In message , at 09:40:25 on Wed, 27
Sep 2017, Robin9 remarked:

If Uber go out of business, their drivers will not abandon their
careers. They will drive for another minicab firm and their cars
will still be on the roads.

There's 40,000 of them with the contrary painted on the shrouds they are
waving.
--
Roland Perry

I haven't seen that, but even if it's true, so what? It has been
pretty well established and accepted that most Uber drivers
also work with local minicab firms. (This is why Uber can provide
a car so quickly in the suburbs)

The question is not what propaganda Uber drivers are currently
disseminating but what will be in their interests if TfL win in court.

Apologies for getting the job title wrong.

But no apologies for posing a question as to whether two events, one controversial, are in some way connected. That is fair comment.

And no need for the lecture on social media, chucking muck around etc.

But I would agree the London Reconnections piece is good.

DRH

On Tuesday, 26 September 2017 22:41:14 UTC+1, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2017 12:27:43 UTC+1, DRH wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2017 11:18:38 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:
TfL has concluded the ride-hailing app firm was not fit and proper to hold
a private hire operator licence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41358640

I wonder if the recent announcement of the impending retirement of the TFL Commissioner for Surface Transport and the withdrawal of Uber's licence are in some way connected.

DRH

There is no such job at TfL. The Commissioner is Mike Brown. If you referring to Leon Daniels then he is the Managing Director of Surface Transport. I keep seeing references to alleged "connections" between events or between Leon and certain companies which are borderline smears. As I have said elsewhere if people think Leon is crooked and have evidence thereof then go to the Police with said evidence. Otherwise people should really not make such "suggestions", or in the case of some people on social media, libellous slurs. It doesn't take the debate anywhere to be chucking muck around.

There is an excellent article about Uber on the London Reconnections blog which sets out where Uber have come from, issues they've had in the States and here and why those issues have TfL (and the Mayor) pause for thought. People seem not to realise that Uber were given 4 months to put things right or to at least present a plan that would get them into compliance. These issues are not new and I suspect, given Uber's culture and "way of doing things", that it thought TfL were bluffing and even if they weren't they could ignore what was going on and "hang the Mayor" in the court of social media opinion. Well they were wrong weren't they. This isn't the US, TfL aren't some tin pot council or State department and the Mayor isn't someone who can be ignored. Obviously we will see what happens with the court appeal case and what evidence TfL present but Uber remain in business until the legal process concludes which could be months away.

Personally they can close down tomorrow for all I care. Taking tens of thousands of cars off the streets would do wonders for congestion.

--
Paul C
via Google

In message , at
14:41:13 on Tue, 26 Sep 2017, Paul Corfield
remarked:
Personally they can close down tomorrow for all I care. Taking tens
of thousands of cars off the streets would do wonders for congestion.

One of the accusations against Uber in the past (it's not emerged this
time though) is the way the drivers herd around venues, illegally
double-parking etc in order to form a "faux rank" so they can respond to
orders quickly.

Even without the competition aspect, black cabs say it makes it much
less safe for them to drop off fares at such venues.

There's "2 minutes only" parking alongside St Pancras station, and it's
commonly filled with unused hire-cars, which I presume include a fair
number of Ubers.

--
Roland Perry

On 2017-09-27 07:23:32 +0000, Roland Perry said:

Even without the competition aspect, black cabs say it makes it much
less safe for them to drop off fares at such venues.

Bear with me while I'm in hysterics. Black cabs have never cared about
whether their stopping place was safe or sensible. The disruption they
cause to the bus network by stopping in stupid places is huge.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

In message , at 08:31:44 on Wed, 27
Sep 2017, Neil Williams remarked:
Even without the competition aspect, black cabs say it makes it much
less safe for them to drop off fares at such venues.

Bear with me while I'm in hysterics. Black cabs have never cared about
whether their stopping place was safe or sensible. The disruption they
cause to the bus network by stopping in stupid places is huge.

They are doing that because they want the *passenger* to have a safe
trip from the cab to the kerb. Something that triple-parking outside a
rank of Ubers can't provide.
--
Roland Perry