Goodbye to Uber??

[ECCOnoob 1,051]

I'm sure you've told us your a Lawyer, are you on Ubers payroll?

 

Ah yes, here we have it. The stock answer when someone happens to have a different viewpoint.

[hobinfoot 25]

Do you think those cheap taxi fares are sustainable? I don't.

 

If Uber's artificially-low prices put all other taxi firms out of business and Uber become a monopoly, that taxi fare won't stay £7 for long.

 

And I'm not sure how much of that £7 made its way to the driver. Can a taxi driver make a living with those low prices?

One of the drivers did say he has to put a lot of hours in to make a living.

[kidley 48]

589,300 have signed the petition upto now.

 

https://www.change.org/p/save-your-uber-in-london-saveyouruber

[JNewton69 10]

Ah yes, here we have it. The stock answer when someone happens to have a different viewpoint.

 

Keep on chomping ECCOnoob, you're great comedy value.

[ECCOnoob 1,051]

589,300 have signed the petition upto now.

 

https://www.change.org/p/save-your-uber-in-london-saveyouruber

 

Nice.

 

On a side note, that's more than half the total number of votes Khan got in the last mayor elections. Tick... tock.... tick... tock..

[Bob Arctor 11]

Why dont you take time to find out? How much of each job goes to minicab drivers after they take off their radio rental fees? How much of each job goes to black cabbies after they pay their fees (well...what they choose to declare anyway)?

 

Its just competition. Something we have been desprately in need of to give the closed shop taxi mafia a kick.

 

Maybe, Uber would raise their prices when they take over a town but then Lyft or RideYellow or Curb or Hailo will come along with lower prices and suddenly Uber have to compete. Just like in the rest of the business world.

 

We should be able to choose whether we wish to use a ride share service or not. We should have freedom of choice as to what transport means we like.

 

I have no problem with a uniform set of safety standards which ALL companies comply with. However, that's not what I believe has happened here. To me, they have thrown mud at Uber since day one. They have repeatedly and excessively dragged their name through Parliament, Regulators and Lawyers in attempts to destroy the app without any justified reasons or even knowledge of how it operates.

 

The politicans can say whatever guff they want, but one thing is very clear, their hypocracy. After all, for all the criticism at Uber, your averge Minicab certainly doesnt meet the exceptional standards our leaders try and get you to believe. Funny how they are perfectly fine eh?

 

Even the stats show that when nasty stuff has happened its been involving far far more NON-Uber drivers.

 

Uber are a square peg which has been well and truely forced into a round hole. In typical political style rather than modernise the regulations they get forced into impossible positions, heavilly criticised and hounded out.

 

Good job that the majority real world population are a little bit more forward thinking. Ride sharing is not going to go away. Time for the taxi trade to drag themselves into the 21st century.

 

Cobblers, as usual. Minicabs in London used to be loosely regulated; you'd come out of a club in the early morning and essentially just get into some geezer's car. Maybe he worked for a company, maybe he didn't ("Minicab, boss?"). Then c. 2000 TfL tightened the regulations up significantly, you could no longer just pick up a minicab by hailing it, it HAD to be pre-booked. So then when you came out of a club there would be reps from cab firms with clipboards taking your details; names, destination, pick up location and driver ID. The minicab firms are still obliged to abide by these regulations if they want to keep their licences, regardless of your fantasies, so if TfL think Uber aren't compliant why on Earth would they turn a blind eye? Imagine trying to explain to the CEO of Addison Lee that Uber didn't have to meet the same requirements just because they are cheap and popular!

[JNewton69 10]

Cobblers, as usual. Minicabs in London used to be loosely regulated; you'd come out of a club in the early morning and essentially just get into some geezer's car. Maybe he worked for a company, maybe he didn't ("Minicab, boss?"). Then c. 2000 TfL tightened the regulations up significantly, you could no longer just pick up a minicab by hailing it, it HAD to be pre-booked. So then when you came out of a club there would be reps from cab firms with clipboards taking your details; names, destination, pick up location and driver ID. The minicab firms are still obliged to abide by these regulations if they want to keep their licences, regardless of your fantasies, so if TfL think Uber aren't compliant why on Earth would they turn a blind eye? Imagine trying to explain to the CEO of Addison Lee that Uber didn't have to meet the same requirements just because they are cheap and popular!

 

Good post Bob.

[hackey lad 3,991]

Keep on chomping ECCOnoob, you're great comedy value.

 

says the king of comedy and unanswered questions

[Puggie 10]

Banning Uber is a victory for protectionism.

 

However this isn't over by any stretch, and I'm not refering to Uber's appeal. There is a much broader regulatory dilemma that hasn't yet been resolved.

 

The negative publicity this has generated for London and the UK means this issue will now escalate to the highest levels of government, and it wouldn't surprise me if the DfT, CMA, and members of the CO now bring forward plans to accelerate the liberalisation of the sector by curtailing the powers of local authorities to stop them playing God.

 

The way door-to-door transportation is regulated in this country is a complete anomaly compared to the rest of the transportation industry which has been successfully liberalised and is now regulated at the national level.

 

When it comes to door-to-door transport, this country has 316 (yes 316!) separate licencing authorities all protecting their local patches which means you get local politics dictating the sector rather than free-market economics. I often joke the system is modelled on the drugs trade.

 

It's a wretched system that needs reforming urgently.

Edited September 23, 2017 by Puggie

[JNewton69 10]

Banning Uber is a victory for protectionism.

 

However this isn't over by any stretch, and I'm not refering to Uber's appeal. There is a much broader regulatory dilemma that hasn't yet been resolved.

 

The negative publicity this has generated for London and the UK means this issue will now escalate to the highest levels of government, and it wouldn't surprise me if the DfT, CMA, and members of the CO now bring forward plans to accelerate the liberalisation of the sector by curtailing the powers of local authorities to stop them playing God.

 

The way door-to-door transportation is regulated in this country is a complete anomaly compared to the rest of the transportation industry which has been successfully liberalised and is now regulated at the national level.

 

When it comes to door-to-door transport, this country has 316 (yes 316!) separate licencing authorities all protecting their local patches which means you get local politics dictating the sector rather than free-market economics. I often joke the system is modelled on the drugs trade.

 

It's a wretched system that needs reforming urgently.

 

Cheers for that ECCOnoob.

[TaxiBaz 10]

So who from where actually drives for Uber, in any area ?

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/huge-rise-in-sheffield-taxi-drivers-travelling-to-london-to-get-licences-1-8437916

[JNewton69 10]

says the king of comedy and unanswered questions

 

Muchos Grassyarse senor.