Why do London taxis still make us pay in cash?

Dinosaurs drive among us.

I think we’ve all been there. You’ve finally managed to grab a cab somewhere in Soho after scrambling to get home for an hour and a half on a Saturday night. Once you get in you realise that you’re out of cash and moreover, as usual, this taxi doesn’t take cards. So instead of getting home quickly, your cabdriver takes a detour to get you past an ATM on the way. You easily end up trying out a few cash points, because the first one was out of money and the second had technical problems. What was supposed to be a fifteen-minute ride home has turned into a 25-minute tour of London, all the while adding to the mounds of pollution in the city air. Lovely. 

As a native Dane it has been a rude awakening living in London and realising that an overwhelming majority of taxis do not accept cards. Most other European countries have long since implemented electronic payment systems in taxis on a national level. In Denmark, card swipe machines were replaced for chip and PIN devices last year, after the cabs had enjoyed card payments for more than two decades. According to representatives of the Danish and German taxi industry, the ability to pay by card heightens security for the cab driver in that payment is guaranteed. It has also given the industry a much-needed boost, in that more people are taking longer journeys in taxis, since they can rely on the security and ease of paying by card.

Somehow, this development has eluded London's taxis. Here it's common practice for cabs to drive past an ATM if a customer is without cash, making the trip more expensive for the customer. Not to mention, that the cab emanates even more CO2 when it is kept at a standstill for several minutes while the transaction is being made.
But never mind the environment (note the sarcasm). In an automobile and diesel heavy industry, this is not the argument that will win over the taxi industry. Like one card-accepting cabdriver said to me this weekend: "We have some dinosaurs in this industry. I don't get why they can't understand that this would be better for all of us?! We would get longer trips, more customers and we'd be far more sure of getting paid."

Lately, apps like Hailo and GetTaxi have been developed to make electronic payments possible in taxis via tablet or smart-phone. I have personally used both apps regularly, refusing to partake in the cash-chaos. And they’re effective. With a little click you can easily order a nearby cab within seconds and once you’ve put in your details the payment is made securely via your credit or debit card at the end of your journey. In my opinion, it’s pretty brilliant to make the stress of getting home after hours in London, a lot easier. But even these systems have some serious issues for customers and taxis alike.

One app-accepting cabdriver recently informed me that customers using Hailo need to watch out for the amounts deducted on their account. Because the app doesn’t entail end-of-journey approval of the final amount, some London cabdrivers have begun exploiting the app by driving on and debiting the customer for more than the journey itself. Now we aren’t talking about major amounts, but nevertheless, this is payment fraud. Another issue is that not every cab has signed up with these apps, making it sometimes impossible to get a free cab via the app. And in that case, you’re just back to square one.

So if the apps can’t always be relied on for electronic payments and card terminals aren’t being installed in the taxis, then what are we supposed to do? I’m far from the only one frustrated with this situation. Friends and colleagues alike have often complained about the necessity for cash when taking a cab. Not to mention that a massive tourist destination like London, should be considering the amount of foreign customers who are not prepared to pay for their cabs by cash. It’s just not customer-friendly or for that matter, very modern. So why does paying for a cab via card have to be such a hassle?

As far as I can understand, the issue of implementing card payments is an on-going discussion for the taxi industry in London. It seems to me that the benefits regarding security, increased earnings and the environment are great, whereas I don’t quite see the negatives of implementing card payments. People will still pay cash if they can or prefer. Yes card transactions have fees – but these are usually directed at the customers and will therefore have minimum impact on the cab drivers themselves. So what is the problem? I guess only the dinosaurs can answer that.

Photograph: Getty Images

Sandra Kilhof Nielsen is a freelance writer and former reporter for Retail Banker International, Cards International & Electronic Payments International.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The “lunatic” incident showed us the real Owen Smith: and it ain't pretty

Forget the slur - what really matters is what it says about his empty promises, says David Wearing. 

Owen Smith has embarrassed himself again. Having previously called for Labour to “smash” Theresa May “back on her heels”, advocated negotiations with ISIS, and described himself as “normal” with “a wife and three children” while competing with a gay woman to stand for the Labour leadership, you might expect him to have learnt the value of expressing himself more carefully. But no. Not a bit of it.

At a rally on Tuesday evening, Smith described Jeremy Corbyn as a “lunatic” with no “coherent narrative about what’s wrong with Britain”. It’s an interesting choice of words from someone who needs to win over tens of thousands of Corbyn’s supporters if he is to avoid a crushing defeat in this summer’s Labour leadership election. Indeed, we may look back on this as the final nail in the coffin of Smith’s campaign.

Let’s be honest. Most of us at some stage have used casual language like this (“lunatic”, “insane”), to describe those whose rationality we don’t share or understand. I’ll admit to having done so myself. But it is wrong. It perpetuates a stigma around mental illness and damages peoples’ chances of getting the care and support they need from society. We should all cut it out, especially those of us who aspire to high public office.

Beyond this, however, Smith has driven a coach and horses through the central premise of his own campaign. Throughout the summer he has presented himself as substantively agreeing with Corbyn on almost all domestic and economic issues, and only seeking to pursue that agenda more effectively and professionally. He has set out a range of policies - including a £200bn “British New Deal”, workplace rights and more redistributive taxation - that constitute an overt appeal to the social democratic, progressive values of the hundreds of thousands who joined the party to support Corbyn and secure a clean break with the neoliberalism of New Labour.

But it is simply not credible to simultaneously say “I agree with Jeremy” and that Jeremy is a “lunatic”. No one uses the word "lunatic" to describe someone whose politics they basically share. No one says “your diagnosis of the country’s ills is incoherent, and that’s the substantive agenda I want to take forward”. Smith’s remarks indicate that, deep down, he shares the incredulity expressed by so many of his colleagues that anyone would want to abandon the Thatcher-Blair-Cameron “centre ground” of deregulation, privatisation, corporate-empowerment and widening inequality. After all, Corbyn’s narrative only appears incoherent to those who regard the post-1979 status quo as self-evidently the best of all possible worlds - give or take a few policy tweaks - rather than the very essence of “what’s wrong with Britain”.

This incident will confirm the suspicion of many Labour members that, if he did win the leadership, Smith would dilute or ditch most of the policies he has used to try and win their votes. Those fears are well founded. Take as one illustrative example the issue of immigration, where Smith has shown one face to the party while suggesting that he would show quite another to the country, as party leader.

At leadership hustings, Smith presents an enlightened, pro-immigration, anti-xenophobic stance, but in a Newsnight interview last month we saw something rather different.  When asked if there were “too many immigrants” in the UK, he replied that “it depends where you are”, giving official comfort to the post-Brexit “pack your bags” brigade. He asserted that EU migration “definitely caused downward pressure on wages” despite academic studies having repeatedly shown that this is false, and that EU migration is of clear overall benefit to the economy.

Then, calling for an “honest” discussion on immigration, Smith noted that his wife is a school teacher and that schools in their local area are under pressure from “significant numbers into South Wales of people fleeing the Middle East”. In fact, a grand total of 78 people have been resettled in the whole of Wales under the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme. In the local authority encompassing Smith’s constituency of Pontypridd, the total number is zero.

This suggests, not someone who shares members’ values, but one who probably regards the leader’s pro-immigration stance as “lunatic”, and would prefer a return to the days when Labour erected the notorious Yarl’s Wood detention camp, rejected the vast majority of asylum applications from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and when Tom Watson put out an election leaflet reading “Labour is on your side, the Lib Dems are on the side of failed asylum seekers”.

Smith’s problem is that his mask keeps slipping. And every time it does, the choice before Labour members comes into sharper focus. On the one hand, they have a man who lacks many of the managerial and communication skills for party leadership, but who shares their values and who they can trust to fight for their agenda until a credible successor can be found. Against him stands a man they may not be able to trust, who may not share their values, and whose claims of professional competence grow more threadbare by the day. It’s a poor choice to be faced with, but Smith is at least making it easier for them.