Private-hire taxi companies in Cambridge have spoken out following the launch of Uber, the controversial vehicle hire service, in the city earlier in November.

Uber has been praised by advocates of the so-called ‘sharing economy,’ which is based on the principle that services should be purchased on an informal basis from peers rather than strict professionals.

But critics of the concept argue that, rather than replacing professional work, it simply reduces wages and ‘casualises’ it, scrapping employment protections and rendering job security more precarious.

Varsity spoke to CamCab, a private-hire company local to Cambridge, about the arrival of Uber in the city. CamCab’s principal concern was for the safety of customers, which it described as “all-important” to them.

They queried whether Uber can enforce its own safety standards, pointing out that six of its drivers were recently convicted in Denmark for violating the country’s taxi laws. Similar cases have been brought in France, Belgium and Germany.

CamCab stressed its own record on the safety of their passengers and particularly of local students. Following the murder of an Anglia Ruskin student by a man masquerading as a taxi driver, they told Varsity, they wished to create a taxi firm which would “make safety the number one priority” and so developed a number of precautions for their own firm.

All of their taxis are black and sport an unremovable sticker bearing their brand on the door, and all of their drivers wear an identifiable uniform. Every CamCab car can be located from their central offices and their entire route traced by computer. The company has also reached out to various JCRs to offer students who find themselves without any money a free ride to safety.

Without identifiable cars and uniforms, they argue, there is no certain way for a customer to confirm the identity of an individual claiming to be an Uber driver.

CamCab also criticised Uber for deciding not to link its fares to the value set by the City Council, as CamCab does. It suggested that Uber’s long-term strategy is “to corner the market in Cambridge” in order to raise its fares in future when competition subsides: “the customer will end up paying for it".

Much of the criticism aimed at Uber has focused on the rights of its drivers. On Tuesday, around one hundred Uber drivers staged a go-slow protest through the city of London to call upon Sadiq Khan, the city’s Mayor, to guarantee them the minimum wage.

Most private-hire companies request a weekly fixed charge from their drivers for the use of their operations; Uber instead claims a 20% cut of its drivers’ total fares, which critics have asserted results in the driver taking home a smaller income than they would working for a traditional firm.

Uber drivers cannot accept cash: their fares are directed electronically straight into Uber’s accounts. They are not kept by the driver, who is instead paid their 80% share subsequently. CamCab argues that this compromises the independence of Uber drivers, whose revenues can thus be monitored by the company.

Nonetheless, CamCab seemed confident that Uber would not seriously damage its custom: they claimed that their superior safety measures would continue to attract passengers. They also believe that the option of pre-booking - which, unlike a traditional private-hire company, Uber does not offer - will keep them competitive.

A CamCab driver told Varsity that he did not believe passengers would flock to Uber, because they like the standardisation of CamCab’s services. He added that he himself had no intention of driving for Uber.

A1 Cabco, another Cambridge taxi firm, did not respond to Varsity’s request for comment except to stress that contrary to some reports, Uber is not bringing app technology to Cambridge taxis for the first time: their app, which they describe as “very successful,” has been online since 2011. CamCab also has an app.

In contrast to the taxi firms’ objections, however, many within the University have expressed enthusiasm for the arrival of Uber. In August, Dr Thomas Meany, an Interdisciplinary Fellow at the University, wrote an article describing the arrival of Uber as “a consumer victory.”

He told Varsity that, while he recognised the “challenging” issue of employment status in the “gig economy,” nonetheless “the world of work is changing” and such styles of employment are becoming “more common.”

He said that the traditional taxi firms “do not seem to be aware that they need to compete, rather than cling to an outdated structure,” and suggested that in order to survive they need to be more accommodating of the use of debit and credit cards, and rely less on established taxi racks, where drivers might wait “up to 30 minutes for a customer.”

Dr Meany also defended Uber’s safety standards, arguing: “The system is so robust that in a number of cities with high crime rates it is safer to travel using Uber. Since each ride is registered and tracked it becomes very difficult to engage in robbery or extortion.”

Speaking to Varsity, a spokesperson for Cambridge City Council said it did not take into consideration the likely effect on traditional private-hire companies of giving Uber a licence, adding: “We do not look at it from a business perspective.”

They said that the only concern of the Council when deciding whether or not to grant a licence was that the applicant be “a safe and proper business.”

A spokesperson for Uber told Varsity that their safety standards are “higher than with a traditional operator. When you book an Uber you get a picture of your driver, the car type, contact details, and a rating; you also get a live map so that you do not have to wait somewhere for them.”

“On the trip a number of safety features are built in: you can share your ETA and a live map with a loved one so they can see where you are going, and can rate your driver and explain why you have given them that rating.”

“There is something of a myth that Uber drivers are not hire-drivers. In fact the driver you get is a fully-licensed driver who goes through the same DBS check as any other driver. A lot of Uber drivers are former minicab drivers.”

They defended Uber’s employment conditions, contending: “A lot of traditional private-hire companies set shifts, whereas Uber allows its drivers to turn the app on and off wherever they like.”

They argued that their model of electronic payment is safer because it means that the driver does not keep cash in the car where it can be robbed, and is not in danger of losing a fare if a customer leaves without paying.

Responding to a query about the monitoring of drivers’ fares by the company, they said: “Most jurisdictions require that a cab company keep track of the fares paid to their drivers anyway.” The Cambridge City Council spokesperson informed Varsity that this is not a prerequisite for a licence in Cambridge.

Uber insisted that they have no plans to hike up fares in future, saying: “We think competition is good, and there are things that you cannot do with an Uber, such as hail them directly or drive in a bus lane, so there will always be competitors keeping Uber’s prices reasonable.”