Uber to lose licence to operate in London

dowie said:
that's over an hour long and the first minute or two seems to be two blokes chuckling - could you perhaps summarise what it contains/covers etc..?
Click to expand...

It does start off that way yes, but it goes into the history of how uber got started, that's the rambling part, then it goes into great detail about uber, their practices, what they have done in the past and the character of the owner.

TLDL: Uber are a real ****** company.
 
never had a problem with uber in leeds/manchester or london.
They are also half the price so even when the surge is on 2.0x its still the same price.
I have had better experiences in ubers than in other cabs.
 
Uber Banned in London After Sexual Assaults by Migrant Drivers Skyrocket
Uber has been banned in London partly in response to skyrocketing rapes by predominantly migrant drivers which the company did not report to police.

According to Transport for London, Uber’s license will not be renewed beyond September 30, with the first reason listed being the company’s “approach to reporting serious criminal offenses.”

This includes Uber’s failure to report rising numbers of rapes and sexual assaults by its own drivers.

Latest figures show that Uber drivers are now responsible for one sex attack in London every week, with sexual assaults by Uber drivers skyrocketing by 50 per cent in just a single year.

This is undoubtedly connected to the fact that many of the drivers are from Muslim backgrounds, where “immodest” women are seen as easy prey. Many of the young women who hire Uber taxis late at night are drunk and in some cases scantily dressed.
Click to expand...
 
Uber as a company does operate shamelessly. They exploit their drivers by creating a market where you either join them and give them a share while taking homes scraps or try and compete with these unrealistically low prices.

Before Uber, taxi's in my area and london seemed extortionate, now with uber i often get out of the car and think 'after time and petrol, does this even hit minimum wage considering he wont always get his next customer nearby?'

What I think will happen is that the the appeal process will go on, Uber will be allowed to continue on the condition that driver profiles and other information are made available. In the end, the requirements to become a driver will be less lax and prices will be driven up a notch.

My own experience has been that Uber drivers feel the need to please the customers with crap like bottled water, charging sockets, a friendly chat or whatever so that they can get their 5* rating.
 
darael said:
Uber Banned in London After Sexual Assaults by Migrant Drivers Skyrocket
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but using the "Zomg rapist migrants!!1" line to argue against Uber is just Breitbart-esque ludicrousness.

Wasn't the old joke about black cab and lorry driver rapists around well before Uber came along? One could argue they were "well known for it".

And can someone humour me for a moment and tell me how it's easier for an Uber driver to get away with raping a drunk girl than it is a black cab driver? Sure, the black cab driver is registered and all that, but at the end of the day if a drunk girl flags him down, he rapes and dumps her by the side of the road what record of his details does she have? Zero. Nada. Nothing. Whereas an Uber driver's details (or at least registration if I'm guessing he can use fake names etc.) will be stored in her account. Seems a bit stupid to be going round raping drunk girls as an Uber driver, no? :confused:

In my mind Uber may not be a great company but that's just simply not an issue for me. I don't go round vetting how my bank treats it's employees, I don't care if my Ocado driver gets good benefits or if he's struggling to scrape by. It's just not my problem. People vote with their feet, if people can't make ends meet driving an Uber then they will find another job. All I know is that as the customer, Uber is cheaper, more comfortable, and provides an overall service 100 times better than the competition. End of story as far as I'm concerned.

At the end of the day Khan has to be careful here. He's as good as finished as London Mayor if he bans Uber. London was calling out for it and has changed the way people get around the city. If he goes back on that people will be furious.
 
You don't need a petition, Uber aren't going anywhere. They're going to implement the changes that their Silicon Valley bro founders deemed to be against their libertarian ideals and get the license renewed, they just wanted to see if TfL would actually go as far as refusing to renew their license first. This is all a huge overreaction.
 
Scam it's not just the most serious offences, it's also minor ones that the operator is legally required to note and take action on if informed.
Remember this is the company that when one of it's Drivers in India raped a passenger hired investigators to smear the victim (IIRC it was approved by one of their head guys in America, so it can't even be blamed on "local custom" or "local attitude"), and did similar things to journalists who uncovered and reported on Uber's lack of regard for customer privacy and the law.

Not to mention they were not (for a long time) even checking that the insurance documents provided were real - IIRC it wasn't until TFL took action last time after some investigative journalism that they started to do the most basic checks in anything that resembled a proper manner (they were accepting insurance documents from completely made up companies, or that didn't cover "for hire or reward".

Black cab drivers on the other hand are extremely tightly regulated, as are normal private hire companies.
 
Caged said:
You don't need a petition, Uber aren't going anywhere. They're going to implement the changes that their Silicon Valley bro founders deemed to be against their libertarian ideals and get the license renewed, they just wanted to see if TfL would actually go as far as refusing to renew their license first. This is all a huge overreaction.
Click to expand...
You say that, but Uber is actually banned in a number of "progressive" cities. Vancouver and Austin for example. The same could very much happen in London.
 
Everything about the company seems rotten and i don't see why they shouldn't play by the rules like everyone else. It's a brilliant service and has made getting around London a lot easier but if they can't comply with what seem like fair and pretty basic rules they shouldn't be aloud to operate.

Perfect time for a London/UK push from Lyft though.
 
Scam said:
I'm sorry but using the "Zomg rapist migrants!!1" line to argue against Uber is just Breitbart-esque ludicrousness.

Wasn't the old joke about black cab and lorry driver rapists around well before Uber came along? One could argue they were "well known for it".

And can someone humour me for a moment and tell me how it's easier for an Uber driver to get away with raping a drunk girl than it is a black cab driver? Sure, the black cab driver is registered and all that, but at the end of the day if a drunk girl flags him down, he rapes and dumps her by the side of the road what record of his details does she have? Zero. Nada. Nothing. Whereas an Uber driver's details (or at least registration if I'm guessing he can use fake names etc.) will be stored in her account. Seems a bit stupid to be going round raping drunk girls as an Uber driver, no? :confused:

In my mind Uber may not be a great company but that's just simply not an issue for me. I don't go round vetting how my bank treats it's employees, I don't care if my Ocado driver gets good benefits or if he's struggling to scrape by. It's just not my problem. People vote with their feet, if people can't make ends meet driving an Uber then they will find another job. All I know is that as the customer, Uber is cheaper, more comfortable, and provides an overall service 100 times better than the competition. End of story as far as I'm concerned.

At the end of the day Khan has to be careful here. He's as good as finished as London Mayor if he bans Uber. London was calling out for it and has changed the way people get around the city. If he goes back on that people will be furious.
Click to expand...

A) Stupid or not, it's a reality, as exposed by the met police and freedom of information requests. Though it also helps when the operator doesn't bother or is painfully slow at letting the authorities know.
B) If you have no concern about people getting screwed over by poor working conditions then there isn't really much to debate, though I'm sorry you really don't seem to care about others as long as there's more money in your wallet.
C) uber has not been banned, it has simply not had its license renewed. It is also Tfl's position and the mayor has let them come to this conclusion by themselves. Uber has no one to blame but themselves.
 
Black cabs have a place but they need to get with the times.

Stuck in rush hour traffic? Black cabs with their knowledge is probably the better option. All the side roads that a Sat Nav might not use.

One journey that stick out for me was when the district line was closed. Wanted to get from Upminster to Dagenham to watch Dagenham and Redbridge. 6 miles. Black cab rank outside Upminster... £35 later I am at the stadium. Going back, ordered an uber, stayed in the pub till I got a call saying my uber was outside, £19 later I am home. Almost half the price.

I also like Ubers ability to send people a link to track your journey. When my partner gets in an Uber she sends me the link.

Pricing is the key.

Plus who really needs 3/5 years doing the knowledge to get around nowadays?
 
Scam said:
You say that, but Uber is actually banned in a number of "progressive" cities. Vancouver and Austin for example. The same could very much happen in London.
Click to expand...
It won't, because they haven't been banned. They've not had their PH license renewed as they haven't shown to be able to comply with the terms of having that license that Addison Lee, for example, manage quite easily. All that happened today is that their bluff was called.
 
Scam said:
In my mind Uber may not be a great company but that's just simply not an issue for me. I don't go round vetting how my bank treats it's employees, I don't care if my Ocado driver gets good benefits or if he's struggling to scrape by.
Click to expand...

You’re paying for it one way or another, either directly through the price of a taxi or indirectly through taxes to pay for their in-work benefits.

If someone can’t even earn minimum wage for a full-time job, they’re going to be taking a lot out of the welfare system.
 
Scam said:
I'm sorry but using the "Zomg rapist migrants!!1" line to argue against Uber is just Breitbart-esque ludicrousness.

Wasn't the old joke about black cab and lorry driver rapists around well before Uber came along? One could argue they were "well known for it".

And can someone humour me for a moment and tell me how it's easier for an Uber driver to get away with raping a drunk girl than it is a black cab driver? Sure, the black cab driver is registered and all that, but at the end of the day if a drunk girl flags him down, he rapes and dumps her by the side of the road what record of his details does she have? Zero. Nada. Nothing. Whereas an Uber driver's details (or at least registration if I'm guessing he can use fake names etc.) will be stored in her account. Seems a bit stupid to be going round raping drunk girls as an Uber driver, no? :confused:

In my mind Uber may not be a great company but that's just simply not an issue for me. I don't go round vetting how my bank treats it's employees, I don't care if my Ocado driver gets good benefits or if he's struggling to scrape by. It's just not my problem. People vote with their feet, if people can't make ends meet driving an Uber then they will find another job. All I know is that as the customer, Uber is cheaper, more comfortable, and provides an overall service 100 times better than the competition. End of story as far as I'm concerned.

At the end of the day Khan has to be careful here. He's as good as finished as London Mayor if he bans Uber. London was calling out for it and has changed the way people get around the city. If he goes back on that people will be furious.
Click to expand...


What do you expect form the only Fake news source worse than Breitbarf.
"This is undoubtedly connected to the fact that many of the drivers are from Muslim backgrounds,"
Yeah, undoubtedly I'm sure.
 
Caged said:
It won't, because they haven't been banned. They've not had their PH license renewed as they haven't shown to be able to comply with the terms of having that license that Addison Lee, for example, manage quite easily. All that happened today is that their bluff was called.
Click to expand...


The problem is Uber doesn't want to consider its drivers as employees, because then Uber has a lot more responsibility (and likely taxes). That means to Uber, the dirver's are kind of responsible for complying with city licensing and reporting crimes etc. Uber wants to be seen as simply providing a technology that drivers can utilize with profit sharing.

Uber is really a horrible company. WE boycott Uber and use Lyft, but I find the service offered by Lyft to be in general worse than Uber.
 
RossG said:
A) Stupid or not, it's a reality, as exposed by the met police and freedom of information requests. Though it also helps when the operator doesn't bother or is painfully slow at letting the authorities know.
B) If you have no concern about people getting screwed over by poor working conditions then there isn't really much to debate, though I'm sorry you really don't seem to care about others as long as there's more money in your wallet.
Click to expand...
To point A, I'm not really sure where Uber comes in regarding a claim of one of their drivers raping someone. If somebody gets raped, they go to the police no? What exactly does it have to do with Uber themselves? Or is this a case of people going to Uber with claims of rape? Why would they do that? "Dear Ocado, your driver in the Apple van forced his way into my house and raped me last night". Err no. :confused:

To point B as I said, no not really. No-one is being forced to drive for Uber. They can go to Addison Lee, drive a black cab etc. There are almost unlimited options of minimum wage type of work everywhere. They can go stack shelves if they don't like driving for Uber. Sorry if that's harsh, but it's true. A "professional taxi driver" is owed absolutely nothing by society.
 
D.P. said:
The problem is Uber doesn't want to consider its drivers as employees, because then Uber has a lot more responsibility (and likely taxes). That means to Uber, the dirver's are kind of responsible for complying with city licensing and reporting crimes etc. Uber wants to be seen as simply providing a technology that drivers can utilize with profit sharing.

Uber is really a horrible company. WE boycott Uber and use Lyft, but I find the service offered by Lyft to be in general worse than Uber.
Click to expand...

Black cab drivers aren't employees either.

http://www.londonblackcabs.net/blog/about-london-black-cabs/working-as-a-london-black-cab-driver
 
I don't think anyone with a car should be able to log onto Uber and offer rides, but I was of the understanding all Uber drivers and cars need to go through the same process as any other mini-cab company. That is, the driver goes through a background check and the car is checked by the local authority and issued a taxi plate to allow picking up of passengers. The driver is also issued with a photocard licence with an expiry date on. That's the case in Glasgow, what is different in London? And if that's not being followed, then why not just implement that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom