Was just about to post this myself, it's an excellent summary of what the dispute is really about. Also includes some history; I hadn't realised that Hailo was British in origin, or that TfL had the same legal structure as a local authority.
"it's an excellent summary of what the dispute is really about"
Except that, like other articles I've read about the dispute, it talks only about Uber/ULL and its transgressions in isolation. Stats about number of offences are provided, but without context. Where are the comparable numbers for other minicab firms (of which there are many)? Are ULL's offences per ride/mile higher or lower than the worst/best/median minicab firm?
Well, yeah, they're the only ones currently trying to renew their license.
> Where are the comparable numbers for other minicab firms (of which there are many)?
Utterly irrelevant when it comes to renewing Uber's license. Much like if I was to apply for, oh, a pharmacist license and using "But Frank has dealt more meth than I have!" as justification. Utter nonsense.
It's perfectly relevant when questioning whether or not the same scrutiny is applied to all players or if TfL are just trying to make headlines attacking the big fish.
I think it's reasonable to go after the people who essentially brag about breaking the rules. If you shine a light on your own questionable activities, don't be surprised by the consequences.
So the theoretical issue there is "why are TfL not applying their regulations to other companies", not "why are TfL applying their regulations to this one". If you have any evidence at all that TfL are licensing other companies which have similar questions around their ability to comply with regulations, I'm reasonably sure you could start a small movement around it.
Of course the same scrutiny is applied to all players. The fact that Uber chooses to respond by launching a petition, rather than attempting to comply with the regulation that every other minicab company in London complies with says much more about Uber than it does about TfL.
Greyball seems like the one aspect of this that contextualizes the rest of the reasons for the non-renewal. If you're an operator and you fail to get right by local rules, you might mea culpa and fix it, or work within the system provided by the authority to do better. In this case, TfL were made aware that an operator had operationalized a program designed to help them skirt regulation, which could have inspired some prejudice when it came down to the decision.
On a broader note, as with all Uber discussions, we will get to the pained point of unfair treatment of Uber by incumbents and regulators. Contrast that with the general SV ethos that one should break the rules to win. Given both of those, would it be fair to say that Uber getting chided and blocked here (and there, and there, and there) is an indication that maybe they're not that good at breaking rules? In other words, who is out there succeeding who is under the radar and is not being scorned for a cavalier approach to rule-breaking?
> Greyball seems like the one aspect of this that contextualizes the rest of the reasons
Deliberately and systematically evading investigation is a clear sign of bad faith. Mea culpas and time-to-fix-it are good faith arrangements; they've screwed that pooch hard.
In the UK there is no legal requirement that someone knowing a crime has occurred to report it to the police.
Uber seem to be reporting crimes where they are the victim (the article says they report a lot of small fraud) but not crimes where others are the victim.
Which leaves an interesting thinking experiment: would Uber report a murder? The victim obviously can't report it. It would be illegal for Uber to do anything to assist the murderer in escaping the law, e.g. by cleaning the car etc; but would they actually report it?
Shouldn't the victims be reporting these crimes? If the victims aren't reporting them, maybe they don't want them reported? Maybe they have a good reason for not wanting them reported? I have heard victims advocates state that it should be up to the victims what legal action/investigation/etc should take place. I am not an expert in this area, but maybe that is what Uber is doing?
According to the article, the victims were under the impression that Uber would report it to the police as part of their investigation in to the driver.
Thanks for pointing that out- now I wonder why they got that impression? Uber should definitely be making changes to their interactions to make it clear. I guess I am not familiar with the customs around such things in London.
Do you have any reason to believe they don't? I'm struggling to find numbers about it, but either they do and there's no news about it, or they don't and not only should Uber be under speculation, so should they. How do either of those change the fact that Uber did something wrong?
