Hacker News Reader

Comment by buro9 | Hacker News Reader

> Any advances that Uber makes will benefit all mini-cab companies and most importantly, passengers.

Except for all of the disabled ones, the wheelchair users, the ones who only wish to travel a very short distance and are unable to do so alone (the pregnant, mothers with pushchairs, the extremely inebriated, elderly, injured, etc).

The monopoly and some privileges (bus lane access, pick up fares anywhere) is granted in exchange for a lot of obligations including accepting every fare in the centre of London even at a loss (of time spent against the profit of a fare), for fixed prices, and without excluding anyone of any ability.

If Uber wish to gain the advantages that black cabs have, then they are free to accept the responsibilities and obligations that come with it. Which will of course mean changing their whole fleet to fully accessible vehicles and not allowing any driver to refuse a fare.

View on HN

Black cabs have no obligation to pick up fares and will regularly refuse to take trips that they feel are inconvenient or they think will likely result in a return journey without a fare, even after you're in the cab. Want to go south and it's near the end of the driver's shift and he lives north? Back to waiting for you.

This is in comparison to the NYC system where once you're in the cab, they're obligated to take you where you want to go.

The law stipulates a Hackney Carriage, once hailed, must accept any fare within the Metropolitan Police Area. If refused one should report it to the Public Carriage Office. It might not sound like it is worth it, but the PCO takes trade regulation very seriously and it will have implications for the driver, especially after repeat complaints.

Someone should tell them that because they really don't accept any fare, especially at night, and especially south of the river.

But at least now I know what to quote when I'm complaining about them, ta.

> Black cabs have no obligation to pick up fares

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/16-17/33/section/7

Legislation that obligates the driver to drive up to 6 miles, or for 1 hour, providing the driver has no reasonable excuse.

Later challenged by Hunt v Morgan 1948, in which it was clarified that if the taxi is on a taxi rank they have no right of refusal, and if the taxi is stopped they have little right of refusal. If the taxi is in motion then the driver may not have seen you, it may not be safe to stop, etc and the driver may have a reasonable excuse.

In nearly all cases, if a driver has stopped for you and you are travelling less than 6 miles, the driver has no reasonable excuse and is obligated.

Other parts of the legislation oblige the driver to help those who need such assistance (accessibility stuff).

PS: And English law loves the word "reasonable".

The difference I've found is that in NYC, the cabbie will ask you how to get there as well.

> Except for all of the disabled ones, the wheelchair users, the ones who only wish to travel a very short distance and are unable to do so alone (the pregnant, mothers with pushchairs, the extremely inebriated, elderly, injured, etc).

I live in an Eastern-European capital city where cab-fares are more or less completely deregulated. If what you describe were to happen after you'd just ordered a taxi (either from the street, through a phone-call or through a smart-phone app), then all you have to do is for you to call back the taxi-driver's parent company and he will get at least a 2-hour suspension, meaning that he won't be able to pick any phone or tablet orders. If a second, similar complaint arrives about the same driver in a short period of time then his contract is terminated and he's free to go and work for another company.

And yes, it does happen from time to time for me to try a pick a taxi on the street corner and receive an evasive answer, and I'm usually too lazy to call and complain, but the beauty of a free-market is that in all such cases I was able to find a taxi-driver willing to take my money from the same street corner.

"without excluding anyone of any ability."

It's all well and good that it is written that way on paper but do they actually follow that in practice? Is there any reason to believe an Uber driver wouldn't make every effort to accommodate a passenger needing some extra assistance?

The cars used as black cabs have to meet accessibility standards. They have low floors and plenty of space internally, so it's easy for a person in a wheelchair, or a standing person of limited mobility, to get into one.

The cars used as minicabs do not have to meet any such standards. Having tried to help a disabled acquaintance get into one, i can testify that it is not easy.

There is no reason why someone cannot come up with a service to cater to the needs of the disabled. Hence, there is no reason to grant monopoly status just because you agree too.

Uber should not have too. Now I can see granting some exceptions to companies that agree to do so, bus lanes and extra time idling.

We can simply come up with more and more burdens until competition is impossible, its not hard. Everyone can come up with a reason for their need. I do not not discount the needs of the handicap but they are used more for preventing business than facilitating new ones and usually not by those who are actually handicapped

>> There is no reason why someone cannot come up with a service to cater to the needs of the disabled. <snip> Uber should not have too.

It is very rarely I am disgusted by a sentence but you have achieved it.

Replace disabled with Blacks or Hispanics or Females or any group of society you want.

Seriously, take a pause and consider what you just typed.

Why would the 99% of people who are able to exit and enter a regular car, benefit from being carted around in a "fully accessible vehicle?"

What's wrong with simply providing a transportation allowance, or means tested reimbursements, to those few who may need it, and set it high enough that it becomes profitable for a reasonable fraction of car for hire drivers to equip their car to deal with them?

>> Why would the 99% of people who are able to exit and enter a regular building with stairs, benefit from ramps around a "fully accessible building?"

What's wrong with simply providing an allowance, or means tested reimbursements, to those few who may need it, and set it high enough that it becomes profitable for a reasonable fraction of supermarkets to equip their building to deal with them?

Fixed that for you.

Damn disabled people and their inconvenient needs. They should just be disabled elsewhere away from the commercial companies you hold dear.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com