Uber won its license back in London
businessinsider.com
businessinsider.com
> Judge Emma Arbuthnot said that while Uber had not been fit and proper when that decision was made, an overhaul of its policies in the subsequent months had changed its position.
> Uber, which has about 45,000 drivers in London, introduced several new initiatives in response to the ruling, including 24/7 telephone support and the proactive reporting of serious incidents to police. It has also changed senior management in Britain, its biggest European market.
> The license conditions include giving TFL notice of what Uber is doing in areas that may be a cause of concern, reporting safety related complaints and having an independent assurance audit report every six months.
My understanding is that London cabs are held to an extremely high standard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom...), as a result they're also extremely expensive.
The most notable difference in regulation from a passenger point of view between a private hire and a taxi is you can hail a taxi, but can't a private hire.
You forgot undercutting the competition using VC cash, oh and evading the taxes that all their competitors pay.
I don't understand what point you were trying to make. Why do you assume incumbents have no investors? And why do you believe it's reasonablr to complain about how private investors decide where to invest theie cash?
> oh and evading the taxes that all their competitors pay.
Do you have any basis to support your assertion? Because I find it very odd how entire nation-wide corporativist associations, representing the entrenched incumbents and heavily invested in preserving their personal monopoly, fail to make such an assertion.
Uber drivers being disguised employees is frequently in the news
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/28/uber-uk-t...
Uber avoids employer’s NI by this mechanism
I fail to see how that can be passed off as tax evasion. The question was whether Uber drivers were mere service providers earning a few bucks on the side doing some gigs or should be considered proper employees. I believe it's easy to understand that the point of this sort of classification has deep legal implications where tax avoidance are comparatively irrelevant.
However, in terms of service, personality and reliability, they are absolutely awful. In theory there are policies in place to stop them from being awful, but they are mostly ignored.
I was open to trying them but I've got about a 40% failure rate for the cars (it was 50-50 for a while but has picked up a bit). Uber Eats works okay-ish, but you've got to text them every single time to remind them to read the delivery instructions (seems like a perfect task for automation!)
What I can't get over is how much they struggle despite access to good GPS data.
IIRC national taxi cab associations of some european countries have used Uber's story in London as propaganda to sell the idea that Uber is being banned around the world, and thus it should also be banned in their nations as well.
This story puts a stop to that propaganda effort.
In other words, no material consequences for the bad behaviour at all, not even a slapped wrist, just business as usual. London is ill-served by these weak so-called regulators.
If a private citizen had committed these crimes and told a judge they were now a reformed character, would they get off Scot free?
So, a lawsuit to explore. Interesting, I guess?
If you ever wondered the stereotype of litigious lawyers if real...
There are fewer differences between Uber and minicab firms in London. Uber is a bit more expensive on short journeys and drivers lack any local knowledge so can end up taking longer routes, but cheaper for journeys going a longer distance because drivers don't have to return to their home area after dropping you off. Uber's app is better than the others I've tried, but not unique, and their drivers and cars tend to be nice, but so are most minicabs that I've used.