I used to be an avid Uber user until I found out that the London drivers are not allowed to "park" while on shift and waiting for their next customer, so they have to continue driving and driving until they get a notification.

This is horrible for 1) emissions/pollution and 2) unnecessary congestion.

I would suggest using Green Tomato (hybrid cars only) if you know in advance when you'll need a ride (i.e. airport transfers, meetings, etc) and Kabbee, which operates like Uber but is a service for the minicabs in London. It comes out cheaper and waiting times are the same.

I think it was the right move.

Last time I used Uber the guy behind the wheel was 100% not the man Uber sent me a picture of. I tried to report it and got nowhere.

I liked Uber at first and used them a lot but there has been a marked deterioration this year. Unsafe drivers, rude and intimidating drivers, some with virtually no English and a company that won't address safety concerns.

It's no secret flowermummy and scottov. Sadiq Khan himself was on the Today Programme today explaining why the license was suspended - look it up. It's not the first time either as Uber is embroiled in legal disputes all over the world. The app itself is a good idea but Uber has become a toxic brand thanks to its management (or lack of). Right now, they don't even have a president (left after 6 months) or a CFO (since 2015) plus 32 drivers in 12 months in London reported for alleged rape and sexual assault. Indefensible, no matter how convenient it is to have a cab at your feet in 3 minutes.

We'll just have to wait for the appeal to go through the courts to find out exactly what uber are doing wrong...

jojo, thanks for the link but the *current* issues are only dealt with as bullet points at the end of the article in your link, without any further details.

::jojo:: wrote:

Scottov wrote:

::jojo:: wrote:Its really very simple. Regulators should not be granting licences to operators who are not running a fit and proper business and under scrutiny Uber have not fulfilled the criteria. Its great to live in a city where standards are scrutinised and upheld. I use The Keene Group who have always been excellent.

I’ll be interested to know how you’ve come to that conclusion?

No one else, including Uber themselves, seems to know?

If your evidence is the decision reached then that is a circular not a substantive argument

Well I came to the conclusion that the Keen group are excellent from personal experience and I didn't tell anyone else including Uber because I didn't think they were that interested in my transport options (ask a silly question and all that)

hilarious

As has been shown TFL themselves won’t actually discuss why they’ve done what they’ve done, so you’ll forgive me if I don’t find pandering to vested interests at the expense of ordinary people that amusing

Scottov wrote:

::jojo:: wrote:Its really very simple. Regulators should not be granting licences to operators who are not running a fit and proper business and under scrutiny Uber have not fulfilled the criteria. Its great to live in a city where standards are scrutinised and upheld. I use The Keene Group who have always been excellent.

I’ll be interested to know how you’ve come to that conclusion?

No one else, including Uber themselves, seems to know?

If your evidence is the decision reached then that is a circular not a substantive argument

Well I came to the conclusion that the Keen group are excellent from personal experience and I didn't tell anyone else including Uber because I didn't think they were that interested in my transport options (ask a silly question and all that)

Uber boss apologises after London ban - BBC News
https://apple.news/AkCwCXq5KTP-X9EV63HmUdQ


If this doesn’t show just how murky the whole matter is, I don’t what will

“TfL would not elaborate further on its issue with the way in which Uber organises DBS checks, because that would be likely to come up when Uber appealed against the decision.

It would only repeat that it was Uber's "approach" to DBS checks that was the problem.”

::jojo:: wrote:

What I find very odd is the lack of details in this case...

What exactly did uber fail? What are the safety concerns? As someone else mentions, the drivers are licensed by Tfl already...

Here are the facts of the case: https://www.ftbchambers.co.uk/news/tfl- ... rs-licence

That is very far from the facts of the case, that is the allegation

For example DBS checks are performed by a central body, they issue them the same way to schools, charities, security workers, cab drivers etc

TFL then licenses those relevant individuals, including Uber drivers, in reference to, amongst other things, the Enhanced DBS check.

Uber does not, Addison Lee does not, black cabs do not, nobody performs their own DBS checking. It comes from a central government body

It is therefore hard to know what concerns actually are, when obtained an enhanced DBS is binary, and TFL issues the individual driver certification

::jojo:: wrote:Its really very simple. Regulators should not be granting licences to operators who are not running a fit and proper business and under scrutiny Uber have not fulfilled the criteria. Its great to live in a city where standards are scrutinised and upheld. I use The Keene Group who have always been excellent.

I’ll be interested to know how you’ve come to that conclusion?

No one else, including Uber themselves, seems to know?

If your evidence is the decision reached then that is a circular not a substantive argument

What I find very odd is the lack of details in this case...

What exactly did uber fail? What are the safety concerns? As someone else mentions, the drivers are licensed by Tfl already...

Here are the facts of the case: https://www.ftbchambers.co.uk/news/tfl- ... rs-licence

What I find very odd is the lack of details in this case...

What exactly did uber fail? What are the safety concerns? As someone else mentions, the drivers are licensed by Tfl already...

I am concerned this is a politicized decision ... we use uber a lot and don't find it in any way worse than a black cab (which are much more expensive, and because they don't use online maps actually take worse routes)

Its really very simple. Regulators should not be granting licences to operators who are not running a fit and proper business and under scrutiny Uber have not fulfilled the criteria. Its great to live in a city where standards are scrutinised and upheld. I use The Keene Group who have always been excellent.

I'm slightly surprised at the number of people suggesting that the only options are Uber or black cabs or illegal minicabs!

We have a number of great local cab firms as well as the excellent Addison Lee, which had an app long before Uber was even an idea.

I've had a number of bad experiences with Uber as a passenger, as well as seeing some appalling driving from their cars while on my bike or car.

It's in everyone's interest for them to improve their standards so I'm afraid my heart doesn't bleed for the cheapskates claiming their lives will be ruined because they have to pay an extra £2 a journey to get an AddyLee instead

I find this quite shocking

Having used uber all around the world hundreds of times I don’t recognise these concerns.

They instantly know where they’re going due to location data being transferred from the app, no cash is handled and it could not be simpler

Whilst this decision will no doubt be appealed, i’m not sure what’s more surprising the comments from people unfamiliar with its service or the desire to return to illegal mini cabs

Uber’s affordability and availability has been a huge boon to late night traveller safety.

Having used Uber dozens of times, I find them more affordable, more convenient and intrinsically safer than black cabs.

After all, is there a centralised record on what driver picked you up, what their snail trail of GPS is across of London, and where they dropped you off with a black cab?

With all that recording, surely it is safer to get in a taxi which is fully GPS tracked, than a black cab which takes only cash in hand, with a driver you don't know the name of. Let alone the radio taxis.

A situation like John Worbys for instance of dozens of sexual offences against drunk women for instance would simply be a logistical impossibility with an Uber.

I know whom I'd prefer my children to travel with.

Even a single person going missing would result in an arrest.

I cannot see the TfL's case standing on merit, it's clearly a politicised decision, and the merits of their arguments look very flaky indeed.

As a matter of record, all the Uber drivers are vetted according to TfL standards - and Uber have passed numerous TfL audits over the last several years without any issues being raised.

It's hard to see under all these circumstances how this will fly in court.