lhrsfo

I have some sympathy with your argument but, by your logic, TfL should summarily ban all black cabs and, while we're at it, all mini-cab operations as well (with the possible exception of Addison Lee). But wait, I've seen Addison Lee drivers doing atrocious things also on the roads, so they too should be banned.

Khan and his cronies at TfL need to remember that they are there to serve Londoners and not the other way around. Yes Uber needs to have its act cleaned up, but summary bans on grounds which, if applied across the board, would apply to all other operators too, is not the way to do it.

ppp909

You've seen Addison Lee drivers sexually assault people? I'm sorry to hear that.

lhrsfo

No, but black cab drivers over the years have and there has even been at least one murder.

Mizter T

I've taken loads of London buses at all times of the night. They're fine.


It seems you're getting a tad overwrought.

We all know that Uber isn't going anywhere - they have just been forced to sort out elements of their operation in London.

ppp909

There have been plenty of cases of minicab drivers doing the same. That's not the point though. Uber not only knew that an offence had occurred, they choose not only to avoid telling the police as they are both legally and morally (I hope) obliged to do, they also chose to allow the offender to continue working for them.

There are those, mostly black cab drivers, who fundamentally have a problem with competition. The rest of us just have a problem with Uber and the way they behave.

Calchas

It’s possible to come to a different conclusion about Uber without being either ignorant or abhorrent. @:-)

Many perfectly happy Uber drivers would lose their livelihoods over this. Many people will face the increased risk of using a completely unlicensed minicab instead of uber.

Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn’t mean they are stupid or evil.

NickB

Exactly. The issue is not that Uber drivers have committed criminal offences per se. There will have been some (rare) criminal offences committed by Uber drivers in the same way as there will have been some (rare) criminal offences committed by other minicab drivers as there will have been some (rare) criminal offences committed by black drivers.

Rather the issue is: when a firm is confronted with a complaint of alleged criminal assault by one of its drivers against a passenger, what should it do? Should it report it to the police or should it remain silent? And should a minicab firm be allowed to keep its licence if it chooses to remain silent and not report criminal offences allegedly committed by its drivers on passengers?

I suspect that, faced with those questions, most people would say: "of course, they should report it to the police" and "of course, they should have their licence revoked." I also suspect that, had you asked that question to all those people who have signed the Uber petition before this decision was taken, they would equally have regarded as self-evident that it is unacceptable for a minicab firm to behave in this way and that TfL should regard such firms as not "fit and proper" to hold a licence and therefore refuse to renew a licence in such circumstances.

But, somehow, just because it is Uber and they loooooove Uber, pfuittt... all that flies out of the window to be replaced by emotion: outrage and fear at the possible disappearance of a beloved service.

Let us face it: one could hardly describe the ethical standards that are expect of minicab firms, including Uber, as impossibly high. On a twenty point scale of such standards, we are perhaps at level 1 or 2. And yet Uber manages to fail even that very basic standard.

It is really not hard for Uber to clean up its act to satisfy these very basic expectations. We are not talking here about issues of exploitation, circumvention of labour laws. etc... We are just talking about Uber abiding by simple rules of behaviour which are not particularly onerous to comply with.

If people are ready to turn a blind eye to breaches of such basic standard for a firm because they like the service the firm provides, it seems to me a sign of a moral compass whose mechanism has gone very badly awry.

Even if one loves the service that Uber provides, even if one hates TfL and one thinks that they are just a bunch of luddites in cahoots with conservative (with a small c) forces in the LTDA, I cannot see how one can turn a blind eye to such flouting of very basic regulatory standards.

mandolino

The letter that the police wrote (in case it hasn't been linked already), obtained under FoI:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/met-po...-crimes-2017-8

DYKWIA

I thought I'd mentioned this before, but if somebody was sexually assaulted, why did they go to Uber rather than the Police?

Has anything been proven?

rcspeirs

Isn't that the whole point. Read that Met Police letter (link above). Uber have failed to cooperate with police in these investigations. I'd expect any Regulator to come down like a ton of bricks on anyone in those circumstances. Also note that this is not a shock to Uber Management however much they claim they weren't aware - tfl have already given Uber a four month extension to clean up their act and they failed to react.

mandolino

That link from the London Met says they "ascertained" that rumoured gun the driver carried was pepper spray. The Uber investigation found that it was some sort of (legal) marker spray for IDing assailants and vehicles later. One wonders what method of "ascertaining" it was that the Met used.

In this case, Uber has agreed that they should have told police immediately , since first report was a gun, but what was reported to them initially was not an assault on a passenger but a "road rage" confrontation with another driver. Not someone I'd want driving me but as I alluded before, hardly unique to Uber and much less likely to be reported if it was a normal cab compared to the Uber system which insists on passenger feedback on every journey and driver and positively encourages elaboration, beyond the simple star rating.

UKtravelbear

Read the letter again.

The letter - 2nd paragraph - states that it was UBER (and not as you say the Police) that had 'ascertained' it was pepper spray - they asked the driver! - and not any sort of dye marker.

Where does it say that UBER said it was a legal dye spray? Because the letter dosen't say that either.

Calchas

You would have to ask the unfortunate women in question. I can speculate that reporting a sexual assault would be a deeply unpleasant and time consuming experience and some people would wish to put the matter behind them rather than relive.

It is also stated in the letter that Uber intimated to the women allegedly assaulted by the driver that Uber would report the matter to the police on their behalf (which they did not do).

Here is the the letter, devoid of Business Insider's editorialising, which concludes with:

Silver Fox

That letter has highlighted a very serious issue. It is unfathomable to me (if true) that Uber and/or any other company does not seem to have any obligation to report it to the Police. That needs to be fixed.

ft101

I agree it needs to be reported, but if the victim doesn't want to, should a 3rd party (in this case Uber) have the right to ignore her wishes?