"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 01/10/2015 18:53, tim..... wrote:


tim

There is nothing in the London Cab Acts or the Town Police Clauses Act
which prevents passengers from teaming up for a joint-hiring. AAMOF, they
do it all the time.

That's no bloody use to a solo traveller arriving at an airport (off a
plane)


What the law will not stomach

why the hell not?

what's the rational for this visceral aversion? None that I can see!

I can understand if the argument was "protectionist" (though I wouldn't
agree with it),

But "will not stomach" That's an absolutely bollox reason

is the operator and/or driver of the cab (or pirate car) doing the
arranging.

But it wouldn't be the driver if it was arranged by an airport "official"

It has to be up to the passenger to do the picking and choosing of
travelling companions.

Why?

(and don't say "because the law says so" [1] - The question here is "why
does the law say so")

tim

[1]Which is what you did last time I broached this subject

In message , at 12:48:53 on Sat, 3 Oct
2015, D A Stocks remarked:

Satnavs aren't always very good at trips to *places* rather than
*addresses*. I remember many years ago getting into a cab in central
London with a visitor from the USA and telling the driver the name of
a small restaurant in Kensington. Where he whisked us with no
additional prompting. The visitor was amazed!

With Uber you confirm the pickup and drop off points on a map, and the
search function is probably linked to Google so it will already know
most places.

That's no help if all I know is the name of a place, and can't locate it
on a map. If in a strange City it can be very difficult to correlate
random destinations with "points on a map".
--
Roland Perry

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 03/10/2015 02:08, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 01/10/2015 18:53, tim..... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...

wrote:
In article ,

(JNugent) wrote:

On 30/09/2015 17:49, tim..... wrote:

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tph...hire-proposals

so what does the team think?

tim

The law is clear.

"Services" such as Ãœber cannot operate lawfully unless:

(a) each vehicle is tested and licensed before commencing
operations,

(b) each driver applies for a licence, is investigated and not found
ineligible, before commencing operations, and

(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.

Do all of those (especially assessing and licensing the drivers to
weed out dodgy characters) and Ãœber is effectively pointless.

Indeed. The absolutely crucial protection for the public is (b). Why
people
think it's a good idea to get into cars with possible mass murderers
I just
don't understand.

Those seem fair enough, but I think it would be absurd to stop cabs
being
boarded within 5 mins or showing a map of locally available cars. By
all
means protect consumers, but not cartels. For example, in an Internet
and
Cloud age, why does record keeping have to be based locally? The
changes
should be based strictly on increasing competition while protecting
consumers, not suppliers.

One of the points I have issue with is the prohibition of "ride
sharing"
(by customer choice).

Personally, I think that it should be encouraged, I can't understand
the
Taxi "industries" dislike of it.

When travelling in e.g. Germany/Sweden/Finland (all personal
experiences), on arrival at the airport I can go to the taxi pick up
and
chose to share a ride with other people going my way (at the
appropriate
discount).

ISTM that there would be more punters for long distance rides if this
was available in the UK. I'm buggered if I'm going to walk up to the
rank for a 150 pound taxi for a journey I can do by train for 20 quid,
but if offered the opportunity to share the ride with 2 others for 50
quid each I would happily take it.

Why is the aversion to this so great that the authorities think that
they have to legislate against it, not for it (as other countries do)?

tim

There is nothing in the London Cab Acts or the Town Police Clauses Act
which prevents passengers from teaming up for a joint-hiring. AAMOF,
they do it all the time.

What the law will not stomach is the operator and/or driver of the cab
(or pirate car) doing the arranging. It has to be up to the passenger to
do the picking and choosing of travelling companions.

Why is that deemed to be a passenger benefit?

What?

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.

not from the Airport to my required destination (or even close)

tim

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 18:46:33 +0100, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...

The law is clear.

"Services" such as Ãœber cannot operate lawfully unless:

(a) each vehicle is tested and licensed before commencing operations,

(b) each driver applies for a licence, is investigated and not found
ineligible, before commencing operations, and

Uber will claim that they do do (a) and (b)

(a) and (b) might refer to licenses issued by the local authority or
other delegated body, in addition to any licensing requirements simply to
drive a vehicle on the road.

This would mean that Uber drivers and vehicles would be subject to
relevant local authority licensing regimes.

It seems to me that Uber is acting as a Private Hire operator. In doing
so, it should be subject to the same regulatory regime as other private
hire operators.

--
Denis McMahon,

So far, there is no evidence that Uber drivers in London are not
registered with TfL and therefore have complied with all the
requirements, e.g. health checks, CRB checks. TfL claim they have
carried out on Uber their most thorough check ever on a minicab
firm. Nearly all the scare propaganda about Uber comes from people
with a vested interest in denigrating them, i.e the black cab trade and
politicians too lazy to learn the facts.

In message , at 09:32:10 on Sun, 4
Oct 2015, Robin9 remarked:

So far, there is no evidence that Uber drivers in London are not
registered with TfL and therefore have complied with all the
requirements, e.g. health checks, CRB checks. TfL claim they have
carried out on Uber their most thorough check ever on a minicab
firm. Nearly all the scare propaganda about Uber comes from people
with a vested interest in denigrating them, i.e the black cab trade and
politicians too lazy to learn the facts.

Curiously, it's other minicab firms which are also complaining. I've not
seen much about Uber's drivers failing to be checked by Uber regarding
health and DBS checks, but there's a certain amount of FUD regarding
insurance, which it's claimed is only checked on day-1 and is the
driver's responsibility (rather than traditionally the fleet's
responsibility).

The biggest compliant, however, is that Uber's drivers ply-for-hire and
cause a nuisance by parking up at what are in effect "pirate ranks".
It's a bit ironic that a system allegedly designed to be able to more
easily *pre*-book a car, is in fact being used to circumvent the
distinction between hackneys and private hire.
--
Roland Perry

"Denis McMahon" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 18:46:33 +0100, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...

The law is clear.

"Services" such as Ãœber cannot operate lawfully unless:

(a) each vehicle is tested and licensed before commencing operations,

(b) each driver applies for a licence, is investigated and not found
ineligible, before commencing operations, and

Uber will claim that they do do (a) and (b)

(a) and (b) might refer to licenses issued by the local authority or
other delegated body, in addition to any licensing requirements simply to
drive a vehicle on the road.

This would mean that Uber drivers and vehicles would be subject to
relevant local authority licensing regimes.

It seems to me that Uber is acting as a Private Hire operator. In doing
so, it should be subject to the same regulatory regime as other private
hire operators.

I don't think anyone disagree with that:

What the discussion is really about is should those rules be deliberately
written in such a way as to exclude anyone from operating as a "cab" company
unless they either :

1) have done "the knowledge" or

2) operate as a one man band out of an office in Haringey (or whatever).

Whilst it is clear that individual drivers have to be insured, run safe
cars, be CRB checked etc etc etc what possible reason could there be for
e.g. banning the operation of the "one man cab" out of an office in Slough?

I can see that there are general consumer issues with contracting a service
from a company who operates from a foreign base, but what is there that
makes a taxi company different here? There aren't rules in place than
forbid other types of service being sold by other foreign companies (and for
companies within the EU such rules would be illegal). It for the consumer
to decide if he wants to take thus risk in return for a "better" product.

Of course part of this argument is about the extra costs of
obtaining/running a "ply for hire" cab against the costs of running a
pre-booked cab, when the pre-booked cabs try to find ways of operating as
"ply for hire" in fact without doing so in law. But this problem should be
approached for what it is.

And one issue here is the problem of disability access. If all "ply for
hire" cabs have to conform with the disability act and provide equal access,
then all "contract hire" cabs should as well. This is one area where Uber
is deficient that he should be MADE to comply with.

tim

In message , at 10:36:06 on Sun, 4 Oct 2015,
tim..... remarked:

And one issue here is the problem of disability access. If all "ply
for hire" cabs have to conform with the disability act and provide
equal access, then all "contract hire" cabs should as well. This is
one area where Uber is deficient that he should be MADE to comply with.

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.
--
Roland Perry

On 04.10.15 8:32, Robin9 wrote:
'Denis McMahon[_4_ Wrote:
;150468']On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 18:46:33 +0100, tim..... wrote:
-
"JNugent" wrote in message
...-
--
The law is clear.

"Services" such as Ãœber cannot operate lawfully unless:

(a) each vehicle is tested and licensed before commencing operations,

(b) each driver applies for a licence, is investigated and not found
ineligible, before commencing operations, and-

Uber will claim that they do do (a) and (b)-

(a) and (b) might refer to licenses issued by the local authority or
other delegated body, in addition to any licensing requirements simply
to
drive a vehicle on the road.

This would mean that Uber drivers and vehicles would be subject to
relevant local authority licensing regimes.

It seems to me that Uber is acting as a Private Hire operator. In doing

so, it should be subject to the same regulatory regime as other private

hire operators.

--
Denis McMahon,

So far, there is no evidence that Uber drivers in London are not
registered with TfL and therefore have complied with all the
requirements, e.g. health checks, CRB checks. TfL claim they have
carried out on Uber their most thorough check ever on a minicab
firm. Nearly all the scare propaganda about Uber comes from people
with a vested interest in denigrating them, i.e the black cab trade and
politicians too lazy to learn the facts.




I wonder if there are any accusations of carteling by the black cab trade.

On 03/10/2015 13:08, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 01/10/2015 18:53, tim..... wrote:


tim

There is nothing in the London Cab Acts or the Town Police Clauses Act
which prevents passengers from teaming up for a joint-hiring. AAMOF,
they do it all the time.

That's no bloody use to a solo traveller arriving at an airport (off a
plane)

I've done it in Sofia (which meant I only got a /bit/ ripped off
compared to getting in a taxi without someone with local knowledge...)
and somewhere else I've forgotten.

I suggested it to someone in the queue^H^H line with me at a US airport
who was getting off the same flight to go to the same hotel for the same
conference, but she clearly thought I was mad and quite possibly an
ax(e)-murderer and so we joined the convoy of one-passenger cars heading
into town.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK