TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

In message , at 00:26:32 on Sat, 10
Oct 2015, JNugent remarked:
With the best will in the world, neither Uber nor any other operator
is in a position to ensure that the vehicle is constantly and
continually insured for hire and reward,

They are, if they have a fleet policy.

Do they?

Apparently one of the issues people have with Uber is they don't.

If that is correct, it means that their assurances on insurance are as
meaningless as those of any other operator.

Not if the other operators have fleet insurance, which it a said that
most in fact do. It's probably the more "irregular" nature of the Uber
workforce (flexitime is one of the selling points) which makes it
difficult to craft a fleet insurance policy, but that doesn't help the
passengers.
--
Roland Perry

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 20:35:59 on Thu, 8 Oct 2015,
tim..... remarked:

As someone else has already remarked (it might have been you),

It was me.

the "pre-booking" does not confer any advantage on anyone (except for
not having to do it close to the time of travel).

The driver will simply be handed a job over his radio. He will
experience no difference as between a pre-booking or one that has just
been rung in by a member of the public. Given that, it's hard to see
why or how a discount for early booking could be expected.

I think it perfectly reasonable when you think you are ringing a mini-cab
firm

The only scenario where pre-booking might be expected to attract a
discount is an "airport run"

That may be true where you come from,

but from where I come from - booking a contract hire vehicle from a mini-cab
company is always cheaper (perhaps I was wrong in using the term "discount",
as that implied I wanted a special deal for me, when what I meant was the
NORMAL cheaper price) than taking a hackney carriage (and that cheaper price
is offered for "ASAP journeys" as well as pre-booked one)

And that is what I expected to happen in Cambridge.

But apparently the citizens of Cambridge are quite happy to pay Hackney
carriage rates for mini-cabs.

more fool them IMHO.

But sorry, 3.50 per mile is far too much for me!

tim

I doubt very much indeed that most minicab firms have
a fleet insurance policy. The biggest firms who provide their
drivers with cars do - e.g Addison Lee - but the majority of
minicab firms do not supply the cars.

The typical London minicab firm operates from small, shabby
premises, and their drivers are self-employed, use their
own cars and arrange their own insurance.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 10/10/2015 16:16, Robin9 wrote:

Roland Perry;150936 Wrote:
In message , at 00:26:32 on Sat, 10
Oct 2015, JNugent remarked:---
With the best will in the world, neither Uber nor any other operator
is in a position to ensure that the vehicle is constantly and
continually insured for hire and reward,

They are, if they have a fleet policy.

Do they?-

Apparently one of the issues people have with Uber is they don't.-

If that is correct, it means that their assurances on insurance are as
meaningless as those of any other operator.-

Not if the other operators have fleet insurance, which it is said that
most in fact do.
Roland Perry

I doubt very much indeed that most minicab firms have
a fleet insurance policy. The biggest firms who provide their
drivers with cars do - e.g Addison Lee - but the majority of
minicab firms do not supply the cars.

The typical London minicab firm operates from small, shabby
premises, and their drivers are self-employed, use their
own cars and arrange their own insurance.

That is certainly my understanding of the position.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

In article ,
(Robin9) wrote:

In message , at 00:26:32 on Sat, 10
Oct 2015, JNugent remarked:---
With the best will in the world, neither Uber nor any other operator
is in a position to ensure that the vehicle is constantly and
continually insured for hire and reward,

They are, if they have a fleet policy.

Do they?-

Apparently one of the issues people have with Uber is they don't.-

If that is correct, it means that their assurances on insurance are
as meaningless as those of any other operator.-

Not if the other operators have fleet insurance, which it is said
that most in fact do. Roland Perry

I doubt very much indeed that most minicab firms have
a fleet insurance policy. The biggest firms who provide their
drivers with cars do - e.g Addison Lee - but the majority of
minicab firms do not supply the cars.

The typical London minicab firm operates from small, shabby
premises, and their drivers are self-employed, use their

Can't speak for London but it's mixed in Cambridge. Some firms do for some
drivers, I know from hire car drivers who came before councillors following
plying for hire convictions. Only some had the 6 points for driving with no
insurance on top.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 11/10/2015 02:08, wrote:
In article ,
(Robin9) wrote:

In message , at 00:26:32 on Sat, 10
Oct 2015, JNugent remarked:---
With the best will in the world, neither Uber nor any other operator
is in a position to ensure that the vehicle is constantly and
continually insured for hire and reward,

They are, if they have a fleet policy.

Do they?-

Apparently one of the issues people have with Uber is they don't.-

If that is correct, it means that their assurances on insurance are
as meaningless as those of any other operator.-

Not if the other operators have fleet insurance, which it is said
that most in fact do. Roland Perry

I doubt very much indeed that most minicab firms have
a fleet insurance policy. The biggest firms who provide their
drivers with cars do - e.g Addison Lee - but the majority of
minicab firms do not supply the cars.

The typical London minicab firm operates from small, shabby
premises, and their drivers are self-employed, use their

Can't speak for London but it's mixed in Cambridge. Some firms do for some
drivers, I know from hire car drivers who came before councillors following
plying for hire convictions. Only some had the 6 points for driving with no
insurance on top.

I assume they were "before councillors" as a means of retaining their
licences.

Unlicensed plying for hire (by drivers of vehicles not licensed to ply
for hire) is pretty conclusive evidence of not being a fit and proper
person within the meaning(s) of the 1976 Act. It demonstrates contempt
for the law.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 11/10/2015 02:08, wrote:
In article ,
(Robin9) wrote:

In message , at 00:26:32 on Sat, 10
Oct 2015, JNugent remarked:---
With the best will in the world, neither Uber nor any other operator
is in a position to ensure that the vehicle is constantly and
continually insured for hire and reward,

They are, if they have a fleet policy.

Do they?-

Apparently one of the issues people have with Uber is they don't.-

If that is correct, it means that their assurances on insurance are
as meaningless as those of any other operator.-

Not if the other operators have fleet insurance, which it is said
that most in fact do. Roland Perry

I doubt very much indeed that most minicab firms have
a fleet insurance policy. The biggest firms who provide their
drivers with cars do - e.g Addison Lee - but the majority of
minicab firms do not supply the cars.

The typical London minicab firm operates from small, shabby
premises, and their drivers are self-employed, use their

Can't speak for London but it's mixed in Cambridge. Some firms do for
some drivers, I know from hire car drivers who came before councillors
following plying for hire convictions. Only some had the 6 points for
driving with no insurance on top.

I assume they were "before councillors" as a means of retaining their
licences.

Unlicensed plying for hire (by drivers of vehicles not licensed to
ply for hire) is pretty conclusive evidence of not being a fit and
proper person within the meaning(s) of the 1976 Act. It demonstrates
contempt for the law.

But is a first offence worthy of a life sentence? Their licences were
generally suspended for a period but that penalty is already many times more
costly to them than that imposed by the court.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 11/10/2015 12:28, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 11/10/2015 02:08, wrote:
In article ,
(Robin9) wrote:

In message , at 00:26:32 on Sat, 10
Oct 2015, JNugent remarked:---
With the best will in the world, neither Uber nor any other operator
is in a position to ensure that the vehicle is constantly and
continually insured for hire and reward,

They are, if they have a fleet policy.

Do they?-

Apparently one of the issues people have with Uber is they don't.-

If that is correct, it means that their assurances on insurance are
as meaningless as those of any other operator.-

Not if the other operators have fleet insurance, which it is said
that most in fact do. Roland Perry

I doubt very much indeed that most minicab firms have
a fleet insurance policy. The biggest firms who provide their
drivers with cars do - e.g Addison Lee - but the majority of
minicab firms do not supply the cars.

The typical London minicab firm operates from small, shabby
premises, and their drivers are self-employed, use their

Can't speak for London but it's mixed in Cambridge. Some firms do for
some drivers, I know from hire car drivers who came before councillors
following plying for hire convictions. Only some had the 6 points for
driving with no insurance on top.

I assume they were "before councillors" as a means of retaining their
licences.

Unlicensed plying for hire (by drivers of vehicles not licensed to
ply for hire) is pretty conclusive evidence of not being a fit and
proper person within the meaning(s) of the 1976 Act. It demonstrates
contempt for the law.

But is a first offence worthy of a life sentence? Their licences were
generally suspended for a period but that penalty is already many times more
costly to them than that imposed by the court.

If you follow the "fit and proper person" reasoning, one conviction is
already one too many. If you're not f&p, you're not f&p, after all. I'd
extend that to DUI for any taxi-driver or pirate car driver.

Unlicensed plying for hire is pretty central to the "minicab" economy
and does severe damage to the business of taxi-drivers. If this wages
snatch (for that is what it is - workers being deprived of - part of -
their earnings) for just one month were concentrated just in one hit, it
would make the front pages of every newspaper.

It ought not to be tolerated at all, as doing so sends out completely
the wrong signals to pirate car drivers and operators.

OK, I can see an argument for clemency; maybe not a whole-life penalty,
but at least a year (as DUI would incur). And the same for any operator
who suffers or permits the use of his facilities - including 2-way
radios - in an effort to disguise the offence.

You are over-stating your case enormously. A huge chunk of
the minicab trade operates in the suburbs, where Hackney cabs
are rarely seen. How many day-time suburban minicab drivers
ply for hire? In fact, what scope is there?

My guess is the only real opportunities to pick up off the street
in the suburbs is about 01.00 outside clubs and pubs with a
late licence.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 02:53:09PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:33:41 on Wed, 7 Oct
2015, y remarked:
Since anyone can become a black cab driver if they want to learn the
knowledge I really don't see the problem.
I'd be a bit disappointed if convicted sex offenders could.

I'd be a bit disappointed if there was a blanket ban. "Sex offender"
covers a huge range of offences, some of which are really not very
serious at all.

--
David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive

I think the most difficult moment that anyone could face is seeing
their domestic servants, whether maid or drivers, run away
-- Abdul Rahman Al-Sheikh, writing on 25 Jan 2004 at
http://archive.arabnews.com/?article=38558