Well presumably you know their side of the story too?
Presumably (hopefully someone who actually knows can fill us in) the taxi drivers have spent huge amounts of time learning The Knowledge and buying their cars and keeping to the fairly strict regulations that exist, and don't find it fair that another company can offer a service without a level playing field. Presumably.
Not just that, but black taxis have to operate under certain constraints and obligations.
Examples are: not having the right to refuse a fare within 6 miles of the centre of London (usually taken as Charing Cross). Being obliged to have vehicles that are accessible to wheelchair and disabled users. Being obliged to take a vehicle out of service if it is damaged in any way (i.e. another vehicle clips your wing mirror or dents your door, and you must take the vehicle off the road immediately and not put it back into service until fully repaired). The full background and criminal record check (one of the few exemptions from Rehabilitation of Offenders Act allowing people to hide their history). And every black cab is tracked 24/7 (revealed in a court case of alleged rape where the victim had claimed an unnamed taxi driver had done it - when locality was narrowed down and the list of taxi drivers in that area revealed they all had fares or did not meet the description the case collapsed). Then there's also the type of licence of a driver has, granting access to inner London taxi ranks vs outer London with various restrictions on both. Black cabs must take the shortest possible route (defined as time I believe), or a route you instruct. Prices are regulated and cannot be surged, etc.
Simply... the black cab taxi is not comparable to the private hire vehicle (minicab or executive car). The set of costs you are exposed to is significant, as is the set of intrusions and obligations.
I only know most of the above due to another company, Addison Lee, illegally using bus lanes and jeopardising cyclists. Only then did I learn that the bus lane privilege is part of the obligation about accessibility and shortest route.
In this specific instance I find myself thinking the LTDA are acting from a purely preservationist perspective as I think TFL are right that mere facts are a different thing from a taximeter. And if LTDA want to win this, they need to extend the narrow definition of a taximeter to any device that allows metering of a vehicle based on factors including distance travelled, location, speed, etc. As the legislation currently wouldn't treat this https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/mytaxicontrol-leading-taxime... as a taximeter.
But usually, my response is that London is better with a fully accessible and regulated taxi service requiring all fares to be accepted than without, and that there's nothing stopping Uber or anyone else accepting all of the obligations that black cabs have in return for operating on the same terms.
Yes, but I think the taxi associations only have themselves to blame for all the ceremony required to become a taxi driver. I think a lot of these regulations were created by existing taxi companies to present barriers of entry to people wanting to form new taxi companies.
Although I'm not an expert in the history of UK taxis, my impression is that a good number of the regulations were imposed by the government, due to complaints from the public about quality/maintenance/knowledgeability/numbers. That seems to have been the impetus for the original 1662 Act imposing a mandatory licensing requirement, at least: Londoners thought there were too many taxis clogging up the roads, and further were worried about reckless and otherwise un-vetted drivers.
Even nowadays the requirement that London taxi drivers know how to get around London seems popular with the public; British tourists regularly complain about how drivers elsewhere can't even find major landmarks without a map, in a "glad it's not like that back home" sort of way. My guess is that the requirement would be confirmed if put to a referendum. Other requirements, such as the "cannot refuse a fare in central London" requirement, are also pretty popular.
Sorry, I guess I should say I wasn't speaking with any experience of taxis in London. My statement mostly applies to things I've read/heard about taxis in the US and Canada.
The perverse way that taxis are regulated in the US (medallions and so on) seems to be completely unique to the US, or perhaps North America. It's not how things work in Europe. Uber and friends were started in the US as a sensible reaction against that perversity. They make a lot less sense in Europe.
See also the Coin wallet, various payment services, etc, which were conceived to address inefficiencies that are unique parts of the US financial service industry.
If their knowledge is of any value to consumers, consumers are going to choose them over Uber. If not, then nobody should care. I can learn how to program stuff for MSDOS, doesn't mean it'd be worth anything these days.
As for regulations and licensing, it shouldn't exist in the first place as it only raises prices and prevents legitimate competition.
Their knowledge is quite valuable in London (mini-cabs blindly follow the sat-nav and so will sit in traffic for longer, in my experience). Also, black cabs can often make use of bus lanes (of which there are many in London) which can actually result in a quicker, cheaper journey. Perhaps the LTDA should be promoting the benefits of black cabs rather than causing a traffic jam.
To what end? Anyone with a car can start their own taxi service?
I don't think it is in the public's interest to make taxi driving unprofitable which is what would likely happen without regulation and licensing.
Where I live anyone can be a cab. You raise your hand on any street any time of day and some car will stop. As a result, prices are normally 3 times lower compared to the US. You negotiate the price with drivers beforehand and you don't have to tip them because all of the money go directly into the driver's pocket. I've never heard anyone complain about this system. Now tell me how is this a bad idea?
Licensing is good for safety. Upkeep as part of safety is important, otherwise not. If they neglect to keep the car working they'll drop out of the market, no harm done. If they neglect to keep it pretty no harm is done.
My argument is that market should decide. If some people want cheap and unsafe, let them have it. If some people want expensive and licenced - let them have it too. In Europe and the US you currently have a situation where those who want a cheaper ride essentially subsidize those who value safety more. That is in no way fair.
Or maybe, just maybe, the people should decide instead of random companies who don’t pay taxes. And ‘the people’ usually decide by voting for their favourite MP who can then implement their wishes. Laws regarding regulation of taxis did not fall down one day and then were accepted as the god-given rights of taxi drivers but were implemented because the general population thought them to be a good thing™.
I just don't understand, how is it that in your mind voting is a better way to let consumers decide than actually giving them choice? Alright, let me stop right here. I know where this is going. You like state and regulations. I don't. I think each individual should decide on his own with his own money he spends or doesn't spend.
For those things you're talking about my parents paid their fair share of taxes, not me. You have to realize, it's parents who pay for their children's education and healthcare, not children themselves: this is true whether we're talking about public or private.
But even if you were right and indeed it is me who is supposed to be paying taxes now for my education in the past, then this sounds a lot like this:
- Here, have a free sandwich
- Ok, thanks
- You ate it? Now give me $10.
Does their story matter if they purposefully block the city traffic? Sure, it may matter on its own, but if they break the law and make life harder for others, that behaviour cannot be excused. They may have learned for the test, but in the time of satnavs that already have all the streets, digital broadcasts of current roadworks / street closures / accidents, and waze/google like collection of real-time data about traffic, that knowledge is simply not required.
Someone else is not keeping their service in line with the regulations and it costs them business? Sue them. Doesn't work? Well, the same rules don't apply to you apparently, so your life just got a bit easier.
I'm in favour of some regulation of the transport services. But as soon as companies try to backstab each other at the cost of people in the city - charge them for it, I'm sure there are other companies that will be happy to take over.
Yes, I do know their side of the story, and I'm sorry to say that I still have the opinion written above. The Black Taxis are rather obsolete. As a consumer I don't really care that they learned The Knowledge since it won't help routing me around a traffic jam that just started a few minutes ago, to give one example!
Hi, To the person who is downvoting every one of my comments - if you disagree with me, please write a reply to me. Downvoting here on HN is meant only for people who are significantly detracting from the discussion. Thanks.
I'm not one of the downvoters in this instance, but actually I disagree with you.
It's not mentioned in HN's FAQ or Guidelines that downvotes are for that purpose, and in fact there's an old comment from pg stating the exact opposite: "I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness." [1] (It's 6 years old so he may disagree now, but I think I remember him saying similar within the last year.)
On the other hand, it does specifically say in the guidelines "Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." [2]
Well presumably you know their side of the story too?
Presumably (hopefully someone who actually knows can fill us in) the taxi drivers have spent huge amounts of time learning The Knowledge and buying their cars and keeping to the fairly strict regulations that exist, and don't find it fair that another company can offer a service without a level playing field. Presumably.