SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
London's black cabs have promised to bring "chaos, congestion and confusion" to London as a protest against the growing presence of smartphone taxi service Uber. They are planning for 10,000 drivers to meet at a London landmark (which hasn't been named yet) in early June.
Steve McNamara, LTDA's [Licensed Taxi Drivers Association] general secretary, told the BBC: "I anticipate that the demonstration against TfL's [Transport for London's] handling of Uber will attract many many thousands of cabs and cause severe chaos, congestion and confusion across the metropolis."
This amid lawsuits in some places and drivers being fined in others.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Uber vs London Taxis - Protest via Gridlock
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 20 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Your aim is high and to the right.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Angry Jesus on Friday May 09 2014, @11:29PM
I expect this will go badly for the taxi drivers -- they are going to inconvenience everybody on the road because they don't like competition. Protests almost always involve inconvenience for unrelated parties, that's just how it goes. But the expectation is that your personal inconvenience is second to the unfairness being protested. "I don't want to compete with someone providing a better service" is not the kind of thing that generates much sympathy.
If Uber were some megacorp with a plan to operate at a loss until the taxi drivers were all wiped out, then it would be unfair. But this just comes across as holding the streets hostage simply because they can, not because they are morally right.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Friday May 09 2014, @11:43PM
I can't blame them for trying. After all, they are learning this anti-competitive and entitlement laden behavior from the MegaCorps.
Have a problem with your business model? Don't adapt. Sue others into oblivion and hijack the legislative and governing bodies to either pay you directly like a welfare check, or make those other disruptive influences just go away.
I wonder if they remembered to bribe the appropriate officials?
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday May 09 2014, @11:49PM
Similar things (smaller protests) happened in Seattle.
Since the city makes money selling hack license, they pretty much lined up behind the cabbies.
However an arbitrarily reduced number of drivers from each of three companies [washingtonpost.com] were permitted, which the companies say is not sufficient and they have no real way to enforce it, since the drivers are all pretty much self managed. There is no real way to tell how many are on the street in a city.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Saturday May 10 2014, @01:08AM
Are you sure that's the reason?
An anachronism nowadays (with all the GPS navigators and smartphones), the test was introduced as condition for license in 1865 [wikipedia.org] and was expanded to include 25,000 streets, with all their order and all the points of interest, including streets, squares, clubs, hospitals, hotels, theatres, embassies, government and public buildings, railway stations, police stations, courts, diplomatic buildings, important places of worship, cemeteries, crematoria, parks and open spaces, sports and leisure centres, places of learning, restaurants and historic buildings
Wouldn't you be upset when other don't have the same barrier of entry in your business?
If it's about competition, then how about laying a fair competition ground first?
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Angry Jesus on Saturday May 10 2014, @02:14AM
> Be required to use a taxi meter while other are not?
The app on the driver's phone acts like a meter using GPS to compute distance and time. They aren't looking to be able to do the same themselves, they are looking to prevent anyone from catching up to the 21st century.
> An anachronism nowadays (with all the GPS navigators and smartphones),
They don't seem to be protesting that. In fact, they seem to want to keep that barrier in place despite it not serving a purpose anymore.
I don't see their position on either issue to be one that moves the situation towards more fairness.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 10 2014, @09:22AM
" because they don't like competition.
Are you sure that's the reason?"
Absolutely positive.
"Be required to use a taxi meter while other are not?"
As a consumer I don't care about the taxi meters. I just want to get from point A to point B as safely and cheaply and efficiently as possible. If a competitor can get me there approximately as cheaply and safely (they do have drivers licenses so are approved as safe drivers) for a better price that's all that matters to me. For all I care, this requirement can be removed and is just a mere formality. Markets should be intended to serve consumers.
"let others operate with the a smartphone the only investment but you must spend years in learning to pass world-famous Knowledge (of London) test?
An anachronism nowadays (with all the GPS navigators and smartphones), the test was introduced as condition for license in 1865 and was expanded to include 25,000 streets, with all their order and all the points of interest, including streets, squares, clubs, hospitals, hotels, theatres, embassies, government and public buildings, railway stations, police stations, courts, diplomatic buildings, important places of worship, cemeteries, crematoria, parks and open spaces, sports and leisure centres, places of learning, restaurants and historic buildings"
Again, as a consumer I don't care about all that. If GPS can get me there just as well that's fine for me.
"Wouldn't you be upset when other don't have the same barrier of entry in your business?
If it's about competition, then how about laying a fair competition ground first?"
It absolutely is about competition and I agree that these stupid formalities designed to limit competition should go. Again, as a consumer these stupid formalities do me no good and only served (are designed to) limit competition. It's these formalities that are designed to limit competition that bother me. It is every bit about competition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 10 2014, @09:35AM
err ... that part should read
if a competitor can get me there approximately as efficiently and safely (and cheaper)*
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 12 2014, @10:05AM
"Are you sure that's the reason?
Be required to use a taxi meter while other are not?
let others operate with the a smartphone the only investment but you must spend years in learning to pass world-famous Knowledge [www.gov.uk] (of London) test?"
Except the government isn't setting laws that say that anyone who meets these requirements can become a taxicab driver. The government is creating laws that artificially limit the number of taxicab drivers. It has nothing to do with safety or consumer protection and everything to do with scamming the public.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 10 2014, @09:31AM
It's amazing how those that benefit from anti-competitive laws are always quick to proclaim the virtues of everyone following the laws (the laws that they pretty much wrote through undemocratic backdoor dealings) but then when they don't get their way they have no problems breaking any law they please. This is unacceptable and I hope they all get arrested.