Hacker News Reader

Comment by isostatic | Hacker News Reader

Black Cabs, used by the rich to bypass the traffic. They should be banned from bus lanes at very least.

> Black Cabs, used by the rich

Ugh. I don't know anyone who at some point or other doesn't use cabs.

Really? Myself and most of my friends have never taken a black cab and will never do. We always go for Uber, much cleaner, less expensive and friendly drivers.

>>less expensive

Demonstrably false. I have taken an Uber while my friends jumped in a black cab, both going to the exact same destination(because stupidly you cannot order 2 ubers at the same time), and yes, the "base price" for uber was cheaper, but the final bill was a good few quid higher than the black cab.

Uber was very cheap at the beginning compared with cabs, but it has normalised and indeed can be pretty expensive.

Usual business model, undercut and overwhelm, extinguish competition and increase prices.

The same model stagecoach used after buses were privatised in the UK.

Uber didn't exist 10 years ago, and taxis are still around so clearly Uber hasn't _completely_ wiped them out in that period.

I'm mostly an Uber user now, but even I still end up in a taxi on (very rare) occasions at home and more often when travelling and unable to use Uber or another ridesharing app for some reason.

There's also a decent population of older people who don't use rideshare apps and depend on the taxi system (I write from the perspective of an Australian, not a Londoner, but I'm guessing it may be similar there).

Other private hire companies existed 10 years ago, they were just generally telephone based rather than internet-based.

Add to that that then-telephone-only private hire companies are moving to the internet, you're now left with the question of what makes Uber better than another private hire company

Ubiquity -- Uber works in London, but it also works in Manchester, and Cardiff, and New York, and Sydney

Addison Lee works in London.

And generally more expensive luxury private hire services rather than cheaper-than-taxi hire services, as UberX typically is.

Uber has almost completely wiped these out.

There used to be loads of taxi offices, you would go in and talk to a human and outside you would get into a taxi.

Now, the offices still exist - but if you go in, it's just an empty room with a phone for you to speak to some central room.

Uber has killed all these small businesses.

I did once. Went less than two miles, and ended up £20 worse off. The other time I tried to use it I got yelled at for getting in it without telling him where I wanted to go.

I do use uber or other private hire in London on occasion - when shifting lots of stuff around, but Black Cabs?

Ah so you collude with capitalists who ignore laws to save a few quid - not a very strong moral position.

Which laws? Uber is perfectly legal in the UK, same as Addison Lee. Sure there's lots of complaints from the buggy whip manufacturers, but given their product is

1) Worse to use (standing in the rain with you arm out in the hopes someone will stop, let alone trying to get one on a side street)

2) Based around getting lost (taxi drivers are too arrogant to use technology so will drive into roadworks and traffic jams when modern cars use things like waze or whatever to avoid them)

3) More expensive

4) Less safe (who's driving? Who knows! Lets hope it's not John Worboys)

Given Uber have suppressed investigations into crimes committed by their drivers, point 4 seems overly optimistic.

The fact that Uber hasn't yet broken laws in the UK doesn't make using them more defensible. Would you accept a babysitter that only abused children when on holiday in Thailand?

Undermining unionisation and actively promoting the casualisation of labour in the way they have are to be discouraged whether legal or not.

Tax evasion that's more £ I have to pay

Can't fit an unfolded buggy in an Uber.

In the black cab I can leave my toddler belted into the buggy, which is much safer.

I won't take her in an Uber as without bringing a car-seat it's not safe.

Does that justify using bus lanes though? Are they providing enough of a benefit to everyone, like a bus does?

They are typically moving between 0 and 1 passenger around -- worse than cars.

Multi occupancy - its actually more cost effective for a group of 4 or 5 to jump in a Cab for a short trip than to use the underground.

I can't speak for London, but in my experience, cabs are more likely to have a single passenger, than cars are to have a single driver.

And your point is exactly what

Given that cabs typically have 1 passenger in, why should they be allowed in bus lanes?

I was making the point that the responder had no experience of London cabs.

And its common for groups to use cabs in London and also for those with heavy luggage or who are disabled Black cabs a re a godsend in London

So you would argue that bus lanes should be HOV lanes - if you have at least 3 people in your car you can use it (although if it's a taxi, minimum would be 4 people)

On the other hand I don't know anyone who does use them.

Uber service is better and cheaper. Why would you ever use a black cab when they're so expensive and often refuse fares or try to scam you by going weird routes?

Wheelchair users - black cabs (technically) take wheelchairs easilly.

Rich people have their own cars and drivers and don't take taxis. Normal people like you and I take taxis.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com