TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 08/10/2015 17:16, Robin9 wrote:
'JNugent[_5_ Wrote:
;150838']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.

Another nice try, another failure.
We are not in a criminal court where proof beyond reasonable
doubt is required.

No, but *some* evidence is needed.

If you need to check if my assertions are
correct, you have options available to you.

Quite right.

Asking you for it is the obvious one.

In case you have forgotten, information is still not provided
exclusively via the Internet. TfL make their announcements
through various channels, e. g. Metro. I don't store back copies
of newspapers or magazines just in case I need to substantiate
something in an Internet forum.
Incidentally TfL made their announcement about 4 or 5 months ago.

No evidence = no proof.


BTW: Someone else provided a pdf link. It didn't support what you claim,
but then again, it might not be connected with what you claim.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:49:57 +0100, JNugent wrote:

For example, I am going to some place abroad on holiday, flying from
LHR.
I book a local private hire company to where I live to (a) take me to
the airport to catch my flight and (b) collect me from the airport on
my return.

You seem to be suggesting that the second journey is illegal.

Do I?

You appeared to be suggesting that a private hire operator making a pick
up in London needed to be London based.

Here's some other (and not uncommon, I know a people who do these)
scenarios.

Person living in Eastleigh or Southampton engages a Winchester or
Basingstoke private hire operator for journeys between Eastleigh or
Southampton and LHR.

People living in Havant using a Portsmouth private hire operator for
travel to Fareham, Southampton, Eastleigh and Winchester.

--
Denis McMahon,

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

In message , at 20:24:58 on Thu, 8 Oct
2015, JNugent remarked:


With the best will in the world, neither Uber nor any other operator is
in a position to ensure that the vehicle is constantly and continually
insured for hire and reward,

They are, if they have a fleet policy.

or that only licensed drivers drive it.

That's true of any vehicle really.
--
Roland Perry

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

In message , at 13:45:36
on Thu, 8 Oct 2015, remarked:
Still very central. Try the exercise again somewhere like Willingham,
or Earith.

City taxis operate within the city.

err... Panther... Waterbeach... Not the City.

City HACKNEY CARRIAGES.

Anecdotal evidence from Cambridge suggests that
if you order a Panther car it's not very likely to turn up within
five minutes, or even sometimes twenty-five.

Panther operate City Hackneys too?
--
Roland Perry

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

In message , at 20:35:59 on Thu, 8 Oct 2015,
tim..... remarked:

As someone else has already remarked (it might have been you),

It was me.

the "pre-booking" does not confer any advantage on anyone (except for
not having to do it close to the time of travel).

The driver will simply be handed a job over his radio. He will
experience no difference as between a pre-booking or one that has
just been rung in by a member of the public. Given that, it's hard to
see why or how a discount for early booking could be expected.

I think it perfectly reasonable when you think you are ringing a
mini-cab firm

The only scenario where pre-booking might be expected to attract a
discount is an "airport run" where the driver can hope that the company
arranges for him to have a fare in both directions. Not unsurprisingly
most companies express this "discount" as a flat-fare to nominated
airports, which is cheaper per mile than a random booking. They can also
quote for different sized vehicles, whereas for normal bookings you'll
just get sent whatever the nearest available one is.

eg:
http://www.panthertaxis.co.uk/index....&view=article&
id=11&Itemid=60
--
Roland Perry

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
13:45:36 on Thu, 8 Oct 2015, remarked:
Still very central. Try the exercise again somewhere like
Willingham, or Earith.

City taxis operate within the city.

err... Panther... Waterbeach... Not the City.

City HACKNEY CARRIAGES.

Anecdotal evidence from Cambridge suggests that
if you order a Panther car it's not very likely to turn up within
five minutes, or even sometimes twenty-five.

Panther operate City Hackneys too?

Certainly do. If you call them whether you get City hackney, city hire car
or South cambs hire can is almost completely random.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 09/10/2015 06:12, Denis McMahon wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:49:57 +0100, JNugent wrote:

For example, I am going to some place abroad on holiday, flying from
LHR.
I book a local private hire company to where I live to (a) take me to
the airport to catch my flight and (b) collect me from the airport on
my return.
You seem to be suggesting that the second journey is illegal.

Do I?

You appeared to be suggesting that a private hire operator making a pick
up in London needed to be London based.

"Appeared to be"?

I was *not* suggesting it and I certainly didn't say it. I am not
responsible for what others imagine.

An operator from outside London is entitled to send a vehicle into
London to bring a passenger back to the operator's area, whether private
hire or a licensed taxi.

Here's some other (and not uncommon, I know a people who do these)
scenarios.
Person living in Eastleigh or Southampton engages a Winchester or
Basingstoke private hire operator for journeys between Eastleigh or
Southampton and LHR.
People living in Havant using a Portsmouth private hire operator for
travel to Fareham, Southampton, Eastleigh and Winchester.

I don't know what the conditions of licensing in those areas might be
and make no comment on them.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 09/10/2015 08:59, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:24:58 on Thu, 8 Oct
2015, JNugent remarked:


With the best will in the world, neither Uber nor any other operator
is in a position to ensure that the vehicle is constantly and
continually insured for hire and reward,

They are, if they have a fleet policy.

Do they?

or that only licensed drivers drive it.

That's true of any vehicle really.

So no controversy there.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

In message , at 15:45:18 on Fri, 9 Oct
2015, JNugent remarked:

With the best will in the world, neither Uber nor any other operator
is in a position to ensure that the vehicle is constantly and
continually insured for hire and reward,

They are, if they have a fleet policy.

Do they?

Apparently one of the issues people have with Uber is they don't.

--
Roland Perry

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 09/10/2015 18:42, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:45:18 on Fri, 9 Oct
2015, JNugent remarked:

With the best will in the world, neither Uber nor any other operator
is in a position to ensure that the vehicle is constantly and
continually insured for hire and reward,

They are, if they have a fleet policy.

Do they?

Apparently one of the issues people have with Uber is they don't.

If that is correct, it means that their assurances on insurance are as
meaningless as those of any other operator.

And yet there are those who insist that Uber "check" all their drivers
(a plainly impossible task).

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

In message , at 00:26:32 on Sat, 10
Oct 2015, JNugent remarked:
With the best will in the world, neither Uber nor any other operator
is in a position to ensure that the vehicle is constantly and
continually insured for hire and reward,

They are, if they have a fleet policy.

Do they?

Apparently one of the issues people have with Uber is they don't.

If that is correct, it means that their assurances on insurance are as
meaningless as those of any other operator.

Not if the other operators have fleet insurance, which it a said that
most in fact do. It's probably the more "irregular" nature of the Uber
workforce (flexitime is one of the selling points) which makes it
difficult to craft a fleet insurance policy, but that doesn't help the
passengers.
--
Roland Perry

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 20:35:59 on Thu, 8 Oct 2015,
tim..... remarked:

As someone else has already remarked (it might have been you),

It was me.

the "pre-booking" does not confer any advantage on anyone (except for
not having to do it close to the time of travel).

The driver will simply be handed a job over his radio. He will
experience no difference as between a pre-booking or one that has just
been rung in by a member of the public. Given that, it's hard to see
why or how a discount for early booking could be expected.

I think it perfectly reasonable when you think you are ringing a mini-cab
firm

The only scenario where pre-booking might be expected to attract a
discount is an "airport run"

That may be true where you come from,

but from where I come from - booking a contract hire vehicle from a mini-cab
company is always cheaper (perhaps I was wrong in using the term "discount",
as that implied I wanted a special deal for me, when what I meant was the
NORMAL cheaper price) than taking a hackney carriage (and that cheaper price
is offered for "ASAP journeys" as well as pre-booked one)

And that is what I expected to happen in Cambridge.

But apparently the citizens of Cambridge are quite happy to pay Hackney
carriage rates for mini-cabs.

more fool them IMHO.

But sorry, 3.50 per mile is far too much for me!

tim

I doubt very much indeed that most minicab firms have
a fleet insurance policy. The biggest firms who provide their
drivers with cars do - e.g Addison Lee - but the majority of
minicab firms do not supply the cars.

The typical London minicab firm operates from small, shabby
premises, and their drivers are self-employed, use their
own cars and arrange their own insurance.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 10/10/2015 16:16, Robin9 wrote:

Roland Perry;150936 Wrote:
In message , at 00:26:32 on Sat, 10
Oct 2015, JNugent remarked:---
With the best will in the world, neither Uber nor any other operator
is in a position to ensure that the vehicle is constantly and
continually insured for hire and reward,

They are, if they have a fleet policy.

Do they?-

Apparently one of the issues people have with Uber is they don't.-

If that is correct, it means that their assurances on insurance are as
meaningless as those of any other operator.-

Not if the other operators have fleet insurance, which it is said that
most in fact do.
Roland Perry

I doubt very much indeed that most minicab firms have
a fleet insurance policy. The biggest firms who provide their
drivers with cars do - e.g Addison Lee - but the majority of
minicab firms do not supply the cars.

The typical London minicab firm operates from small, shabby
premises, and their drivers are self-employed, use their
own cars and arrange their own insurance.

That is certainly my understanding of the position.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

In article ,
(Robin9) wrote:

In message , at 00:26:32 on Sat, 10
Oct 2015, JNugent remarked:---
With the best will in the world, neither Uber nor any other operator
is in a position to ensure that the vehicle is constantly and
continually insured for hire and reward,

They are, if they have a fleet policy.

Do they?-

Apparently one of the issues people have with Uber is they don't.-

If that is correct, it means that their assurances on insurance are
as meaningless as those of any other operator.-

Not if the other operators have fleet insurance, which it is said
that most in fact do. Roland Perry

I doubt very much indeed that most minicab firms have
a fleet insurance policy. The biggest firms who provide their
drivers with cars do - e.g Addison Lee - but the majority of
minicab firms do not supply the cars.

The typical London minicab firm operates from small, shabby
premises, and their drivers are self-employed, use their

Can't speak for London but it's mixed in Cambridge. Some firms do for some
drivers, I know from hire car drivers who came before councillors following
plying for hire convictions. Only some had the 6 points for driving with no
insurance on top.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 11/10/2015 02:08, wrote:
In article ,
(Robin9) wrote:

In message , at 00:26:32 on Sat, 10
Oct 2015, JNugent remarked:---
With the best will in the world, neither Uber nor any other operator
is in a position to ensure that the vehicle is constantly and
continually insured for hire and reward,

They are, if they have a fleet policy.

Do they?-

Apparently one of the issues people have with Uber is they don't.-

If that is correct, it means that their assurances on insurance are
as meaningless as those of any other operator.-

Not if the other operators have fleet insurance, which it is said
that most in fact do. Roland Perry

I doubt very much indeed that most minicab firms have
a fleet insurance policy. The biggest firms who provide their
drivers with cars do - e.g Addison Lee - but the majority of
minicab firms do not supply the cars.

The typical London minicab firm operates from small, shabby
premises, and their drivers are self-employed, use their

Can't speak for London but it's mixed in Cambridge. Some firms do for some
drivers, I know from hire car drivers who came before councillors following
plying for hire convictions. Only some had the 6 points for driving with no
insurance on top.

I assume they were "before councillors" as a means of retaining their
licences.

Unlicensed plying for hire (by drivers of vehicles not licensed to ply
for hire) is pretty conclusive evidence of not being a fit and proper
person within the meaning(s) of the 1976 Act. It demonstrates contempt
for the law.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 11/10/2015 02:08, wrote:
In article ,
(Robin9) wrote:

In message , at 00:26:32 on Sat, 10
Oct 2015, JNugent remarked:---
With the best will in the world, neither Uber nor any other operator
is in a position to ensure that the vehicle is constantly and
continually insured for hire and reward,

They are, if they have a fleet policy.

Do they?-

Apparently one of the issues people have with Uber is they don't.-

If that is correct, it means that their assurances on insurance are
as meaningless as those of any other operator.-

Not if the other operators have fleet insurance, which it is said
that most in fact do. Roland Perry

I doubt very much indeed that most minicab firms have
a fleet insurance policy. The biggest firms who provide their
drivers with cars do - e.g Addison Lee - but the majority of
minicab firms do not supply the cars.

The typical London minicab firm operates from small, shabby
premises, and their drivers are self-employed, use their

Can't speak for London but it's mixed in Cambridge. Some firms do for
some drivers, I know from hire car drivers who came before councillors
following plying for hire convictions. Only some had the 6 points for
driving with no insurance on top.

I assume they were "before councillors" as a means of retaining their
licences.

Unlicensed plying for hire (by drivers of vehicles not licensed to
ply for hire) is pretty conclusive evidence of not being a fit and
proper person within the meaning(s) of the 1976 Act. It demonstrates
contempt for the law.

But is a first offence worthy of a life sentence? Their licences were
generally suspended for a period but that penalty is already many times more
costly to them than that imposed by the court.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 11/10/2015 12:28, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 11/10/2015 02:08, wrote:
In article ,
(Robin9) wrote:

In message , at 00:26:32 on Sat, 10
Oct 2015, JNugent remarked:---
With the best will in the world, neither Uber nor any other operator
is in a position to ensure that the vehicle is constantly and
continually insured for hire and reward,

They are, if they have a fleet policy.

Do they?-

Apparently one of the issues people have with Uber is they don't.-

If that is correct, it means that their assurances on insurance are
as meaningless as those of any other operator.-

Not if the other operators have fleet insurance, which it is said
that most in fact do. Roland Perry

I doubt very much indeed that most minicab firms have
a fleet insurance policy. The biggest firms who provide their
drivers with cars do - e.g Addison Lee - but the majority of
minicab firms do not supply the cars.

The typical London minicab firm operates from small, shabby
premises, and their drivers are self-employed, use their

Can't speak for London but it's mixed in Cambridge. Some firms do for
some drivers, I know from hire car drivers who came before councillors
following plying for hire convictions. Only some had the 6 points for
driving with no insurance on top.

I assume they were "before councillors" as a means of retaining their
licences.

Unlicensed plying for hire (by drivers of vehicles not licensed to
ply for hire) is pretty conclusive evidence of not being a fit and
proper person within the meaning(s) of the 1976 Act. It demonstrates
contempt for the law.

But is a first offence worthy of a life sentence? Their licences were
generally suspended for a period but that penalty is already many times more
costly to them than that imposed by the court.

If you follow the "fit and proper person" reasoning, one conviction is
already one too many. If you're not f&p, you're not f&p, after all. I'd
extend that to DUI for any taxi-driver or pirate car driver.

Unlicensed plying for hire is pretty central to the "minicab" economy
and does severe damage to the business of taxi-drivers. If this wages
snatch (for that is what it is - workers being deprived of - part of -
their earnings) for just one month were concentrated just in one hit, it
would make the front pages of every newspaper.

It ought not to be tolerated at all, as doing so sends out completely
the wrong signals to pirate car drivers and operators.

OK, I can see an argument for clemency; maybe not a whole-life penalty,
but at least a year (as DUI would incur). And the same for any operator
who suffers or permits the use of his facilities - including 2-way
radios - in an effort to disguise the offence.

You are over-stating your case enormously. A huge chunk of
the minicab trade operates in the suburbs, where Hackney cabs
are rarely seen. How many day-time suburban minicab drivers
ply for hire? In fact, what scope is there?

My guess is the only real opportunities to pick up off the street
in the suburbs is about 01.00 outside clubs and pubs with a
late licence.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 02:53:09PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:33:41 on Wed, 7 Oct
2015, y remarked:
Since anyone can become a black cab driver if they want to learn the
knowledge I really don't see the problem.
I'd be a bit disappointed if convicted sex offenders could.

I'd be a bit disappointed if there was a blanket ban. "Sex offender"
covers a huge range of offences, some of which are really not very
serious at all.

--
David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive

I think the most difficult moment that anyone could face is seeing
their domestic servants, whether maid or drivers, run away
-- Abdul Rahman Al-Sheikh, writing on 25 Jan 2004 at
http://archive.arabnews.com/?article=38558

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 10:49:27PM +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2015 22:21, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\10\07 17:23, JNugent wrote:
But the PCO (which at one time was a branch of the Met Police)
And is now called TfL Taxis & Private Hire. The PCO name is dead.
It is still used daily.

So's "minicab", but you insist that there's no such thing.

Hypocrite.

--
David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive

You can't spell "slaughter" without "laughter"

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 12/10/2015 13:07, David Cantrell wrote:

On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 10:49:27PM +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2015 22:21, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\10\07 17:23, JNugent wrote:

But the PCO (which at one time was a branch of the Met Police)
And is now called TfL Taxis & Private Hire. The PCO name is dead.

It is still used daily.

So's "minicab", but you insist that there's no such thing.

The term PCO has never been held in court to be illegal when advertising
the services of an unlicensed vehicle.

"Minicab" has.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

Yersterdat, when using google maps, I had one of those recommendations that pop up, to use the Uber app. I had a look but the reviews were atrocious. The fares seemed to be sky-high (this was not in Britain).

Here is one:
"Most ridiculously charged set up.. the driver told me amount is 177 and i was charged 277 by uber on my online payment... the biggest cheat they are ....the driver said that there is no tax and again they charged double tax.. i will never use uber and no one should use they are the cheats..."

If Uber really are as bad as that, then why:

1) do so many people use them that the Hackney Cab trade
is suffering badly?

2) do none of the contributors to this thread relate bad
experiences?

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 14/10/2015 13:52, Offramp wrote:
Yersterdat, when using google maps, I had one of those recommendations
that pop up, to use the Uber app. I had a look but the reviews were
atrocious. The fares seemed to be sky-high (this was not in Britain).

Here is one:
"Most ridiculously charged set up.. the driver told me amount is 177
and i was charged 277 by uber on my online payment... the biggest
cheat they are ...the driver said that there is no tax and again
they charged double tax.. i will never use uber and no one should
use they are the cheats..."

I've taken Uber in 3 different cities around the world (UK, Europe and
the US) and one of the noticeable things is that whilst in the vehicle
money is never discussed - you get an estimate before the journey starts
and when you arrive you just get out and walk away (I do tend to say
thanks and goodbye!).

I'm guessing the reviews were for India given the amounts and the language?

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 2015\10\11 13:58, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2015 12:28, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:


Unlicensed plying for hire (by drivers of vehicles not licensed to
ply for hire) is pretty conclusive evidence of not being a fit and
proper person within the meaning(s) of the 1976 Act. It demonstrates
contempt for the law.

But is a first offence worthy of a life sentence? Their licences were
generally suspended for a period but that penalty is already many
times more
costly to them than that imposed by the court.

If you follow the "fit and proper person" reasoning, one conviction is
already one too many. If you're not f&p, you're not f&p, after all. I'd
extend that to DUI for any taxi-driver or pirate car driver.

Unlicensed plying for hire is pretty central to the "minicab" economy
and does severe damage to the business of taxi-drivers. If this wages
snatch (for that is what it is - workers being deprived of - part of -
their earnings) for just one month were concentrated just in one hit, it
would make the front pages of every newspaper.

It ought not to be tolerated at all, as doing so sends out completely
the wrong signals to pirate car drivers and operators.

OK, I can see an argument for clemency; maybe not a whole-life penalty,
but at least a year (as DUI would incur). And the same for any operator
who suffers or permits the use of his facilities - including 2-way
radios - in an effort to disguise the offence.

So then the minicab boss phones up his brother who's the boss of the
curry house. "My daughter's husband has been stitched up by the black
cab kuffar, he can't drive my taxis for the next year." "Send him over
to me, my granddaughter's husband is no good as a waiter so I'll send
him to you". And next Friday the man who stood outside the pub shouting
"Taxi Taxi" is a waiter, and the man who was a waiter is shouting "Taxi
Taxi", and no-one loses a penny of income. And then a year and a half
later when the new taxi tout gets caught, they switch back.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 05:52:53AM -0700, Offramp wrote:
Yersterdat, when using google maps, I had one of those recommendations that=
pop up, to use the Uber app. I had a look but the reviews were atrocious. =
The fares seemed to be sky-high (this was not in Britain).

Here is one:
"Most ridiculously charged set up.. the driver told me amount is 177 and i =
was charged 277 by uber on my online payment... the biggest cheat they are =
...the driver said that there is no tax and again they charged double tax..=
i will never use uber and no one should use they are the cheats..."

The *driver* told him it was 177 currency units? That's not how Uber
works. You get an estimate (and it's made very clear that it's an
estimate, not a quote) in the app, not from the driver.

And how do you know that that's a sky-high fare? It doesn't say what the
journey was.

No idea what he's talking about with this "tax" thing. Given the utter
illiteracy of the review, and the nonsense about tax, and the nonsense
about getting a quote from the driver, I'm inclined to say that this is
a fake review from a black cab driver.

--
David Cantrell | Hero of the Information Age

fdisk format reinstall, doo-dah, doo-dah;
fdisk format reinstall, it's the Windows way

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 15/10/2015 13:44, David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 05:52:53AM -0700, Offramp wrote:
Yersterdat, when using google maps, I had one of those recommendations that=
pop up, to use the Uber app. I had a look but the reviews were atrocious. =
The fares seemed to be sky-high (this was not in Britain).

Here is one:
"Most ridiculously charged set up.. the driver told me amount is 177 and i =
was charged 277 by uber on my online payment... the biggest cheat they are =
...the driver said that there is no tax and again they charged double tax..=
i will never use uber and no one should use they are the cheats..."

The *driver* told him it was 177 currency units? That's not how Uber
works. You get an estimate (and it's made very clear that it's an
estimate, not a quote) in the app, not from the driver.

And how do you know that that's a sky-high fare? It doesn't say what the
journey was.

No idea what he's talking about with this "tax" thing. Given the utter
illiteracy of the review, and the nonsense about tax, and the nonsense
about getting a quote from the driver, I'm inclined to say that this is
a fake review from a black cab driver.

You think the denominated currency was sterling, do you?

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 15/10/2015 08:41, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\10\11 13:58, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2015 12:28, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:


Unlicensed plying for hire (by drivers of vehicles not licensed to
ply for hire) is pretty conclusive evidence of not being a fit and
proper person within the meaning(s) of the 1976 Act. It demonstrates
contempt for the law.

But is a first offence worthy of a life sentence? Their licences were
generally suspended for a period but that penalty is already many
times more
costly to them than that imposed by the court.

If you follow the "fit and proper person" reasoning, one conviction is
already one too many. If you're not f&p, you're not f&p, after all. I'd
extend that to DUI for any taxi-driver or pirate car driver.

Unlicensed plying for hire is pretty central to the "minicab" economy
and does severe damage to the business of taxi-drivers. If this wages
snatch (for that is what it is - workers being deprived of - part of -
their earnings) for just one month were concentrated just in one hit, it
would make the front pages of every newspaper.

It ought not to be tolerated at all, as doing so sends out completely
the wrong signals to pirate car drivers and operators.

OK, I can see an argument for clemency; maybe not a whole-life penalty,
but at least a year (as DUI would incur). And the same for any operator
who suffers or permits the use of his facilities - including 2-way
radios - in an effort to disguise the offence.

So then the minicab boss phones up his brother who's the boss of the
curry house. "My daughter's husband has been stitched up by the black
cab kuffar, he can't drive my taxis for the next year." "Send him over
to me, my granddaughter's husband is no good as a waiter so I'll send
him to you". And next Friday the man who stood outside the pub shouting
"Taxi Taxi" is a waiter, and the man who was a waiter is shouting "Taxi
Taxi", and no-one loses a penny of income. And then a year and a half
later when the new taxi tout gets caught, they switch back.

At least the public are not being placed in the hands of someone who has
proven not to be a fit and proper person to be entrusted with their safety.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 14/10/2015 21:52, Recliner wrote:
Robin9 wrote:

Offramp;151065 Wrote:
Yersterdat, when using google maps, I had one of those recommendations
that pop up, to use the Uber app. I had a look but the reviews were
atrocious. The fares seemed to be sky-high (this was not in Britain).

Here is one:
"Most ridiculously charged set up.. the driver told me amount is 177 and
i was charged 277 by uber on my online payment... the biggest cheat they
are ....the driver said that there is no tax and again they charged
double tax.. i will never use uber and no one should use they are the
cheats..."

If Uber really are as bad as that, then why:

1) do so many people use them that the Hackney Cab trade
is suffering badly?

2) do none of the contributors to this thread relate bad
experiences?

Good questions. I wonder who posted those reviews...

Usenet contributors?

Not likely, is it?

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 04:04:35PM +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 15/10/2015 13:44, David Cantrell wrote:
The *driver* told him it was 177 currency units? That's not how Uber
works. You get an estimate (and it's made very clear that it's an
estimate, not a quote) in the app, not from the driver.

And how do you know that that's a sky-high fare? It doesn't say what the
journey was.

No idea what he's talking about with this "tax" thing. Given the utter
illiteracy of the review, and the nonsense about tax, and the nonsense
about getting a quote from the driver, I'm inclined to say that this is
a fake review from a black cab driver.
You think the denominated currency was sterling, do you?

No idea. I still don't know whether that's a sky-high fare, because I
don't know what the journey was.

Or if you're asking because I said "black cab driver", feel free to add
"or similar local incumbent who is scared of competition". No-one else
seems to have had trouble understanding that but given your repeated
difficulties with the English language I shouldn't have assumed you
would understand. My apologies.

--
David Cantrell | Nth greatest programmer in the world

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 16/10/2015 14:19, David Cantrell wrote:

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 04:04:35PM +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 15/10/2015 13:44, David Cantrell wrote:

The *driver* told him it was 177 currency units? That's not how Uber
works. You get an estimate (and it's made very clear that it's an
estimate, not a quote) in the app, not from the driver.

And how do you know that that's a sky-high fare? It doesn't say what the
journey was.
No idea what he's talking about with this "tax" thing. Given the utter
illiteracy of the review, and the nonsense about tax, and the nonsense
about getting a quote from the driver, I'm inclined to say that this is
a fake review from a black cab driver.

You think the denominated currency was sterling, do you?

No idea.

No idea?

I still don't know whether that's a sky-high fare, because I
don't know what the journey was.

You don't know and you don't know?

I thought you knew everything with respect to taxis and pirate cars?

Much more than anyone involved in, or with connections to, the
taxi-trade, at any rate.

Or if you're asking because I said "black cab driver",

What else spells out "London" so clearly?

feel free to add
"or similar local incumbent who is scared of competition". No-one else
seems to have had trouble understanding that but given your repeated
difficulties with the English language I shouldn't have assumed you
would understand. My apologies.

So for you, "black cab driver" also means "Athens taxi driver",
"Parisienne taxi-driver" or even "Oslo Taxi-driver"?

If you wanted to stretch the meaning of language that far, why didn't
you say?