London’s ban on Uber: consumer adoption of technological innovations is irreversible
The decision by London’s transport authority, TfL, to cancel Uber’s transport operator’s license on Friday has been interpreted by many in the media as a ban, meaning that the company will disappear from the British capital, which is far from the case: as TfL says in a statement, the company has 21 days to appeal the decision. That appeal will be resolved in the courts, and meanwhile, the company will continue to operate until the matter is settled.
Before we all jump to conclusions about the future of transport in cities, it might be helpful to look at what has happened in other cities where this highly controversial company operating in a tightly regulated environment was banned.
In almost all cases, the company has returned to cities where it has had a ban slapped on it and things returned to normality. In cases like Austin, which expelled both Uber and Lyft from its streets, smaller competitors unable to meet basic standards moved in, and customers didn’t benefit. The key word here is certainly normality. Whatever Uber’s critics say, the normal thing in a city in the second decade of the 21st century is for people to transport options based on the model Uber created in March 2009, more than eight years ago. When, for whatever reason, Uber disappears, other companies appear to fill the gap, until the situation normalizes again and users again have the options they want. Because whichever way you look at it, people prefer to have more transport options, not fewer. You’ll never see people demanding fewer transport options.
Why has TfL decided not to renew Uber’s license in London, a company that is routinely used by 3.5 million people in the British capital, and which provides more than 40,000 people with work? The stated reasons make little sense and seem politically motivated: Uber drivers have to pass the same criminal background checks as any other taxi driver, the service it offers is widely considered to be safe, due to the control technology allows, the company reports serious incidents, works closely with the police when such incidents occur, and as new CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi, admits, there have been some reputation problems and the company is no angel, but this is a company that has established a presence in the city and is considered by many as the ideal way to get from A to B.
Quite simply, there is no way that London will go back to the way things were before Uber arrived: a petition launched by Uber London on Change.org addressed to the mayor of the city has already attracted more than half a million signatures in a few hours. TfL’s decision has been criticized across the board by government ministers, MPs from different sides, experts in urban planning, infrastructure managers, political leaders, business associations, economists and think tanks, who have called it unjustified, Luddite, an attack on free choice, and one that damages the reputation of the city and serves the interests of a few. London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, is being strongly criticized.
It isn’t hard to find fault with Uber. The enormously aggressive approach of its founder and former CEO, Travis Kalanick, created an “anything goes” culture that has given rise to numerous problems that have damaged its reputation, but that certainly attracted many millions of people around the world to use it and who consistently give it high satisfaction rates few companies can compete with. Uber’s success is not based on its economic profitability, but as an unstoppable technological phenomenon.
Even if the British courts rule against Uber, it will return, because technology, contrary to what some seem to think, cannot be rewound.
Technology cannot be uninvented. Uber does not owe its success to politicians, regulators nor analysts, but to the public. A technology does not take root because a regulatory body with special interests at heart says so. And as we will see with London, when consumers adopt a technological innovation, there is no going back.
(En español, aquí)
