Uber licence 'not renewed' in London - thoughts?

bigadaj

Car_54 wrote: »

So, which regulations have you decided were ignored in respect of Grenfell Tower? You could save us many £ millions by rendering the public inquiry unnecessary.

Grenfell is an interesting case, the materials used met building regulations and were suitably manufactured an CE marked.

Subsequently we end up with hundreds of samples from similar situations being sent to BRE, and virtually all of them failing. The question is what did they fail as no one seems to state the test standards being used, doesn't appear to be BS, EN, ISO, ASTM, DIN so it's presumably a made up test.

Certainly something to be learnt from but to retrospectively apportion blame seems to be an aim rather than providing any useful information or objective punishment for failures by individuals or companies.

bigadaj

Mercdriver wrote: »

How does the establishment 'trouser' such money? Please explain - you're getting as conspiracy theorist as Strider

You may be too young for Yes Minister, but the process was to deflect blame as a government, so you set up an inquiry, you staff it with the right people, pay them well, take several years to not eventually come up with a conclusion, media attention dies down and everyones happy.

Mercdriver

bigadaj wrote: »

You may be too young for Yes Minister, but the process was to deflect blame as a government, so you set up an inquiry, you staff it with the right people, pay them well, take several years to not eventually come up with a conclusion, media attention dies down and everyones happy.

I was pretty young when it was on - thought the UK Gold version of it was rubbish. I have all the episodes on iTunes.

I was speaking against the suggestion of outright corruption: the establishment 'trousering money'. The government sets up enquiries like this to attempt to pass the buck or to make sure it takes long enough that people forgot what it was all about, or until they find a suitable scapegoat. People have to be paid to undertake the inquiry - it doesn't make them corrupt.

there were many truisms in Yes Minister/Prime Minister.

My Favourite scenes are: Who Reads the Papers where all three of them are stifling the giggles, and Sir Humphrey's discussion with Bernard about opinion polls. The Sun stitched up the Lib Dems with a poll done just the way Sir Humphrey suggested in 2015.

Stoke

TheMoonandBack wrote: »

Stoke, that's an issue for you and the clearly rubbish taxi's you are forced to use. Uber's system may iliminate those issues but the reason TFL aren't renewing their London license are :

Uber’s “approach and conduct demonstrate a lack of corporate responsibility in relation to a number of issues which have potential public safety and security implications” — including for the following issues:

Its approach to reporting serious criminal offences
Its approach to how medical certificates are obtained
Its approach to how Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks are obtained — which relates to carrying out background checks to ensure workers do not have a criminal record
Its approach to explaining the use of Greyball in London — software that could be used to block regulatory bodies from gaining full access to the app and prevent officials from undertaking regulatory or law enforcement duties

People like Uber, people like Ryanair...I don't

On the back of your post, I googled:
"why is uber bad" and a few articles popped up, but seeing the HuffPost, I had to read theirs as you know it's going to be completely unhinged.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-hobica/5-very-good-reasons-why-i_b_5406643.html

Is that driver insured properly? Does he have liability insurance? Is it current or did it expire last week? Who’s checking? What’s the company’s liability if you’re injured in a crash? What are the local laws? What protections are there in your market?

While I cannot speak for London, you could literally (used in its correct form) ask all of those questions for Stoke-on-Trent local taxi firms. At one point, S-o-T had the most uninsured taxi drivers in the UK and have been plagued with problems, involving local firms. At one point, we had wardens that walked around at weekends trying to catch out uninsured taxis.

I routinely refer to the story of Katie Bennett, who was killed after using a Stoke-on-Trent taxi who tried to pull the same stunt on her that happened to me the other day. Pulled up by her house, demanded £5 more than was agreed, she (unlike me) argued the toss and he got angry. As she was exiting the taxi, he drove off while she was still partially in the vehicle and she was flung into the floor head first.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/taxi-driver-guilty-over-girls-932421

It seems hip and cool for these ultra left media groups to bag on Uber. Big capitalist organisation, crushing the small operations, no care for the public, profits before lives etc etc...... but if they had a shred of honesty, I'm sure they'd report that many taxi firms around the UK operate in pretty shady circumstances. Uber is just expected to operate to an arbitrary higher standard.
In fact, if they'd used Stoke and Birmingham, they'd be able to show those two as great examples. Large areas (in Brums case, very large) with real problems with local taxi firms, the kind of places where Uber would be absolutely ideal (it's in Birmingham, but not really Stoke).

Referring back to that bat !!!! crazy HuffPost article, I really love the kind of ultra left view of things that put into context, really aren't actually Ubers fault. Point 2, the Uber driver may well have been working for Uber that night, but the fact he accidentally killed a child was not their fault. They were not driving the car, and they are not the standard bearer for how to drive a vehicle. They didn't handle the situation brilliantly, what with vague statements, but ultimately, the situation isn't their fault. The driver should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Again Point 3, HuffPost are trying to suggest it's the fault of Uber for not screening their drivers correctly. However, if you read the actual article, it says that the police chose not to arrest the driver in question. If I'm running a company, and someone makes a complaint, but the police attended the scene and felt there were no grounds to that complaint, that would be enough for me to toss such complaint out. Since when was the accusation the evidence?

Point 4, the first one with any actual substance. Uber absolutely should have handled the situation with the phone better. They probably should have simply offered to replace the phone. Bad call on their part, but ultimately, I've already mentioned about my incident with a taxi driver stealing off me. Uber drivers are just people, same as any other taxi driver.

Point 6, to some degree this is just Uber taking advantage of a good situation. It's immoral, but those drivers don't necessarily have to stay if the situation has got so bad. Perhaps I'm being naive.

This is a great end to the HuffPost article:

Anyway, one day Uber may not even be a thing. Enter self-driving cars from Google, Tesla, and other automakers. Perhaps in a decade, perhaps sooner, you’ll use an app to summon a driverless ride. It will take you to your destination by the shortest route every time. And it will be safer than any human driver. And no tipping required. And for that, I am definitely on board.

Indeed, and it'll put many many non-British workers out of a job..... which will be my fault, because I'm white and privileged or some other HuffPost !!!!!!!!.

SingleSue

So if the appeal doesn't work, what would be a workable alternative for our situation.

Son is Aspergic and is unable to deal with the underground, with Uber he could stand outside the station and organise an Uber car via the app to pick him up from his location and take him to the other station and all whilst knowing how much it is going to cost him, the driver's details, the car details and where they are.

He is unable to hail a cab, he is unable to go to a taxi rank and speak to a driver, he is unable to ring a taxi company, he rarely carries cash (all of these points are incredibly frustrating to me as a parent but no amount of therapies have changed the outcome).

So is there an alternative? A taxi company who will use an app to pinpoint his position, take payment automatically etc. He uses such an app in his uni town (Northampton) easily but is there a trusted one in London he can use that doesn't charge the earth?

For what it is worth, have used Uber quite regularly in London over the last few years and have never had a problem, even though I am a wheelchair user. We liked the ease of use over trying to find a cab who would be willing to wait while we folded up the wheelchair and horrors of horrors, wanting to put it in their boot (oh and being charged extra for the pleasure)

Mercdriver

SingleSue wrote: »

So if the appeal doesn't work, what would be a workable alternative for our situation.

Son is Aspergic and is unable to deal with the underground, with Uber he could stand outside the station and organise an Uber car via the app to pick him up from his location and take him to the other station and all whilst knowing how much it is going to cost him, the driver's details, the car details and where they are.

He is unable to hail a cab, he is unable to go to a taxi rank and speak to a driver, he is unable to ring a taxi company, he rarely carries cash (all of these points are incredibly frustrating to me as a parent but no amount of therapies have changed the outcome).

So is there an alternative? A taxi company who will use an app to pinpoint his position, take payment automatically etc. He uses such an app in his uni town (Northampton) easily but is there a trusted one in London he can use that doesn't charge the earth?

For what it is worth, have used Uber quite regularly in London over the last few years and have never had a problem, even though I am a wheelchair user. We liked the ease of use over trying to find a cab who would be willing to wait while we folded up the wheelchair and horrors of horrors, wanting to put it in their boot (oh and being charged extra for the pleasure)

There is more than one company that does this. Addison Lee has an app, and you get the driver's phone number, the number plate, car type, his position and a fixed price.

SingleSue

Thankyou, will add that to our information databank.

If only he didn't find the underground so overwhelming, I have always found it pee easy (well before the wheelchair, now it is a nightmare), the problem would be solved!

Andy_L

SingleSue wrote: »

trying to find a cab who would be willing to wait while we folded up the wheelchair and horrors of horrors, wanting to put it in their boot (oh and being charged extra for the pleasure)

Its illegal for a black cab to charge extra to carry a wheelchair. You should report them.

Stoke

Andy_L wrote: »

Its illegal for a black cab to charge extra to carry a wheelchair. You should report them.

But this can't be true..... Black Cabbies aren't evil? Uber are.

adindas

PasturesNew wrote: »

Uber seemed like a business model that only suited Uber's pockets - and dodgy drivers.

Cabbies in London were always highly respected for their rule-keeping, law-abiding and knowledgeable skills.

Uber gave "any fool with a car" a license to pick up people and cart them about with a slack abandonment of care, responsibility and accountability.

Black cabs are the "Culture of London". The tourists will be thrilled to use them. It's not quite so great crawling into a grubby Nissan with somebody who grunts as they poke a sat nav.

Do you really live in London ???? Did you know that majority of taxi in London are not black cab. Try to find taxi in Zone 3, 4, 5, etc. there are not a lot of black cab.

Many local taxi companies are hiring benefit cheaters who keep receiving benefit but work as taxi drivers in the evening, taking people to the airport, using their private cars.

tberry6686 wrote: »

Best joke I've heard all week. Biggest bunch of crooked, whinging gits is probably more accurate

Unless people are rich why should they take taxi that will cost them about 30% more ??