That's what my original post surrounded. There was talk that drivers would have to demonstrate an ability to write in English.
MPs call for Uber to be stripped of its London licence
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
What if all Uber drivers were required to do The Knowledge?
Probably not realistic, but the nerd in me wonders.
Probably not realistic, but the nerd in me wonders.
The main problem cited is the lack of background checks and sexual offenses as a result.
That isn't anyone's fault but the people doing the checks though.
The written test could be viewed a protectionist measure, a way:
- to exclude a part of the population from the Uber business (newcomers, very old people) = to give priority to the home-grown people or "educated people"
- to limit the Uber phenomenon = protect the old-school taxi business
Another purpose for the authorities would be to register all the Uber drivers for fiscal considerations.
On the other hand, any business has to be regulated and monitored. If an old-school taxi driver candidate doesn't need to pass a written test or have a specific degree or certificate, then you can guess the underlying reasons.
Last but not least, a written test isn't necessarily very "hard" to complete. Interviews could be a more appropriate measure: make the Uber drivers pay the process if necessary.
- to exclude a part of the population from the Uber business (newcomers, very old people) = to give priority to the home-grown people or "educated people"
- to limit the Uber phenomenon = protect the old-school taxi business
Another purpose for the authorities would be to register all the Uber drivers for fiscal considerations.
On the other hand, any business has to be regulated and monitored. If an old-school taxi driver candidate doesn't need to pass a written test or have a specific degree or certificate, then you can guess the underlying reasons.
Last but not least, a written test isn't necessarily very "hard" to complete. Interviews could be a more appropriate measure: make the Uber drivers pay the process if necessary.
Last edited:
Well it's Uber's fault. They lack proper governance, which is why the licence is pulled.
It's amazing how many issues always seem to crop up when a new and disruptive player tips their toe into established industries.
I can agree that background checks need to be implemented properly and drivers should be able to clearly demonstrate verbal and reading skills sufficient to do their job. But let's not pretend this is the real reason for this. The real reason is to put in place enough red tape and bullshit that no other players are allowed to offer service at a lower price point than the taxi drivers.
I can agree that background checks need to be implemented properly and drivers should be able to clearly demonstrate verbal and reading skills sufficient to do their job. But let's not pretend this is the real reason for this. The real reason is to put in place enough red tape and bullshit that no other players are allowed to offer service at a lower price point than the taxi drivers.
You don't need to write anything when you drive a taxi and speak to people face to face. A written test is completely pointless.
This always seemed like such a pointless thing to do, and people take such massive pride in it. "I know every street in London like the back of my hand" well good for you. So does a sat nav. Use all that brain space for something else. I mean okay if it benefits you then great, but it's held up like some chest-beating badge of honour when actually it's not even slightly relevant these days. You should use a sat nav anyway to get the route based on traffic developments, the map in your head doesn't tell you if there's a crash half a mile away that is going to put 20 minutes on to your journey. I never understood why you need to pass such a pointless and difficult test in order to do a job that should be using technology anyway for the most optimal result.
Anyone here drive for Uber ? Not sure if I could do it.....
If for example Uber are encouraging their drivers to do their DBS applications with that are not TfL verified provider, then this is a potential issue.
Same goes with the medical checks (where there are currently no verified providers), but if a big group of Uber drivers are going to dodgy providers, whether encouraged to or not, it's an issue.
The rules are largely there to protect people.
In the case of uber, they skirt round legal obligations that protect not just passengers but drivers too.
No minimum wage for drivers, no certainty of who the hell is picking you up as a passenger, and a company that pays little tax anywhere. It was created by tech guys, financed by several google execs and current backers is just a long list of tech millionaires. They are the only people that have made money from Uber.
There is plenty of space for innovative cab firms to open that offer the ease of use of Uber (app based dispatch system) while maintaining the legal requirements for drivers, wages and taxes. Uber could do it themselves, they choose not to. When criticising this, the first question you should ask, is why don't uber want to conform to the laws everyone else does?
If they're not paying minimum wage, why are people driving for them?
Ensuring that companies pay the legally mandated minimum wage, perform required background checks and pay their taxes appropriately is one thing. Forcing drivers to take written English tests and jump through other pointless bureaucratic hoops is another thing entirely.
Please read the second line of the quoted post @Zarlak
"Oral tests would be good also (better in fact), but the costs would be astronomical"
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, nor does it mean that a written test has any merit, or point. A written test has nothing to do with their job as a taxi driver so there's no point mentioning it whatsoever, it should be taken off the table. The options should either be oral tests and if they're astronomical then find a way to bring them down. There's no point in suggesting something pointless as an alternative.
Last edited:
Damned youngsters. In my day...
More serious note, I read an article in the NYTimes a few years ago on The Knowledge. This passage always stuck with me. Some will dismiss it as flowery impractical nonsense, but there's intristic value in the 2 ecosystems co-existing, IMO.
But given the pace of technological refinement, how long will it be before the development of a Sat-Nav algorithm that works better than the most ingenious cabbie, before a voice-activated GPS, or a driverless car, can zip a passenger from Piccadilly to Putney more efficiently than any Knowledge graduate? Ultimately, the case to make for the Knowledge may not be practical-economic (the Knowledge works better than Sat-Nav), or moral-political (the little man must be protected against rapacious global capitalism), but philosophical, spiritual, sentimental: The Knowledge should be maintained because it is good for London’s soul, and for the souls of Londoners. The Knowledge stands for, well, knowledge — for the Enlightenment ideal of encyclopedic learning, for the humanist notion that diligent intellectual endeavor is ennobling, an end in itself. To support the Knowledge is to make the unfashionable argument that expertise cannot be reduced to data, that there’s something dystopian, or at least depressing, about the outsourcing of humanity’s hard-won erudition to gizmos, even to portable handheld gizmos that themselves are miracles of human imagination and ingenuity. London’s taxi driver test enshrines knowledge as — to use the au courant term — an artisanal commodity, a thing that’s local and homespun, thriving ideally in the individual hippocampus, not the digital hivemind.
You could also call the Knowledge the greatest tribute a city has ever paid to itself, a love letter more ardent than “IN.Y.” or anything else a Chamber of Commerce might cook up. The Knowledge says that London is Holy Writ, a great mystery to be pored over, and that a corps of municipal Talmudists must be delegated to that task. To the extent that the mystifying clichés hold — that taxi drivers are London’s singers of songlines and fonts of folk wisdom, carrying not just the secrets of London navigation but the deep history of the city and its streets — the disappearance of the Knowledge would be an assault on civic memory, a blow, if you will, to historic preservation. Smartphone apps and Google Maps may ensure that Londoners will never again be lost in their own city, but if the Knowledge disappears, will something of London itself be lost — will some essence of the place vanish along with all those guys on mopeds, learning the town’s roads and plumbing its depths?
I couldn’t and I would be arrested in that case after I grabbed that bitch and dragged her out of my car.
Its one thing if she damaged a company owned taxi, but to do it to my own car ? I don't think I could stay that calm.
Pretty much was going to post this earlier, but yeah. It's outdated nonsense held up as something worthwhile because of tradition.
Has anyone ever had a positive experience in a London cab anyway? They're always overpriced and driven by cocky idiots whose opening conversational gambit usually consists of something like "blimey, a white face! Don't see that much these days."
So yeah I'd feel terrible if they were replaced by a much more efficient method. Really awful like.
So yeah I'd feel terrible if they were replaced by a much more efficient method. Really awful like.
Not sure about your experiences, but the majority of uber drivers in London I've experienced have been either African ,Pakistani or Bengali, and they all have been OK.
I was on about the black cab drivers. Never taken an Uber.
Only ever had one of those bigots ranting about immigrants. Just told him my wife was African (nearly true) and he was silent thereafter. Seriously though, most are normal blokes, rather than Ukip gobshites.
That's balls. As I said earlier, a black will get you somewhere quicker as uber guys use stupid routes.
They should do a challenge- five uber guys versus five black cab guys in east/west, north/south etc...challenges and see who gets there first.
I do use uber too btw, but in work time when I can expense it, black cab all the way.
She kept repeating something I can't understand, "co caps".
What the feck does that mean?
She's even threatening him with false accusations of rape.
Yeah and the black cabs charge you about £90 for the privilege. That wasn't an Uber vs black cabs argument anyway it was an argument about The Knowledge. Black cabs could easily use a sat nav and not have to pass a pointlessly hard chest beating exercise.
The prices are exaggerated. From my office in Vauxhall to the City it's £15-17 and from W1 to my flat in Brook Green (west, zone 2) is c£22. Not unreasonable at all.
For 22 quid I could go to Birmingham. It is totally unreasonable for the common man. Black cabs are in general for the privileged and those on higher incomes.
A train to Birmingham will cost you c£50. Aa cab fare is the cost of a round, generally, so not too bad.
Maybe I'm lucky in that I can pretty much expense any weekday cab.
Local cabbies in rural areas are the biggest rip-off. We have a conference at the Four Seasons in Hampshire and the monopoly cab company charges c£25 for a short journey. Good luck getting an uber out there too.
If black cabs are offering a good service, they'd continue to exist without outdated licensing rules. It's not rocket science. Anyone with a driver's license, a car and a smartphone can nowadays be a taxi driver. There is no information asymmetry anymore that can be exploited and there is no particular danger.
I travel to birmingham every two weeks, and trust me if you're travelling off-peak and non virgin trains you can go as cheap as £8 (fairly easy to pick up these tickets) and even with Virgin most time you can pick up tickets around £22-£40. £50+ is usually peak time and virgin and you've not booked in advance.
Wouldn't know much about the second point re: rural areas, but I do know that in the city, young people and especially outside of london in other cities (working class from inner city areas) will rarely if ever get a black cab, Uber gave these people a chance to travel affordably and has provided shit tonnes of people with employment or a separate source of income. Could it be better policed? perhaps, but just as much risk IMO in private hire taxi's in general. A compromise will be reached though, nearly everyone I know uses uber so can't see it being a permanent situation once more and more people realise it is affecting the quality of their daily life and ability to move affordably.
Uber petition over London licence loss reaches nearly 500,000
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41369617
Story says that 40,000 licensed drivers will be affected.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41369617
Story says that 40,000 licensed drivers will be affected.
That's pretty good for Birmingham tbf.
I never thought of black cabs as a luxury tbh, although the ones from Heathrow are massively expensive. Will have that joy tomorrow.
Anon uber driver talking about working for them.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/23/over-uber-london-driver-fares-rivals-work
How many miles is that?
Not sure tbh, probably around 6.5 miles, but obviously factoring in London traffic for the journey time.
That's still double the price of here in Manchester. It might be affordable to you but it's inflated to most people. I got an Uber last night further than that for £10. Black cabs would have quoted £35. OK you expect things to be more expensive in London but still. I'm sure I paid about £20 to go 3 miles odd once in Kings Cross in a black cab - traffic was a bit shit but still, that's just extortionate.
The fact you think readers don't have any obligation to exercise critical thinking is the reason why these sources are so pervasive.
Rein, dear.
Tbf, after 17 years in London I'm well past the point of being shocked by prices. Now it's more amazement when I'm back up north and get a pint for under £4-4.50.