Uber are getting shirty
Discussion
stuttgartmetal said:
32 allegations of rape in 12 months.
That's why Uber are unsafe.
Nice misquoting of statistics.That's why Uber are unsafe.
32 rape and sexual assault allegations, out of 154 - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/uber-drivers-... .
TfLs stats
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/safety-and-security/s...
Note the disparity between allegations and convictions and the similarity of conviction stats between licensed minicab and LTDA drivers
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/safety-and-security/s...
Note the disparity between allegations and convictions and the similarity of conviction stats between licensed minicab and LTDA drivers
Sa Calobra said:
Ubers tail between it's legs.. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-an...
Very different to the Uber spokesman on R4 this morning. He was very clear that TFL simply haven't told them what they're doing wrong . Eg the background checks - they say there is only one service which can be used for that ( the Disclosure & Barring Service) which Uber already use.
Same with crime allegation reporting. Uber admitted one case where they didn't pass the report on to TFL promptly, but say that was an exception. Also claimed that the letter of complaint from a police officer was out of the blue as he hadn't raised any of the issues with them first.
rscott said:
Very different to the Uber spokesman on R4 this morning. He was very clear that TFL simply haven't told them what they're doing wrong . Eg the
background checks - they say there is only one service which can be used for that ( the Disclosure & Barring Service) which Uber already use.
Same with crime allegation reporting. Uber admitted one case where they didn't pass the report on to TFL promptly, but say that was an exception. Also claimed that the letter of complaint from a police officer was out of the blue as he hadn't raised any of the issues with them first.
Why *should* the police have "raised any of the issues with them first"? Surely enforcement is black/white, otherwise nobody will comply?background checks - they say there is only one service which can be used for that ( the Disclosure & Barring Service) which Uber already use.
Same with crime allegation reporting. Uber admitted one case where they didn't pass the report on to TFL promptly, but say that was an exception. Also claimed that the letter of complaint from a police officer was out of the blue as he hadn't raised any of the issues with them first.
rscott said:
Sa Calobra said:
Ubers tail between it's legs.. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-an...
Very different to the Uber spokesman on R4 this morning. He was very clear that TFL simply haven't told them what they're doing wrong . Eg the background checks - they say there is only one service which can be used for that ( the Disclosure & Barring Service) which Uber already use.
Same with crime allegation reporting. Uber admitted one case where they didn't pass the report on to TFL promptly, but say that was an exception. Also claimed that the letter of complaint from a police officer was out of the blue as he hadn't raised any of the issues with them first.
Edited by hyphen on Monday 25th September 12:23
skwdenyer said:
rscott said:
Very different to the Uber spokesman on R4 this morning. He was very clear that TFL simply haven't told them what they're doing wrong . Eg the
background checks - they say there is only one service which can be used for that ( the Disclosure & Barring Service) which Uber already use.
Same with crime allegation reporting. Uber admitted one case where they didn't pass the report on to TFL promptly, but say that was an exception. Also claimed that the letter of complaint from a police officer was out of the blue as he hadn't raised any of the issues with them first.
Why *should* the police have "raised any of the issues with them first"? Surely enforcement is black/white, otherwise nobody will comply?background checks - they say there is only one service which can be used for that ( the Disclosure & Barring Service) which Uber already use.
Same with crime allegation reporting. Uber admitted one case where they didn't pass the report on to TFL promptly, but say that was an exception. Also claimed that the letter of complaint from a police officer was out of the blue as he hadn't raised any of the issues with them first.
As for the medical certificates, this https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1897962/investigatio... suggests it's also minicab drivers getting them. Have TFL insisted all of those get re-tested too?
Edited by rscott on Monday 25th September 12:30
desolate said:
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
Non-profit car sharing doesn't affect SDP&C type insurance:https://www.abi.org.uk/products-and-issues/product...
Gareth79 said:
Non-profit car sharing doesn't affect SDP&C type insurance:
https://www.abi.org.uk/products-and-issues/product...
That is very true.https://www.abi.org.uk/products-and-issues/product...
However Lyft car sharing, as an example, is very much about receiving payment.
Sa Calobra said:
On Twitter they want us to defend 40,000 drivers livelihoods. They can start by offering employee rights if they are that concerned and shelve plans to develop driverless Uber cars then...
The same 40,000 drivers who they are going to sack off when their robot cars arrive.desolate said:
Gareth79 said:
Non-profit car sharing doesn't affect SDP&C type insurance:
https://www.abi.org.uk/products-and-issues/product...
That is very true.https://www.abi.org.uk/products-and-issues/product...
However Lyft car sharing, as an example, is very much about receiving payment.
As mentioned, Uber was originally all about casual minicab work where if you had a spare couple of hours you could switch on the app and run people about. In some US states it's legal to do without a licence or special insurance, I don't think it was ever attempted here in that manner because the law is pretty clear.
If Lyft ever let the public sign up without a minicab licence then all the local authorities and police would be booking rides and reporting the drivers very quickly!
Edited by Gareth79 on Monday 25th September 14:05
98elise said:
jamoor said:
7795 said:
stuttgartmetal said:
Whoozit said:
stuttgartmetal said:
Gullible is no longer listed in dictionaries any more.
Go ahead
Check.
Stutty, darling. I could have mentioned Warbuoys but he was caught in 2009, and a single - if infamous - incident. Instead I found the most recent, readily available data for London. Which shows that cabbies of all stripes take advantage of their passengers. Go ahead, check the data. And then call me gullible. Go ahead
Check.
Look at percentages
25000 Black Cabbies
One conviction.
And he was caught.
That article is pure speculation written upon the very extreme points of the statistical curve
Not even a trend or mean.
It takes about five years to get a green badge
It takes about five minutes to drive for Uber.
The big gripe I have with this entire situation is that black cabs and minicabs have existed in tandem for years. Nobody complains.
When Uber comes along and does the minicab thing in a different way using technology albeit entirely legally not only technically but within the spirit of the law, the ltda get their knickers in a twist and begin a smear campaign.
Why didn't they ever complain about Addison Lee and the like?
Uber have come along and made booking a minicab easier, cheaper and better than hailing a black cab, so they are not happy.
It all comes down to money. Black Cabs have virtually had a monopoly and hence the prices have been kept ludicrously high for what they are. They have been found wanting.
The advent of satnav and cheap labour has hit them hard...
They will always get you there quicker than a satnav - Don't care. You cost two/three times as much.
We're better drivers - Don't care. You cost two/three times as much.
You're safer with us - Not true and Don't care. You cost two/three times as much.
We'll always go the shortest route - Not true and Don't care. You cost two/three times as much.
Ken Livingstone warned the Black Cabs 10 years ago that new technology was out and they should amend their fares and adapt, or die. No love for Ken, but he was right.
Arrogance, greed and denial will kill off the Black Cab.
In the meantime the all consuming juggernaut, Uber, will grow and grow and eventually up their rates when all about them is swallowed up.
desolate said:
Gareth79 said:
Non-profit car sharing doesn't affect SDP&C type insurance:
https://www.abi.org.uk/products-and-issues/product...
That is very true.https://www.abi.org.uk/products-and-issues/product...
However Lyft car sharing, as an example, is very much about receiving payment.
Vaud said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Bit driverless technology will come. Current estimates are that level 5 autonomous vehicles will be commercialised and type-approved by as early as 2021. By that time Uber looks likely to have a proposition that will allow them to access that market. The LTDA will still be driving their God-awful vehicles, whining on about having spent 4 years doing the knowledge and playing the small child 'it's not fair' card to anyone will listen as their livelihoods disappear just as surely as the Fleet Street type setters and compositors' did in the 1980s
Absolutely right.skwdenyer said:
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 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?
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...
skwdenyer said:
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?7795 said:
I agree.
It all comes down to money. Black Cabs have virtually had a monopoly and hence the prices have been kept ludicrously high for what they are. They have been found wanting.
The advent of satnav and cheap labour has hit them hard
Arrogance, greed and denial will kill off the Black Cab.
It is eerily similar to the print workers in the 80s. They'd successfully blocked new technology and changes in working practices because no one was strong enough to take them on. Right up until someone was.It all comes down to money. Black Cabs have virtually had a monopoly and hence the prices have been kept ludicrously high for what they are. They have been found wanting.
The advent of satnav and cheap labour has hit them hard
Arrogance, greed and denial will kill off the Black Cab.
It didn't dawn on them that Murdoch had done them until it was too late to even come to the table and plead their case; NI had moved on, the media had moved on and, most of all, the advertisers and readership had moved on and no one was interested in low quality print that may or may not be disrupted by archaic unions.
The print workers who were too greedy, too arrogant and too much in denial to change are now spunking their benefits on pound a pint deals in flat roofed pubs in the east end, whining to anyone who will listen about how that mean Rupert Murdoch f
ked them over.Cabbies are going to be just the same...
7795 said:
In the meantime the all consuming juggernaut, Uber, will grow and grow and eventually up their rates when all about them is swallowed up.
It may or it may simply explode in debt. It’s never made a profit and it seems unlikely it will make a profit in the next few years. Its debt is rising almost out of control. At the moment everybody seems oblivious to how shaky the business model is. Mrr T said:
7795 said:
In the meantime the all consuming juggernaut, Uber, will grow and grow and eventually up their rates when all about them is swallowed up.
It may or it may simply explode in debt. It’s never made a profit and it seems unlikely it will make a profit in the next few years. Its debt is rising almost out of control. At the moment everybody seems oblivious to how shaky the business model is. The model is here to stay and it's not a whole lot different to Amazon selling £1 coins for 90p. Amazon will never justify its valuation in my opinion
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff