Uber's business model means that normal companies cannot compete. They are running on huge investments to fund their huge losses till the competition is wiped out. They lose money every ride, IIRC.
MPs call for Uber to be stripped of its London licence
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
@PedroMendez
This article mentions the loss-making strategy:
Also this:
I don't know if it qualifies as informational assymetry, maybe people are aware of the tradeoff, or maybe they expect taxi drivers to be more thoroughly vetted.
And you could probably fly even further with some airlines, so it's a rather silly comparison to make. A taxi fare or £20 is not something that a London resident would be shocked at, for even under ideal conditions it could easily take 45+ minutes to get from central London to the outer boroughs (several hours when the roads are against you).
Let's say you've got a venue with multiple points of access and a passenger(s) who is mobility impaired, is the Uber driver with little local knowledge going to instinctively seek out the most suitable drop-off location? Or are they goign to stop where their satnav tells them too?
The questions irrelevant because the black cab driver will have refused to pick them up as their 'ramp is broken' or simply driven past and pretended not to notice.
That's such a ludirously niche example that it's not even relevant. Millions of people should pay inflated costs and suffer shitty service for the one time that someone gets dropped off at a suitable location?
I said right there that the reader needs to look further though didn't I? Essentially owning up to where I went wrong myself. Not sure what your problem is with that
Feck
You said the reader shouldn't have to. That's not true and has never been true. It's easier than ever to get the full picture with multiple sources available at your fingertips, and yet people are being more easily misled than at any time in recent memory. The reason for that is because of that attitude.
I meant in an ideal world, but also more realistically in that they should give all the facts before they put whatever spin on
To be honest I don't think you can compare a train ride to a taxi ride. One is a mass public transportation mode where many people pay for the cost of a single journey, the other is you paying the journey's cost all by yourself.
I think it’s a disgrace London is banning Uber. What is this? North Korea? Next Google will be banned because it’s too easy for kids to search for porno.
Uber is fantastic, it’s given so many people an income, it’s allowed people to travel so much more. I also bet HMRC love it too. Taxi drivers generally speaking don’t pay tax because it’s cash in hand. Uber records income and so forces it to be legitimately taxed.
Black cabs can feck off. I’ve even been abroad where the black cab equivalent is an absolute rip off, only for me to call an Uber for a fraction of the price.
Uber is fantastic, it’s given so many people an income, it’s allowed people to travel so much more. I also bet HMRC love it too. Taxi drivers generally speaking don’t pay tax because it’s cash in hand. Uber records income and so forces it to be legitimately taxed.
Black cabs can feck off. I’ve even been abroad where the black cab equivalent is an absolute rip off, only for me to call an Uber for a fraction of the price.
Generally speaking governments don't like stuff like this where the people sort themselves out. All it took was one little complaint from the black cabbies being shafted by it and the tory government were along to slap them back down again.
That's backed up by almost zero reading by the way, but the cynic in me says there's probably some truth to it.
At the end of the day, the key point everyone is making here is that Uber is great because it's so cheap. I myself use it because it's so cheap, but I also accept the driver will be no where near as good or experienced... Got an Uber to Old Trafford the other day and it was a nightmare because they, unlike experienced cabbies went straight into traffic by following their satnav and didn't use detours to get me there quicker. I tried to tell him to go a different way but he spoke very little English so couldn't understand my requests.
If these low prices continue, eventually they will wipe out traditional cabbies and at that point Uber will up their prices so they and their big investors will make profit. When this happens and you're paying the same high prices as you did with traditional cabbies, will you still be happy with Uber?
If these low prices continue, eventually they will wipe out traditional cabbies and at that point Uber will up their prices so they and their big investors will make profit. When this happens and you're paying the same high prices as you did with traditional cabbies, will you still be happy with Uber?
Are these Uber drivers classed as self employed? Do they need to fill in their own tax forms?
Last edited:
Look at the statement from TfL. Uber are not 'banned', their licence has not been rejected for renewal. They address the issues raised by TfL and they will be granted or
You're just looking it from the price perspective, clearly not having looked at a lot of the facts/issues surrounding Uber. And the chances are either Uber will win an appeal or will make changes before they're not on London roads anymore.
Also believe it or not, but Uber and black cabs are not the only option.
The viability of their business model is completely unrelated to this discussion. The taxi market should be deregulated with or without uber existing.
The whole issue about the rape-threat seems to be anecdotal and is probably intended to bring emotions into the discussion. Who doesn't had strong negative feelings about rape? Why would it be a particular issue with uber?
If one can make an argument that taxi drivers need special vetting, anyone does. There is no job where I cannot make similar arguments. It's silly. It was appropriate in the past but it's not anymore due to technology.
Uber is a technology that empowers individuals and cuts out people who are able to extract rents. That's why so many people cry foul.
Glad to see this happen. Ubers competitive advantage has been the flaunting of regulations from day one, masked by the most basic of maths and branded as huge improvement.
Was looking to short them a month ago, sadly their not publicly traded
.
Was looking to short them a month ago, sadly their not publicly traded
.You really believe that? Sound medical assessments and DBS checks shouldn't be regulated strictly?
If you're referring to English language tests etc. that's a whole different issue.
Found the answer....no they are not. Uber lost an employment tribunal on this issue.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/28/uber-uk-tribunal-self-employed-status
All uber need to do is obey the law and they get their lisence back
I think they are appealing that ruling
So I could take any old piece of shit on the road and call it a taxi?
Because they weren't reporting them and pissing about with the safety checks of drivers.
Uber don't do this shit for free, they are taking their cut off the top
It is actually really funny to read through threads knowing the political opinions of various posters.
The bias shines through in any individual topic (on all sides), seemingly without even taking into account the evidence presented. You can tell what people will post before you've even read the post.
Not a criticism of an individual poster by any means but a funny observation.
The bias shines through in any individual topic (on all sides), seemingly without even taking into account the evidence presented. You can tell what people will post before you've even read the post.
Not a criticism of an individual poster by any means but a funny observation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41384499
All the outrage yet Uber CEO accepting they must change ..
All the outrage yet Uber CEO accepting they must change
..I am somewhat surprised, Fletch (this is 2017 after all), at your narrow and limited interpreation of what mobility impairment can mean.
Why would it turn into a shitty service?
And considering how many elderly, disabled and sick persons there are in the country at any one time, the potential pool of users is vast (millions in fact).
Which if acted upon, is a success for both the regulator and the public. People rushed to such extremes in this case, almost cult-ish in their devotion.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41384499
All the outrage yet Uber CEO accepting they must change
Nonsense. The fantastic thing about free market capitalism is that if Uber upped their prices; another company would innovate, be more competitive cost-wise and take all of Uber's business. If that company then increased prices to an above market rate level, a third company would be more competitive and take a greater market share.
Truthfully I don't see the need for excess regulation in this sector. If people dislike the routes that Uber drivers take, the journey time, the lack of English speakers, the lack of hurdles that the drivers have to jump through to qualify, or anything else for that matter; they have the option of voting with their feet and using another supplier.
As is typically the case - Government stick their noses in and do nothing but frustrate consumer freedom.
So it's fine that black cabs drivers ignore or refuse service to wheelchair users because they pick up passengers who they don't know have mobility issues?
Uber would just cut prices to force the competition out of business then jack up prices again. They currently subsidies the price of rides, so in a future where they have a near monopoly theybwould have even more power to do so.
So instead of keeping prices competitively low and making a good profit with a healthy share price, they are going to relentlessly increase prices but then slash them every time a competitor comes on the scene? Causing profits and share price to regularly crash and then boom?
Highly implausible.
Implausible but not for the reason you say. If they could do what you suggest, they would do it.
But that would mean their own end because they can't be a monopoly. (I'm assuming the UK has a anti monopoly law in place right?)
In the end its gonna be UBER plus one or two other similar companies sharing the market.
You do know that Uber could just buy up the competition right? This is antitrust 101.
I've only ever used Uber in Paris as my town doesn't have Uber. The experience start to finish was absolutely flawless on every occasion and in one case, exceptional
The 'anecdote' here being a complaint from the Metropolitan Police that Uber continued to employ a driver who have been accused of sexual assault, failed to report that incident to the authorities, and so the driver went on to commit another more serious sexual assault. In the words of the Met "By not reporting to police promptly, Uber are allowing situations to develop that clearly affect the safety and security of the public."
Can you honestly not see the reason for private-hire drivers to require DBS checks? Think of the situations drivers can easily achieve on an average Friday night… Drunk, vulnerable women trying to get home?
I wasn't aware that sexual assaults were a thing of the past thanks to technology.
Uber isn't a technology. It's a private hire firm that you book via an app rather than by telephone. The only thing that sets it apart from Adison Lee and their app is that the fares are kept low by the subsidies of investors who want to leverage it into a monopoly, and the exploitation of it's drivers whom it wants to replace with self-driving technology ASAP.
And despite all of that, I'm perfectly happy for them to continuing operating if they get their ship in order and stop trying to evade oversight and regulation and endanger the public.
I actually don't think that's entirely the case
There's been a knee-jerk reaction from the Conservative party (and from a lot of the right generally) in support of Uber, and both @Jippy and @Nick 0208 Ldn two of CE's more right-leaning posters have had thoughtful and supportive responses to TFL's action.
You're quite right the aforementioned practices would also contravene Competition Law, as well as being impractical and far more hassle than merely buying their competition.
Which neatly leads on to:
Which is the reason for UK Competition Law.
Their job is to maximise profit. They are not a publicly listed company.
For me it was fantastic news to see Uber lose its licence, and I am somebody that uses them every so often. However as somebody who has worked night shifts in London for the last 6 years it has become ridiculous how busy the roads have become in such a short time. I would say 75% of London traffic after 11pm is minicabs, most being uber. They have totally flooded London and how any of them must make a decent living without having to work 70+ hours is beyond me. They are also very often the most poorly driven cars on the road, crawling along to stay on electric power, ridiculous u-turns, no indicators, driving wrong way down one ways etc etc.
Even though it will occasionaly cost and inconvenience me, (I use uber at approx 3am for a 50mile journey down to Kent from Central London once or twice a month, which costs just £52) I hope the ban is upheld but I doubt it.
Even though it will occasionaly cost and inconvenience me, (I use uber at approx 3am for a 50mile journey down to Kent from Central London once or twice a month, which costs just £52) I hope the ban is upheld but I doubt it.
Not yet, but the IPO is still in the pipeline.
https://www.ft.com/content/5ee22ccc-8db8-11e7-9084-d0c17942ba93
It's great watching Sadiq Khan squirm here. Who does he value more, his union paymasters or the voters who will ditch him over this?
I also don't entirely buy the argument that the fully trackable Uber is any less safe than the extortionate black cabs that refuse to stop after dark or the money laundering mini cab firms.
I also don't entirely buy the argument that the fully trackable Uber is any less safe than the extortionate black cabs that refuse to stop after dark or the money laundering mini cab firms.
Uber is a mini cab firm
Uber is a technology firm