Uber protest gridlocks London
bbc.com
bbc.com
Uber will be picking up a ton of business in London because of this. I imagine some bottles are being uncorked at Uber HQ because of this spectacularly stupid response. It's never clever to try to resolve your commercial disputes by punishing your paying customers.
And technically it's not an 'Uber protest' but an 'Anti-Uber protest'.
(I think I see more cars on the map than usual though)
In Britain, Uber’s app rose to the second spot on Tuesday in the travel section of Apple’s download store, while it ranked fifth on Google’s Play store for phones using the Android operating system.
A similar trend is appearing in other places in Europe.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/taxi-protests-again...
Looks like it's already happening. I have a hard time seeing this end well for the taxi companies.
I guess the problem is on the driver side. Black Cabs had the same battle a decade ago with the minicabs / private hire. The result have not been bad from a consumer point of view: all minicab service now have mandatory car inspection, driver and insurance inspection checks. I guess Uber style is able to workaround and that pisses off the cabbies ?
Uber is not cheaper than the taxi service I have been using for years. Not quite sure what's the business model of Uber in London and why would people rush to it.
note: The main difference between regular black cabs and other regulated taxi services is that only the Black Cab can pick people up in the street and at Station and Airport pickup points. Minicab need to be booked in advance, which nowadays, means the taxi will come at your GPS coordinates within 10-20 min.
Edit: well according to other comments, it happens. I guess that's why I will never be a startup billionaire, I don't understand people.
Why shouldn't they be regulated ?
There are literally hundreds of private hire services in London, so Uber are not anywhere close to being the 'one company left driving'
However this is free publicity for them, all the same, yes.
Taxi companies are regulated for extremely good reasons. I know people sing Uber's praises but regulations exist for good reasons. Some exist for bad reasons too but they are largely there to protect people.
Would you get in a stranger's car?
And to preempt the downvoters: I'm not saying I don't want competition. I want competition and safety for the general public.
Yes. And I do that when I get into any cab.
This is one argument I never understood. People providing taxi-like services for other people need additional licenses for street safety - sure. But what can be safer apart from that? The person inside could just as well have just stolen the car. They are complete strangers.
As I understand it, regulation of private hire vehicles is motivated by regular rapes of attractive, young, drunk women on the way home from nights out.
With that said, as long as Uber verifies that all drivers have the correct vehicle and driver license and background checks [1] I don't see how they're any different to Addison Lee and those.
[1] www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/become-a-private-hire-licensee
I'm assuming Uber does at least the standard background checks for new employees.
It appears I wasn't very clear. The checks and balances that are done by a private company are allowed to be less rigorous than government-enforced regulations. This doesn't just mean that additional licences are needed, it means that extra regulations need to be adhered to. Of course, a private company can choose to go above and beyond these regulations if they so choose, and Uber may even do this.
From what I can tell, they are fully registered as private hire cars. The ones I've seen in Manchester have the same taxi branding as any other.
Is it the case they have to be, though? That's where the argument breaks down here. I'm not saying Uber don't go above and beyond what's necessary to provide a safe service, I'm saying that regulation provides assurances (to a certain degree) to the patrons of this service.
It works well in London too. The problem here is not that it doesn't work well. The problem is that the LTDA are protesting against a free market because now they have competition.
The link you posted was interesting. I'm glad Uber cited some good references. It's a shame it's focused on one city it would be nice to see aggregate data for several cities, and also for each city separately. London is also not quite as big as Chicago, and it's harder to get guns in the UK. There are a lot of factors involved in the comparison of crime between the US and the UK that are overlooked.
I do, all the time.
Alright. Now would you let your daughter do it? I certainly wouldn't.
If I wasn't comfortable letting my daughter ride an uber, I sure as hell wouldn't be comfortable letting my daughter ride a taxi. Thus far, Uber has consistently provided a far better and comfortable ride than a standard taxi. If regulation hasn't prevented taxi drivers that have, in my experience talked on the phone while driving, lied to me and said they don't accept credit cards, or are just plain hard to flag down. From my, single POV, Uber drivers are that much better and the belief that regulation has 1.) created an acceptable minimum taxi service (it hasn't) 2.) will ensure Uber has a high quality (it already does) is one I can't fully swallow.
Uber already does a great job of vetting their drivers (I've heard drivers who receive even a few bad ratings are sacked) and honestly if the service was so dangerous it wouldn't be such a sought after alternatives to Taxis.
I have a feeling that technology completely solves most of these problems. For example, there's a monopoly on the word "taxi" to prevent impersonation and kidnapping / mugging. But with technology your phone can tell you exactly what car is picking you up, from the model and color all the way down to the licence plate.
Is it the case one could pick up a minor? If so, are there CRB checks done on the drivers?
Taxi drivers need to pass an extra driving test to ensure an extremely high quality standard of driving. Does Uber do that?
Regulations don't necessarily make things safer, they provide assurances to the public that a minimum standard has to be attained. For taxi companies, this standard is rather high. I'm not saying Uber don't go above and beyond these, I'm saying they aren't forced to.
Uber gets some free publicity it seems.
So what choice do they have but to protest and engage in rent seeking? If Uber succeeds, they'll be jobless. At the same time, Uber is preferred by consumers and as a society, we do want it to succeed and remove the need for taxi drivers to exist.
I think the only answer is basic income, and I think that over the next decade, more money will be spent on rent seeking to keep people in redundant jobs than if we eliminated those jobs and used the same money to fund their basic income.
Illegal minicab driver demographic maybe!
In London, they're cheaper than black cabs because they aren't regulated. If they're taxi, they should be regulated - same regulation, or lack of, for all.
I don't get why you think Uber is not a taxi ?
In America we have a form of basic income through social security, welfare, unemployment compensation, food stamps, etc. I won't go so far as to say these programs are near perfect, but their intent is correct. These programs are designed to A) provide temporary assistance for individuals who are unable to support themselves due to work changes (i.e. layoffs due to redundancy), and B) to provide long-term support for individuals who are permanently unable to care for themselves (i.e. work-related injury/disability).
The basic income as you've described it presumes taxi drivers to fall under class 'B'. I would put the drivers under class 'A'. They will need support if they are made redundant, but they can, should, and will retrain eventually and find new employment.
And that is the problem, Mr Doyle. The world has changed a lot in 42 years. But the cabs business didn't.
Haven't tried Uber in Manchester yet, but regular cabs are between "I just want to get out" and "bearable". Driver is usually on the phone talking foreign language, or if you are less lucky, always running on red lights, especially when the demand is high. I don't want a royal treatment, no, but at least some basic things. What I heard from friends about Uber, it doesn't have those problems.
With this Uber protest and the way this battle is working out there has been remarkably little discussion on how technology and tradition can be aligned to move people from A to B more efficiently. It should be possible to have people have a step change in service thanks to modern technology with cab drivers able to profit more than they used to by being able to take more passengers. We could also cut down on the amount of cabs rolling around looking for rides.
We actually need some strong leadership in London to cut a deal. A deal where getting a cab is easier and cheaper for normal people, where taxi drivers make more money than previously (and still get respect for doing the knowledge), where the air quality is better and where tax revenue for London increases too. This is a problem that can be solved. If government had any technical competency then they would have seen this off a long time ago with their own 'uber' app, one where the 5% (or whatever it is that Uber get) goes straight into government coffers as taxation. Such a public sector app - had it been written - could have been shared with cities all over the world that are having problems with Uber.
Bonus points: why is it so expensive? It seems like most non-professional drivers would be happy charging a lot list than a cab charges, especially if it's somewhere you're going anyway.
Source: I've been using Uber almost daily for a year.
UberX is the service that competes with cabs on price. Uber Black, SUV, VAN, and Lux are comparable to calling a limo service. Uber Pop is a low cost service offered outside of the US.
Whether they can warp the original regulations meant to protect consumers into a superfluous protection racket to prop up their outdated, inefficient business models is still up in the air.
There seems to be a distinct lack of compassion for drivers who are basically just trying to make enough money to feed their family - my dad was a cabbie for a stint. The drivers themselves are not greedy fat-cats that are using the regulations to hoard money.
The problem is, large companies have less overheads and thus can crush local competition. Perhaps this is more efficient, but not necessarily ethical or good in the long run - for instance take Tescos or Sainsburys. They've crushed local competition which cannot compete on price (because of various unethical tactics used in their supply chain which they can do due to being utterly massive), so local competition has to raise prices or go bust, and residents stop being able to afford their produce.
In fact, this is a great example of why capitalism isn't always great - it makes the biggest, baddest kid in the playground able to do what they want and tread on the little guys, and then everyone becomes stuck with them, resulting in poorer produce, less consumer choice, and the destruction of family businesses and trades.
It favours efficiency and ruthlessness, which aren't necessarily qualities that are good for anyone except shareholders.
The counter-argument would be that if people cared enough about local businesses, they'd support them, but when people are getting squeezed as they are (and remember, large companies push wages down as much as possible because they simply do not care about their workers), this becomes difficult or even impossible - and remember, capitalism incentivises the most efficient, cheapest option.
So go ahead, with the free market, allow ruthlessness and size to dominate, enjoy a soulless, miserable world dominated by giants.
There are better, more ethical ways to do something.
But drivers, companies and governments are picking the wrong fight. Even if they shut down Uber, there will be more similar companies which will find loopholes and etc. It's better to spend the energy, time and money on making cabs more attractive and competitive. Because like I've said in other comment, cabs haven't changed in the last decades, while everything else around us has changed a lot in the last decade alone. Less than 10 years ago, a cellphone playing MP3 was omg.
In many areas, taxi supply is regulated. The fact is Uber can't be like a taxi because the laws restrict or prohibit more taxis. The analogy Uber would prefer you use is that they are a private car service, like a toned down limo with an app.
This is what the protest is about. Not just "OMG competition!"
I think the minicab folks are annoyed for the same reason - they can't charge the way Uber does, only black cabs can do that. So uber is in a grey area - it's not licensed to charge by meter, but it kinda-sorta does, and it doesn't charge the rates black cabs have to.
IIRC black cabs are prohibited from using GPS as well... but that seems minor and I may be wrong.
Similarly, Britain's protesters have demanded Uber to do away with fare estimates.
Notice how these complaints aren't in the form of: Let us do what Uber is doing. Rather, they take the form: Stop letting Uber do what it's doing. The Taxi owners want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to continue to protect their business models by placing artificial limits on competition, and they seek to disallow novel technology that would make their fare structure less opaque.
But you're right, the individual cab drivers probably just want competition outlawed.
>> they seek to disallow novel technology that would make their fare structure less opaque.
FYI - In London the fare structure is not opaque, it's set out on a notice in every Taxi and the meter is set up and sealed by TFL.