
London's Uber Ban Is a Big Brexit Mistake - flying_whale
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-22/london-s-uber-ban-is-a-big-brexit-mistake
======
hn_throwaway_99
This same argument was made when Austin required fingerprinting for drivers
and Uber and Lyft left.

What happened? Their was a flourishing of new ride share companies, including
a local nonprofit, RideAustin. Yes, at first, these apps were nowhere near the
level of Uber/Lyft, but they quickly improved, especially RideAustin. The
prices were slightly higher, but it seemed those prices reflected the actual
cost of the service without the VC subsidy.

I dread taking a taxi and I'm no friend of the formerly entrenched taxi
companies, but this idea that making some sensible regulations that these
multibillion dollar VC-subsidized tech companies need to follow is "anti-
innovation" is BS.

~~~
jonknee
You forgot the end of that story. They let Uber and Lyft back in[1] and the
apps that had sprouted up instantly got crushed[2].

[1] [https://www.curbed.com/2017/6/14/15803138/austin-uber-
lyft-t...](https://www.curbed.com/2017/6/14/15803138/austin-uber-lyft-
transportation-ride-hailing-return)

[2] [https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2017/06/06/uber-
lyft...](https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2017/06/06/uber-lyft-squash-
their-first-austin-ridesharing.html)

~~~
bsder
Yeah, Uber and Lyft spent VC money to lobby the state government to override
what the Austin voters decided.

So much for the will of the consumer, eh?

But, hey, that's what "DISRUPTION!" looks like nowadays, right?

~~~
jonknee
> So much for the will of the consumer, eh?

I think demand is a better proxy for the will of consumers than any law or
legislation. If the citizens of Austin refuse to use Uber or Lyft they will
disappear without any legislation.

~~~
qbrass
The tourists have more sway as consumers than the citizens do. There's more of
them, they're more likely to use a ride-sharing service, and they're more
likely to choose Uber of Lyft over a local brand just from the name
recognition.

------
oulu2006
This article is stupid, Uber was not caught unawares and has been in repeated
violation of several requirements for operating in London.

This isn't the end of some libertarian utopian dream of innovation, but rather
uber's continued blatant disregard of local laws.

~~~
RobPfeifer
It's not really stupid if you realize it's very likely an Uber PR piece
masquerading as an article :). In that sense, it makes quite a bit of sense!

~~~
supercanuck
It is written by a good well known exonomist, so i doubt it inthis case

~~~
wavefunction
Exonomists can be purchased.

~~~
gberger
Wait, I thought exonomist was a typo. Does it mean anything different than
economist?

------
zitterbewegung
So bending over backwards and making companies not follow the law is "stifling
technology companies". As others have pointed out Uber could play by the rules
if they wanted to.

~~~
QAPereo
Could they? Isn’t their whole business model using VC money to create
predatory pricing and dominate everything? I think Uber is rotten as a
premise, and when you take the bad behavior out, barring a sudden and
miraculous breakthrough in automated automobiles, they’re not viable.

~~~
disordinary
Yep, I have no idea how they have any customers with all the bad press they
get.

The goal is to kill the competition and treat their drivers and customers like
crap in doing so.

~~~
aianus
They treat their customers very well, that's why they've been so successful.

~~~
StudentStuff
Oh really? I gave up using Uber when I watched a ride go from $9 to $22, then
back down to $12 after I killed the app and reopened it. Lyft pulls much the
same shit, but killing and reopening will get me within a few cents of that
initial $9 price.

Ultimately, it just means I set my life up such that neither Uber or Lyft can
hold me hostage with insane spikes in pricing. Thus I bike and drive more than
I'd like.

------
cosban
I find it interesting that the article fails to mention the reason behind the
bans. Perhaps they expect us to already know that it's due to problems with
driver background checks. (correct me if I'm wrong)

Then again, if the argument is that in a pure libertarian system consumers
would drive out bad actors like this, I'm not sure that this line of thinking
would hold. The convenience of a cheap ride would seem to be worth the cost of
the seemingly small chance that a user might be assaulted if the world worked
this way.

~~~
disordinary
Due to driver checks and also having software which actively tried to hide
Ubers activities from regulators.

~~~
furioussloth
There is no proof of that being used in London. Also all the drivers in London
are certified drivers.

~~~
disordinary
It was given as a reason in the press release so there is obviously suspicion
of it at least.

[http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-
tech/new...](http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-
tech/news/greyball-uber-london-ban-creepy-feature-what-is-it-a7961641.html)

~~~
furioussloth
If so then they should mentioned incidences which lead to this suspicion. Both
mayor and uber has failed to make it clear what the reason of contention is
between them. The rules which uber is not following should have been listed
instead of arbitrary statements like Uber failed to report crimes by their
drivers . This can happen only if victim decides to report to uber instead of
police which sounds very unlikely scenario to me.

~~~
cassowary
That's nonsense. If you have a dispute between you and a company, everyone
will expect you to talk to the company first. If it turns out that your
dispute relates to breach of the law (for instance, improper racial
discrimination of clients), you might not necessarily realise you have the
ability to report it to the police. To say it sounds like a very unlikely
scenario to you makes it sound like you're trying to find reasons to defend
Uber, not trying to interpret the scene fairly.

~~~
pas
No, it's not.

If you have suffered something that you think is a crime, call the cops (in
the UK they are pretty okay for these things).

If you had a very bad experience, but maybe not a full blown crime, you might
decide to make a 1.0 star rating and complain to the company.

There could be systemic problems (racial discrimination), but even in those
cases, there are concrete victims, that can report it to authorities (to the
TfL for example).

------
Animats
This is some economist from George Mason University who claims markets are the
answer to everything.[1] There's a whole bunch of those guys at George Mason,
available to write advertorials on demand.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Cowen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Cowen)

------
nitinreddy88
Totally click bait article.

Snip: Transportation authority didn't ban because of job security or
localization. It didn't renew Uber license because Uber is not following local
authority guidelines.

------
limaoscarjuliet
100 quid heathrow to the City vs 30 uber. Good or bad, time to pay triple
again.

~~~
gregsq
Well, thirty from notting hill to heathrow by mini cab for me. If you mean the
actual city that would maybe 55. Not sure if you mean the city, say Liverpool
Street, or west end something. In any case that extra cash went straight to
the driver I'd guess. Black cabs cost more, but for completeness, I'm guessing
you didn't need to pay that much.

------
ajdlinux
TfL and the Greater London Authority being controlled by notable Brexiteers
like Sadiq Khan, of course...

~~~
CaptainZapp
Sadiq Khan a notable brexiteer?

I'm calling you a liar!

Two options: You provide _reputable_ sources to back this assertion of yours.
In which case I will profusely, unconditionally and publicly apologize.

Otherwise my assertion that you're a liar stands.

Note that no English tabloid product, nor anything Breitbart counts as a
reputable source in this context.

~~~
detaro
parent post sounds like sarcasm to me.

~~~
CaptainZapp
If so, my bad that I didn't get it.

In any case it was not very sarcastically phrased. And given the bullshit
people believe nowadays such things really need to be called out.

~~~
ajdlinux
My apologies, I'm an Australian, and anything that an Australian says should
be assumed to be sarcastic until proven otherwise.

~~~
CaptainZapp
In that case: Please accept my apologies.

I really took your comment at face value. It's just that the current trend of
Obama being a muslim terrorist sympathizer, Hillary Clinton running a child
porn ring out of a pizza parlor and other such utter shit (and a significant
amount of people actually believing that) makes me want gnaw off the wall
paper.

Mea culpa!

------
burntrelish1273
Set Uber aside for the bigger picture:

Brexit is UK's "Donald Trump": a manifestation of projected socioeconomic
angst in a self-defeating manner that doesn't address inequality at the policy
level. It's like suggesting California secede: good luck with trade policies,
printing a currency, forming a military and so on. It's civilizational "reorg"
churn that accomplishes nothing, eg, mob nonsense. If people collectively
possessed integrity and moral courage, they would directly call out what they
felt was inequity instead of scapegoating this group, that trade arrangement
or a startup.

