Hacker News Reader

Comment by lhnz | Hacker News Reader

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

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

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

View on HN

I'm sure that had they used the opportunity to shut down Uber years ago over a paperwork issue, rather than waiting for the Metropolitan Police to write to them expressing concern that Uber's policies of refusing to report crimes and obstructionist approach towards police investigations may have lead directly to people being sexually assaulted, the people still arguing on here that Uber's conduct is above criticism would have been even more outspoken in condemning authorities.

The ten times Uber got the green light in numerous other inspections and fact it wasn't halted early in operations over paperwork (unlike, say Taxify) is far better evidence in support of arguments that the regulators have been extraordinarily flexible and tolerant towards Uber than evidence for the insinuations they're more bothered about hurting Uber than Uber hurting its customers.

  > rather than waiting for the Metropolitan Police to write
  > to them expressing concern that Uber's policies of refusing
  > to report crimes and obstructionist approach towards
  > police investigations may have lead directly to people
  > being sexually assaulted

Uber responded by saying that they have a "dedicated unit [...] tackling any incidents [...] run by former Met officers". [0]

This easily verifiable so I think it is extremely dishonest to say that they have a "policy of refusing to report crimes" or 'obstructionism'. This would only be the case if Uber was in some way incentivizing this team to fudge numbers.

I also know many people that feel much safer knowing that their friends and family are able to see where they are on a trip, and like the fact that they can retroactively determine the name and number plate of a driver the next day.

If you are assaulted by a black cab driver and they speed off, you have no way of gathering information about your driver. This lack of transparency makes being driven in a black cab much more dangerous.

  > The ten times Uber got the green light [...] 
  > evidence in support of arguments that the regulators
  > have been extraordinarily flexible and tolerant
  > towards Uber

If Uber was not given the green light then you see it as proof that they are not playing by regulations, but if they are given the green light you see it as proof that they received tolerance and flexibility yet were not following regulations. What information would change your mind?

[0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/13/uber-sex-scandal-...

If their "tackling" of incidents involves not reporting crimes to the police, can that really be called "tackling"? The fact it is run by former police officers is irrelevant if all they do is decide whether or not to retain a driver.

That is true. If crimes are being reported to them which are not reported to the police, that is a problem.

If the Metropolitan Police write a letter complaining to TfL about Uber's policy of refusing to report certain crimes and obstructionist approach towards police investigations (specifically, refusing to provide information except as formal FOI requests) then this is clear evidence that in the opinion of somebody who has considerably more first hand knowledge of Uber's actions and expertise in police/minicab co-operation than HackerNewsers who like the app, Uber is refusing to report crimes and acting in an obstructionist manner towards police investigations.

What is extremely dishonest is to respond by pretending those claims are an untrue invention of mine, using a line from Uber's press release which in no way refutes the police officer's specific contentions about information not being reported to the police appropriately as justification.

As for changing my mind, I'd probably start with the need to refute that basic prima facie evidence that Uber isn't viewed as respecting a minicab firm's obligations by the relevant police official. You can't really counter that by pointing out circumstantial stuff like them having their own investigation team or passing inspections of how they comply with other regulations, that's not how proof works. And yes, an extraordinary claim like "actually it's the regulators who've repeatedly refrained from using many possible excuses to shut down Uber over the five years it's spent deploying Greyball and suing them over regulations it doesn't want to follow who are the ones most likely to be wilfully misinterpreting the letter and spirit of regulations here" probably needs evidence a little more extraordinary than their self-exculpatory press release.

In the mean time, Uber has taken the uncharacteristic step of apologising and acknowledging they "need to change".

They wanted a 5 year licence back in May but were given a 4 month licence and a requirement to resolve the issues that there were. 4 months later the issues are still there so what else could TfL do?

Then why did they only get a four month extension four months ago instead of the five-year one applied for?

Well prior to this their license was only renewed for 4 months (rather than the normal 5 years), so that suggests there may have been a warning.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com