Uber Has Lost Its Licence to Operate in London
Discussion
38911 said:
A corrupt self-serving decision by TfL, backed by the utterly incompetent mayor Sadiq Khan(t). I've had far more problems with Black Cabs than with Uber cars - both as a road-user and as a passenger.
That all over. I and many people I know have used Uber worldwide for a few years with absolutely no problems. Usually always better than the established local operators.
It's interesting to understand things from the cabbies' perspective, now that time has passed and they can speak from experience working through Uber.
Has it proven advantageous to those that have switched? Are they finding it offers them sufficient and sustainable income with reasonable costs, conditions and working hours?
Has it proven advantageous to those that have switched? Are they finding it offers them sufficient and sustainable income with reasonable costs, conditions and working hours?
38911 said:
A corrupt self-serving decision by TfL, backed by the utterly incompetent mayor Sadiq Khan(t). I've had far more problems with Black Cabs than with Uber cars - both as a road-user and as a passenger.
Yeah, if only Uber would follow those pesky things called rules and deal with the issue of its drivers lending their cars (and effectively their permits) out to mates and family to go earn a few quid and the unsuspecting public jumping in the cab without knowing who truly is driving their cab. But it’s alright, it just happened the 14000 times...You should be asking why Uber seem hell bent on continually thinking that rules don’t apply to them. The same rules that apply to all other London cab companies but seemingly not Uber despite being given several warnings and having suspension of operating licence held over their heads.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I don’t know the stats but my guess is that the majority of Uber drivers in London aren’t previous mini cabbers or elsewhere affiliated. Compared to New York for example there seems to be a lot less plurality amongst Uber drivers in London.
Might be wrong though.
valiant said:
Yeah, if only Uber would follow those pesky things called rules and deal with the issue of its drivers lending their cars (and effectively their permits) out to mates and family to go earn a few quid and the unsuspecting public jumping in the cab without knowing who truly is driving their cab. But it’s alright, it just happened the 14000 times...
You should be asking why Uber seem hell bent on continually thinking that rules don’t apply to them. The same rules that apply to all other London cab companies but seemingly not Uber despite being given several warnings and having suspension of operating licence held over their heads.
This. You should be asking why Uber seem hell bent on continually thinking that rules don’t apply to them. The same rules that apply to all other London cab companies but seemingly not Uber despite being given several warnings and having suspension of operating licence held over their heads.
38911 said:
A corrupt self-serving decision by TfL, backed by the utterly incompetent mayor Sadiq Khan(t). I've had far more problems with Black Cabs than with Uber cars - both as a road-user and as a passenger.
You've been lucky but I bet you've been driven by an unlicenced driver a few times. After reading the report are you still happy to take your chances?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50418357
I see the advantage of convenience to the user, through the app and suchlike. I also see the perceived safety benefit, however the report suggests that's not entirely realistic.
My main concern with companies like this are how they're going about getting the business and how they're operating the business.
With Uber there are marketing budgets to pay for, software developers to pay for, and then the rest. These kind of costs don't really figure as much in the world of conventional private hire companies. Isn't it a new layer of additional cost? Where are the savings made to cover those costs, in order to stay competitive?
I see the advantage of convenience to the user, through the app and suchlike. I also see the perceived safety benefit, however the report suggests that's not entirely realistic.
My main concern with companies like this are how they're going about getting the business and how they're operating the business.
With Uber there are marketing budgets to pay for, software developers to pay for, and then the rest. These kind of costs don't really figure as much in the world of conventional private hire companies. Isn't it a new layer of additional cost? Where are the savings made to cover those costs, in order to stay competitive?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Uber has a very asset light model.It doesn’t own the vehicles
It doesn’t need depots, or radio bases or call centres.
It doesn’t pay salaries or on costs for the drivers
It’s all about volumes
The model works very well in the US cities where there are multiple service providers (Lyft is the main competitor) and a greater number of drivers who are established owner operators all of whom have multiple sources of rides at once.
article said:
it is unacceptable that Uber has allowed passengers to get into minicabs with drivers who are potentially unlicensed and uninsured.
I don't use cabs, but what's to stop a cabbie having his brother/friend do some driving for a day ?Seems to me TfL is looking for excuses ...
Should get rid of the tax / minicab distinction and licence everyone to the same standards, but without requiring the Knowledge as it really isn't required in today's world - I would rather follow an Ubers journey on a sat nav than trust the taxi driver is taking me the shortest way.
Brooking10 said:
Uber has a very asset light model.
It doesn’t own the vehicles
It doesn’t need depots, or radio bases or call centres.
It doesn’t pay salaries or on costs for the drivers
It’s all about volumes
The model works very well in the US cities where there are multiple service providers (Lyft is the main competitor) and a greater number of drivers who are established owner operators all of whom have multiple sources of rides at once.
Aye that's how I understood it, mostly. Squeeze the costs out in one area to offset the additional layer of costs that are secondary to, but vital for Uber to be able to provide, the essential service and aim for quantity. It doesn’t own the vehicles
It doesn’t need depots, or radio bases or call centres.
It doesn’t pay salaries or on costs for the drivers
It’s all about volumes
The model works very well in the US cities where there are multiple service providers (Lyft is the main competitor) and a greater number of drivers who are established owner operators all of whom have multiple sources of rides at once.
It's when the costs of the people and the equipment are straightaway identified as a primary cost saving avenue that you've got to worry, when this is about providing, essentially, a man and a car!
The report, however, suggests that it's not necessarily been doing what it says it does, on the safety side at least. How much of what makes Uber Uber is just marketing and BS?
bigpriest said:
You've been lucky but I bet you've been driven by an unlicenced driver a few times. After reading the report are you still happy to take your chances?
Yep I bet I have been driven by unlicensed drivers more than a few times - both in black cabs and in Ubers. On the other hand, the number of times I've been in a Black cab that's taken me 'the long way round' (unlikely to happen in an Uber as the route is GPS traced), and the number of times I've been scammed by a Black cab with the "sorry, cash only mate, the card machines broken", or the old "sorry mate I haven't got any change" trick, and the general quality of some of the s
tty black cabs operating in London, means I generally prefer Uber.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff