London Banter - View Single Post

JNugent[_5_] · October 7th 15, 10:49 PM posted to uk.transport.london

On 07/10/2015 17:10, Robin9 wrote:
'JNugent[_5_ Wrote:
;150709']On 06/10/2015 06:12, Robin9 wrote:
-
;150666 Wrote:-
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:
-
In particular, it is far from clear that Uber's sub-contractor
drivers *are* licensed, even as "private hire" drivers.

Uber themselves claim to do the vetting (and, IIRC, to provide hire
and reward insurance). None of that is necessary in the normal run of
things (the drivers have to deal with these things direct to TFL) and
the fact that Uber claim it undermines any theory that all the
drivers (and their vehicles) are even known to the authorities.-

Are the drivers local authority (or PCO) licensed or not? They are
illegal
if not.

--
Colin Rosenstiel-

To repeat an earlier point: TfL have carried out their most thorough
check ever on a minicab firm, and they have found that Uber are
complying with the various regulations. In other words, Uber's drivers
are licensed and have had CRB checks, health and eyesight tests.
They have valid drivers' licences and correct insurance.

The scare propaganda is FUD put out by the black cab trade
because they are not willing to compete in the open market on
even terms and want instead to have their competition made
illegal.-

Perhaps in order to counter this "scare propaganda", you can point to a
checkable and credible source for your information?

Nice try but I'm not going to do your homework for you.

I would *never* ask you to do that.

I'm asking for *your* homework (which you claim to have done).

But perhaps your dog ate it?

Your proposition = your onus for evidence.

You could
look through back copies of various trade magazines or you could
contact TfL directly. You could even try the Internet. (I believe TfL
now has a new on-line magazine for taxi drivers. Ask there)

No need.

No evidence = no proof.

That's the way it works.