On 03/10/2015 02:16, Recliner wrote:

all types don't have to get the "knowledge". And are there any other
professionals who can only qualify by not using modern technology?

Steam loco drivers?


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 03/10/2015 02:13, Recliner wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 01/10/2015 18:46, tim..... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 30/09/2015 17:49, tim..... wrote:

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

so what does the team think?

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)
(I have no idea if they are right or not)

*If* they do, there's no problem.
At least, not with those aspects.

(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.

and whilst this does seem unnecessarily nanny state, complying with it
isn't impossible for them

The record keeping requirement is there in order to help settle
allegations of unlicensed plying for hire, among other things such as
being able to trace a particular driver who did a particular booked job.
It's a more than reasonable requirement. The location requirement is
designed to keep the operator within the jurisdiction of the licensing
authority and to make them accountable to that licensing authority and
the courts within its boundaries.

Uber appears to have much better record keeping for every journey than back
cabs. Maybe it's the latter who should have the rules tightened up?

There is not, and never has been, any requirement for a licensed
taxi-driver to keep a record of the names, addresses, starting point,
destination points of passengers, or of the fare charged.

Next...

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

Except that anecdotally, it isn't

It can only be "better" than other pirate cars if it fails to comply
with the law in some way and gains a competitive advab=ntage 9after all,
there is no control,up or down, on pirate car fares).

Why makes Uber cabs "pirate cars"?

Unlicensed plying-for-hire, of course.

On 03/10/2015 02:16, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 02/10/2015 06:26, Robin9 wrote:
;150401 Wrote:
Vehicle tests, DBS & Police checks, knowledge tests. Not sure how many
could
be credibly done by an operator.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

The vehicle tests and criminal record checks are not done by
the operators. Negligent TfL has only delegated knowledge testing
to the cab firms who, of course, pass every driver because they
want as many drivers as possible.

TIs there a street knowledge test (or requirement) for the drivers of
the unlicensed vehicles?

Surely that's only for taxi-drivers?

Surely it's only for black cab drivers in Central London?

All London cab-driver applicants have to pass a version of the
Knowledge, whether they are going for the "All London" (green badge) or
a "suburban rank" (yellow badge).

There is no parallel test for the would-be drivers of pirate cars.

Other cabbies of
all types don't have to get the "knowledge". And are there any other
professionals who can only qualify by not using modern technology?

Cab-drivers have to be able to do it with their brain.

One can only conjecture as to why such a requirement might not be
appropriate for pirates.

On 03/10/2015 09:07, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 10/3/2015 2:29 AM, JNugent wrote:
On 03/10/2015 02:08, Recliner wrote:

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.


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.

On 03/10/2015 10:25, Neil Williams wrote:

On 2015-10-03 01:29:58 +0000, JNugent said:

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.

But demand-responsive hailable shared transport (unless you arrange the
share) is not available, and seems to be illegal. Why?

In order to protect the passenger and preserve his/her right to privacy.

What would you think if a minicab driver picked up your daughter in the
West End late at night, then airily informed her that she had to share
the vehicle from Marble Arch to Ealing with his brother-in-law the
convicted rapist and the Southall Strangler?

It would seem
to provide an effective half-bus half-taxi means of transport in smaller
towns where proper bus operation is increasingly unaffordable.

Safety first.

On 03/10/2015 13:19, tim..... wrote:

"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)

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.

HTH.

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

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

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)

Yes, it is. Use an app.

Or something.

What the law will not stomach
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"

True. If the passenger wishes to delegate that choice to a third party,
that's fine. The law will not accept the driver being the delegate,
that's all. And for good safety-related reasons.

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

Why?

Because they could be at risk from fellow "passengers".

Are you unable to understand that?

On 04/10/2015 12:30, Arthur Figgis wrote:
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.

Ah... someone who has (at least partly) cottoned on to the safety aspects.

On 04/10/2015 02:44, Denis McMahon wrote:
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.

Exactly.

On 2015-10-03 09:57:52 +0000, Recliner said:

Exactly. There's nothing to stop a group of friends hiring a cab together.
But why shouldn't others, who are willing to share but don't have anyone to
share with, allow the cab firm to do it? This is a very popular business
model in the third world, as it provides extremely economic more-or-less
door-to-door transport in countries with poor public transport. It would be
less popular here, but that's no reason to make it illegal.

I think it could become quite effective to operate that kind of service
in rural areas or in the evening and other periods of low public
transport demand. There do exist timetabled shared taxi services, but
these are so heavily regulated that they are near useless.

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