In message
-sept
ember.org, at 20:27:38 on Sun, 4 Oct 2015, Recliner
remarked:
I don't think they can. You can't pick a particular vehicle to book through
Uber, can you?

I thought you could (or the review thing would be a bit pointless).

https://help.uber.com/h/65f52320-43a...4-e9b7c7c36dae

If you are sat in the cab, the closest driver isn't very far away.
--
Roland Perry

In message 157824532.465682243.484367.recliner.ng-
, at 20:21:34 on Sun, 4 Oct
2015, Recliner remarked:
They can't get customers to book
them on the spot: the booking has to be made through Uber.

They can get the customer to book them through Uber, on the spot.

I don't think they can. You can't pick a particular vehicle to book through
Uber, can you? And Uber cars aren't marked.

That doesn't matter if you are already sat in it, talking to the driver.

How would you identify it as an Uber car?

Because the driver will have accosted you as you walked along the
pavement.

As a would-be passenger, why wouldn't you simply use the app to book a
car, knowing that there are several in the vicinity? You'd do it
before even coming out on to the street.

Many people don't think that far ahead.

Or possibly do an off books "deal" with the customer.

Not legally they can't. And Uber would take a dim view of it as well.

If there was no illegality going on, we simply wouldn't be having this
conversation.

That would be something that Uber's systems would soon spot. It would see
drivers hanging around in an area of high demand, then suddenly becoming
not available, travelling some distance, then signing on again. I bet
Uber's systems would soon spot some drivers regularly doing that.

Do we actually know if there actually is some illegality going on? Or is
that just an allegation from the black cabs cartel? The sort of person who
refers to all mini cabs as "pirate cars"

All of them? No, there's just a few thousand getting the rest a bad
name.

would no doubt be happy to make
such allegations, supposedly in the interests of passenger safety.

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-an...ompliance-and-
enforcement

Clifford Chance reports some infractions in #3 of this piece (from a
lobbying body, but they won't have made up the quotes):

http://uk.businessinsider.com/ubers-...ifford-chance-
fighting-to-ban-it-here-are-the-5-big-arguments-2015-10
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 20:31:02 on Sun, 4 Oct
2015, Neil Williams remarked:
Yes, and thousands of them are "moved on". Better for them not to be
causing the anti-social menace in the first place.

How do you propose to stop them? Even with the 5 minute "delay" they
will still no doubt wait in places where they are near to a likely job.

It'll dramatically reduce the touting and plying for hire.
--
Roland Perry

On 04/10/2015 15:41, Recliner wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 03/10/2015 02:13, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 01/10/2015 18:46, 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 Ãœber 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)

*If* they do, there's no problem.
At least, not with those aspects.

(c) the operator (presumably Ãœber) 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

The record keeping requirement is there in order to help settle
allegations of unlicensed plying for hire, among other things such as
being able to trace a particular driver who did a particular booked job.
It's a more than reasonable requirement. The location requirement is
designed to keep the operator within the jurisdiction of the licensing
authority and to make them accountable to that licensing authority and
the courts within its boundaries.

Uber appears to have much better record keeping for every journey than back
cabs. Maybe it's the latter who should have the rules tightened up?

There is not, and never has been, any requirement for a licensed
taxi-driver to keep a record of the names, addresses, starting point,
destination points of passengers, or of the fare charged.

I wasn't suggesting that they were not complying with the existing rules,
just that the rules for black cabs seem more lax than for Uber.

The record-keeping rules for pirate car operators in general are an
attempt to limit their capacity for making false statements in an effort
to "backdate" unlicensed plying for hire to make it look legal.

It isn't aimed at any one firm. When sorting the sheep from the goats,
it's as well to bear in mind that they are almost all goats.

Next...

[ ... ]

Why makes Uber cabs "pirate cars"?

Unlicensed plying-for-hire, of course.

But they don't. They can only come when a registered customer books one. So
they're not pirate cars.

That's funny.

On 04/10/2015 20:32, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-10-04 16:58:23 +0000, JNugent said:

There is no such thing as a mini cab.

"Minicab" is a common London term for a private-hire car (that isn't a
premium one).

They are not cabs.

There is no such thing as a mini cab.

On 04/10/2015 20:35, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-10-04 17:04:17 +0000, JNugent said:

A public transport operator is free to apply for the necessary
permissions to make that work.

Actually they aren't; there is (and I did some research on this in
conjunction with a friend in the transport industry) seemingly no legal
framework under which such a thing can operate. It fails on bus
legislation (no fixed route/restricted area of service), and on taxi
legislation (shared use at separate fares).

It's just that the passenger decides on the sharing, not the driver or
operator.

The passenger would still decide on it, they just would get the option
to say "find me some people to share with to keep my journey cost down"
to the operator, rather than them having to arrange the share themselves.

Not legal, and vanishingly unlikely to become legal any time soon.

See whether you can work out why (clue: the PCO's FIRST priority is
always passenger safety).

On 04/10/2015 20:35, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-10-04 17:05:06 +0000, JNugent said:

Is that a reason to introduce the same dangers to travelling in a taxi?

If the passenger wishes to take that (low) risk to reduce their fare,
why not? Provided it is at the passenger's option (and only their
option) whether it occurs or not.

The passenger already has that option.

The driver doesn't, and won't.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...

Or possibly do an off books "deal" with the customer.
Unlikely. One of the USPs of Uber is that you don't hand over any money to
amy driver by any method.

--
DAS

On Sun, 04 Oct 2015 21:43:29 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

There was a time when one of the mapping systems (I don't remember if it
was a web-based one or CD-based) sent people from south England to
Newcastle via France, and various other countries, ending up with a
ferry back from Scandinavia (Bergen probably).

One of the Autoroute versions did this for some combinations of start and
end. Also did things like routing via the IoW for journeys between
Portsmouth and Bournemouth.

--
Denis McMahon,

In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 04/10/2015 16:00, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-september
..org, at 14:41:13 on Sun, 4 Oct 2015, Recliner
remarked:

Why makes Uber cabs "pirate cars"?

Unlicensed plying-for-hire, of course.

But they don't. They can only come when a registered customer books
one. So they're not pirate cars.

One of the main complaints in London is that they lurk around places
where people might want a cab, and then presumably get the customer to
book them on the spot. That's the reason for the 5-minute timeout
proposed in the consultation.

Well, that's an example of the unlicensed plying for hire.

How come? If the booking is recorded by the hire operator it isn't illegal
plying for hire.

--
Colin Rosenstiel