London Mayor Boris Johnson Condemns Random Uber Pick-Ups 216
An anonymous reader writes: The mayor of London Boris Johnson has written a column in the Daily Telegraph condemning the way that Uber drivers in the UK capital can effectively circumvent black cabs' legal monopoly on being hailed by random passengers. Whilst supporting the principle of free enterprise, Johnson has no solution to the legal quandary, except to hobble Uber's business model in an absurdly Luddite move, or else level the playing field and condemn the well-outfitted but expensive black cab trade to extinction. Johnson is reluctant to ask such a thing of Parliament, noting that many people there don't 'have apps'.
I Condemn Boris Johnson's Hair (Score:4, Interesting)
If the black cabs have a legal monopoly... (Score:5, Informative)
If I understand it correctly, London is a lot stricter with their drivers than most other cities, such that to simply drive a cab one must pass a fairly difficult testing process before being able to obtain a license.
At this point I'm not really sure why this is a Slashdot story anymore. It's about a livery company whose legally questionable practices and claims have drivers that are picking up hailed fares. There isn't even a technological angle on this aspect of the story, not that cell-phone dispatch is anything especially novel.
Monopoly on what exactly (Score:2, Insightful)
Can you be picked up after calling a friend to come get you? If yes, why not when you "call" an Uber?
Just saying "legal monopoly" doesn't mean much without details.
I've been to London a number of times. I think London is the only city I've ever been where I really liked the cab system (black cabs specifically that is) - the drivers are friendly, the cars in great shape and clean.
But even so, what if you can't find one? If you call (if you can call) you might be waiting a long time, or have to walk a whil
Re:Monopoly on what exactly (Score:4, Interesting)
Can you be picked up after calling a friend to come get you? If yes, why not when you "call" an Uber?
For the same reason that I can put my penis in a friend if they ask me to, but I can't pay them to encourage them to ask.
Your "where's the line?" argument is weak sauce.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't pay them to encourage them to ask.
Why do you think that makes sense?
It's just as poor an example, and badly worded at that.
In fact if you gave someone money without asking for sex, then they asked you for sex, that would in fact be quite legal... People do that every day in normal relationships.
Re:Monopoly on what exactly (Score:4, Insightful)
It made perfect sense to me. When money is not involved, i.e. it's not a contract (offer, acceptance, valuable consideration), then it's different to a transaction involving the exchange of $$$.
If GP's friend invites the P without prior mention of money, then it's not covered by commercial law.
If GP's friend is given money to invite the P, then it's a commercial transaction, and subject to commercial law.
If GP's friend invites the P, then asks for money afterwards, no court is going to believe it wasn't a commercial transaction.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever the rights and wrongs of legalising or criminalising prostituion, if you give a stranger standing on a street corner some money on the understanding that they will have sex with you, that is prostitution in most places.
And prostitution is definitely a commercial transaction, just like paying an Uber driver to take you somewhere.
Re:Monopoly on what exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you be picked up after calling a friend to come get you? If yes, why not when you "call" an Uber?
Because you're paying the fucking Uber driver.
I really can't believe that people are still trying to pretend that Uber is just a ride-sharing service like giving your dear old mum a lift to the shops.
It's a commercial service, and therefore should be treated the same as other commercial transportation services.
Contrary to what the libertarians/extreme right wing free marketers think, not all human interaction is based on the cash nexus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because you're paying the fucking Uber driver.
When I've had friends drive me somewhere I offer to pay for gas, and usually pay more than the gas would cost.
Try again.
I really can't believe that people are still trying to pretend that Uber is just a ride-sharing service like giving your dear old mum a lift to the shops.
I can't believe you think that's what I am saying. I am not saying they ARE the same. I'm saying, legally, HOW ARE THEY DIFFERENT.
Since you can't answer that why should the law be able to?
Re: (Score:3)
I can't believe you think that's what I am saying. I am not saying they ARE the same. I'm saying, legally, HOW ARE THEY DIFFERENT.
Legally, if I take a girl out on a date and I pay for a nice dinner and we have sex afterwards, it's not prostitution. That's because - although she might not have had sex with me if I didn't pay for dinner - there was no expressed or implied contract (offer, acceptance, exchange of value) saying that she DEFINITELY would have sex with me SPECIFICALLY in exchange for free dinner. Likewise, if a friend drives me somewhere and I offer to pay for gas, my friend may or may not take me up on it but will still dr
Re: (Score:2)
There is a good analogy here as to why regulation... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... [theregister.co.uk]
Let’s say you overhear that your next-door neighbour is about to hire a chainsaw for £80 to chop down a small tree in his back garden. As it turns out, you bought yourself a chainsaw for a similar task last year and now it’s just sitting unused in your garage.
So, just before your neighbour sets off to the hire shop, you pop round and offer to lend him yours in return for £30. This is much cheaper than the hire shop, he says, and accepts. You pocket £30 and he chops down his tree.
A month later, you have hired out your chainsaw to half the street. You have taken more than £500. This is brilliant. This is not, however, the ‘sharing economy’ any more: it is the ‘black economy’. You are acting as a chainsaw-hire business but without paying tax on your new-found business income.
Hurrah for the black economy!
Oh dear, that nice old man down the street hired your chainsaw yesterday but, because you hadn’t maintained the kit properly, the chain broke and sliced his head off. You had looked into the cost of chainsaw maintenance but it would have pushed up your costs, so didn’t bother.
Hurrah for contributory negligence!
The nice old man’s family now want to sue you for compensation but you are uninsured. You had looked into the cost of insurance but it would have pushed up your costs, so didn’t bother. Instead, you simply declare personal bankruptcy and avoid paying the family a penny.
Hurrah for uninsured cowboys!
Hurrah for tax-dodging, uninsured murderers!
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like libertarian nonsense to me..
You place restraints on trade to balance that exchange against other persons that have an interest in it.
Meaning, taxes to pay for the road, certification and testing to ensure people who drive on it don't kill others for lack of (very basic) skill.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like libertarian nonsense to me..
That's because your knee is jerking. You should have that checked out. I am more socialist than anything, my argument is that bullshit restraint of trade under a system of capitalism which includes property taxes, mandatory insurance etc. is slavery. If you want capitalism, fine. If you want to make it illegal to be broke, fine. That's how it is now. But you cannot then make it illegal to engage in voluntary economic activity.
You place restraints on trade to balance that exchange against other persons that have an interest in it.
Yeah, that's a nice idea. Only that's not how they are typically used in our syste
Re: (Score:3)
You're not paying the Uber driver. They dont see that money. Uber collects from the passenger electronically then calculates a commission based on that fare (80% where I am) and pays the driver om sunday the aggregate commissions earned.
Technicality, yes. But in law those are two distinct transactions. Many business models work this way paying on commission only, so why does Uber get the short end of the stick?
And that is the same technicality that taxi drivers have. You are giving money to the company they drive for, not to them. They get paid by the company. Only the tip (which you presumably also give an Uber driver) goes directly to the driver.
Re:Monopoly on what exactly (Score:5, Informative)
Just saying "legal monopoly" doesn't mean much without details.
Licensed black cabs are the only vehicles that are allowed to be flagged down for in London. They're governed by Hackney Carriage laws in the UK[1] and also by some London-specific laws. Getting a license is relatively cheap (no medallion system), but does require passing a test that checks that has questions like 'what is the fastest route from A to B, assuming that it is rush hour and road X has road works?' There are 'mystery shoppers' who audit the taxi system: they flag down black cabs and take rides and, if the driver does not take the most direct route then they can lose their license. The mystery shoppers have varying ethnicities and manners of dress, and refusing to carry one will also result in a loss of the license. Black Cab drivers all know that if they break the regulations requiring them to carry anyone or try to scam a customer, then there's a chance that the customer that they're scamming may have the power to take their license on the spot.
The distinction between taxi and hackney carriage is increasingly irrelevant. I can't flag down a car owned by Generic Taxi Company #47 that's waiting near where I'm standing, but I can call the telephone number printed on the side from my mobile and have the dispatcher tell me that the car next to me is now assigned to me, and then get in. Before mobile phones were widespread, it was very different - you could only call that kind of taxi if you were near a landline (or used a public call box, which added a fairly significant amount to the cost for shortish trips). Uber and other taxi apps are the next step in this. It's now more convenient to press a couple of buttons on the phone than to flag down a passing cab, but the taxi that you get is not regulated in the same way. Uber attempts to claim that their reputation system and pricing model means that they don't need government regulation.
[1] This has caused some confusion in previous discussions: In the UK, legally speaking, a vehicle that can pick up people who flag them down on the street is called a hackney carriage, any vehicle that carries people for money is a taxi. In common usage, taxi is used for all categories.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Monopoly on what exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is, is Uber comparable to a Minicab service. And if it is, how come the drivers do not have to pass the same checks as other minicab drivers? Looks like a Minicab service to me.
First, the background checks are meaningless, and Uber also does meaningless background checks, so they have parity there. They also get logged via the Uber app, so there is the digital equivalent of "a paper trail allowing them to be located quickly if they are involved in crimes". Actually, while you're transporting a fare the app actually tracks your activity, so it's even better than what the minicabs have. So all that's missing is licensing and regulation of the offices, but since Uber cars operate completely different to taxis, there's no need for that.
If the state wants public transportation to serve the disadvantaged and handicapped, then the state should provide it, at the people's expense. It shouldn't be pushed off onto an industry attempting to serve willing customers in a voluntary arrangement. So that blows away the last argument.
Re:Monopoly on what exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
The background checks are not meaningless. Uber's might be, but the state ones are anything but. Being logged in to an app is clearly not the same thing as having your entire registration, license, insurance, and tax details in the public carriage office's systems.
If Uber wants to play the game, they have to play by the rules. Taxis in London are currently very well regulated, and it shows. Uber can't just complain and pay off websites to speak favourably about them in hopes that an already-working system will be degraded to allow their business model to shit over everything and everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is civil disobedience acceptable for people but not for corporations?
Who says civil disobedience is acceptable for people? In a civilized society, that is not how we change things.
Re:Monopoly on what exactly (Score:4)
Re:If the black cabs have a legal monopoly... (Score:5, Insightful)
So why do these rants keep getting selected? There is only one reason: some of the moderators are Uber fans, and they want to keep flogging this dead horse. It's now about promoting a specific ideology, not about geek news.
This time let's talk about the failure of the selections system and institutional bias. That's the real issue here.
Re: (Score:2)
You make it sound like whatever is legal is moral, and whatever is illegal is immoral. If only the world were that simple.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You make it sound like whatever is legal is moral, and whatever is illegal is immoral.
As has been mentioned repeatedly with Uber it is in almost all countries. The claims about unjust laws get repeated even when the case in question only requires one or more of: A certificate of good conduct for the driver, a business insurance for the car, a certified taximeter or restrictions against price gouging ( a.k.a Uber surge pricing ). Uber has no plans to follow any law that inhibits their profit in any way.
Re:If the black cabs have a legal monopoly... (Score:5, Insightful)
You make it sound like whatever is legal is moral, and whatever is illegal is immoral. If only the world were that simple.
Yeah, blah blah, Uber fans always trot this out. Was Rosa Parks wrong to break the law about where black people sat on a bus? No, therefore anyone can break any law they disagree with.
It is both idiotic and insulting to compare a commercial undertaking trying to gain illegal arbitrage with civil Rights activists and those who practise Civil Disobedience to protest about genuinely unfair laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Other than you, who is doing just that? (That's a nice example of the "straw man" fallacy, by the way.)
Re: (Score:2)
You cherry picked the GP's comments. He used the word moral. What Rosa Parks did was break an immoral law. That is where I support Uber. Sticking up against a needless and obsolete taxi monopoly granted by law is in my idea comparable to the actions of Rosa Parks.
However when they flaunt safety, don't provide befits to employees despite the tax code declaring them as such, skipping on taxes, that's all just Uber-douchbaggery which I won't get behind.
Some of us actually support SOME actions of the company.
Re: (Score:2)
That or it's a revenue source.
But that would imply it's about ethics in linux kernel journalism ;)
Re: (Score:2)
#kernelgate!!!
Hmm... That was the first time I've ever written a hashtag. I do apologize, I'm gonna submit it anyhow. I like feeling dirty.
Uber is paying slashdot. (Score:5, Interesting)
Uber is paying Slashdot. I know this because I work for a news website that targets Eurocrats. Uber approached us for a spinsorship, but the deal fell apart because we would not sacrifice edirorial integrity (they wanted to be able to "guide" one article a day). One of our competitors, politico.eu, took the money and sure enough these kinds of articles started hitting their homepage. I think politico learned their lesson because they quit the relationship after six weeks, which was the contractual minimum Uber was after when they spoke with us.
I don't blame slashdot; Uber is offering a lot of money and their PR folks make it sound benign. After you sign they activate the fine print and make you publish shit (really, shit). However, that is what this scuzzy company has obviously done here and we should call them out in it.
Re: (Score:2)
This has been standard operating procedure in a number of controversial industries: the critic Film Crit Hulk is on record as saying when he was a student of oceanography he was offered cash money, straight up, to write anti-global-warming papers. We only hear about this stuff when someone turns it down for whatever reason.
Re: (Score:3)
Uber approached us for a spinsorship
Is that a typo, or is it a real thing?
Re:Uber is paying slashdot. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think its an intentional pun, and quite a good one. Sort of like advertorial and slashvertisement.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. I noticed the term and I like it. I put it into the mighty Google and it turns out, it's actually in fairly common use in that arena. I think it might qualify as a portmanteau but I'm not 100% of the definition and I am too lazy to look. I like the word well enough that I have decide it needs to make its way into my lexicon. Hopefully it makes its way past all the damage done by alcohol and drugs and remains there. Stupid beer... Even a few years after quitting I still feel like my memory is impaired.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If the black cabs have a legal monopoly... (Score:4, Insightful)
You book the limo over the internet and a sub-contracted driver+car turns up at an agreed time and place. Uber's "freedom loving" marketing strategy is to use the "on a computer" fallacy to undermine the existing market such that they can rebuild it in their own image. The people who will be hurt most by their racketeering are the workers, ie: the drivers in both camps.
This is just clever marketing in that the way to win an unwinnable argument is to convince the audience it is all about a higher morality, in this case Uber paints itself as a "Heavyweight freedom fighter for the little guy", IMO nothing could be further from the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber paints itself as a "Heavyweight freedom fighter for the little guy", IMO nothing could be further from the truth.
It's true whether they want it to be or not, because if they succeed then their competitors will also benefit. It's not like they're going to get themselves a monopoly for their efforts, whatever else happens.
Re: (Score:2)
...then what uber drivers are doing, by not being licensed black-cab operators, is against the law.
It is not. London has two types of taxis, black cabs (the only ones you can hail of the street), and minicabs (the ones you call a number, the dispatcher sends a cab to you). The former is more regulated, requires passing "the knowledge" test. Dont get me wrong, the blackcabs I have taken have always been excellent, but they are bit of a premium service. The later, doesnt have to pass tests, but are good enough and are as ubiquitous as blackcabs.
Now, uber is a minicab service, instead of using the phone sy
Re: (Score:2)
If I had mod points I would mod parent up... (Score:2)
Black cabs and minicabs are both regulated in London, as the parent states. The regulations might be different but they exist and basically Uber is an unregulated minicab operator.
You might not like the regulations, but there are reasons for them (including passenger safety) and simply doing it 'via an app' doesn't change what you are and how you are expected to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, uber is a minicab service
Not according to the Uber shills on here.
Re: (Score:2)
...circumventing a legal monopoly is not illegal.
I'll give you the benefit of doubt. It's tempting to just retort but, instead, I'll reply with a question.
How, in the name of all that is good, did you manage to write that sentence without snorting a beverage out through your nose? There's no way, really, that you can conclude that without some serious brain damage or in an attempt to be funny. Hmm... That kind of violates my objective.
Yes, yes it is illegal - even in UK laws, surely.
Let's put this another way, shall we? If you live in a city where they h
Re: (Score:2)
Black Cabs don't have a legal monopoly on taxi services in general, only metered street-pickup taxi services. There's already a thriving "mini-cab" service in London and the rest of the UK where rides must be called for (by phone or at a mini-cab office) and a fixed price is given at the start of the journey.
In London mini-cab drivers do have to be licensed, but the licensing requirements are much less strict that for black cab drivers. Seems like Uber drivers just need to pick up mini-cab licences.
Re: (Score:2)
If the black cabs have a legal monopoly...then what uber drivers are doing, by not being licensed black-cab operators, is against the law.
If my understanding is correct, the well-known "black cabs" do NOT have a monopoly. Their drivers DO undergo very strict training though, and earn some shield or such, and charge a premium. BUT e.g. flying in to LHR, you can also pre-book a "mini-cab" which is cheaper, and of which the driver has less training. E.g., the black cab probably has most streets in London memorized and could potentially get you there via the shortest route, while the mini-cab might need to look it up on a map or GPS.
Re: (Score:2)
But London has had minicabs too for years (these are cabs you can't just hail in the street, you have to phone them to get one) and these are regulated under less onerous regulations than the black cabs. What makes Uber different to any other minicab service that's currently up and running in London? Nothing really, other than you press buttons on your mobile phone's touch screen to order one, instead of talking into your mobile phone's microphone.
Re: (Score:2)
The Knowledge has been rendered completely redundant by to GPS.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
require personal auto-insurance to not only cover it, but to have it as legal since it doesn't really cross into "commercial" territory at such a low level.
fuck off, my insurance premiums are high enough as it is, no way I am subsidising Uber drivers, that a too cheap or don't care enough about regulations, to keep them insured.
Re:If the black cabs have a legal monopoly... (Score:5, Insightful)
There could be a compromise. American in the U.S. here.
How about allowing the legalization of it as a "hobby"? If someone earns less than $2000 (USD) per year, require personal auto-insurance to not only cover it, but to have it as legal since it doesn't really cross into "commercial" territory at such a low level.
I'm all in favor of them doing it as a hobby as long as they don't collect money for it. If they collect money, then they need to abide by the regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the black cab drivers' side of the story. The reality is that they are operating as a minicab business taking passengers on pre-arranged rides, which is perfectly legal, only they have replaced a phone call with a smartphone app / webpage. As long as Uber drivers are not picking up random people they spot trying to hail a cab on the side of the road, they are not infringing on the black cab legal monopoly.
Of course it look identical from the outside. No one sees the person using their app, but they see them standing outside waving at a car which them picks them up.
Re:If the black cabs have a legal monopoly... (Score:4, Interesting)
Somehow, Addison Lee, who have had smartphone based booking for ages doesn't suffer the same accusations. The problem is that uber are basically evil and it doesn't matter that London has laws liberal enough for them to operate legally, they want more more more.
Re: (Score:2)
The end result is almost certainly the destruction of an entire business model by reducing it to the lowest common denominator and the future will almost certainly be lower quality, fewer services, and greater expense. To be honest, I can see benefits to both sides - assuming that this is done properly and doesn't result in the negatives. However, I can easily conclude that this is not going to be done properly as they've already failed to do this properly. What they should have done is work to get the laws
Re:If the black cabs have a legal monopoly... (Score:5, Informative)
Example in my state a taxi is a car service you order by "telecommunications". Is an app telecommunications? Technically no, as there is no "tele" but a judge might say yes.
Are you seriously suggesting that using the internet doesn't count as "communicating over a distance" which is what "telecommunication" means?
More Uberista insanity.
Uber supporters (Score:5, Informative)
"Uber's business model in an absurdly Luddite move"
Uber in Germany now does a registered Taxi service, where their drivers comply with all the taxi regs AND Uber still lets passengers book them.
In Germany it will pay the drivers registration, which is a mandatory step for all businesses and self employed people in Germany to ensure they have the proper business setup, taxes, and comply with the regs like insurance, vehicle standards, registrations etc.
This is a false dichotomy, Uber could offer a proper taxi booking service and comply with local laws, and does in countries where its banned.
But before Ubers trolls pop in with their "Uber is Rosa Parks" nonsense.
1) Ubers maps show fake taxis to lure people into booking. This is similar to Ashley Madison running fake women accounts to lure people to pay for their site. This is fraud.
2) Uber surge prices, Taxis are regulated prices.
3) If Uber is cheap now (largely by the advantage of not complying with laws), once its got the taxi market unregulated, it will take all the profits for itself... marketing 101. Taxi fixed pricing was introduced because once taxi monopolies formed, they ripped people off!
Uber is not breaking some unjust or unfair law. It's breaking basic taxi regs. It is not a Luddite business model, right now you can book taxis across many websites and they book LEGAL taxis, registered and compliant with taxi laws. Uber itself does this in some countries where it can't get away with breaking the laws.
Uber is not special, it just has a nastier political attack machine than most.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What about the coward who's post was selected in the first place?
Even Slashdot realised it would be a bit obvious to post the story with the original "Copyright Uber Public Relations" byline.
Re:Uber supporters (Score:5, Insightful)
I have taken Uber three times. Aside from the first (free) ride, the charge for the ride has been 5X of the "estimated price.
Oh, and their driver pulled away immediately after "stopping" for the pickup. They charged me $10 for the "abandoned" ride-call.
Fuck Uber. Taxis – fully regulated & taxed – are indeed cheaper and more reliable.
Regulations exist for a reason
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Uber supporters (Score:5, Informative)
1. Uber has admitted its maps are full of fake taxis:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/ubers-phantom-cabs
"When Heather*, a driver who has been working for Uber for about eight months, opened up the passenger app a few weeks ago from her residence, she noticed something peculiar. The app’s map showed four drivers on the streets immediately by her pick-up location. Yet, the estimated wait time for the closest car was 17 minutes, and there were no other drivers in sight."
2. Surge prices will be the normal price if Uber gets to remove regulation.
3. Taxis are not charging monopoly prices, prices are regulated by the local authority, not set by the taxi company.
4. The laws are there to protect passengers from taxi company scams which are not new and it appears you were unaware that the Uber taxis are fake, so they scammed you too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can get an Uber any time of the day or night to take me where I want to go. An Uber shows up within 5 minutes - always. If I call the taxi company for a cab, one may or may not show up between 45 minutes and an hour - if one shows up at all. Uber drivers are held accountable for the condition of their cars, their appearance, their personality. Taxi drivers stink, are rude and their cars are always a mess. I would never use a taxi. I always use uber. Better yet, for the world traveler, Uber works in pretty much all major cities, tied to the same account. No messing around with local vs foreigner rates, tipping, blah blah blah. Just get in and GO. Then get OUT when you arrive. I HATE arguing with cabbies over fares, rates etc etc. it's absurd. Uber gets rid of all that and gives me a simple interface and one point of billing. If Uber was forced out of my city, I'd go buy a car rather than use Taxis.
And every time you use a taxi instead of Uber, a baby angel dies in heaven.
Please think of the baby angels!
Re: (Score:2)
I can get an Uber any time of the day or night to take me where I want to go. An Uber shows up within 5 minutes - always. If I call the taxi company for a cab, one may or may not show up between 45 minutes and an hour - if one shows up at all. Uber drivers are held accountable for the condition of their cars, their appearance, their personality. Taxi drivers stink, are rude and their cars are always a mess. I would never use a taxi. I always use uber.
Better yet, for the world traveler, Uber works in pretty much all major cities, tied to the same account. No messing around with local vs foreigner rates, tipping, blah blah blah. Just get in and GO. Then get OUT when you arrive. I HATE arguing with cabbies over fares, rates etc etc. it's absurd. Uber gets rid of all that and gives me a simple interface and one point of billing. If Uber was forced out of my city, I'd go buy a car rather than use Taxis.
"I got mine, fuck you."
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much. Taxis are a dying industry, let's twist the knife and end it faster, technology has provided us with a better system. We're not hauling around portable computers running on Ni-Cad batteries with CRT displays, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Two miles from Downtown Dallas. Taxis here would rather pass up a local $7 fare for a $60 fare to the airport.
Call me crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
...but this article summary seems somewhat biased.
What is it with Slarshdawt and Uber? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What is it with Slarshdawt and Uber? (Score:5, Informative)
Dice, or DHI as it's now know, has a commercial relationship with Uber.
It was disclosed in their yearly statements. But the editors at Slashdot are too cowardly to admit it. No, wait, cowardly isn't the wait; fraudulent?
Re: (Score:3)
With the slashdot editors, are we really sure it's malice and not incompetence?
They're pretty bad as editors.
Re: (Score:3)
So, uh, isn't DICE violating FTC regs by publishing this shite without disclosing that they've been PAID by UBER to endorse their service???
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking#how/ [ftc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
This subject seems to get pushed here ridiculously frequently. Every story is excessively shrill in support of Uber, with no objectivity (on Slashdot, hah!) or balance. Is some of Uber's big budget being spent here on astroturfing?
But, but...they only have to spend so much money astroturfing because of the evil Government-Union-Big Taxi-Lizard Overlord monopolistic conspiracy against hard working lift share providers and free market martyrs.
Re: (Score:2)
Every story is excessively shrill in support of Uber...
There has certainly been a lot of Uber stories, but my reading of them is that yet again Uber is caught doing something shady or just illegal. Looking over http://slashdot.org/?fhfilter=... [slashdot.org] I see 10 negative stories about them (shady practices, illegal activities, etc), 4 positive (SA women, SF drunk drivers, etc), and 2 neutral. This particular story counts as negative, since they're doing something illegal.
So, even if Slashdot is paid to put up Uber content, they're not praising them. But I guess any publ
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's because most people are wondering why such a simple, convenient and cost-effective service like calling for an Uber car to simply get to your destination is being banned and outlawed all over the world. Is it such a dangerous act to call someone else for a lift to go somewhere other than a dirty, expensive cab who tries to rip you off? Such a crazy world we live in...
Note for Uber shills: posting as AC on slashdot does not increase your credibility.
Re: (Score:3)
These Uber shills are really embarrassing in their obviousness - I feel sorry for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Biased much? (Score:2)
Biased much?
The summary posted by the sysadmins reads like a PR-piece from Uber directly.
Enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What about the minicabs and TFL? (Score:3)
Interesting that the debate seems to be centred on the Black Cabs of London, omitting the role of TFL (Transport for London = tfl.gov.uk - hint in the URL) and of minicab companies.
Minicabs are normal cars for hire, they don't look like "London taxis", their drivers don't have specific training just for working in London and they can ONLY work via advance bookings. The phone booking requirement is a major difference in relation to official Black Cabs who can stop anywhere when you see them and ask for a ride.
The minicab companies are easy to find as they advertise at train stations and leave leaflets and business cards in many businesses and even through home letterboxes. If you are at a major train station, hotel, etc. you'll find a queue of Black Cabs waiting for passengers, the runs are metered and you can fit 5 adults. Some of their seats have a child seat built in, so that's another nice thing about that funny shape of car.
The minicab companies tend to have self-employed drivers. They bring their own car, typically a 4 door saloon or a 7 seat people carrier and they pay the fuel and insurance from their own takings. They also pay the minicab company for the dispatcher service. Some 5 years ago this was something like £90 per week, which means that between car expenses, the insurance and the dispatcher service, there is a lot of money to pay before the driver sees any profit. The insurance is extortionate in London, even more for working in this kind of trade. Memory fails me, but I think I was something like £3000 per year, again, 5 years ago.
So, before Uber and Hailo turn up, there is a very regulated competition between the Black cabs and random drivers trying to make some profit from their old Toyota Avensis even if they don't speak the language very well. The Black cab drivers are notorious for being picky about the areas served, but they do know the inner London boroughs very well - The Knowledge is a real thing, it's like they have all street names and POI in their heads and use satnav mostly for traffic info.
The TFL has a role to play in all this, as they have their name on the licence for both types of taxi business. Probably they take some money from them all. The TFL website is a very good one, for knowing about train, underground and river services, but when it comes to road services, you can find out about buses and road works, the taxi service being quite secondary. That's what I think that they should be working on, rather than having everyone complain and litigate.
The way I see it, the taxi apps reveal something very crucial that disrupts that peaceful coexistence between minicabs and Black cabs: passengers want to know time and place for their ride, like they do for other transport, rather than always get the same answer from the minicab phone dispatcher "they'll be there in 5 minutes".
If TFL does not work on providing this service to passengers, then the disruption is that Black Cabs will actually deliver a worse service than minicabs in very important factors: the certainty about when the driver will turn up; the price that will apply; the form of payment available to passengers.
While in the past, minicabs were the shoddier alternative to Black cabs, now "the Knowledge" and being able to hail a taxi from the street become less important. Before, the self-employed driver was sharing a lot of revenue with the mincab company as a barrier to entry, but now they can have more of their costs turn into variable rather than a fixed rent.
From a passenger's point of view, what Boris and TFL should be working on is not protecting the Black taxi trade through more legislation, like the ridiculous proposal that was made last week (discussed on wired.co.uk) that was a set of laws tailored to sabotage Uber. They should have geo-location on all Black cabs right now, and a proper dispatcher service so that people can make bookings through the TFL website and pay with the Oyster card like they can for train, tram, bus and river services. Right now minicabs are changing to become better for passengers, be it with Uber, Hailo or with smaller dispatcher companies. Black cabs could do the same if they wanted.
Re: (Score:2)
The Knowledge is a real thing,
I think its another case of technology being ahead of legislation. The idea of the black cab rules was not to give a few guys a privilege for nothing. By insisting that they pass the knowledge [wikipedia.org] people know that they will be driven by someone who knows where they are going, the quickest route in the current traffic conditions, and alternatives if there are accidents. Now a good sat nav with real-time traffic updates will do the same thing. Perhaps the need for the monoply has gone now.
Re:What about the minicabs and TFL? (Score:4, Informative)
The real-time traffic information is not real-time, so it doesn't compare. If a cabby comes up to a blocked street, they instantly know which route to take to get around it. Satnavs need time to calculate. The knowledge also improves the cabby's ability to determine the destination address, as such a fundamental understanding of the hotels, businesses, pubs, and former hotels, businesses, and pubs is amazingly useful when finding out where someone actually wants to go. Mumbling a bit of your address or using a long-closed pub as a route reference is something perfectly adequate for a Knowledge-equipped cabby, but nowhere near enough for a satnav. Seriously, these cabbies know London incredibly well, including how London used to be.
So no, London still needs black cabs and the Knowledge.
p.s. I'm very impressed you didn't slip in your usual hate-filled attack on over 1.6 billion people. You might just be growing up.
obvious (Score:3)
Obvious shill story is obvious. Ill informed use of "random" in title on slashdot. Together enough to keep me away from Uber.
Isn't Uber more like a minicab than a black cab? (Score:2)
I dont know all that much about cabs in London (although I did ride in at least one black cab many years ago when I visited the city) but from what I do know, there are companies allowed to operate minicabs which aren't allowed to pick up street hails but are allowed to offer rides to people who call them up and ask for a ride. Isn't this exactly what Uber is other than the fact that you use a button to book the ride rather than talking to a human?
As for some of the rules they want to apply, the idea of req
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't read the article but I presume they want them to operate as minicabs, rather than black cabs. Therefore, they are not expecting them to pass the knowledge (e.g. have knowledge of the streets) but rather that they are licensed in the same way as minicabs. Effectively, Uber is an unlicensed minicab operator and that is illegal. The app makes no difference, since many minicab operators have apps where you can book a cab, get real time vehicle tracking, etc, etc.
There is no 'legal quandary' (like the s
Re: (Score:3)
London is not the rest of the world. (Score:3)
1. Taxi drivers are incompetent and rude.
2. Taxi's are way to expensive.
In London however:
1. Black cab drivers can find the quickest way to the smallest street in a complex city.
2. Taxi's are very reasonably priced.
3. Private car hire is allowed, for those long trips where taxi's would be too expensive.
London does not need Uber. But mainland Europe needs it. Badly!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If black cabs are so great, why are they so worried about Uber that they have to hide behind the skirts of government?
This would all go away (Score:2)
Speculating with ignorance (Score:2)
You can view this as either:
Clearly, a modern (?) Thatcherite response would be to remove the monopoly and allow all drivers a tax credit for clubs and other hand weapons that drivers can use against each other and against scum customers who use the competing service.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to change the rules!
Why? The current rules work fine for everyone except uber. London has an excellent taxi system between black cabs and minicabs (some of which have had hailing apps for years). Uber doesn't bring anything extra to the table except surge pricing, loitering drivers, tax avoidance and poor insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
London's taxi system is an overpriced, government created monopoly with stiff barriers to entry. Furthermore, it is a local system, and many business travelers (including myself) don't want to have to deal with the idiosyncracies of every random local little fiefdom, and that's all London is.
Surge pricing is good. As
Re: (Score:2)
It's not overpriced, and anyone can become a minicab driver if they wish - the barriers are not stiff at all. If you are a business traveler, you'd hail a black cab instead of a minicab and none of this will be of any concern to you - no app needed at all, except to stand next to the road and raise your hand.
Clearly you don't understand London and its taxi system, but don't let that stop you!
Re: (Score:2)
You're right: I don't understand London and its taxi system, and I don't care to understand. I have no idea when or where taxis stop with what degree of reliability or availability (I do know it's a lot less than 100%), or what percentage of cabbies commit fraud, or whether they take my form of payment, or what fees they tack on, or how safe the system is. All I want to do is push the same button i push in any other large s
Re: (Score:2)
London's taxi system is an overpriced, government created monopoly with stiff barriers to entry.
Do you enjoy being woefully ignorant or do you just like making stuff up.
I suggest you look up what the definition of a monopoly is before you make yourself look even more silly.
You might want to also look up what the barriers to entry to becoming a basic taxi (minicab) in London.
Nah why bother eith facts or educating yourself. It's better to angrily spew ignorance all over the internet.
Here you go, you can educa
Re: (Score:2)
Which is what the mayor of London can initiate. Hence my exhortation to him.
You're thinking "mob rule", not "democracy". Furthermore, it's a fantasy that London is a "democracy".
Re: (Score:3)
Re:You mean a liberal is being a hypocrite? (Score:5, Informative)
Really? The liberal London douche mayor is against the working man and for big business and big unions? WOW, who knew (besides anyone with a brain)?
*sigh*
Boris Johnson is a Tory (Conservative). He's probably a "liberal" by American standards in the sense that he doesn't (publicly) believe in slavery or oppose votes for women. He is broadly in favour of business and certainly no lover of trades unions, big or small. I'm not sure what you mean by being "against the working man" unless you only classify Uber drivers as real working men.
So, apart from the fact that you are factually wrong on every point, thanks for your contribution.
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Shill. You will not be paid for this post as it is painfully obvious and downright awful. Please try harder.
Best regards,
Uber PR Boss
Re: (Score:2)