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This discussion has been archived.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.
Q: Why did the lone ranger kill Tonto?
A: He found out what "kimosabe" really means.
(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.