London Black Cabs Threaten Chaos To Stop Uber 417
Bruce66423 (1678196) writes in with news about a planned protest by London black-cab drivers against Uber. "London black-cab drivers are planning to cause gridlock in the city to protest against car service Uber. The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association complains that Uber's drivers are using a smartphone app to calculate fares despite it being illegal for private vehicles to be fitted with taximeters. Transport for London has declined to intervene, because it disagrees that there has been a breach of the law. LTDA now plans to force the issue by holding the action in early June. 'Transport for London not enforcing the Private Hire Vehicles Act is dangerous for Londoners,' Steve McNamara, LTDA's general secretary, told the BBC. 'I anticipate that the demonstration against TfL's handling of Uber will attract many many thousands of cabs and cause severe chaos, congestion and confusion across the metropolis.'"
Buggy whips (Score:4, Insightful)
We might not see this for a number of years, but what will make me laugh out loud will be when on the eve of driverless cars these same cabbies will inform us that, "People will feel safer and prefer a human cabbie."
As for Uber, the key of any new regulations should not be to protect cabbies, but to protect customers. I suspect that some dark spots with Uber will show up and thus need solving. But one of those dark spots is not the providing of much needed competition in our city's streets.
Re:Buggy whips (Score:1, Insightful)
Well said.
Likewise why are there laws protecting auto dealerships and preventing automakers from selling direct to the consumer?
Regulations & laws should protect consumers, not a business model.
Re:Customers are not property. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Buggy whips (Score:4, Insightful)
This is called regulatory capture when it is the government but as Ebay shows it can happen in the private sector as well. The key difference is that(in theory) we can vote on the politicians who make the rules for cabbies.
When it settles (Score:2, Insightful)
My problem with Uber is that they don't pay its cabdrivers when they dont have any customer. If a cab driver get sick she or he will not get paid. Right now there are two few drivers for the market but when everything settles (more Uber-like companies) most taxi drivers will not get payd work thier hours they put in. Uber will still make money since it does not cost much extra to have 1000 cars or 10000 cars. But when there are two many cars for the market workers will suffer greatly.
Re: Oh look, more Uber (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, apparently I have. I read an article yesterday about it and this one today and that's all I've really heard about it.
It's a stupid name, and I couldn't really give a fuck about it. It's sure as shit not ubiquitous - just two cities in the whole country? Fuck that.
Sure, it's disrupting traditional business models, falling foul (or not) of various vehicle licensing regulations, accessed via a mobile phone application. It's still a niche product used by a few people, so don't go acting all fucking surprised that people haven't heard of it. Shit, it's not even available in the second most populous city in the UK or the largest city in Europe. Hardly fucking everywhere is it.
Re:It's about power, not being a customer (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I think this why in the US abortion is such a big issue. It is largely an issue that has no monied interest (beyond the interest groups themselves) so politicians are off the leash on that issue. But look at the morning after pill. There was a monied interest behind that abortion related aspect so whoosh it was approved in 2 seconds. I am not saying that it is good or bad, just that normally anything involving abortion is normally full on trench warfare.
So in this particular case it will be interesting to watch the fairly well monied Uber fighting with the zillion somewhat less monied cab companies.
This debate is not happening because the politicians said, "Hey look the voters are pissed off with crappy and overpriced transport." They are having this debate because they were told to.
Our interests will not be part of the equation in any way at all.
Re:Customers are not property. (Score:5, Insightful)
Becoming a black cab driver in London isn't as easy as buying a car, and that's for several reasons:
- London's fucking big and fucking complicated. Having a satnav isn't necessarily enough to know where to take people, or especially how to get there efficiently
- Black cabs are a part of London's reputation, attraction and transport infrastructure. There's an implicit level of quality and reliability that the licensing is intended to create
- There are too many vehicles in London already, and black cabs get priority on many streets. For this reason black cab numbers are controlled
- Taxi drivers gain personal access to individuals that may be in a vulnerable state. Solo ladies, young people, drunk people
Does that make Uber wrong? Not necessarily. It may be cheaper, it may be easier, it may offer a broader range of potential vehicles.
It also adds traffic to roads not designed to cater for it - the transport system in London is geared around a certain level of private traffic and a certain level of black cab activity, and Uber shifts that relationship.
So no, customers are not property. This situation is also not as straightforward as you're trying to suggest.
Re:Buggy whips (Score:4, Insightful)
I really don't see how Uber are going to be protecting customers. Do they require background/criminal/driving history checks on their drivers? Do they require require vehicle inspections to determine how safe your car is? There a plethora of other requirements that I can't think of that I know have been address on other threads.
Re:Brilliant move... (Score:5, Insightful)
We're not talking about satnav reliant random people with a car: Every black cab driver has to pass The Knowledge, comprising a comprehensive map of London and ability to calculate the most efficient route depending on roadworks / time of day / year *in their heads*. This takes years to master and is possibly the most difficult memory and spatial relationship exercise in the world. I doubt you could do it.
Re:Customers are not property. (Score:0, Insightful)
Yes, I expect better from jcr, who is usually more insightful. The level of discourse on this site has suffered dramaticly all around. It would be nice if we could get past the memery of "buggy whips" and tired business models and get more to the point. Is regulation necessary? Is Uber essentially like a drug manufacturer, throwing caution to the wind with standard purity and best practice regulations to the possible detriment of someone's health? Or are they more like a lemonade stand, that has neglected to get their business license? Or is it more like an unnecessary restriction to only one way of doing things, such as laws requiring dealerships with showrooms for automobiles and disallowing directsales?
More to the point of the article, if you were a cabbie, what action would you take to correct the situation? What words of conviction would you share with your fellow cabbies? Because, clearly the current situation is untenable, and the only way it can be fixed, is by discussing the things that actually matter.
Or did you guys come on to the internet just to blow a bunch of hot air?
Who the F gets to live without competition? (Score:3, Insightful)
What these drivers are asking for is a special privilege to be a superior class of citizen: To be spared any natural competition.
And what they're doing is not protesting. It's throwing a tantrum.
Re:Protest over self drive taxis next (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Benefits of Uber (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Buggy whips (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Who the F gets to live without competition? (Score:5, Insightful)
This (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, in reality, you want the taxi services to be regulated. I've been to coutries where they are not, and the taxis there range from "you will get cheated" to "you will get raped, killed, and robbed". And that's a fact. No way a foreigner can use the local taxis. You free the business completely, competition will drive the prices low (which is a good thing), but the low prices will force the drivers to cheat, steal, and rob, as the only ones making a profit will be the ones who do. And no, i'm not a taxi driver. I hate having to pay the local super high taxi fares, but on the other hand, the service is first class. They are on time when preordered, the cars are nice and clean and safe. The drivers won't rob you, beat you, cheat you, or anything. They actually know their area, they also have navigators in every car, as well as the taxi centrals help. They are not allowed to refuse a drive because they don't feel like going to a direction where they won't find anyone to come back the other way.
London Cabbies are different (Score:5, Insightful)
In NYC, it's basically the taxi's the are licensed. Any yellow cab has to have a medallion [wikipedia.org] and they are expensive... often going for $750k+ USD. Once you have the medallion you can lease/rent it to just about any hack who qualifies for a drivers license.
In London, it's the drivers that are heavily regulated. The tests are notoriously hard and London cabbies either have or acquire neurology that is much more spatially oriented than normal [wired.com].
The difference may be subtle to most people but it's important. When you get in a cab in NYC, you usually need to be explicit about the route that should be taken. Nefarious types will often take you through Times Square, Union Square, Canal Street or other traffic nightmares to run up the tab. London cabbies pride themselves (at least in my experience) on on knowing every last back road that will get you there that much faster.
So I see their point. They're a group of professionals.... who act like professionals. They've put a lot of time and effort into becoming such, I'd want to protect my turf as well.
Re:Buggy whips (Score:5, Insightful)
The main difference is that if an ebay seller screws up your order of pogs , nobody dies. If you a going to be carrying passengers, you'd better have a good driving record, a chauffeur's license and a vehicle that receives regular mandated safety inspection.
And no, you can't trust the free market to self regulate. We've had airlines literally delay the installation of fixes to critical safety flaws because downing the jet to make the repairs cost too much time/money and hundreds have died as a result. If left entirely to the free market, the airlines would cut fleet maintenance to the absolute minimum to keeps the airplane in the sky, and if one of them falls from the sky every so often and crashes due to poor maintenance, it would still be cheaper to pay off the victims than to replace parts at the proper intervals.
The libertarians would say the answer to this is to choose an airline with the lowest fatality rate.
Re: Buggy whips (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Buggy whips (Score:2, Insightful)
What you, and your fellow Americans posting here, seem to forget (or perhaps you do not know?) is that with London black cabs, you already get a clean and well maintained car with a professional driver. On top of that, said driver actually knows his way around, as he had to prove this when he was given his license, and continuously have to prove it again when he is tested on a regular basis.
In that case, they've got nothing to worry about - their superior service at a competitive cost (I notice you didn't mention that - their prices are competitive, aren't they?) will result in them out-competing Uber's inferior service. Of course, their actions demonstrate that they are afraid - presumably, they're afraid that Uber will give consumers the choice to pay less, even if it means the car's a bit dirtier, and the driver a bit more ignorant. After all, the consumers can't actually be allowed any choice - it means they might not choose the right thing, designated as such by their betters.
Re: Buggy whips (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't live in London, but I have been there (and elsewhere in the UK) many times. Yes, the ubiquitous black cab is nice, and the drivers are competent. The question really is this: Should the government prohibit consumers from paying someone else for a ride?
As long as the customer understands that they are basically hitching a ride with an unknown private person, I just don't see the problem. If I want the assurance of a black cab, I'll flag one down. If I don't care, then I don't care - it's really not much different from sticking my thumb out and hitching a ride, except I have some assurance that someone will actually stop and pick me up.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Buggy whips (Score:4, Insightful)
The question really is this: Should the government prohibit consumers from paying someone else for a ride?
If only this was the question.
The government is regulating the market at the moment, however Uber is trying to bypass the regulations the rest of the market have to adhere to.
Uber is doing this via providing an inferior, unregulated service, which may, or may not be competitive on price.
Most customers will not be able to tell the difference between the route selected by an Uber driver, and the route being selected by someone who is bound by a requirement to know what is the optimal route. In the end the customers will be the ones paying the price, without even knowing they were ripped off.
Want to book a cab via an app? Use the existing one for the licensed cabbies?
Want to compete in this market? Compete on even terms, get fully licensed drivers to sign up to Uber and let the proof be in the pudding.
Re:fuck slashdot beta (Score:4, Insightful)
seems like black cabs should be providing excellent service
They are rated as some of the best in the world.
if black cabs service is so much better than ubers, people will surely choose to use black cabs over uber. where's the problem?
really, they just want to use government to stifle competition.
They welcome competition, on fair terms. Tourists (a rather large market in London) have no way of comparing the service provided by the Uber cabs, and the licensed cabs. They have no way of knowing if the Uber driver is actually selecting the best (and cheapest) route for the journey and as Uber have no requirements for drivers to know the area they operate in, there will be plenty of times when the customers will be ripped off, without even knowing it.
Re:fuck beta (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Who the F gets to live without competition? (Score:2, Insightful)
Then the London cabbies shouldn't have any reason to be concerned about competition from Uber.
Re:This (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the problem there might be more with the local law enforcement. 99.999% of society does not undergo background tests and yet do not go around killing and raping to make a little extra on the side. What is so unique about cabbies that that they will do so, if they are not super heavily regulated?
Re:Who the F gets to live without competition? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, there have been examples of all, and the first is in fact deplorably common. The main differences are that
1. Taxi drivers have access to two vulnerable populations who are dependent on them and will be forced to trust (some of) them - drunk people, and tourists who don't know much about the city. Neither are in a good position to evaluate which taxi driver they can trust.
2. When you get into a car, the driver has a lot of power over you.
3. Fewer people live off craigslist as a business. There are higher entries to using craigslist as a business than buying a car, and if you're in a position to use craigslist as a business, you probably have many alternatives.
Do you get how these factors make taxis different, and more dangerous to completely deregulate?
Re:Who the F gets to live without competition? (Score:5, Insightful)
I just don't get the argument, "Option A is better, so people should not be allowed to choose Option B." I understand your argument, but if the cabbies driving the black cabs are so much better than the competition from Uber, why do they need government regulation to keep Uber out of the market?
Re: Who the F gets to live without competition? (Score:5, Insightful)
To play the devil's advocate, it is bad for tourism and business if you don't have a taxi system that can be relied on to be safe and clean. And, from the tourism perspective, appearance of so is very important. This is most likely rooted in history, especially for a place like London, but I can see it making sense for a city like London to want to ensure that tourists can count on having a pleasant safe ride at a predictable price when taking a taxi.
Not that an Uber ride isn't necessarily so, but without licensing and regulation, there is no way to ensure you have that consistent experience, and even if Uber sets standards, they are outside the control of the city.
I think a little competition is good, but you still need a way to ensure that licensed, regulated taxis are still viable so that tourists and business travelers feel safe.
As a taxi driver in London I would be pretty pissed off if I had just spent three years of my life studying to pass a test and was laying out $500 a year to run my business and had to meet rigid standards because I was abiding by the law and others were allowed to ignore those same laws.