[ad_1]
Uber Technologies Inc. said its passenger and driver protection measures have appeased the capital's transportation regulator, reducing one of the obstacles that threaten to continue banning car service on its largest outside market. the United States.
The position of Transport for London has "become an effective neutrality," said Monday Uber's lawyer, Thomas de la Mare, at the start of the much-awaited hearing in the UK's capital . Judge Emma Arbuthnot said she could make a decision Tuesday in the case, which follows from TfL's decision in September, that Uber was not "fit and fit" to operate and refused to extend his license.
"We accept the burden of proof on us," said de la Mare. "We accept that TfL's decision was the right decision at that time."
The transport agency had 25 concerns, most of which related to safety and regulatory issues. The Association of Licensed Taxi Drivers, which represents about 12,000 traditional black cab drivers, and the GMB union also oppose the auto service's call for avoiding regulations that cover airline sales. 39; other forms of transport and do not offer employment. Security. Uber is allowed to operate during the call process.
Uber Conduct
The problems with Uber remain relevant but they are no longer of concern to TfL, they have been treated by changes introduced by "Uber" or they relate to a historical behavior that has been abandoned, "TfL's lawyers m & # However, the judge should take into account the historical conduct of Uber.
More than 3.6 million people regularly use the Uber app in London. The ban sent shockwaves through a company that was already struggling to avoid multiple lawsuits and investigations around the world. Since then, Uber has attempted to address the security and governance concerns that the regulator had as part of a series of public measures, including new limits on hours. drivers and appointments to the board.
Skepticism
TfL's neutral position includes skepticism about whether the changes will work in practice, de la Mare said.
TfL's decision to ban Uber sent a clear message to technology companies that government agencies are becoming more aggressive in balancing the interests of so-called new business models of the economy together against the rights of workers and business more traditional operators.
In March 2018, Uber drivers accounted for 38% of the 114,054 private hire drivers active in London, TfL said in documents prepared for the trial.
"TfL recognizes these commitments to incorporate change within" Uber, the regulator said in court documents. "However, the integration of these new standards and the transformation of Uber London's business culture will take time and it will take time to repair TfL's printing." Uber as a holder of a license.
"Uber London has tended to say what he thought would be most useful in the circumstances," suggested Martin Chamberlain, TfL's lawyer, interviewing Tom Elvidge, Uber's general manager at UK.
After the departure of former UK general manager, Jo Bertram, "it was clear that the change would give Uber London the best chance to go forward," Elvidge said.
To you
"The decision if Uber is now a good person is for you," regulator Arbuthnot told regulator Monday. "If you conclude that a license must be granted, we invite you to make a short license and subject to very strict conditions."
Arbuthnot will have to decide if Uber has done enough to get a license. If she does, she also has the power to decide the duration of any permit. At a hearing in April, Uber's lawyers suggested that an 18-month license might be more appropriate than a five-year license usually granted.
"I would have thought that an 18-month license was too long," she said at the start of the hearing.
Uber has introduced measures since September, including a policy requiring drivers to take a six-hour break after a ten-hour shift, a 24-hour helpline for drivers and passengers.
The company "took concerted action to improve its business practices and critically examine its culture after listening very carefully and seeking to act on TfL's concerns," his lawyers said in court documents. , a sincere and effective change required to convince the court of its suitability and ownership to hold "a London license".
Source link
