Productivity

I've got to say, Uber's terrible corporate practices may be coming back to haunt them. Apparently the tactic of do what we want and be a terrible corporate citizen may not be the best long term strategy.

This is terrible for consumers and drivers, but honestly, I am happy to see Uber getting shown that it is not outside the law.

Isochronous

A sad protectionist decision from London. We shouldn't be too surprised to hear of poor decisions though given that the mayor is the same idiot who thinks Londoners should just get used to terrorism instead of trying to eradicate it

UKtravelbear

That is not what he said and he has been deliberately misquoted by many fir their own purposes.

I am shocked at the level of vituperative comments in this thread about the Mayor when this is not his personal decision to make.

CurtainRingSalesman

There is a remarkable number of people who live outside London and have remarkably strong opinions about Sadiq Khan based on a remarkably small evidence base. In the current climate, one can only guess what factor is most influential for them.

Even a temporary ban of Uber would result in more competition in the minicab industry because there are plenty of minicab companies and plenty of minicab apps out there.

It is sort of weird to see people suggesting that requiring minicab operators to report sexual assaults and not mislead regulators is a kind of socialist-Luddite-black taxi conspiracy.

PS I prefer Uber to black taxis.

NickB

The picture of the cap going round cabbies to assemble enough money for a substantial bribe gave me a good laugh. If you really want to have an example of improper attempt to influence a public official, you need look no further than this. Admittedly, it comes from the Financial Times, a well-known supporter of the Trotskyist-Leninist cause who sees capitalism as the enemy of the people so this should be taken with a grain of salt...

The reality that you seem only too willing to shut your eyes to is that Uber needs to clean up its act. If this helps getting them to do this, that is no bad thing.

As to what everyone you have spoken to "without fail" has said, I think that it probably tells us more about the company you keep than anything else.

Sixth Freedom

Uber is an American company and Americans don't really do public transport. Meanwhile in London public transport is almost universally excellent, and as well as the tube, black cabs and buses there are also many mini cab companies constantly available for people who want a bit more speed. I honestly don't understand why people in London regularly use cars and at 35 years old I don't even have a driving license.

On the financial side, Uber is an unprofitable company who dump capacity on the roads to undercut and drive out the incumbents so that one day they can be the monopoly supplier and ratchet up fares to generate a return for their private equity investors. In most industries this is called predatory pricing and it is illegal. For some reason "tech" firms like Uber think that they are above the law, but they are not. Good riddance.

"A developed country is not where the poor use cars, but where the rich use public transport"

Enigma368

In most places this is true but there are notable exceptions where public transport is excellent, as good as many major European cities, e.g. Boston, NYC, San Francisco and Chicago.

But yes, generally public transport is terrible.

Analise

Time for a mileage run to NYC and its metropolitan area to widen your perspective.

WorldLux

NYC, SFO, BOS,ORD (and all the other US cities with excellent public transport) are really the exception rather than the rule. You can't deny that the US aren't built around the car. Nice big, wide roads, lots of parking available, cheap gas,...

Jimmie76

I was talking to someone on the bus yesterday after the decision was announced. They said that this was always coming given the way Uber had behaved. He pointed out both the reasons that TFL had given and their corporate practices in general. I suggested he was a Black Cab driver and boy was I wide of the mark. He was an ex met policeman recently retired. He said that this [licence revocation] was being done because Uber weren't doing anything themselves to sort out their problems despite being told to. He also said their actions today showed something interesting about the firm. Rather than address the issues TFL had raised and try to keep their licence the first thing Uber did was say we'll see you in court.

My own reasons for not using Uber are that they tried to track the movement of every user even if they weren't using the app. They used software to evade the authorities trying to check on the service. The fact that drivers can game the system and obtain a higher price through surge pricing. I also would like it if my driver spoke my language as it helps when needing to change destination. Uber objected to the requirement for all of their drivers to speak English. Uber says drivers aren't employees (which would be the ultimate zero hours contract) judge says otherwise.......

I have used Uber when travelling with someone and I didn't think the service was that bad. However we were waiting somewhere that was teeming with black cabs and it would have been quicker on both occaisons to hire a black cab*. The choice of routes taken were a bit questionable as there were far quicker/shorter methods of getting to our destinations. That would come with local knowledge and not totally relying on a satnav. *I know that not everywhere is teeming with black cabs and that this is just personal experience before someone points it out.

WorldLux

1) They mayor is not taking that decision himself
2) Uber can appeal. That's the beauty of a legal system. If they haven't done anything wrong they get their license.
3) OT: You do know that terrorism can't be eradicated!? You can eradicate certain groups, but there's always going to be terrorism and London - being a huge city popular with tourists and home to a huge financial sector - is always going to be a target of terrorism. BTW: Tube bombings go as far back as 1883 (Praed Street bombing and Charing Cross bombing).

Calchas

Indeed. Londoners have been dealing with terrorism (in its modern incarnation) since the 1970s. It is not related to this decision.

Isochronous

When was the last terrorist attack in Singapore or Hong Kong?

cubbie

If I could just offer a little professional insight here, as a civil engineer who specializes in transportation:

Others have already pointed out the urban areas in the US where public transit is viable and readily available. I live near one of them, and still, I have to walk between a half hour and an hour to get to the nearest bus or train station. Although some outside and inside the US might enjoy thinking that this is because Americans are car-crazy and public transport-hostile, the reality is that the US is a geographically very large and overall sparsely populated country, in almost all of which, public transit systems are not economically viable. According to this website, for example, the United Kingdom, overall, London and all its other cities and all its rural areas combined, is the 50th most population-dense country in the world; France, the 100th; Ireland, the 135th; the US, 176th.

Now back to your discussion of Uber in London, already in progress.

Tisbutascratch

Hong Kong - February 2017, petrol bomb attack.