TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 2015-10-05 15:45:59 +0000, Eric said:

"It's fine for me, so how could anyone else have a problem?"?

I think we're simply saying it is better than some drivers'
"Knowledge", not that it's perfect.

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

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 05/10/2015 21:01, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
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.

so what were you complaining about then?

The current situation is completely unclear.

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.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

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

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 10:36:06 on Sun, 4 Oct
2015, tim..... remarked:

And one issue here is the problem of disability access. If all "ply for
hire" cabs have to conform with the disability act and provide equal
access, then all "contract hire" cabs should as well. This is one area
where Uber is deficient that he should be MADE to comply with.

It's not necessarily important for every private hire vehicle to
offer disability access, because the are pre-booked. As long as
each firm has some minimum number of such vehicles available if
requested, that should be sufficient.

That I understand

but unless that "minimum number" is somewhat larger than you might
first calculate, you either end up with the accessible cabs waiting
around all day for the one disabled passenger, or no accessible cabs
free at the time that passenger turns up.

And of course, it leaves the possibility of (illegal) increase in
price for the disabled cab. If all cabs are accessible them the
disabled pax doesn't need to announce their requirement, but if they
are required to announce it how do you ensue that the request hasn't
magically entered the "surge pricing" zone?

Doesn't seem to cause problems in Cambridge. Both the Hackney Carriage and
Hire Car fleets are mixed and telephone-booked business is mixed between
both fleets because all hire cars use meters set to the same tariff as the
hackneys.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 05/10/2015 17:09, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 04/10/2015 23:21, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 04/10/2015 16:00, Roland Perry wrote:
In
-se
ptember.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.

"...get the customer to book them on the spot".

That's touting. Unlicensed plying for hire. Even a licensed driver
isn't allowed to tout.

Your interpretation depends on the order things happen. In my scenario
the hirer activates the Uber app, only possibly after seeing the car.

That is still plying for hire.

Not in law. The driver has to do something active.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

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.

Vetting is a job for the PCO, with access to CRB, DVLC and other
records.

If Uber are operating within UK hire car law as we are told they are then
vetting is through the local authority (PCO in London).

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message
-september
..org, at 09:13:59 on Mon, 5 Oct 2015, Recliner
remarked:

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-an...and-enforcemen
t

No comments?

Still no comments?

What's there to comment on? It shows that some private hire drivers
don't follow the rules. I don't think anyone was disputing that.

You appear to be claiming that no Uber drivers fall into that category.

I don't know whether they do or not. I didn't think any firms were
mentioned in that article?

Uber was mentioned in the other article. Enforcement officers
identify Uber cars by the simple expedient of using the Uber app!

One of the tricks the touts do is to park illegally in taxi ranks
(hence the large numbers "moved on" before they have a chance to get
a fare and be prosecuted for plying for hire), and thus force black
cabs to double-park in the street, from where the black cabs are also
moved on. The upshot is that the touts get first dibs on people
emerging from venues near the ranks.

One infringement I've never seen in Cambridge. Hackney drivers here are
pretty fierce at enforcing against abuse of their ranks!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 15:05:13 on Mon, 5
Oct 2015, y remarked:

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.

The USP appears to be a much larger pool of available drivers nearby
than ringing the phone number of some random minicab company.

Not so great when the local hire car and taxi trade is concentrated into an
operator as large as Panther in Cambridge?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

"Neil Williams" wrote

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?

Following an obvious link, here's a link to Marshalled taxi ranks in London

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/taxis-and-m...led-taxi-ranks

eg Kingston town centre, Clarence Street, Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays,
22:30 - 02:30


--
Mike D

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On Monday, 5 October 2015 14:34:22 UTC+2, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
05:01:26 on Mon, 5 Oct 2015, remarked:
Of course, but you did seem to present Google Maps as a better answer.

It's an acceptable answer, I'd say.

FSVO...

But it fails and/or misleads, aside from being unavailable at some times
to some people.

Right, but the context here is arranging a journey by Uber. Under what
circumstances is it possible to order a car from Uber but be unable to
check the route via Apple or Google maps?

When the destination isn't mapped, or is mapped incorrectly.

You can only order an Uber car via the internet. You therefore have the ability to check this fact on hand right then and there. If the collected wisdom of the entire internet is unable to allow you to figure out where you intend to go, then I would suggest you ought to be reconsidering the wisdom of undertaking the journey until you get some sort of clarification first.

The "private hire" industry (i.e. minicabs) have not had a requirement for doing "the knowledge" for decades. I recall getting in a minicab in Croydon over 20 years ago and discovering the driver had no clue where he was going. At least with Uber you know the driver will have GPS enabled maps available (that's how they find their customers, after all).

There's nothing wrong, on the face of it, with a minicab company
externalising much of its 'local knowledge' to the passengers, as long
as we understand it won't work for everyone.

A rubicon that was crossed a long time ago by the minicab industry, and has been greatly alleviated by GPS based navigation methods.

And that's before we look at the Digital Divide and possible disadvantages to people looking
for timely and affordable traditional solutions.

That ship sailed a long time ago. There is pretty much no aspect of any part of travelling from one place to another in the modern world in which the most timely and affordable solutions are available without an internet connection. If this were uk.railway I would mention goats.

Robin

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 05/10/2015 22:17, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 05/10/2015 17:09, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 04/10/2015 23:21, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 04/10/2015 16:00, Roland Perry wrote:
In
-se
ptember.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.

"...get the customer to book them on the spot".

That's touting. Unlicensed plying for hire. Even a licensed driver
isn't allowed to tout.

Your interpretation depends on the order things happen. In my scenario
the hirer activates the Uber app, only possibly after seeing the car.

That is still plying for hire.

Not in law. The driver has to do something active.

Nonsense.

Being ostentatiously "available for hire" is plying for hire. That is
all that (proper) taxi-drivers are doing when sitting on a rank.