Non-renewable of Uber license is ridiculous

Transport for London's decision to not renew Uber's license in London is nothing less than an asinine act of protectionism. They claim it's to do with safety, but such claims are utterly groundless. Uber has to carry out the same driver background checks as black cabs do. Statistically speaking, there were more cab drivers charged with violent or sexual assaults whilst driving in 2011 (447) when Uber wasn't a thing than in 2015 (413) when it was. If drivers who pass background checks violate the position of trust they've been given, the solution is to punish them harshly and deter other drivers rather than abolish a company's right to operate.

Transport for London's real motivations are to protect out of date black cab drivers from competing with new models in the industry while consumers are forced to pay extortionate rates. Tfl's own bottom line is at risk as well given that Uber's increasingly becoming a viable alternative to ever rising Oyster card costs.

Today's decision is a slap in the face of consumer choice and innovation. Governments cannot fight against the market and old industries which are doomed to die will die regardless of what regulation is put in place to protect it.

Consumers should show black cab lobbyists and anti-consumer choice politicians like Mayor Sadiq Khan who's boss by boycotting black cabs and using apps like Gett or Kabbee if Uber's appeal fails. How can Sadiq Khan say that London is open but close it off to the future of the cab economy?

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 1

ryuixyui

Black cabs should be driven to non existence. They are a relic of the past. Uber makes them irrelevant and show what modern technology can do. This ban only shows TFL's inability to adapt to changes and demand and the black cabs drivers inability to adapt to modern technology. Uber makes the taxi service more competitive and affordable.

If you think about it, Uber is actually safer considering the car is tracked in the app, whereas black cabs aren't. Uber gives you driver the name and rating of the driver whereas black cabs give you information about their idiotic taxi association. Rather than ban it, TFL should try and modernise our transportation and make it more affordable. Black cabs being safer is a myth. I don't get the excuse black cabs are safer.

(edited 6 years ago)

Dry your eyes.

I was thinking of becoming an uber driver but it's just real unsafe honestly. So I say just make black cabs cheaper for passengers :bigsmile:

Reply 4

Carbon Dioxide

Original post by ryuixyui

Uber makes the taxi service more competitive and affordable.

...yet in the same post, you consistently call for the abolition of the black cab service. Are you absolutely sure that your interpretation of a "free market" requires the dismantling of publically-owned services without even putting them up for an IPO (not that I want that to happen to the LTDA and London Taxi Company, of course)? Maggie Thatcher and co., much as almost everyone hated them, would have been better in that regard! :rolleyes:

Reply 5

ryuixyui

Original post by Carbon Dioxide

If black cabs can can't adapt, they could just disappeared, they will be replaced anyway just like what's currently happening with Uber. As for LTDA, it seems to be just another trade union that's seems to be out of touch with modern times. It's ironic that they called themselves the Licensed Taxi Driver Association but only represents taxi drivers of black cabs. It is up to the government or TFL to work with Uber to ensure all their drivers qualify for their requirements, perhaps creating a regulator which will work with Uber in ensuring taxi drivers are qualified and safe.

I doubt the black cabs would want to join up with Uber since they are hellbent against them. Innovate or become irrelevant.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 6

holinric

Original post by Bang Outta Order

I was thinking of becoming an uber driver but it's just real unsafe honestly. So I say just make black cabs cheaper for passengers :bigsmile:

They will not be cheap when Londerners have no chice over who to use. This is protectionism 101. It's a little bit like The Corn Laws. Without competition, everything shall increase in price. It is worrying.

Reply 7

username2766878

Original post by Carbon Dioxide

He means through market forces. Abolish it through market forces by people not using it.

Reply 8

Rakas21

I consider this decision to be a horrific act of protectionism that will only punish the consumer.

Reply 9

username1799249

Uber should operate under the terms of a license just like every other regulated industry. They choose not to implement the terms of that license so it is revoked. It isn't that hard.

A world with an unregulated Uber would be a disaster. They would drive out the competition then increase fares.

Reply 10

RF_PineMarten

They didn't follow the rules, so they got their license revoked. Amazing how some people can't grasp this simple concept.

Talk about extortionate black cabs and competition all you want, but the competition should come from businesses that don't use shady business tactics to dodge regulation and undercut other businesses (businesses who actually do meet the regulations). It really is a case of two wrongs not making a right. Why can't we just have a competitor who does things fairly and within the rules?

Reply 11

username2766878

Original post by ByEeek

Tfl inspected Uber ten times and found nothing wrong with its operation.

Reply 12

username2766878

Original post by RF_PineMarten

Nonsense. Uber was given the green light by TfL 10 times. If there were problems, it would have been banned earlier. Companies don’t start breaking rules all of a sudden. This is protectionism 101 and Sadiq Khan caving in to the black cab lobby.

Reply 13

username1799249

Original post by Sycatonne23

Tfl inspected Uber ten times and found nothing wrong with its operation.

Are you sure? Why would this be the reason for revoking the license?

TfL said it had rejected the company’s application to renew its licence because “Uber’s approach and conduct demonstrate a lack of corporate responsibility” in relation to reporting serious criminal offences, obtaining medical certificates and driver background checks.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/22/uber-licence-transport-for-london-tfl

Uber's argument has always been that they simply match up drivers with passengers. TFL and other licensing bodies would argue they are actually an indirect employer and therefore have a duty of care to those they provide financial rewards to. I kind of agree. It is the same argument many tech firms use to try and get around traditional duty of care rules.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 14

username2766878

Original post by ByEeek

I’m pretty sure.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/09/25/uber-was-given-green-light-ten-times-by-transport-bosses-before-being-stripped-of-its-licence-6953189/

TfL is trying to protect its own pocket. Once Uber disappears they can hike Oyster costs.

Reply 15

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Sycatonne23

Tfl inspected Uber ten times and found nothing wrong with its operation.

The ten times thing is from Uber's PR, but it appears to be false, as numerous sources cited previous complaints by TfL and the lack of response to those forms part of this decision.

Reply 16

username1799249

Original post by Sycatonne23

Of course. And many a school passed a Ofsted inspection only have have a whistle blower call them in for a snap inspection and the school ends up in special measures due to serious failings.

If a company had 10 all-clears and then was found to have serious and fundamental failings on the 11th inspection, would you ignore the last because the 10 previous inspections were satisfactory?