TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 2015-10-04 21:36:16 +0000, JNugent said:

Not legal

I know that.

and vanishingly unlikely to become legal any time soon.

Probably also true.

See whether you can work out why (clue: the PCO's FIRST priority is
always passenger safety).

I would suggest that, as with any other situation, a risk assessment is
made and cost-benefit analysis conducted. People say safety is the
first priority, but it almost never is - not even with industries where
it is a high priority like rail and air travel.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 2015-10-04 22:21:04 +0000, said:

We couldn't find a mechanism to manage this, even from the station with its
legendary taxi queues.

At the station might it have just about worked to put up a sign saying
something like "Why not ask others if they will share your taxi to keep
costs down and keep things moving? Wait here if you'd like to do
this." - leaving it to the passengers to get together to hire a taxi
and split its fare, and thus making it legal?

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 2015-10-05 13:19:08 +0000, David Cantrell said:

TfL staff manage to do it at central London stations occasionally, so
there's no reason that their Cambridge equivalent couldn't, or that the
local taxi companies couldn't find people to do it for their drivers.

I thought the law was that the taxi companies could in fact not do it?
Not sure about the Council though.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 2015-10-04 21:55:16 +0000, Recliner said:

The booking service should be allowed to offer that option to those who
want it. It's in a position to be aware of multiple customers who want to
follow the same route; individual drivers and passengers are not.

Precisely. Provided the option remains to have a car to yourself, who
is anyone else to say I should not subcontract arranging a share to
save money?

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 2015-10-04 19:45:01 +0000, said:

Bear in mind that "accessible" isn't a simple binary. My late mother
couldn't use black cabs late in her life because she couldn't make the step
up to climb in.

As a tall person I find it very awkward to get in a Hackney carriage as
well - I'd forgotten that - another reason I'm not a fan of them.

The Berlingo type cabs in Bracknell are *very* accessible in this sense
(but not the Fiat Doblos which have a high step-over to get in the back
seat). Other than the lack of a tight turning circle (though they
aren't *bad*) they seem far better for the purpose than an actual
Hackney carriage. Much cheaper, too, which can keep fares down.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 05/10/2015 18:24, Mark Bestley wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 05/10/2015 17:23, Mark Bestley wrote:
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.

Which law?

In London?

I thought that was Hackney carriages

Taxis (a/k/a cabs) in London are licensed (and gain their legal
existence) from the various London Cab Acts.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 05/10/2015 20:28, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 17:26, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:11:53 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:45:22 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
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.

You don't have to know the names and phone numbers of local mini
cab firms,

Google.

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


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.


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.

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.

I don't believe that they do

they claim that they have checked the driver has been vetted (the rest
is just lost in lazy journalism)

Every "private hire" operator has to do that.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 05/10/2015 18:41, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 09:18, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 10/4/2015 2:10 PM, JNugent wrote:
On 03/10/2015 09:07, Someone Somewhere wrote:
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.


What? There's a bus that takes me from Heathrow to outside my
house in
Shadwell?

Provided you're willing to change a few times, yes.


More times than the TfL planner can cope with to get outside my house.

That's a problem you have with buses. Not everyone has it.

The fact that you do is not a good reason for disrupting the
legitimate livelihood of others.

How is my saying "if you wont provide a legitimate way of my sharing a
cab (on an ad hoch basis with someone that I don't know), I wont be
using a cab at all" an attack on a legitimate business

Was that a question?

I explaining to them how they can get business that they have otherwise
lost

Who is "them"?

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 2015-10-04 19:45:01 +0000, said:

Especially as there are some people to whom black cabs are NOT accessible.

Some solutions for wheelchair accessibility make things worse for those
who can walk but only just. For instance, while low-floor buses are
good for everyone, the removal of the central pole does make it
difficult for people to climb aboard. I saw this today, FWIW, and see
it most times I use a bus - there is an elderly person who finds it
hard to walk aboard almost every bus, but almost never a wheelchair, at
least outside London. And I can see why - if I were in a wheelchair
and able to drive an adapted car, I would travel exclusively by car.
And I think most wheelchair users do if it is an option.

I'm not sure of the answer to this if the regional bus companies
continue to insist on not using a dual-door approach, where a pole
could be provided at the front and wheelchairs board at the centre
door. Though even in London the pole is missing, even at the rear of
the Boris bus where that door is not used for wheelchairs - there is a
pole, but it isn't in the middle so there is still no way to board
while using both hands to help haul yourself up.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 05/10/2015 18:46, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 03/10/2015 13:19, tim..... wrote:



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)

Buses are still available, if not always convenient. A taxi is not a bus.

Your preferences are not a reason to abolish protection for
taxi-passengers.

But it's someone else's choice of protection, that I personally don't
believe that I need.

I know, let's ban woman going into pubs on their own - for their own
protection!

just see what an uproar that proposal would cause!

You are arguing like a fifth-former, absolutely confident that only you
have the answers to problems that were solved a hundred years ago.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 2015-10-04 20:27:38 +0000, Recliner said:

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?

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 05/10/2015 18:47, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 04/10/2015 14:50, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-10-04 13:14:08 +0000, JNugent said:

Buses are still available, if not always convenient. A taxi is not a
bus.

The hybrid matatu/jitney model works reasonably well in many countries.

A public transport operator is free to apply for the necessary
permissions to make that work.

Your preferences are not a reason to abolish protection for
taxi-passengers.

Who's proposing to abolish your ability to hire a taxi to yourself? What
is being proposed is allowing people who wish to to take a shared taxi.
Those who do not wish to can continue to take one to themselves,
obviously at a fare commensurate to that.

As I have already said, several times: that is already allowed.

It's just that the passenger decides on the sharing, not the driver or
operator.

No, the passenger has to (somehow) find the other passages, that's not
the same thing at all (and completely impractical for out of London
destinations)

It could be done via an app on mobile phones. There are already similar
ways of locating people in an area with similar interests.

But don't make the mistake of assuming that your requirements are the
same as everyone else's.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 2015-10-05 15:05:13 +0000, y said:

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.

Trying to talk to someone from inside a loud nightclub can be a
challenge, for one. But many people (and not just Asperger's
sufferers) prefer to press a few buttons on an app than faff about
making a telephone call. Additionally, credit card payment is a
benefit - I pay for most things by card these days, why not a taxi?
It's a relatively high value transaction. I wouldn't pay a £10+ train
fare in cash. Indeed, I never pay *any* train fares in cash, always
credit card.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 20:28, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 17:26, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:11:53 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:45:22 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
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.

You don't have to know the names and phone numbers of local mini
cab firms,

Google.

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


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.


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.

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.

I don't believe that they do

they claim that they have checked the driver has been vetted (the rest
is just lost in lazy journalism)

Every "private hire" operator has to do that.

so what were you complaining about then?


tim

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 18:41, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 09:18, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 10/4/2015 2:10 PM, JNugent wrote:
On 03/10/2015 09:07, Someone Somewhere wrote:
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.


What? There's a bus that takes me from Heathrow to outside my
house in
Shadwell?

Provided you're willing to change a few times, yes.


More times than the TfL planner can cope with to get outside my house.

That's a problem you have with buses. Not everyone has it.

The fact that you do is not a good reason for disrupting the
legitimate livelihood of others.

How is my saying "if you wont provide a legitimate way of my sharing a
cab (on an ad hoch basis with someone that I don't know), I wont be
using a cab at all" an attack on a legitimate business

Was that a question?

I explaining to them how they can get business that they have otherwise
lost

Who is "them"?

cabbies

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 2015-10-05 16:08:52 +0000, y said:

nor explain the address to someone who may not have a shared language.

Right, because Uber drivers are always natives.

You don't have to explain the destination to *anyone* - that's the
point. They are told it by the app.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 2015-10-05 07:12:03 +0000, Roland Perry said:

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

Then you report them and refuse to pay.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 05/10/2015 20:48, Neil Williams wrote:

On 2015-10-04 22:21:04 +0000, said:

We couldn't find a mechanism to manage this, even from the station
with its legendary taxi queues.

At the station might it have just about worked to put up a sign saying
something like "Why not ask others if they will share your taxi to keep
costs down and keep things moving? Wait here if you'd like to do this."
- leaving it to the passengers to get together to hire a taxi and split
its fare, and thus making it legal?

That might work, though there is a real risk that unlicensed touts would
interpose themselves and start offering "service".

Incidentally, there is a working system at Newark Airport where a
despatcher (employed by the airport) allocates passengers/groups of
passengers to taxis with a flat fare (flat by the vehicle, not per
capita) to specific places. That's places, not addresses. The last time
I used it I paid $45 from the airport to a NJ city on the Hudson.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 05/10/2015 20:48, Neil Williams wrote:

On 2015-10-05 13:19:08 +0000, David Cantrell said:

TfL staff manage to do it at central London stations occasionally, so
there's no reason that their Cambridge equivalent couldn't, or that the
local taxi companies couldn't find people to do it for their drivers.

I thought the law was that the taxi companies could in fact not do it?
Not sure about the Council though.

The council is just a third party and could lawfully do it.

Whether they would is another matter.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 2015-10-05 07:17:02 +0000, Roland Perry said:

"Hello, dodgy-cabs Cambridge Station, can I help you"
"Yes I need to get to the Guildhall"
"OK, cross the road and you'll find your pre-booked car waiting on the
double yellow lines, look for the driver with his hand in the air".

Modify that a bit and you have a private hire booking office. One of
the local companies operates one out of a portakabin in Central MK on a
Saturday evening, the cars wait in a car park nearby and come over to
the office once you have booked in there. Unlike the black cabs, they
are reputable and charge you the correct fare rather than refusing to
use the meter and ripping you off.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 2015-10-05 15:45:59 +0000, Eric said:

"It's fine for me, so how could anyone else have a problem?"?

I think we're simply saying it is better than some drivers'
"Knowledge", not that it's perfect.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 05/10/2015 21:01, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 20:28, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 17:26, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:11:53 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:45:22 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
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.

You don't have to know the names and phone numbers of local mini
cab firms,

Google.

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


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.


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.

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.

I don't believe that they do

they claim that they have checked the driver has been vetted (the rest
is just lost in lazy journalism)

Every "private hire" operator has to do that.

so what were you complaining about then?

The current situation is completely unclear.

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.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

In article ,
(tim.....) wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

And of course, it leaves the possibility of (illegal) increase in
price for the disabled cab. If all cabs are accessible them the
disabled pax doesn't need to announce their requirement, but if they
are required to announce it how do you ensue that the request hasn't
magically entered the "surge pricing" zone?

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.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 05/10/2015 17:09, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 04/10/2015 23:21, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 04/10/2015 16:00, Roland Perry wrote:
In
-se
ptember.org, at 14:41:13 on Sun, 4 Oct 2015, Recliner
remarked:

Why makes Uber cabs "pirate cars"?

Unlicensed plying-for-hire, of course.

But they don't. They can only come when a registered customer books
one. So they're not pirate cars.

One of the main complaints in London is that they lurk around places
where people might want a cab, and then presumably get the customer
to book them on the spot. That's the reason for the 5-minute timeout
proposed in the consultation.

Well, that's an example of the unlicensed plying for hire.

How come? If the booking is recorded by the hire operator it isn't
illegal plying for hire.

"...get the customer to book them on the spot".

That's touting. Unlicensed plying for hire. Even a licensed driver
isn't allowed to tout.

Your interpretation depends on the order things happen. In my scenario
the hirer activates the Uber app, only possibly after seeing the car.

That is still plying for hire.

Not in law. The driver has to do something active.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 15:05:13 on Mon, 5
Oct 2015, y 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?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message
-september
..org, at 09:13:59 on Mon, 5 Oct 2015, Recliner
remarked:

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-an...and-enforcemen
t

No comments?

Still no comments?

What's there to comment on? It shows that some private hire drivers
don't follow the rules. I don't think anyone was disputing that.

You appear to be claiming that no Uber drivers fall into that category.

I don't know whether they do or not. I didn't think any firms were
mentioned in that article?

Uber was mentioned in the other article. Enforcement officers
identify Uber cars by the simple expedient of using the Uber app!

One of the tricks the touts do is to park illegally in taxi ranks
(hence the large numbers "moved on" before they have a chance to get
a fare and be prosecuted for plying for hire), and thus force black
cabs to double-park in the street, from where the black cabs are also
moved on. The upshot is that the touts get first dibs on people
emerging from venues near the ranks.

One infringement I've never seen in Cambridge. Hackney drivers here are
pretty fierce at enforcing against abuse of their ranks!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

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).

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

"Neil Williams" wrote

said:

We couldn't find a mechanism to manage this, even from the station with
its
legendary taxi queues.

At the station might it have just about worked to put up a sign saying
something like "Why not ask others if they will share your taxi to keep
costs down and keep things moving? Wait here if you'd like to do
this." - leaving it to the passengers to get together to hire a taxi
and split its fare, and thus making it legal?

Following an obvious link, here's a link to Marshalled taxi ranks in London

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/taxis-and-m...led-taxi-ranks

eg Kingston town centre, Clarence Street, Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays,
22:30 - 02:30


--
Mike D

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

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.

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

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.

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.

Robin

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 05/10/2015 22:17, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 05/10/2015 17:09, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 04/10/2015 23:21, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 04/10/2015 16:00, Roland Perry wrote:
In
-se
ptember.org, at 14:41:13 on Sun, 4 Oct 2015, Recliner
remarked:

Why makes Uber cabs "pirate cars"?

Unlicensed plying-for-hire, of course.

But they don't. They can only come when a registered customer books
one. So they're not pirate cars.

One of the main complaints in London is that they lurk around places
where people might want a cab, and then presumably get the customer
to book them on the spot. That's the reason for the 5-minute timeout
proposed in the consultation.

Well, that's an example of the unlicensed plying for hire.

How come? If the booking is recorded by the hire operator it isn't
illegal plying for hire.

"...get the customer to book them on the spot".

That's touting. Unlicensed plying for hire. Even a licensed driver
isn't allowed to tout.

Your interpretation depends on the order things happen. In my scenario
the hirer activates the Uber app, only possibly after seeing the car.

That is still plying for hire.

Not in law. The driver has to do something active.

Nonsense.

Being ostentatiously "available for hire" is plying for hire. That is
all that (proper) taxi-drivers are doing when sitting on a rank.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 05/10/2015 22:17, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

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?

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 2015-10-05 21:17:42 +0000, said:

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.

So is there no competition between the private hire firms on price?
Interesting. There are some "dual purpose" taxis in Milton Keynes, but
the rate used depends on whether you've pre-booked (private hire) or
not (hackney). I can't remember if the meter is used in the private
hire case with a different rate, though there are places where it is.

The above is closer to Germany etc - there are just taxis which you can
either hail or pre-book - no distinction.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 05/10/2015 21:01, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 18:41, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 09:18, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 10/4/2015 2:10 PM, JNugent wrote:
On 03/10/2015 09:07, Someone Somewhere wrote:
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.


What? There's a bus that takes me from Heathrow to outside my
house in
Shadwell?

Provided you're willing to change a few times, yes.


More times than the TfL planner can cope with to get outside my house.

That's a problem you have with buses. Not everyone has it.

The fact that you do is not a good reason for disrupting the
legitimate livelihood of others.

How is my saying "if you wont provide a legitimate way of my sharing a
cab (on an ad hoch basis with someone that I don't know), I wont be
using a cab at all" an attack on a legitimate business

Was that a question?

I'll assume that it was a question.

Your saying anything at all on usenet is not an attack on a legitimate
business. Or at least, not one worth the name.

It is the proposed de-regulation of the licensed taxi trade and the
proposed relaxation of controls on pirate cars which would disrupt the
legitimate livelihood of others.

I explaining to them how they can get business that they have otherwise
lost

Who is "them"?

cabbies

And how do you propose to "explaining" this to cabbies?

And for a bonus point, why should they pay you any attention?

The history of the last 55 years or so is littered with people who
wanted to disrupt the taxi industry, always for selfish reasons.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On 2015-10-04 19:45:01 +0000, said:

Bear in mind that "accessible" isn't a simple binary. My late mother
couldn't use black cabs late in her life because she couldn't make the
step up to climb in.

As a tall person I find it very awkward to get in a Hackney carriage
as well - I'd forgotten that - another reason I'm not a fan of them.

The Berlingo type cabs in Bracknell are *very* accessible in this
sense (but not the Fiat Doblos which have a high step-over to get in
the back seat). Other than the lack of a tight turning circle
(though they aren't *bad*) they seem far better for the purpose than
an actual Hackney carriage. Much cheaper, too, which can keep fares down.

The latter is not an issue in most of England outside London. In Cambridge
the accessible cabs are a mixture of London-type vehicles and various van
types.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 05/10/2015 20:48, Neil Williams wrote:

On 2015-10-05 13:19:08 +0000, David Cantrell said:

TfL staff manage to do it at central London stations occasionally, so
there's no reason that their Cambridge equivalent couldn't, or that the
local taxi companies couldn't find people to do it for their drivers.

I thought the law was that the taxi companies could in fact not do it?
Not sure about the Council though.

The council is just a third party and could lawfully do it.

Whether they would is another matter.

In Cambridge the station forecourt taxi rank is not public highway. This
means the railway charges taxi drivers a tidy annual sum for access and
limits it to only some hackney carriages. Any activity with queues could
only happen with the co-operation of the railway company. I tried to get the
council to insist that the new rank being created in the current station
redevelopment would be public highway but this was successfully resisted by
the railway industry.

There has to be another taxi rank further from the station but on the public
highway to allow for the next time the railway company tries to raise the
charges excessively to a level the trade won't pay. Happened in BR days and
again 25 years later.

It stinks but the local authorities seem powerless to stop the scam.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On 2015-10-04 19:45:01 +0000, said:

Especially as there are some people to whom black cabs are NOT
accessible.

Some solutions for wheelchair accessibility make things worse for
those who can walk but only just. For instance, while low-floor
buses are good for everyone, the removal of the central pole does
make it difficult for people to climb aboard. I saw this today,
FWIW, and see it most times I use a bus - there is an elderly person
who finds it hard to walk aboard almost every bus, but almost never a
wheelchair, at least outside London. And I can see why - if I were
in a wheelchair and able to drive an adapted car, I would travel
exclusively by car. And I think most wheelchair users do if it is an
option.

I'm not sure of the answer to this if the regional bus companies
continue to insist on not using a dual-door approach, where a pole
could be provided at the front and wheelchairs board at the centre
door. Though even in London the pole is missing, even at the rear of
the Boris bus where that door is not used for wheelchairs - there is
a pole, but it isn't in the middle so there is still no way to board
while using both hands to help haul yourself up.

It's not just wheelchairs. Before my granddaughter was walking and in a
buggy her mother couldn't get her onto older local buses (London cast-offs)
because of the centre pole in the entrances which she could not get the
buggy past. To get her and baby onto the bus and fold the buggy she needed 3
hands. Some drivers treated her appallingly.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

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

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 20:20:37 +0100, JNugent wrote:

The law is clear.

(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.

Does this mean that it's unlawful for a private hire company based
outside of London to accept a booking for a journey starting in London?

For example, I am going to some place abroad on holiday, flying from LHR.
I book a local private hire company to where I live to (a) take me to the
airport to catch my flight and (b) collect me from the airport on my
return.

You seem to be suggesting that the second journey is illegal.

If LHR is a special case, substitute St Pancras International. Or even
staying in a central London Hotel for a few days.

--
Denis McMahon,

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.

TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
 

On 10/5/2015 8:58 PM, JNugent wrote:
On 05/10/2015 18:47, tim..... wrote:


No, the passenger has to (somehow) find the other passages, that's not
the same thing at all (and completely impractical for out of London
destinations)

It could be done via an app on mobile phones. There are already similar
ways of locating people in an area with similar interests.

But don't make the mistake of assuming that your requirements are the
same as everyone else's.

So your only argument against all of this is that the driver shouldn't
be burdened with somehow putting together the relevant group of passengers?

Seems like a jobsworths argument to me - if the group is "dangerous" (by
whatever definition) it doesn't really matter who put them together as
long as the relevant legal framework on liability is in place.