Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

Uber Loses License To Operate in London, One of Its Biggest Markets (venturebeat.com) 109

Posted by msmash from the tussle-continues dept.
Uber has lost its license to operate in London, one of its biggest markets globally, with a local transport regulator reaffirming a previous claim that Uber is not a "fit and proper" operator. From a report: The regulator also found that Uber's systems are "easily manipulated" by unauthorized drivers. The announcement follows a two-year battle with Transport for London (TfL) that kicked off back in September 2017, when the local transport regulator ruled that Uber failed to take sufficient "corporate responsibility" when it came to safety and security. Concerns included its approach to reporting crimes and its process for driver background checks. Although TfL conceded that Uber has since made some "positive changes," the regulator identified a continued "pattern of failures," including "breaches that placed passengers and their safety at risk." "As the regulator of private hire services in London, we are required to make a decision today on whether Uber is fit and proper to hold a licence," said Helen Chapman, TfL's director of licensing, regulation, and charging. "Safety is our absolute top priority. While we recognize Uber has made improvements, it is unacceptable that Uber has allowed passengers to get into minicabs with drivers who are potentially unlicensed and uninsured."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Uber Loses License To Operate in London, One of Its Biggest Markets More

Uber Loses License To Operate in London, One of Its Biggest Markets

Comments Filter:

  • Good (Score:2)

    by rldp ( 6381096 )
    Want to see this happen in more cities. Uber is a fucking cancer.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by 110010001000 ( 697113 )

      Yeah, fewer options are better. Get rid of Lyft too.

      • Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rldp ( 6381096 ) on Monday November 25, 2019 @10:59AM (#59451906)
        Yes. Get rid of every company that want's to pay employees 2 dollars an hour and ignore the rule of law. There are hundreds of legitimate, insured, licensed taxi operators out there.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by torkus ( 1133985 )

          Yes.

          Get rid of every company that want's to pay employees 2 dollars an hour and ignore the rule of law.

          There are hundreds of legitimate, insured, licensed taxi operators out there.

          Do you actually know anything about taxi's in London? Like...at all? London is well known for having very high requirements for their Taxi's. Uber came in and greatly disrupted that ... which isn't necessarily bad. Requiring your taxi drivers actually know all the crazy, twisted roads in London is less crucial in the days of GPS.

          But then allowing for unlicensed and uninsured drivers on top of that? That's pure corporate greed putting profits and the ability to operate over enforcing reasonable safety p

          • Right. While I am glad Uber and Lyft exist (Taxis in South Florida have never been known for safety, promptness or professional behavor, but have been known for $70 rides that should have ben $20) I'd place TfL and the Black cabs as excellent from my experiences working in London several years ago. Compared to everyplace else I've lived where there really were no reasonable choices tor transit.

            I'm not going to get on the side of the several Cab company shills and apparent former taxi drivers that are sad th

        • But then my transportation would be more expensive...

      • Uber's business plan is to become a cab monopoly world wide. The more Uber succeed, the less options we are going to have, and in the end, the more we are going to pay.

        • Exactly. That is why we should get rid of Uber (and Lyft too). Either of them might succeed. We should get rid of Yellow Cab too. They might have the same plan.

          • Uber could have stayed in London if they followed the rules. They are not that much hard to follow. Just don't let a non-driver use someone else' identity to drive.

            • Exactly. That is why they lost their license in London. They let non-drivers use someone else's identity to drive (plus they have a business plan to become a cab monopoly and they pay $2 per hour and ignore the rule of law).

        • That may legitimately have been their plan (and it's a stupid one in general), but so far all they've managed to do is lose billions of investors' dollars. If they ever did manage to capture 100% of the market, what ability do they have to stop a competitor from entering the market outside of getting the government to give them the same kind of legal monopoly that taxi services enjoyed that spurred the creation of Uber in the first place?

          Even assuming that they did succeed and they manage to drive all co

          • Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)

            by nagora ( 177841 ) on Monday November 25, 2019 @12:01PM (#59452226)

            That may legitimately have been their plan (and it's a stupid one in general), but so far all they've managed to do is lose billions of investors' dollars. If they ever did manage to capture 100% of the market, what ability do they have to stop a competitor from entering the market

            Well, what happens is that the monopoly cross-subsidises from areas not under threat. So, for example, if they have a grip in India and some rival enters the market in Brazil, they just stop charging for rides in Brazil but keep paying the drivers until the competitor dies out. Do that a few times and people stop trying to get into the market.

            This was how the UK bus market was bought up by Stagecoach under Thatcher - the big fan of free-markets that she was - and that's why the regulators in London are so wary: they know how this works.

            Uber (the company) has the problem that it's not profitable enough to do this yet - they over-stretched. Uber the company board don't give a shit one way or the other as they're stuffing the investors' cash into their pockets as fast as they can before the music stops, same as Netfix's. They'll move on and spend the rest of their lives getting cushy non-exec posts in companies on the back of their very big, very public failure from all the other lawyers, consultants and suchlike parasites that made some money off Uber before it was wound up and the name sold to some rich neo-nazi group somewhere.

          • That may legitimately have been their plan (and it's a stupid one in general), but so far all they've managed to do is lose billions of investors' dollars.

            We call that buying market share. It's part of the plan. You put the competition out of the market by offering lower prices. And when you are alone you raise prices higher than they were before.

            If they ever did manage to capture 100% of the market, what ability do they have to stop a competitor from entering the market outside of getting the government to give them the same kind of legal monopoly that taxi services enjoyed that spurred the creation of Uber in the first place?

            A huge one. A competitor wouldn't have any drivers, because all the riders would be on Uber, and have Uber's application installed.
            A competitor wouldn't have any riders, because all the drivers would be on Uber, and have Uber's application installed.

            If a competitor tried to enter the market in city XYZ, Uber would si

      • Re: Good (Score:5, Insightful)

        by xgerrit ( 2879313 ) on Monday November 25, 2019 @12:17PM (#59452298)

        Yeah, fewer options are better. Get rid of Lyft too.

        You're sarcastically assuming that the options are roughly equal valid, and of course they are not. Uber subsidizes every ride (which it can't do forever), and they are still unable to pay drivers anything close to a living wage. At the same time they fight against regulations (like driver background checks) that were put in place for good reasons. (And not to remove these regulations from the taxi industry overall mind-you, but just for themselves.)

        Uber is not a white-knight saving people from the high prices of an over-regulated taxi industry.. They are temporarily under-cutting a market to sell a worse service while waving their hands and claiming "technological progress". Their chief innovation is shifting all of the associated risks and capital investment of maintaining a fleet of taxis and drivers to the drivers themselves.. which isn't even clever innovation as much cynically exploiting a loophole in labor employment laws.

      • Are you serious? Uber and Lyft are amazing. They increase mobility and are a godsend when visiting other cities. Have you ever even used a taxi? Not only that, they've had dramatic impacts on reducing drunk driving. If you've ever partied or gone to a concert, you'd know what a big deal that is. You're either a luddite, shut-in, or boomer. Move over and shut up.
        • I've used taxis in cities just fine. It only seems to be the younger generation that can't figure them out.

          • We don't have Uber or Lyft, and mid week at 1 or so in the afternoon it can take an hour to get a cab. I am not the younger generation but I wan't more service. I shouldn't have to wait an hour it is rediculous. Last Xmas party some people waited 3+ hours for the taxi.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by euroq ( 1818100 )

            I've used taxis in cities just fine as well. Uber (and Lyft, etc) are VASTLY SUPERIOR in so many ways. They have tracking apps, they're safer, they're cheaper, I've never been robbed at gunpoint in an uber like I have in a taxi (and that shit of course doesn't even make local news, while if it ever happens in Ubers its international news).

            • I've used taxis in cities just fine as well. Uber (and Lyft, etc) are VASTLY SUPERIOR in so many ways. They have tracking apps, they're safer, they're cheaper, I've never been robbed at gunpoint in an uber like I have in a taxi (and that shit of course doesn't even make local news, while if it ever happens in Ubers its international news).

              I would absolutely *love* to hear your explanation about what it is that Uber or Lyft are doing that make them inherently less likely to involve a robbery. Someone inclined to to do this has a way easier time logging onto an app than getting hired on at a taxi service. I'm not saying cab companies are the exemplars of cautious employment practices, but it's a hell of a lot higher bar than the one Uber and Lyft are using. Also, of course ridesharing companies provide a cheaper product - they aren't paying

      • Yeah because ensuring the safety of passengers is just so passe - in fact do you really need passengers at all. Couldn't the government just pay Uber directly...

      • Yeah, fewer options are better. Get rid of Lyft too.

        Less traffic congestion [slashdot.org] too.

      • Yeah, fewer options are better. Get rid of Lyft too.

        So there would only be 9998 different taxi companies left in London?

  • the same thing happens in NYC (Score:5, Interesting)

    by known_coward_69 ( 4151743 ) on Monday November 25, 2019 @10:58AM (#59451898)

    I personally know of people who have an uber account and a car and lease their car to other people while they sleep to keep the car making money. the person I know I think he has a TL&C license to drive a cab but doesn't have his own uber car or account and uses someone else's and pays for that time he drives

    • Government doesn't exist to pick winners and losers in the market, especially when those winners make donations to the politicians protecting them.

  • TfL's director of licensing, regulation, and charging. "Safety is our absolute top priority. "... therein lies the discrepancy, Uber's ONLY responsibility or corporate concern is to become profitable.
    • I'm guessing the London taxi group paid the regulator off more than Uber did....hence these findings and rulings.

      I dunno what they hate about Uber, I think the ridesharing service is the best thing since sliced bread.

      Now, anytime I want to go out and have drinks, (which in New Orleans is pretty 99.99999% of the time)....I no longer have to worry about getting pulled over by the cops, I just easily uber to and from.

      I also like it is door-to-door, so, no parking hassles, and the app is easy to use.

      I just

      • Re:profit over people (Score:5, Insightful)

        by sugar and acid ( 88555 ) on Monday November 25, 2019 @12:58PM (#59452466)

        The convenience of Ubers system and App was the key USP originally (since copied). The app made it very easy to call a car to get you somewhere, and reduced the time it took to call an old school taxi company to then send out a car to pick you up. A clear advantage to traditional bricks and mortar taxi/car company.

        But Uber is overreaching. London has had the minicab system for decades, and it is a relatively competitive landscape with a minimal yet effective regulatory framework. Instead of focusing on the USP of the app and large responsive fleet, while meeting the basic legal requirements in both licensing drivers and minimum wages, they've tried to get around the legal requirement to give them even more of a competitive advantage. In the end, what they are offering in London is a better online managed minicab experience, and they should accept that they aren't special and so have to respect the legal requirements to operate in London.

      • I think you will find the regulatory landscape in London is rather different to that in New Orleans

        Besides, we have fairly decent public transport

        • New Orleans also has 'fairly decent public transport' aswell, btw. This coming from someone who lived in London, and visited NO for 'a while'

          They have cabs, buses and additionally.. a quaint above-ground tram system which is pretty extensive too. That's a damn site more than most US cities I can tell you. There's really very little need for an Uber operation in NO unless you're like the poster above and like 'door-to-door' and can't be arsed to wait for a regular cab.

          • New Orleans also has 'fairly decent public transport' aswell, btw. This coming from someone who lived in London, and visited NO for 'a while'

            They have cabs, buses and additionally.. a quaint above-ground tram system which is pretty extensive too. That's a damn site more than most US cities I can tell you. There's really very little need for an Uber operation in NO unless you're like the poster above and like 'door-to-door' and can't be arsed to wait for a regular cab.

            Well.....kinda.

            NOLA has the old stre

      • Re:profit over people (Score:5, Informative)

        by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Monday November 25, 2019 @01:20PM (#59452576)

        "I just don't get the 'hate' some people and apparently cities have for it."

        It's pretty simple. Uber is a shitty company.

        Uber has had a cavalier attitude towards the law, often breaking it brazenly.

        It's been involved in countless scandals, from having uber drivers deliberately request and cancel rides from competing companies to disrupt their services, to operating driverless cars without any sort of adequate controls or monitoring, to spying on law enforcement regulators to avoid them and various other abuses of privacy perpetrated via the app.

        It's simply dumping VC money to grab market share; so its not competing on any sort of sustainable business model.

        It has lousy corporate ethics even by the standards of corporate ethics. HR scandal after scandal, sexual harrasment, a tech-bro-corporate-culture...

        People don't generally hate 'ride-hailing' companies; they just hate 'uber' speciffically. Lyft, and uber's other competitors simply are less obnoxious and toxic companies.

        I remember cabs...they used to take forever to get to you, often run down and smelly

        Nobody is going to argue that a monopoly taxi company was better, or that the taxi industry didn't need a shake out. But that doesn't mean we should settle for uber's nonsense either.

        I had one once that had some sort of medical tubes running out of him into something in the front seat.....

        And what? He shouldn't be allowed to work, or come into contact with the public? What is your argument here?

        "Most every Uber I get into is clean, smells fresh, many offer bottled water, etc and are very plesant people."

        Except that's not 'uber'. That's a local independent contractor trying to earn some money honestly. Nobody hates them.
        You're basically doing the equivalent of judging microsoft as a corporation based on the fact that the local PC builder you deal with does great work.

        • Sad that so many people no longer recognize the importance of laws.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by euroq ( 1818100 )

          You make a lot of sense. But really, most people don't know the information about the Uber corporation that you do. Most Londoners prefer Uber over taxis, and people are pissed.

    • TfL's director of licensing, regulation, and charging. "Safety is our absolute top priority. "... therein lies the discrepancy, Uber's ONLY responsibility or corporate concern is to become profitable.

      "...to become profitable by offering a valuable service at a price customers are willing to voluntarily pay, while paying drivers a wage they are willing to accept."

  • So if they lose money, and they lost one of their biggest markets. Does that mean they lose more or less money?

    • Well the plan was to lose money on every ride, but make it up on volume. So some pretty big bribes are in order.

  • What does this actually mean for Uber users living in London? I live in London, most journeys I drive myself, but sometimes (usually when I'm having a few drinks) I use Uber and sometimes I use local taxi firms depending on which is likely to be cheaper for my specific journey. Nowhere in the summary, the linked article, or anywhere else could I find details on what is actually going to happen? Are ALL Ubers in London just going to disappear overnight tonight? Will the app simply stop working in London f

  • If drivers for taxi dispatchers were regularly found to be letting their friends borrow their license, stick a photo of themselves over top of it, and drive cabs, who would be punished? Would TfL be kicking out the dispatcher, or going after the drivers?

    The taxi operator has an obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent this sort of abuse now that it's been brought to their attention, but the culpable party here seems to be those who are breaking the law and driving without the appropriate license.

    • If drivers for taxi dispatchers were regularly found to be letting their friends borrow their license, stick a photo of themselves over top of it, and drive cabs, who would be punished? Would TfL be kicking out the dispatcher, or going after the drivers?

      Because of the way it works in the UK and how the badges are made the driver would lose his, both the driver and the faker would face criminal charges and the taxi company could well lose its licence too.

  • Minicab (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sugar and acid ( 88555 ) on Monday November 25, 2019 @12:38PM (#59452392)

    So just to be clear. This isn't about protecting Black Cabs, which are the iconic ones you all know about London. They are highly trained drivers, well-vetted drivers with extensive training and local knowledge, and are the only taxis allowed to take people hailing them on the street.

    It is about making sure Uber follows the rules established for "minicabs", which in London often small companies with several registered drivers, that are able to take orders for cabs to be picked up and dropped off at defined locations all handled by a central office. Traditionally you would call a central office, give your name and asked to be picked up from somewhere and be dropped off somewhere. So you can't just flag one down, but the drivers are still vetted for criminatlity and fitness to operate a taxi by a private hire licence system, and who the drivers pick up is controlled and recorded at a central office.

    Uber was operating as a massive minicab firm, with the app taking the place of the pick up and drop off phone call to the central office. Where they have been failing is in ensuring their drivers were properly vetted and have a private hire driver licence, and they haven't addressed it to TFL satisfaction. The driver being able to change their photo without Uber verifying it matched to the private hire licence is bad, and by the sounds of it Uber haven't been regularly checking the drivers are still holding valid licences or insurance.

    In terms of a driver getting a licence details are available here:

    https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/licensing/private-hire-driver-licence

    The costs isn't outrageous, and it is primarily around ensuring the driver is not a criminal and fit and able to drive a taxi.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jeremyp ( 130771 )

      The cost of the licence isn't outrageous, but you also need commercial vehicle insurance. I'd imagine that will be abit more expensive than normal motor insurance.

      • Which is why the fares have to be controlled so that the driver can afford everything he/she needs and make a living at the same time while the customer doesn't get gouged.

  • In New York City, my Uber rides are now way too expensive due to new regulations. Seems every ride I take in Manhattan is $50+. Basically useless. Going back to taking the subway...sorry Uber drivers!

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close