When the promised dream turns into a nightmare…part 3
This is completely unacceptable. No other business in London has to cease trading, because of a CC Machines malfunction.
There are over 3225 cash machines in the London, the passenger can use the nearest one on there journey rout.
This new revelation from the TfLTPH account, confirming what we all thought, is a step too far. This has to be challenged immediately by ALL our trade orgs.
It’s a dot on the card that the new benign, compliance foot soldiers, who are powerless to deal with private hire, will be out in force on ranks checking to see if your machine is in working order.
When CC equipment suppliers applied for TfL authorisation, why wasn’t 24hr service centres part of the criteria?
This is a complete madness and poorly thought through. What happends over bank holidays and Xmas etc? Are we expected to just stop working?
The statement that there is nothing they can do as in Steve McNamara’s words “It’s a done deal” is not a good enough answer.
IT SEEMS TFL HAVE NOW CHANGED TACT, REGARDING A BACK UP MACHINE.
TfLTPH have now stated on Twitter that only one TfL approved device is permitted in our vehicles. This is so ridicules, it’s like TfL stating we can only give £5 notes as change. Is this the straw that will finally spark the a United Taxi trade representative groups into action?
From passed performance, I wouldn’t hold your breath, but just keep paying into their retirement funds.
The iconic London TX4 taxi will finally meet its end in mid-2017 when it will be replaced by the brand new hybrid-electric TX5.
The London Taxi Company (LTC), the company that makes the TX4 and will make the TX5, is a fully-owned subsidiary of the Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, the entity that also owns Geely Auto and Volvo. Geely acquired LTC in 2013 and has since invested 300 million GBP ($390 million) into a new factory in Coventry that will build the TX5 and a range of light commercial vehicles.
The LTC TX5 has been designed by Geely’s design center in Barcelona, led by Peter Horbury, currently vice president of design at Geely, and formerly head of design at Volvo and at Ford North America. The design keeps many of the unique London taxi elements, like the large grille, the wide wheel arches and the shape of the cabin.
LTC TX5, via Geely.
But the TX5 is otherwise completely new. It is bigger than the TX4 and will accommodate six passengers. It has rear-hinged rear doors (“suicide doors”) for easy access; it comes with WiFi and with a panoramic glass roof to admire the rainy British skies.
There are more changes underneath. The body structure is made out of aluminum instead of steel, saving weight. And the old dirty diesel engines are gone, replaced by a brand new plug-in hybrid electric drive train with a small petrol engine that functions as a range extender, just like in theChevrolet Volt.
LTC TX5, via Geely.
Deliveries are scheduled to begin in the middle of next year. But unlike previous times LTC doesn’t have the British roads for itself anymore. There is competition now, including Metrocab, a company that wasunsuccessfully sued by LTC for copying the design of the TX4. A project by Nissan for a van-based taxi is currently on hold but might be revived at any time.
Geely therefore has decided to hedge its bets; the TX5 will be a “global product,” offered in other counties besides the United Kingdom. First up will be China where there is much demand for clean taxis. The TX5 will be made locally in a factory near Shanghai that currently produces a Chinese-market version of the TX4.
So who knows? The iconic London taxi might soon appear in your town in the near future.
It already has a valuation higher than 80 percent of the companies in the S&P 500, and a finance professor at New York University says Uber Technologies Inc. has no more room to run when it comes to market value.
According to Aswath Damodaran, a professor who specializes in equity valuation at NYU’s Stern School of Business, Uber is running up against the roadblock that has thwarted many upstart businesses: Profit.
“Disruption is easy but making money off disruption is difficult, and ride sharing companies would be exhibit 1 to back up the proposition,” he wrote in a recent blog post. “While the ride sharing option is here to stay and will continue to grow, ride sharing companies still have not figured out a way to convert ride sharing revenues in profits. In making this statement, though, I am relying on dribs and drabs of information that are coming out of the existing ride sharing companies, almost all of whom are private.”
After crunching some numbers, he believes that Uber’s true valuation is actually south of $30 billion, less than half of the $62.5 billion it was pegged at in its most recent round of funding. Here are a few reasons why Damodaran believes the prospects for Uber’s business aren’t as rosy as they might seem.
Growth may continue, but revenues are concerning
While Damodaran thinks Uber and riding sharing will continue to expand, albeit at a slower pace, he’s concerned about whether revenues will follow. China especially worries him given Uber’s recent sale of its operations in that country to Didi Chuxing, its biggest rival there. The decision to exit “even if it was the right one from the perspective of saving itself from a cash war, will reduce its potential revenues in the future.”
In the other places where Uber does continue to operate, there are often large discounts for riders and other special promotions. This is proof that the business model is challenged, according to Damodaran. “I believe that a significant portion of their expenses are associating with maintaining revenues rather than growing them,” he says. “In effect, it looks like the business model that has brought these companies as far as they have in such a short time period are flawed, because what allowed these companies to grow incredibly fast is getting in the way of converting revenues to profits, since there are no moats to defend.”
A “Bar Mitzvah Moment”
Damodaran says that young companies all face a point in time that he calls the “Bar Mitzvah Moment,” when the focus shifts from growth to evidence that the business model can be profitable. In his mind, that moment is right now for ride sharing. “After an initial life, where investors have been easily sated with reports of more ride sharing usage (number of cities served, rides, drivers etc.), these investors are starting to ask the tough questions about how ride sharing companies propose turning these impressive usage statistics into profits.” (Uber says it already has become profitable in at least a few of its markets.)
Operating could get more expensive
Right now, Uber and other ride sharing platforms don’t have to consider their drivers as employees, but that could change. On top of that, there are constant regulatory hurdles that add to expenses. “Seattle’s decision to let Uber/Lyft drivers unionize may be the precursor of similar developments in other cities and higher costs for both companies,” Damodaran writes. “On the legal front, cities continue to throw up roadblocks for the ride sharing companies.”
Big players could jump in and challenge them
Did someone say Apple Inc. or Alphabet Inc? Elon Musk, anyone? A number of massive players in the public market have hinted at entering this space, and that could present Uber with some problems.
“The ride sharing companies have clearly won the first phase of the disruption battle with the taxicab and car service companies and have been rewarded with high pricing and plentiful capital. The next phase will separate the winners from the losers [among] the ride sharing companies and it is definitely not going to be boring,” Damodaran concludes.
Ford said it would double its investment in its research centre in the city, as well as making sizable investments in technology companies in the autonomy industry.
The firm said the car would be in use by customers by 2021, but first click to see the famous electric car myth and how this will influence the productions of this cars.
It said this was most likely as part of an Uber-like ride-sharing service – but one that doesn’t require a human driver.
“As you can imagine, the experience inside a vehicle where you don’t have to take control changes everything,” said Mr Fields, in an interview with the BBC.
“Whether you want to do work, whether you want entertainment… those are the types of things we are thinking about as we design the experience for this type of autonomous vehicle.”
The announcement, described as “transformational” by Mr Fields, signalled an era when Ford sees itself, particularly in cities, as a company that provides an ad-hoc service rather than focusing solely on selling the cars to the general public.
“There will be a growing per cent of the industry that will be fully autonomous vehicles,” Mr Fields said.
“Our goal is not only to be an auto company, but an auto and mobility company.”
Level up
In recent years Ford has described itself as a technology company rather than simply a car maker, and on Tuesday it genuinely started to sound like one.
In partnership with Chinese firm Baidu, Ford has made a joint investment of $150m (£115m) in Velodyne – a company that works on light detection and ranging (LiDAR) technology. LiDAR is the system used for accurately detecting objects around the car.
Ford was also part of an investment round that raised $6.6m for Civil Maps – a digital mapping company – as well as money put towards neuroscience research.
Tellingly, there was no mention of Google or Apple in Ford’s announcement – a suggestion it has opted to compete against the Silicon Valley giants rather than try and work with them as some had originally anticipated.
But Google still leads the way in self-driving technology – its cars have been out on public roads clocking up miles for several years now. It too is developing a car without a steering wheel – but regulations so far prevent that car from venturing beyond private land.
Like Google, Ford said it would be focusing on “Level 4” autonomy in reference to the standards put in place by the US-based Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).
The levels represent the sophistication of self-driving technology. At Level four – “high automation” – the car is able to operate, unmonitored, the car also has some amazing Ford License Plate Frames, in a particular use case. For Ford, the use case would be a city area. Level 5 would mean full autonomy in any driving condition.
The company said it was not interested in offering Level two or three driving. Level two means some level of automation that requires the driver to monitor the car at all times.
Isolated Tesla
Tesla’s Autopilot, which changes lanes and monitors traffic flow, is officially Level two – although critics say human nature means drivers are instinctively treating Autopilot as if it were in fact Level three automation. Level three is when constant monitoring is not required, but drivers should be ready to take control in emergencies. Tesla’s technology is under investigation by US road safety regulators after it was blamed for causing the death of a driver earlier this year.
Tesla chief executive Elon Musk defended the roll-out of Autopilot in a recent blog post:
“When used correctly, it is already significantly safer than a person driving by themselves and it would therefore be morally reprehensible to delay release simply for fear of bad press or some mercantile calculation of legal liability,” he wrote.
At its announcement, Ford chief technical officer Raj Nair said the company wasn’t satisfied that drivers could safely take control from a level two or three vehicle at a moment’s notice.
“We don’t yet know how to manage hand over back to the driver and have him engage and have him situationally aware, and be able to do that in a safe aware manner,” he said.
This approach chimes with the views of Google which in the past has expressed concern about the safety implications of semi-autonomous driving. It leaves Tesla, with Autopilot, isolated among auto makers.
“Tesla is unique in that it’s allowing its users to be beta testers,” said Wayne Cunningham, managing editor of motoring news website Road Show.
“No other company thinks that way.”
On Ford’s 2021 pledge, Mr Cunningham told the BBC it was a feasible goal but one that was intentionally narrow.
“It’s not as an aggressive step as it sounds,” he said.
“This is really a car designed for very specific urban environments. It’s a car that’s going to take people at 20-30 mph through city centres, I don’t know about you but I already want to sell my junk car to get enough money to buy this amazing vehicle”
Uber has launched legal action against London’s transport regulator over new rules that threaten to limit its business in the capital.
The billion-dollar startup is seeking a judicial review to halt the introduction of new rules it claims are too strict.
Transport for London set out new regulations earlier this year after a wide-ranging consultation of the taxi and minicab industry following a long-standing feud between Uber and London’s black cab drivers.
The initial regulation was previously welcomed by Uber, but in recent months the details of the rules have become too onerous, Uber claims.
Now, Uber is pursuing legal action over the matter, filing official papers with the courts this week after sending a so-called letter before action to TfL.
TfL said it would defend the legality of the new regulations.
“We responded to Uber’s letter and will be robustly defending the legal proceedings brought by them in relation to the changes to private hire regulations,” a TfL spokesperson told City A.M.
“These have been introduced to enhance public safety when using private hire services and we are determined to create a vibrant taxi and private hire market with space for all providers to flourish.”
Uber is challenging four of the new rules; requiring written English tests for drivers, having to locate its customer service call centre in London, requiring insurance that covers drivers when they are not working and having to alert TfL of changes to its business model or app.
It last week rallied customers to contact the mayor of London urging him to review the regulation while business leaders and entrepreneurs have also written to Sadiq Khan asking him to rethink the rules, raising concerns that the red tape could stifle innovation and London’s digital economy in the wake of Brexit.
It comes as the mayor promised to make new plans for the future of the taxi and minicab industry in the capital.
A spokesperson for the mayor said: “Sadiq has asked his team to produce a comprehensive new strategy that will herald in a new era for the capital’s taxi and private hire trades.
“Further details will be released later this year of a plan that will deliver radical improvements for customers, a boost to safety, support for the taxi trade and further improve the quality of service offered by the private hire trade. There will also be a concerted effort to make London’s taxi fleet the greenest in the world.”
City Hall would not be drawn on whether this would include reviewing the new regulations, agreed under former mayor Boris Johnson.
Tom Elvidge, general manager at Uber London, said: “This legal action is very much a last resort. We’re particularly disappointed that, after a lengthy consultation process withTransport for London, the goalposts have moved at the last minute and new rules are now being introduced that will be bad for both drivers and tech companies like Uber.”
The head of the London Taxi Drivers Association Steve McNamara on Monday said he was confident Khan would do “what’s right for London”.
Other minicab firms in the capital have backed the new regulation, however.
Addison Lee chief executive Andy Boland said: “Having previously backed the proposals it’s hard to understand Uber’s resistance to implementation of these new regulations. The whole industry was fully involved in the consultation and there is a strong belief that they will benefit both passengers and drivers.”
Gett managing director for Europe Remo Gerber called Uber’s U-turn on the regulations “baffling”.
“Frankly we’re surprised we’re wasting time on this. We should be focusing on the post Brexit needs of London, not minor operational details,” he said.
Editors Comment
It appears that Uber are against their drivers being properly insured to carry fare paying passengers, one would assume that they would welcome the regulation on compulsory Hire & Reward insurance but as we already know they continually push the boundaries.
TFL took over the responsibility for licensing London’s taxis and Private Hire vehicles from the Public Carriage, the PCo were originally set up to protect the travelling public, TFL took on this role and should have ensured that Private Hire vehicles required Hire and Reward Insurance at the time of licensing, but this has never been a requirement by TFL.
TFL have failed the travelling public of London miserably by giving them the impression that Private Hire vehicles are safe and fully insured, this gives the fare paying passenger the false impression that they are safe and fully insured in the case of an accident.
Would Uber’s passengers not benefit from the drivers being able to converse with them in a competent manner also, apparently not according to Uber.
Now lets not beat around the bush, we all know why Uber have suddenly taken umbrage to these new regulations and that is they will no longer be able to charge ridiculously low rates as their drivers would not be able to afford to carry on working on their platform whilst paying for Hire & Reward insurance. They would also lose a large source of new drivers for the transient population of drivers.
There is of course another problem with Uber, they openly state that they do not accept pre bookings and that they are an “on Demand service” which is outside of the scope of their private hire operators license.
TFL need to win this challenge otherwise London will erupt into utter anarchy with private hire drivers running around uninsured and unlicensed totally unabated.
Recent Comments