Uber is such a contentious topic that a decision like this is ipso facto political.
There are [1] competitors (especially black cabs)that have a very strong interest to lobby against uber. [2] There are pro labour politicans that see Uber as workaround for labour laws, and the vanguard of a wider threat to labour norms. [3] Now, there are feminists and work culture interested people reacting to all the accusations about Uber's internal cultural issues.
Those aren't the quoted resons for the decisions, but they are a relevant political context.
The cabs were the first (and obviously self interested) objectors and Uber got used to fighting them and their politcal influence. This seems to have lead them down a cultural path. An agressive, ask-forgiveness-not-permission culture. A embattled rightous self image. "All the accusations against us are self serving incumbent bullshit!"
"Transport for London and the mayor have caved in to a small number of people who want to restrict consumer choice."
Disprupting taxis is/was the goal, so that antagonism was inevitable. On-demand labour is the method. Without that, they couldn't have grown like they did. The stuff they lost their liscence over,... that was an unforced error.
"reporting serious criminal offences, obtaining medical certificates and driver background checks." - also greyball
There's no good reason for Uber to lose a big market over that. Complying would not have disrupted their operations one bit.
> There's no good reason for Uber to lose a big market over that. Complying would not have disrupted their operations one bit.
This is the thing, Uber assumes that london is just like NYC, where its a highly regulated market with a massive barrier to entry. Its simply not the case.
A minicam license to operate costs ~£500 (https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/licensing...) There is a rich and thriving minicab market. Uber are really quite late to the party, Addison Lee having an internet based hailing serivce in 2007, and an app since at least 2010. The only thing new they bring is "cachet"
There are [1] competitors (especially black cabs)that have a very strong interest to lobby against uber. [2] There are pro labour politicans that see Uber as workaround for labour laws, and the vanguard of a wider threat to labour norms. [3] Now, there are feminists and work culture interested people reacting to all the accusations about Uber's internal cultural issues.
Those aren't the quoted resons for the decisions, but they are a relevant political context.
The cabs were the first (and obviously self interested) objectors and Uber got used to fighting them and their politcal influence. This seems to have lead them down a cultural path. An agressive, ask-forgiveness-not-permission culture. A embattled rightous self image. "All the accusations against us are self serving incumbent bullshit!"
"Transport for London and the mayor have caved in to a small number of people who want to restrict consumer choice."
Disprupting taxis is/was the goal, so that antagonism was inevitable. On-demand labour is the method. Without that, they couldn't have grown like they did. The stuff they lost their liscence over,... that was an unforced error.
"reporting serious criminal offences, obtaining medical certificates and driver background checks." - also greyball
There's no good reason for Uber to lose a big market over that. Complying would not have disrupted their operations one bit.