Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#221
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 12:47:50AM +0100, JNugent wrote:
The history of the last 55 years or so is littered with people who wanted to disrupt the taxi industry, always for selfish reasons. Yes, it's called "profit". It's the same selfish reason that drives black cab Luddites to whine about losing their monopoly. -- David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig Are you feeling bored? depressed? slowed down? Evil Scientists may be manipulating the speed of light in your vicinity. Buy our patented instructional video to find out how, and maybe YOU can stop THEM |
#223
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 03:45:22PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:38:01 on Mon, 5 Oct 2015, David Cantrell remarked: If anything it would increase it. Customers don't want to be forced to pointlessly wait so would be more inclined to go with a driver offering an illegal service. I certainly would. Depends when you think people order a Uber. Is it when they are stood on 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? Different people will do different things. Also, I don't know what it's like where you live, but here in London it doesn't rain that often. Last time I summoned an Uber I was already out on the street when I summoned it. I was at a bus stop and the countdown thingy showed that there were no convenient buses for another quarter of an hour. -- header FROM_DAVID_CANTRELL From =~ /david.cantrell/i describe FROM_DAVID_CANTRELL Message is from David Cantrell score FROM_DAVID_CANTRELL 15.72 # This figure from experimentation |
#224
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#225
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#226
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#227
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 06.10.15 6:12, Robin9 wrote:
;150666 Wrote: 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 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. Cartel. |
#228
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 05.10.15 20:44, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-10-05 15:02:38 +0000, y said: 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. Or Milton Keynes is not a city, but it is a "New City", which is a term coined by the CNT to simply mean a large New Town. Neil When is the PRT in Milton Keynes sue to start operating, BTW? |
#229
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2015\10\04 14:56, Neil Williams wrote:
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. .... which implies that the drivers buying and fuelling the most expensive vehicles are deliberately given the least work so that they will always be available. This could only be achieved if the model by which minicab drivers are paid was changed to a normal employment situation, and they would then acquire normal holiday / sick pay / pregnancy leave rights, which would massively inflate the price charged to the user, which would then destroy minicabs' number one selling point and ultimately put all the minicab drivers back on the dole. |
#230
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Taxi drivers protest outside TfL | London Transport | |||
Worst Uber ride ever | London Transport | |||
What's it(!) with Uber? | London Transport | |||
What's it(!) with Uber? | London Transport | |||
Taxi "stops" | London Transport |