The pun on the word uber (small case) is always a bit hard to avoid around this kind of stuff, but in this case it derives from a local press article about Uber and the cross-border issue, which has recently been covered in several posts on here. However, the piece – from the Ipswich Borough Council area – includes a couple of interesting nuggets only tangentially related to the (so-called) ‘ride-hailing app’, and demonstrate the more general misinformation and disinformation which very often seems to represent the norm in press reportage, often, of course, emanating from ill-informed members of the trade. And, equally, also from councillors and local authorities.
But with regard to Ipswich and Uber, a local hackney carriage (taxi in the strict sense) is quoted by the Ipswich Star as saying:
He believes it is “unfair” that Uber has been given licences to employ over 100 drivers.
“If you give them half that then at least it would be a level playing field, but with so many Uber would easily take over the market,” he said.
Leaving aside the fact that Uber doesn’t ’employ’ drivers in the strict sense (an important fact in view of the whole employment status question in the industry), it seems highly unlikely that the council has or could in any way specify the number of vehicles that could operate under Uber’s umbrella. Or, in the unlikey event that they did, that such a stipulation would survive a legal challenge.
And on Uber’s surge-pricing, the article says:
Many of those who responded to him in his ledger said that surge and peak-hour pricing with Uber can make rides with them quite expensive, as trips that would cost £10 could cost £50 if an event is on.
He said: “In other words, you pay more when you desperately need an Uber whereas no private hire company would do that due to the strict conditions and rules of the council that don’t apply to Uber.”
Which rules is he referring to, and why wouldn’t such ‘strict conditions and rules of the council’ apply to ‘private hire companies’ generally but not a private hire company like Uber?
There are two main problems with what the driver says here – first, and in broad brush terms, hackney carriage fares are universally regulated, whereas private hire firms are generally left to the market. So there’s nothing to suggest that there are any ‘strict conditions and rules of the council’ which prevent private hire operators other than Uber surge-pricing fares. It’s only that historically they haven’t, or at least haven’t in the way afforded by modern technology, and most obviously demonstrated by Uber’s dynamic pricing model.
But the Star quotes Ipswich councillor John Cook, who neatly encapsulates the fact that in licensing terms Uber are essentially no different to any other private hire operator, and those pro- or anti-Uber who think it’s more about politics and popularity contests are mistaken:
“I understand why some drivers will be concerned about Uber applying for a licence to operate in the private hire trade in the Borough.
“As the licensing authority we operate under national legislation and treat all applicants equally under the law. It is not our role – nor lawful – for the Council to discriminate in favour or against any particular applicant.” [Emphasis added.]
So yet another local press artice conforming to the slighlty formulaic approach to these issues. Thus mis/disinformation (usually hard to tell which) about the issues, and a jumble of misleading and inaccurate terminology at the very least.
But at least all that is counterbalanced by an official statement which summarises the essence of what it’s all about. And which indeed underlines the aim of this website to cut through some of this stuff and lay the ground for a more informed debate. Hopefully!
(This post was intended to also address another aspect of fare regulation in Ipswich ( hackney carriages rather than the cross-border private hire stuff pe se) but several days after drafting the above it’s probably better to deal with the latter issue in a later piece.)