• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

Uber has license pulled..

I though the Uber drivers were vetted by TFL.

Am I wrong on this?

I cannot remember the last time I visited London so have no bias either way but this decision does seem strange.

I would imagine this has the potential to make quite a few people jobless.

Robin


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
There are going to be an awful lot of people defaulting on their Toyota Prius PCP deals...

Just last week I went in a 2017 S Class uber. The guy had spent nearly £100k on this car in order to be able to provide an Uber Lux service. I dread to think what he’s going to do now.

Uber are not the only company in London to work for, besides, that UberLux driver may not rely solely on Uber for his income. He could be a personal chauffeur, possibly with his own operating licence (which TfL now hasn't renewed!), and own clients, and probably sub-contract from other firms as well, and drives for Uber for a bit of beer money when he's not busy with his own work.

This was the idea of Uber in the beginning when it was launched in London in 2012 - using existing chauffeurs to fill in their gaps during their down time, while passengers would get a luxury service, for not much more than a black taxi, and it would've remained a niche service as you mentioned earlier.

It's the standard UberX drivers in their Priuises who rely on Uber who will be the most worried, however as I said, there are other private hire companies to work for, though Uber does have it advantages of being flexible (no set shifts to adhere to, usually), no corrupt controllers giving good job to their mates (Uber jobs are supposedly dispatched to the nearest driver who's been waiting the longest), and Uber takes a cut from each fare (which makes sense for part time drivers), rather than paying a minicab office a fixed weekly rent/circuit fee, payable regardless whether they've got work or not.

I've no opinion whether Uber goes or not. It's one source of income out of many, though a good thing about Uber compared to other firms I sub-contract firm, is that they're fairly quick to pay, i.e. next week (they've no reason to hang onto your money anyway as the passenger's card is billed not long after the journey), compared to faffing about with invoices and getting paid weeks/month in arrears later with other firms.

As a passenger there are other firms to use, I used to use a local firm such as Parkers, or sometimes use Addison Lee, and they often e-mail discount codes, which makes it just as cheap as Uber anyway.
 
I went to book an uber taxi for my son a couple of months ago thinking they were alot cheaper and the price compared to a normal mini cab was virtually the same a couple of quid max
 
I've never used Uber, but the perceived lack of accountability does put me off.
 
In Glasgow, Uber drivers must apply for a Private Hire licence.

That should ensure that the drivers are vetted and properly insured.

Cars are also limited to a certain age - unlike some black clunkers.

Is this the same for other cities ?

Yes it is, and the same for London.

I've not idea how the black cabs etc. go on about vetting and insurance. Uber drivers have the same checks as them. OK, they don't do the knowledge, but the advantage that 'knowledge' black cab drivers gave their customers has been cut out by technology. They may not like it, but that's progress.
 
I love Uber, never had anything but a great experience.
 
Old fogey attitudes protecting the establishment.

Black cabs still have a place in that you can hail them there and then on the street corner. Uber type services have their place as well, especially for those who feel more comfortable with a service that can be traced. Many women feel far more comfortable with Uber than a black cab. Let people have the choice, consumer choice will drive the market in the direction they want. It shouldn't be protectionism doing that.

Uber drivers in London go through the same checks as any "private" cab driver, should those be banned too? I can understand where Uber have been blocked in cities where they will not do the same checks as their competitors, but I do not believe that is the case here. If there are process issues with how they deal with complaints (or other serious incidents) then be very clear that is the case and how that is to be sorted out. Hiding behind a "public safety" issue when the drivers are vetted in the same way is misleading to say the least.

If the establishment can't adapt to changing consumer demands then they should get out of the way. Far too many old attitudes are driving the country in a direction the younger generation (and future of the country) do not want.
 
Uber drivers can't have gone through the same checks as a black cab otherwise TFL would have renewed their licence.
 
A couple of my best mates drive London taxis and there main complaint is that they are forced to buy a taxi that is able to do a U turn in a specific length. They therefore have to buy a TX which are rubbish or a Vito which is also rubbish and have it adapted with 4ws which again is also rubbish. One buddy has the Vito that cost him about £40,000. Considerably more than a Prius. It is also MOT'd twice a year.
Maybe that's why they are dearer.
 
I think all drivers have to undergo a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check. I believe Uber drivers undergo one through an accredited service, but not through TfL's preferred agency, which is GB Group.
 
The private hire vehicles have more regular checks too. I can’t imagine uber avoid these....

Different areas handle these differently. Our council gives those who regularly pass longer times. Those who fail so don’t maintain their vehicles get checked more often.

I see what back cabs mean. But their problem appears to be tfl rather than uber, who are just private cabs, working a bit smarter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Historically black cabs could be hailed in the street, while minicabs could only be pre-booked (though illegal minicabs were touting for business outside pubs and restaurants at night).

Most minicab firms were local, with very few exceptions.

Then Addison Lee came along with a system that allows the customer to 'pre-book' from anywhere (by phone or app), with a car materliasing within 15 minutes.

This meant that Addison Lee were very close to operating as hailed cabs. From the customer's perspective, there was little difference between the two.

The problem for black cabs became much bigger with Uber. Because - unlike Addison Lee - Uber does not buy/lease the cars or hire drivers, it spread much more quickly than the centralised Addison Lee did.

Add to that the GPS and smart navigation programs such as Waze, which take away the advantage of the cabbies' Knowledge, and as far as the 'customer's experience' goes there is little difference today between hailing a black cab in the street and getting an Uber via the app.

I therefore think that it is not a simple question of 'Uber good or bad?', but more of an issue with regulators falling asleep at the helm and failing to see the changing landscape of the taxi service in London.

I don't use Uber much, I personally prefer black cabs, but at the same time I don't think that simply banning Uber addresses the bigget issue.
 
They aren't banning them though. Uber simply need to meet TFL requirements.
 
Historically black cabs could be hailed in the street, while minicabs could only be pre-booked (though illegal minicabs were touting for business outside pubs and restaurants at night).

Most minicab firms were local, with very few exceptions.

Then Addison Lee came along with a system that allows the customer to 'pre-book' from anywhere (by phone or app), with a car materliasing within 15 minutes.

This meant that Addison Lee were very close to operating as hailed cabs. From the customer's perspective, there was little difference between the two.

The problem for black cabs became much bigger with Uber. Because - unlike Addison Lee - Uber does not buy/lease the cars or hire drivers, it spread much more quickly than the centralised Addison Lee did.

Add to that the GPS and smart navigation programs such as Waze, which take away the advantage of the cabbies' Knowledge, and as far as the 'customer's experience' goes there is little difference today between hailing a black cab in the street and getting an Uber via the app.

I therefore think that it is not a simple question of 'Uber good or bad?', but more of an issue with regulators falling asleep at the helm and failing to see the changing landscape of the taxi service in London.

I don't use Uber much, I personally prefer black cabs, but at the same time I don't think that simply banning Uber addresses the bigget issue.

A few years ago Addison Lee was a dirty word in the taxi world.
Then Uber came along.
 
I know several women who have been propositioned by UBER Drivers. All of them have recounted strikingly similar tales and all were terrified or extremely upset. Uber seem not to want to treat complaints like this seriously. That is shocking.
 
I know several women who have been propositioned by UBER Drivers. All of them have recounted strikingly similar tales and all were terrified or extremely upset. Uber seem not to want to treat complaints like this seriously. That is shocking.

Absolutely agree they should be taking it seriously. Unfortunately I know of several women who have had the same with both mini cabs and black cabs. I would hope that all companies take it as seriously and involve the police.

With a black cab or mini cab you have to consciously remember the name of the driver, at least with Uber you will have the record of that in the app.

It just shouldn't happen, but unfortunately it does.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom