Uber secures right to continue operating in London | Hacker News Reader

Uber secures right to continue operating in London

bbc.com

140 points0xedb209 comments

Throwaway for obvious reasons.

I work at Uber and have worked on the London project. I've yet to see such extensive compliance requirements asked from a regulator - that, in Uber's case, is successfully met, after a LOT of investment. Examples include listing every single change weeks ahead of time before launch for approval with the regulator, having a full internal audit of any changes that impact London, and many others that required building new workflows, systems and hiring dedicated London personel. Many of these are well beyond the things the public discusses and is aware of - like the driver verification (which Uber now does realtime, through the app, with some pretty neat technology).

For Uber to keep operating, a larger team dedicated just for compliance is in place, and large systems for these kinds of compliant tracing have been built. I am curious to see if TFL will make these asks public and roll out the same requirements that Uber has to fulfill for their operation as mandatory for all other operators. Or if these requirements remain private, between Uber and TFL, and other competitors get a pass on them. Kapten, Bolt, Ola and FreeNow currently do not have the same asks coming from TFL and I know that several of these services do not have the guardrails in place that Uber has already.

I imagine the reaction from taxi drivers is "welcome to competing within the rulebook".

Edit: Not saying the rulebook is reasonable. Just that it's easy to dominate if you skirt around it.

I wish regulators would focus on Facebook and Google - but since they are a level of indirection away from physical impact, they get away with mass manipulation with terrible real world impact.

This is absolutely, 100% the consequence of Uber's own actions.

Uber have taught regulators that, if you're friendly to Uber and give them time to stop breaking the rules, they'll tool up for a fight with you instead of spending the time getting their house in order.

That may be a good approach in cities where the taxis are all run by the mob or something and the regulators are all corrupt - but there's no denying they're lying in the bed they chose to make.

I can't speak to London in particular, but what you say also holds for the US. And I wonder if they took the same approach because of a similar set of circumstances.

In the US, Uber's aggression was pretty clearly the only way to ever launch - they had to (1) break the rules, (1) delay in court, and (3) grow like crazy, so that by the time their law-breaking is proven, they're too popular to outlaw.

Now, their incentives are different because they're the incumbent. They WANT to work under heavy regulation (just like the taxis did!). So, if the same is true in the UK, I wonder if it still makes sense to layer it on, knowing that eventually the other players will have to overcome the same barriers.

> They WANT to work under heavy regulation

Well good, I hope they'll be appreciating my no vote on 22.

This reminds me of the mcdonalds vs scalding tea lady lawsuit (IIRC, the claim was the cup did not indicate the contents were hot, so now all such cups do).

The difference here though is that London is setting itself up to a situation where it can't deregulate without losing face, can't play favorites anymore (because regulations are "supposed to be fair") but the regulations are so demanding that it makes it significantly more difficult for competition to enter the market, ultimately strengthening Uber's position.

> IIRC, the claim was the cup did not indicate the contents were hot, so now all such cups do

The claim was that the coffee itself was too hot, hotter than served at other establishments. Hot enough to give her huge third-degree burns across both her legs which required skin grafts and two years of further medical treatment. I've seen the photos—they're horrific.

> This reminds me of the mcdonalds vs scalding tea lady lawsuit (IIRC, the claim was the cup did not indicate the contents were hot, so now all such cups do)

Nope.

Uber are the incumbent- they want regulation like this because it makes it harder for startups to compete.

Uber was a known bad actor (blackball system, lost sexual assault reports, Indian medical records and rape scandal), the others were not.

Indian medical records?

> A top Uber executive obtained medical records of a woman who had been raped during a ride in India, according to multiple sources.

> The executive in question, Eric Alexander, the president of business in the Asia Pacific, then showed the medical records to Uber CEO Travis Kalanick and SVP Emil Michael. In addition, numerous executives at the car-hailing company were either told about the records or shown them.

https://www.vox.com/2017/6/7/15754316/uber-executive-india-a...

The idea that Uber is somehow more dangerous than a black cab or minicab - neither of which keep any record of who is driving, where they took you or who you are is just silly.

Taxis in London were just terrible (and expensive) until Uber

Yup. Black cabs are only really for tourists and people in a desparate rush. I can't remember the last time I got one.

And remember all that stress of making sure you had enough money left for a cab at the end of the night? Then getting stuck somewhere weird because you didn’t? Or the minicab getting completely lost? Or charging you 2X what you agreed? Or having the back seat covered in vomit? Oh the fun of pre-Uber cabs.

Oh and the stress of watching the meter tick up and up past how much money you have and then having to do a detour to a cash point costing you even more money and the driver getting really mad at you because they think you’re doing a runner?

Well, they did not want to accept cards because cards cost them and leave a trail. It was a case of them wanting their cake and eating it too.

Uber and friends effectively forced them (or local authorities) to accept cards.

Where I live the council and taxis have been endlessly moaning about Uber but a couple of years ago they made accepting card payments mandatory for black cabs... Cause and effect.

Black cab drivers are the buggy drivers... moaning about the progress and comfort, while trying to force the government to give them the monopoly on a service.

&%^k them

You’re not rich, you can’t afford a private car that can pay for a a massively overgrown company and a drivers livelihood.

There’s a reason the cost is so high for cabs in London. Great public transportation and high col. if you’re complaining about the cost of a cab ride , remember the cost would be the same if Uber marketing wasn’t subsidizing your rides.

Liveable wages might be one part of it, but blackcabs also charge more due to restricted supply caused by a 3-4 year qualification requirement that is almost completely obsolete in the age of GPS navigation.

Government enforced monopoly typically results in this kind of crap.

The cost of an Uber ride is roughly the same as for a minicab. So.... I'm guessing that they don't subsidise much.

Black cabs is a different story.

Or business expenses. Black cabs still tend to get you to your destination faster than Uber. They're faster to hail (at least in busy areas), can often use bus lanes and have more knowledge of the city. Their pricing is insane but I've never had an Uber that could beat a black cab.

> can often use bus lanes

Indeed, that should be banned right off, but as you astutely point out, rich people want to get around faster than the rest of us.

Why? Its not like bus lanes are exactly overflowing with traffic would you ban cyclists from bus lanes as well.

You could let teslas in bus lanes and they wouldn't be overflowing with traffic, that's hardly the point. Bus lanes should be for vehicles that add very little to congestion, either because of the number of people transported (as in the case of a bus), or because of the size of the vehicle (bikes, motorbikes, e-scooters).

Black cabs (and ubers) have an effective occupancy even lower than private cars.

A lot of cab and uber use in London is groups not just singletons - its cheaper for 3 or 4 people to use a back cab or uber for short journeys than use the tube

So allow high occupancy vehicles (say at least 3 passengers, 4 for taxis) in bus lanes.

For all of the issues around Uber, they disrupted a market that desperately needed disrupting. The black cabs in London are a great example: expensive, uncomfortable, often draughty and cold, unpredictable, cash only, and often unfriendly drivers.

How hard would it have been for black cabs to have an app offering Uber’s features - easy location-aware ordering and seamless payment? Technologically, it wouldn’t have been terribly hard... but of course they had their own misaligned incentives to not do so.

So on this front... bravo, Uber.

Black cabs haven't been cash only since 2016, its now required to accept card.

Uber has been in London since before that, competition by Uber and other minicabs was probably a reason for card requirements for black cabs.

The card machine is often mysteriously broken.

Terrible shame that you’re mysteriously only carrying a credit card and no other form of payment then, isn’t it?

they used to pull this a lot - if they try it now call them out. They aren't allowed to operate with a broken card machine

> if they try it now call them out

This is a fun way to make tourists feel insecure.

Call them out, where you wait on a foreign police, prove your identity, file a report -- in a non native accent / language -- in the best case...

or in the worst case, where they'll take you where you don't want to go (or other cabs to pickup), potentially drive off in a dangerous way as you forcibly exit the vehicle, and blacklist you from other cars

-- all while you're hoping to make it to a hotel, airport, tour safely and on time.

Yep.

Most people forget that. Tourist places are a literal gold mine for fraudsters and other kinds of bad people.

Indeed and I don't know if it's just me but I genuinely feel like London has gotten a lot worse for fraudsters in recent years...

Cooonsiderably.

I don’t want to call them out. I want to never have to call them out. With Uber I don’t have to so I’ll take that.

And uber launched in london in 2012.

Meanwhile, the last time I got a black cab, the card machine was broken, and the driver "helpfully" offered to take a detour to an ATM, with the meter running, on my dime of course.

If you are ever in that situation again, just tell them you only have a credit card, nothing else.

Of course, only do that at the end of the ride.

They are not allowed to pick up passengers if the machine (or meter, or lots of other things) is broken. If it’s genuinely broken and you still want to pay, you can call the number displayed below the machine and pay over the phone.

This is good to know for London specifically.

It's not as satisfying as yours but my general technique that works everywhere in the world where cabs are competing is: ask them if they take credit cards and their reader is working before you get into the cab. If they say no you find another cab. (In my experience they never say no anyway. But I learned to do this every single time I use a cab anywhere because this scam is so unbelievably common everywhere in the world.)

My general technique is to use Uber, or pre-book a cab from the office. I have to admit I was stuck last time I was in Beijing, and of course nobody* takes cash in Beijing.

Yep indeed, I've asked before I got in. In this case I was getting a cab from the airport after a long haul flight. I'd normally use Uber but to try and speed things up I took a black cab because they're allowed use bus lanes and it was 9am.

It's a corrupt industry that deserves to die

It's not corrupt. It's a straight up mob, that moans about their "rights".

Yeah as the other poster said, asking before getting in the cab is the other solution. Honestly the hassle of knowing it can happen, or wondering if yhe driver is going to be an ass about it makes it not worthwhile when I can tap a button and have an Uber appear for the same price, and _knoe_ my payment method (amex, to make things worse) will be accepted.

They're breaking TFL rules and shouldn't be operating in that case, congratulations you just got a free ride.

Or a very threatening taxi driver when you point that out...

That's great to know the rules are on my side, but the last thing I want is an argument with a driver who has already decided he's breaking the rules. What's the dispute process for a black cab if I'm sitting outside my door with a £30 fare racking up and an angry driver? With Uber, I say "thanks" and type a message when I get back to the apartment and it's handled. With black cabs it looks like I have to phone them. Presumably I also need a receipt or at least a cab number too?

I miss 2012.

I got on Uber really early and cashed in big time on those sweet £20 bonuses for EVERY referral.

I'd just stand up at the end of a party and shout "WHO WANTS TO GET HOME FOR FREE" and be set for taxis for the next month or so.

Thanks to Uber...

Yes, Uber really helped change that. Pretty amazing, probably still would be cash only otherwise...

I don't know if you ride in the same black cabs I do, but the cabs are vastly better than most offerings from Uber, since the car is designed for transporting paying passengers - it's easy to get in and out of, there's loads of room in the back, the seats are somewhat comfortable. With Uber, if I have to cram myself into yet another Toyota Prius I'll cry. And yeah, black cabs have been accepting contactless payments for ages now.

Aren't the levels of Uber that allow a Prius to be used much, much cheaper than a black cab?

If you want a larger car, you can get it. You'll just pay a bit more.

On paper, sure. In practice, I find that Uber is nearly constantly in surge pricing in London. I've had it several times now where I Was riding in a group, same start point same destination - some people in ubers, some in black cabs. Again, with normal pricing Uber should be cheaper, but since it's very often at 1.5x-2x multiplier, it works out the same or actually more expensive than a black cab. And sure, there is the higher tier of ubers too, but it's usually showing me 20-30 minute wait for a cab for a nicer car.

> . . . cabs are vastly better than most offerings from Uber, since the car is designed for transporting paying passengers . . .

> Aren't the levels of Uber that allow a Prius to be used much, much cheaper than a black cab? If you want a larger car, you can get it. You'll just pay a bit more.

> On paper, sure. In practice, I find that Uber is nearly constantly in surge pricing in London. I've had it several times now where I Was riding in a group, same start point same destination - some people in ubers, some in black cabs. Again, with normal pricing Uber should be cheaper, but since it's very often at 1.5x-2x multiplier, it works out the same or actually more expensive than a black cab. And sure, there is the higher tier of ubers too, but it's usually showing me 20-30 minute wait for a cab for a nicer car.

Seems like the fact that there is constantly surge pricing and long waiting time means that there are too few Uber drivers, even in "low quality" cars, to meet demand. Your complaints sound like the old joke about prison food: it tastes terrible and the portions are too small.

> Seems like the fact that there is constantly surge pricing and long waiting time means that there are too few Uber drivers, even in "low quality" cars, to meet demand. Your complaints sound like the old joke about prison food: it tastes terrible and the portions are too small.

What an odd thought leap! It seems like your comparison to the prisoner would apply to anyone who thought the price of something was too high for what you were getting, so doesn't actually seem like a compelling point.

it's the combo of high price and low availability that makes the comparison relevant. from a naive market perspective, "too expensive" and "unavailable" is a contradiction. put another way, if it really were too expensive, everyone else would not have bought up all the supply already.

Interesting perspective, though personally I find the black cabs more uncomfortable than a Prius, often getting bounced up and down, luggage rolling around in the middle, much more jarring stops/starts I've found too (though a lot depends on the driver themselves, and I've not been in one of the new electric cabs).

Not to mention the door latch constantly locking/unlocking at every stop and making a terrible sound. I don't understand how whoever designed this with the intent that it'll actuate on every stop didn't at least try to make it quiet.

Comparing a Prius to one of those black cabs ("Hackney carriages" as they're called) is like comparing a car to a cattle truck. The former at least attempts to be comfortable, the latter is just designed to move cattle as efficiently as possible (for the operator) without any concerns for the cattle itself.

Uhh... as it happens I went through the numbers when a friend chose his car. Toyota Prius is very roomy. One of the very few that allows two child seats and an adult in the back.

I can't sit upright in the back of a Prius. And I'm not that tall.

> And yeah, black cabs have been accepting contactless payments for ages now.

In my experience this is only true since the rise of Uber. Prior to that it was rare to find a cab which took card in London and even if you were in one, often the card machine was conveniently out of order

Out of order until you said you have no cash, then it magically started working again.

You’re both right. It’s totally subjective which is better, in which circumstances and at what price. That’s the real benefit Uber et al brought to the market, and why they should obviously stay there: more choice.

Everyone wins. Even if you prefer black cabs in all circumstances, as there’s now less competition in flagging one ;-)

The losers are the black cab drivers, and arguably the Uber drivers who might have been black cab drivers. They have been com-modified - bye bye a half shot at a middle class life style for those folk.

A hackney cab already is a commodity, just a more expensive one.

We will probably end up arguing about definitions here, but I think that the hackney cab isn't a commodity because it's highly regulated and managed for both supply and quality. Yes - it's an interchangeable item (so you win on the semantics) but it can't be glutted out or somehow produced more cheaply.

> the Uber drivers who might have been black cab drivers

The barrier to entry for becoming a black cab driver far exceeds that required to be an Uber driver.

Drive for Uber: get a PCO license (about £400-600); own an appropriate car; have appropriate insurance.

Drive a black cab: do the knowledge (2-4 years); get a black cab license (in excess of £1k); get a black cab (likely at least twice the price of a Prius); have appropriate insurance.

Pretty sure the number of Uber drivers who might have been black cab drivers is very, very small.

I think we have to accept now that 'The Knowledge' is now completely pointless. The uber driver has Waze, and that is probably at least as good 99% of the time and occasionally better since they'll know in advance about traffic accidents that close roads. Black cabs/drivers do not need to exist anymore in their current form.

Baffled to see Uber compared to black cabs. It's a minicab firm. It's vastly more convenient than the legacy minicab firms, because of the app, but the actual service is identical.

But convenience and ubiquity was the black cab's selling points, especially since the advent of live updating traffic-aware GPS made storing The Knowledge in your head an occasionally useful party trick.

Is it? certainly in my small county town 60 miles from London why do I need an app it all works on SMS.

I call the taxi company its automated asks me to push 1 or 2 for the last two trips or 0 for an operator.

I tell the operator where I want to go and my name and I get a sms message with a link to a map and another one when it has arrived.

>For all of the issues around Uber, they disrupted a market that desperately needed disrupting. The black cabs in London are a great example: expensive, uncomfortable, often draughty and cold, unpredictable, cash only, and often unfriendly drivers.

So now you have a bunch of "gig-workers" scraping by, often mis-accounting for the deprectiation of using their own vehicle, while often not being properly insured to carry passengers commercially. Meanwhile, Uber corporate is a money burning enterprise.

However, for wealthy urbanites, they can now get to where they are going cheaply and conveniently, so the trade off is "good".

I remain confident that if Uber (and its drivers) had to charge "true costs" this entire story changes.

...also, Ubers have consistent problems of not taking guide dogs or wheelchairs.

Isn't there a special flag you can set for people with wheelchairs? Either way, I think you're right, and I predict ADA woes in Ubers future. Those vans with wheelchair lifts aren't cheap, and Uber can't charge more for it under the ADA (I presume). They may end up having to W2 workers driving corporate vans so they can guarantee availability. I wonder how many areas are only served by a handful of people with wheelchair accessibility. Surge pricing is only going to tempt people so much.

Guide dogs are basically the same thing. Dogs shed, and some people are allergic, so drivers avoid them since they don't recoup lost time or money if they have to clean their car afterwards. That one's easier to fix, though. Uber is just going to have to take a hard stance on it.

I am curious if the drivers know that they are legally required to allow guide dogs. I also wonder if Uber drivers are liable under the ADA in the states where they are still independent contractors.

There is no general ADA requirement for transportation services to provide wheelchair accessible vehicles.

While that's correct (only providers of fixed-route services like shuttle runs must be wheelchair accessible), there are a number of ADA requirements for private transport services[1]:

  Additionally, private entities providing
  taxi service cannot discriminate against
  individuals with disabilities by refusing 
  to provide service to individuals with 
  disabilities who can use taxi vehicles 
  and/or use service animals, refusing to
  assist with the stowing of mobility
  devices, or charging higher fares or
  fees for carrying individuals with 
  disabilities and their equipment than are 
  charged to other persons.

So you can't refuse someone with a service animal, even if you don't want service animals in your vehicle. And you can't refuse someone with a mobility device that can be stowed in your vehicle (such as a collapsible wheelchair), just because you don't want the hassle of the added time or inconvenience of helping stow away their device.

[1] https://adata.org/factsheet/ADA-accessible-transportation

So that means Uber is in full compliance?

Not all wheelchairs require a full on wheelchair-accessible van. Many wheelchairs are also collapsible, and capable of being stowed away in a normal-sized trunk. Yet even people using those types of wheelchairs struggle with getting rides.

Both Uber and Lyft have been hit with a pretty steady stream of lawsuits around ADA compliance, and Lyft has an active settlement with the US Justice Department requiring frequent driver education as well as compliance reporting[1].

[1] https://www.engadget.com/lyft-settles-justice-department-dis...

Well, this one is trivial for a government to fix.

For now, half of the story is us being driven around on stupid VCs' dime (or, more likely, their investors') - which is perfect! The little man doesn't get many wins like this.

Ah yes, the average Uber customer as the "little man."

This is a false and fraudulent narrative that Uber opponents make. London is one of the most profitable cities for Uber so the idea they aren’t charging “true” prices is utterly false.

I think the point being made is that Uber is externalising cost onto society by (among other things) hiring its drivers as gig workers and not as proper employees. That is quite separate from whether or not Uber is making money.

That’s not what externality means. That you don’t like something doesn’t make it an externality.

So... Uber should buy cars and hire people? Then they have to ensure that people stay at work for X amount of time... and they can't work at night without overtime.

You're basically saying that Uber should just close and we get back to the fraudsters that are minicabs. Awesome! Let's make people poorer because "social justice".

> often mis-accounting for the deprectiation of using their own vehicle.

How is that a government concern? Or, how is that your concern? Drivers know what they’re doing and if they don’t, they’ll be out of business. That’s how markets work. Nobody is forced to ride or drive Uber.

The well-being of others in the society I live in is of concern to me.

> So now you have a bunch of "gig-workers" scraping by, often mis-accounting for the deprectiation of using their own vehicle, while often not being properly insured to carry passengers commercially. Meanwhile, Uber corporate is a money burning enterprise.

If those all those new gig workers are just scraping by today what were they doing before Uber was even an option?

Let's not blame Uber for our economic policies and the lack of steady employment caused by our shared desire to live in as "efficient" and cheap a world as possible.

And let's not imagine that Uber is all that stands between people and "good jobs."

Often wondered the same, in nyc the cabs offer a check in with app (Arro) which takes care of payment (pre registered cc) permitting the rider to just exit the taxi at the end of the journey. It certainly could be better, unfortunately the app devs are fairly unresponsive .. perplexed why this is not funded more

Uber's software runs worldwide: $1m of developer time for Uber has a much wider impact and reach compared to spending $1m on developer time for Arro, which has a much smaller reach and no guarantees of an RoI.

I don't recognise this picture at all. Black cabs in London are much more comfortable than most ubers and have taken cards for a lot longer than Uber has been around.

Secondly black cabs will pick you up from taxi ranks or if you hail them in the street (which Uber and minicabs can not). They are not really that comparable.

You need your memory checked. Uber started in 2014 in London, as a limo service... and black cabs were still operating mostly in cash.

I mean, back 8+ years ago they had minicab firms. It was basically uber. We had an app on our phone or would make a phone call and get a cab to pick us up pretty quick which we know the fixed price ahead of time.

So before uber there was already a service which complemented black cabs.

> cash only

Black cabs have been required to have a functional contactless card reader in them for some time now. Any that don't are asking to be reported for it.

I know that doesn't address all their issues.

An interesting questions is - did Uber coming on the scene drive that change, or was it already in the pipeline?

So it looks like that came in around 2016 - https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2016/octobe...

I wouldn't be surprised if it was TFL trying to force the black cabs to modernise and compete with uber.

I definitely have taken Uber in London in 2015.

And a year before we had a luxury vehicle ride booked with Uber in London.

I've never been in a black cab with an unfriendly driver. Minicabs, yes. Don't know about Uber as I don't use them.

I was using electronic payment with black cabs almost 20 years ago, contactless came in ages ago. I genuinely find it hard to believe you've used a black cab, at least in this century.

I left London 5 years ago and rare black cab would take anything but cash back then.

And my husband has been asked for a blowjob at least twice in London.... some black cab drivers are a little bit too "friendly"...

Uber was more dangerous, and has only been made safer because of campaigning and pressure. Some examples (but there are more) are use of the app as a taximeter; lack of DBS checks; lack of insurance; unauthorised drivers taking the place of the registered driver.

> unauthorised drivers taking the place of the registered driver.

Funnily enough now that you have to wear a mask to drive (at least in the states) this point is a little easier to pull off probably.

> unauthorised drivers taking the place of the registered driver

Which can easily happen with any other minicab or black taxi.

There's nothing special about people like John Worboys, other than unlike Uber he wasn't traceable from his victims accounts.

> Taxis in London were just terrible (and expensive) until Uber

Private hire cabs were terrible. Hackney cabs (the black ones that do on-street pickup) were generally very good if a bit expensive.

> Hackney cabs [...] very good

If you didn't mind listening to racist diatribe from the driver and were willing to support their tax evasion as "the card reader's broken guv - cash only".

Ain't that the truth. The first time I drove a London cab, the driver appeared scruffy and a bit mad, constantly mumbling under his nose stuff like "I wouldn't mind hitting that guy, I really wouldn't" (after someone cut him off).

But supporting Ubers tax evasion and exploitation of workers is then.

"Exploitattion".... when people chose to drive for Uber, instead of getting a full blown cab license or work for a fraudster cab company.

I hate Uber for a lot of things, but they don't exploit anyone. If anything Uber is the disruptor that stopped straight up mobs owning the market.

I call pretending that they are self employed instead of workers and doing them out of holiday and sick pay - yeh I call that exploitation.

They are self employed. They drive their own cars. They set their own work schedule. They engage with uber on per ride basis. They can be working for Uber, Lyft and the local minicab all at the same time.

They are not employees at all... and they must figure out their own holiday and sick pay.

Depends on the time of day - Hackney cabs during the day in Zones 1 and 2 were good (though only if you had a good chunk of cash before they all had to have card readers), whereas private hire was better for those 2am trips home from some Zone 4 random location.

I'm not a fan of Uber specifically, but they certainly do blend together (most of) the best of both worlds for London cab use I've experienced.

I'd also argue that the Night Tube was really helped by their prevalence, so they've made even public transport better as a result (as a traveller, rather than an operator).

Completely disagree, due to the cost I rarely took them, but about half the time they would refuse to go where I wanted or take anything but cash

(had the same issue with "cash only" in several cities - Brussels and Washington DC come to mind. That's why I use Uber)

>about half the time they would refuse to go where I wanted

There are two types of license for London black cabs - one for the city center and one for the whole of London. The one that can only do the city center have a green sticker.

Also, if the "for hire" light is on, they are not allowed to refuse to take you to anywhere within their boundary. In practice, if there are a bunch of cabs around, it may make sense to get another one, but if it's pissing down with rain and there are no other cabs in sight, get in the cab first THEN tell them where you are going and insist on it.

As for cash: since 2016, every cab must have a working credit card meter to pick up a far.

>There are two types of license for London black cabs - one for the city center and one for the whole of London. The one that can only do the city center have a green sticker.

AFAIK the opposite is true. The green badge is the 'All London' badge, which entitles the holder to work everywhere in London. The yellow badge is the Suburban badge, which allows them to work in one of 9 specific areas that form a ring around Inner London.

Good luck remembering that after 6 pints.

Cheaper to book a hotel in central london than get a black cab back to the suburbs.

Same with Chicago before. Don't have cash .. oh wait it now magically works.

Taxis around here before Uber:

* Quite possibly just someone in a car pretending to be a taxi.

* 20 minutes on the phone to 3 different companies, to find out they won't come for two hours and they don't turn up anyway.

* Dirty.

* Terrible driving.

* Rude.

* Refuse to go where you've asked after you've already hailed one and got in.

* Only take cash.

* Take the long way to run the meter up.

* Use other tricks to get paid more - 'Oh the meter's broken. That'll be $lots'

* No way to see when they might arrive, or if there are any in the area.

* No way to know anything about your driver.

* No way to see which is your taxi when it arrives.

* ...

Taxis around here since Uber:

* Some have an app that only works for their company, and is terrible.

* Some have signed on to an app that works for more than one local companies, and is terrible.

The rest is pretty much the same.

Does Uber pay taxes? Quite surprised that it's not mentioned as a requirement.

Likely not, but one of the reasons taxis want you to pay cash is it’s easier to report lower income and thus avoid tax.

Yeah but at least you know the money stays(most of it) within the local economy.

... why wouldn't they pay taxes?

Because they are a big tech corp. Even more, a US based one.

https://www.icaew.com/insights/viewpoints-on-the-news/archiv...

That link has absolutely nothing to do with them being US based or not.

This is the problem with having conversations about tax law: the vast majority of people have no idea what they're talking about. Worse: the vast majority of people think they know what they're talking about.

They don't pay VAT (currently 20% in the UK - similar to sales tax in the US) by treating each one of their drivers as a separate business. In the UK your company has to make more than £85000 to be forced to charge VAT which is well below what each driver makes. Uber itself offers digital services though a Dutch subsidiary and I don't believe that company is liable to pay corporation tax in the UK. I personally think that this is a more unfair issue than not paying VAT.

Ref. https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-uber-britain-tax/uber-face...

Is there any reason other than tax deduction that a company operating in the UK would offer their services through a Dutch subsidiary?

Probably not. It's known as the "Dutch Sandwich", I believe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Sandwich

Curiously the "GST" in Australia (which is a similar type of tax) has a similar thing, $75,000 AUD+ per year before you need to register.

Unless you're a taxi driver, when you need to register regardless. They carved that out.

The ato claims this is because[1]: 1) to avoid the confusion that would be created if some taxis had to charge GST and others did not 2) avoiding the added problem that would arise if a passenger was using a taxi for a business trip (creditable acquisition). In this instance, the passenger would want to be able to claim an input tax credit for the GST included in the fare 3) meter rates are set by each state authority and after 1 July 2000 all meters were adjusted to reflect the GST. If some drivers were registered and others were not, all would be collecting the higher rate. This would disadvantage drivers who had to be registered if the ordinary registration turnover threshold applied.

Interesting point of view in that specific case.

[1] https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/GST/In-detail/GST-issues-reg...

Quite possibly just someone in a car pretending to be a taxi.

Is this true in London? Do people privately own black cabs?

I think London has a 2-tiered taxi system - black cabs and minicabs - and I suspect faking a black cab would be much harder?

Mostly in London, you used minicabs because the Black Cabs were soooo expensive, and they had all these different fare modes depending on what time of day or night it was, and they'd tick at different rates depending how fast they're going and all sort of other black-box opaque bullshit.

At the end of a night outside clubs, there'd be (illegal) minicabs everywhere, offering to take you wherever for much less than a black cab, and sometimes that's just all the money you have left. Usually they'd get lost or be terrible in some other way very well-described above.

It's funny I had completely forgotten about having to wait for a taxi to arrive.

How is uber not given massive credit for reducing the dangerous waiting-around-in-some-random-place-you-don't-know time from 30mins+ to 3mins+

That must have saved a few thousand muggings on its own by now.

Don't forget the reduction in DUI's as a result of reducing the cost/friction of getting a 'cab' home.

If you don't understand the motive of particular political decision then it is very likely a matter of money under the table.

Uber since Uber: * Take a round about route to hike up the price with some made up excuse about an accident. * Driving dangerously because you're on 5 apps and hitting cyclists

Taxis, Uber, they're all the same. Give me public transport anyday.

> Take a round about route to hike up the price with some made up excuse about an accident.

never experienced this. does that actually work? I thought the initial quote was binding.

> Driving dangerously because you're on 5 apps and hitting cyclists

I've certainly had some aggressive uber drivers, but nothing that stood out as less safe than the typical cab experience.

public transit is great when it goes where you need it to. unfortunately I live in the US so...

With the exception of California, the initial quote is indeed binding

Secondly, uber drivers have ratings (unlike cabs) and a set of consistent low ratings for dangerous driving will flag the dangerous behavior

Here in London it's not binding unless you share the ride with another passenger, then it's a fixed fee. But you can look at the route after and if it's a problem, you just give 4 stars instead of 5, which means they'll probably never drive again...

So there's a strong incentive for them to act properly - unlike a black cab where they know full well they'll never see you again.

I tried giving lower ratings and I've tried complaining to Uber. Even in cases where the route is clearly 3 sides of a square that involved 3 times the distance (and 3 times the price) they still side with the driver. I've had trips to the airport on Uber be more expensive than a Black Cab.

I can't give the rating if I'm the one being hit. Uber drivers will consistently pull out when they don't have right of way because they don't want to wait. When how you're paid is dependent on you driving from A to B as fast as possible it's going to encourage bad driving.

it seems like you are making two incompatible complaints in this thread: a) the payment structure incentivizes drivers to drive recklessly to complete the trip as fast as possible, and b) the payment structure incentivizes drivers to drag out a trip much longer than necessary to milk the fare. so which is it?

Might be, but you can't speak to a human at the Uber UK office. And yes, Uber is dangerous, I avoiding them due to my experience.

Wait, black cabs don't keep a record of who was driving? Or where they went?

Taxis are generally terrible, unless you're in one of the nordic countries.

Uber is only slightly better. It's just an easier way of getting a cab. I was quite happy with service from MyTaxi in Lisbon, better than hailing a random cab.

At least in London, licensed minicabs are supposed to keep records, at least of every journey's date & time, pick up location, destination, and the driver. This is enforced by the Public Carriage Office - a division of TfL, with quite hefty fines for companies and drivers that fail to comply.

Irony now is that, thanks to competition, getting a car in London if it's busy now requires trying your luck with Kapten, Bolt, Uber, Ola, and, if all fails, Gett/FreeNOW for a Black Cab.

All the drivers freely admit that they're driving for all the apps, which is great, but it can be a nightmare actually getting a car sometimes due to supply being spread across 4 or 5 apps now. Feels like a TFL run app would be best, but maybe that's communist or something?

Seems like a similar dilema to streaming, all the content is split across a bunch of services.

I wonder if there will be a way to spin all these threads together someday, I suppose in private hands that would become a monopoly.

The UK doesn't have the "shared == communist" mentality from what I can tell. Communism is not such a dirty word either.

Well, the Labour party just ran their most socialist campaign in years and suffered a historic defeat.

But also the biggest party membership in a long time, the Tories quietly ‘adopting’ some of their policies post-election, the derided free internet idea seeming weirdly prescient when Covid hit, the number of people who voted Tory to ‘get Brexit done’... it’s more complicated than “they lost because people hate socialism”.

e: according to the downvotes, no, it is because people hate socialism. It must be nice to live in a world with such simple answers eh :)

> e: according to the downvotes, no, it is because people hate socialism. It must be nice to live in a world with such simple answers eh :)

It's probably because a lot of users on here are American (and thus pre-disposed to hate "socialism") and also a large number of users on here are wanna ultra-paneer libertarian bozos who think they want a minimalist, economically liberal government so that their startup can _finally_ make the millions it would be making if it wasn't held back by the red menace

Some of us grew up in a mild socialist/communist regime, in where leaders thought they can more wisely spend the fruit of your labour than yourself. So we emigrated to a country that supposed to be free.

In the UK, a middle class earner already pays 40% income tax + 20% VAT + 13.8% NI, that's a neat 73.8% to the community already (not to mention the extra taxes, like the Council Tax or extra duties when you pour a gin). The labour wanted to increase this by 5-25 percentage point. What is communism, if not the political ruling that strips the common people to build up wealth?

> What is communism, if not the political ruling that strips the common people to build up wealth?

That sounds like capitalism to me.

> In the UK, a middle class earner already pays 40% income tax + 20% VAT + 13.8% NI, that's a neat 73.8% to the community already (not to mention the extra taxes, like the Council Tax or extra duties when you pour a gin). The labour wanted to increase this by 5-25 percentage point.

I am a very middle-class earner and I'd very happily pay more tax if it went to funding the NHS, metal health programs, real addition treatment (not criminalisation of addicts), house building, arts programs. In fact I have consistently voted for this.

Your post insinuates that these taxes are just taken with nothing gained. I am happy to pay council tax because I know that pays for services I benefit from, like rubbish collection, parks and landscape maintenance, street cleaning, etc. I am happy to pay duty on alcohol because I know it is an addictive substance, and although I don't suffer from addiction, others do, and in order for me to freely consume alcohol I have to accept that as a society we have to pay for those to do suffer because of it. I am happy to pay income tax and NI because I use NHS services, I went to a state funded school, I use the railways, etc.

> That sounds like capitalism to me.

Capitalism encourages private ownership and keeping the means of your labour. High taxation is the opposite of this, because it doesn't leave enough profit at the individual, which prevents private ownership.

> Your post insinuates that these taxes are just taken with nothing gained.

That's not true. Just because to me the current and Labour-proposed level of taxation is not motivating to do more doesn't mean some level of taxation is not necessary. It is not all or nothing.

> I have to accept that as a society we have to pay for those to do suffer because of it.

This is the fundamental difference from our point-of-view. I look at free and adult individuals as who are responsible for their actions and can be held accountable.

Your figures are obviously wrong... tax is not 40% over your entire earnings and VAT is not taken from your salary. So this “omg, government take 75% of my earnings!” thing is alarmist.

e: in fact if you earn 80k and spend ALL your takehome on 20% VAT goods, you still end up with the majority share.

> in fact if you earn 80k and spend ALL your takehome on 20% VAT goods, you still end up with the majority share.

Employment salary cost: 91.04K (gross salary + employer's national insurance) Gross income: 80K Take home pay: 55.04K VAT: 11K

The value you can get if you buy everyday items after your 91K salary cost is 44K or 48%, the rest, 47K goes to the treasury. My figures were wrong indeed.

"Free internet" idea seemed silly - why not free electricity to power the internet? How would such a system cope with alternate technologies in rural areas where WISPs or Satelite are better provisions. How would alternate providers who provide their own fibre rather than using openreach compete?

I went door to door in December, spoke personally to hundreds of people from all backgrounds. A significant number were switching Labour to Tory because they did not like Corbyn. More voted Tory rather than Lib Dem because they were worried about Corbyn.

Should they have been worried? Probably not. Were they influenced by unfair media coverage? Probably. Would Corbyn have been better than Johnson? Certainly. That doesn't matter, what matters is what people believe, and Corbyn was a massive millstone around Labour's neck in 2019, which (when combined with a non-democratic voting system) led to a Conservative landslide.

Had they dumped Corbyn in November and replaced him with Keir Starmer, we'd likely have had a government of national unity instead of an election, a referendum which would have swung to remain just like the Swiss referendum did, and competence rather than corruption throughout this pandemic.

Labour lost because of Brexit, not because of policies. Populism won.

It's really over-determined; while Corbyn wasn't particularly impressive, I've never seen quite such a set of media smears against a single person. They were really laying on the "communist spy / IRA supporter / anti-semitic" nonsense. Factional infighting was also a factor. It was clear that the right wing of the Labour party would prefer losing to allowing Corbyn to win, because that would lose their personal control over the party. From their point of view, the tens of thousands of new labour party members were just entryists.

How do we know that the concerns were insincere? Well, Claire Fox spent twenty years in the Revolutionary Communist Party and supported IRA bombing of Warrington in the 90s, but has now been made a member of the UK's permanent unelected legislature, the House of Lords.

People will hate socialism if they're told to do so. Whereas Revolutionary Communist Party members can be promoted to baronetcy once they fall in line. Welcome to Britain.

...and because instead of lowering the govn't expenditure, they planned to increase the tax for the middle class: https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/labour-s-propos...

As the page says, this would affect 4% of people in the country. Seems like an issue HN will assign disproportionate importance to but would not really have been a decisive issue for the country.

We are talking about 1.6M employee/small business owner, who has families as well. So Labour supposed to punish the most ambitious, hard-working people and their families with even higher taxes (40+20+13.8+... percent) they already pay.

That's a lot of rhetoric. Where is this 40+20+13.8 coming from?

Employer NI is 13.8%, but rarely counted as a tax on the worker (crazilly)

Of course plenty of people earning big bucks don't do it via PAYE, just take their money as far lower capital gains, split income amongst multiple people, leave income in businesses for longer, etc.

2017-2018 figures [0] and taxes [1]

Someone on 90%ile 45,500 pre tax, has a cost (including employer NI) of £50,616, and a net wage of £34,322, total tax of 32%

Someone on 95%ile 59,300 pre tax, has a cost (including employer NI) of £66,320, and a net wage of £42,413, total tax of 36%

Someone on 99%ile 116,000 pre tax, has a cost (including employer NI) of £130,845, and a net wage of £72,099, total tax of 45%

I believe Corbyn's income tax proposals were to increase the rate for 80k-150k to 45%. That would only affect the top 2.5% of income tax payers, but the person on the 99%ile above would pay an extra £1800 a year in tax. Their tax rate would change from 45% to 46%, hardly an earth shattering change.

That £1800 a year extra is about what the tories took off single mothers earning £60k when they introduced the child tax [2]

[0] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-f...

[1] https://listentotaxman.com/

[2] high income child benefit tax charge".

The 20% aries1980 refers to is almost certainly VAT which is charged on a great many goods.

I agree with your point that your effective tax rate is always lower than your marginal tax rate - but anyone earning £100,000 who has asked themselves "How much of a bonus do I need to earn to pay for a £20,000 loft conversion" will have done a calculation like aries1980 has and winced.

That's less than 2% of the country, not going to swing an election.

Besides

100k income in 2009/10 (when Labour were last in power): Net income £65,312. 120k income in 2009/10: Net income £77,112.

Marginal tax 41%

100k income in 2019/20: Net income £66,539. 120k income in 2019/20: Net income £74,139

Marginal tax 62%

That's not even the top level. If you're a masters graduate on £50k with 2 kids your marginal tax is 75%.

There are many myths, that conservatives are good for the economy, that they don't have boom and bust, that the stock market does better, than employment does better, that taxes are lower for everyone, that taxes are lower for "rich" workers, that the country has less debt.

They're all myths, but they all seem to stick in the national psyche.

> Employer NI is 13.8%, but rarely counted as a tax on the worker (crazilly)

It is a cost of the employment. As I wrote above, it goes to the treasury and proportionate to the salary. It doesn't matter how we label it. Doesn't matter neither to the company's, nor the individual's taxation.

> Of course plenty of people earning big bucks don't do it via PAYE, just take their money as far lower capital gains

No, the people who earn big bucks do it in a non tax-resident way. They don't declare tax in the UK or any high-taxpaying region.

> That would only affect the top 2.5% of income tax payers

No, 1.6M people, the top 5%: https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/labour-s-propos...

"The top 5% of income tax payers contribute half of all income tax revenues today." With the current level of digitalisation, there is only so much weight you can put on the most performant segment of the workforce before they pack and leave.

> Their tax rate would change from 45% to 46%, hardly an earth shattering change.

No, the former 45% would be higher than 50%, because it would have started from £125K, and they would introduce a 45% above £80K.

I provided the percentile points of income tax payers (and many people don't pay income tax at all) from the government. IFS don't provide their source.

80k is between 97 and 98.

I also provided the breakdown of how much income tax, employer NI and employee NI is paid.

My high income friends tend to get their income from dividends and avoid NI completely. Only working schmucks pay NI.

You can choose to ignore the data if you want.

That and the party eating itself from the inside, significantly (but far from only) due to bad handling of the anti-Semitism issue.

Also not really having a policy on brexit, and letting it be one of the issues the party fought inwardly about, made brexit a policy issue so it is hard to make the distinction that you do above: there are people who would have voted if a more direct stance against was taken.

(context: remain and Labour voter in all the key national polls in recent years, but they never managed to make themselves look better than "vaguely better one from a terrible set of options" even to the likes of me so convincing floating voters to swing that way was not going to happen)

Sort of. We share a lot of media with the US; while "red scare" doesn't work directly, re-fighting the battles of the 1970s seems to.

We definitely have a "privatized == better" meme in government despite the public generally hating it. What the people seem to want is a Tory government that delivers state-funded public services, but only for the over-65s.

Your last sentence chefs kiss. And also keeps the foreigners out of the so-called 'no-go' zones that the cities have become, despite none of the people calling for this living in the cities or even coming into contact with foreigners regularly.

Oh yes. And respect the concerns of hardworking people and the working class, no matter how many years it's been since they retired.

actual communism is no better than nazism

Neither Tories nor Labour have realistically much to do with either of those.

communism is still one of the dirtiest words around

This is not new. It's just that the situation has changed from a multitude of phone numbers to a number of apps.

Indeed, only black cabs may be hailed in the street. All the others are minicabs and have to be booked by phone by calling them or their company, and now also through apps.

Even with a number of different apps it's still simpler than before.

A tfl / government run app will be where we land. There’s nothing innovative or new about UberX anymore, the app/infra could be replicated easily. There’s not many reasons why a government would want Uber to run their transport when they can run it and profit/subsidise it themselves, as well as better integrate it into the street infrastructure.

If I were Uber I’d be pushing for a lot more regulation to keep competitors out, drivers locked in and the cost of building an alternative as artificially high as possible.

Isn't that what the black cabs had? Oh the irony.

Kapten no longer exists now and it prompts you to use Free Now if you open the app.

But if all the drivers have all the apps, they aren't "spread out". You have all the liquidity on the market on all of the apps.

They’re not all on them at all times though, nor paid equally by each app at all times.

From memory Uber penalises being online and passing on work, so assume there’s algorithms for that with all of them. Then you have the fun one where someone accepts a ride, but is clearly finishing one on another app, so your 3 minute wait magically becomes 15.

> 24 drivers shared their accounts with 20 others which led to 14,788 rides.

It's very interesting to me how aggressive and clever some people are in breaking the law, all in order to... work a sub-minimum-wage job.

Obviously shouldn't be allowed, but seeing as the scammers happened to be otherwise honest and hard working (from what I can tell, at least), I can't help but think this is all the result of a fairly wholesome scam.

This is great. Let the competitors come.

So long as the correct background checks are carried out on the drivers, I’m all for it.

I think I'd want to add: cars are checked for roadworthy-ness every month, the drivers are paid properly, the parent companies pay taxes.

I think commercial drivers should have a far higher standard of legal driving to attain too - points on you license should exclude you.

I'd rather have a lower fare than any of those things.

Seems like they're all pretty low cost as the infrastructure is already there. The government already know your employers (tax records), points on your license (DVLA), have whistleblower systems for below minimum wage, have MOT system for car testing.

Moreover there are online systems for sharing your license details (used eg when hiring a car), checking MOT details, checking tax (HMRC) and company info (Co.Ho).

Would you pay 1% more to know your driver hasn't got points for drink driving, wasn't driving a vehicle with an unattended brake advisory, and hadn't been forced to work 14h straight by an errant employer?

I wonder how many more times we are going to have to go through this political posturing game with this 'revoked-but-not-really-revoked' licence system. By now we all know there is no real possibility of Uber not actually operating in London, and all of these threats by TfL et al. are completely empty. I'm sure Uber knows this too.

Why not? Nobody would care.

It wouldn't hurt anyone except uber if they lost their license. Drivers are already on Kaptan and Bolt so they're good. Those platforms offer similar rates so the riders are good.

Some of the ~3.5 million users might care, perhaps?

Yeah. Hackneys weren't great, but ubiquitous and convenient in London (even if it was like travelling in blender).

Mini cabs were/are ass, in every UK city, and they deserved to get disrupted.

And the net effect is that the whole market had to compete for it's market share again, which meant a better experience for the customer overall.

I laugh when I encounter a super local minicab service that has maybe a half dozen drivers, you book them by phone, radios them to go to pickups and still only take cash. Who are ordering these jalopies? Meanwhile, anyone serious has an app, contactless payment/prepayment and real time ETA. Much better.

There are so many adverts for Uber in London now, including buying the naming of the already existing Thames Clipper boat service [1] (previously MBNA Clippers).

I think they are worried about the competition and spending a lot to be the first company you think of (after TFL) when you think about traveling in London.

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jul/08/uber-to-l...

How effective is blocking their operation anyway, without it being done on a national level?

People in York can not be licensed to operate for Uber due to a similar ban, but that doesn't stop people from nearby Leeds and Doncaster driving in to operate in the area. Given that Leeds is currently under "extra measures" from a C19 PoV, letting people from York drive for Uber would probably be the safer option.

>> How effective is blocking their operation anyway, without it being done on a national level?

I guess local authorities (York) could fine Uber for doing that and sue them if they don't pay. Simple as that.

I don't think it is that simple. IIRC they only have the power to not license, or to revoke operating licenses, in their area and they can't stop drivers from other areas coming in.

I'm not sure if this would apply to more traditional cab companies or if it is a factor of Uber drivers being classed as self-employed.

My understanding of minicab licenses is that if you're licensed in Leeds, you are licensed to take a fare from Leeds to York, or from York to Leeds, but not from York to York, or York to Doncaster?

What do you mean? can't the authorities fine for local rules violarion such parking, zero emission zones or...unlicensed taxi service ?

Well, you don’t want to do that because you want the Leeds driver to be able to take a passenger from York to Leeds or he’s never going to realistically be able to take a passenger from Leeds to York (because he’d have to go back empty).

Has the price of an Uber gone up since they first started ( in London ) ?

Yes

Good experiences with Uber the few times I had to but I wonder if the drivers actually make a living.

Sure you get a weekly income but most drivers don't take into account the additional costs of depreciation and wear/tear on their cars.

Their big play is self driving transport but they are years away from that no matter the usual "within 6 months" predictions from Elon.

Just politicians filling their boots while pretending they try to help. Utterly disgusting.

They now also seem to have their branding on the Thames Clippers, too.

doesn't matter anyway. the prices are still going to be $50 a ride

uber is one of the worst companies I ever had a car ride from drive took for ever and it smelt like puke...

Highly disappointing in this decision,

I have had two encounters with Uber drivers, one which the driver near accident, and then the driver got out of his car to hit me, and I am counting 11 months and still haven't been able to reach out to a human at Uber about this case.

Police report for the assault would get their attention....especially if you took it to the local news

Of course, it's reported to the police, the driver is being prosecuted.

That's not the problem, the problem is that Uber doesn't bother to answer emails regarding this assault case. They appear don't want to deal with it. I find this worrisome.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com