Uber in London discussion

[vladmarks]

After the news broke off this morning about Uber's license revocation for London I got a bit pissed off and wrote a small notion of facts. 

I still remain a massive fan of their services being able to carry me and my euc whenever I feel my riding skills could be compromised 

Forget the fact that the local TfL and CPS can't get their heads around e-transport for ages. Maybe the locals just like to ban shit?

[LanghamP]

Wouldn't the adoption of self-driving cars render the employment argument null?

Also, I find it hard to be sympathetic to extra cars congesting London as London already has some of the best public transportation service.

[dmethvin]

This article gives some of the incidents that led to Uber getting banned: https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/understanding-uber-not-app/

In particular they are not reporting assaults immediately to the police. This allowed one person to sexually assault two different women over the course of a month. 

I've used Uber in London several times and have also found them super convenient, but they need to follow the regulations and these are not arbitrary rules. Uber is still losing a lot of money on every ride and as that article says, their long-term goal is to not have drivers at all. It's the only way they can become profitable.

[WARPed1701D]

Uber is indeed convenient but London has long been plagued by passenger attacks from the drivers of poorly regulated minicab companies. While "The Knowledge" is becoming outdated in the age of internet connected GPS the safety and security of Black Cabs is worth the money. Uber has highly questionable operating practices and they need to be brought into line when it comes to passenger safety by enforcing strict background and vehicle checks. Only with the threat of a ban will they consider changing.

[LanghamP]

On 9/25/2017 at 7:54 AM, WARPed1701D said:

Uber is indeed convenient but London has long been plagued by passenger attacks from the drivers of poorly regulated minicab companies. While "The Knowledge" is becoming outdated in the age of internet connected GPS the safety and security of Black Cabs is worth the money. Uber has highly questionable operating practices and they need to be brought into line when it comes to passenger safety by enforcing strict background and vehicle checks. Only with the threat of a ban will they consider changing.

It's inappropriate for Uber to actually enforce any background checks on their drivers and on the vehicles because that's the domain of government licensing office. The only thing Uber should be doing is creating and dissolving contracts between people who drive and people who need to be somewhere but with a caveat. That caveat is the commercial license.

UK already does background checks for people applying driver's licenses; therefore drivers should be at a minimum reliable standard. Since drivers are making money by driving then they should be applying for the commercial driver's license. Same thing with the automobile check; again this should a commercial license. Since commercial licenses require insurance, and likely be bonded, this excludes almost all Uber drivers.

The bread-and-butter of Uber is getting personal drivers to act commercially, desperately and at very low cost. Take home pay of Uber drivers isn't much more than $2 per hour, and for many drivers it's in the red. This isn't by accident; that's the way Uber makes money.

To me, it's very straight-forward.

--Uber only hires commercial drivers. That background check of the driver and the vehicle is the domain of the gov.

--Uber should get fined if they break that law, and banned if they keep breaking that law.

Right now Uber is a disruptive technology as they drag the gov to court, and drag drag drag out the time. It doesn't have to be this way; just whack Uber with fines, and ban them if they keep doing so.

If you think drivers with private licenses should be able to drive, fine, and adjust the requirements accordingly. However, please note that insurance companies do stipulate that their drivers cannot use their insurance for commercial use...which is why insurance companies have a higher, and riskier, category of commercial coverage (duh). Asking private drivers to cover the added risk of commercial-like drivers is highly inappropriate; it's like asking for the same insurance coverage for that teen in the sports car traveling 200 miles per day...the risk just isn't the same.

Anyway I look at it, Uber is either breaking a law or asking their drivers to break the law, and then using a battalion of lawyers to delay, delay, delay.