On 05/10/2015 22:17, wrote:
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).

Quite.

So Uber would have no need, occasion or access to resources to do any
"vetting" - so why do they and their acolytes make anything out of it?

On 2015-10-05 21:17:42 +0000, said:

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.

So is there no competition between the private hire firms on price?
Interesting. There are some "dual purpose" taxis in Milton Keynes, but
the rate used depends on whether you've pre-booked (private hire) or
not (hackney). I can't remember if the meter is used in the private
hire case with a different rate, though there are places where it is.

The above is closer to Germany etc - there are just taxis which you can
either hail or pre-book - no distinction.

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

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

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
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'll assume that it was a question.

Your saying anything at all on usenet is not an attack on a legitimate
business. Or at least, not one worth the name.

It is the proposed de-regulation of the licensed taxi trade and the
proposed relaxation of controls on pirate cars which would disrupt the
legitimate livelihood of others.

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

Who is "them"?

cabbies

And how do you propose to "explaining" this to cabbies?

And for a bonus point, why should they pay you any attention?

The history of the last 55 years or so is littered with people who
wanted to disrupt the taxi industry, always for selfish reasons.

In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

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.

The latter is not an issue in most of England outside London. In Cambridge
the accessible cabs are a mixture of London-type vehicles and various van
types.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 05/10/2015 20:48, Neil Williams wrote:

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.

The council is just a third party and could lawfully do it.

Whether they would is another matter.

In Cambridge the station forecourt taxi rank is not public highway. This
means the railway charges taxi drivers a tidy annual sum for access and
limits it to only some hackney carriages. Any activity with queues could
only happen with the co-operation of the railway company. I tried to get the
council to insist that the new rank being created in the current station
redevelopment would be public highway but this was successfully resisted by
the railway industry.

There has to be another taxi rank further from the station but on the public
highway to allow for the next time the railway company tries to raise the
charges excessively to a level the trade won't pay. Happened in BR days and
again 25 years later.

It stinks but the local authorities seem powerless to stop the scam.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

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.

It's not just wheelchairs. Before my granddaughter was walking and in a
buggy her mother couldn't get her onto older local buses (London cast-offs)
because of the centre pole in the entrances which she could not get the
buggy past. To get her and baby onto the bus and fold the buggy she needed 3
hands. Some drivers treated her appallingly.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 20:20:37 +0100, JNugent wrote:

The law is clear.

(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.

Does this mean that it's unlawful for a private hire company based
outside of London to accept a booking for a journey starting in London?

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.

If LHR is a special case, substitute St Pancras International. Or even
staying in a central London Hotel for a few days.

--
Denis McMahon,

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.

On 10/5/2015 8:58 PM, JNugent wrote:
On 05/10/2015 18:47, tim..... wrote:


No, the passenger has to (somehow) find the other passages, that's not
the same thing at all (and completely impractical for out of London
destinations)

It could be done via an app on mobile phones. There are already similar
ways of locating people in an area with similar interests.

But don't make the mistake of assuming that your requirements are the
same as everyone else's.

So your only argument against all of this is that the driver shouldn't
be burdened with somehow putting together the relevant group of passengers?

Seems like a jobsworths argument to me - if the group is "dangerous" (by
whatever definition) it doesn't really matter who put them together as
long as the relevant legal framework on liability is in place.