It doesn't matter because Uber are the ones trying to get their license renewed.

(What is it with the rampant "whataboutism" defending Uber?")

"Uber are the ones trying to get their license renewed"

They're not the only ones.

There are around 2,400 private hire operator licences in issue currently, so about 40 are renewed per month.[0]

Whether laws and other regulations are enforced uniformly or selectively is a matter of concern to all of us.

[0] https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/licensing...

So are you saying none of the other private hire licensees have DBS or health checks? I thought the point was that as employees Uber drivers had to have safety checks and that Uber don't want to accept they're employees because then Uber can't keep as much of the money.

Have I read the situation wrong in this respect?

"So are you saying none of the other private hire licensees have DBS or health checks?"

I'm not sure how anything I've written could be interpreted in that way. Perhaps you replied to the wrong comment?

My point is that stats about Uber are only useful when put into context, i.e. compared with stats about other holders of operator licences. Someone said that's irrelevant because Uber are the [only] ones applying for a licence. I pointed out that there are around 40 operator licences granted per month.

Given there are such direct comparisons possible, why are those stating the numbers continuing to do so without sufficient context to make them useful?

I stand mildly corrected.

It's about context. Anecdotal evidence paired with taking numbers out of context is a keystone of yellow journalism, and is something that is ubiquitous in these articles about Uber. Uber currently fulfills 40 million [1] rides per month. At that scale, even the rarest and most egregious incidents are going to be a regular occurrence, which enables individuals and organizations to be incredible misleading when discussing the issues at hand.

So for instance in the US the average traffic fatality rate is about 1.5 per hundred million miles. With Uber servicing 40 million rides per month, you'd expect to see numerous Uber passengers/drivers killed in traffic accidents each and every month. It can lead to yellow journalism like "Dozens were killed in accidents with unsafe Uber drivers last year. How can we fix this?" The quantity of values is in no way evidence that there's anything to fix nor does it justify calling the drivers unsafe. You need context and relative comparison. It could well be that you get your sensationalistic headline even when the drivers are well above the average in terms of safety - just thanks to the scale of their operation.

Arguments should be decided on logic, not emotion. And that is impossible when you present numbers without any context.

[1] - http://www.businessofapps.com/data/uber-statistics/

>What is it with the rampant "whataboutism" defending Uber?

Even worse is the implicit dismissal of sexual assault!

It's about fair treatment.

If you get a parking ticket for going 5 over the limit, but sheriff's friend gets away free while going 30 over and drunk, is it "whataboutism"?

> never used the service in my life because I'm not lazy and dispendious

If implying that those that use Uber are lazy, this is an absolutely unwarranted statement that I am pretty sure breaks HN guidelines.

Wow, did I really break someone's feelings with that sentence ?

It is a personal opinion but yes, using an expensive cab or the like instead of largely available public transportation (it's London) is laziness in my opinion.

Is having a personal feeling and general impression from what I've see amongst my acquaintances, about the kind of behavior that brings people to use individual premium means of transportation, breaking HN guidelines ?

Because yes that's what I'm implying but I phrased it not in a "universal truth" way but more in a "personal impression about an issue" way. Which seems a rather common attitude here. Also harassed no one during it (was not targeted at a specific user), so I have a hard time seeing what harm I've done here.

I just added this sentence as a reminder that Uber is a completely unessential service, that its popularity just capitalizes on people's laziness imo, and that I couldn't care less if people suddently had to use their feet and share space and transportation again.

The problem with your comment is a sweeping generalisation since you have no idea why many people who use Uber do not prefer public transport, it's the same problems as statements such as 'Mexicans are...', 'Muslims are...' etc.

> Uber is a completely unessential service, that its popularity just capitalizes on people's laziness imo

Is a computer essential? No? A programmer would disagree.

Is guitar essential? No? A musician would disagree.

Just because it's not essential to you doesn't mean it's the same for everyone.

> Because yes that's what I'm implying but I phrased it not in a "universal truth" way but more in a "personal impression about an issue"

Ok, so let's take:

"Uber is a completely unessential service, that its popularity just capitalizes on people's laziness"

vs

"Personally, I'd say that Uber is a completely unessential service, that its popularity just capitalizes on people's laziness, but opinions may differ"

Which one seems like an universal truth vs an opinion to you?

>Which one seems like an universal truth vs an opinion to you?

Ok so let's take :

"I've never used Uber in my life because I'm not lazy and dispendious"

VS

"I've never used Uber in my life because it's for lazy and dispendious people"

Which one seems like a personal opinion vs an universal truth to you ?

> instead of largely available public transportation

Whilst London does have generally good public transport, there are times when it suffers catastrophic failures and then people are forced to use "expensive cabs or the like".