被困在城市交通中的Uber

被困在城市交通中的Uber

這款召車軟件首先必須要做的，得是從全球各地的出租車司機(jī)抗議和政治困境中掙扎出來(lái)。

測(cè)試中可能遇到的詞匯和知識(shí)：

incumbent 現(xiàn)任的

remorseless 殘酷的

congestion 阻塞

bolster 支持

justification 辯解的理由

ostensibly 表面上看

Uber stuck in city traffic（578words）

Everybody loves disruption,except the people who are being disrupted. As Uber,the app-based ride-hailing service,has spread rapidly from its San Francisco home to cities around the world,it has repeatedly faced resistance from incumbent taxi operators,who are often politically influential. Regulators and legislators from Brussels to Beijing have moved to restrict Uber's operations.

Some of the fiercest opposition has come in Europe,where the culture clash between the remorseless competition of the US tech industry and the locals' respect for tradition and deference to established interests is especially stark. While Uber's operations give rise to legitimate questions about safety and congestion,the public interest issues used as pretexts for cracking down on the company are often spurious. The proposed new restrictions in London,which would put Uber at a competitive disadvantage against the city's black cabs,are a case in point.

Uber has often not helped its own cause. Concerns about the company's use of data on customers' movements,allegations that an executive had talked about smearing unfriendly journalists and complaints about its tax planning have made it harder for Uber to win the battle for hearts and minds.

It has been seeking to bolster its soft skills by hiring experienced political operators and has sharpened up how it presents its arguments. London is a chance to show that the investment has been worthwhile.

As in other cities,the proposals of Transport for London,which regulates the city's taxis,are dressed up as measures to protect public safety. The details of the measures reveal how flimsy those justifications are.

For example,one idea is to make riders wait at least five minutes before being picked up after hailing a ride through Uber or another similar service,even if there is an available driver close by,an obstruction that will provide nothing but irritation for passengers. Another suggestion is that drivers should be allowed to use only one ride-hailing app,which would impede one of the most effective checks on any abuses by Uber: competition between a number of different services.

In this somewhat random set of ideas,it is hard not to see an attempt by Boris Johnson,London's mayor,to restore relations with the city's black cab drivers. Many of them backed him when he was voted into office in 2008,and plenty are natural supporters of his Conservative administration,but his perceived reluctance to clamp down on Uber has led to angry protests against him.

Transport for London has opened a consultation on its proposals,and may not adopt any of them. For an ostensibly pro-market Conservative administration,it will be hard to justify restraints on innovation simply because it creates losers as well as winners. Uber has right on its side — consumers,not regulators,should decide which transport options are best for them — but that may not be enough. Its campaign to block the proposals has started well: an online petition had by this weekend received more than 132,000 signatures. But while its business relies on a technological solution for navigating a city's streets,there is no such fix for finding a route through its politics.

If it wants to continue to grow in London and around the world,Uber needs to be able to persuade politicians that it is worth facing down the established taxi operators who are resisting change. If vested interests prevent its innovations in service from reaching their full potential,it would count as an enormous missed opportunity.