4 ms·

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 ch

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-db2f231cfeae https://www.ft.com/content/78827b06-0f6a-11ea-a225-db2f231cf...

dominotw 7y ago
ok thank you. I don't have FT subscription. But 43 out of 45k drivers seems like a pretty good number, certainly not a ban worthy number.
- VBprogrammer 7y ago
  Yes, you can tell that someone is trying to make it sound bad by using the inflated 'trips' figure rather than number of drivers. This is mostly the fall out of political pressure from black cab drivers and their associations. I'm certainly not keen on Ubers business practices, it's lacklustre approach to safety and poor record when it comes to employment regulations. However I think acceptance that the taxi industry has been changed forever will come eventually, these luddite challenges will eventually be forgotten and we'll all move on with our lives. If we're lucky Uber will crash and burn and someone will pickup the baton, ideally in a more fair and sustainable way.
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  There are some other accusations as well and it actually says "at least 43" so that could be open ended. I guess they found 43 and weren't sure if there were others they hadn't found. But I'm just speculating. You can read the article without a subscription if you google the URL and then click on it from the search results.
thathndude 7y ago
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.
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  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.
  - dominotw 7y ago
    > The number comes from Cognizant I don't see that here http://archive.is/mNxBo http://archive.is/mNxBo was it edited out after u read it?
    - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
      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.
      - dominotw 7y ago
        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.
        fauigerzigerk 7y ago
        Having read it again, I now think the numbers are indeed from TfL and not from the more recent Cognizant review.
jmkd 7y ago
This figure of 43 drivers seems to have been edited out of the article, any other source? [edit] open access version of article: http://archive.is/mNxBo http://archive.is/mNxBo

dominotw 7y ago

ok thank you. I don't have FT subscription. But 43 out of 45k drivers seems like a pretty good number, certainly not a ban worthy number.

VBprogrammer 7y ago
Yes, you can tell that someone is trying to make it sound bad by using the inflated 'trips' figure rather than number of drivers. This is mostly the fall out of political pressure from black cab drivers and their associations. I'm certainly not keen on Ubers business practices, it's lacklustre approach to safety and poor record when it comes to employment regulations. However I think acceptance that the taxi industry has been changed forever will come eventually, these luddite challenges will eventually be forgotten and we'll all move on with our lives. If we're lucky Uber will crash and burn and someone will pickup the baton, ideally in a more fair and sustainable way.
fauigerzigerk 7y ago
There are some other accusations as well and it actually says "at least 43" so that could be open ended. I guess they found 43 and weren't sure if there were others they hadn't found. But I'm just speculating. You can read the article without a subscription if you google the URL and then click on it from the search results.

thathndude 7y ago

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.

fauigerzigerk 7y ago
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.
- dominotw 7y ago
  > The number comes from Cognizant I don't see that here http://archive.is/mNxBo http://archive.is/mNxBo was it edited out after u read it?
  - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
    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.
    - dominotw 7y ago
      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.
      - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
        Having read it again, I now think the numbers are indeed from TfL and not from the more recent Cognizant review.

jmkd 7y ago

This figure of 43 drivers seems to have been edited out of the article, any other source? [edit] open access version of article: http://archive.is/mNxBo http://archive.is/mNxBo