to raise fares by 41%. The 41% statistic is derived from Uber's total losses. But this involves the significant fixed costs of running Uber...some of which are investments in IP and infrastructure...and which scale much less-than-linearly with demand. If Uber's demand grew enough they would be profitable even with today's fares.

I do not know if Uber will one day be profitable or raise fares, but tying total losses to the price of an individual trip is sloppy.

FabHK7• 9 years ago

Uber will one day have to raise fares by 41%

FWIW, if the fare covers only 41% of the costs, you need to raise it not by 41%, but by 143% to cover the costs.

fictionfuture• 9 years ago

Regular taxis are in every facet worse than Ubers. So safety etc is just an excuse.

In the end, this is about economics. Why send all this money to a US company, when you can keep it in the UK?

FabHK7• 9 years ago

That's just wrong in so many ways...

London black cabs can take more pax than most cars (5 or 6 plus luggage), they have a very small turn radius, are wheelchair accessible, the drivers have "the knowledge" and actually know where they're going, and if you want, you can also call one online.

You can argue about the overall experience of London cabs vs Uber, but worse "in every facet" is just silly.

Lastly, Uber fares cover only a fraction of their cost, so they're not "sending money to a US company"; at most they're contributing to Uber's $2 bn annual loss.

TotallyGod• 9 years ago

This is an informative article, it's a shame about the straw-man that repeats throughout it. Nobody is saying this is "about the app". Obviously, the usefulness of the app is tied into the licence. It's about the licence. Everybody knows that.

Understanding Uber: It's Not About the App

Related Stories