Uber are getting shirty
Discussion
jamoor said:
I think this is the thing, uber shouldn't be seen of as a full time job.
Some taxi drivers switch to uber from PH and then complain that their wages are too low, ubers aim is to eliminate the taxi/minicab profession, first through ride sharing and eventually through automation.
I don't think it was originally envisaged as a "taxi service". More as a "ride sharing enabling application". The idea being you could be driving somewhere, find someone who wanted to ride with you easily, and provide a way for them to share the cost of the journey.Some taxi drivers switch to uber from PH and then complain that their wages are too low, ubers aim is to eliminate the taxi/minicab profession, first through ride sharing and eventually through automation.
This would have fallen afoul of every kind of legislation almost everywhere, so that's not how Uber turned out.
A shame in some ways. When you think about all the spare seats available in cars going places the whole time there's a VAST amount of "wasted" fuel, carrying just one person when you could be carrying two or more. A cheap way of offering and sharing rides and fuel costs would be a massive environmental benefit. It would, of course, upset the commercial providers of such services...
valiant said:
I can see them sorting out the medical and convictions thingy quite quickly but this Greyball thing has me interested. I wonder if there's more to this than meets the eye. 
I believe "Greyball" started with the intention to frustrate those who were looking to disrupt Uber, not necessarily governments but there were well-publicised cases of Uber drivers being lured to backstreets and having the s
t kicked out of them by rival companies and taxi drivers.The admitted to using it to frustrate investigations into their company in countries where it was being banned, but I can't see how it would have helped in the UK, where the drivers have always been TfL licensed/vetted.
I say "always" - TfL claim that they aren't, but haven't actually stated precisely what Uber are doing wrong there - as mentioned by others I always thought the licensing was TfL's responsibility so the only thing Uber could be doing wrong is to be not checking that licenses are genuine and held by the driver?
Don said:
I don't think it was originally envisaged as a "taxi service". More as a "ride sharing enabling application". The idea being you could be driving somewhere, find someone who wanted to ride with you easily, and provide a way for them to share the cost of the journey.
This would have fallen afoul of every kind of legislation almost everywhere, so that's not how Uber turned out.
A shame in some ways. When you think about all the spare seats available in cars going places the whole time there's a VAST amount of "wasted" fuel, carrying just one person when you could be carrying two or more. A cheap way of offering and sharing rides and fuel costs would be a massive environmental benefit. It would, of course, upset the commercial providers of such services...
There are some efforts being made to try and find an insurance solution for this in the UK - it's currently not available but someone will surely take the plunge soon. At the moment it's just too expensive This would have fallen afoul of every kind of legislation almost everywhere, so that's not how Uber turned out.
A shame in some ways. When you think about all the spare seats available in cars going places the whole time there's a VAST amount of "wasted" fuel, carrying just one person when you could be carrying two or more. A cheap way of offering and sharing rides and fuel costs would be a massive environmental benefit. It would, of course, upset the commercial providers of such services...
Gareth79 said:
valiant said:
I can see them sorting out the medical and convictions thingy quite quickly but this Greyball thing has me interested. I wonder if there's more to this than meets the eye.
I believe "Greyball" started with the intention to frustrate those who were looking to disrupt Uber, not necessarily governments but there were well-publicised cases of Uber drivers being lured to backstreets and having the st kicked out of them by rival companies and taxi drivers.The admitted to using it to frustrate investigations into their company in countries where it was being banned, but I can't see how it would have helped in the UK, where the drivers have always been TfL licensed/vetted.
I say "always" - TfL claim that they aren't, but haven't actually stated precisely what Uber are doing wrong there - as mentioned by others I always thought the licensing was TfL's responsibility so the only thing Uber could be doing wrong is to be not checking that licenses are genuine and held by the driver?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35361153
They claimed it's unfair competition, they just wanted the rules changed to make it "fair" for them agian.
https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/15/portland-probe...
Not London of course but speaks volumes to the ethics of the company.
Not London of course but speaks volumes to the ethics of the company.
Don said:
Whilst I completely agree that employees should have proper rights...
why should Uber shelve plans for driverless cars?
All the big tech outfits are rushing to get the technology. It is coming. That's inevitable and nothing to do with Uber (other than them being a minor player in the industry, so far).
Driving as a profession is absolutely but surely going to be a short lived phenomenon from now on. This will be in our lifetimes, too. Less than twenty years, I reckon. The technology is almost good enough already: given our technological rate of progress twenty years might be an overestimate....
...but I digress.
They are angling about drivers livelihoods yet in the same business they are pushing and developing driverless technology to switch as soon as it's allowed/benchtested enough. why should Uber shelve plans for driverless cars?
All the big tech outfits are rushing to get the technology. It is coming. That's inevitable and nothing to do with Uber (other than them being a minor player in the industry, so far).
Driving as a profession is absolutely but surely going to be a short lived phenomenon from now on. This will be in our lifetimes, too. Less than twenty years, I reckon. The technology is almost good enough already: given our technological rate of progress twenty years might be an overestimate....
...but I digress.
Hypocracy is too strong a word?
Not only are Uber developing self-driving cars they're also being sued by Alphabet (Google) around alleged theft of trade secrets.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/waymo-...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/waymo-...
Sa Calobra said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
None of the overheads or risk, just a sort of franchise slice of the revenue with no labour costs, vat and very little corporation tax? Why do we let such organisations in the UK without corporate responsibility?
Surely customers care with who they shop with?
Sa Calobra said:
None of the overheads or risk, just a sort of franchise slice of the revenue with no labour costs, vat and very little corporation tax?
Why do we let such organisations in the UK without corporate responsibility?
Surely customers care with who they shop with?
Amazon killed many bookstores. People want choice, value and speed.Why do we let such organisations in the UK without corporate responsibility?
Surely customers care with who they shop with?
jamoor said:
Gareth79 said:
valiant said:
I can see them sorting out the medical and convictions thingy quite quickly but this Greyball thing has me interested. I wonder if there's more to this than meets the eye.
I believe "Greyball" started with the intention to frustrate those who were looking to disrupt Uber, not necessarily governments but there were well-publicised cases of Uber drivers being lured to backstreets and having the st kicked out of them by rival companies and taxi drivers.The admitted to using it to frustrate investigations into their company in countries where it was being banned, but I can't see how it would have helped in the UK, where the drivers have always been TfL licensed/vetted.
I say "always" - TfL claim that they aren't, but haven't actually stated precisely what Uber are doing wrong there - as mentioned by others I always thought the licensing was TfL's responsibility so the only thing Uber could be doing wrong is to be not checking that licenses are genuine and held by the driver?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35361153
They claimed it's unfair competition, they just wanted the rules changed to make it "fair" for them agian.
- pick up passers-by (hailing a cab)
- use bus lanes
- sit at taxi ranks waiting for trade
The Knowledge is a big investment of time.
Minicabs, on the other hand, are not allowed to ply for trade (some try - "taxi, sir?" whilst driving slowly), and all hirers' names must be noted at base ("pre-booked") otherwise insurance is invalid.
That model worked fine. Those who wanted to invest the time got the benefit of casual trade; those who didn't drove minicabs. Many people started out in minicabs whilst doing the knowledge - a classic ladder of opportunity and graft, learning a trade.
Along comes Uber. The app is the "electronic thumb" - it does all of the "pre-booking" stuff for you, in the blink of an eye, such that it is little different to walking to a main road and flagging-down a passing cab.
Suddenly, all those who have chosen not to invest the time / money are given many of the benefits that were once reserved to those who had. They don't even have to save up to buy a vehicle - Uber will get them onto a rental plan.
Now, here's the trade-off. When should Government respect the commitment that those who have played by the rules have shown? Didn't they do what they were told, and shouldn't they receive the benefit?
The five-minute delay seemed reasonable to me - it made Uber what it should be IMHO (a better minicab service) without it becoming a direct competitor to the black cab. If you can "hail" an Uber in no time, you've just directly undercut the Black Cab trade. Which is not remotely fair to anyone. IMHO.
(and, no, I'm not a cabbie, etc.).
In my view, if Uber want the benefits of being a hail-able service, they should deliver what society needs - accessible vehicles that meet specific requirements, including being able to turn in the street.
But that wouldn't be "disruptive" now would it?
If Black Cabs want to compete on price, they're welcome to - the rules state only what the maximum price should be, to protect riders from being ripped-off (in the way that they were frequently ripped-off by minicab drivers for decades).
Meanwhile, Uber have decided other rules don't apply, either. Their drivers are "self-employed" and Uber just takes "a commission." Except they don't - as we've learned this week, Uber charges the rider one fare, offers the driver a lower fare, then takes a cut of the lower fare from the driver. That isn't a commission - that's hiring the driver. The driver doesn't get a statement of gross receipts and then commission AFAIK - Uber themselves have said that, if the driver wants to know what the passenger has paid, the driver must ask the hirer.
How can an Uber driver determine if they are liable to register for VAT or not, if that gross charges are not disclosed to them? How can they even fill in a tax return on that basis? Isn't every driver in fact failing in their duty to ensure that they have a proper record of their gross income?
If their gross income is not, in fact, what the hirers have paid, then Uber is the hirer...
There's a bigger hole here...
The future is driverless cars you hail via an app with no artifocial wait time. These will be EVs and likely owned by a 3rd party who never even sets foot in it eh like a buy to let you might own 20/cabs they all go to a central lock up to charge up you pay a fee for that rest of time they are on the road making you money. The black cab an mini cab driver as a job is dead. Frankly this is a good thing no more tourist routes or costs for going wrong way. Flat fair in a efficient safe driverless vehicle. That is the future an tfl knows it will impact all sorts of public transport jobs so is trying to stop the tide of change.
Edited by Gecko1978 on Sunday 24th September 19:53
skwdenyer said:
The "contract" was simple: learn The Knowledge, buy a specialist vehicle, invest, and in return you will be granted exclusivity to:
- pick up passers-by (hailing a cab)
- use bus lanes
- sit at taxi ranks waiting for trade
The Knowledge is a big investment of time.
Minicabs, on the other hand, are not allowed to ply for trade (some try - "taxi, sir?" whilst driving slowly), and all hirers' names must be noted at base ("pre-booked") otherwise insurance is invalid.
That model worked fine. Those who wanted to invest the time got the benefit of casual trade; those who didn't drove minicabs. Many people started out in minicabs whilst doing the knowledge - a classic ladder of opportunity and graft, learning a trade.
Along comes Uber. The app is the "electronic thumb" - it does all of the "pre-booking" stuff for you, in the blink of an eye, such that it is little different to walking to a main road and flagging-down a passing cab.
Suddenly, all those who have chosen not to invest the time / money are given many of the benefits that were once reserved to those who had. They don't even have to save up to buy a vehicle - Uber will get them onto a rental plan.
Now, here's the trade-off. When should Government respect the commitment that those who have played by the rules have shown? Didn't they do what they were told, and shouldn't they receive the benefit?
The five-minute delay seemed reasonable to me - it made Uber what it should be IMHO (a better minicab service) without it becoming a direct competitor to the black cab. If you can "hail" an Uber in no time, you've just directly undercut the Black Cab trade. Which is not remotely fair to anyone. IMHO.
(and, no, I'm not a cabbie, etc.).
In my view, if Uber want the benefits of being a hail-able service, they should deliver what society needs - accessible vehicles that meet specific requirements, including being able to turn in the street.
But that wouldn't be "disruptive" now would it?
If Black Cabs want to compete on price, they're welcome to - the rules state only what the maximum price should be, to protect riders from being ripped-off (in the way that they were frequently ripped-off by minicab drivers for decades).
Meanwhile, Uber have decided other rules don't apply, either. Their drivers are "self-employed" and Uber just takes "a commission." Except they don't - as we've learned this week, Uber charges the rider one fare, offers the driver a lower fare, then takes a cut of the lower fare from the driver. That isn't a commission - that's hiring the driver. The driver doesn't get a statement of gross receipts and then commission AFAIK - Uber themselves have said that, if the driver wants to know what the passenger has paid, the driver must ask the hirer.
How can an Uber driver determine if they are liable to register for VAT or not, if that gross charges are not disclosed to them? How can they even fill in a tax return on that basis? Isn't every driver in fact failing in their duty to ensure that they have a proper record of their gross income?
If their gross income is not, in fact, what the hirers have paid, then Uber is the hirer...
There's a bigger hole here...
But how is that reasonable, the rules are rules.- pick up passers-by (hailing a cab)
- use bus lanes
- sit at taxi ranks waiting for trade
The Knowledge is a big investment of time.
Minicabs, on the other hand, are not allowed to ply for trade (some try - "taxi, sir?" whilst driving slowly), and all hirers' names must be noted at base ("pre-booked") otherwise insurance is invalid.
That model worked fine. Those who wanted to invest the time got the benefit of casual trade; those who didn't drove minicabs. Many people started out in minicabs whilst doing the knowledge - a classic ladder of opportunity and graft, learning a trade.
Along comes Uber. The app is the "electronic thumb" - it does all of the "pre-booking" stuff for you, in the blink of an eye, such that it is little different to walking to a main road and flagging-down a passing cab.
Suddenly, all those who have chosen not to invest the time / money are given many of the benefits that were once reserved to those who had. They don't even have to save up to buy a vehicle - Uber will get them onto a rental plan.
Now, here's the trade-off. When should Government respect the commitment that those who have played by the rules have shown? Didn't they do what they were told, and shouldn't they receive the benefit?
The five-minute delay seemed reasonable to me - it made Uber what it should be IMHO (a better minicab service) without it becoming a direct competitor to the black cab. If you can "hail" an Uber in no time, you've just directly undercut the Black Cab trade. Which is not remotely fair to anyone. IMHO.
(and, no, I'm not a cabbie, etc.).
In my view, if Uber want the benefits of being a hail-able service, they should deliver what society needs - accessible vehicles that meet specific requirements, including being able to turn in the street.
But that wouldn't be "disruptive" now would it?
If Black Cabs want to compete on price, they're welcome to - the rules state only what the maximum price should be, to protect riders from being ripped-off (in the way that they were frequently ripped-off by minicab drivers for decades).
Meanwhile, Uber have decided other rules don't apply, either. Their drivers are "self-employed" and Uber just takes "a commission." Except they don't - as we've learned this week, Uber charges the rider one fare, offers the driver a lower fare, then takes a cut of the lower fare from the driver. That isn't a commission - that's hiring the driver. The driver doesn't get a statement of gross receipts and then commission AFAIK - Uber themselves have said that, if the driver wants to know what the passenger has paid, the driver must ask the hirer.
How can an Uber driver determine if they are liable to register for VAT or not, if that gross charges are not disclosed to them? How can they even fill in a tax return on that basis? Isn't every driver in fact failing in their duty to ensure that they have a proper record of their gross income?
If their gross income is not, in fact, what the hirers have paid, then Uber is the hirer...
There's a bigger hole here...
They were literally looking changing the rules to eliminate competition, nothing else.
The fact that uber can make a booking and dispatch a minicab to you in seconds doesn't matter, nobody is hailing a cab on the street and nobody is plying for trade, just everything happens in the blink of an eye.
Vaud said:
Sa Calobra said:
None of the overheads or risk, just a sort of franchise slice of the revenue with no labour costs, vat and very little corporation tax?
Why do we let such organisations in the UK without corporate responsibility?
Surely customers care with who they shop with?
Amazon killed many bookstores. People want choice, value and speed.Why do we let such organisations in the UK without corporate responsibility?
Surely customers care with who they shop with?
jamoor said:
But how is that reasonable, the rules are rules.
They were literally looking changing the rules to eliminate competition, nothing else.
The fact that uber can make a booking and dispatch a minicab to you in seconds doesn't matter, nobody is hailing a cab on the street and nobody is plying for trade, just everything happens in the blink of an eye.
The rules can be changed, just as they are for all of us regularly. The aim of market regulation is to ensure that the market delivers the desired objectives - there are no free markets, only more-or-less-regulated markets.They were literally looking changing the rules to eliminate competition, nothing else.
The fact that uber can make a booking and dispatch a minicab to you in seconds doesn't matter, nobody is hailing a cab on the street and nobody is plying for trade, just everything happens in the blink of an eye.
The rules were changed for Black Cabs to make them wheelchair accessible. The rules are being changed again to force them to go electric / hybrid. The rules were changed for all drivers to force CRB checks, etc. onto them. And so on, and so forth.
No, rules are fluid, and should be, and always have been. Uber is a bit better at the PR and lobbying, however...
Not all black cabs are legitimate, many hire them out to friends who borrow the badge, last time we got a cab from Covent Garden to Tottenham Court Road the black cab driver spoke little English and went off in the wrong direction.
When we were getting out I questioned him about doing the knowledge, he laughed and raced off.
When we were getting out I questioned him about doing the knowledge, he laughed and raced off.
tight fart said:
Not all black cabs are legitimate, many hire them out to friends who borrow the badge, last time we got a cab from Covent Garden to Tottenham Court Road the black cab driver spoke little English and went off in the wrong direction.
When we were getting out I questioned him about doing the knowledge, he laughed and raced off.
Back in the day, black cabs were regularly flagged-down by PCO inspectors for mechanical inspections, etc. They could be taken off the road on the spot. I don't know if that still happens.When we were getting out I questioned him about doing the knowledge, he laughed and raced off.
When "social contracts" break down, all hell is let loose, sadly.
Why don't the black cabs want to be included in Uber themselves also? You can call city cabs via Uber in many US cities and you just pay the meter rate except via the app. I often do this as the cabbies are generally better at getting you where you want to go a lot quicker than some random uberX guy who's having to follow the satnav.
dvs_dave said:
Why don't the black cabs want to be included in Uber themselves also? You can call city cabs via Uber in many US cities and you just pay the meter rate except via the app. I often do this as the cabbies are generally better at getting you where you want to go a lot quicker than some random uberX guy who's having to follow the satnav.
Good question - do Uber offer an extra tier for that?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff