13 ms·

Understanding Uber: It's Not About the App

221 points by porker 9y ago

pjc50 9y ago
Was just about to post this myself, it's an excellent summary of what the dispute is really about. Also includes some history; I hadn't realised that Hailo was British in origin, or that TfL had the same legal structure as a local authority.
- rahimnathwani 9y ago
  "it's an excellent summary of what the dispute is really about" Except that, like other articles I've read about the dispute, it talks only about Uber/ULL and its transgressions in isolation. Stats about number of offences are provided, but without context. Where are the comparable numbers for other minicab firms (of which there are many)? Are ULL's offences per ride/mile higher or lower than the worst/best/median minicab firm?
  - pjc50 9y ago
    The issue is not the quantity, but the inaction, as explained: once made aware of the incidents, Uber should have reported them to the police. (Also the operation of "greyballing"!)
    - rahimnathwani 9y ago
      "once made aware of the incidents, Uber should have reported them to the police" Is that what other minicab firms do?
      - rootlocus 9y ago
        > Is that what other minicab firms do? If they still have their license, I believe they do.
      - Djvacto 9y ago
        Do you have any reason to believe they don't? I'm struggling to find numbers about it, but either they do and there's no news about it, or they don't and not only should Uber be under speculation, so should they. How do either of those change the fact that Uber did something wrong?
      - willvarfar 9y ago
        In the UK there is no legal requirement that someone knowing a crime has occurred to report it to the police. Uber seem to be reporting crimes where they are the victim (the article says they report a lot of small fraud) but not crimes where others are the victim. Which leaves an interesting thinking experiment: would Uber report a murder? The victim obviously can't report it. It would be illegal for Uber to do anything to assist the murderer in escaping the law, e.g. by cleaning the car etc; but would they actually report it?
        rootlocus 9y ago
        > In the UK there is no legal requirement that someone knowing a crime has occurred to report it to the police. Except Uber is a company not a person and not reporting crimes left them without a license.
        vertex-four 9y ago
        > In the UK there is no legal requirement that someone knowing a crime has occurred to report it to the police. No, but there is a requirement as part of London's minicab license to do so in "severe" cases, and to report to TfL in less-severe cases.
        ensignavenger 9y ago
        Shouldn't the victims be reporting these crimes? If the victims aren't reporting them, maybe they don't want them reported? Maybe they have a good reason for not wanting them reported? I have heard victims advocates state that it should be up to the victims what legal action/investigation/etc should take place. I am not an expert in this area, but maybe that is what Uber is doing?
        corford 9y ago
        According to the article, the victims were under the impression that Uber would report it to the police as part of their investigation in to the driver.
        9y ago
    - beager 9y ago
      Greyball seems like the one aspect of this that contextualizes the rest of the reasons for the non-renewal. If you're an operator and you fail to get right by local rules, you might mea culpa and fix it, or work within the system provided by the authority to do better. In this case, TfL were made aware that an operator had operationalized a program designed to help them skirt regulation, which could have inspired some prejudice when it came down to the decision. On a broader note, as with all Uber discussions, we will get to the pained point of unfair treatment of Uber by incumbents and regulators. Contrast that with the general SV ethos that one should break the rules to win. Given both of those, would it be fair to say that Uber getting chided and blocked here (and there, and there, and there) is an indication that maybe they're not that good at breaking rules? In other words, who is out there succeeding who is under the radar and is not being scorned for a cavalier approach to rule-breaking?
      - andygates 9y ago
        > Greyball seems like the one aspect of this that contextualizes the rest of the reasons Deliberately and systematically evading investigation is a clear sign of bad faith. Mea culpas and time-to-fix-it are good faith arrangements; they've screwed that pooch hard.
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    > it talks only about Uber/ULL Well, yeah, they're the only ones currently trying to renew their license. > Where are the comparable numbers for other minicab firms (of which there are many)? Utterly irrelevant when it comes to renewing Uber's license. Much like if I was to apply for, oh, a pharmacist license and using "But Frank has dealt more meth than I have!" as justification. Utter nonsense.
    - rovek 9y ago
      It's perfectly relevant when questioning whether or not the same scrutiny is applied to all players or if TfL are just trying to make headlines attacking the big fish.
      - brango 9y ago
        Rubbish.
      - andrewingram 9y ago
        I think it's reasonable to go after the people who essentially brag about breaking the rules. If you shine a light on your own questionable activities, don't be surprised by the consequences.
      - DanBC 9y ago
        Of course the same scrutiny is applied to all players. The fact that Uber chooses to respond by launching a petition, rather than attempting to comply with the regulation that every other minicab company in London complies with says much more about Uber than it does about TfL.
      - vertex-four 9y ago
        So the theoretical issue there is "why are TfL not applying their regulations to other companies", not "why are TfL applying their regulations to this one". If you have any evidence at all that TfL are licensing other companies which have similar questions around their ability to comply with regulations, I'm reasonably sure you could start a small movement around it.
- gadders 9y ago
  Well, it doesn't mention the GMB union that covers taxis, and the union's support for the Mayor of London.
rahimnathwani 9y ago
"Indeed if TfL have any kind of ulterior motive for their actions, it is simply that they dislike the impact Uber are having on congestion within the capital" As compared with official London taxis (aka 'black cabs'), cars operated by Uber: 1) After dropping off a passenger, drive to their next pickup point (vs. black cabs which drive around for an average of 25 mins waiting to be hailed). 2) Pay the London congestion charge (vs. black cabs which are exempt despite the fact that they're generally on the road for about 10+ hours per day than the average car, and spend a far greater proportion of that total time within the congestion charging zone).
- mbrookes 9y ago
  3) Are typically petrol (gas) rather than diesel, and are often hybrids (less pollution). Edit: Not significantly smaller, as pointed out below 4) Are typically more compact than a black cab - take up less road space So no, it's not about congestion in that sense. What the author appears to be suggesting is that there are more cars on the road plying for the same trade, and the more journey miles taken in an Uber, the more idle time a black cab will spend waiting to be hailed - either congestion on the road, or congestion in the taxi ranks. However, if that were the true ulterior motive, that could be applied to any car service that competes with black cabs, not just Uber.
  - rahimnathwani 9y ago
    5) Don't drive in bus lanes (black cabs can and do drive in most bus lanes; other cars cannot, regardless of number of passengers).
    - rootlocus 9y ago
      How is this an argument against black cabs? Bus lanes in my city are usually empty. Allowing cars on bus lanes would actually lower congestion.
      - vertex-four 9y ago
CamelCaseName 9y ago
Great article. That Uber drivers of London alone have been accused of 32 sexual assaults in the past year [1] is hard to swallow. Also, it sounds like Uber would be better off targeting public outrage towards the mayor. Any thoughts on why they went after TfL and not where the power actually resides? [1] https://www.google.ca/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/uber-drivers-accused-of-32-rapes-and-sex-attacks-on-london-passengers-a7037926.html%3famp https://www.google.ca/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/uber...
- AsyncAwait 9y ago
  They started a petition [1], that is directed at the mayor. [1] https://www.change.org/p/save-your-uber-in-london-saveyouruber https://www.change.org/p/save-your-uber-in-london-saveyourub...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    >the livelihoods of 40,000 drivers Uber are fully supporting the livelihood of 40k drivers? Doesn't seem likely. They're depressing the market price whilst simultaneously creaming off more of that price for themselves, that surely leaves drivers over all worse off. What sort of pension are Uber's employees getting, the one's whose livelihood Uber are taking care of? What sort of holiday pay do they get? Do they get perks above the lowest legal level?
- detaro 9y ago
  TfL is a faceless bureaucracy, and while I think they don't have a terrible reputation many people have some reason to be unhappy about them. Makes an easier target than the mayor who is a quite popular figure and might be able to shrug off attacks against him personally relatively easily (e.g. by simply backing TfL without getting personally involved).
- aaron695 9y ago
  Of the 154 assults. So you could say the vast majority were not in Uber?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Doctor_Fegg 9y ago
London Reconnections is consistently good. For anyone interested in public transport, it's worth disappearing down the rabbit-hole of their previous articles. (It also has a better-than-average comments section.)
- monkeyprojects 9y ago
  If anyone is in project management the story about Kings Cross at Christmas 2015 is must read article on how what seems like the best contingency plans can go wrong https://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/know-run-story-behind-xmas-kings-cross-problems/ https://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/know-run-story-behi...
dingo_bat 9y ago
> Most of all though remember: it is not about the app. Yeah, we get it; it's about bureaucracy and regulation, and you fucking peasants will do as we say. I hope Uber does what they usually do in these cases: ignore this bullshit and continue providing value to common people.
- Djvacto 9y ago
  I mean, I wouldn't say that unreported sexual assaults is "bullshit". That's serious stuff, and they didn't report it to the police.
- Nursie 9y ago
  And I hope that continuing that behaviour gets them banned from more countries. They aren't providing value for "common people", they are trying to capture the market with massive subsidies. That itself is cause for a huge amount of concern.
  - strictnein 9y ago
    Which "massive subsidies" are they receiving, exactly?
    - corford 9y ago
      Billions of VC investment money. Actually, I don't agree with the GP. In my view Uber represents one of the biggest transfers of wealth from VCs to the common man in the last three decades. When the funding eventually dries up and Uber are forced to raise their prices, the common man will just move on and leave Uber to go bankrupt. It's beautiful really (at least the LP money coming from pension funds etc. is finding it's way back to the originators in the form of discounted travel rather than going up in smoke).
      - hectorlorenzo 9y ago
        The common man being the users or the drivers?
WisNorCan 9y ago
Of all the things that have been revealed about Uber, this is among the worst: “The facts are that on the 30 January 2016 a female was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver. From what we can ascertain Uber have spoken to the driver who denied the offence. Uber have continued to employ the driver and have done nothing more. While Uber did not say they would contact the police the victim believed that they would inform the police on her behalf. On the 10 May 2016 the same driver has committed a second more serious sexual assault against a different passenger Again Uber haven’t said to this victim they would contact the police, but she was, to use her words, ‘strongly under the impression’ that they would.” Horrible things will happen at scale. But here Uber was directly involved in enabling sexual assault and misleading the victim. EDIT - some comments believe that this is overly harsh in judging Uber: 1) Uber has had ongoing issues with sexual assault in the US preceding this event. If preventing sexual assault was a priority they would have designed the right policy. Lack of strong policy on sexual assault is an explicit choice: “firstly it seems they are deciding what to report (less serious matters / less damaging to reputation over serious offences) and secondly by not reporting to police promptly they are allowing situations to develop that clearly affect the safety and security of the public.” * 2) If a serious crime (like this one) is suspected, companies have an obligation to report this and not just conduct their own investigations which will have an inherent bias. 3) Both passengers came away with the impression that Uber was going to take action. If Uber had no intent to take action, this made the situation worse by reducing the likelihood of direct reporting and enabling further sexual assault. * https://cdn.londonreconnections.com/2013/12042017-NB-to-Helen-Chapman_Redacted-1.pdf https://cdn.londonreconnections.com/2013/12042017-NB-to-Hele...
- kemerover 9y ago
  People should report crimes to police, they shouldn't report them to school or company. Everyone who tells the opposite enables sexual assault. Uber is not at fault in this situation and it doesn't enable anything.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    This is not what the Metropolitan Police think. https://cdn.londonreconnections.com/2013/12042017-NB-to-Helen-Chapman_Redacted-1.pdf https://cdn.londonreconnections.com/2013/12042017-NB-to-Hele...
DanBC 9y ago
I'd be interested to know what rights, in English law, Uber think are being breached here: > Uber hold a position not to report crime on the basis that it may breach the rights of the passenger. When asked what the position would be in the hypothetical case of a driver who commits a serious sexual assault against a passenger they confirmed that they would dismiss the driver and report to TfL, but not inform the police.
- pjc50 9y ago
  They've probably misinterpreted the Data Protection Act, which is the normal excuse an organisation gives for not providing information.
- rmc 9y ago
  (i) British law, not English law. (ii) Perhaps they think it's a privacy violation to share the drivers personal data with the cops, or maybe defamation?
  - matthewheath 9y ago
    > (i) British law, not English law. English law is technically correct here. British law would be something that applies to England, Wales, and Scotland collectively. In this case, London taxis are regulated by the London Cab Order 1934, and minicabs are regulated under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, so this is law that only applies to England (Wales and Scotland have other acts that apply.)
  - DanBC 9y ago
    England is a sub-set of Britain, so if it applies to Britain or the UK it probably applies to England. That's definitely not true the other way round.
jorvi 9y ago
I don't know the situation in London, but Uber in general has improved 2 situations immensely: 1. Normal cabs are horrible. The drivers are often rude, always try to price gouge or even outright trick you. There is no rating system, meaning no public 'oversight'. Hell, cabbies always tried to get rid of regulations, but now that there's Uber they use it like a weapon: that alone should tell you enough about how scummy and opportunistic they are. 2. Booking a ride in a foreign country. Many drivers don't speak English, so good luck explaining where you want to go. You also usually have no idea what a typical fare should be, so (especially around airports) prepare to be hoodwinked. In contrast, Uber has a set price, easy way to hail and a rating system that works beautifully. Before Uber, I hated cab rides. Now it's a pleasure.
- fastball 9y ago
  Did you read the article? Nobody is denying either of those points. Though generally in London the standard for taxis has been much higher for a long time, primarily due to The Knowledge and the high price of black cab vehicles.
  - FabHK 9y ago
    Well, let me just go ahead and deny the first point. Normal cabs are horrible in some jurisdictions and places (try getting a cab at Manila airport, Denpasar (Bali) airport, Singapore, Addis Abeba). In other places, where they're well regulated, they're perfectly fine by and large (London, Germany, Hong Kong).
TomK32 9y ago
I'm still surprised Uber isn't being rejected simple for the reason that they are making a huge profit to drive out (no pun intended) competition. Something that made me laugh: "... Uber are a bully. Unfortunately for them, TfL are an even bigger one." and of course it's all down to this: "It is also worth noting that all TfL really wants Uber to do is comply with the rules. Despite the image that has been pushed in some sections of the media, TfL has not suddenly become the champion of the embattled London cabbie (many of whom would laugh heartily at the idea)."
- jk563 9y ago
  I assume you mean a huge loss?
  - m3rc 9y ago
    Well, some people at Uber are making a lot of money.
    - vixen99 9y ago
      And a lot of people are making some money.
raverbashing 9y ago
Relevant: http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/ubers-new-ceo-writes-open-letter-apologising-to-london-for-taxi-apps-mistakes-36165372.html http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/ubers-new-ceo-...
camus2 9y ago
It's extremely painful to see people defending or justifying Uber's actions on HN. You can absolutely find Uber useful, and if you do and you are a Londoner, you can contact Uber to ask them to revise their policy when it comes to collaborating with the police in case of sexual assault instead of defending the indefensible. There is something very wrong with a community where people think Uber's actions are normal. It's extremely unsettling. Uber has always been an "HN favorite", but there are limits... Some comments here are just insane and completely out of touch with reality, or just don't take sexual crimes seriously, which is even worse...
register 9y ago
It's very interesting to compare some extracts taken from a similar thread that apparead some time ago about Uber being temporarly banned in Italy to the tone in the comments here: "Innovation almost always sidestep regulations, by definition", "Italy is not a place for innovation", "few corrupt lobbies that are against innovation and competition" , "US consistently outperforms the EU in GDP growth and innovation", "Forcing innovators to "respect the law" squarely is basically killing innovation". I don't see anybody blaming the UK for being anti-innovation here. Why?
- freeone3000 9y ago
  Because the facts don't support it. There are a number of app-based minicab services that are able to comply with TfL regulations. Uber here is failing an extraordinarly low bar - report serious crimes when your drivers commit them, do not implement a system to decieve regulators. The regulators are not coming down Uber-like apps in general, or on some theoretical - they are coming down on Uber in particular for its history of action, with evidence-backed specifics.
lewis500 9y ago
"it seems that every journey only covers 41% of the costs involved in making it." This statistic is dumb. There is a distinction between marginal and average cost. Uber's marginal costs are negligible, except for the new markets and products where they pay the driver's fare rather than collect a portion. The "costs involved in making" a trip are born only by the driver. Uber's marginal costs are only the probability they have to refund the fare for whatever reason, or get sued or something. This might seem academic, but recognizing it belies the idea Uber will one day have to raise fares by 41%. The 41% statistic is derived from Uber's total losses. But this involves the significant fixed costs of running Uber...some of which are investments in IP and infrastructure...and which scale much less-than-linearly with demand. If Uber's demand grew enough they would be profitable even with today's fares. I do not know if Uber will one day be profitable or raise fares, but tying total losses to the price of an individual trip is sloppy.
- FabHK 9y ago
  > Uber will one day have to raise fares by 41% FWIW, if the fare covers only 41% of the costs, you need to raise it not by 41%, but by 143% to cover the costs.
fictionfuture 9y ago
Regular taxis are in every facet worse than Ubers. So safety etc is just an excuse. In the end, this is about economics. Why send all this money to a US company, when you can keep it in the UK?
- FabHK 9y ago
  That's just wrong in so many ways... London black cabs can take more pax than most cars (5 or 6 plus luggage), they have a very small turn radius, are wheelchair accessible, the drivers have "the knowledge" and actually know where they're going, and if you want, you can also call one online. You can argue about the overall experience of London cabs vs Uber, but worse "in every facet" is just silly. Lastly, Uber fares cover only a fraction of their cost, so they're not "sending money to a US company"; at most they're contributing to Uber's $2 bn annual loss.
Trickilozis 9y ago
This is a great summary of the current conflict between TfL and Uber, exploring the background of Uber itself. It does come off a little bit too much on the side of TfL - accepting all of its allegations without question, for example - but it's nonetheless a well-written piece.
TotallyGod 9y ago
This is an informative article, it's a shame about the straw-man that repeats throughout it. Nobody is saying this is "about the app". Obviously, the usefulness of the app is tied into the licence. It's about the licence. Everybody knows that.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

221 points by porker 9y ago

Was just about to post this myself, it's an excellent summary of what the dispute is really about. Also includes some history; I hadn't realised that Hailo was British in origin, or that TfL had the same legal structure as a local authority.

rahimnathwani 9y ago
"it's an excellent summary of what the dispute is really about" Except that, like other articles I've read about the dispute, it talks only about Uber/ULL and its transgressions in isolation. Stats about number of offences are provided, but without context. Where are the comparable numbers for other minicab firms (of which there are many)? Are ULL's offences per ride/mile higher or lower than the worst/best/median minicab firm?
- pjc50 9y ago
  The issue is not the quantity, but the inaction, as explained: once made aware of the incidents, Uber should have reported them to the police. (Also the operation of "greyballing"!)
  - rahimnathwani 9y ago
    "once made aware of the incidents, Uber should have reported them to the police" Is that what other minicab firms do?
    - rootlocus 9y ago
      > Is that what other minicab firms do? If they still have their license, I believe they do.
    - Djvacto 9y ago
      Do you have any reason to believe they don't? I'm struggling to find numbers about it, but either they do and there's no news about it, or they don't and not only should Uber be under speculation, so should they. How do either of those change the fact that Uber did something wrong?
    - willvarfar 9y ago
      In the UK there is no legal requirement that someone knowing a crime has occurred to report it to the police. Uber seem to be reporting crimes where they are the victim (the article says they report a lot of small fraud) but not crimes where others are the victim. Which leaves an interesting thinking experiment: would Uber report a murder? The victim obviously can't report it. It would be illegal for Uber to do anything to assist the murderer in escaping the law, e.g. by cleaning the car etc; but would they actually report it?
      - rootlocus 9y ago
        > In the UK there is no legal requirement that someone knowing a crime has occurred to report it to the police. Except Uber is a company not a person and not reporting crimes left them without a license.
      - vertex-four 9y ago
        > In the UK there is no legal requirement that someone knowing a crime has occurred to report it to the police. No, but there is a requirement as part of London's minicab license to do so in "severe" cases, and to report to TfL in less-severe cases.
      - ensignavenger 9y ago
        Shouldn't the victims be reporting these crimes? If the victims aren't reporting them, maybe they don't want them reported? Maybe they have a good reason for not wanting them reported? I have heard victims advocates state that it should be up to the victims what legal action/investigation/etc should take place. I am not an expert in this area, but maybe that is what Uber is doing?
        corford 9y ago
        According to the article, the victims were under the impression that Uber would report it to the police as part of their investigation in to the driver.
        9y ago
  - beager 9y ago
    Greyball seems like the one aspect of this that contextualizes the rest of the reasons for the non-renewal. If you're an operator and you fail to get right by local rules, you might mea culpa and fix it, or work within the system provided by the authority to do better. In this case, TfL were made aware that an operator had operationalized a program designed to help them skirt regulation, which could have inspired some prejudice when it came down to the decision. On a broader note, as with all Uber discussions, we will get to the pained point of unfair treatment of Uber by incumbents and regulators. Contrast that with the general SV ethos that one should break the rules to win. Given both of those, would it be fair to say that Uber getting chided and blocked here (and there, and there, and there) is an indication that maybe they're not that good at breaking rules? In other words, who is out there succeeding who is under the radar and is not being scorned for a cavalier approach to rule-breaking?
    - andygates 9y ago
      > Greyball seems like the one aspect of this that contextualizes the rest of the reasons Deliberately and systematically evading investigation is a clear sign of bad faith. Mea culpas and time-to-fix-it are good faith arrangements; they've screwed that pooch hard.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  > it talks only about Uber/ULL Well, yeah, they're the only ones currently trying to renew their license. > Where are the comparable numbers for other minicab firms (of which there are many)? Utterly irrelevant when it comes to renewing Uber's license. Much like if I was to apply for, oh, a pharmacist license and using "But Frank has dealt more meth than I have!" as justification. Utter nonsense.
  - rovek 9y ago
    It's perfectly relevant when questioning whether or not the same scrutiny is applied to all players or if TfL are just trying to make headlines attacking the big fish.
    - brango 9y ago
      Rubbish.
    - andrewingram 9y ago
      I think it's reasonable to go after the people who essentially brag about breaking the rules. If you shine a light on your own questionable activities, don't be surprised by the consequences.
    - DanBC 9y ago
      Of course the same scrutiny is applied to all players. The fact that Uber chooses to respond by launching a petition, rather than attempting to comply with the regulation that every other minicab company in London complies with says much more about Uber than it does about TfL.
    - vertex-four 9y ago
      So the theoretical issue there is "why are TfL not applying their regulations to other companies", not "why are TfL applying their regulations to this one". If you have any evidence at all that TfL are licensing other companies which have similar questions around their ability to comply with regulations, I'm reasonably sure you could start a small movement around it.
gadders 9y ago
Well, it doesn't mention the GMB union that covers taxis, and the union's support for the Mayor of London.

rahimnathwani 9y ago

"Indeed if TfL have any kind of ulterior motive for their actions, it is simply that they dislike the impact Uber are having on congestion within the capital" As compared with official London taxis (aka 'black cabs'), cars operated by Uber: 1) After dropping off a passenger, drive to their next pickup point (vs. black cabs which drive around for an average of 25 mins waiting to be hailed). 2) Pay the London congestion charge (vs. black cabs which are exempt despite the fact that they're generally on the road for about 10+ hours per day than the average car, and spend a far greater proportion of that total time within the congestion charging zone).

mbrookes 9y ago
3) Are typically petrol (gas) rather than diesel, and are often hybrids (less pollution). Edit: Not significantly smaller, as pointed out below 4) Are typically more compact than a black cab - take up less road space So no, it's not about congestion in that sense. What the author appears to be suggesting is that there are more cars on the road plying for the same trade, and the more journey miles taken in an Uber, the more idle time a black cab will spend waiting to be hailed - either congestion on the road, or congestion in the taxi ranks. However, if that were the true ulterior motive, that could be applied to any car service that competes with black cabs, not just Uber.
- rahimnathwani 9y ago
  5) Don't drive in bus lanes (black cabs can and do drive in most bus lanes; other cars cannot, regardless of number of passengers).
  - rootlocus 9y ago
    How is this an argument against black cabs? Bus lanes in my city are usually empty. Allowing cars on bus lanes would actually lower congestion.
    - vertex-four 9y ago

CamelCaseName 9y ago

Great article. That Uber drivers of London alone have been accused of 32 sexual assaults in the past year [1] is hard to swallow. Also, it sounds like Uber would be better off targeting public outrage towards the mayor. Any thoughts on why they went after TfL and not where the power actually resides? [1] https://www.google.ca/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/uber-drivers-accused-of-32-rapes-and-sex-attacks-on-london-passengers-a7037926.html%3famp https://www.google.ca/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/uber...

AsyncAwait 9y ago
They started a petition [1], that is directed at the mayor. [1] https://www.change.org/p/save-your-uber-in-london-saveyouruber https://www.change.org/p/save-your-uber-in-london-saveyourub...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  >the livelihoods of 40,000 drivers Uber are fully supporting the livelihood of 40k drivers? Doesn't seem likely. They're depressing the market price whilst simultaneously creaming off more of that price for themselves, that surely leaves drivers over all worse off. What sort of pension are Uber's employees getting, the one's whose livelihood Uber are taking care of? What sort of holiday pay do they get? Do they get perks above the lowest legal level?
detaro 9y ago
TfL is a faceless bureaucracy, and while I think they don't have a terrible reputation many people have some reason to be unhappy about them. Makes an easier target than the mayor who is a quite popular figure and might be able to shrug off attacks against him personally relatively easily (e.g. by simply backing TfL without getting personally involved).
aaron695 9y ago
Of the 154 assults. So you could say the vast majority were not in Uber?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Doctor_Fegg 9y ago

London Reconnections is consistently good. For anyone interested in public transport, it's worth disappearing down the rabbit-hole of their previous articles. (It also has a better-than-average comments section.)

monkeyprojects 9y ago
If anyone is in project management the story about Kings Cross at Christmas 2015 is must read article on how what seems like the best contingency plans can go wrong https://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/know-run-story-behind-xmas-kings-cross-problems/ https://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/know-run-story-behi...

dingo_bat 9y ago

> Most of all though remember: it is not about the app. Yeah, we get it; it's about bureaucracy and regulation, and you fucking peasants will do as we say. I hope Uber does what they usually do in these cases: ignore this bullshit and continue providing value to common people.

Djvacto 9y ago
I mean, I wouldn't say that unreported sexual assaults is "bullshit". That's serious stuff, and they didn't report it to the police.
Nursie 9y ago
And I hope that continuing that behaviour gets them banned from more countries. They aren't providing value for "common people", they are trying to capture the market with massive subsidies. That itself is cause for a huge amount of concern.
- strictnein 9y ago
  Which "massive subsidies" are they receiving, exactly?
  - corford 9y ago
    Billions of VC investment money. Actually, I don't agree with the GP. In my view Uber represents one of the biggest transfers of wealth from VCs to the common man in the last three decades. When the funding eventually dries up and Uber are forced to raise their prices, the common man will just move on and leave Uber to go bankrupt. It's beautiful really (at least the LP money coming from pension funds etc. is finding it's way back to the originators in the form of discounted travel rather than going up in smoke).
    - hectorlorenzo 9y ago
      The common man being the users or the drivers?

WisNorCan 9y ago

Of all the things that have been revealed about Uber, this is among the worst: “The facts are that on the 30 January 2016 a female was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver. From what we can ascertain Uber have spoken to the driver who denied the offence. Uber have continued to employ the driver and have done nothing more. While Uber did not say they would contact the police the victim believed that they would inform the police on her behalf. On the 10 May 2016 the same driver has committed a second more serious sexual assault against a different passenger Again Uber haven’t said to this victim they would contact the police, but she was, to use her words, ‘strongly under the impression’ that they would.” Horrible things will happen at scale. But here Uber was directly involved in enabling sexual assault and misleading the victim. EDIT - some comments believe that this is overly harsh in judging Uber: 1) Uber has had ongoing issues with sexual assault in the US preceding this event. If preventing sexual assault was a priority they would have designed the right policy. Lack of strong policy on sexual assault is an explicit choice: “firstly it seems they are deciding what to report (less serious matters / less damaging to reputation over serious offences) and secondly by not reporting to police promptly they are allowing situations to develop that clearly affect the safety and security of the public.” * 2) If a serious crime (like this one) is suspected, companies have an obligation to report this and not just conduct their own investigations which will have an inherent bias. 3) Both passengers came away with the impression that Uber was going to take action. If Uber had no intent to take action, this made the situation worse by reducing the likelihood of direct reporting and enabling further sexual assault. * https://cdn.londonreconnections.com/2013/12042017-NB-to-Helen-Chapman_Redacted-1.pdf https://cdn.londonreconnections.com/2013/12042017-NB-to-Hele...

kemerover 9y ago
People should report crimes to police, they shouldn't report them to school or company. Everyone who tells the opposite enables sexual assault. Uber is not at fault in this situation and it doesn't enable anything.
- pjc50 9y ago
  This is not what the Metropolitan Police think. https://cdn.londonreconnections.com/2013/12042017-NB-to-Helen-Chapman_Redacted-1.pdf https://cdn.londonreconnections.com/2013/12042017-NB-to-Hele...

DanBC 9y ago

I'd be interested to know what rights, in English law, Uber think are being breached here: > Uber hold a position not to report crime on the basis that it may breach the rights of the passenger. When asked what the position would be in the hypothetical case of a driver who commits a serious sexual assault against a passenger they confirmed that they would dismiss the driver and report to TfL, but not inform the police.

pjc50 9y ago
They've probably misinterpreted the Data Protection Act, which is the normal excuse an organisation gives for not providing information.
rmc 9y ago
(i) British law, not English law. (ii) Perhaps they think it's a privacy violation to share the drivers personal data with the cops, or maybe defamation?
- matthewheath 9y ago
  > (i) British law, not English law. English law is technically correct here. British law would be something that applies to England, Wales, and Scotland collectively. In this case, London taxis are regulated by the London Cab Order 1934, and minicabs are regulated under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, so this is law that only applies to England (Wales and Scotland have other acts that apply.)
- DanBC 9y ago
  England is a sub-set of Britain, so if it applies to Britain or the UK it probably applies to England. That's definitely not true the other way round.

jorvi 9y ago

I don't know the situation in London, but Uber in general has improved 2 situations immensely: 1. Normal cabs are horrible. The drivers are often rude, always try to price gouge or even outright trick you. There is no rating system, meaning no public 'oversight'. Hell, cabbies always tried to get rid of regulations, but now that there's Uber they use it like a weapon: that alone should tell you enough about how scummy and opportunistic they are. 2. Booking a ride in a foreign country. Many drivers don't speak English, so good luck explaining where you want to go. You also usually have no idea what a typical fare should be, so (especially around airports) prepare to be hoodwinked. In contrast, Uber has a set price, easy way to hail and a rating system that works beautifully. Before Uber, I hated cab rides. Now it's a pleasure.

fastball 9y ago
Did you read the article? Nobody is denying either of those points. Though generally in London the standard for taxis has been much higher for a long time, primarily due to The Knowledge and the high price of black cab vehicles.
- FabHK 9y ago
  Well, let me just go ahead and deny the first point. Normal cabs are horrible in some jurisdictions and places (try getting a cab at Manila airport, Denpasar (Bali) airport, Singapore, Addis Abeba). In other places, where they're well regulated, they're perfectly fine by and large (London, Germany, Hong Kong).

TomK32 9y ago

I'm still surprised Uber isn't being rejected simple for the reason that they are making a huge profit to drive out (no pun intended) competition. Something that made me laugh: "... Uber are a bully. Unfortunately for them, TfL are an even bigger one." and of course it's all down to this: "It is also worth noting that all TfL really wants Uber to do is comply with the rules. Despite the image that has been pushed in some sections of the media, TfL has not suddenly become the champion of the embattled London cabbie (many of whom would laugh heartily at the idea)."

jk563 9y ago
I assume you mean a huge loss?
- m3rc 9y ago
  Well, some people at Uber are making a lot of money.
  - vixen99 9y ago
    And a lot of people are making some money.

raverbashing 9y ago

Relevant: http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/ubers-new-ceo-writes-open-letter-apologising-to-london-for-taxi-apps-mistakes-36165372.html http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/ubers-new-ceo-...

camus2 9y ago

It's extremely painful to see people defending or justifying Uber's actions on HN. You can absolutely find Uber useful, and if you do and you are a Londoner, you can contact Uber to ask them to revise their policy when it comes to collaborating with the police in case of sexual assault instead of defending the indefensible. There is something very wrong with a community where people think Uber's actions are normal. It's extremely unsettling. Uber has always been an "HN favorite", but there are limits... Some comments here are just insane and completely out of touch with reality, or just don't take sexual crimes seriously, which is even worse...

It's very interesting to compare some extracts taken from a similar thread that apparead some time ago about Uber being temporarly banned in Italy to the tone in the comments here: "Innovation almost always sidestep regulations, by definition", "Italy is not a place for innovation", "few corrupt lobbies that are against innovation and competition" , "US consistently outperforms the EU in GDP growth and innovation", "Forcing innovators to "respect the law" squarely is basically killing innovation". I don't see anybody blaming the UK for being anti-innovation here. Why?

freeone3000 9y ago
Because the facts don't support it. There are a number of app-based minicab services that are able to comply with TfL regulations. Uber here is failing an extraordinarly low bar - report serious crimes when your drivers commit them, do not implement a system to decieve regulators. The regulators are not coming down Uber-like apps in general, or on some theoretical - they are coming down on Uber in particular for its history of action, with evidence-backed specifics.

lewis500 9y ago

"it seems that every journey only covers 41% of the costs involved in making it." This statistic is dumb. There is a distinction between marginal and average cost. Uber's marginal costs are negligible, except for the new markets and products where they pay the driver's fare rather than collect a portion. The "costs involved in making" a trip are born only by the driver. Uber's marginal costs are only the probability they have to refund the fare for whatever reason, or get sued or something. This might seem academic, but recognizing it belies the idea Uber will one day have to raise fares by 41%. The 41% statistic is derived from Uber's total losses. But this involves the significant fixed costs of running Uber...some of which are investments in IP and infrastructure...and which scale much less-than-linearly with demand. If Uber's demand grew enough they would be profitable even with today's fares. I do not know if Uber will one day be profitable or raise fares, but tying total losses to the price of an individual trip is sloppy.

FabHK 9y ago
> Uber will one day have to raise fares by 41% FWIW, if the fare covers only 41% of the costs, you need to raise it not by 41%, but by 143% to cover the costs.

fictionfuture 9y ago

Regular taxis are in every facet worse than Ubers. So safety etc is just an excuse. In the end, this is about economics. Why send all this money to a US company, when you can keep it in the UK?

FabHK 9y ago
That's just wrong in so many ways... London black cabs can take more pax than most cars (5 or 6 plus luggage), they have a very small turn radius, are wheelchair accessible, the drivers have "the knowledge" and actually know where they're going, and if you want, you can also call one online. You can argue about the overall experience of London cabs vs Uber, but worse "in every facet" is just silly. Lastly, Uber fares cover only a fraction of their cost, so they're not "sending money to a US company"; at most they're contributing to Uber's $2 bn annual loss.

Trickilozis 9y ago

This is a great summary of the current conflict between TfL and Uber, exploring the background of Uber itself. It does come off a little bit too much on the side of TfL - accepting all of its allegations without question, for example - but it's nonetheless a well-written piece.

TotallyGod 9y ago

This is an informative article, it's a shame about the straw-man that repeats throughout it. Nobody is saying this is "about the app". Obviously, the usefulness of the app is tied into the licence. It's about the licence. Everybody knows that.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]