6 ms·

> London's black cabs all have ramps. It's worth noting that this is due to a legal requirement that all licensed taxis (i.e. black taxis) must be wheelchair a

> London's black cabs all have ramps. It's worth noting that this is due to a legal requirement that all licensed taxis (i.e. black taxis) must be wheelchair accessible. I think that requirement came into force around 1999 and it resulted in a lot of older taxis that weren't wheelchair-accessible being sold on the second-hand market when their owners were forced to upgrade. So, in addition to successfully completing the Knowledge[1], black taxi drivers must operate using a compliant vehicle (which is inevitably more expensive than a normal vehicle, which Uber drivers typically use), and they must pick up anyone (including a disabled person who hails them while their light is on (if they ignore you or refuse to carry you without good reason, you can complain to the Public Carriage Office, which can take away a driver's taxi license). In return for complying with all these requirements, licensed taxi drivers are allowed to pick people up on the street and calculate the fare using a taximeter. Other cab drivers (driving what are typically referred to as minicabs or "private hire vehicles") are supposed to agree a fare with the passenger up front and are specifically prohibited, by law, from using a taximeter.[2] London's licensed taxis drivers' view is that the Uber app is effectively a meter, and therefore, Uber drivers are breaking the law. The High Court will rule on the matter this summer.[3] 1: http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/london-taxi-test-knowledge/ http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/london-taxi-te... 2: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/34/section/11 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/34/section/11 3: http://www.cityam.com/212676/high-court-ruling-taximeters-could-mean-end-uber-london http://www.cityam.com/212676/high-court-ruling-taximeters-co...

sillygoose 11y ago
> Other cab drivers (driving what are typically referred to as minicabs or "private hire vehicles") are supposed to agree a fare with the passenger up front and are specifically prohibited, by law, from using a taximeter. Their lives must be miserable without The Queen's "taximeter"!
- true_religion 11y ago
  I think the UK situation is fair. If the uber app lets you go to random destinations, or charges you extra per the mile, then it is a meter. Uber should be just like a black car service: point A to point B, with no extras. If Uber doesn't find this as profitable, they're free to open a segment of their company that actually is a taxi service and follows regulation in exchange for picking up the public and being able to run a meter on public traffic.
  - sillygoose 11y ago
    The problem is that taxi regulation doesn't make any sense to begin with. As you said, people get transported from Place A to B for a fee. Fundamentally, it's as simple as buying a pound of cheese from a supermarket. It's just a transaction between people. So why should taxi drivers have to get "licensed"? What exactly is that license? What does it represent besides going through a burdensome ordeal? How would getting licensed increase safety in any way? It's not like anyone wants to experience a car crash. The real point of the exercise is to maintain a state-supported taxi-cartel. Higher prices for the masses, and higher profits for the cartel. Desperation and hardship for the debt-slave drivers.
    - shalmanese 11y ago
      The logic for street hails is that it's fundamentally impossible to negotiate prices or quality of service ahead of time. Enforcing a uniform price & service standard lends predictability to the procedure.
      - sillygoose 11y ago
        Impossible? - How much for taking me from here to <Place X>? - That would be $40. - Alright, let's go. Quality of service would involve various things, but there could be a big taxi company called Toober, for example, with a good reputation, so you could reasonably expect to receive at least decent service from their drivers, and there would be no problem. If you were feeling more adventurous, you could opt for a small(er) provider without an established reputation, but it would cost a bit less than Toober. Most likely, there would be no problem.
        sillygoose 11y ago
        As a sidenote, whoever downvoted this and the other related post is allergic to thinking.
        dang 11y ago
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
true_religion 11y ago
I think its fair to say... Follow all these regulations and we'll let you do business on the public streets. or Do business in private, via the phone or internet, and you don't have to follow these regulations. --- Don't force the choice by saying regulations apply to everyone, even people who aren't going to get any benefit out of it. Uber doesn't have to use wheel-chair accessible vehicles, but they also can't respond if someone hails them on the street. This isn't a problem because they're fairly successful, but I imagine in a more competitive environment they'd actually feel the pinch by seeing other people picked up by random cabs, or black cars but they can't even interact with the customer who is 5 feet away from them because it's not via the app.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Or: You may do transportation business on our roads if you follow our regulations, with no regard to how the ride was arranged. Non-disabled rider's fares subsidizing accessibility for the disabled is no different than how health insurance works. Why would we allow Uber to freeload? Because they're "innovative"? Or "disruptive"? No. Follow the rules Uber or GTFO out of the market.
  - true_religion 11y ago
    > Non-disabled rider's fares subsidizing accessibility for the disabled is no different than how health insurance works. Well I guess I'm of the belief that health insurance is a doomed concept, and the government should directly manage and subsidise and industry of health care not insurance, and pay for it by directly taxing the citizens rather than expecting a private group to somehow work better than democratic process.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    In London there are two sets of regulation: the regs for black cabs and the regs for mini cabs. Uber doesn't want to comply with either set of regs. There are some considerable problems in UK minicabs avoiding their duties under disability discrimination laws -- not turning up; refusing to carry; refusing dogs (and not because the driver has an alergy; over charging and stealing from some users (eg blind people or those with a learning disability). So Uber is not unusual there.

sillygoose 11y ago

> Other cab drivers (driving what are typically referred to as minicabs or "private hire vehicles") are supposed to agree a fare with the passenger up front and are specifically prohibited, by law, from using a taximeter. Their lives must be miserable without The Queen's "taximeter"!

true_religion 11y ago
I think the UK situation is fair. If the uber app lets you go to random destinations, or charges you extra per the mile, then it is a meter. Uber should be just like a black car service: point A to point B, with no extras. If Uber doesn't find this as profitable, they're free to open a segment of their company that actually is a taxi service and follows regulation in exchange for picking up the public and being able to run a meter on public traffic.
- sillygoose 11y ago
  The problem is that taxi regulation doesn't make any sense to begin with. As you said, people get transported from Place A to B for a fee. Fundamentally, it's as simple as buying a pound of cheese from a supermarket. It's just a transaction between people. So why should taxi drivers have to get "licensed"? What exactly is that license? What does it represent besides going through a burdensome ordeal? How would getting licensed increase safety in any way? It's not like anyone wants to experience a car crash. The real point of the exercise is to maintain a state-supported taxi-cartel. Higher prices for the masses, and higher profits for the cartel. Desperation and hardship for the debt-slave drivers.
  - shalmanese 11y ago
    The logic for street hails is that it's fundamentally impossible to negotiate prices or quality of service ahead of time. Enforcing a uniform price & service standard lends predictability to the procedure.
    - sillygoose 11y ago
      Impossible? - How much for taking me from here to <Place X>? - That would be $40. - Alright, let's go. Quality of service would involve various things, but there could be a big taxi company called Toober, for example, with a good reputation, so you could reasonably expect to receive at least decent service from their drivers, and there would be no problem. If you were feeling more adventurous, you could opt for a small(er) provider without an established reputation, but it would cost a bit less than Toober. Most likely, there would be no problem.
      - sillygoose 11y ago
        As a sidenote, whoever downvoted this and the other related post is allergic to thinking.
        dang 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

true_religion 11y ago

I think its fair to say... Follow all these regulations and we'll let you do business on the public streets. or Do business in private, via the phone or internet, and you don't have to follow these regulations. --- Don't force the choice by saying regulations apply to everyone, even people who aren't going to get any benefit out of it. Uber doesn't have to use wheel-chair accessible vehicles, but they also can't respond if someone hails them on the street. This isn't a problem because they're fairly successful, but I imagine in a more competitive environment they'd actually feel the pinch by seeing other people picked up by random cabs, or black cars but they can't even interact with the customer who is 5 feet away from them because it's not via the app.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
Or: You may do transportation business on our roads if you follow our regulations, with no regard to how the ride was arranged. Non-disabled rider's fares subsidizing accessibility for the disabled is no different than how health insurance works. Why would we allow Uber to freeload? Because they're "innovative"? Or "disruptive"? No. Follow the rules Uber or GTFO out of the market.
- true_religion 11y ago
  > Non-disabled rider's fares subsidizing accessibility for the disabled is no different than how health insurance works. Well I guess I'm of the belief that health insurance is a doomed concept, and the government should directly manage and subsidise and industry of health care not insurance, and pay for it by directly taxing the citizens rather than expecting a private group to somehow work better than democratic process.
- DanBC 11y ago
  In London there are two sets of regulation: the regs for black cabs and the regs for mini cabs. Uber doesn't want to comply with either set of regs. There are some considerable problems in UK minicabs avoiding their duties under disability discrimination laws -- not turning up; refusing to carry; refusing dogs (and not because the driver has an alergy; over charging and stealing from some users (eg blind people or those with a learning disability). So Uber is not unusual there.