wrote in message
...
In article ,
(tim.....) wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 30/09/2015 17:49, tim..... wrote:

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tph...hire-proposals

so what does the team think?

The law is clear.

"Services" such as Über cannot operate lawfully unless:

(a) each vehicle is tested and licensed before commencing
operations,

(b) each driver applies for a licence, is investigated and not
found ineligible, before commencing operations, and

Uber will claim that they do do (a) and (b)

(I have no idea if they are right or not)

The law requires the state in some form to deal with that, not farm it out
to those who have an interest in ignoring them.

Ok I should have said "Uber will claim that their drivers do do that" (and
that they "check" that they have. Though I agree that experiences from
other countries shows that this checking process is somewhat cursory)


(c) the operator (presumably Über) establishes a base within
Greater London and submits to the appropriate licensing regime,
thereafter complying with the requirements for record-keeping, etc.

and whilst this does seem unnecessarily nanny state, complying with
it isn't impossible for them

They may not have to comply with that bit much long if the Law Commission
report is legislated for. The coalition somehow managed to let it slip,
and
not because Lib Dems didn't agree with it so I wouldn't bank on it,
though.

Do all of those (especially assessing and licensing the drivers to
weed out dodgy characters) and Über is effectively pointless.

Except that anecdotally, it isn't

Vehicle tests, DBS & Police checks, knowledge tests. Not sure how many
could
be credibly done by an operator.

One of use has misunderstood the meaning of "pointless".

I took it to mean unnecessary, as in "the marker will fill the customer's
needs without it"

I repeat "anecdotally, that doesn't appear to be the case"

tim