Uber

[HanoiVillan]

To be fair, quite a lot of the fuss is probably due to the contrast between the general ambient impression the average person might get that driverless cars are just around the corner, and the reality that, oops, they don't know the difference between a snowflake and a boulder, or a shrub and a homeless woman. 

[a m ole]

if there needs to be a person manning the wheel just in case, what is the point? 

[mikeyp102]

Personally I think driverless cars fully integrated on the roads are still light years away. For them to work optimately, every vehicle on the road will need to “talk” to each other so that they know where each other will be going. That means that every car will need the technology attached to them. Look at how many old cars (not even including classics) are still on the road. They are never going to have the technology in them, and so there will always be the discrepancy between the vehicles. Not only that but road infrastructures will have to be vastly improved.

As for the discussion re deaths, obviously it is not a fair comparison because there are so few automated cars out there that of course statistics will be higher for cars with drivers.

[snowychap]

9 hours ago, blandy said:

It's always the way with new fangled thingumajigs...

It's not (largely) a luddite argument against 'progress' and most definitely it's not the argument you go on to expound.

[LondonLax]

10 hours ago, mikeyp102 said:

Personally I think driverless cars fully integrated on the roads are still light years away. For them to work optimately, every vehicle on the road will need to “talk” to each other so that they know where each other will be going. That means that every car will need the technology attached to them. Look at how many old cars (not even including classics) are still on the road. They are never going to have the technology in them, and so there will always be the discrepancy between the vehicles. Not only that but road infrastructures will have to be vastly improved.

As for the discussion re deaths, obviously it is not a fair comparison because there are so few automated cars out there that of course statistics will be higher for cars with drivers.

There are plenty of hi end cars you can buy now that will run driverless. The steer to stay in lanes, they stop automatically if the car in front stops etc. 

The bigger debate will be when countries start banning humans from driving for the safety of other road users. 

There will be plenty of Jeremy Clarkson types who will properly kick off when that happens. 

[blandy]

8 hours ago, snowychap said:

It's not (largely) a luddite argument against 'progress' and most definitely it's not the argument you go on to expound.

Have a great weekend Snowy.

[mikeyp102]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

There are plenty of hi end cars you can buy now that will run driverless. The steer to stay in lanes, they stop automatically if the car in front stops etc. 

The bigger debate will be when countries start banning humans from driving for the safety of other road users. 

There will be plenty of Jeremy Clarkson types who will properly kick off when that happens. 

It’s not just Jeremy Clarkson types who will moan. The automotive industry is huge, people enjoy driving, they also like classic cars and cars without technology. Also you have to look at haulage companies etc, yes the large multinational ones will be able to have the driverless technology, but smaller ones will not be able to afford to equip their vehicles with the technology.

I can’t see a human driving ban being in place in my lifetime and I’m only mid 30s

[limpid]

5 minutes ago, mikeyp102 said:

It’s not just Jeremy Clarkson types who will moan. The automotive industry is huge, people enjoy driving, they also like classic cars and cars without technology. Also you have to look at haulage companies etc, yes the large multinational ones will be able to have the driverless technology, but smaller ones will not be able to afford to equip their vehicles with the technology.

I can’t see a human driving ban being in place in my lifetime and I’m only mid 30s

People also enjoy smoking. And drinking. And eating too much. Doesn't make them safe.

[Davkaus]

Haulage companies that don't utilise the technology fairly rapidly will just go under, I would have thought. They're not going to be able to remain competitive.

There's likely to be a significant up front cost to equip vehicles with it, but the ongoing costs will be driven down. Automation isn't going to cost that much, when you look at it in the mid to long term, compared to the ongoing cost of drivers' wages. 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, limpid said:

People also enjoy smoking. And drinking. And eating too much. Doesn't make them safe.

Or banned 

it’s a big leap from autonomous cars being allowed to go about their business to humans being banned from driving. I think that was maybe part of @mikeyp102 ‘s point.

[HanoiVillan]

Today's lesson in corporate ethics:

 

[LakotaDakota]

Looks like TFL have refused permission to operate in London (again..)

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said:

Looks like TFL have refused permission to operate in London (again..)

Goes to appeal again now, so they'll still be operating for the forseeable but I doubt any appeal will be won, going down this line for a second time isn't a good look. Again safety breaches occurred as they allowed drivers to drive uninsured

[desensitized43]

2 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said:

Looks like TFL have refused permission to operate in London (again..)

I'm so conflicted about Uber.

I don't like that they're another massive US company that makes loads of money (although they insist they don't, despite $50b valuations) and yet pay no tax to the country. Undoubtedly there are legal and safety issues that they need to be forced to sort out, as they clearly won't voluntarily as that costs money. Not to mention my general distaste for the "gig economy" which I see as nothing more than an attempt by companies to circumvent employment rights.

On the other hand, taxi's are way too expensive and I don't earn enough money myself to have morals about such things.

[bickster]

Just now, desensitized43 said:

that makes loads of money

They lose approx $1bil a quarter, in an average quarter, some quarters shit loads more.

2 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

and yet pay no tax to the country.

VAT case will be announced soon, they could be liable for £1bil in back VAT payments in the UK

3 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

"gig economy" which I see as nothing more than an attempt by companies to circumvent employment rights.

The way Uber do it, yes, the way traditional PH companies do it, not so much. Gig Economy is a media term, each employment rights issue with a company has to be treated on it's own merits, each and every case is very different.

[desensitized43]

17 minutes ago, bickster said:

They lose approx $1bil a quarter, in an average quarter, some quarters shit loads more.

I'm suspicious of the numbers they're reporting. If they were truly losing that much money they wouldn't be valued at the level they are and have people climbing over one another to invest. Something stinks.

18 minutes ago, bickster said:

VAT case will be announced soon, they could be liable for £1bil in back VAT payments in the UK

That doesn't comfort me. Why should they be chased and forced in court to pay? I don't have a choice whether to pay my tax or not, it just comes straight out in PAYE and NI. One rule for the plebs and another for massive (mainly American) corporations.

20 minutes ago, bickster said:

The way Uber do it, yes, the way traditional PH companies do it, not so much. Gig Economy is a media term, each employment rights issue with a company has to be treated on it's own merits, each and every case is very different.

Yes, it's a media term but I was mainly referring to the practice of forcing your staff to become "contractors". Adventagous to them as they don't legally have to treat them as proper employees with all the associated rights. Both sides get to avoid paying the tax they should be paying. It's a disgrace.

Alot of people are happy to use public services, schools, hospitals, police, fire, roads etc but seem to have an allergy to actually paying into them.

[bickster]

11 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

I'm suspicious of the numbers they're reporting. If they were truly losing that much money they wouldn't be valued at the level they are and have people climbing over one another to invest. Something stinks.

No they genuinely do, they spend vast fortunes on R&D of autonomous vehicles. There are also many markets where they are literally subsidising the fares to gain market share. the loses are genuine. People aren't investing, it's a huge short stock and the current price is approx 40% down on the IPO launch 6 months ago.

11 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

That doesn't comfort me. Why should they be chased and forced in court to pay? I don't have a choice whether to pay my tax or not, it just comes straight out in PAYE and NI. One rule for the plebs and another for massive (mainly American) corporations.

You are correct but the case was quite clever in that respect. Jolyon Maugham didn't take Uber to court, he took the Inland Revenue to court for their failure to collect, arguing that he couldn't claim the VAT back and that VAT should be liable

 

11 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

Both sides get to avoid paying the tax they should be paying. It's a disgrace.

The taxi industry would not exist without self-employment. Most would not be able to afford the prices. that applies to Hackney Carriage, Trad PH and "rideshare". All would have to raise prices. Who employs the Hackney Carriage Driver? The owner of the vehicle presumably. Its the Uber operating model that causes their drivers to have a claim for employment rights. Uber collecting all the money and charging commission, no right of substitution etc.

[bickster]

Oh last week they also go hit with a $0.5bil bill by New Jersey State and the California employment laws come into effect in January. California is one of the few places Uber makes an operating profit, coincidentally, so was London

[KenjiOgiwara]

I love Uber but that's me. It feels safer and a better concept where they are dependant on good customer feedback. 

The taxi business where I live is also the worst regulated tax dodging market I've ever witnessed. 

I don't enjoy the social dumping part of it, but at least here the companies have themselves to blame. 

[bickster]

8 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

a better concept where they are dependant on good customer feedback. 

You know this is just an illusion in most markets don't you? Driver ratings mean sod all, passenger ratings mean even less (apart from drivers rejecting bookings by low rated passengers - and by low I mean less than 4.75 out of 5), the ratings system actually actively discriminates against passengers not drivers.