TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 2015-10-04 21:36:16 +0000, JNugent said:

Not legal

I know that.

and vanishingly unlikely to become legal any time soon.

Probably also true.

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

I would suggest that, as with any other situation, a risk assessment is
made and cost-benefit analysis conducted. People say safety is the
first priority, but it almost never is - not even with industries where
it is a high priority like rail and air travel.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 2015-10-04 22:21:04 +0000, said:

We couldn't find a mechanism to manage this, even from the station with its
legendary taxi queues.

At the station might it have just about worked to put up a sign saying
something like "Why not ask others if they will share your taxi to keep
costs down and keep things moving? Wait here if you'd like to do
this." - leaving it to the passengers to get together to hire a taxi
and split its fare, and thus making it legal?

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 2015-10-05 13:19:08 +0000, David Cantrell said:

TfL staff manage to do it at central London stations occasionally, so
there's no reason that their Cambridge equivalent couldn't, or that the
local taxi companies couldn't find people to do it for their drivers.

I thought the law was that the taxi companies could in fact not do it?
Not sure about the Council though.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 2015-10-04 21:55:16 +0000, Recliner said:

The booking service should be allowed to offer that option to those who
want it. It's in a position to be aware of multiple customers who want to
follow the same route; individual drivers and passengers are not.

Precisely. Provided the option remains to have a car to yourself, who
is anyone else to say I should not subcontract arranging a share to
save money?

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 2015-10-04 19:45:01 +0000, said:

Bear in mind that "accessible" isn't a simple binary. My late mother
couldn't use black cabs late in her life because she couldn't make the step
up to climb in.

As a tall person I find it very awkward to get in a Hackney carriage as
well - I'd forgotten that - another reason I'm not a fan of them.

The Berlingo type cabs in Bracknell are *very* accessible in this sense
(but not the Fiat Doblos which have a high step-over to get in the back
seat). Other than the lack of a tight turning circle (though they
aren't *bad*) they seem far better for the purpose than an actual
Hackney carriage. Much cheaper, too, which can keep fares down.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 05/10/2015 18:24, Mark Bestley wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 05/10/2015 17:23, Mark Bestley wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 05/10/2015 14:26, David Cantrell wrote:
On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 10:34:57PM +0100, JNugent wrote:
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).
There is no such thing as a mini cab.

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/234043
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/taxis-and-minicabs/

Forgive me if I take their word for it over yours.

The word "cab" has a legal definition.

Which law?

In London?

I thought that was Hackney carriages

Taxis (a/k/a cabs) in London are licensed (and gain their legal
existence) from the various London Cab Acts.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 05/10/2015 20:28, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 17:26, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:11:53 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:45:22 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
the pavement outside the venue in the pouring rain, or perhaps five
minutes earlier when they are inside in the warm and can more
comfortably use their phone to order a car to arrive in five
minute's
time?

Since thats exactly how people used to order minicabs I'm
wondering what
exactly is the killer selling point of Uber. Other than it means
Aspergers
types don't actually have to talk to a person and get all stressed.

You don't have to know the names and phone numbers of local mini
cab firms,

Google.

Obviously you like making things more difficult than they need to be.


nor explain the address to someone who may not have a shared language.

Right, because Uber drivers are always natives.

Of course not, but you seem not to know how Uber works.


Either or both parties may be in a noisy environment.

What's more, Uber probably gets you a car more quickly, you don't
need to
pay cash (a particular advantage when abroad, if you don't have local
currency), and it's typically cheaper.

Of course its cheaper - unvetted drivers whose only qualification is
owning
a car and smartphone.

Wrong again.

That is precisely the point; no-one has been (so far) able to say with
certainty that Uber drivers *are* vetted and licensed.

The fact that Uber themselves claim to do the vetting" is alarming.

I don't believe that they do

they claim that they have checked the driver has been vetted (the rest
is just lost in lazy journalism)

Every "private hire" operator has to do that.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 05/10/2015 18:41, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 09:18, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 10/4/2015 2:10 PM, JNugent wrote:
On 03/10/2015 09:07, Someone Somewhere wrote:
Seriously?

Because a taxi is - in its very essence - a *private* space which
can be
hired by the passenger to the exclusion of others. It is not a bus.
If a
bus is what is wanted, buses are available.


What? There's a bus that takes me from Heathrow to outside my
house in
Shadwell?

Provided you're willing to change a few times, yes.


More times than the TfL planner can cope with to get outside my house.

That's a problem you have with buses. Not everyone has it.

The fact that you do is not a good reason for disrupting the
legitimate livelihood of others.

How is my saying "if you wont provide a legitimate way of my sharing a
cab (on an ad hoch basis with someone that I don't know), I wont be
using a cab at all" an attack on a legitimate business

Was that a question?

I explaining to them how they can get business that they have otherwise
lost

Who is "them"?

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 2015-10-04 19:45:01 +0000, said:

Especially as there are some people to whom black cabs are NOT accessible.

Some solutions for wheelchair accessibility make things worse for those
who can walk but only just. For instance, while low-floor buses are
good for everyone, the removal of the central pole does make it
difficult for people to climb aboard. I saw this today, FWIW, and see
it most times I use a bus - there is an elderly person who finds it
hard to walk aboard almost every bus, but almost never a wheelchair, at
least outside London. And I can see why - if I were in a wheelchair
and able to drive an adapted car, I would travel exclusively by car.
And I think most wheelchair users do if it is an option.

I'm not sure of the answer to this if the regional bus companies
continue to insist on not using a dual-door approach, where a pole
could be provided at the front and wheelchairs board at the centre
door. Though even in London the pole is missing, even at the rear of
the Boris bus where that door is not used for wheelchairs - there is a
pole, but it isn't in the middle so there is still no way to board
while using both hands to help haul yourself up.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 05/10/2015 18:46, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 03/10/2015 13:19, tim..... wrote:



What?

Seriously?

Because a taxi is - in its very essence - a *private* space which can
be hired by the passenger to the exclusion of others. It is not a bus.
If a bus is what is wanted, buses are available.

not from the Airport to my required destination (or even close)

Buses are still available, if not always convenient. A taxi is not a bus.

Your preferences are not a reason to abolish protection for
taxi-passengers.

But it's someone else's choice of protection, that I personally don't
believe that I need.

I know, let's ban woman going into pubs on their own - for their own
protection!

just see what an uproar that proposal would cause!

You are arguing like a fifth-former, absolutely confident that only you
have the answers to problems that were solved a hundred years ago.