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

If the concern over rider safety was that somebody could pose as an Uber driver and update a photo to make it work, why are black cabs not also deemed unsafe? Couldn't somebody borrow a friend's black cab, slap on a fake photo, and work the city? Maybe a stretch, and more work, but the same concern is there, no? I guess the black cabs have some powerful lobbyists in parliment? Yellow taxis in NYC were a monopoly, and medallions cost a fortune, and somehow it seems to have settled down a bit. Some latecomers to the medallion gig lost a lot in the transistion, but isn't that true of any new jump in technology or service?

I don't know the answer to this, but I suspect it may have something down to the difference in penalty for fraudulent behaviour.

At the very least, if the only penalty is getting booted off the 'platform', getting added to Uber's platform is relatively cheap. Getting added to the black cab 'platform' requires getting licensed, which takes years and costs a lot of money.

I'd imagine that fraudulently impersonating a black cabbie comes with significantly more penalty than getting 'booted off the platform' (license revocation).

I'm honestly pretty cynical about EU laws these days. All they're designed to do is to whack around American tech companies until they cough up $X bn for their coffers.

Not that America is any better these days, NJ recently decided to get into the game and started to go after Uber.

Obviously solution is monopoly :D

I thought from the article this has nothing to do with EU but with the local municipal transit board of London. This can happen across the world if the local licensing agencies are paying attention to behavior.

> why are black cabs not also deemed unsafe?

A black cab driver has made a more significant investment in that license and will be much less likely to jeopardise it than some shmuck loaning out his uberx login -- especially when Uber not only doesn't do anything to stop it, but encourages it with more dark patterns.

Well, it's regulation.

> some shmuck loaning out his uberx login

Literally what? Who does this? The app is a source of income, why would anyone share it?

If anything, this ban makes me feel like London is run by a bunch of protectionist luddites.

> Couldn't somebody borrow a friend's black cab, slap on a fake photo, and work the city?

There is concern that this is happened in the past and penalties are extremely severe: the owner of the original license will lose their badge and may face criminal charges.

It's a bit hard to describe the taxi market in London to anybody who doesn't live here, but it's a closed shop only to the extent that if you're prepared to do the work to get a badge, it won't cost you $1m like New York, but you will have to put some hours in, and you'll get known by many other black cab drivers.

If you show up with "Dave's cab" and you're not Dave, you're going to get asked questions. Do it a couple of times, and they might decide to pull your badge number up.

A few years ago a genuinely licensed black cab driver was convicted of rape and sexual assault, and as a result the community was shaken: it was the first time in over 300 years where a licensed operator had been convicted of such a crime, and they now look on newcomers with even more suspicion.

There are no lobbyists in parliament, and most black cab drivers I know have modest incomes. They declare an average of £38k/year, but as a cash business (until recently), it was assumed they were actually doing about £50k/year. Good money, but not megabucks.

The system is supported because it's worked for hundreds of years. Their chief complaint against Uber is whether their drivers have to undergo the same amount of vetting as they had to (they don't), and whether the fare structure is fair (it isn't, especially as it's VC-subsidised).

Uber is a great solution in many places that have poor transit and poor taxi solutions already. London isn't one of those places, and hasn't been for hundreds of years.

Which will have cartelizing effects.

> VC-subsidised

This boogeyman trope needs to die. Uber is not funded by VCs anymore.

If I want a night off and my mate is banned from uber/doesn’t have a license/doesn’t have his own car I can give him my login and car keys and ask for 50% of his take home.

Thank you for an informative response. I had stayed in London and other areas in England back in the 80's and really found the black cabs very helpful and enjoyable. I think the training and requirements produce a good bunch of workers to serve the industry. The ubiquity of map applications from Google, Apple, and others, seems to have dropped the requirement for a driver to know the best route from experience. I am from New York, but Google Maps has gotten me to where I need to go within the time estimate while I am in Orlando, Florida, with great accuracy. It announced 'Speed Trap' and sure enough a cop pulled out and nabbed a speeder who just flew past me! These things are sometimes known by heavy drivers, but not like they are compiled and delivered by Google Maps.

I guess demeanor, dress, etiquette, and a bunch of other pleasantries are still a commodity, but then again the stereotypical NY cabbie gets their fair share of likes and dislikes from the movies and tourists too. To me, Uber and Lyft are indispensable for doing business across teh US now. I can go away with car rentals where I only need to make a few hops during a day, and I can stay somewhere without worrying about parking or hailing down a cab.

Technically, it seems to be "post-IPO equity" subsidised, with a $500 million investment from PayPal in April.

https://www.crunchbase.com/funding_round/uber-post-ipo-equit...

>There are no lobbyists in parliament

Black Cab drivers have the Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association lobbying for them politically https://twitter.com/TheLTDA