Uber licence in London refused

So, we can ignore the way the drivers are treated the lack of safety the non payment of proper tax as long as we get cheap fares?

Well spotted! What a fortunate coincidence!

I have enjoyed my Uber experiences - excellent cars and interesting drivers. I like hearing about their backgrounds. I also like not needing to consult the contents of my purse every time we have a long wait at traffic lights when in a black cab. I know these cabs have credit card facilities now but I was annoyed that a £20 fare asked for a 10% tip. I was going to give a cash amount but the driver did not really know how the system worked. With Uber payment is much easier.

Yes it's true Smithy that you can track them and that they are cheaper. The latter is on the backs of the drivers who, in this particular business model, take all the risks. They have to provide and pay for all the costs associated with the car and pay 25% to Uber for providing the platform. From what I've heard, they need to work 60-70 hours a week to make a reasonable living but of course that will mean different things to different people. Tracking them doesn't make them safer necessarily -otherwise there wouldn't be any attacks would there.

Along with allegations about sexual harrassment, improperly acquired licences, etc., there were also recent claims that Uber drivers were involved in far more traffic accidents than black cab drivers. It was suggested that this may be because they don't do "the knowledge" but rely entirely on sat navs.

I know there are many people who use Uber - my son does - but my feeling is that if proper safety measures are not being enforced then it would be irresponsible to continue to licence the company without evidence that these matters were being dealt with.

GracesGran re the anti-trust comment that you heard in an interview, Wikepedia says "In the late-nineteenth century, several large businesses, including Standard Oil, had either bought their rivals or had established business arrangements that effectively stifled any competition. Standard Oil organized itself as a trust in which several component corporations were organized under the supervision of one board of directors, and several other businesses followed suit. While Congress had passed the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act to provide some federal regulation of trusts, the Supreme Court had limited the power of the act in the case of United States v. E. C. Knight Co.[21]."

I'm not quite sure how this relates to Uber, unless it is said that it is operating in such a way as to "stifle competition" by undercutting the traditional black cabs (and presumably doing so by mean of underpaying drivers and flouting safety regulations.)

It is quite understandable tha many people need to keep their costs down and are therefore tempted to go for the cheapest option but surely this is all part of the "race to the bottom" that is often talked about?

My daughter lives in London and uses them all the time. I always thought they were safer because you could track them.
We recently took an Uber from Gatwick to my daughters home and it cost just over a third of normal taxicab rate.

Just been listening to Today where two people from opposite sides of the political spectrum were agreeing that the idea of making money without any real investment - such as what was described as the 'rent' charged by the Uber company from the Uber drivers for each trip - was wrong. One thought it was the face of capitalism at it's worst and the other that it was not 'real' capitalism as capital was not really invested.

What the capitalist (who didn't like this form of capitalism) said was that we do not need the state to interfere (taking back railways and utilities, etc.,) we need something like Roosevelt's anti-trust act that (apparently) brought the oil companies into line in the 1800s.

Can someone explain this act and that bit of history to me please as there is a huge gap in my knowledge where this is concerned?

Yes I know that Primrose I've read all the links thank you - maybe ( probably?) other companies are using the same fiddle, maybe Uber aren't, but there's something Tfl are concerned about ( rightly or wrongly).Goodnight

But it's not just about the licence - it's their use of Greyball and not reporting sexual and other possible crimes to the police. I saw one of their spokesmen on C4 news tonight - a passenger had complained to them about a driver hugging her - Uber decided that a hug was fine and did nothing - well maybe it wasn't their call to make? I must go to bed now - I have the most dreadful cold

The process is the same for everyone driving a private hire car in London and is controlled by TfL.

tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/licensing/private-hire-driver-licence

Medical records of course ( its late)

Well - the example I became aware of this evening about the medical certificate.When you apply for a licence there are various requirements - one is the medical certificate.Tfl ask for a certificate completed and signed by a doctor with access to your medical retires. If they receive this , they apparently accept it at face value ( that's another question). What I read online tonight in a forum giving advice to would be Uber drivers was how to get round this and find a doctor who would sign the form without having access to your medical records. This could be ( don't know) the issue around medical certificates that TfL are concerned about.

Care to explain?

Because it isn't as simple as that lemon.

Interesting,Primrose then if TFL issue these licences to Uber drivers, what they have done doesn't make sense?

Their employees were paid and treated badly. They did not pay appropriate taxes. That is why they could undercut other companies. We taxpayers were supporting them by paying benefits to underpaid drivers. Is this the sort of company we want to encourage? And as to the drivers all being out of work ..well surely they can drive for other companies?

Yes Miss and that's why a proper system of regulation, properly enforced is so crucial - as individuals we can't do these checks for ourselves and so have to have a regulatory process in place to reduce ( not eliminate) the risk of harm.

I would imagine that passengers use any type of cab on the assumption that it's safe, that checks have been done and that the drivers are medically fit.

And I for one didn't realise that it was possible to fiddle a medical certificate and that the doctors credentials weren't checked properly

Most bin drivers are safe but one in Glasgow wasn't - proper systems are based on identifying the rare problem

Well, yes, I think they would, most of them will be safe, as most of the drivers will be decent people, but many people are willing to take a chance after a night out.

All the drivers go through the same checks as black cab drivers and minicab drivers, they are administered by TfL. They issue the licences to the drivers, not Uber.
I have no idea where this DBS check or medical check issue came from, but that's TfLs department.
Why do you think Uber is putting their profits before passenger safety? Do you really think 3.5 million Londoners would use Uber if it was not safe? (Admittedly we have bombs on the tube but you understand my point)

So let me get this straight - Uber have had their licence refused because they are not putting passenger safety ahead of their own profits- and some people are complaining about this?

Or minicabs

I'm well aware of the millions of journeys made every day by various cabs/ taxis etc and use black cabs regularly ( having tried AL) and I'm also absolutelty sure that Uber will pull their socks up - they don't want to lose the large market that is London and their 25% cut ( as it is now) from their drivers. That's why all this breast beating is so silly - it ain't going to happen and anyone with any sense knows that. The ball is in Uber's court and they'll deal with it to serve their own best interests which are only profit driven. It's not SK's job to send a message that some businesses are too important to bother themselves with regulation and speak out against the regulators. As I recall BJ himself had some pretty trenchant things to say about the growth of minivans etc