News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing. Parent comment

Re:Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still opera... by eyko on Monday November 25, 2019 @07:06AM (#21627349)
It's not like Black cabs in London are guaranteed to be safe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Worboys
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still opera... by Cougher on Monday November 25, 2019 @07:21AM (#21627448)
Given that there are something like 20,000 black cabs in London, I'm seeing your one outlier from 10 years ago as a pretty solid argument in favor of them. And that's before we start debating about the merits of driver vetting processes and vehicle maintenance requirements.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still opera... by isostatic on Monday November 25, 2019 @07:35AM (#21627546)
Private hire drivers are vetted, and their cars have to undergo enhanced MOTs
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still opera... by lhopki01 on Monday November 25, 2019 @09:11AM (#21628222)
And this is why Uber lots it's license. It wasn't properly vetting private hire drivers. It's not hard. Follow the rules and they'll get their license back.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still opera... by Jommi on Monday November 25, 2019 @10:16AM (#21628776)
I'm just perplexed. What are you even commenting on? Uber isnt the one vetting private drivers, they just check if they have the private driver license or not. This is up to tfl.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still opera... by isostatic on Tuesday November 26, 2019 @05:41AM (#21637112)
The onus is on TFL to vet the drivers.

Uber lost the license because they were 'not fit or proper', nothing to do with vetting, seemingly because of a feature of the website that seemingly allows drivers to upload new photos and get other people to drive for them

> A key issue identified was that a change to Uber's systems allowed unauthorised drivers to upload their photos to other Uber driver accounts.

Other minicab firms of course don't have a photo on an app, and the passenger has to check the photo once they've got in the car (I believe PHV drivers have to show their PHV license from TFL), which puts passengers in a far worse situation when the driver doesn't match. I wonder how many small minicab firms have been determined to be not fit or proper.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still opera... by Cougher on Monday November 25, 2019 @07:51AM (#21627666)
Color me convinced by your exhaustive comparison.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still opera... by isostatic on Tuesday November 26, 2019 @04:18AM (#21636683)
What difference in vetting is there between Black Cab drivers and Minicab drivers in London?

What difference in vehicle maintenence?

The vetting process may be flawed, but it's flawed in both hackney carriage and phv licensing. This was acknowleged by say Milton Keynes, which gave a Hackney + PHV license to an applicant with convictions for rape and other serious sexual offences [0]

I have no confidence in London that the vetting process works, and the authorities are far more interested in retaining an obsolete cartel. Rather than fix their vetting procedure (which has always allowed dodgy minicab firms, which were never a threat to the powerful black cab industry), they concentrate on Uber.

[0] https://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/pressreleases/2014/aug/taxi...

[ Parent | on HN ]