The license is not being renewed not because TfL isn't interested in innovation (they actively encourage it), not to retain power for the black cab drivers, and not because London isn't interested in companies like Uber operating here.
It's because of the rapes.
The Metropolitan Police (the part of the UK police force that polices London), has objected to their license.
In 2015 alone, they had to deal with 32 cases of Uber drivers raping or sexually assaulting lone female passengers.
In the entire history of the hackney carriage (black cab) license - going back to 1662 - I know of only one case of a driver having been prosecuted for rape, about 5 years ago.
Uber is not reporting crimes, not co-operating with the police when they are reported, is not doing suitable background checks on criminality or medical suitability for being a private hire driver on its "workforce", and there is suspicion that they are both price gouging and specifically trying to go around the private hire regulations they claim to support.
Also from the TfL statement:
> The Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 includes provision to appeal a licensing decision within 21 days of it being communicated to the applicant. Uber London Limited can continue to operate until any appeal processes have been exhausted.
That means they're not shutting up shop soon, they can appeal in the next 8 days, then continue to operate until the appeals process is over.
That means if they start dealing with driver checks, crime reports and regulations properly within the time frame of the appeals process (which can be years), they'll be allowed to continue to operate.
As a Londoner, I'm OK with that. If they aren't interested in conducting criminal record checks, medical checks, making sure my gf is safe when travelling alone, etc. I don't want them in my city.
If the regulators bring about these changes, they are doing their job and I'm happy for them to scare the holy fuck out of Uber and their management team in the process to make that happen.
In the meantime, other operators have upped their game a lot in recent years whilst Uber has been operating. Addison Lee (one of the larger private hire firms) has an app almost as good as Uber's, with fixed cost pricing.
We will not miss Uber if they go, they are going to need to show that they are worthy of being a part of the diverse and amazing London community if they wish to remain.
> In the entire history of the hackney carriage (black cab) license - going back to 1662 - I know of only one case of a driver having been prosecuted for rape, about 5 years ago.
Pardon?
John Warboys - a registered black cab driver - was convicted of 12 rapes in 2009, and was thought to have carried out over 100. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Worboys
I could go on but those were the first 3 or 4 links I found, and even those are in the past 5-8 years.
I dont see how some background checks are going to prevent people from raping someone if the opportunity presents itself. Rapists are rapists regardless of what license they have been given by filling in some forms.
And - and I can't stress this enough - they were all caught and prosecuted. The Met Police are saying Uber is making that harder, even allowing drivers to return to driving after they've been charged with an offence.
Can you see the differences and understand why a police force might decide that this operator in particular is a problem?
Yeah, I felt it is pretty weird when the OP claimed that Black Cabs don't rape women (I don't mean the car itself)
What would be a useful metric is: Rape per capita for Uber and Black Cabs. I'm too lazy to search for that, but if someone comes up with the data, he'll have a stronger argument.
Except that in UK approx 95% of such offences are carried out be people with no prior convictions - so you don't weed out that many attackers this way.
Well, this is probably not the best point to base an argument on:
"In the entire history of the hackney carriage (black cab) license - going back to 1662 - I know of only one case of a driver having been prosecuted for rape, about 5 years ago."
Anecdotal, and also, "prosecuted" describes a very certain slice of the data.
The following link extends into other companies and crimes, but it hopefully adds to your anecdotal comment a bit.
Those numbers include uber drivers, minicab drivers AND black cab drivers all lumped into one - they are people who described their occupation as "taxi driver" or some derivative.
It is fair to say that regulation in London has generally tended towards safer experiences for all.
I was in a car the other day where the driver bemoaned the paperwork. He came to London in the 1980s without knowing English and bought a car for £200 that had six months MOT left on it and would likely be scrapped at that point, and was operating as a driver the next day.
Now cars can't be older than 10 years, are MOT'ed every 6 months, the drivers are all having to do English proficiency tests for safety reasons, and as a result the whole system is better and safer.
Uber is actively trying to skirt around regulations, and is - in the eyes of the London police - not doing enough to protect women from sexual assault and rape compared to other operators, including other private hire and black cab operators.
They are undoubtedly doing so because of their data and experiences relating specifically to Uber as an operator, and not because they don't like Uber.
As such, Uber should be forced to respond by either amending, or ceasing operations. The regulator is doing their job.
And we need to be clear here: the number one reason the Police and TfL are giving are that you are far more likely to be raped by an Uber driver than you are a driver for another firm or black cab driver - if that were not the case, they'd be suspending licenses elsewhere too/instead.
"I was in a car the other day where the driver bemoaned the paperwork." ... again, I was in a black cab a while back, and the guy parked between the two lanes in the middle of the road, then ran off to pee in a nearby hotel. On his way out, he just said, "if somebody stops, just say it was an emergency" — same guy also didn't want to accept credit card as the ride was under 20 pounds, and "he stopped the meter a few minutes early to make up for his brief pee-stop."
Anecdotal (mine is also 100% true, I am not kidding).
I am with you, on the fact that Uber needs to get their shit together, 100%, absolutely right.
But the number 32 is a tricky one — it's rape allegations (while clearly 32 too many, and I am really, really not saying this is not bad) — 32 allegations, not drivers. John Worboys (black cab, prosecuted), targeted 14 women alone, with police estimating 102 cases total, David Perry (prosecuted, 2 cases), etc.
"The regulator is doing their job." — YES!
"Uber should be forced to respond by either amending, or ceasing operations" - YES!
"Those numbers include uber drivers, minicab drivers AND black cab drivers all lumped into one" - YES!
"The number one reason the Police and TfL are giving are that you are far more likely to be raped by an Uber driver than you are a driver for another firm or black cab driver" - NO.
> In the entire history of the hackney carriage (black cab) license - going back to 1662 - I know of only one case of a driver having been prosecuted for rape, about 5 years ago.
Possibly, but as mattlondon's sibling comment alludes to, the statement of a single rape prosecution in more than 300 years is still a long way from the truth.
Yet no-one's managed to come up with evidence of it being false. Perhaps less knee jerk "I can't believe that!" and more checking facts before discounting comments
Some anecdata related to this – discussing with colleagues today, one mentioned that she had got into an Uber where the driver was clearly not the person registered with Uber, and the car was not the one she was told would pick her up. She mentioned another case she knew of where a driver was sharing the Uber registration with his cousin to earn more money.
This sort of activity severely impacts the safety and security of passengers, and makes Uber's job of helping the police that much more difficult as well. As far as I can tell, Uber doesn't care about these practices, or turns a blind eye to them.
Surely when a car arrives with a different licence plate and a different driver, you don't get in? Moreover, you report the driver?
I'm not strictly pro-Uber but in any system there will be people who try to break the rules.
I would gladly wait another 20 minutes, and warn the driver of calling the police (were they to harass me) to get another Uber. Even fronting the £7 cancellation or w/e is worth it to me for the peace of mind to not have to deal with something shady like that.
I would under normal circumstances, but if you're alone/in a place you don't know/drunk/woman/at 2am, or even all of those, that's a tough decision on whether it's safer to get in or stay out, and we're socially conditioned to not question these sorts of situations as much as we probably should.
Unless you called a cab to escape a particularly dangerous situation, I can't imagine it ever being a good idea getting into a car with a different driver and registration. You're not getting into a taxi, you're getting into a stranger's car.
I'm not sure that's true. Black cabs are highly regulated and others in the comments have written about very low numbers of rapes/etc from black cab drivers. As for private taxi companies, they are subject to the same regulations as Uber, and I'd imagine most have their licences renewed or not for the same reasons.
> If the regulators bring about these changes, they are doing their job and I'm happy for them to scare the holy fuck out of Uber and their management team in the process to make that happen..
Not a Londoner, but this was similar to my take on it. This feels like a ceremonial ban designed to wake Uber up and force them to lift their corporate behavior standards. TFL would have known that a multi-year appeal process was almost guaranteed, so it's an easy way to put Uber on notice while also gauging public sentiment towards them during that process.
Im suspicious of your base data. Uber's are not anonymous, and although it might give a broader access to the service for criminals, its not less able to turn information over, if not more. Argentina has an issue with taxicabs picking girls out of night clubs and sexually assaulting them, but there is no record of which cab it was, so the criminals are never found. That would not happen with UBer (without finding the criminal, that is).
Absolutely! If they can reform, great. If not, well they've certainly forced the hands of other operators to modernise and offer a better service, but that's no excuse for the rest.
I would deeply miss them if Uber went away. Speak for yourself. I prefer not to overpay black cab drivers with consistently bad, racist attitudes. I think in a fair world the taxi drivers should be available for those that want them (like Mercedes Benz Uber Black options).
If Uber is only going to be available in a model where your female family, friends and colleagues are at increased risk of being raped, are you OK with that?
The license is not being renewed not because TfL isn't interested in innovation (they actively encourage it), not to retain power for the black cab drivers, and not because London isn't interested in companies like Uber operating here.
It's because of the rapes.
The Metropolitan Police (the part of the UK police force that polices London), has objected to their license.
In 2015 alone, they had to deal with 32 cases of Uber drivers raping or sexually assaulting lone female passengers.
In the entire history of the hackney carriage (black cab) license - going back to 1662 - I know of only one case of a driver having been prosecuted for rape, about 5 years ago.
Uber is not reporting crimes, not co-operating with the police when they are reported, is not doing suitable background checks on criminality or medical suitability for being a private hire driver on its "workforce", and there is suspicion that they are both price gouging and specifically trying to go around the private hire regulations they claim to support.
Also from the TfL statement:
> The Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 includes provision to appeal a licensing decision within 21 days of it being communicated to the applicant. Uber London Limited can continue to operate until any appeal processes have been exhausted.
That means they're not shutting up shop soon, they can appeal in the next 8 days, then continue to operate until the appeals process is over.
That means if they start dealing with driver checks, crime reports and regulations properly within the time frame of the appeals process (which can be years), they'll be allowed to continue to operate.
As a Londoner, I'm OK with that. If they aren't interested in conducting criminal record checks, medical checks, making sure my gf is safe when travelling alone, etc. I don't want them in my city.
If the regulators bring about these changes, they are doing their job and I'm happy for them to scare the holy fuck out of Uber and their management team in the process to make that happen.
In the meantime, other operators have upped their game a lot in recent years whilst Uber has been operating. Addison Lee (one of the larger private hire firms) has an app almost as good as Uber's, with fixed cost pricing.
We will not miss Uber if they go, they are going to need to show that they are worthy of being a part of the diverse and amazing London community if they wish to remain.