Uber shut down in London
 

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

Uber shut down in London
 

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 10:18:36 GMT
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

Oh, shame. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving company.

Uber shut down in London
 

On 22/09/2017 11:21, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 10:18:36 GMT
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

Oh, shame. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving company.

Really? And general minicabs were well known for being safe, and part
of well run companies that weren't involved in serious criminality
and/or used for laundering money by their criminal owners? All
allegedly of course.

This stinks of protectionism from TfL - yes, there may have been some
minor issues with Uber but they are generally a great solution to
getting around in cities you don't know or aren't able to communicate
in, and avoid vagaries of random pricing.

Hopefully they resolve their issues sooner rather than later and that
their partner drivers can continue to earn money rather than being left,
literally, on the streets with no wage.

Uber shut down in London
 

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 11:31:09 +0100, Someone Somewhere
wrote:

On 22/09/2017 11:21, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 10:18:36 GMT
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

Oh, shame. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving company.

Really? And general minicabs were well known for being safe, and part
of well run companies that weren't involved in serious criminality
and/or used for laundering money by their criminal owners? All
allegedly of course.

This stinks of protectionism from TfL - yes, there may have been some
minor issues with Uber but they are generally a great solution to
getting around in cities you don't know or aren't able to communicate
in, and avoid vagaries of random pricing.

Hopefully they resolve their issues sooner rather than later and that
their partner drivers can continue to earn money rather than being left,
literally, on the streets with no wage.

Presumably the drivers will just migrate to working for some other
private hire firm.

Uber shut down in London
 

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 11:31:09 +0100
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 22/09/2017 11:21, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 10:18:36 GMT
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

Oh, shame. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving company.

Really? And general minicabs were well known for being safe, and part
of well run companies that weren't involved in serious criminality
and/or used for laundering money by their criminal owners? All
allegedly of course.

And they lose their licenses too if its proven.

This stinks of protectionism from TfL - yes, there may have been some
minor issues with Uber but they are generally a great solution to

Minor? Use google.

getting around in cities you don't know or aren't able to communicate
in, and avoid vagaries of random pricing.

Hopefully they resolve their issues sooner rather than later and that
their partner drivers can continue to earn money rather than being left,
literally, on the streets with no wage.

Where's my violin when I need it....

Uber shut down in London
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 11:31:09 +0100, Someone Somewhere
wrote:

On 22/09/2017 11:21, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 10:18:36 GMT
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

Oh, shame. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving company.

Really? And general minicabs were well known for being safe, and part
of well run companies that weren't involved in serious criminality
and/or used for laundering money by their criminal owners? All
allegedly of course.

This stinks of protectionism from TfL - yes, there may have been some
minor issues with Uber but they are generally a great solution to
getting around in cities you don't know or aren't able to communicate
in, and avoid vagaries of random pricing.

Hopefully they resolve their issues sooner rather than later and that
their partner drivers can continue to earn money rather than being left,
literally, on the streets with no wage.

Presumably the drivers will just migrate to working for some other
private hire firm.

and I thought you were the one always telling us that the other PH companies
in London supplied drivers with their cars

tim

Uber shut down in London
 

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 12:38:52 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"Recliner" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 11:31:09 +0100, Someone Somewhere
wrote:

On 22/09/2017 11:21, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 10:18:36 GMT
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

Oh, shame. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving company.

Really? And general minicabs were well known for being safe, and part
of well run companies that weren't involved in serious criminality
and/or used for laundering money by their criminal owners? All
allegedly of course.

This stinks of protectionism from TfL - yes, there may have been some
minor issues with Uber but they are generally a great solution to
getting around in cities you don't know or aren't able to communicate
in, and avoid vagaries of random pricing.

Hopefully they resolve their issues sooner rather than later and that
their partner drivers can continue to earn money rather than being left,
literally, on the streets with no wage.

Presumably the drivers will just migrate to working for some other
private hire firm.

and I thought you were the one always telling us that the other PH companies
in London supplied drivers with their cars

No, I've said some PH companies provide cars, some don't. And even the
ones that do, don't necessarily provide them to all drivers (my local
one that I use regularly is an example of that).

Uber shut down in London
 

Guess its time to use lyft

Or the district line I go to like one million stations

Uber shut down in London
 

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 11:31:09 +0100, Someone Somewhere
wrote:

On 22/09/2017 11:21, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 10:18:36 GMT
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

Oh, shame. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving company.

Really? And general minicabs were well known for being safe, and part
of well run companies that weren't involved in serious criminality
and/or used for laundering money by their criminal owners? All
allegedly of course.

This stinks of protectionism from TfL - yes, there may have been some
minor issues with Uber but they are generally a great solution to
getting around in cities you don't know or aren't able to communicate
in, and avoid vagaries of random pricing.

Hopefully they resolve their issues sooner rather than later and that
their partner drivers can continue to earn money rather than being left,
literally, on the streets with no wage.

Reading some more, at looks like the actual Uber shutdown might not
happen any time soon:

"At the moment, Uber's licence expires on the 30th September.

However, the company is able to appeal TfL's ruling and has 21 days to
appeal. Uber will be able to operate until the legal process of the
appeal is exhausted, with some experts predicting the process could
take years."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/22/does-uber-losing-licence-mean-londoners-will-service-cut/

Uber shut down in London
 

In article ,
(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

The full TfL statement has been on Twitter and the statement is at
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/pr.../licensing-dec
ision-on-uber-london-limited?intcmp=50167. Watch the wrap or use
http://tinyurl.com/y8h7ht6r.

The reasons seem pretty comprehensive to me as a former Licensing Committee
chair (albeit outside London where the law is a bit different). Uber have a
right of appeal to the courts and will no doubt do exercise it.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Uber shut down in London
 

On 2017\09\22 11:31, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 22/09/2017 11:21, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 10:18:36 GMT
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

Oh, shame. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving company.

Really?Â* And general minicabs were well known for being safe, and part
of well run companies that weren't involved in serious criminality
and/or used for laundering money by their criminal owners?Â* All
allegedly of course.

Uber drivers committed 2/3 of the minicab rapes, while only being 1/3 of
the minicab drivers, which makes their drivers 4 times as rapey as the
average minicab driver.

Uber shut down in London
 

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\09\22 11:31, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 22/09/2017 11:21, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 10:18:36 GMT
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

Oh, shame. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving company.

Really?Â* And general minicabs were well known for being safe, and part
of well run companies that weren't involved in serious criminality
and/or used for laundering money by their criminal owners?Â* All
allegedly of course.

Uber drivers committed 2/3 of the minicab rapes, while only being 1/3 of
the minicab drivers, which makes their drivers 4 times as rapey as the
average minicab driver.

And I think that Uber has been negligent in reporting crimes committed by
its drivers.

Uber shut down in London
 

On 22/09/2017 13:58, wrote:
In article ,
(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

The full TfL statement has been on Twitter and the statement is at
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/pr.../licensing-dec
ision-on-uber-london-limited?intcmp=50167. Watch the wrap or use
http://tinyurl.com/y8h7ht6r.

The reasons seem pretty comprehensive to me as a former Licensing Committee
chair (albeit outside London where the law is a bit different). Uber have a
right of appeal to the courts and will no doubt do exercise it.

"Fairly comprehensive" - they've made a list of things they don't like
as grounds to refuse a license under "fit and proper". That sounds more
tenuous than comprehensive.

From what I've heard and read they do seem tardy at best in reporting
assaults, but I've no idea exactly what the regulations say they must,
by law, do. Care to enlighten us? And why taxi companies have this
responsibility when, as far as I know, other premises where the public
may interact with staff do not. And whilst an assault every 11 days
sounds horrific (and any assault at all is, IMO), how does that compare
to a similarly sized population group (I guess Uber drivers are approx.
90% male, so compared to a town of roughly 72000 in size).

The medical certificate piece is an argument about whether technology
can and should be used - whilst I believe the regulations require an
in-person visit, if that person reports nothing wrong is there a
requirement for specific physical examinations to take place, or can a
doctor rely on the applicants word? In which case, why does a video
consultation not suffice?

The DBS checks - as far as I know Uber do them, they just don't use the
same agency as TfL believe they can insist on - surely the regulations
just say they have to have been done and the applicant has to be in
possession of a valid certificate whilst employed - is there evidence
this has not been the case and Uber has ignored it?

The use of software to identify the equivalent of secret shoppers from
the licensing department is a dubious but arguably legitimate business
practice - unless of course the regulation prohibit it explicitly.
However, in this case all that Uber have failed to do is to explain what
it does to the satisfaction of TfL which could be argued as legitimate
to protect trade secrets (if for example they use the same software all
over the world where they don't have to describe it's potential or
actual usage and they believe that they can self-certify to TfL that
they haven't used it in breach of whatever regulations or law).

Uber shut down in London
 

In article , (Someone
Somewhere) wrote:

On 22/09/2017 11:21, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 10:18:36 GMT
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

Oh, shame. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving company.

Really? And general minicabs were well known for being safe, and
part of well run companies that weren't involved in serious
criminality and/or used for laundering money by their criminal
owners? All allegedly of course.

This stinks of protectionism from TfL - yes, there may have been
some minor issues with Uber but they are generally a great solution
to getting around in cities you don't know or aren't able to
communicate in, and avoid vagaries of random pricing.

The reasons given in the TfL press release look serious enough to me:

"TfL considers that Uber's approach and conduct demonstrate a lack of
corporate responsibility in relation to a number of issues which have
potential public safety and security implications. These include:

Its approach to reporting serious criminal offences.
Its approach to how medical certificates are obtained.
Its approach to how Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks
are obtained.
Its approach to explaining the use of Greyball in London - software that
could be used to block regulatory bodies from gaining full access to the app
and prevent officials from undertaking regulatory or law enforcement duties."

The fourth one (evasion of regulation) looks particularly serious and a
matter for criminal prosecution if proved. It will be interesting to see
what the courts say about that one at the appeal. They tend to take a dim
view of such practices.

Hopefully they resolve their issues sooner rather than later and that
their partner drivers can continue to earn money rather than being
left, literally, on the streets with no wage.

It will require firm evidence of radically changed practices by the Uber
management.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Uber shut down in London
 

In article , (Someone
Somewhere) wrote:

"Fairly comprehensive" - they've made a list of things they don't
like as grounds to refuse a license under "fit and proper". That
sounds more tenuous than comprehensive.

As I've commented elsewhere in this thread, those are very serious matters,
especially the fourth which appears to amount to criminal behaviour.

When I received training as a councillor for dealing with licensing appeals
the test we were advised to have at the heart of our consideration was
"would you believe that your wife or daughter would be safe in this man's
car?" The Uber record suggests one might not.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Uber shut down in London
 

On 22/09/2017 16:27, wrote:
In article , (Someone
Somewhere) wrote:

"Fairly comprehensive" - they've made a list of things they don't
like as grounds to refuse a license under "fit and proper". That
sounds more tenuous than comprehensive.

As I've commented elsewhere in this thread, those are very serious matters,
especially the fourth which appears to amount to criminal behaviour.

Yet you choose to not debate the points with me, particularly the
fourth which was "failure to explain" rather than an actual allegation
of use of such software.

Uber shut down in London
 

In article , (Someone
Somewhere) wrote:

On 22/09/2017 16:27, wrote:
In article , (Someone
Somewhere) wrote:

"Fairly comprehensive" - they've made a list of things they don't
like as grounds to refuse a license under "fit and proper". That
sounds more tenuous than comprehensive.

As I've commented elsewhere in this thread, those are very serious
matters, especially the fourth which appears to amount to criminal
behaviour.

Yet you choose to not debate the points with me, particularly the
fourth which was "failure to explain" rather than an actual
allegation of use of such software.

I agree there could be an innocent explanation for blocking regulators use
of the app. I'm sure the courts will be very interested to hear what it
might be.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Uber shut down in London
 

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

Uber shut down in London
 

wrote:
In article , (Someone
Somewhere) wrote:

On 22/09/2017 16:27, wrote:
In article , (Someone
Somewhere) wrote:

"Fairly comprehensive" - they've made a list of things they don't
like as grounds to refuse a license under "fit and proper". That
sounds more tenuous than comprehensive.

As I've commented elsewhere in this thread, those are very serious
matters, especially the fourth which appears to amount to criminal
behaviour.

Yet you choose to not debate the points with me, particularly the
fourth which was "failure to explain" rather than an actual
allegation of use of such software.

I agree there could be an innocent explanation for blocking regulators use
of the app. I'm sure the courts will be very interested to hear what it
might be.


The plot thickens:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tfl-inspectors-gave-uber-green-light-10-times-flbp7tqxs?shareToken=f14d27cfb9669def03c9774bbe7ba 501

Uber was repeatedly given a clean bill of health by transport bosses before
the sudden decision to ban it from London, The Times has learnt.

Inspections carried out by Transport for London between 2013 and the middle
of this year failed to find any major fault with the company, it emerged,
leading to claims that the cancellation of its licence smacked of
“political opportunism�.

Data released under the Freedom of Information Act showed that TfL
conducted ten inspections at Uber’s London headquarters and ruled that it
“satisfied regulatory requirements�.

In April Uber also successfully passed its annual compliance audit, which
is thought to have involved 20 officials from TfL’s licensing department
reviewing thousands of documents over two days.

Uber, which is used by 3.5 million people in the capital, was told on
Friday that its licence to operate would not be renewed when it runs out at
the end of this week.

Yesterday it emerged that Uber’s biggest competitor may be aiming to set up
in London. Lyft, which operates only in the US, has spoken with TfL five
times since last November.

This morning, Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, accused Uber of deploying an
“army� of PR experts and lawyers in an “aggressive� move to take TfL to
court to appeal against its suspension. He said the move contradicted
statements in the press saying Uber was ready to negotiate compromises to
get its licence back.

“You can’t have it both ways,� he told the BBC from the Labour Party
conference. “On the one hand, acting in an aggressive manor throwing all
sorts of things around, and on the other hand briefing journalists that
they want to do a deal.�

A public backlash against the licence decision was mounting with about
700,000 people signing a petition calling on Mr Khan to reinstate Uber.

Criticism has been made of the mayor for appearing to side with black cab
drivers and the GMB union, which has campaigned heavily against Uber.

TfL, which is chaired by Mr Khan, said on Friday that Uber was no longer a
“fit and proper� operator. It failed the company on four areas, including
its slack approach to reporting serious criminal offences and failing to
complete criminal record checks properly.

Uber, which will appeal against the decision at Westminster magistrates’
court, was given no warning of the concerns and only notified of the
decision five minutes before Friday’s announcement. It has had only one
previous meeting with senior management at TfL this year and bosses refused
to discuss the licensing process. A series of other meetings, including
some with Mr Khan, were cancelled.

TfL was asked yesterday to provide further information about the ruling,
including the basis on which it was made, but declined. A spokesman said:
“We have nothing further to add.�

Data released by TfL at the end of July showed that ten compliance
inspections had taken place at Uber in the past four years, the last of
which was in April.

Only one, in August 2016, showed that Uber was failing to comply fully with
its licence. However, in that instance TfL later said that Uber took “all
reasonable steps� and the breach was deemed outside its control.

Uber’s conduct has been criticised by others. Last year it was reported
that the Metropolitan Police investigated 32 drivers for the alleged rape
or sexual assault of passengers in 12 months.

In August, Inspector Neil Billany wrote to TfL warning that Uber was
failing properly to investigate allegations against its drivers.

Uber sources said that TfL had never relayed any concerns to the company.
It was given a temporary six-month licence when its previous five-year
licence expired at the end of May.

Tom Elvidge, general manager of Uber in London, said: “We’re always willing
to talk to Transport for London and the mayor. While we haven’t been asked
to make any changes, we’d like to know what we can do. But that requires a
dialogue we sadly haven’t been able to have recently.�

Uber has hired Thomas de la Mare, QC, to lead its appeal. It also drafted
in the law firm Hogan Lovells, The Daily Telegraph said. In a case this
year Mr de la Mare prevented two out of three restrictions being imposed on
Uber by TfL.

Uber shut down in London
 

On 25/09/2017 10:47, Recliner wrote:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tfl-inspectors-gave-uber-green-light-10-times-flbp7tqxs?shareToken=f14d27cfb9669def03c9774bbe7ba 501


Uber has hired Thomas de la Mare, QC, to lead its appeal.

But was he hired using the cab-rank rule?



--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Uber shut down in London
 

"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 25/09/2017 10:47, Recliner wrote:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tfl-inspectors-gave-uber-green-light-10-times-flbp7tqxs?shareToken=f14d27cfb9669def03c9774bbe7ba 501


Uber has hired Thomas de la Mare, QC, to lead its appeal.

But was he hired using the cab-rank rule?

is there any other way

Uber shut down in London
 

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

Uber shut down in London
 

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

Uber shut down in London
 

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

Uber shut down in London
 

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.

Thank you for that post.

Regarding your last paragraph, I have to reiterate a point I've
made many times before. The huge increase in traffic congestion
in London has been caused primarily by TfL and anti-motor car
local authorities deliberately making our roads unfit for purpose.

Yesterday I strolled around the City and then from Aldgate to
Whitechapel. I was once again disgusted by the way the road
system had been damaged. I counted the private hire cars in
various long queues of vehicles. There were very few and those
few certainly were not the cause of the congestion and resulting
air pollution.

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.

Uber shut down in London
 

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

Uber shut down in London
 

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.

Uber shut down in London
 

In message , at 18:20:11 on Wed, 27
Sep 2017, Robin9 remarked:

I haven't seen that,

[sadly snipped information]

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 Uber model allows a degree of flexible working which is hard to
replicate with conventional minicab firms.

One quote in the press: "[my dad] has diabetes so it's important he can
work when he wants so he can attend his medical appointments. Sometimes
he will work 20 hours a day and earn around £300 and on others he will
only make £8 a day."

Thanks, but no thanks, to being one of his passengers in hour 19. £15/hr
is verging on modern slavery, but the well-heeled punters lap it up.
--
Roland Perry

Interesting, but none of that changes the simple reality which is
that if Uber shut down in London, their drivers will not then give
up being minicab drivers and seek new vocations. They will
continue as minicab drivers as best they can and their cars will
still be on London's roads. .

Uber shut down in London
 

In message , at 09:49:01 on Thu, 28
Sep 2017, Robin9 remarked:

[excessive snippage]

Interesting, but none of that changes the simple reality which is
that if Uber shut down in London, their drivers will not then give
up being minicab drivers and seek new vocations. They will
continue as minicab drivers as best they can and their cars will
still be on London's roads. .

Why didn't they do that *before* Uber arrived?

You are saying that the Uber app wasn't facilitating extra cabs after
all.
--
Roland Perry

Uber shut down in London
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:49:01 on Thu, 28
Sep 2017, Robin9 remarked:

[excessive snippage]

Interesting, but none of that changes the simple reality which is
that if Uber shut down in London, their drivers will not then give
up being minicab drivers and seek new vocations. They will
continue as minicab drivers as best they can and their cars will
still be on London's roads. .

Why didn't they do that *before* Uber arrived?

You are saying that the Uber app wasn't facilitating extra cabs after
all.

It almost certainly increased the number of minicabs. But if Uber really
does get shut down in a year or so, lots of other similar apps will be
waiting to take its place. In effect, Uber established and validated a new
market in London, and even if it is forced out, that market won't vanish
with it.

Uber shut down in London
 

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 09:50:35 on Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Recliner
remarked:
Interesting, but none of that changes the simple reality which is
that if Uber shut down in London, their drivers will not then give
up being minicab drivers and seek new vocations. They will
continue as minicab drivers as best they can and their cars will
still be on London's roads. .

Why didn't they do that *before* Uber arrived?

You are saying that the Uber app wasn't facilitating extra cabs after
all.

It almost certainly increased the number of minicabs. But if Uber really
does get shut down in a year or so, lots of other similar apps will be
waiting to take its place. In effect, Uber established and validated a new
market in London, and even if it is forced out, that market won't vanish
with it.

Let's hope the successors treat their drivers better, and by proxy their
passengers (nailing down stuff like CRBs, insurance, personal safety)
and greater respect for other road users.

And when I say successor*s* that's deliberate. Uber is currently a
whisker away from playing the "too big to be allowed to fail" card.
--
Roland Perry

Uber shut down in London
 

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 09:50:35 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:49:01 on Thu, 28
Sep 2017, Robin9 remarked:

[excessive snippage]

Interesting, but none of that changes the simple reality which is
that if Uber shut down in London, their drivers will not then give
up being minicab drivers and seek new vocations. They will
continue as minicab drivers as best they can and their cars will
still be on London's roads. .

Why didn't they do that *before* Uber arrived?

You are saying that the Uber app wasn't facilitating extra cabs after
all.

It almost certainly increased the number of minicabs. But if Uber really
does get shut down in a year or so, lots of other similar apps will be
waiting to take its place. In effect, Uber established and validated a new
market in London, and even if it is forced out, that market won't vanish
with it.

Lyft will be starting up in london soon apparently. At then least all the
whining millennials will STFU since the fragile little darlings will be able to
go back to being chauffeured door to door once more just like mummy used to do
for them, instead of slumming it on the tube or night bus with adults.

Uber shut down in London
 

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 07:40:16PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

?15/hr is verging on modern slavery, but the well-heeled punters lap
it up.

Fifteen quid an hour, assuming an 8 hour day and 5 day working week,
puts you well above the national average income. OK, so Uber's
independent contractors then have expenses to pay from that, but even so
to call it "modern slavery" is pretty silly.

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "topless karaoke murders"

If you can't imagine how I do something, it's
because I have a better imagination than you

Uber shut down in London
 

In message , at 15:13:57
on Thu, 28 Sep 2017, David Cantrell remarked:

?15/hr is verging on modern slavery, but the well-heeled punters lap
it up.

Fifteen quid an hour, assuming an 8 hour day and 5 day working week,
puts you well above the national average income.

I bet that national average isn't weighted for full time/part time/gig
workers.

OK, so Uber's
independent contractors then have expenses to pay from that, but even so
to call it "modern slavery" is pretty silly.

Given they are on zero-hours "contracts", work unsocial hours, have no
pensions, holiday or sick pay (the case for those is in the courts right
now) and reduced rights to benefits because of being self-employed.

And the elephant in the room is that it's the gross pay. Knock off 25%
for Uber's commissions, then most estimates for the cost of car rental,
petrol and valeting come in at about £300/week, so for a 60hr week you'd
see something like:

60 x 15 gross = 900
less 25% = 675
less £300 = 375

so that's more like £6.25/hr now, and under minimum wage, plus all the
risks of running your own business.
--
Roland Perry

Uber shut down in London
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:13:57
on Thu, 28 Sep 2017, David Cantrell remarked:

?15/hr is verging on modern slavery, but the well-heeled punters lap
it up.

Fifteen quid an hour, assuming an 8 hour day and 5 day working week,
puts you well above the national average income.

I bet that national average isn't weighted for full time/part time/gig
workers.

OK, so Uber's
independent contractors then have expenses to pay from that, but even so
to call it "modern slavery" is pretty silly.

Given they are on zero-hours "contracts", work unsocial hours, have no
pensions, holiday or sick pay (the case for those is in the courts right
now) and reduced rights to benefits because of being self-employed.

And the elephant in the room is that it's the gross pay. Knock off 25%
for Uber's commissions, then most estimates for the cost of car rental,
petrol and valeting come in at about £300/week, so for a 60hr week you'd
see something like:

60 x 15 gross = 900
less 25% = 675
less £300 = 375

so that's more like £6.25/hr now, and under minimum wage, plus all the
risks of running your own business.

The FT has an analysis of how much of their time a UberEXEC driver is
actually earning:
https://www.ft.com/content/241d35e8-a463-11e7-b797-b61809486fe2?segmentId=080b04f5-af92-ae6f-0513-095d44fb3577

Uber shut down in London
 

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 09:22:37 on Fri, 29 Sep 2017, Recliner
remarked:
And the elephant in the room is that it's the gross pay. Knock off 25%
for Uber's commissions, then most estimates for the cost of car rental,
petrol and valeting come in at about £300/week, so for a 60hr week you'd
see something like:

60 x 15 gross = 900
less 25% = 675
less £300 = 375

so that's more like £6.25/hr now, and under minimum wage, plus all the
risks of running your own business.

The FT has an analysis of how much of their time a UberEXEC driver is
actually earning:
https://www.ft.com/content/241d35e8-a463-11e7-b797-b61809486fe2?segmentId=080b04f5-af92-ae6f-0513-095d44fb3577

The "usually £20" is widely regarded as either false memory, like it was
always long hot summers when we were on summer holidays from school; or
it's a very experienced driver knowing where to go (but this time the
surge-chasing failed).

And no doubt, like the £8, is also a gross figure.

Interesting his business has dived so suddenly. Could be a co-incidence,
or maybe on account of the publicity, people have been thinking about
whether the Uber business model is one they want to support.

ps. I wonder why he took such a circuitous route with the fare he picked
up in docklands?
--
Roland Perry

I see Uber have just lost their appeal. They say they will take it
further of course, but I wonder what their chances are.