Uber loses its licence to operate in London
September 22, 2017 3:57 AM Subscribe
In a statement today TfL said it has concluded that Uber is “not fit and proper to hold a private hire operator licence”. Uber has 21 days to appeal the decision.
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” — including for the following issues:
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
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” — including for the following issues:
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
Yeah, unless they are required to cease operations pending successful appeal (which they are not) this is pretty meaningless. Just another lawsuit, essentially. I assume they'll mumble out some half-hearted apologies, make a few fairly toothless changes to their procedures that will mostly just make drivers' lives harder, and then continue with business as usual. Maybe something more significant will happen, but I'm not holding my breath.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 4:15 AM on September 22, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 4:15 AM on September 22, 2017 [4 favorites]
I sort of don't get this. Do minicabs have this approval? (NB haven't taken a minicab in decades)
posted by pompomtom at 4:56 AM on September 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by pompomtom at 4:56 AM on September 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
Yes, TfL license taxis and minicabs across London.
posted by edd at 5:00 AM on September 22, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by edd at 5:00 AM on September 22, 2017 [6 favorites]
Not sure about the "just another lawsuit" yawn, it's a regulatory body performing its regulatory role to try and get a company to comply with its requirements.
(Though having never taken an Uber in my life, I've no idea if they're justified in doing so in this case, or if they're picking on Uber unfairly for other reasons, as some seem to think).
posted by penguin pie at 5:06 AM on September 22, 2017 [7 favorites]
(Though having never taken an Uber in my life, I've no idea if they're justified in doing so in this case, or if they're picking on Uber unfairly for other reasons, as some seem to think).
posted by penguin pie at 5:06 AM on September 22, 2017 [7 favorites]
(more on those possible other reasons/implications...)
posted by penguin pie at 5:15 AM on September 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by penguin pie at 5:15 AM on September 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
Worst of all is Uber's contemptuous disregard for the Knowledge.
posted by Flashman at 5:19 AM on September 22, 2017 [51 favorites]
posted by Flashman at 5:19 AM on September 22, 2017 [51 favorites]
In the interim, here's a protip: dont get in an accident or stabbed while in an Uber.
posted by Nanukthedog at 5:20 AM on September 22, 2017 [7 favorites]
posted by Nanukthedog at 5:20 AM on September 22, 2017 [7 favorites]
Flashman
A friend of mine said almost the same thing. He can't afford a black cabs, but with Uber sometimes they get hopelessly lost then arguments ensue about the fare.
posted by james33 at 5:26 AM on September 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
A friend of mine said almost the same thing. He can't afford a black cabs, but with Uber sometimes they get hopelessly lost then arguments ensue about the fare.
posted by james33 at 5:26 AM on September 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
They've been on notice since May, and had four months to comply. And haven't.
The Met are pissed off with Uber because of the sexual assaults and rapes. 32 cases of drivers raping or sexually assaulting their passengers in 2015, and when background checks aren't done, and crime reporting is deliberately suppressed, you can see why there's a problem.
I use Uber frequently, it's a great service, black cabs are a monumental rip-off, but regulations have improved passenger safety and Uber need to comply.
posted by bookbook at 5:37 AM on September 22, 2017 [27 favorites]
The Met are pissed off with Uber because of the sexual assaults and rapes. 32 cases of drivers raping or sexually assaulting their passengers in 2015, and when background checks aren't done, and crime reporting is deliberately suppressed, you can see why there's a problem.
I use Uber frequently, it's a great service, black cabs are a monumental rip-off, but regulations have improved passenger safety and Uber need to comply.
posted by bookbook at 5:37 AM on September 22, 2017 [27 favorites]
It sounds like a largely officious appeal by parties that have a financial interest in keeping Uber out. I also assume Uber will mumble out some half-hearted apologies, make a few fairly toothless changes to their procedures that will mostly just make drivers' lives harder, because that's what officious appeals usually do. I'm curious why uber should get blamed for such a result here. They are not the ones wishing to enforce these regulations.
I'm not sure what else one might want to happen that's "more significant", unless one means being driven out of business. Which plenty of people do hope for. Of course, that would make drivers lives significantly harder, in that they'd no longer be able to make money by driving. But it's for their own good, besides, it's OK because uber sucks, I guess. And it makes travelling in London harder because of a smaller pool of rides available, and more monopolistic.
Worst of all is Uber's contempt disregard for the Knowledge.
You'd think Google Maps would make the Knowledge less of an issue.
posted by 2N2222 at 5:37 AM on September 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure what else one might want to happen that's "more significant", unless one means being driven out of business. Which plenty of people do hope for. Of course, that would make drivers lives significantly harder, in that they'd no longer be able to make money by driving. But it's for their own good, besides, it's OK because uber sucks, I guess. And it makes travelling in London harder because of a smaller pool of rides available, and more monopolistic.
Worst of all is Uber's contempt disregard for the Knowledge.
You'd think Google Maps would make the Knowledge less of an issue.
posted by 2N2222 at 5:37 AM on September 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
And it makes travelling in London harder
Travelling by private minicab harder. If you cut back the numbers of private minicabs (and for that matter, black cabs, which at any given moment half of which are empty) from central London, travelling by other more sustainable modes (bus, bike or foot) becomes a whole lot easier.
posted by grahamparks at 5:44 AM on September 22, 2017 [9 favorites]
Travelling by private minicab harder. If you cut back the numbers of private minicabs (and for that matter, black cabs, which at any given moment half of which are empty) from central London, travelling by other more sustainable modes (bus, bike or foot) becomes a whole lot easier.
posted by grahamparks at 5:44 AM on September 22, 2017 [9 favorites]
I'm curious why uber should get blamed for such a result here. They are not the ones wishing to enforce these regulations.
Because they are violating the regulations.
Every time Uber is called out for acting as if it's free to ignore laws and regulations that apply to everyone, someone pops up to point out that maybe the laws and regulations are bad. Yes, maybe they are. But then you have to try to change them.
posted by oliverburkeman at 5:45 AM on September 22, 2017 [55 favorites]
Because they are violating the regulations.
Every time Uber is called out for acting as if it's free to ignore laws and regulations that apply to everyone, someone pops up to point out that maybe the laws and regulations are bad. Yes, maybe they are. But then you have to try to change them.
posted by oliverburkeman at 5:45 AM on September 22, 2017 [55 favorites]
Google maps makes shit choices where I live, which has a pretty boring grid structure. Also, it likes to label everything as "state route n", which is an Americanism that no one here understands. I dread to think of relying on it in London.
London already had minicabs, and at least your minicabs driver is probably local. Didn't do the Knowledge, but knows how to avoid the High Street or whatever if you're not crossing town - and you've likely agreed a fare beforehand, so a crap turn is not your problem, dosh-wise at least.
(Also what grahamparks said)
posted by pompomtom at 5:52 AM on September 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
London already had minicabs, and at least your minicabs driver is probably local. Didn't do the Knowledge, but knows how to avoid the High Street or whatever if you're not crossing town - and you've likely agreed a fare beforehand, so a crap turn is not your problem, dosh-wise at least.
(Also what grahamparks said)
posted by pompomtom at 5:52 AM on September 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
Because they are violating the regulations.
Every time Uber is called out for acting as if it's free to ignore laws and regulations that apply to everyone, someone pops up to point out that maybe the laws and regulations are bad. Yes, maybe they are. But then you have to try to change them.
The argument was that Uber was going to make things harder for its drivers by complying. I'm saying that isn't Uber's doing.
This is where people get oddly conservative. Rules and regulations because rules and regulations. Maybe they're bad? Oh well. Always been this way. But. One good way to change bad rules is to ignore them. In fact, Uber has had some success with this, bringing up the very question why some of the rules exist in the first place.
I mean, really, I have to question the sincerity of the regulators sometimes, when for example, they propose a five minute wait between hailing an Uber and responding. C' Mon now.
posted by 2N2222 at 6:25 AM on September 22, 2017 [4 favorites]
Every time Uber is called out for acting as if it's free to ignore laws and regulations that apply to everyone, someone pops up to point out that maybe the laws and regulations are bad. Yes, maybe they are. But then you have to try to change them.
The argument was that Uber was going to make things harder for its drivers by complying. I'm saying that isn't Uber's doing.
This is where people get oddly conservative. Rules and regulations because rules and regulations. Maybe they're bad? Oh well. Always been this way. But. One good way to change bad rules is to ignore them. In fact, Uber has had some success with this, bringing up the very question why some of the rules exist in the first place.
I mean, really, I have to question the sincerity of the regulators sometimes, when for example, they propose a five minute wait between hailing an Uber and responding. C' Mon now.
posted by 2N2222 at 6:25 AM on September 22, 2017 [4 favorites]
In my experience Google Maps does alright in London. With buses, tube and on foot it's magic. I've caught a train when I was late, reached some little airport shuttle bus in the middle of the night & nowhere, found this organic café with a roof garden... Driving it is more daunting when you hit that inevitable intersection with like 5 different ways to go right. Obviously wouldn't be great if a cab driver had to do the ensuing several tries. Gmaps also doesn't know the local shortcuts seeming to prefer a certain size road, but the real-time traffic data is uncanny. tl;dr on your own it's an adventure with a sci-fi vibe, in a cab it would suck.
posted by yoHighness at 6:25 AM on September 22, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by yoHighness at 6:25 AM on September 22, 2017 [3 favorites]
Flashman: "Worst of all is Uber's contemptuous disregard for the Knowledge."
"The Knowledge" being, on the evidence of my last trip to London in August, a skillset that involves being a grumpy tit at the wheel, categorically refusing to accept credit card payments, regularly screeching to a stop, talking on the cellphone while driving, and, on one occasion, taking me to the wrong address and then stubbornly refusing to acknowledge it.
posted by chavenet at 6:43 AM on September 22, 2017 [11 favorites]
"The Knowledge" being, on the evidence of my last trip to London in August, a skillset that involves being a grumpy tit at the wheel, categorically refusing to accept credit card payments, regularly screeching to a stop, talking on the cellphone while driving, and, on one occasion, taking me to the wrong address and then stubbornly refusing to acknowledge it.
posted by chavenet at 6:43 AM on September 22, 2017 [11 favorites]
You'd think Google Maps would make the Knowledge less of an issue.I used to live in an apartment building located directly on top of the Rotherhithe Tunnel. Any driver using Uber or TomTom would invariably try and get me home by attempting to enter the tunnel, presumably so I could be let out 50 feet under my house and climb up to it through one of the air intakes or something.
Rides with Uber devolved into navigation tutorials where I had to guide drivers through the streets near my home step by step, because without the software they were utterly lost.
posted by Sonny Jim at 6:49 AM on September 22, 2017 [36 favorites]
The five minute thing seems to be a reaction to empty cars clogging high-traffic areas waiting to be called. Don't know if London does hack lines, but I imagine if it did, and Uber tried to join in, there'd be violence.
posted by turkeybrain at 6:49 AM on September 22, 2017
posted by turkeybrain at 6:49 AM on September 22, 2017
Is "The Knowledge" really as necessary these days with GPS and mapping software?
Aside from that, fuck Uber, I hope they fry.
posted by SansPoint at 7:11 AM on September 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
Aside from that, fuck Uber, I hope they fry.
posted by SansPoint at 7:11 AM on September 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
"The Knowledge" being, on the evidence of my last trip to London in August, a skillset that involves being a grumpy tit at the wheel, categorically refusing to accept credit card payments, regularly screeching to a stop, talking on the cellphone while driving, and, on one occasion, taking me to the wrong address and then stubbornly refusing to acknowledge it.
Counterpoint: I visited London once before black cabs accepted credit cards. Took the express train to Paddington, was going to continue to my guest house on the tube, but there was a one-day strike. I walked over to a cab and said "hey listen, I need to get to this place but all I have is like £15 in change from my last visit and I can't find an ATM." He not only took me to my guest house, but waved off the rest of the fare I couldn't pay.
Then again, it was Boxing Day, so maybe he was just feeling charitable.
posted by Automocar at 7:14 AM on September 22, 2017 [10 favorites]
Counterpoint: I visited London once before black cabs accepted credit cards. Took the express train to Paddington, was going to continue to my guest house on the tube, but there was a one-day strike. I walked over to a cab and said "hey listen, I need to get to this place but all I have is like £15 in change from my last visit and I can't find an ATM." He not only took me to my guest house, but waved off the rest of the fare I couldn't pay.
Then again, it was Boxing Day, so maybe he was just feeling charitable.
posted by Automocar at 7:14 AM on September 22, 2017 [10 favorites]
Uber announced it was going to start doing business in my city illegally and offered to pay the fines of any of their drivers arrested. What a way to get started.
The company is a dumpster fire on multiple levels and I hope this is the beginning of the end.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 7:26 AM on September 22, 2017 [33 favorites]
The company is a dumpster fire on multiple levels and I hope this is the beginning of the end.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 7:26 AM on September 22, 2017 [33 favorites]
This is where people get oddly conservative. Rules and regulations because rules and regulations. Maybe they're bad? Oh well. Always been this way. But. One good way to change bad rules is to ignore them. In fact, Uber has had some success with this, bringing up the very question why some of the rules exist in the first place.
No, ignoring the rules isn't a good way, because it legitimizes the argument that any rule or law should be ignored if it interferes with what you want to do. This is the problem that people have with the company - that it seems to have as an operating principle that it shouldn't be regulated at all.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:33 AM on September 22, 2017 [29 favorites]
No, ignoring the rules isn't a good way, because it legitimizes the argument that any rule or law should be ignored if it interferes with what you want to do. This is the problem that people have with the company - that it seems to have as an operating principle that it shouldn't be regulated at all.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:33 AM on September 22, 2017 [29 favorites]
Is "The Knowledge" really as necessary these days with GPS and mapping software?
Yes. It's not just about knowing routes, but knowing the environment. GPS devices aren't going to know how the traffic actually flows, even with traffic reports.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:36 AM on September 22, 2017 [7 favorites]
Yes. It's not just about knowing routes, but knowing the environment. GPS devices aren't going to know how the traffic actually flows, even with traffic reports.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:36 AM on September 22, 2017 [7 favorites]
This is where people get oddly conservative. Rules and regulations because rules and regulations.
If the TfL is correct Uber was, among other issues, not properly conducting background checks on its drivers or reporting criminal complaints. So it's more along the lines of rules and regulations because not reporting crimes committed by your drivers or to your passengers is bad. But that's probably just ridiculous Big Government overreach stifling innovation. If a passenger is assaulted by a driver that Uber failed to vet and then Uber didn't report it, caveat emptor.
I mean, really, I have to question the sincerity of the regulators sometimes, when for example, they propose a five minute wait between hailing an Uber and responding. C' Mon now.
This seems to the classic dishonest conservative tactic of pointing to some fairly ridiculous regulation as an implied reason to end all regulation.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:38 AM on September 22, 2017 [27 favorites]
If the TfL is correct Uber was, among other issues, not properly conducting background checks on its drivers or reporting criminal complaints. So it's more along the lines of rules and regulations because not reporting crimes committed by your drivers or to your passengers is bad. But that's probably just ridiculous Big Government overreach stifling innovation. If a passenger is assaulted by a driver that Uber failed to vet and then Uber didn't report it, caveat emptor.
I mean, really, I have to question the sincerity of the regulators sometimes, when for example, they propose a five minute wait between hailing an Uber and responding. C' Mon now.
This seems to the classic dishonest conservative tactic of pointing to some fairly ridiculous regulation as an implied reason to end all regulation.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:38 AM on September 22, 2017 [27 favorites]
NoxAeternum: Most mapping/GPS apps do traffic based on the number of phones reporting back along the route. It's pretty reliable.
posted by SansPoint at 7:47 AM on September 22, 2017
posted by SansPoint at 7:47 AM on September 22, 2017
I've been knee deep in Uber info for ages, as I've been working on a new piece about its activities in London for LR.
I was not at all surprised when this was announced this morning.
For the last five or six months, behind the scenes, it's like they've been deliberately trying to force TfL to actually stand up to them. All I've heard from a bunch of TfL sources is frustration and disbelief that every hand Uber have been offered to help meet the regulations has either been ignored or, worse, slapped away.
Indeed one senior source told me that an Uber exec, in a meeting, said that TfL should consider themselves lucky that Uber would give them their "blood money" (a reference to the likely £3m licence cost) and should stop "pushing their luck."
It takes a lot to force TfL to go to war, but Uber have done so. Not least because they effectively left them with no choice - get legally slapped by the rest of the industry for not making Uber comply, or slap Uber down themselves.
The trouble for Uber is that TfL aren't the same as most of the other transport agencies they've dealt with. They have more money, more political freedom and more internal legal expertise than perhaps any other transport agency in the world.
They're also not stupid - my understanding is that they're not in this to force Uber out of the marketplace. They just want to force them to comply, and they know they can already win in court or they wouldn't have done this.
Basically, Uber are reaping what they've sown here, which is fucking stupid as it was entirely avoidable if they'd shown a bit of humilty and compliance, rather than trying to bully the most unbullyable transport operator in the world.
posted by garius at 8:01 AM on September 22, 2017 [88 favorites]
I was not at all surprised when this was announced this morning.
For the last five or six months, behind the scenes, it's like they've been deliberately trying to force TfL to actually stand up to them. All I've heard from a bunch of TfL sources is frustration and disbelief that every hand Uber have been offered to help meet the regulations has either been ignored or, worse, slapped away.
Indeed one senior source told me that an Uber exec, in a meeting, said that TfL should consider themselves lucky that Uber would give them their "blood money" (a reference to the likely £3m licence cost) and should stop "pushing their luck."
It takes a lot to force TfL to go to war, but Uber have done so. Not least because they effectively left them with no choice - get legally slapped by the rest of the industry for not making Uber comply, or slap Uber down themselves.
The trouble for Uber is that TfL aren't the same as most of the other transport agencies they've dealt with. They have more money, more political freedom and more internal legal expertise than perhaps any other transport agency in the world.
They're also not stupid - my understanding is that they're not in this to force Uber out of the marketplace. They just want to force them to comply, and they know they can already win in court or they wouldn't have done this.
Basically, Uber are reaping what they've sown here, which is fucking stupid as it was entirely avoidable if they'd shown a bit of humilty and compliance, rather than trying to bully the most unbullyable transport operator in the world.
posted by garius at 8:01 AM on September 22, 2017 [88 favorites]
This seems to the classic dishonest conservative tactic of pointing to some fairly ridiculous regulation as an implied reason to end all regulation.Not passing ridiculous regulations is a good way to combat this.
posted by Hatashran at 8:08 AM on September 22, 2017
Who cares about that baby when I've got all this bath water to get rid of?!
posted by haileris23 at 8:14 AM on September 22, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by haileris23 at 8:14 AM on September 22, 2017 [6 favorites]
The five minute thing seems to be a reaction to empty cars clogging high-traffic areas waiting to be called.
It was because we already had a rule that only black cabs may be "hailed" immediately and minicabs have to be "pre-booked", but with no formal definition of how far in advance. Five minutes was proposed as a minimum, which pleased neither side and was quickly dropped.
posted by grahamparks at 8:14 AM on September 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
It was because we already had a rule that only black cabs may be "hailed" immediately and minicabs have to be "pre-booked", but with no formal definition of how far in advance. Five minutes was proposed as a minimum, which pleased neither side and was quickly dropped.
posted by grahamparks at 8:14 AM on September 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
Uber announced it was going to start doing business in my city illegally and offered to pay the fines of any of their drivers arrested. What a way to get started.
The company is a dumpster fire on multiple levels and I hope this is the beginning of the end.
This sounds awesome! Why wouldn't the police just have cops everywhere calling for Ubers?
posted by graventy at 8:19 AM on September 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
The company is a dumpster fire on multiple levels and I hope this is the beginning of the end.
This sounds awesome! Why wouldn't the police just have cops everywhere calling for Ubers?
posted by graventy at 8:19 AM on September 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
Not passing ridiculous regulations is a good way to combat this.
No, conservatives not being dishonest would be the best solution.
Lawmakers are people, people are fallible, there's going to be some bad law. The fact that bad laws exist isn't an excuse to strip away consumer protections. Ignoring the specific allegations made by TfL against Uber to instead talk generally about "regulations" and pointing and laughing at some silly rule that isn't even germane to the discussion is dishonest.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:21 AM on September 22, 2017 [28 favorites]
No, conservatives not being dishonest would be the best solution.
Lawmakers are people, people are fallible, there's going to be some bad law. The fact that bad laws exist isn't an excuse to strip away consumer protections. Ignoring the specific allegations made by TfL against Uber to instead talk generally about "regulations" and pointing and laughing at some silly rule that isn't even germane to the discussion is dishonest.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:21 AM on September 22, 2017 [28 favorites]
Also, just to confirm, TfL really don't give a shit about the politics, ethics or economic impact of Uber.
What they care about (in this order) is:
1) Meeting their targets on passenger safety (across all transport methods)
2) Keeping the bus network moving and on time
3) Ensuring that users with mobility issues can get a taxi
4) Keeping general traffic moving
5) Not getting sued by people
6) Pleasing whatever mayor is in office
7) The viability of the Black Cab trade
For some time now, Uber have been ticking more and more of those items off that checklist. Like I say, it's like they wanted TfL to turn round and punch them in the face.
posted by garius at 8:22 AM on September 22, 2017 [29 favorites]
What they care about (in this order) is:
1) Meeting their targets on passenger safety (across all transport methods)
2) Keeping the bus network moving and on time
3) Ensuring that users with mobility issues can get a taxi
4) Keeping general traffic moving
5) Not getting sued by people
6) Pleasing whatever mayor is in office
7) The viability of the Black Cab trade
For some time now, Uber have been ticking more and more of those items off that checklist. Like I say, it's like they wanted TfL to turn round and punch them in the face.
posted by garius at 8:22 AM on September 22, 2017 [29 favorites]
Ignoring the specific allegations made by TfL against Uber to instead talk generally about "regulations" and pointing and laughing at some silly rule that isn't even germane to the discussion is dishonest.
Not to mention that the regulation isn't as silly as you might think - as pointed out above, it's meant to disincentivize Uber's practice of maintaining "slack" by keeping empty cars on the road, clogging the streets. And this is something else I've seen - a lot of "ridiculous" regulations wind up being less so when you actually look at why they were implemented.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:30 AM on September 22, 2017 [18 favorites]
Not to mention that the regulation isn't as silly as you might think - as pointed out above, it's meant to disincentivize Uber's practice of maintaining "slack" by keeping empty cars on the road, clogging the streets. And this is something else I've seen - a lot of "ridiculous" regulations wind up being less so when you actually look at why they were implemented.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:30 AM on September 22, 2017 [18 favorites]
So, which of these things that TfL says Uber is doing wrong suggests that the rules TfL is enforcing are "bad" or "ridiculous"?
Its approach to reporting serious criminal offences.posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 8:30 AM on September 22, 2017 [16 favorites]
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
This sounds awesome! Why wouldn't the police just have cops everywhere calling for Ubers?
Guess why Grayball existed!
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:31 AM on September 22, 2017 [12 favorites]
Guess why Grayball existed!
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:31 AM on September 22, 2017 [12 favorites]
Its approach to explaining the use of Greyball in London
Oooh! Oooh! I have an anecdote about this as well!
Greyball was a massive red flag for TfL and remains so. So they asked Uber to explain themselves and their tech. In detail. They'll happily sign whatever non-disclosures etc. that Uber need, but... you know... explain yourselves chaps.
Now remember, TfL are a very tech-literate organisation. They do bleeding edge shit all over the yard. Big data, live analytics, mult-modal traffic modelling - the works.
So Uber come in and what do they deliver? The classic buzzwordy slide-deck aimed at investor types.
TfL try to ask technical questions, which the Uber guys try valiantly to answer, but don't know enough. The presenters apologise and say they weren't prepared for that level of questioning. TfL say that's not a a problem and ask them to go away, think about it all, and come back later.
Couple of weeks later they say they're now ready. TfL invite them back.
Same people. Same talk. But this time they had a lawyer with them to bat away any tech questions.
Like I say, it's like they wanted to lose the licence.
posted by garius at 8:51 AM on September 22, 2017 [64 favorites]
Oooh! Oooh! I have an anecdote about this as well!
Greyball was a massive red flag for TfL and remains so. So they asked Uber to explain themselves and their tech. In detail. They'll happily sign whatever non-disclosures etc. that Uber need, but... you know... explain yourselves chaps.
Now remember, TfL are a very tech-literate organisation. They do bleeding edge shit all over the yard. Big data, live analytics, mult-modal traffic modelling - the works.
So Uber come in and what do they deliver? The classic buzzwordy slide-deck aimed at investor types.
TfL try to ask technical questions, which the Uber guys try valiantly to answer, but don't know enough. The presenters apologise and say they weren't prepared for that level of questioning. TfL say that's not a a problem and ask them to go away, think about it all, and come back later.
Couple of weeks later they say they're now ready. TfL invite them back.
Same people. Same talk. But this time they had a lawyer with them to bat away any tech questions.
Like I say, it's like they wanted to lose the licence.
posted by garius at 8:51 AM on September 22, 2017 [64 favorites]
In fact, Uber has had some success with this, bringing up the very question why some of the rules exist in the first place.
"Success" largely by ignoring the regulations, rather than challenging them through the democratic process.
If you're cool with companies just ignoring regulations they consider dumb (because they cut into their profits/interfere with their business model), don't get mad when the cough syrup you give your kids has levels of codeine in it sufficient to induce respiratory distress. Or arsenic.
Geez Louise.
posted by praemunire at 8:53 AM on September 22, 2017 [27 favorites]
"Success" largely by ignoring the regulations, rather than challenging them through the democratic process.
If you're cool with companies just ignoring regulations they consider dumb (because they cut into their profits/interfere with their business model), don't get mad when the cough syrup you give your kids has levels of codeine in it sufficient to induce respiratory distress. Or arsenic.
Geez Louise.
posted by praemunire at 8:53 AM on September 22, 2017 [27 favorites]
One good way to change bad rules is to ignore them. In fact, Uber has had some success with this, bringing up the very question why some of the rules exist in the first place.
I am a fan of citizens ignoring/breaking rules as a form of protest.
I am not a fan of billion-dollar companies ignoring rules because they find them inconvenient.
Disclaimer: I have never used Uber (in London or elsewhere). I have used a black cab (which was quite efficient, but shockingly expensive).
posted by madajb at 9:07 AM on September 22, 2017 [20 favorites]
I am a fan of citizens ignoring/breaking rules as a form of protest.
I am not a fan of billion-dollar companies ignoring rules because they find them inconvenient.
Disclaimer: I have never used Uber (in London or elsewhere). I have used a black cab (which was quite efficient, but shockingly expensive).
posted by madajb at 9:07 AM on September 22, 2017 [20 favorites]
I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Lyft. Isn't it the same service from a better company?
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:29 AM on September 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:29 AM on September 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
It's good to read this conversation here. On Facebook, it's been mostly people complaining about how inconvenient it will be for them to get from A to B. This is how Amazon and Uber and any amount of disposable fashion retailers have become so successful despite flouting regulations sometimes blatantly - it's because they know their market: a market of people who are willing to overlook any amount of bullshit because it's cheap and convenient.
posted by Ziggy500 at 9:29 AM on September 22, 2017 [16 favorites]
posted by Ziggy500 at 9:29 AM on September 22, 2017 [16 favorites]
Governments everywhere (to a greater or lesser extent) subsidize the use of cars as personal transportation. Taxi regulations and restrictions, though not always enacted for this purpose, prevent commercial cars from freely dipping into this subsidy, which means you keep the number of cars - and the consequent congestion and carbon problems - lower than they would otherwise be. This is especially important in dense urban areas, of course.
I personally think we should stop subsidizing car travel entirely, but until that happens I think we should at least prevent commercial cars from exploding in numbers by abusing this subsidy.
Which means Uber needs to be regulated or heavily taxed. (Use the money to subsidize buses, trains, and bikes.)
posted by splitpeasoup at 9:45 AM on September 22, 2017 [3 favorites]
I personally think we should stop subsidizing car travel entirely, but until that happens I think we should at least prevent commercial cars from exploding in numbers by abusing this subsidy.
Which means Uber needs to be regulated or heavily taxed. (Use the money to subsidize buses, trains, and bikes.)
posted by splitpeasoup at 9:45 AM on September 22, 2017 [3 favorites]
Ban taxis altogether. It's the only way to make London liveable again.
posted by koeselitz at 9:54 AM on September 22, 2017
posted by koeselitz at 9:54 AM on September 22, 2017
I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Lyft. Isn't it the same service from a better company?
Because they don't operate in London.
Basically, the alternatives here are MyTaxi (formerly Hailo) and the mega private-hire firm Addison Lee.
Addision Lee, of course, were the last taxi company to try and play billy-big-bollocks with TfL and got heartily slapped down for their sins. They're decidedly more humble these days.
In their case it was because they started trying to drive in bus lanes. I refer you again to my TfL priority list up-thread!
posted by garius at 9:56 AM on September 22, 2017 [13 favorites]
Because they don't operate in London.
Basically, the alternatives here are MyTaxi (formerly Hailo) and the mega private-hire firm Addison Lee.
Addision Lee, of course, were the last taxi company to try and play billy-big-bollocks with TfL and got heartily slapped down for their sins. They're decidedly more humble these days.
In their case it was because they started trying to drive in bus lanes. I refer you again to my TfL priority list up-thread!
posted by garius at 9:56 AM on September 22, 2017 [13 favorites]
The meme that works for everything (Twitter link)
posted by garius at 10:00 AM on September 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by garius at 10:00 AM on September 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
Ziggy500: “It's good to read this conversation here. On Facebook, it's been mostly people complaining about how inconvenient it will be for them to get from A to B. This is how Amazon and Uber and any amount of disposable fashion retailers have become so successful despite flouting regulations sometimes blatantly - it's because they know their market: a market of people who are willing to overlook any amount of bullshit because it's cheap and convenient.”
And there are so many cheaper and more convenient ways to get around London, just taking the current example, that it's ridiculous. Uber's customers - and the customers of traditional taxis - don't pay for "cheap" or "convenient." If they were looking for cheap or convenient, a system of individual vehicles driven by individual humans who each have to paid some kind of wage and who are forced to contend with a million other individual vehicles whilst wending their way through atrocious traffic would not have been the solution they called up.
No, people want expensive and ridiculously wasteful and inconvenient but simple and straightforward.
"I'm used to riding in a little metal box! Can I just have a service that lets me ride in a little metal box, even if I have to wait half an hour for it every time and have to pay a ridiculously large amount to do so? No, I don't want to ride in a big metal box that runs on a regular schedule and is a bunch cheaper and more convenient – I'm just not used to big metal boxes, and anyway smelly common people are sometimes inside the big metal boxes! Oh, I can do the little metal box if I press a button on my phone and pay twenty standard monetary units? Awesome, thanks!"
We humans are idiots. That's why capitalism is failing: because we consistently make stupid choices.
posted by koeselitz at 10:03 AM on September 22, 2017 [6 favorites]
And there are so many cheaper and more convenient ways to get around London, just taking the current example, that it's ridiculous. Uber's customers - and the customers of traditional taxis - don't pay for "cheap" or "convenient." If they were looking for cheap or convenient, a system of individual vehicles driven by individual humans who each have to paid some kind of wage and who are forced to contend with a million other individual vehicles whilst wending their way through atrocious traffic would not have been the solution they called up.
No, people want expensive and ridiculously wasteful and inconvenient but simple and straightforward.
"I'm used to riding in a little metal box! Can I just have a service that lets me ride in a little metal box, even if I have to wait half an hour for it every time and have to pay a ridiculously large amount to do so? No, I don't want to ride in a big metal box that runs on a regular schedule and is a bunch cheaper and more convenient – I'm just not used to big metal boxes, and anyway smelly common people are sometimes inside the big metal boxes! Oh, I can do the little metal box if I press a button on my phone and pay twenty standard monetary units? Awesome, thanks!"
We humans are idiots. That's why capitalism is failing: because we consistently make stupid choices.
posted by koeselitz at 10:03 AM on September 22, 2017 [6 favorites]
In the interim, here's a protip: dont get in an accident or stabbed while in an Uber.
I can't speak to being stabbed, but car insurance in EU countries works (including payouts for victims of uninsured drivers in the UK). The regulations that Uber ignores differ by jurisdiction, and a) this is a key weakness of Uber's model b) people's failure to acknowledge this is one of the tools companies like this use to ratchet down consumer expectations until they're so low that they can avoid fulfilling their legal obligations.
In this case, the UK has light touch regulation on the private hire [car service] industry, and the only real expectations are that they are not operated by (proven) criminals, that there's an office keeping track of where the cars are and handling bookings, and that the cars aren't utter junk.
But of course Uber gets to cherry pick what regulations the public narrative focuses on, so they get some sympathy. Thankfully, they're up against the London taxi industry, which has the rare property amongst taxi monopolies of getting most of its political influence from soft power, not corruption. So this attempt at regulatory arbitrage might not work.
I'd probably better read garius's list before I go into much more detail about my thoughts on TfL's priorities, but the unusually large size of the bus fleet is important in the fight for space on London's roads.
posted by ambrosen at 10:04 AM on September 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
I can't speak to being stabbed, but car insurance in EU countries works (including payouts for victims of uninsured drivers in the UK). The regulations that Uber ignores differ by jurisdiction, and a) this is a key weakness of Uber's model b) people's failure to acknowledge this is one of the tools companies like this use to ratchet down consumer expectations until they're so low that they can avoid fulfilling their legal obligations.
In this case, the UK has light touch regulation on the private hire [car service] industry, and the only real expectations are that they are not operated by (proven) criminals, that there's an office keeping track of where the cars are and handling bookings, and that the cars aren't utter junk.
But of course Uber gets to cherry pick what regulations the public narrative focuses on, so they get some sympathy. Thankfully, they're up against the London taxi industry, which has the rare property amongst taxi monopolies of getting most of its political influence from soft power, not corruption. So this attempt at regulatory arbitrage might not work.
I'd probably better read garius's list before I go into much more detail about my thoughts on TfL's priorities, but the unusually large size of the bus fleet is important in the fight for space on London's roads.
posted by ambrosen at 10:04 AM on September 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
And if you want to see some pretty good policing, West Midlands Police has a full time officer making sure that taxi and private hire drivers obey the law. It's not proof that the licensing systems are fair: you'd need to read the licensing committee minutes to find that out, but Uber's talking shite when it says the sector's got barriers to entry.
posted by ambrosen at 10:13 AM on September 22, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by ambrosen at 10:13 AM on September 22, 2017 [4 favorites]
Speaking up to thank garius for all their helpful insights.
posted by terrapin at 10:18 AM on September 22, 2017 [11 favorites]
posted by terrapin at 10:18 AM on September 22, 2017 [11 favorites]
Koeselitz - it's more that human beings are shit at resource accounting.
In transport, the simple rule is that either you're paying for it (directly or indirectly), or someone else is. Uber (and services like it) are so enticing to transport consumers because they so successfully swap visible, direct costs for indirect ones either to the the passenger or - more importantly - to the driver.
To massively oversimplify, the cheap pocket price of an Uber journey in London (and elsewhere) should be offset against increased commuting times or risk (if you're a bus user or cyclist), increased council and national rates for road maintenance, and the (eventual) pension costs of the drivers.
The real sneaky/clever bit though is that Uber (and, again, others) have found a way to pass on the costs to the driver as well - by making them carry the maintenance burden on their vehicles
That last bit is the real Vince-McMahon-level clever shit.
So basically properly costing Uber as a passenger requires some genuine thought about where you allocate cost both as an individual and as a society. Which requires more thought than most of us have time to give it, and also more of a willingness to give a shit about others than - if we're all honest with ourselves - we're all mostly prepared to do.
Having watched, researched and written about them over the years I can honestly say that I genuinely admire Uber for what they've managed - and continue to manage - to do. I don't like it, but I respect the art of it all.
posted by garius at 10:22 AM on September 22, 2017 [16 favorites]
In transport, the simple rule is that either you're paying for it (directly or indirectly), or someone else is. Uber (and services like it) are so enticing to transport consumers because they so successfully swap visible, direct costs for indirect ones either to the the passenger or - more importantly - to the driver.
To massively oversimplify, the cheap pocket price of an Uber journey in London (and elsewhere) should be offset against increased commuting times or risk (if you're a bus user or cyclist), increased council and national rates for road maintenance, and the (eventual) pension costs of the drivers.
The real sneaky/clever bit though is that Uber (and, again, others) have found a way to pass on the costs to the driver as well - by making them carry the maintenance burden on their vehicles
That last bit is the real Vince-McMahon-level clever shit.
So basically properly costing Uber as a passenger requires some genuine thought about where you allocate cost both as an individual and as a society. Which requires more thought than most of us have time to give it, and also more of a willingness to give a shit about others than - if we're all honest with ourselves - we're all mostly prepared to do.
Having watched, researched and written about them over the years I can honestly say that I genuinely admire Uber for what they've managed - and continue to manage - to do. I don't like it, but I respect the art of it all.
posted by garius at 10:22 AM on September 22, 2017 [16 favorites]
Also, I'll retreat to the pub and stop threadshitting now (plus I've got Garden Bridge stuff to transcribe), but I loved the fact that someone senior "leaked" this news to me a few hours early by Whatsapping me with this emoji string:
🚕📱💣
taxi/mobile/bomb if it's not showing
posted by garius at 10:35 AM on September 22, 2017 [29 favorites]
🚕📱💣
taxi/mobile/bomb if it's not showing
posted by garius at 10:35 AM on September 22, 2017 [29 favorites]
Sort of like Ash's admiration for the xenomorph in Alien?
posted by Grangousier at 10:37 AM on September 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Grangousier at 10:37 AM on September 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
Sort of like Ash's admiration for the xenomorph in Alien?
To be honest, a bit more Big Lebowski
posted by garius at 10:39 AM on September 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
To be honest, a bit more Big Lebowski
posted by garius at 10:39 AM on September 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
Ha!
Uber Tried To Mess With FoI
I suppose the story will all be about how thousands of drivers who were already fucked are now fucked differently, though.
posted by Grangousier at 10:54 AM on September 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
Uber Tried To Mess With FoI
I suppose the story will all be about how thousands of drivers who were already fucked are now fucked differently, though.
posted by Grangousier at 10:54 AM on September 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
This is how Amazon and Uber and any amount of disposable fashion retailers have become so successful despite flouting regulations sometimes blatantly - it's because they know their market: a market of people who are willing to overlook any amount of bullshit because it's cheap and convenient
But that's how people are, en masse, and you can't hope to change that. The reason that Uber has thrived while flouting regulation isn't that people are dumb, it's that regulators are weak. I use Uber about once a month (although I always use public transport in London), but I still approve of TfL's actions here. If the regulator is strong enough, then either Uber complies and gets its licence back, or it doesn't comply and the gap in the market is filled by operators who will.
Something I often find myself arguing is that focusing the blame for the bad effects of markets on consumers is ceding the terms of the debate to the laissez-faire capitalists. Yes, social and ideological change can, in the long-term, improve the outcomes delivered by markets, but the primary tool for optimising markets and ameliorating their harmful effects is properly enforced regulation. Imagining that the only way we can stop the harm is to all become better people is politically paralysing.
posted by howfar at 10:57 AM on September 22, 2017 [10 favorites]
But that's how people are, en masse, and you can't hope to change that. The reason that Uber has thrived while flouting regulation isn't that people are dumb, it's that regulators are weak. I use Uber about once a month (although I always use public transport in London), but I still approve of TfL's actions here. If the regulator is strong enough, then either Uber complies and gets its licence back, or it doesn't comply and the gap in the market is filled by operators who will.
Something I often find myself arguing is that focusing the blame for the bad effects of markets on consumers is ceding the terms of the debate to the laissez-faire capitalists. Yes, social and ideological change can, in the long-term, improve the outcomes delivered by markets, but the primary tool for optimising markets and ameliorating their harmful effects is properly enforced regulation. Imagining that the only way we can stop the harm is to all become better people is politically paralysing.
posted by howfar at 10:57 AM on September 22, 2017 [10 favorites]
I don't want to ride in a big metal box that runs on a regular schedule and is a bunch cheaper and more convenient
Big metal box won't come to your door to pick you up, and won't drop you off at the front door of the shoping center - sometimes the stops are a long distance away. The bus won't give you a convenient place to put your shopping bags, or wait politely while you onload or offload a couple of large boxes. It can take an hour to cover a distance that's 20 minutes driving direct. You may need two or more buses, train trips, or combinations of both to reach a specific person's house, and you may be stuck with a half-mile walk on the far end anyway, and that's in urban areas with lots of public transit. Oh, and if you start five minutes later than you intended, you may be waiting an extra hour for the next one.
I would love to see more buses and other public transit, but I understand why people are using Uber and Lyft, and it's not all "ugh other people sharing a box with me."
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 11:27 AM on September 22, 2017 [14 favorites]
Big metal box won't come to your door to pick you up, and won't drop you off at the front door of the shoping center - sometimes the stops are a long distance away. The bus won't give you a convenient place to put your shopping bags, or wait politely while you onload or offload a couple of large boxes. It can take an hour to cover a distance that's 20 minutes driving direct. You may need two or more buses, train trips, or combinations of both to reach a specific person's house, and you may be stuck with a half-mile walk on the far end anyway, and that's in urban areas with lots of public transit. Oh, and if you start five minutes later than you intended, you may be waiting an extra hour for the next one.
I would love to see more buses and other public transit, but I understand why people are using Uber and Lyft, and it's not all "ugh other people sharing a box with me."
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 11:27 AM on September 22, 2017 [14 favorites]
It's hard to claim that Uber has a problem with these particular regulations or that these particular regulations are BAD when Uber has done this in so many other cities with different regulations. And that other ride share services manage to operate in these cities without the same practices or complaints.
posted by tofu_crouton at 11:29 AM on September 22, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by tofu_crouton at 11:29 AM on September 22, 2017 [3 favorites]
If Lyft doesn't operate in London, now would seem like a good time to start...
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 11:35 AM on September 22, 2017
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 11:35 AM on September 22, 2017
Yeah, the constant is that Uber is less opposed to bad rules, and more that they're opposed to being ruled at all.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:37 AM on September 22, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:37 AM on September 22, 2017 [5 favorites]
The bus won't give you a convenient place to put your shopping bags, or wait politely while you onload or offload a couple of large boxes. It can take an hour to cover a distance that's 20 minutes driving direct
I would bet money none of this applies to the vast vast majority of Uber and black cab journeys in London. For most it's a pure lifestyle choice, nothing more.
posted by grahamparks at 12:01 PM on September 22, 2017 [3 favorites]
I would bet money none of this applies to the vast vast majority of Uber and black cab journeys in London. For most it's a pure lifestyle choice, nothing more.
posted by grahamparks at 12:01 PM on September 22, 2017 [3 favorites]
I understand why people are using Uber and Lyft, and it's not all "ugh other people sharing a box with me."
Particularly because you have to share a cab with the driver, who may want to chat. I don't see why people would really choose cabs to avoid others.
Personally, the greater variety of chat that I get with Uber over a black cab or more traditional minicab (at least partly because most Uber drivers in Bristol are first generation immigrants from a huge range of countries, and partly because it's often a part-time additional gig so that there is greater diversity in that respect - although I'm sure there are other factors at play) is one of the things I like about the service. There's also just a greater sense of camaraderie, for some reason, maybe because no money changes hands directly. I've had two Uber rides in the last couple of years where the driver and I shook hands at the end of the journey, because it just seemed natural and appropriate to do so. I have never had that experience in any other kind of cab.
posted by howfar at 12:07 PM on September 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
Particularly because you have to share a cab with the driver, who may want to chat. I don't see why people would really choose cabs to avoid others.
Personally, the greater variety of chat that I get with Uber over a black cab or more traditional minicab (at least partly because most Uber drivers in Bristol are first generation immigrants from a huge range of countries, and partly because it's often a part-time additional gig so that there is greater diversity in that respect - although I'm sure there are other factors at play) is one of the things I like about the service. There's also just a greater sense of camaraderie, for some reason, maybe because no money changes hands directly. I've had two Uber rides in the last couple of years where the driver and I shook hands at the end of the journey, because it just seemed natural and appropriate to do so. I have never had that experience in any other kind of cab.
posted by howfar at 12:07 PM on September 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
(which isn't a 'yay Uber' observation, just something that suggests to me that the fundamental model doesn't have to be a corrosive and exploitative one)
posted by howfar at 12:08 PM on September 22, 2017
posted by howfar at 12:08 PM on September 22, 2017
Of course, there's also the fact that Uber drivers have to maintain a 4.5-star plus rating - I bet that also pushes them to be chatty and accommodating.
posted by sagc at 12:13 PM on September 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by sagc at 12:13 PM on September 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
That is a fair point, which I had not considered. Although in the UK, at least, I feel like chattiness is always a big risk, due to our endemic social anxiety.
posted by howfar at 12:23 PM on September 22, 2017
posted by howfar at 12:23 PM on September 22, 2017
most Uber drivers in Bristol are first generation immigrants from a huge range of countries,
Ironically, while I was writing my last comment, I was on a bus outside Temple Meads looking at an Uber car with a white man driving it, and more Union Jacks in the back than one car* needs. Now I'm waiting for a tram in Edinburgh, to further confirm my allegiances on mass vs individual transit.
*Although it was a British made car, being a Toyota Avensis.
posted by ambrosen at 12:55 PM on September 22, 2017 [4 favorites]
Ironically, while I was writing my last comment, I was on a bus outside Temple Meads looking at an Uber car with a white man driving it, and more Union Jacks in the back than one car* needs. Now I'm waiting for a tram in Edinburgh, to further confirm my allegiances on mass vs individual transit.
*Although it was a British made car, being a Toyota Avensis.
posted by ambrosen at 12:55 PM on September 22, 2017 [4 favorites]
Uber's MO with respect to regulatory plays has always been this exact two-step move: get the agency to slap them, rally the public (you don't want to go back to the old days do you?) and/or throw money and influence at any supervening political force to act in their favor to change any regulations that they don't like. For a while this worked really well particularly in cities where taxis had captured the regulatory agencies (many American cities but DC really came to mind), and both the taxis and regulators had eased into stasis.
Uber and Lyft tried this in Austin and rather than agree to take a pay a fee for background checks for new drivers* they went to a public referendum spent $50m and LOST. They left the city rather than ceding to the regulation and of course, went directly to the state legislature and got them to pass a law going over the cities head.**
I don't know whether the strategy can work in London. I personally think that we need a coordinated response to these bastards over multiple cities at the same time, they can afford to put down money and political pressure on one city at a time, but can't do the same thing to say 5 or 10.*** I'm surprised they haven't hired Tony Blair.
* I personally think that both companies churn through way too many drivers on top of not wanting to give in to ANY citie's demands lest other places start getting ideas.
** so anytime anyone talks about subsidiarity, federalism and local rule remember that only applies for local people and constituencies who have money and power, and not for you.
*** Fuck having to organize against plutocrats.
posted by stratastar at 1:32 PM on September 22, 2017 [14 favorites]
Uber and Lyft tried this in Austin and rather than agree to take a pay a fee for background checks for new drivers* they went to a public referendum spent $50m and LOST. They left the city rather than ceding to the regulation and of course, went directly to the state legislature and got them to pass a law going over the cities head.**
I don't know whether the strategy can work in London. I personally think that we need a coordinated response to these bastards over multiple cities at the same time, they can afford to put down money and political pressure on one city at a time, but can't do the same thing to say 5 or 10.*** I'm surprised they haven't hired Tony Blair.
* I personally think that both companies churn through way too many drivers on top of not wanting to give in to ANY citie's demands lest other places start getting ideas.
** so anytime anyone talks about subsidiarity, federalism and local rule remember that only applies for local people and constituencies who have money and power, and not for you.
*** Fuck having to organize against plutocrats.
posted by stratastar at 1:32 PM on September 22, 2017 [14 favorites]
I don't know whether the strategy can work in London. I personally think that we need a coordinated response to these bastards over multiple cities at the same time, they can afford to put down money and political pressure on one city at a time, but can't do the same thing to say 5 or 10.
There also need to be alternatives. Because of the tech population in Austin, local competitors sprung up quickly (including a co-op service!), but that wouldn't work for every city.
posted by tofu_crouton at 2:22 PM on September 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
There also need to be alternatives. Because of the tech population in Austin, local competitors sprung up quickly (including a co-op service!), but that wouldn't work for every city.
posted by tofu_crouton at 2:22 PM on September 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
Whenever you get a 'some regulations are bad argument' always ask for the specifics since they use it to toss all regulations you can just walk through all the ones you know and ask "yay or nay?"
Surprisingly people tend to not be in favour of deregulating to allow stabby, robby or rapey drivers which really seems to be at the heart of most of Uber's regulatory troubles in almost all cities.
The trick that has worked for Uber in the US is to bribe municiple politicians - many of whom don't even need to take actual cash under the table - it is sufficient that their friends, loved ones or supporters find their way onto the uber payroll.
This doesn't seem to work as well for them in England perhaps due to a more professionalized civil service.
posted by srboisvert at 4:31 PM on September 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
Surprisingly people tend to not be in favour of deregulating to allow stabby, robby or rapey drivers which really seems to be at the heart of most of Uber's regulatory troubles in almost all cities.
The trick that has worked for Uber in the US is to bribe municiple politicians - many of whom don't even need to take actual cash under the table - it is sufficient that their friends, loved ones or supporters find their way onto the uber payroll.
This doesn't seem to work as well for them in England perhaps due to a more professionalized civil service.
posted by srboisvert at 4:31 PM on September 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
it's because they know their market: a market of people who are willing to overlook any amount of bullshit because it's cheap and convenient.
Digression from the main article, sorry.
I wish people would stop saying this about people who use Uber, because I think the truth is significantly more nuanced. Uber has succeeded because in many many countries, taxis represent government backed or well-established business corruption and it is quite difficult for customers to see why Uber's particular brand of evil is so much worse than whatever the local brand may happen to be.
The problem arises because legislators don't legislate or they often legislate selectively. Consumers notice.
If I take Hong Kong-- the taxis use a medallion system which is so expensive that it is essentially controlled by the banks and used as an investment vehicle. With medallions often costing upwards of 7,000,000 HKD (900,000 USD) virtually none of the taxi drivers can afford their own medallion. Instead they rent them from companies for crazy prices and are forced to drive horribly unsafe hours to pay the rent. I love the taxi drivers in Hong Kong, but the system is so abusive that it creates terribly unsafe practices. And because the medallions themselves cost so much money, the cars themselves are in terrible shape. I've had drivers literally fall asleep while driving me. They refuse to take non-Chinese because they're worried the ride will take too long in a different language. They refuse both long and short rides because they are looking for their sweet spot of the medium ride.
And everyone in Hong Kong uses public transport-- car ownership is rare, but sometimes you need a taxi (trip to vet, elderly, packages) and even when the drivers are great, the system is terrible. And the regulation is a giant joke. Complaints do nothing because it's the banks who are behind the current system. The banks oppose releasing more medallions despite not being enough taxis in peak because if the prices drop they will lose on their loans for the crazy expensive medallions.
In Hong Kong, Uber has been welcomed and not because they're undercutting the fares (fares are more expensive here). And not because people only care about cheap and convenient. It's because people stack their distant possibly evil corporate stuff against the present and obviously evil bank/government stuff and tbh I am not at all sure that the banks are less evil than Uber.
I *absolutely* think Uber should be regulated. I think TfL is quite right in what they are doing. I just wish people wouldn't make these blanket assumptions about why people choose Uber and would realise that many many people rely on taxis for their day to day lives.
posted by frumiousb at 5:15 PM on September 22, 2017 [5 favorites]
Digression from the main article, sorry.
I wish people would stop saying this about people who use Uber, because I think the truth is significantly more nuanced. Uber has succeeded because in many many countries, taxis represent government backed or well-established business corruption and it is quite difficult for customers to see why Uber's particular brand of evil is so much worse than whatever the local brand may happen to be.
The problem arises because legislators don't legislate or they often legislate selectively. Consumers notice.
If I take Hong Kong-- the taxis use a medallion system which is so expensive that it is essentially controlled by the banks and used as an investment vehicle. With medallions often costing upwards of 7,000,000 HKD (900,000 USD) virtually none of the taxi drivers can afford their own medallion. Instead they rent them from companies for crazy prices and are forced to drive horribly unsafe hours to pay the rent. I love the taxi drivers in Hong Kong, but the system is so abusive that it creates terribly unsafe practices. And because the medallions themselves cost so much money, the cars themselves are in terrible shape. I've had drivers literally fall asleep while driving me. They refuse to take non-Chinese because they're worried the ride will take too long in a different language. They refuse both long and short rides because they are looking for their sweet spot of the medium ride.
And everyone in Hong Kong uses public transport-- car ownership is rare, but sometimes you need a taxi (trip to vet, elderly, packages) and even when the drivers are great, the system is terrible. And the regulation is a giant joke. Complaints do nothing because it's the banks who are behind the current system. The banks oppose releasing more medallions despite not being enough taxis in peak because if the prices drop they will lose on their loans for the crazy expensive medallions.
In Hong Kong, Uber has been welcomed and not because they're undercutting the fares (fares are more expensive here). And not because people only care about cheap and convenient. It's because people stack their distant possibly evil corporate stuff against the present and obviously evil bank/government stuff and tbh I am not at all sure that the banks are less evil than Uber.
I *absolutely* think Uber should be regulated. I think TfL is quite right in what they are doing. I just wish people wouldn't make these blanket assumptions about why people choose Uber and would realise that many many people rely on taxis for their day to day lives.
posted by frumiousb at 5:15 PM on September 22, 2017 [5 favorites]
koeselitz: "And there are so many cheaper and more convenient ways to get around London, just taking the current example, that it's ridiculous. Uber's customers - and the customers of traditional taxis - don't pay for "cheap" or "convenient.""
I don't disagree per se but this completely discounts the need for more personalized service for people with mobility issues.
posted by Mitheral at 7:13 PM on September 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
I don't disagree per se but this completely discounts the need for more personalized service for people with mobility issues.
posted by Mitheral at 7:13 PM on September 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
"I don't disagree per se but this completely discounts the need for more personalized service for people with mobility issues."
Good news, Uber also refuses to comply with regulations requiring a certain percent of their fleet to be handicapped accessible (and for the accessibility access to be functioning). Uber is not the answer for people with mobility issues, and has repeatedly refused to serve that market.
"One good way to change bad rules is to ignore them. In fact, Uber has had some success with this, bringing up the very question why some of the rules exist in the first place."
It's always men who suggest this, men who are apparently not afraid of being raped by their un-background-checked cab driver, or of taking a ride with a company that has repeatedly failed in its duty to report sexual assaults, or of using a company that has banned words relating to "sexual assault" from its customer reviews so that rapist drivers can keep driving and victim passengers can't warn others.
In Illinois, incidentally, Uber's big play is to carry way, way, way less insurance than cars require. Sooner or later someone will die, there will be lawsuit, and both the driver and dead person's family will go bankrupt from the medical bills, and Uber won't pay a dime, because they're not a cab company, they're just a platform, and it's the driver's own fault for carrying the too-low insurance Uber recommends for them. (Also the non-reporting of crimes and allowing drivers who are barred from driving regular taxis to work for Uber, all of that, and the random assaults of passengers, it's great, it's fine, they're great.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:36 PM on September 22, 2017 [15 favorites]
Good news, Uber also refuses to comply with regulations requiring a certain percent of their fleet to be handicapped accessible (and for the accessibility access to be functioning). Uber is not the answer for people with mobility issues, and has repeatedly refused to serve that market.
"One good way to change bad rules is to ignore them. In fact, Uber has had some success with this, bringing up the very question why some of the rules exist in the first place."
It's always men who suggest this, men who are apparently not afraid of being raped by their un-background-checked cab driver, or of taking a ride with a company that has repeatedly failed in its duty to report sexual assaults, or of using a company that has banned words relating to "sexual assault" from its customer reviews so that rapist drivers can keep driving and victim passengers can't warn others.
In Illinois, incidentally, Uber's big play is to carry way, way, way less insurance than cars require. Sooner or later someone will die, there will be lawsuit, and both the driver and dead person's family will go bankrupt from the medical bills, and Uber won't pay a dime, because they're not a cab company, they're just a platform, and it's the driver's own fault for carrying the too-low insurance Uber recommends for them. (Also the non-reporting of crimes and allowing drivers who are barred from driving regular taxis to work for Uber, all of that, and the random assaults of passengers, it's great, it's fine, they're great.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:36 PM on September 22, 2017 [15 favorites]
Sorry, I guess I came off as defensive of Uber, which I wasn't intending.
posted by Mitheral at 8:00 PM on September 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Mitheral at 8:00 PM on September 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
Uber London* started a petition on Change.org yesterday for this decision to be reversed; as of 10 am today (UK time) it has 470,000 signatures. (A petition against renewal started in January currently has 14,500 signatures.)
There was a rather heated debate on a friend's Facebook page about this that involved several women I know; one commented that in terms of safety, not only had she frequently been made to feel uncomfortable in black cabs and minicabs, but Uber could be relied upon to get her transport at times and places where minicabs won't come out and black cabs don't ply and in so doing had greatly contributed to her personal safety. **
* Or at least by someone purporting to be Uber London. I don't know how or even if Change.org verifies the ID or organisations or groups starting petitions.
** It should go without saying, but "she shouldn't be out late at night in suburban London" is not an acceptable or appropriate response to this, so let's not hear it, please.
posted by Major Clanger at 2:09 AM on September 23, 2017
There was a rather heated debate on a friend's Facebook page about this that involved several women I know; one commented that in terms of safety, not only had she frequently been made to feel uncomfortable in black cabs and minicabs, but Uber could be relied upon to get her transport at times and places where minicabs won't come out and black cabs don't ply and in so doing had greatly contributed to her personal safety. **
* Or at least by someone purporting to be Uber London. I don't know how or even if Change.org verifies the ID or organisations or groups starting petitions.
** It should go without saying, but "she shouldn't be out late at night in suburban London" is not an acceptable or appropriate response to this, so let's not hear it, please.
posted by Major Clanger at 2:09 AM on September 23, 2017
There was a rather heated debate on a friend's Facebook page about this that involved several women I know; one commented that in terms of safety, not only had she frequently been made to feel uncomfortable in black cabs and minicabs, but Uber could be relied upon to get her transport at times and places where minicabs won't come out and black cabs don't ply and in so doing had greatly contributed to her personal safety.
Which I'm sure is 100% true. But it misses the point - one that Uber in their own narrative around this ruling, are deliberately encouraging people to miss:
TfL aren't saying Uber can't operate their model. They're saying that, among other things, they don't trust Uber to effectively guard against and report incidents of sexual assault.
So TfL aren't trying to rob your friend of being able to quickly have access to transport in a situation where she feels unsafe. They're insisting that she has the right to know that the vehicle which turns up actually is safe, according to an independently evaluated metric, not one solely defined and policed by Uber itself.
Or, put bluntly, ask her if she'd be happy if the grubby-fronted local minicab firm on her nearest high street got to decide who was and who wasn't a safe driver to pick her up at night. I suspect she'll say 'no'.
All TfL are doing is saying that they have the right to hold Uber to that same standard.
And that's really the problem here - and why Uber are so clever - because they know that (consciously or not) people's perception of the trustworthiness of a firm is based on its image, and they've made playing on that an absolute artform both in the US and here.
It's also why practically all of their comms so far, both yesterday and today, have almost actively avoided addressing the specific issues raised by TfL.
They've talked about big bad TfL stifling innovation. They've talked about big bad TfL threatening 40,000 honest hardworking people. They've talked about TfL robbing ordinary Londoners of the ability to choose a cheap ride, anytime and anywhere.
What they haven't done, is said to the general public:
"TfL are wrong. We don't think we should be held to the existing standards on checking for, and reporting on, sexual assault by drivers."
Or:
"TfL are wrong. We shouldn't have to have to have independent safeguards in place to ensure we don't use our software to prevent taxi inspectors from ensuring we comply with the law."
I wonder why that is...
posted by garius at 4:54 AM on September 23, 2017 [24 favorites]
Which I'm sure is 100% true. But it misses the point - one that Uber in their own narrative around this ruling, are deliberately encouraging people to miss:
TfL aren't saying Uber can't operate their model. They're saying that, among other things, they don't trust Uber to effectively guard against and report incidents of sexual assault.
So TfL aren't trying to rob your friend of being able to quickly have access to transport in a situation where she feels unsafe. They're insisting that she has the right to know that the vehicle which turns up actually is safe, according to an independently evaluated metric, not one solely defined and policed by Uber itself.
Or, put bluntly, ask her if she'd be happy if the grubby-fronted local minicab firm on her nearest high street got to decide who was and who wasn't a safe driver to pick her up at night. I suspect she'll say 'no'.
All TfL are doing is saying that they have the right to hold Uber to that same standard.
And that's really the problem here - and why Uber are so clever - because they know that (consciously or not) people's perception of the trustworthiness of a firm is based on its image, and they've made playing on that an absolute artform both in the US and here.
It's also why practically all of their comms so far, both yesterday and today, have almost actively avoided addressing the specific issues raised by TfL.
They've talked about big bad TfL stifling innovation. They've talked about big bad TfL threatening 40,000 honest hardworking people. They've talked about TfL robbing ordinary Londoners of the ability to choose a cheap ride, anytime and anywhere.
What they haven't done, is said to the general public:
"TfL are wrong. We don't think we should be held to the existing standards on checking for, and reporting on, sexual assault by drivers."
Or:
"TfL are wrong. We shouldn't have to have to have independent safeguards in place to ensure we don't use our software to prevent taxi inspectors from ensuring we comply with the law."
I wonder why that is...
posted by garius at 4:54 AM on September 23, 2017 [24 favorites]
One other thing to add as well - as from reading back through this thread this morning I've noticed that I don't think it's ever been made explicit:
Uber's licence is coming to an end after five years and four months. That four months bit is important - because it shows that the licence was actually extended.
It was extended, by TfL, essentially to give Uber the chance to effectively deal with the issues that TfL had provisionally identified and which they informed Uber of as the end of that original licence approached.
This is something else that Uber's own narrative is failing to point out. It's something every public figure I've seen wailing about this ruling on social media should really know though as they demand Uber be given a few months "breathing space" to try and comply.
They were already given exactly that and they didn't do it.
posted by garius at 5:04 AM on September 23, 2017 [17 favorites]
Uber's licence is coming to an end after five years and four months. That four months bit is important - because it shows that the licence was actually extended.
It was extended, by TfL, essentially to give Uber the chance to effectively deal with the issues that TfL had provisionally identified and which they informed Uber of as the end of that original licence approached.
This is something else that Uber's own narrative is failing to point out. It's something every public figure I've seen wailing about this ruling on social media should really know though as they demand Uber be given a few months "breathing space" to try and comply.
They were already given exactly that and they didn't do it.
posted by garius at 5:04 AM on September 23, 2017 [17 favorites]
Now heard from a couple of sources that Uber UK have spent this afternoon being considerably nicer to TfL behind the scenes than they have been before. So they - or more likely Uber Global - may well have finally run the numbers on this and realised they are exposed here.
That, plus Sadiq backing TfL so publicly today, make me think we're about to see an Uber climbdown. Sadiq wouldn't put his name to something this controversial unless he was damn sure it was about to make him look like one hell of a statesman.
I'm going to put a post up on LR tomorrow covering the tactics Uber use, Grayball and why I don't think they'll work in London (basically a slightly more formal version of what I've said here). Given everything though, it wouldn't surprise me at all if we start seeing concessionary noises from Uber tomorrow, let alone Monday.
(Lets see if I regret this comment in the morning...)
posted by garius at 3:34 PM on September 23, 2017 [3 favorites]
That, plus Sadiq backing TfL so publicly today, make me think we're about to see an Uber climbdown. Sadiq wouldn't put his name to something this controversial unless he was damn sure it was about to make him look like one hell of a statesman.
I'm going to put a post up on LR tomorrow covering the tactics Uber use, Grayball and why I don't think they'll work in London (basically a slightly more formal version of what I've said here). Given everything though, it wouldn't surprise me at all if we start seeing concessionary noises from Uber tomorrow, let alone Monday.
(Lets see if I regret this comment in the morning...)
posted by garius at 3:34 PM on September 23, 2017 [3 favorites]
Would love to see a link to that post in thread, garius. I know self-linking is not the thing, but maybe if it's been specifically requested by another user and is bang on-point...?
posted by penguin pie at 4:32 PM on September 23, 2017
posted by penguin pie at 4:32 PM on September 23, 2017
Self-linking is okay in the comments in most cases, as long as you're clear about your affiliation, it's on topic, and you didn't personally make the post just to come back in the comments promoting your thing.
Plus I too am excited to see garius's blog post. :D
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:48 PM on September 23, 2017 [3 favorites]
Plus I too am excited to see garius's blog post. :D
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:48 PM on September 23, 2017 [3 favorites]
Greyball was a massive red flag for TfL and remains so. So they asked Uber to explain themselves and their tech. In detail. They'll happily sign whatever non-disclosures etc. that Uber need, but... you know... explain yourselves chaps.
I'm just going to note -- because my thinking on this is conjecture -- that using "Greyball" as a project name suggests that it wasn't necessarily of US origin (where "grey" is typically "gray") and that if, perchance, it was related to a UK hire, that UK hire might be known to TfL's techies at very least by reputation. London digital tech is simultaneously big and small, especially at the civic/gov end of things.
posted by holgate at 9:55 PM on September 23, 2017
I'm just going to note -- because my thinking on this is conjecture -- that using "Greyball" as a project name suggests that it wasn't necessarily of US origin (where "grey" is typically "gray") and that if, perchance, it was related to a UK hire, that UK hire might be known to TfL's techies at very least by reputation. London digital tech is simultaneously big and small, especially at the civic/gov end of things.
posted by holgate at 9:55 PM on September 23, 2017
As requested. Suspect there's a few typos etc. lurking in it and needs images, but I'll sort all that tomorrow:
Understanding Uber: It's Not About The App
posted by garius at 5:06 PM on September 24, 2017 [11 favorites]
Understanding Uber: It's Not About The App
posted by garius at 5:06 PM on September 24, 2017 [11 favorites]
Great piece, Garius - I learned a lot. I certainly had no idea about the depths of Uber's assholery vis a vis the rape reporting.
posted by adrianhon at 11:33 PM on September 24, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by adrianhon at 11:33 PM on September 24, 2017 [1 favorite]
I certainly had no idea about the depths of Uber's assholery vis a vis the rape reporting.
Greyball aside, this alone would be sufficient reason not to grant a licence if it were any other operator. When the Metropolitan police start complaining that you're refusing to report sexual assault to them and that you're leading the women who report it to you to believe you have, then you need to have a long, hard look at yourself as a company.
And let's be honest - if it were any other operator - from Addison Lee to the smallest local taxi firm - the public would be clamouring for their licence to be withdrawn.
But again, that's why Uber are a cany operator, and it's why they've perfected a narrative model that focuses on the app, rather than how they run taxis. Because the first one is sexy and easy to sell. The other one is hard to get right when you're doing the whole thing on the cheap and trying to pretend you don't actually employ your drivers.
posted by garius at 1:06 AM on September 25, 2017 [6 favorites]
Greyball aside, this alone would be sufficient reason not to grant a licence if it were any other operator. When the Metropolitan police start complaining that you're refusing to report sexual assault to them and that you're leading the women who report it to you to believe you have, then you need to have a long, hard look at yourself as a company.
And let's be honest - if it were any other operator - from Addison Lee to the smallest local taxi firm - the public would be clamouring for their licence to be withdrawn.
But again, that's why Uber are a cany operator, and it's why they've perfected a narrative model that focuses on the app, rather than how they run taxis. Because the first one is sexy and easy to sell. The other one is hard to get right when you're doing the whole thing on the cheap and trying to pretend you don't actually employ your drivers.
posted by garius at 1:06 AM on September 25, 2017 [6 favorites]
garius: Also, I'll retreat to the pub and stop threadshitting now.
I've been resisting the urge to flag most of your comments in here as 'fantastic'...! Definitely not threadshitting when you're the subject matter expert.
posted by MattWPBS at 4:57 AM on September 26, 2017 [5 favorites]
I've been resisting the urge to flag most of your comments in here as 'fantastic'...! Definitely not threadshitting when you're the subject matter expert.
posted by MattWPBS at 4:57 AM on September 26, 2017 [5 favorites]
"Big metal box won't come to your door to pick you up, and won't drop you off at the front door of the shoping center - sometimes the stops are a long distance away. "
This is very very rarely the case in London - even night buses run every half hour. Most buses run to a schedule of every 3-8 minutes, sometimes every 11-15 in areas further from the centre. If you are a person with no mobility issues and don't have kids (everyone I know with a car here has kids) then you can get by just fine without driving.
posted by mippy at 8:26 AM on October 5, 2017
This is very very rarely the case in London - even night buses run every half hour. Most buses run to a schedule of every 3-8 minutes, sometimes every 11-15 in areas further from the centre. If you are a person with no mobility issues and don't have kids (everyone I know with a car here has kids) then you can get by just fine without driving.
posted by mippy at 8:26 AM on October 5, 2017
Garius - Mefi's own got an article up on the Guardian?
posted by MattWPBS at 2:08 PM on October 5, 2017
posted by MattWPBS at 2:08 PM on October 5, 2017
And I've just seen there's another interesting post on LR.
posted by MattWPBS at 2:10 PM on October 5, 2017
posted by MattWPBS at 2:10 PM on October 5, 2017
Yeah - since they released the 40k figure I'd been playing with the numbers because they just didn't add up.
A slight word of caution: Taxi Point (who Zelo quotes) are using numbers put out by one of the taxi Unions who - rightly - spotted that they didn't add up as well. But their calculations aren't quite as nuanced as ours (the LR link posted by Matt).
Not that it matters much - whatever way you cut it, the numbers don't add up in a pretty epic way. Either Uber have way less drivers than they say, are massively overstating how much money their drivers make, or are banking a truly obscene amount of money via UBV in Holland to avoid paying UK tax.
Either that or it's a combination of all three.
One interesting thing though - be reverse-engineering the figures on the driver survey they released, it does look like (regardless of whether they work for Uber Britannia or Uber London) somewhere in the region of 2/3 of all Uber drivers in the UK are driving in London.
And yes - that was me moonlighting in the Guardian. Next up: how avocado lattés are revolutionising the lives of London's commuters...
posted by garius at 3:11 AM on October 6, 2017 [2 favorites]
A slight word of caution: Taxi Point (who Zelo quotes) are using numbers put out by one of the taxi Unions who - rightly - spotted that they didn't add up as well. But their calculations aren't quite as nuanced as ours (the LR link posted by Matt).
Not that it matters much - whatever way you cut it, the numbers don't add up in a pretty epic way. Either Uber have way less drivers than they say, are massively overstating how much money their drivers make, or are banking a truly obscene amount of money via UBV in Holland to avoid paying UK tax.
Either that or it's a combination of all three.
One interesting thing though - be reverse-engineering the figures on the driver survey they released, it does look like (regardless of whether they work for Uber Britannia or Uber London) somewhere in the region of 2/3 of all Uber drivers in the UK are driving in London.
And yes - that was me moonlighting in the Guardian. Next up: how avocado lattés are revolutionising the lives of London's commuters...
posted by garius at 3:11 AM on October 6, 2017 [2 favorites]
This number confuses me:
"used by 3.5 million passengers at least once every 90 days"
If we take the £184.5m as correct then the revenue per passenger is 184.5/(3.5*(365/90)) = £13! Given the average fare is going to be not much less than that, this implies either:
a) Each customer is only making around one journey with Uber per quarter
or
b) The "3.5 million" is the total number of journeys, not unique users (therefore Theresa May's "damaged the lives of those 3.5 million Uber users" is even more bollocks than we thought)
Unless:
c) The revenue number is much higher than £184.5m.
posted by grahamparks at 4:43 AM on October 6, 2017
"used by 3.5 million passengers at least once every 90 days"
If we take the £184.5m as correct then the revenue per passenger is 184.5/(3.5*(365/90)) = £13! Given the average fare is going to be not much less than that, this implies either:
a) Each customer is only making around one journey with Uber per quarter
or
b) The "3.5 million" is the total number of journeys, not unique users (therefore Theresa May's "damaged the lives of those 3.5 million Uber users" is even more bollocks than we thought)
Unless:
c) The revenue number is much higher than £184.5m.
posted by grahamparks at 4:43 AM on October 6, 2017
Yeah, the numbers really are bollocks and the closer you look the more obvious that becomes. The comments on my second LR uber piece are worth a read in that regard. They really demolish the numbers there.
posted by garius at 10:35 AM on October 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by garius at 10:35 AM on October 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
« Older Wherever you go, there you are | Talking Tui Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by grahamparks at 4:01 AM on September 22, 2017 [3 favorites]