←back to thread

Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

(www.bbc.com)
256 points reubensutton | 6 comments | 25 Nov 19 10:19 UTC | HN request time: 0.516s | source | bottom
Show context
omarhaneef ◴[25 Nov 19 14:32 UTC] No.21628397[source]▶
Something about this doesn't make sense to me.

I take it for granted that the staff at Uber would do anything not to lose the license. I am sure that, for 17 months, they've been investing heavily in security systems, ID verification etc. They must have followed up on every complaint. If I were them, I would have just manually followed everything that the Cabs do till I had a technology in place.

It also seems that the city is making some effort to give them space to improve: 15 months, then 2 months.

So then why didn't the gap close in time? Is this because the technology platform was so massive that turning it just took more time? Or is there something about the details that I can't see?

Edit: I start with the assumption that both Uber and the City are trying to do their best, and don't ascribe nefarious intent to anyone.

replies(7): >>21628454 #>>21628457 #>>21628477 #>>21628557 #>>21628714 #>>21630377 #>>21632071 #
1. mkolodny ◴[25 Nov 19 15:08 UTC] No.21628714[source]▶
One possibility is that, as in the US [0], the London taxi industry has a lot of sway in politics. I'd guess that the taxi lobby had a lot to do with this decision.

“Any London politician wants the black cabs on their side. They carry a political and electoral clout that is way beyond their numbers. There is nothing secret about that,” says Daniel Moylan, who was deputy chairman of TfL under Mr Johnson. [1]

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/31/the-t... [1] https://www.ft.com/content/41a0ff40-a383-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c9...

replies(3): >>21629353 #>>21630941 #>>21660417 #
2. omarhaneef ◴[25 Nov 19 16:05 UTC] No.21629353[source]▶
That is certainly possible -- although I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.

However, if that were the case, why not just say no license? Why give an opportunity to Uber to show an improvement in their numbers? And why do it twice?

replies(1): >>21630835 #
3. wutbrodo ◴[25 Nov 19 17:57 UTC] No.21630835[source]▶
It's not all or nothing, and no one is suggesting that the taxi commission is 100% corrupt and in thrall to Big Taxi. The way they're approaching Uber is likely a compromise between kowtowing to business special interests and serving their constituents (as pretty much all policy in every country is).
4. PaulRobinson ◴[25 Nov 19 18:06 UTC] No.21630941[source]▶
If it were true that this was all caused by black cab drivers pulling strings, Uber would have been thrown out of London years and years ago.

Multiple mayors - including the current PM who was once Mayor of London - have explained that there needs to be an open culture.

There are other private hire vehicle operator firms in London. Addison Lee is huge, and there are many, many "minicab" firms. They all comply with TfL's licensing and vetting procedures. Uber does not.

This isn't "black cabs vs Uber", this is "black cabs, Addison Lee, all the minicab firms, TfL and the Mayor of London demanding basic vetting procedures that everybody else does without question or issue".

replies(1): >>21634502 #
5. malandrew ◴[26 Nov 19 00:35 UTC] No.21634502[source]▶
Black cabs are in their own category due to The Knowledge and the general vetting process, but if what you say is true, why don't we see Addison Lee, minicabs, Kapten, Bolt and Ola getting the same level of scrutiny? Do we have any reason to believe that any of those have implemented policies and procedures that make them more fit and proper?
6. KaiserPro ◴[28 Nov 19 21:51 UTC] No.21660417[source]▶
it really doesn't. The worst they'll do it block off a bridge.

Plus, there are two taxi systems, the Black cab, and the minicab. There are way more minicabs than black cabs, and they are a much bigger competitor to uber than black cabs.