In message , at 19:02:56 on Tue, 6 Oct
2015, JNugent remarked:
Are they perhaps (in London, anyway) "checking that a driver has been
vetted". The system in other cities may well be different.

No, it isn't.

The system is exactly the same in London and the rest of E&W: the
operator has to check that drivers to whom he sub-contracts (or
provides) work are licensed and insured.

Vetting also includes criminal records....

Which, of course, a private company cannot do.

That's one reason why local authorities are involved in the vetting
process.

And checking insurance on the
day they join doesn't guarantee they are insured the day after.

True.

But taking the example of a taxi (a proper taxi, I mean) where the
proprietor/driver does not work for or via anyone but himself, the only
foolproof way of checking continuous insurance would be for the
licensing authority to check it every day.

That might be thought to be a bit much. But checking at least once
every few months (and ensuring that the certificate demonstrates a
logical audit trail of uninterrupted cover) is easier and less onerous.

The "Uber issue" is that every driver provides his own insurance. If
Uber had fleet insurance, as I gather most minicab companies do, then
there's several orders of magnitude less paperwork to check.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 01:40:24
on Wed, 7 Oct 2015, remarked:

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.

Not so from family experience. We have found Panther reliable and
professional.

There's nothing wrong with the cars once they arrive, but you probably
get better service on account of being so centrally located.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 18:21:49 on Tue, 6 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!

In the first year of what?

The undergraduate course. I can't believe you really didn't know that.

to the average numpty who runs a cab office?

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

Yep

That explains quite a lot.

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.

so then the disabled pax might have an hour wait for a free cab

That's why you need a sensible ratio, but it's not 100% of the cars.

To wait an hour for the next accessible cab to be available would
indicate an *extremely* small fleet, of course.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 18:17:56 on Tue, 6 Oct 2015,
tim..... remarked:
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.

Yes I know

I enquired about booking cab from the office to the station one day and
when I got told it would be 18 quid for a 6 mile journey. I politely
declined

I was expecting pre-booking to offer a discount, not in Cambridge it seems

Indeed, as Colin has said several times recently - they are metered, not
haggled.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 01:40:23
on Wed, 7 Oct 2015, remarked:
I enquired about booking cab from the office to the station one day
and when I got told it would be 18 quid for a 6 mile journey. I
politely declined

I was expecting pre-booking to offer a discount, not in Cambridge it
seems

Where from? Must have been outside the city.

I think he means he expected a discount because of booking ahead at all.

But that displays a misunderstanding not just of the charging scheme in
Cambridge, but the way most taxi firms handle bookings. All that booking
ahead usually does is cause the cab office to put your details on a bit
of paper, and then send out the same call they would, had you just
phoned for a "car now", at some predetermined time before the pickup.

The only real advantage is the cab office has a degree of insight into
how long before the requested pick-up time they should put the booking
out for bids from the drivers. The passenger might leave it a bit late
to phone for a ride "now" thinking it can't be more than five minutes,
when in fact it's bound to take fifteen to get a car to them.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 20:36:20 +0200
Robin9 wrote:
;150682 Wrote:
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 07:12:13 +0200
Robin9 wrote:-
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.-

Presumably Ubers fake taxis are FUD too?

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/ubers-phantom-cabs

And lets not forget about their "surge" pricing, when black cabs and
most
minicabs have a fixed rate.

And are you so naive to believe that if Uber did put all the black cabs
and minicabs out of business their prices would somehow remain low?

Uber is nothing more than another bunch of silicon valley slimeballs who
move
in unregulated to make a fast buck, disrupting other operators in the
process
who have to follow the law, THEN they comply with the law if they're
forced to.
And you think this is a business model to admire?

--
Spud

What fake taxis are you talking about? I'm not aware that
Uber deploy fake taxis and TfL are not either. To the best
of my knowledge Uber drivers use conventional saloon cars
like the Toyota Prius.

Here's an idea - how about reading the website I conveniently gave you a
link to first before posting drivel.

Uber are not disrupting other service providers. They are competing
with them and they are not unregulated. TfL have confirmed that Uber
are conforming to the same regulations as other London minicab firms.

Oh really? So Uber saying they conform is good enough is it? Anyone done
any spot checks? Its rather easy with a minicab firm that has an office, not
so much when its just some guy with a car and a phone linked to customers
via a server in the USA.

How this eventually plays out, no-one knows. The black cab trade
clearly hasn't the first clue how to compete with Uber and I suspect
that small, local minicab firms do not realise that their days are
numbered.

Apparently you don't realise that not everyone is a 20-something with a
smartphone who is happy using some program - sorry, "app" - to order a cab.
Minicabs might go out of business one day but it'll be years yet.

--
Spud

On Tuesday, 6 October 2015 17:50:21 UTC+2, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
05:10:58 on Tue, 6 Oct 2015, remarked:

I'm talking about the very right wing "Devil take the hindmost" approach
to those not kitted out with all the very latest expensive technology.

A smartphone with GPS and access to google maps is not "the very latest
expensive technology", it's cheap commodity off the shelf technology
that most people already have. You can buy an android handset SIM free
for about £100 these days.

And roaming data?

Having bought your cheapo SIM-free handset, getting a local SIM card at your point of arrival in your foreign destination is dirt cheap.

Getting back to the "Knowledge" thing, it's never been the case that you
needed to point to your destination on a map when instructing a minicab
driver. If it's not possible to describe the destination to them so they
recognise it, they have an A to Z

So your point is you don't have to point out your destination on a map
because they have a map (on which you can point out your destination)?

No, I don't point at their paper map because I don't know exactly where
the destination is. It's their job to translate the description of the
destination to co-ordinates.

So just like an Uber driver then. Except that Uber drivers have the ability to search on google if they don't recognise your description, whereas a conventional minicab driver with an AtoZ will just be left guessing.

That's nonsense because the minicab is driving around the streets all
day, every day of the week. Of course he'll be more familiar than I am
about where some random destination I've never been before might be
located.

What's your point here? Before you were arguing that minicab drivers
might not know where you are going and how terrible that was, and now
you are saying that minicab drivers will know where they are going
because they drive around the place all the time and get to know the
neighbourhood. Well which is it?

It's the way that Uber drivers can apparently fail to concede they have
any local knowledge about destinations, because it's the passenger's
responsibility to point to a location on a map.

Do you have experience of Uber drivers behaving like this, or are you just making this up? I mean it's not like Uber drivers are making a living by driving people around where they might notice local landmarks or anything.

You've been banging on about all these places you might want to go that
can't be found on google maps, and then when you give an example you
chose one that can be found on google maps in a trifle. So where are
all these places people want to go that can't be found on google maps?

Your starter for ten: The Ely Post Office.

Typing that into the maps app on my phone puts a pin in the map on Market St, a little to the east of where the pedestrianised "Chequer Ln" meets it. It also offers up a link to www.postoffice.co.uk, and if I follow that and type "Ely" into its branch finder, it offers a street address of

Central Hall, Unit 2,
Market Street,
Ely,
Cambridgeshire
CB7 4LU

A google search for "Ely Post Office" also turns up some local newspaper stories form January suggesting it has moved to "permanent" premises on Market St after being in a portacabin for a while. Has it moved again (and www.postoffice.co.uk not been updated)?

You might be happy to do this, but it is definitely not the most
"timely and affordable" way of doing things.

It's more affordable than buying a smartphone.

So is staying at home. You specifically didn't say "cheapest
possible", you chose to argue on a condition, "timely and affordable".
Smartphones are not expensive these days and have myriad uses beyond
finding public transport.

Are we really arguing about the difference between "most affordable" and
"cheapest possible". If so I give up.

No, "timely and affordable" is not the same as "most affordable" or "cheapest possible". Walking to the bus stop and looking at the signs on it (and hoping they are correct) is cheaper than using a smart phone, but is not the most efficient way of conducting that journey. Smartphones have reached the price point where they are affordable to all parts of society.

And where I live there are only two bus stops in the High Street, twenty
feet apart.

Which is not in London. As this is uk.transport.london, I figured an
example of buses in London would be a more appropriate example.

London is big enough, I could find a similar example if I wanted to.

Right, but without knowing a priori that there is or is not a second alternative bus route, you have no way of knowing that the bus stop you have chosen is the best one to use for your journey. Some journeys have only a single bus route, others have multiple. If you want the most timely journey option, you need to do a bit of research. Back in the day the time taken to do that was prohibitive. Today, with modern, affordable technology, it is not.

Robin

On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 08:26:10 +0000 (UTC), y wrote:
Uber are not disrupting other service providers. They are competing
with them and they are not unregulated. TfL have confirmed that Uber
are conforming to the same regulations as other London minicab firms.

Oh really? So Uber saying they conform is good enough is it? Anyone done
any spot checks? Its rather easy with a minicab firm that has an office, not
so much when its just some guy with a car and a phone linked to customers
via a server in the USA.

Uber London Limited have a Private hire Operator Licence (#7979) and an
office in Tower Hamlets (1st Floor Aldgate Tower, 2 Leman Street). TfL
say they have done compliance checks.

On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 10:58:05 +0100
David Walters wrote:
On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 08:26:10 +0000 (UTC), y
wrote:
Uber are not disrupting other service providers. They are competing
with them and they are not unregulated. TfL have confirmed that Uber
are conforming to the same regulations as other London minicab firms.

Oh really? So Uber saying they conform is good enough is it? Anyone done
any spot checks? Its rather easy with a minicab firm that has an office, not
so much when its just some guy with a car and a phone linked to customers
via a server in the USA.

Uber London Limited have a Private hire Operator Licence (#7979) and an
office in Tower Hamlets (1st Floor Aldgate Tower, 2 Leman Street). TfL
say they have done compliance checks.

So they've done background checks on all the drivers have they? Yeah, right.

--
Spud

In message , at
02:53:33 on Wed, 7 Oct 2015, remarked:

I'm talking about the very right wing "Devil take the hindmost" approach
to those not kitted out with all the very latest expensive technology.

A smartphone with GPS and access to google maps is not "the very latest
expensive technology", it's cheap commodity off the shelf technology
that most people already have. You can buy an android handset SIM free
for about £100 these days.

And roaming data?

Having bought your cheapo SIM-free handset, getting a local SIM card at
your point of arrival in your foreign destination is dirt cheap.

Have you actually tried that in authoritarian countries like India or
Egypt? And when I went looking for a local SIM in Brussels it took me
several days to find a shop which had one - they don't have phone stores
on every street corner like we do in London.

Getting back to the "Knowledge" thing, it's never been the case that you
needed to point to your destination on a map when instructing a minicab
driver. If it's not possible to describe the destination to them so they
recognise it, they have an A to Z

So your point is you don't have to point out your destination on a map
because they have a map (on which you can point out your destination)?

No, I don't point at their paper map because I don't know exactly where
the destination is. It's their job to translate the description of the
destination to co-ordinates.

So just like an Uber driver then. Except that Uber drivers have the
ability to search on google if they don't recognise your description,
whereas a conventional minicab driver with an AtoZ will just be left
guessing.

Hold on! I thought you couldn't get a Uber driver to be assigned to you
unless *you* had *first* pointed to the destination on an online map.

That's nonsense because the minicab is driving around the streets all
day, every day of the week. Of course he'll be more familiar than I am
about where some random destination I've never been before might be
located.

What's your point here? Before you were arguing that minicab drivers
might not know where you are going and how terrible that was, and now
you are saying that minicab drivers will know where they are going
because they drive around the place all the time and get to know the
neighbourhood. Well which is it?

It's the way that Uber drivers can apparently fail to concede they have
any local knowledge about destinations, because it's the passenger's
responsibility to point to a location on a map.

Do you have experience of Uber drivers behaving like this, or are you
just making this up?

See above. What's your experience of hiring a Uber driver and then
*afterwards* discussing with them where you want to go?

I mean it's not like Uber drivers are making a living by driving people
around where they might notice local landmarks or anything.

You've been banging on about all these places you might want to go that
can't be found on google maps, and then when you give an example you
chose one that can be found on google maps in a trifle. So where are
all these places people want to go that can't be found on google maps?

Your starter for ten: The Ely Post Office.

Typing that into the maps app on my phone puts a pin in the map on
Market St, a little to the east of where the pedestrianised "Chequer
Ln" meets it.

That's presumably an iPhone, not Google maps.

It also offers up a link to www.postoffice.co.uk, and if I follow that
and type "Ely" into its branch finder, it offers a street address of

Central Hall, Unit 2,
Market Street,
Ely,
Cambridgeshire
CB7 4LU

A google search for "Ely Post Office" also turns up some local
newspaper stories form January suggesting it has moved to "permanent"
premises on Market St after being in a portacabin for a while. Has it
moved again (and www.postoffice.co.uk not been updated)?

That's the final location, but Google maps hasn't caught up yet.

You might be happy to do this, but it is definitely not the most
"timely and affordable" way of doing things.

It's more affordable than buying a smartphone.

So is staying at home. You specifically didn't say "cheapest
possible", you chose to argue on a condition, "timely and affordable".
Smartphones are not expensive these days and have myriad uses beyond
finding public transport.

Are we really arguing about the difference between "most affordable" and
"cheapest possible". If so I give up.

No, "timely and affordable" is not the same as "most affordable" or
"cheapest possible". Walking to the bus stop and looking at the signs
on it (and hoping they are correct) is cheaper than using a smart
phone, but is not the most efficient way of conducting that journey.
Smartphones have reached the price point where they are affordable to
all parts of society.

I disagree. Neither a monthly contract, nor an unlocked phone plus a
maze of "SIM only" deals to negotiate, are value for money for someone
who only needs it once or twice a month.

And where I live there are only two bus stops in the High Street, twenty
feet apart.

Which is not in London. As this is uk.transport.london, I figured an
example of buses in London would be a more appropriate example.

London is big enough, I could find a similar example if I wanted to.

Right, but without knowing a priori that there is or is not a second
alternative bus route, you have no way of knowing that the bus stop you
have chosen is the best one to use for your journey. Some journeys
have only a single bus route, others have multiple. If you want the
most timely journey option, you need to do a bit of research. Back in
the day the time taken to do that was prohibitive.

Not when there are two adjacent bus stops, and about four routes to
choose from.

Today, with modern, affordable technology, it is not.

Actually, very many online bus timetable resources in the provinces are
woefully out of date.
--
Roland Perry