←back to thread

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

(www.bbc.com)
256 points reubensutton | 5 comments | 25 Nov 19 10:19 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
dominotw ◴[25 Nov 19 14:04 UTC] No.21628168[source]▶
>At least 14,000 trips involved drivers who weren’t who the riders thought they were,

any idea what the source of this info is?

And not sure what the timeframe here is. Is it 14000 since Uber started operating in london?

replies(7): >>21628218 #>>21628235 #>>21628258 #>>21628285 #>>21628364 #>>21628425 #>>21629016 #
fauigerzigerk ◴[25 Nov 19 14:28 UTC] No.21628364[source]▶
The number comes from Cognizant who were hired to conduct an independent review [1]. They found that 43 drivers out of 45,000 drivers skirted Uber's identity checks committing identity fraud.

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/78827b06-0f6a-11ea-a225-db2f231cf...

replies(3): >>21628420 #>>21628441 #>>21628611 #
thathndude ◴[25 Nov 19 14:38 UTC] No.21628441[source]▶
Thanks for posting the raw numbers. London is citing this 14,000 number as if its egregious, but my initial reaction was: "Out of how many total?" Based on the numbers you're posting Uber was literally 99.9% compliant. That's definitely not "unfit."

This is politics plain and simple. And not the first time Uber has had to play the game. This same thing played out in 2017. The courts will side with Uber.

replies(1): >>21629943 #
1. fauigerzigerk ◴[25 Nov 19 16:45 UTC] No.21629943[source]▶
The number is actually quoted as "at least 43". I should have quoted more carefully. Sorry for that.

You can google the URL and then click on the link to get through the paywall.

replies(1): >>21630303 #
2. dominotw ◴[25 Nov 19 17:16 UTC] No.21630303[source]▶
> The number comes from Cognizant

I don't see that here http://archive.is/mNxBo

was it edited out after u read it?

replies(1): >>21630366 #
3. fauigerzigerk ◴[25 Nov 19 17:21 UTC] No.21630366[source]▶
I can't open your link for some reason. But it's all still there in the original FT article.

It is a bit unclear though which numbers and findings come from Cognizant and which are from the TfL investigation.

replies(1): >>21630552 #
4. dominotw ◴[25 Nov 19 17:34 UTC] No.21630552{3}[source]▶
hah yea crazy that article seems to be the only source linking cognizant to those numbers.

Those numbers are repeated everywhere without any context or sourcing. Totally sounds like a smear job to me.

replies(1): >>21630627 #
5. fauigerzigerk ◴[25 Nov 19 17:41 UTC] No.21630627{4}[source]▶
Having read it again, I now think the numbers are indeed from TfL and not from the more recent Cognizant review.