12 ms·
London's Uber Ban Is a Big Brexit Mistake
- cosban 9y agoI find it interesting that the article fails to mention the reason behind the bans. Perhaps they expect us to already know that it's due to problems with driver background checks. (correct me if I'm wrong) Then again, if the argument is that in a pure libertarian system consumers would drive out bad actors like this, I'm not sure that this line of thinking would hold. The convenience of a cheap ride would seem to be worth the cost of the seemingly small chance that a user might be assaulted if the world worked this way.
- disordinary 9y agoDue to driver checks and also having software which actively tried to hide Ubers activities from regulators.
- furioussloth 9y agoThere is no proof of that being used in London. Also all the drivers in London are certified drivers.
- disordinary 9y agoIt was given as a reason in the press release so there is obviously suspicion of it at least. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/greyball-uber-london-ban-creepy-feature-what-is-it-a7961641.html http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new...
- furioussloth 9y agoIf so then they should mentioned incidences which lead to this suspicion. Both mayor and uber has failed to make it clear what the reason of contention is between them. The rules which uber is not following should have been listed instead of arbitrary statements like Uber failed to report crimes by their drivers . This can happen only if victim decides to report to uber instead of police which sounds very unlikely scenario to me.
- cassowary 9y agoThat's nonsense. If you have a dispute between you and a company, everyone will expect you to talk to the company first. If it turns out that your dispute relates to breach of the law (for instance, improper racial discrimination of clients), you might not necessarily realise you have the ability to report it to the police. To say it sounds like a very unlikely scenario to you makes it sound like you're trying to find reasons to defend Uber, not trying to interpret the scene fairly.
- pas 9y agoNo, it's not. If you have suffered something that you think is a crime, call the cops (in the UK they are pretty okay for these things). If you had a very bad experience, but maybe not a full blown crime, you might decide to make a 1.0 star rating and complain to the company. There could be systemic problems (racial discrimination), but even in those cases, there are concrete victims, that can report it to authorities (to the TfL for example).
- chrismealy 9y agoA fun game to play with any Tyler Cowen article is to ask, "How is he playing dumb this time?" You'll always win.
- oulu2006 9y agoThis article is stupid, Uber was not caught unawares and has been in repeated violation of several requirements for operating in London. This isn't the end of some libertarian utopian dream of innovation, but rather uber's continued blatant disregard of local laws.
- RobPfeifer 9y agoIt's not really stupid if you realize it's very likely an Uber PR piece masquerading as an article :). In that sense, it makes quite a bit of sense!
- supercanuck 9y agoIt is written by a good well known exonomist, so i doubt it inthis case
- wavefunction 9y agoExonomists can be purchased.
- demonshalo 9y agoso can you therefor your opinion is invalid... Examine what is said on its own merit not according to who said it or why.
- gberger 9y agoWait, I thought exonomist was a typo. Does it mean anything different than economist?
- furioussloth 9y agoYes .. this piece of article does not resound with my biases and beliefs . So the author must be paid shill. /s
- zitterbewegung 9y agoSo bending over backwards and making companies not follow the law is "stifling technology companies". As others have pointed out Uber could play by the rules if they wanted to.
- QAPereo 9y agoCould they? Isn’t their whole business model using VC money to create predatory pricing and dominate everything? I think Uber is rotten as a premise, and when you take the bad behavior out, barring a sudden and miraculous breakthrough in automated automobiles, they’re not viable.
- disordinary 9y agoYep, I have no idea how they have any customers with all the bad press they get. The goal is to kill the competition and treat their drivers and customers like crap in doing so.
- aianus 9y agoThey treat their customers very well, that's why they've been so successful.
- StudentStuff 9y agoOh really? I gave up using Uber when I watched a ride go from $9 to $22, then back down to $12 after I killed the app and reopened it. Lyft pulls much the same shit, but killing and reopening will get me within a few cents of that initial $9 price. Ultimately, it just means I set my life up such that neither Uber or Lyft can hold me hostage with insane spikes in pricing. Thus I bike and drive more than I'd like.
- disordinary 9y agoYou obviously didn't see how they reacted to that poor woman in India.
- 9y ago
- hn_throwaway_99 9y agoThis same argument was made when Austin required fingerprinting for drivers and Uber and Lyft left. What happened? Their was a flourishing of new ride share companies, including a local nonprofit, RideAustin. Yes, at first, these apps were nowhere near the level of Uber/Lyft, but they quickly improved, especially RideAustin. The prices were slightly higher, but it seemed those prices reflected the actual cost of the service without the VC subsidy. I dread taking a taxi and I'm no friend of the formerly entrenched taxi companies, but this idea that making some sensible regulations that these multibillion dollar VC-subsidized tech companies need to follow is "anti-innovation" is BS.
- harry8 9y agoThis isn't sensible regulation. This is an outright ban, which is a whole different ball of wax. Is an outright ban "anti-innovation"? You can't do sensible regulation once you've banned entrants in favour of the taxis.
- parent5446 9y agoIt's not a ban on ride-sharing. It's a ban on a single specific company: Uber. And the ban is because Uber was routinely violating sensible regulations.
- tigershark 9y agoWhat other ride-sharing company operates in London? Addison lee, kabbee and the multiple private cab companies can't offer the same service as uber when you need a ride on the moment. They are fine when you can book in advance, otherwise be prepared to wait half an hour or more.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- saurik 9y agoThe fact that there is only one barber, butcher, or baker (or candlestick maker... whatever) in town should not dissuade us from putting them out of business if they don't pay attention to safety regulations...
- nitinreddy88 9y agoTotally click bait article. Snip: Transportation authority didn't ban because of job security or localization. It didn't renew Uber license because Uber is not following local authority guidelines.
- d--b 9y agoOf course, Uber needed to be reigned in, but what matters is the symbol here. Black cabs are fairly expensive and mostly driven by white people (which is not the case for private hire vehicles: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/taxi-and-phv-demographic-stats.pdf http://content.tfl.gov.uk/taxi-and-phv-demographic-stats.pdf) People won't help feeling that this is a "Let's keep our good old ways and our white boys happy" move. The article is right in saying that this general cultural shift to the right will definitely deter some foreigners from setting businesses in the UK.
- mmel 9y agoWhy does 'the symbol' matter more than Uber's continual disregard for law and regulation around the world?
- d--b 9y agoI am not saying they shouldn't have banned Uber, I'm saying the article has a point when they say that such moves have an impact on the cultural environment, and that it can be detrimental to the overall startup ecosystem in the UK.
- Grue3 9y ago>disregard for law and regulation around the world The same laws and regulations that just so happen to keep disadvantaged populations from moving up the social strata. How convenient. Uber might suck, but the regulations that deny poor people access to transport are much worse.
- zimpenfish 9y agoPlease don't try and use "poor people need Uber for jobs" when it's well known that one of Uber's goals is elimination of those human drivers to drive costs down. They are nothing more than a pawn in this game (and they deserve better.)
- Grue3 9y ago
- Animats 9y agoThis is some economist from George Mason University who claims markets are the answer to everything.[1] There's a whole bunch of those guys at George Mason, available to write advertorials on demand. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Cowen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Cowen
- burntrelish1273 9y agoSet Uber aside for the bigger picture: Brexit is UK's "Donald Trump": a manifestation of projected socioeconomic angst in a self-defeating manner that doesn't address inequality at the policy level. It's like suggesting California secede: good luck with trade policies, printing a currency, forming a military and so on. It's civilizational "reorg" churn that accomplishes nothing, eg, mob nonsense. If people collectively possessed integrity and moral courage, they would directly call out what they felt was inequity instead of scapegoating this group, that trade arrangement or a startup.
- ajdlinux 9y agoTfL and the Greater London Authority being controlled by notable Brexiteers like Sadiq Khan, of course...
- CaptainZapp 9y agoSadiq Khan a notable brexiteer? I'm calling you a liar! Two options: You provide reputable sources to back this assertion of yours. In which case I will profusely, unconditionally and publicly apologize. Otherwise my assertion that you're a liar stands. Note that no English tabloid product, nor anything Breitbart counts as a reputable source in this context.
- detaro 9y agoparent post sounds like sarcasm to me.
- CaptainZapp 9y agoIf so, my bad that I didn't get it. In any case it was not very sarcastically phrased. And given the bullshit people believe nowadays such things really need to be called out.
- ajdlinux 9y agoMy apologies, I'm an Australian, and anything that an Australian says should be assumed to be sarcastic until proven otherwise.
- CaptainZapp 9y agoIn that case: Please accept my apologies. I really took your comment at face value. It's just that the current trend of Obama being a muslim terrorist sympathizer, Hillary Clinton running a child porn ring out of a pizza parlor and other such utter shit (and a significant amount of people actually believing that) makes me want gnaw off the wall paper. Mea culpa!
- limaoscarjuliet 9y ago100 quid heathrow to the City vs 30 uber. Good or bad, time to pay triple again.
- gregsq 9y agoWell, thirty from notting hill to heathrow by mini cab for me. If you mean the actual city that would maybe 55. Not sure if you mean the city, say Liverpool Street, or west end something. In any case that extra cash went straight to the driver I'd guess. Black cabs cost more, but for completeness, I'm guessing you didn't need to pay that much.