"By wanting to ban our app from the capital TfL and the Mayor have caved in to a small number of people who want to restrict consumer choice," said Elvidge in a statement received byTechCrunch.
No, Tom. It's not restricting consumer choice; it's forcing your company to play by the rules. You wanna operate in London, you adhere to the same rules that every other private hire firm has to. You don't get to skirt the rules just because you're worth $70bn.
You MUST perform proper background checks on your staff/drivers.
You MUST NOT use software like "Greyball".
You MUST report criminal activity much, much faster than you do.
The letter from the Met Police's taxi and private hire team head Inspector Neil Billany cited one case of an Uber driver allowed to continue working despite allegations of sexual assault, with the driver committing another "more serious" attack in his car at a later time, reports the Guardian.
Ummm... Case proven.
Is it currently illegal in London for strangers to give free rides to other people?
What is the relevance of providing a ride for free? I was under the impression that people paid for Uber services. That would imply that Uber is a business and then subject to the rules and regulations of other like businesses.
If it’s not illegal for people to give free rides to strangers, then the real reason for the Uber ban is obviously to protect the existing licensed interests which benefits those doing the tax collecting.
I imagine that licensure and other fees are probably an unspoken part of it but unfortunately for Uber they’re being cited on other ways they have failed.
C’mon. It’s not about protecting black cabs or stifling innovative competitors. If Uber and the like can put a better product into the marketplace, good for them. But if these new market entrants are not doing an adequate job on their own to protect the public, what then?
Avoiding the whole licensing scam was part of the reason for the rise of Uber (and Lyft, and another freelance cabbie app the name of which escapes me). People already have a driver license, so make a couple of extra bucks doing what you can already do completely legally...give a stranger a ride in your car.
Licensing isn’t a scam. These are for-profit companies running commercial taxi services.
C’mon. It’s not about protecting black cabs or stifling innovative competitors. If Uber and the like can put a better product into the marketplace, good for them. But if these new market entrants are not doing an adequate job on their own to protect the public, what then?
“The move comes after The Sunday Times revealed that police had accused Uber of failing to report sex attacks on passengers by its drivers and of “allowing situations to develop that…”
LOL. Please. Don’t people report alleged “sex attacks” to the police? And if they are reported to the police aren’t the people accused arrested and charged? The whole thing stinks of a smear campaign.
I live in NYC and can tell you although a lot of people like the ease of getting an Uber car that business model (if you can call it that) has had some serious consequences and negative impact on the city. First off, with the city experiencing a population boom Uber has only added to the already jammed pact streets with a flood of more vehicles. To drive a taxi you need more than a simple driver's. license you need to be trained in the laws regarding the rights of those you pick up. You must know how to get from a-z and no google Maps is not a crystal ball for navigation. An Uber driver is like someone that went to med school but never got a license to practice. The taxi and limousine commission regulate taxi and car services, handles complaints, lost and found, etc... Uber takes zero responsibility for who drives for them. The city has a long time system of medallion taxis. A medallion is legal contract the owner has with the city, they are very expense, until recently the average price was near one million dollars. These medallions were a valuable asset which could be sold to another person(s) and often represented a lifetime of investment. Today thanks to Uber these medallions have lost half their value. Uber is another example of some Silicon Valley nut jobs creating something that is more destructive to society than helpful, a product of service which makes them millions while it undoes rules which were put in place to protect consumers from abuse, overcharging an monopolies. There once was time when technology promised benefits for all today it only benefits the few that someone manage to put that technology between the person providing the service and the consumer. The mob would "shake down" small businesses this way, it is illegal yet has taken the form of an iPhone app.
What is the point of the medallions? They just seem like artificially scarce forms of currency. Restaurant operators don’t have medallions. Dentists don’t have medallions. Why NYC taxis?
"By wanting to ban our app from the capital TfL and the Mayor have caved in to a small number of people who want to restrict consumer choice," said Elvidge in a statement received byTechCrunch.
No, Tom. It's not restricting consumer choice; it's forcing your company to play by the rules. You wanna operate in London, you adhere to the same rules that every other private hire firm has to. You don't get to skirt the rules just because you're worth $70bn.
You MUST perform proper background checks on your staff/drivers.
You MUST NOT use software like "Greyball".
You MUST report criminal activity much, much faster than you do.
The letter from the Met Police's taxi and private hire team head Inspector Neil Billany cited one case of an Uber driver allowed to continue working despite allegations of sexual assault, with the driver committing another "more serious" attack in his car at a later time, reports the Guardian.
Ummm... Case proven.
Is it currently illegal in London for strangers to give free rides to other people?
What is the relevance of providing a ride for free? I was under the impression that people paid for Uber services. That would imply that Uber is a business and then subject to the rules and regulations of other like businesses.
If it’s not illegal for people to give free rides to strangers, then the real reason for the Uber ban is obviously to protect the existing licensed interests which benefits those doing the tax collecting. “Public safety” is a phony excuse. Drivers must already have a driver license to safely operate a vehicle.
Phony excuse? Let’s say you’re collecting your bag after arriving at LaGuardia and a guy you’ve never seen before comes up to offer you a bargain ride to Manhattan. Would you go with him or would you take an Uber or a medallion cab?
"By wanting to ban our app from the capital TfL and the Mayor have caved in to a small number of people who want to restrict consumer choice," said Elvidge in a statement received byTechCrunch.
No, Tom. It's not restricting consumer choice; it's forcing your company to play by the rules. You wanna operate in London, you adhere to the same rules that every other private hire firm has to. You don't get to skirt the rules just because you're worth $70bn.
You MUST perform proper background checks on your staff/drivers.
You MUST NOT use software like "Greyball".
You MUST report criminal activity much, much faster than you do.
The letter from the Met Police's taxi and private hire team head Inspector Neil Billany cited one case of an Uber driver allowed to continue working despite allegations of sexual assault, with the driver committing another "more serious" attack in his car at a later time, reports the Guardian.
Ummm... Case proven.
Is it currently illegal in London for strangers to give free rides to other people?
What is the relevance of providing a ride for free? I was under the impression that people paid for Uber services. That would imply that Uber is a business and then subject to the rules and regulations of other like businesses.
If it’s not illegal for people to give free rides to strangers, then the real reason for the Uber ban is obviously to protect the existing licensed interests which benefits those doing the tax collecting. “Public safety” is a phony excuse. Drivers must already have a driver license to safely operate a vehicle.
Phony excuse? Let’s say you’re collecting your bag after arriving at LaGuardia and a guy you’ve never before comes up to offer you a bargain ride to Manhattan. Would you go with him or would you take an Uber or a medallion cab?
I see. So is it fair to say you believe that only government stamped and approved people are moral and trustworthy? What if the driver was an off-duty cabbie or a neighbor?
Even if you accept a ride from a licensed cab driver doesn’t mean they may not accidentally or on purpose get you killed or injured. Remember the recent case of the depressed pilot who flew an entire plane full of people into the side of a mountain?
I live in NYC and can tell you although a lot of people like the ease of getting an Uber car that business model (if you can call it that) has had some serious consequences and negative impact on the city. First off, with the city experiencing a population boom Uber has only added to the already jammed pact streets with a flood of more vehicles. To drive a taxi you need more than a simple driver's. license you need to be trained in the laws regarding the rights of those you pick up. You must know how to get from a-z and no google Maps is not a crystal ball for navigation. An Uber driver is like someone that went to med school but never got a license to practice. The taxi and limousine commission regulate taxi and car services, handles complaints, lost and found, etc... Uber takes zero responsibility for who drives for them. The city has a long time system of medallion taxis. A medallion is legal contract the owner has with the city, they are very expense, until recently the average price was near one million dollars. These medallions were a valuable asset which could be sold to another person(s) and often represented a lifetime of investment. Today thanks to Uber these medallions have lost half their value. Uber is another example of some Silicon Valley nut jobs creating something that is more destructive to society than helpful, a product of service which makes them millions while it undoes rules which were put in place to protect consumers from abuse, overcharging an monopolies. There once was time when technology promised benefits for all today it only benefits the few that someone manage to put that technology between the person providing the service and the consumer. The mob would "shake down" small businesses this way, it is illegal yet has taken the form of an iPhone app.
What is the point of the medallions? They just seem like artificially scarce forms of currency. Restaurant operators don’t have medallions. Dentists don’t have medallions. Why NYC taxis?
Well, it isn't uncommon for restaurants to have a liquor license which is sort of similar to having a medallion and seemingly as ridiculously priced. In my town it costs something like $50 or $100 to get a liquor license. But all the liquor licenses have been issued already so nobody can get a new one. The only way to get one is to purchase it from someone who already has one. How do you do that? Easy! Just buy their liquor store or restaurant. If you're lucky you can maybe convince someone to sell their license separately from their business, but the last time I heard of that happening was about 15 years ago and the price was around $100,000. Just for the license. That the town issued for $100.
"By wanting to ban our app from the capital TfL and the Mayor have caved in to a small number of people who want to restrict consumer choice," said Elvidge in a statement received byTechCrunch.
No, Tom. It's not restricting consumer choice; it's forcing your company to play by the rules. You wanna operate in London, you adhere to the same rules that every other private hire firm has to. You don't get to skirt the rules just because you're worth $70bn.
You MUST perform proper background checks on your staff/drivers.
You MUST NOT use software like "Greyball".
You MUST report criminal activity much, much faster than you do.
The letter from the Met Police's taxi and private hire team head Inspector Neil Billany cited one case of an Uber driver allowed to continue working despite allegations of sexual assault, with the driver committing another "more serious" attack in his car at a later time, reports the Guardian.
Ummm... Case proven.
Is it currently illegal in London for strangers to give free rides to other people?
What is the relevance of providing a ride for free? I was under the impression that people paid for Uber services. That would imply that Uber is a business and then subject to the rules and regulations of other like businesses.
If it’s not illegal for people to give free rides to strangers, then the real reason for the Uber ban is obviously to protect the existing licensed interests which benefits those doing the tax collecting. “Public safety” is a phony excuse. Drivers must already have a driver license to safely operate a vehicle.
Phony excuse? Let’s say you’re collecting your bag after arriving at LaGuardia and a guy you’ve never before comes up to offer you a bargain ride to Manhattan. Would you go with him or would you take an Uber or a medallion cab?
I see. So is it fair to say you believe that only government stamped and approved people are moral and trustworthy? What if the driver was an off-duty cabbie or a neighbor?
Even if you accept a ride from a licensed cab driver doesn’t mean they may not accidentally or on purpose get you killed or injured. Remember the recent case of the depressed pilot who flew an entire plane full of people into the side of a mountain?
A neighbor or a person whom you know to be an off-duty cabbie is not the same as someone you’ve never met before, whose reputation you have no idea about. You’re comparing apples and oranges.
I live in NYC and can tell you although a lot of people like the ease of getting an Uber car that business model (if you can call it that) has had some serious consequences and negative impact on the city. First off, with the city experiencing a population boom Uber has only added to the already jammed pact streets with a flood of more vehicles. To drive a taxi you need more than a simple driver's. license you need to be trained in the laws regarding the rights of those you pick up. You must know how to get from a-z and no google Maps is not a crystal ball for navigation. An Uber driver is like someone that went to med school but never got a license to practice. The taxi and limousine commission regulate taxi and car services, handles complaints, lost and found, etc... Uber takes zero responsibility for who drives for them. The city has a long time system of medallion taxis. A medallion is legal contract the owner has with the city, they are very expense, until recently the average price was near one million dollars. These medallions were a valuable asset which could be sold to another person(s) and often represented a lifetime of investment. Today thanks to Uber these medallions have lost half their value. Uber is another example of some Silicon Valley nut jobs creating something that is more destructive to society than helpful, a product of service which makes them millions while it undoes rules which were put in place to protect consumers from abuse, overcharging an monopolies. There once was time when technology promised benefits for all today it only benefits the few that someone manage to put that technology between the person providing the service and the consumer. The mob would "shake down" small businesses this way, it is illegal yet has taken the form of an iPhone app.
What is the point of the medallions? They just seem like artificially scarce forms of currency. Restaurant operators don’t have medallions. Dentists don’t have medallions. Why NYC taxis?
Well, it isn't uncommon for restaurants to have a liquor license which is sort of similar to having a medallion and seemingly as ridiculously priced. In my town it costs something like $50 or $100 to get a liquor license. But all the liquor licenses have been issued already so nobody can get a new one. The only way to get one is to purchase it from someone who already has one. How do you do that? Easy! Just buy their liquor store or restaurant. If you're lucky you can maybe convince someone to sell their license separately from their business, but the last time I heard of that happening was about 15 years ago and the price was around $100,000. Just for the license. That the town issued for $100.
Yep. Artificial scarcity is all about market protection and the unintended negatives of regulations. Free markets don't have room for artificial scarcity because there are always alternatives.
C’mon. It’s not about protecting black cabs or stifling innovative competitors. If Uber and the like can put a better product into the marketplace, good for them. But if these new market entrants are not doing an adequate job on their own to protect the public, what then?
What the hell innovation, they're is nothing innovative about Uber, just a crappy app, a db, and a GPS. Oh, and skirting any local laws of course, how could I forget that one.
Next thing you'll tell me that facebook is some great innovation too, or a ponzi scheme or tax evasion is an imaginative business opportunity.
IF Uber is the better product then its business model should be able to work while paying their drivers and paying their taxes and following regulations, otherwise its a failed business and should die.
"By wanting to ban our app from the capital TfL and the Mayor have caved in to a small number of people who want to restrict consumer choice," said Elvidge in a statement received byTechCrunch.
No, Tom. It's not restricting consumer choice; it's forcing your company to play by the rules. You wanna operate in London, you adhere to the same rules that every other private hire firm has to. You don't get to skirt the rules just because you're worth $70bn.
You MUST perform proper background checks on your staff/drivers.
You MUST NOT use software like "Greyball".
You MUST report criminal activity much, much faster than you do.
The letter from the Met Police's taxi and private hire team head Inspector Neil Billany cited one case of an Uber driver allowed to continue working despite allegations of sexual assault, with the driver committing another "more serious" attack in his car at a later time, reports the Guardian.
Ummm... Case proven.
Is it currently illegal in London for strangers to give free rides to other people?
What is the relevance of providing a ride for free? I was under the impression that people paid for Uber services. That would imply that Uber is a business and then subject to the rules and regulations of other like businesses.
If it’s not illegal for people to give free rides to strangers, then the real reason for the Uber ban is obviously to protect the existing licensed interests which benefits those doing the tax collecting. “Public safety” is a phony excuse. Drivers must already have a driver license to safely operate a vehicle.
Phony excuse? Let’s say you’re collecting your bag after arriving at LaGuardia and a guy you’ve never before comes up to offer you a bargain ride to Manhattan. Would you go with him or would you take an Uber or a medallion cab?
I see. So is it fair to say you believe that only government stamped and approved people are moral and trustworthy? What if the driver was an off-duty cabbie or a neighbor?
Even if you accept a ride from a licensed cab driver doesn’t mean they may not accidentally or on purpose get you killed or injured. Remember the recent case of the depressed pilot who flew an entire plane full of people into the side of a mountain?
A neighbor or a person whom you know to be an off-duty cabbie is not the same as someone you’ve never met before, whose reputation you have no idea about. You’re comparing apples and oranges.
You also don't have a clue what is the reputation of a stranger who is a licensed cab driver. A person with a driver license is the exact same thing, the only difference being that the other person has paid extra for a cab driver license/medallion, which used to give them a favored position in terms of controlling the market/availability of cabs until Uber and Lyft came along.
The Wall Street crowd has been chomping at the bit for a $70B Uber IPO frenzy and is NOT happy about any of this. They seem to be going out of their way to hype the guy coming in from Expedia to takeover and fix everything and are no doubt responsible for steering SoftBank.jp towards a deal without giving careful analysis that they're truly going to be investing in a "turnaround story". Once the investors have been able to cash out the equity they have already spent, nobody is going to give a damn about Uber and the forces against it will rip it to shreds.
The only thing that really matters is that if someone gets into a ride share and something bad happens (sitting in vomit, food delivery put on dirty blanket on vomit, a rape, murder, accident, etc.), as soon as the word "Uber" is mentioned, everyone will say "that's too bad, what did you expect?" If that happened in a Lyft or a regular cab, there would be genuine outrage.
You also don't have a clue what is the reputation of a stranger who is a licensed cab driver. A person with a driver license is the exact same thing, the only difference being that the other person has paid extra for a cab driver license/medallion, which used to give them a favored position in terms of controlling the market/availability of cabs until Uber and Lyft came along.
That's not true in London. The requirements for being a license minicab driver are above and beyond holding a driving licence:
In order to be licensed, you will need to meet the following criteria:
You must be at least 21 years of age at the time of applying. There is no upper age limit, as long as you meet the other licensing requirements
You must hold a full DVLA, Northern Ireland, or other EEA state driving licence that's at least three years old
You must have the right to live and work in the UK
You must be of good character. To establish this you will be required to undertake an 'enhanced' criminal records check from DBS through our service provider - GBGroup
You must be medically fit which means meeting the DVLA Group 2 standards. In most cases, this will mean that you will have to undergo a medical examination with someone who has access to your full medical history
You will need to undertake a topographical skills assessment from an accredited assessment centre
From next year there will also be an English language proficiency requirement but it's being held up by a legal challenge from... Uber.
SpamSandwich said: You also don't have a clue what is the reputation of a stranger who is a licensed cab driver. A person with a driver license is the exact same thing, the only difference being that the other person has paid extra for a cab driver license/medallion, which used to give them a favored position in terms of controlling the market/availability of cabs until Uber and Lyft came along.
Sorry SpamSandwich but you don’t seem to have a clue how the taxis and minicabs are licenced in London; there is no control of market/limit to the number of drivers vehicles and operators that are approved provided they meet the necessary level of trustworthiness and competency. It is that licence that’s a sign of the stranger driver having been properly assessed as far more trustworthy than the unlicensed stranger. It is also provides a means of monitoring to ensure and deal with issues that arise.
It is notable that for the past decade or so the vast majority of sexual attacks on women in “cabs” have been carried out by drivers with no licence to offer a cab service. It had become so frequent that the Metropolitan Police has run campaigns recommending people to only get licensed taxis and private hire cabs for their safety.
Avoiding the whole licensing scam was part of the reason for the rise of Uber (and Lyft, and another freelance cabbie app the name of which escapes me). People already have a driver license, so make a couple of extra bucks doing what you can already do completely legally...give a stranger a ride in your car.
So you don’t mind if the Uber driver who picks up your daughter is a convicted sex offender? There has to be some protection for the public customers using ride services and are potential victims. Having a license doesn’t automatically make a driver a good person.
Except the identities of both rider and driver are known thanks to the Uber app. Having a prior conviction doesn’t mean the person is an imminent threat. In fact, the State of California is about to make it legally impossible for employers to know about prior convictions on job applications, so at least in California you wouldn’t know that unless you had special knowledge anyway. Do you know if the pilot of the last plane you flew was ever convicted of public drunkenness or if the last babysitter you hired ever kicked a puppy?
Knowing the identity of the guy who raped my daughter is of little consolation.
Uber gives me ulcer, I hate how that company used unethical tactics to grow. However, I have a good feeling about their new CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi, he seems to be the right person to get this crap of a company to shape up. In some photos Dara looks eerily similar to Jobs, don't you think?
Comments
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uber-drivers-forced-to-have-new-criminal-record-check-zf6ctss07
Horrid company , but their Taxis were pretty useful . Won't ever forget them having the nerve to charge extortionate rates during the Tube Strikes
Back to the night buses or the night tube after a night out then .
“The move comes after The Sunday Times revealed that police had accused Uber of failing to report sex attacks on passengers by its drivers and of “allowing situations to develop that…”
LOL. Please. Don’t people report alleged “sex attacks” to the police? And if they are reported to the police aren’t the people accused arrested and charged? The whole thing stinks of a smear campaign.
What is the point of the medallions? They just seem like artificially scarce forms of currency. Restaurant operators don’t have medallions. Dentists don’t have medallions. Why NYC taxis?
Even if you accept a ride from a licensed cab driver doesn’t mean they may not accidentally or on purpose get you killed or injured. Remember the recent case of the depressed pilot who flew an entire plane full of people into the side of a mountain?
The only thing that really matters is that if someone gets into a ride share and something bad happens (sitting in vomit, food delivery put on dirty blanket on vomit, a rape, murder, accident, etc.), as soon as the word "Uber" is mentioned, everyone will say "that's too bad, what did you expect?" If that happened in a Lyft or a regular cab, there would be genuine outrage.
That's not true in London. The requirements for being a license minicab driver are above and beyond holding a driving licence:
In order to be licensed, you will need to meet the following criteria:
From next year there will also be an English language proficiency requirement but it's being held up by a legal challenge from... Uber.
It is also provides a means of monitoring to ensure and deal with issues that arise.
It is notable that for the past decade or so the vast majority of sexual attacks on women in “cabs” have been carried out by drivers with no licence to offer a cab service.
It had become so frequent that the Metropolitan Police has run campaigns recommending people to only get licensed taxis and private hire cabs for their safety.
In some photos Dara looks eerily similar to Jobs, don't you think?