|
|
Post by SILENCED on Sept 22, 2017 11:45:09 GMT
How will it work for Uber outside of London? For example if somebody is in Milton Keynes wanting to travel to London can Uber: Milton Keyes still drive them 'into town'? They just won't be licensed to pick up in London |
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Sept 22, 2017 11:49:01 GMT
As a reveller I like Uber. Cheap way to travel homewards with friends old and new.
As a bus driver I hate Uber. I give any Prius an ultra wide berth while they stare into their GPS units when they should be focusing on the road - but this can be extended to minicabs in general. And black taxis aren't much better with their unpredictable, unsafe habits of dropping the anchors for a fare, pulling out without looking and performing sudden U-turns.
As a shift worker, I like Uber. I use them to connect between TfL territory and South Mimms. I also use them when I too tired to face a late commute from QB home, especially in the winter.
The planner in me hates Uber. Low vehicle occupancy rates, exacerbating congestion problems and assuming revenue from public transport services.
All that said, I'm not on the fence - I personally find them to be convenient and their competitive presence in the private hire market drives prices down. After all, not all trips are ideal for public transport, especially at night where people are being crowded off the network. But the issues raised by TfL are entirely justified and any safety and legal issues pertaining to their operational practices must be addressed before they can continue.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulsw2 on Sept 22, 2017 11:53:35 GMT
Use of Greyball - see the official TfL statement: pbs.twimg.com/media/DKUeri0W0AAUK8L?format=jpg&name=large - is a pretty big deal in itself. I use Uber, love the app, convenience, price transparency etc but I don’t like their approach to sidestepping and obstructing regulators. They must play by the rules. Consumers come second to legal compliance. Basic rule of running a business. Uber thought they were above the law. The use of Greyball software is used as follows (taken from wikipedia) Uber reportedly developed Greyball to identify individuals who Uber suspected of using its service improperly, and it began using the tool as early as 2014.[2] According to Uber, Greyball can "hide the standard city app view for individual riders, enabling Uber to show that same rider a different version." Uber claimed that it used Greyball to deny service to individuals suspected of violating the company's terms of services, such as people seeking to harm Uber drivers, disrupt Uber operations, or carry out law enforcement actions against Uber drivers. However, after The New York Times revealed Greyball's existence in March 2017,] Uber said it would stop using it to evade local government regulators. According to the New York Times report, which was based on interviews of four current and former Uber employees and a review of internal Uber documents, Greyball used several methods to identify and deny service to government officials who were investigating Uber for violations of local laws. Those methods included: Geofencing. Uber would create a digital map that identified the locations of city government offices. If a potential rider attempted to hail a ride from the area around a government building, Greyball would flag the individual as a possible law enforcement agent Mining credit card databases. If Uber identified a credit card as being associated with a government agency or police union, it would flag that individual in Greyball. Identifying devices. Since government agencies would often buy cheap cellphones for use in sting operations, Uber employees would visit electronics stores to obtain model numbers for inexpensive phones and input those model numbers into Greyball Searches of social media. Uber employees searched social media profiles to identify possible law enforcement agents. Uber then flagged those individuals in Greyball. Eyeballing. Greyball would determine if a potential rider had been opening and closing the Uber app numerous times without calling for a ride. Uber don't play on a level playing field and I will not use them myself Uber has virtually decimated the minicab trade |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 22, 2017 11:54:07 GMT
As a reveller I like Uber. Cheap way to travel homewards with friends old and new. As a bus driver I hate Uber. I give any Prius an ultra wide berth while they stare into their GPS units when they should be focusing on the road - but this can be extended to minicabs in general. And black taxis aren't much better with their unpredictable, unsafe habits of dropping the anchors for a fare, pulling out without looking and performing sudden U-turns. As a shift worker, I like Uber. I use them to connect between TfL territory and South Mimms. I also use them when I too tired to face a late commute from QB home, especially in the winter. The planner in me hates Uber. Low vehicle occupancy rates, exacerbating congestion problems and assuming revenue from public transport services. All that said, I'm not on the fence - I personally find them to be convenient and their competitive presence in the private hire market drives prices down. After all, not all trips are ideal for public transport, especially at night where people are being crowded off the network. But the issues raised by TfL are entirely justified and any safety and legal issues pertaining to their operational practices must be addressed before they can continue. Exactly that, whilst driving standards may leave something to be desired black taxi drivers are every bit as bad if not worse in my experience. |
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Sept 22, 2017 12:04:49 GMT
With all the wailing over Uber anyone would think they're the only minicab firm in town. They aren't. There is plenty of room in London for one or more Uber-style operations. I appreciate the value of such an easily accessible car service but there's no excuse for Uber's underhand actions (e.g. Greyball) in undermining the law. That seems to be their modus operandi wherever they set up - undermine the local authorities, undermine the law, undermine the existing public systems, in the hope that the public support of their customers will force local authorities to accept them.
Uber's hypocrisy in claiming that they're going to court to safeguard the livelihoods of their drivers is stunning. They treat their drivers like dirt and will happily dispose of them as soon as they can get self-driving cars on the road. And now they suddenly care about their livelihood? There will always be a big market for minicabs in London - most of those 40,000 drivers will easily find work with another company *if* Uber really leave. I say "if" because I fully expect them to hammer out a deal to renew their licence. Big money always finds a way.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 22, 2017 12:14:57 GMT
Never used Uber, not interested in using Uber. Used black cabs twice in 34 years, used minicabs twice in 34 years. Complete irrelevance to me on a personal level. I recognise people will be possibly inconvenienced by this decision but the ban doesn't come into effect while legal proceedings are ongoing if I've read the Standard article properly. I imagine Uber have already been on the phone to Government and will no doubt be "wining and dining" the Chancellor and Chris Grayling ASAP. Obviously they will resort to the courts but this will end up in politics regardless of due process. I suspect TfL will lose the case both legally and in the "court of public opinion". I don't think it offers any improved prospects for the bus network because why are people going to use services that TfL is busy axeing - especially night routes. Makes no sense to me that people will revert to services that now run half hourly instead of every 10-15 minutes. I've not followed Uber in London in any great detail so was rather shocked to hear about that dubious "blacklisting" system that seeks to keep regulators from finding out about their business. That's appalling. Regrettably there's nothing new on the "Public safety" issue - that's been a concern about the cab trade and minicab trade for years. Uber's failings in that regard are just a continuation of previous lax practice and poor enforcement. And can we please not indulge the worst smears of the taxi trade in making snide remarks about Mr Daniels and the timing of his departure from TfL. If anyone has evidence of wrongdoing go to the police with the evidence and let them take it forward. Otherwise better not to indulge in near libellous remarks on a forum anyone can read.  |
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Sept 22, 2017 12:17:29 GMT
Very good news. I never liked Uber. Used them a few times, and they weren't great. Hopefully more people will turn to the buses and as a result I would see more night bus routes and more routes going 24 hour.
Also don't like the way they treat their staff, with zero hour contracts etc, trying to avoid the law by Greyballing and the way they operate in general. Glad to see them off our roads.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 22, 2017 12:23:42 GMT
With all the wailing over Uber anyone would think they're the only minicab firm in town. They aren't. There is plenty of room in London for one or more Uber-style operations. I appreciate the value of such an easily accessible car service but there's no excuse for Uber's underhand actions (e.g. Greyball) in undermining the law. That seems to be their modus operandi wherever they set up - undermine the local authorities, undermine the law, undermine the existing public systems, in the hope that the public support of their customers will force local authorities to accept them. Uber's hypocrisy in claiming that they're going to court to safeguard the livelihoods of their drivers is stunning. They treat their drivers like dirt and will happily dispose of them as soon as they can get self-driving cars on the road. And now they suddenly care about their livelihood? There will always be a big market for minicabs in London - most of those 40,000 drivers will easily find work with another company *if* Uber really leave. I say "if" because I fully expect them to hammer out a deal to renew their licence. Big money always finds a way. And won't every other employer take advantage of self driving vehicles if and when they become available? I find it stunning that you soley criticise Uber on the issue! |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 22, 2017 12:25:04 GMT
Very good news. I never liked Uber. Used them a few times, and they weren't great. Hopefully more people will turn to the buses and as a result I would see more night bus routes and more routes going 24 hour. My fear is that people will turn to the black taxi trade instead which is the worst thing that could happen. |
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Sept 22, 2017 12:32:15 GMT
Very good news. I never liked Uber. Used them a few times, and they weren't great. Hopefully more people will turn to the buses and as a result I would see more night bus routes and more routes going 24 hour. My fear is that people will turn to the black taxi trade instead which is the worst thing that could happen. Thats only if they lower their fares. Spoke to my friend earlier about it, who said she would still not use black cabs because they are "a rip off and too expensive". Some might think differently though. |
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Sept 22, 2017 12:39:31 GMT
With all the wailing over Uber anyone would think they're the only minicab firm in town. They aren't. There is plenty of room in London for one or more Uber-style operations. I appreciate the value of such an easily accessible car service but there's no excuse for Uber's underhand actions (e.g. Greyball) in undermining the law. That seems to be their modus operandi wherever they set up - undermine the local authorities, undermine the law, undermine the existing public systems, in the hope that the public support of their customers will force local authorities to accept them. Uber's hypocrisy in claiming that they're going to court to safeguard the livelihoods of their drivers is stunning. They treat their drivers like dirt and will happily dispose of them as soon as they can get self-driving cars on the road. And now they suddenly care about their livelihood? There will always be a big market for minicabs in London - most of those 40,000 drivers will easily find work with another company *if* Uber really leave. I say "if" because I fully expect them to hammer out a deal to renew their licence. Big money always finds a way. And won't every other employer take advantage of self driving vehicles if and when they become available? I find it stunning that you soley criticise Uber on the issue! Eh? You have completely missed the point. I am not criticising Uber for wanting to use self-driving. If you read what I wrote, I am criticising them for their hypocrisy in claiming to be defending their drivers' livelihoods when it is quite clear that they do not give two hoots about their drivers. In any case this is a thread about Uber, so of course my comments are going to be centred on Uber. What's stunning about that? |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 22, 2017 12:43:24 GMT
And won't every other employer take advantage of self driving vehicles if and when they become available? I find it stunning that you soley criticise Uber on the issue! Eh? You have completely missed the point. I am not criticising Uber for wanting to use self-driving. If you read what I wrote, I am criticising them for their hypocrisy in claiming to be defending their drivers' livelihoods when it is quite clear that they do not give two hoots about their drivers. In any case this is a thread about Uber, so of course my comments are going to be centred on Uber. What's stunning about that? I don't see any hypocrisy at all on the part of Uber. I can't for the life of me understand why you have bought self driving vehicles into it? They're not going to happen anytime soon are they? |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Sept 22, 2017 12:48:13 GMT
My fear is that people will turn to the black taxi trade instead which is the worst thing that could happen. Thats only if they lower their fares. Spoke to my friend earlier about it, who said she would still not use black cabs because they are "a rip off and too expensive". Some might think differently though. Didn't take long for other firms to jump into a potential gap in the market before its even opened up |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Sept 22, 2017 13:29:42 GMT
I wouldn’t start celebrating yet.
With Uber’s large number of legal friends behind them, this could be a catastrophic move by TfL.
|
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Sept 22, 2017 13:30:36 GMT
I've never used Uber, and my experience of black cabs is limited to a couple of absurdly indirect journeys that almost made me wonder whether they were doing it for comedic effect. There appear to be some reasonable regulatory questions around Uber and its practices. But it would be premature for the black cab trade to celebrate. People like what Uber offers them - the technology's there and cannot be uninvented. It's like the docks in the 70s and the print in the 80s. The cab offering needs to modernise.
|
|
I feel a huge legal battle coming on over the next few weeks, meanwhile if they license is withdrawn then I hope the buses can manage with a large amount of people who'll no doubt switch, as someone seems to be deciding a lot of buses are too frequent 
