|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 03/10/2015 02:16, Recliner wrote:
all types don't have to get the "knowledge". And are there any other professionals who can only qualify by not using modern technology? Steam loco drivers? -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
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. Next... Do all of those (especially assessing and licensing the drivers to weed out dodgy characters) and Ãœber is effectively pointless. Except that anecdotally, it isn't It can only be "better" than other pirate cars if it fails to comply with the law in some way and gains a competitive advab=ntage 9after all, there is no control,up or down, on pirate car fares). Why makes Uber cabs "pirate cars"? Unlicensed plying-for-hire, of course. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 03/10/2015 02:16, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote: On 02/10/2015 06:26, Robin9 wrote: ;150401 Wrote: Vehicle tests, DBS & Police checks, knowledge tests. Not sure how many could be credibly done by an operator. -- Colin Rosenstiel The vehicle tests and criminal record checks are not done by the operators. Negligent TfL has only delegated knowledge testing to the cab firms who, of course, pass every driver because they want as many drivers as possible. TIs there a street knowledge test (or requirement) for the drivers of the unlicensed vehicles? Surely that's only for taxi-drivers? Surely it's only for black cab drivers in Central London? All London cab-driver applicants have to pass a version of the Knowledge, whether they are going for the "All London" (green badge) or a "suburban rank" (yellow badge). There is no parallel test for the would-be drivers of pirate cars. Other cabbies of all types don't have to get the "knowledge". And are there any other professionals who can only qualify by not using modern technology? Cab-drivers have to be able to do it with their brain. One can only conjecture as to why such a requirement might not be appropriate for pirates. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 03/10/2015 09:07, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 10/3/2015 2:29 AM, JNugent wrote: On 03/10/2015 02:08, Recliner wrote: What the law will not stomach is the operator and/or driver of the cab (or pirate car) doing the arranging. It has to be up to the passenger to do the picking and choosing of travelling companions. Why is that deemed to be a passenger benefit? 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. 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. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 03/10/2015 10:25, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-10-03 01:29:58 +0000, JNugent said: 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. But demand-responsive hailable shared transport (unless you arrange the share) is not available, and seems to be illegal. Why? In order to protect the passenger and preserve his/her right to privacy. What would you think if a minicab driver picked up your daughter in the West End late at night, then airily informed her that she had to share the vehicle from Marble Arch to Ealing with his brother-in-law the convicted rapist and the Southall Strangler? It would seem to provide an effective half-bus half-taxi means of transport in smaller towns where proper bus operation is increasingly unaffordable. Safety first. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 03/10/2015 13:19, tim..... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message ... On 03/10/2015 02:08, Recliner wrote: JNugent wrote: On 01/10/2015 18:53, tim..... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... wrote: In article , (JNugent) wrote: On 30/09/2015 17:49, tim..... wrote: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tph...hire-proposals so what does the team think? tim 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 (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. Do all of those (especially assessing and licensing the drivers to weed out dodgy characters) and Ãœber is effectively pointless. Indeed. The absolutely crucial protection for the public is (b). Why people think it's a good idea to get into cars with possible mass murderers I just don't understand. Those seem fair enough, but I think it would be absurd to stop cabs being boarded within 5 mins or showing a map of locally available cars. By all means protect consumers, but not cartels. For example, in an Internet and Cloud age, why does record keeping have to be based locally? The changes should be based strictly on increasing competition while protecting consumers, not suppliers. One of the points I have issue with is the prohibition of "ride sharing" (by customer choice). Personally, I think that it should be encouraged, I can't understand the Taxi "industries" dislike of it. When travelling in e.g. Germany/Sweden/Finland (all personal experiences), on arrival at the airport I can go to the taxi pick up and chose to share a ride with other people going my way (at the appropriate discount). ISTM that there would be more punters for long distance rides if this was available in the UK. I'm buggered if I'm going to walk up to the rank for a 150 pound taxi for a journey I can do by train for 20 quid, but if offered the opportunity to share the ride with 2 others for 50 quid each I would happily take it. Why is the aversion to this so great that the authorities think that they have to legislate against it, not for it (as other countries do)? tim There is nothing in the London Cab Acts or the Town Police Clauses Act which prevents passengers from teaming up for a joint-hiring. AAMOF, they do it all the time. What the law will not stomach is the operator and/or driver of the cab (or pirate car) doing the arranging. It has to be up to the passenger to do the picking and choosing of travelling companions. Why is that deemed to be a passenger benefit? 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. HTH. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 03/10/2015 13:08, tim..... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message ... On 01/10/2015 18:53, tim..... wrote: There is nothing in the London Cab Acts or the Town Police Clauses Act which prevents passengers from teaming up for a joint-hiring. AAMOF, they do it all the time. That's no bloody use to a solo traveller arriving at an airport (off a plane) Yes, it is. Use an app. Or something. What the law will not stomach is the operator and/or driver of the cab (or pirate car) doing the arranging. But it wouldn't be the driver if it was arranged by an airport "official" True. If the passenger wishes to delegate that choice to a third party, that's fine. The law will not accept the driver being the delegate, that's all. And for good safety-related reasons. It has to be up to the passenger to do the picking and choosing of travelling companions. Why? Because they could be at risk from fellow "passengers". Are you unable to understand that? |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 04/10/2015 12:30, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 03/10/2015 13:08, tim..... wrote: "JNugent" wrote in message ... On 01/10/2015 18:53, tim..... wrote: tim There is nothing in the London Cab Acts or the Town Police Clauses Act which prevents passengers from teaming up for a joint-hiring. AAMOF, they do it all the time. That's no bloody use to a solo traveller arriving at an airport (off a plane) I've done it in Sofia (which meant I only got a /bit/ ripped off compared to getting in a taxi without someone with local knowledge...) and somewhere else I've forgotten. I suggested it to someone in the queue^H^H line with me at a US airport who was getting off the same flight to go to the same hotel for the same conference, but she clearly thought I was mad and quite possibly an ax(e)-murderer and so we joined the convoy of one-passenger cars heading into town. Ah... someone who has (at least partly) cottoned on to the safety aspects. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 04/10/2015 02:44, Denis McMahon wrote:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 18:46:33 +0100, tim..... wrote: "JNugent" wrote in message ... 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) (a) and (b) might refer to licenses issued by the local authority or other delegated body, in addition to any licensing requirements simply to drive a vehicle on the road. This would mean that Uber drivers and vehicles would be subject to relevant local authority licensing regimes. It seems to me that Uber is acting as a Private Hire operator. In doing so, it should be subject to the same regulatory regime as other private hire operators. Exactly. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015-10-03 09:57:52 +0000, Recliner said:
Exactly. There's nothing to stop a group of friends hiring a cab together. But why shouldn't others, who are willing to share but don't have anyone to share with, allow the cab firm to do it? This is a very popular business model in the third world, as it provides extremely economic more-or-less door-to-door transport in countries with poor public transport. It would be less popular here, but that's no reason to make it illegal. I think it could become quite effective to operate that kind of service in rural areas or in the evening and other periods of low public transport demand. There do exist timetabled shared taxi services, but these are so heavily regulated that they are near useless. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015-10-03 12:14:41 +0000, Roland Perry said:
That's no help if all I know is the name of a place, and can't locate it on a map. If in a strange City it can be very difficult to correlate random destinations with "points on a map". You've used Google Maps' search facility before, I'm assuming? Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015-10-04 13:17:54 +0000, JNugent said:
Because they could be at risk from fellow "passengers". Are you unable to understand that? They could when riding a bus or train, as well. Many people choose daily to do that without incident. Nobody is suggesting making this compulsory, simply making it a legal option. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015-10-04 13:14:08 +0000, JNugent said:
Buses are still available, if not always convenient. A taxi is not a bus. The hybrid matatu/jitney model works reasonably well in many countries. Your preferences are not a reason to abolish protection for taxi-passengers. Who's proposing to abolish your ability to hire a taxi to yourself? What is being proposed is allowing people who wish to to take a shared taxi. Those who do not wish to can continue to take one to themselves, obviously at a fare commensurate to that. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015-10-04 09:36:06 +0000, tim..... said:
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. I still don't agree with this - it causes larger, more polluting vehicles to be driven around with one person and a small bag in them much of the time. There must be a better, more effective way of providing roughly the same level of service to those requiring it without having *all* cars, whether plying for hire or pre-bookable, needing to be wasteful massive behemoths when a Daewoo Matiz, Suzuki Wagon etc would be perfectly adequate. Actually, having said that, I noticed on a few recent trips to Bracknell that their hackney carriage fleet consists largely of Citroen Berlingos, Renault Kangoos, Fiat Doblos etc - cars derived from small light vans which are wheelchair accessible while remaining of a manageable size. Perhaps those would make more sense than the massive behemoths? Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015-10-04 10:20:19 +0000, Roland Perry said:
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. Indeed. The principle should be that the accessible vehicles are available on the same terms as the non-accessible ones (e.g. they are kept available for such bookings such that the bookings are satisfied within the same sort of time period as for a non-accesible vehicle) not that every vehicle has to be accessible. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015-10-04 13:13:13 +0000, JNugent said:
In order to protect the passenger and preserve his/her right to privacy. Which they could still choose by requesting sole use of the taxi, just as they do now. The point is not to ban single-user taxis, it is to allow another method of operation. What would you think if a minicab driver picked up your daughter in the West End late at night, then airily informed her that she had to share the vehicle from Marble Arch to Ealing with his brother-in-law the convicted rapist and the Southall Strangler? She wouldn't have requested a shared taxi when booking so the situation would not arise. She would have requested a sole-use taxi. It would seem to provide an effective half-bus half-taxi means of transport in smaller towns where proper bus operation is increasingly unaffordable. Safety first. Why do you seek to deny the option of a money saving shared taxi to those who want it? This would not prevent those who don't want a shared taxi from having one to themselves by paying the fare, as at present, for the whole vehicle. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message , at 14:47:31 on Sun, 4 Oct
2015, Neil Williams remarked: That's no help if all I know is the name of a place, and can't locate it on a map. If in a strange City it can be very difficult to correlate random destinations with "points on a map". You've used Google Maps' search facility before, I'm assuming? Yes, and the results in strange overseas cities can often be very patchy. -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015-10-04, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-10-03 12:14:41 +0000, Roland Perry said: That's no help if all I know is the name of a place, and can't locate it on a map. If in a strange City it can be very difficult to correlate random destinations with "points on a map". You've used Google Maps' search facility before, I'm assuming? It has been known to get addresses wrong or fail to find them entirely. There are also ambiguous addresses where even if it gives you a list choosing the right one may not be easy. It doesn't show every business (even bars and restaurants - and I'm not talking about keeping up with changes) and it gets the type of business wrong. Quickly now, what type of business is "Herbal Inn"? Eric -- ms fnd in a lbry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message
-septe mber.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. -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015-10-04 14:10:10 +0000, Roland Perry said:
Yes, and the results in strange overseas cities can often be very patchy. True, though London, the city in question, has extremely good coverage, and I have never had issues finding anywhere I wanted to go on it. Indeed, it is my primary tool for finding places in London whatever mode of transport I happen to be using. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015-10-04 15:00:03 +0000, Roland Perry said:
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. God forbid they should do anything convenient for the user. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message
-sept ember.org, at 15:16:43 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. It wouldn't be at all surprising if they lurk near places with high demand. Except it causes traffic congestion because they park in awkward places. That's exactly what they're meant to do. 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. Or possibly do an off books "deal" with the customer. And, if the demand is very high, they may be able to benefit from "surge pricing". I see no customer benefit from a five minute delay rule. Perhaps you don't see a customer benefit in private hire cars not being able to operate as hackneys. But that's what the law says. That's the equivalent of high street retailers insisting that Internet retailers not be allowed to offer quick delivery. There isn't an easy retail analogy; except perhaps an unlicenced street trader lurking outside a blue-chip shop and offering to sell people about to enter, "exclusive" items at a discount. -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015-10-04 14:49:57 +0000, Eric said:
It has been known to get addresses wrong or fail to find them entirely. So have taxi drivers. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015-10-04, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-10-04 14:49:57 +0000, Eric said: It has been known to get addresses wrong or fail to find them entirely. So have taxi drivers. Of course, but you did seem to present Google Maps as a better answer. Eric -- ms fnd in a lbry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015-10-04 16:08:41 +0000, Roland Perry said:
Except it causes traffic congestion because they park in awkward places. That, surely, is a matter for traffic enforcement. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015-10-04 16:23:18 +0000, Recliner said:
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). Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 04/10/2015 15:41, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote: On 03/10/2015 02:16, Recliner wrote: JNugent wrote: On 02/10/2015 06:26, Robin9 wrote: ;150401 Wrote: Vehicle tests, DBS & Police checks, knowledge tests. Not sure how many could be credibly done by an operator. -- Colin Rosenstiel The vehicle tests and criminal record checks are not done by the operators. Negligent TfL has only delegated knowledge testing to the cab firms who, of course, pass every driver because they want as many drivers as possible. TIs there a street knowledge test (or requirement) for the drivers of the unlicensed vehicles? Surely that's only for taxi-drivers? Surely it's only for black cab drivers in Central London? All London cab-driver applicants have to pass a version of the Knowledge, whether they are going for the "All London" (green badge) or a "suburban rank" (yellow badge). There is no parallel test for the would-be drivers of pirate cars. Just to be clear, is "pirate cars" your description of all mini cabs? There is no such thing as a mini cab. Do you want to re-phrase your question using valid terms? Other cabbies of all types don't have to get the "knowledge". And are there any other professionals who can only qualify by not using modern technology? Cab-drivers have to be able to do it with their brain. Whenever I've taken a black cab home, I have to provide more driving directions than I do with a mini cab. The Knowledge doe not extend to your street, unless you live in the West End, the City, Kensington or somewhere equally salubrious. One can only conjecture as to why such a requirement might not be appropriate for pirates. Conjecture all you like: mini cabs have technology on their side. There's nothing to stop taxis using satnav. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 04/10/2015 15:41, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote: On 03/10/2015 09:07, Someone Somewhere wrote: On 10/3/2015 2:29 AM, JNugent wrote: On 03/10/2015 02:08, Recliner wrote: What the law will not stomach is the operator and/or driver of the cab (or pirate car) doing the arranging. It has to be up to the passenger to do the picking and choosing of travelling companions. Why is that deemed to be a passenger benefit? 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. 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. Please explain why you think that's a benefit to the customer? I don't. It is not I who recommends that you share a small-ish vehicle with some stranger who may do you harm. Or perhaps you needn't bother, as you've made clear your extreme hostility to customers. Or, as the case actually is, my hostility to any idea that it is right to deny the rights of those passengers. HTH. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 04/10/2015 14:58, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-10-04 13:13:13 +0000, JNugent said: In order to protect the passenger and preserve his/her right to privacy. Which they could still choose by requesting sole use of the taxi, just as they do now. The point is not to ban single-user taxis, it is to allow another method of operation. What would you think if a minicab driver picked up your daughter in the West End late at night, then airily informed her that she had to share the vehicle from Marble Arch to Ealing with his brother-in-law the convicted rapist and the Southall Strangler? She wouldn't have requested a shared taxi when booking so the situation would not arise. She would have requested a sole-use taxi. One rule to apply to all. Vagueness could lead to the passenger being (unnecessarily) in harm's way. It would seem to provide an effective half-bus half-taxi means of transport in smaller towns where proper bus operation is increasingly unaffordable. Safety first. Why do you seek to deny the option of a money saving shared taxi to those who want it? I don't. I don't what the driver or operator to dictate it to the passenger, that's all. Not never, not nohow, no exceptions, less scope for error. This would not prevent those who don't want a shared taxi from having one to themselves by paying the fare, as at present, for the whole vehicle. That's good of you. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 04/10/2015 14:50, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-10-04 13:14:08 +0000, JNugent said: Buses are still available, if not always convenient. A taxi is not a bus. The hybrid matatu/jitney model works reasonably well in many countries. A public transport operator is free to apply for the necessary permissions to make that work. Your preferences are not a reason to abolish protection for taxi-passengers. Who's proposing to abolish your ability to hire a taxi to yourself? What is being proposed is allowing people who wish to to take a shared taxi. Those who do not wish to can continue to take one to themselves, obviously at a fare commensurate to that. As I have already said, several times: that is already allowed. It's just that the passenger decides on the sharing, not the driver or operator. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 04/10/2015 14:48, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-10-04 13:17:54 +0000, JNugent said: Because they could be at risk from fellow "passengers". Are you unable to understand that? They could when riding a bus or train, as well. True. Is that a reason to introduce the same dangers to travelling in a taxi? |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 04/10/2015 15:42, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote: On 04/10/2015 02:44, Denis McMahon wrote: On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 18:46:33 +0100, tim..... wrote: "JNugent" wrote in message ... 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) (a) and (b) might refer to licenses issued by the local authority or other delegated body, in addition to any licensing requirements simply to drive a vehicle on the road. This would mean that Uber drivers and vehicles would be subject to relevant local authority licensing regimes. It seems to me that Uber is acting as a Private Hire operator. In doing so, it should be subject to the same regulatory regime as other private hire operators. Exactly. Has anyone suggested otherwise? Regardless, you'll still call them "pirate cars". The "private hire" driver who never plies for hire in his unlicensed vehicle is a bit like the unlicensed TV watcher who never watches "live TV". Yeah, right. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 04/10/2015 16:00, Roland Perry wrote:
In message -septe mber.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. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message , at 17:07:06 on Sun, 4 Oct
2015, Neil Williams remarked: Yes, and the results in strange overseas cities can often be very patchy. True, though London, the city in question, has extremely good coverage, and I have never had issues finding anywhere I wanted to go on it. Indeed, it is my primary tool for finding places in London whatever mode of transport I happen to be using. I wonder how up to date the maps are. In my home town there's a set of premises which used to be a Vauxhall Garage, that closed about three years ago, but is still marked as such on Google maps. The place was empty for a couple of years and is now a convenience store (invisible to Google maps). Closer to the centre of town, Google hasn't yet caught up with the Post Office, which moved to new premises at the end of last year. Perhaps they rely over-much on crowd-sourcing their premises information, because a couple of retailers who have only been going since the summer *are* shown correctly. But that process doesn't flush out the dross - a branch of Lloyds Pharmacy which closed two years ago in the High Street and was refitted as a Subway/Spar is listed alongside those two on the map. The last place I needed to find on Google Maps was a charity-run care home, and that's completely missing too (it was built in 2005). -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message , at 17:07:43 on Sun, 4 Oct
2015, Neil Williams remarked: 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. God forbid they should do anything convenient for the user. That "convenience" would turn the minicab regulations on their head. -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message
-sept ember.org, at 16:23:18 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. 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. And, if the demand is very high, they may be able to benefit from "surge pricing". I see no customer benefit from a five minute delay rule. Perhaps you don't see a customer benefit in private hire cars not being able to operate as hackneys. But that's what the law says. That's the equivalent of high street retailers insisting that Internet retailers not be allowed to offer quick delivery. There isn't an easy retail analogy; except perhaps an unlicenced street trader lurking outside a blue-chip shop and offering to sell people about to enter, "exclusive" items at a discount. Uber drivers are not unlicensed, They are unlicenced when it comes to plying for hire. and the audit trail for their bookings is far more detailed than any black cab's. -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message , at 17:28:43 on Sun, 4 Oct
2015, Neil Williams remarked: Except it causes traffic congestion because they park in awkward places. That, surely, is a matter for traffic enforcement. Yes, and thousands of them are "moved on". Better for them not to be causing the anti-social menace in the first place. -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message , at 18:50:09 on Sun, 4 Oct
2015, Roland Perry remarked: Yes, and the results in strange overseas cities can often be very patchy. True, though London, the city in question, has extremely good coverage, and I have never had issues finding anywhere I wanted to go on it. Indeed, it is my primary tool for finding places in London whatever mode of transport I happen to be using. I wonder how up to date the maps are. In my home town there's a set of premises which used to be a Vauxhall Garage, that closed about three years ago, but is still marked as such on Google maps. The place was empty for a couple of years and is now a convenience store (invisible to Google maps). Closer to the centre of town, Google hasn't yet caught up with the Post Office, which moved to new premises at the end of last year. Perhaps they rely over-much on crowd-sourcing their premises information, because a couple of retailers who have only been going since the summer *are* shown correctly. But that process doesn't flush out the dross - a branch of Lloyds Pharmacy which closed two years ago in the High Street and was refitted as a Subway/Spar is listed alongside those two on the map. The last place I needed to find on Google Maps was a charity-run care home, and that's completely missing too (it was built in 2005). And of course iPhone maps has a completely different subset of missing/wrong/outdated information :( -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message , Roland Perry
writes The last place I needed to find on Google Maps was a charity-run care home, and that's completely missing too (it was built in 2005). I once needed to check on Google Maps how to get from my place (London/Essex borders) to London Bridge Much to my surprise (I kid you not) the route was Drive to Dover Swim the English Channel to France Swim the Atlantic to New York Drive from New York to Lake Havasu City Arizona London Bridge (the old one rebuilt there) I assume some programmer at Google had a sense of humour. -- Bryan Morris Public Key http://www.pgp.uk.demon.net - 0xCC6237E9 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk