Hacker News Reader

Comment by daneyh | Hacker News Reader

Typically i'd agree with your sentiment. Unfortunately I remember what getting around was like pre-Uber and that unregulated minicab companies are no better for workers exploitation or working rights and passenger safety...where is TfL(Transport for Londons) action on those firms? or the many uber clones that have popped up recently (Bolt, Kapten et al.) Uber is really an easy target for them. The alternative is the black cabs who are apparently the safer/regulated option however the number of times in my early 20s catching black cabs and not seeing any driver registration and having their card machines constantly not working and paying sky high prices in order to pay for their obsolescent knowledge test and fume producing diesel chugging machine makes me really sad at the thought of returning to this. Hopefully uber can clean up their act and get something sorted as seems to me the consumer is the loser in all of this.

View on HN

Funny, I remember London black cabs as mainly being a reliable service with reliable drivers. I'd rather have a driver with their route knowledge in their head than one blindly relying on GPS. At least they can make intelligent choices when problems crop up.

Not that it was completely without problems, but compared to say NYC cabs they were worlds apart. Sure, there was a problem for a while with rogue unregistered cabs, though IIRC that was mainly minicabs and relied on intercepting despatch radio messages, but there were some black cabs. The cliche of not going south of the river held up to some scrutiny too. Uber of course go with phone you then just don't show if they don't like the route and waste half and hour of yours. At least it was a two way conversation with a cabbie.

That London hasn't put a blanket ban on diesel cabs in the low emission zone isn't really the cab's fault - that's firmly on the authorities...

In London minicabs and black cabs are very different. Black cabs can be hailed whereas minicabs have to be booked and are regulated differently.

Yeah I know, that's why I pointed out that it was mainly private hire. Yet it wasn't solely them as most black cab firms also took calls and bookings and despatched just like minicabs, opening them up to the same scam. Genuine street hire only black cabs still exist, but they're pretty damn rare now.

>Genuine street hire only black cabs still exist, but they're pretty damn rare now.

They are not rare in city centres, which is their natural habitat eg. take a trip into Central London/Westend/City of London etc., you will find them everywhere. Unless, you are talking about the suburbs, where they have always been as rare as hens teeth.

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/licensing...

They used to be more common and a higher proportion of the total. Lots have moved into minicab-like firms that add bookings, despatch etc.

it costs 100 quid to go from heathrow to zone 3 via black cab, and about 35 for uber.

"Uber of course go with phone you then just don't show if they don't like the route and waste half and hour of yours. At least it was a two way conversation with a cabbie."

I completely disagree. The uber app shows the route the driver is taking and offers way more transparency than a black cab.

It doesn't matter if it shows the route. Uber in my experience will side with the driver if they take a bad route. I was swindled for triple the price because of a fictitious gas leak. Driver took a very circuitous route that just so happened to take in some very fast roads to increase distance and price. When I complained to Uber they just said it was a normal route. On the map the route looks like a sickle. How can anyone look at that as normal?

I feel like you're not giving us all the details of this case. What do you mean by fast roads? Uber calculates price on both distance and time, so fast rides can also be to your advantage. How do you know the gas leak was fictitious?

>I remember London black cabs as mainly being a reliable service with reliable drivers >The cliche of not going south of the river held up to some scrutiny too. >At least it was a two way conversation with a cabbie.

It seems that you rode a black cab very occasionally, if you never experienced a cabbie getting lost. Much has been made of the knowledge, which was dense where the routes being traversed were frequent but it was already deteriorating by the time Uber arrived. I have had the misfortune of having to rely on black cabs, on some of my past gigs, on a daily basis and spent a small fortune/part of my life on these rides, especially when they were the only choice in a rush. I can assure you that the cliché of not going south of the river was 100% true, amongst many others, although it doesn't matter so much anymore. As for romanticising the 'two-way conversation' ─ it was not a dialogue but usually an unsolicited diatribe of regurgitated opinions, gathered from the daily rags and caustic radio chat shows ─ which you were bullied into agreeing with, just to journey in some relative peace and quiet. I will take an Uber et al. every single time, for the very reasons you mentioned.

Considerable spell of using a London black cab twice daily, whilst I was contracting in London. I explicitly said the cliche of south of the river held up to some scrutiny, i.e. was based on fact. Far from universal though, unless you caught a street cab - the hail only black cabs without possibility of radio despatch. They wanted to stay central. Choose cab firm accordingly.

I've had cabbies get lost twice, that I can remember - once he was claiming to be new, and he was stressing like crazy about it. The other time I went a fair way out of local area. Both times resolved amicably. Sure, I've also had a fair selection of less than perfect routing - but overall, far less than some of the games Uber drivers have tried.

I almost always got conversation or quiet and can't ever remember an unsolicited diatribe. I'd steer conversation away from the political, and if that's what the driver wanted to chat about, I'd ask them to shut up.

I would take the overall service received every time over the comparative service from Uber. Neither was or is perfect. Uber's cheap, and it shows in what and how they deliver, and the complete lack of quality and standards for drivers. It's essentially the only selling point. I'm a long way out of London now, but I've gone back to exclusively using cabs and private hire.

It seems pretty common for public policy (in your example, minicab provision and regulation) to first fail and then for the rise of Uber to be promoted by the faithful as an alternative solution.

In reality, Uber’s existence, no matter what the company or its supporters might say, is simply a different way of highlighting the very same failure in public policy.

The poor have no bread? Let them eat cake. The citizens need an out of hours ride home from the pub? Page a Prius.

Banning cake doesn't seem like the solution though - then there's nothing!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com