4 ms·

> I am not in London My understanding is that London cabs are held to an extremely high standard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom

by biggc 8y ago

> I am not in London My understanding is that London cabs are held to an extremely high standard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#The_Knowledge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom...), as a result they're also extremely expensive.

gsnedders 8y ago
Most people weren't using taxis in London regularly (they're too expensive for that), even prior to Uber; they were using private hires (or "minicabs") which is the exact same regulatory structure that Uber operates under (and have existed for 1960s). Uber's advantages in London came about in three main ways, AFAICT: individual ratings of drivers (massively decreasing variation in quality), tracking from ordering to pickup, and not having any issues with card payments (because they're the only way to pay!). Of course, the other private hire companies haven't stood still… The most notable difference in regulation from a passenger point of view between a private hire and a taxi is you can hail a taxi, but can't a private hire.
- gaius 8y ago
  Uber's advantages in London came about in three main ways You forgot undercutting the competition using VC cash, oh and evading the taxes that all their competitors pay.
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    > You forgot undercutting the competition using VC cash I don't understand what point you were trying to make. Why do you assume incumbents have no investors? And why do you believe it's reasonablr to complain about how private investors decide where to invest theie cash? > oh and evading the taxes that all their competitors pay. Do you have any basis to support your assertion? Because I find it very odd how entire nation-wide corporativist associations, representing the entrenched incumbents and heavily invested in preserving their personal monopoly, fail to make such an assertion.
    - gaius 8y ago
      Do you have any basis to support your assertion? Uber drivers being disguised employees is frequently in the news https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/28/uber-uk-tribunal-self-employed-status https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/28/uber-uk-t... Uber avoids employer’s NI by this mechanism
      - geezerjay 8y ago
        > Uber drivers being disguised employees I fail to see how that can be passed off as tax evasion. The question was whether Uber drivers were mere service providers earning a few bucks on the side doing some gigs or should be considered proper employees. I believe it's easy to understand that the point of this sort of classification has deep legal implications where tax avoidance are comparatively irrelevant.
  - paulie_a 8y ago
    While that may be true the experience is drastically different. Cab drivers are miserable and unfriendly, Uber and Lyft drivers tend to be very pleasant.
vivan 8y ago
In terms of knowledge of the streets of London, nobody can beat an official black cab driver. However, in terms of service, personality and reliability, they are absolutely awful. In theory there are policies in place to stop them from being awful, but they are mostly ignored.

by biggc 8y ago

gsnedders 8y ago

Most people weren't using taxis in London regularly (they're too expensive for that), even prior to Uber; they were using private hires (or "minicabs") which is the exact same regulatory structure that Uber operates under (and have existed for 1960s). Uber's advantages in London came about in three main ways, AFAICT: individual ratings of drivers (massively decreasing variation in quality), tracking from ordering to pickup, and not having any issues with card payments (because they're the only way to pay!). Of course, the other private hire companies haven't stood still… The most notable difference in regulation from a passenger point of view between a private hire and a taxi is you can hail a taxi, but can't a private hire.

gaius 8y ago
Uber's advantages in London came about in three main ways You forgot undercutting the competition using VC cash, oh and evading the taxes that all their competitors pay.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > You forgot undercutting the competition using VC cash I don't understand what point you were trying to make. Why do you assume incumbents have no investors? And why do you believe it's reasonablr to complain about how private investors decide where to invest theie cash? > oh and evading the taxes that all their competitors pay. Do you have any basis to support your assertion? Because I find it very odd how entire nation-wide corporativist associations, representing the entrenched incumbents and heavily invested in preserving their personal monopoly, fail to make such an assertion.
  - gaius 8y ago
    Do you have any basis to support your assertion? Uber drivers being disguised employees is frequently in the news https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/28/uber-uk-tribunal-self-employed-status https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/28/uber-uk-t... Uber avoids employer’s NI by this mechanism
    - geezerjay 8y ago
      > Uber drivers being disguised employees I fail to see how that can be passed off as tax evasion. The question was whether Uber drivers were mere service providers earning a few bucks on the side doing some gigs or should be considered proper employees. I believe it's easy to understand that the point of this sort of classification has deep legal implications where tax avoidance are comparatively irrelevant.
- paulie_a 8y ago
  While that may be true the experience is drastically different. Cab drivers are miserable and unfriendly, Uber and Lyft drivers tend to be very pleasant.

vivan 8y ago

In terms of knowledge of the streets of London, nobody can beat an official black cab driver. However, in terms of service, personality and reliability, they are absolutely awful. In theory there are policies in place to stop them from being awful, but they are mostly ignored.