In message , at
15:16:31 on Mon, 5 Oct 2015, remarked:
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.

This is a classic case of "let them eat cake". It's perfectly acceptable
to expect to be driven around an unfamiliar area by someone you are
paying to do it.

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.

I've been in a Nottingham Hackney that got lost two miles from the
station

At least with Uber you know the driver will have GPS enabled maps
available (that's how they find their customers, after all).

If you can find your destination on a map.

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.

Minicab drivers, especially in the provinces, do often know where places
are "the Hilton somewhere near Stansted Airport", and so on.

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.

That's simply not true. I'm very happy to catch buses without any input
from the Internet - just a timetable and map at the bus stop.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 20:57:50 on Mon, 5 Oct
2015, Neil Williams remarked:

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

That sort of makes a mockery of the review thing, doesn't it? What if
I don't want the nearest car due to concerns raised in a review?

I don't think it's even true, because of the number of mentions of touts
getting passengers to book their services once inside the car.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 21:18:46 on Mon, 5 Oct
2015, JNugent remarked:

Uber themselves claim to do the vetting (and, IIRC, to provide hire and
reward insurance).

On of the cliams made against Uber is precisely that they don't provide
such 'fleet insurance' and so passengers have to trust that the driver
has bought his own.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 19:09:40
on Mon, 5 Oct 2015, remarked:

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.

Uber is expanding into private pay-for-rideshare and it's not at all
clear that their original model restricted drivers (or 'partners' as
they termed) to those with any kind of local transportation licence.

There may be some hotspots where authorities can demand that, but Uber
is worldwide and it's not much of a stretch to imagine that one size
doesn't fit all international cities.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 23:59:10 on Mon, 5 Oct
2015, JNugent remarked:
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?

Are they perhaps (in London, anyway) "checking that a driver has been
vetted". The system in other cities may well be different.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 16:17:43
on Mon, 5 Oct 2015, 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?

I did say "nearby". Anecdotal evidence from Cambridge suggests that if
you order a Panther car it's not very likely to turn up within five
minutes, or even sometimes twenty-five.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 21:02:52 on Mon, 5 Oct
2015, Neil Williams remarked:

They could be taking off their Uber-hat for that trip.

Then you report them and refuse to pay.

Why would someone do that, especially if offered a discount fare?
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 16:26:53 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Google.

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

Well, if you can't read the signs or cards advertising minicabs that are
usually in obvious positions in a lot of establishments. And in fact some
hospitals have a dedicated phone that goes straight through to the local
cab office.

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.

I think you'll find you'll have to actually speak to the driver at some point.
Unless you intend to text him via google translate from the back seat.

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.

So fill us in on how they're vetted then.

--
Spud

In message , at 20:31:42 on Mon, 5 Oct 2015,
tim..... remarked:

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.

It's queuing theory 101, not that difficult.

to a graduate level statistician perhaps,

You do Stats 101 in the first year!

to the average numpty who runs a cab office?

You think decisions about fleet procurement are done by a numpty in the
cab office?

What's likely to happen is that there's a ready reckoner, perhaps even
stipulated by the local authority, saying something like: "fleets of
2-10 should have one accessible vehicle; 11-25 three; 26-50 four" or
whatever.

But the numpty dispatcher can also use their experience to see how often
a person wanting an accessible car is kept waiting "too long", and make
recommendations to the owner.

btw, they don't sit around waiting for an accessible fare - they take
regular passengers if there's no booking in the queue for an accessible
ride.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:18:59 +0100
JNugent wrote:
On 05/10/2015 16:02, y wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:54:47 +0100
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.

Is english your 2nd language? When 2 words are combined they generally no
longer mean the same as each original word. For example: a riverbus isn't a
red double decker that happens to float.

The word "cab" still has a legal definition, even if you wish it didn't.

It doesn't have a legal definition when combined with another word to form
a new word.

--
Spud