|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message , at 20:57:50 on Mon, 5 Oct
2015, Neil Williams remarked: 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? I don't think it's even true, because of the number of mentions of touts getting passengers to book their services once inside the car. -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message , at 21:18:46 on Mon, 5 Oct
2015, JNugent remarked: Uber themselves claim to do the vetting (and, IIRC, to provide hire and reward insurance). On of the cliams made against Uber is precisely that they don't provide such 'fleet insurance' and so passengers have to trust that the driver has bought his own. -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message , at 23:59:10 on Mon, 5 Oct
2015, JNugent remarked: 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? Are they perhaps (in London, anyway) "checking that a driver has been vetted". The system in other cities may well be different. -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message , at 21:02:52 on Mon, 5 Oct
2015, Neil Williams remarked: They could be taking off their Uber-hat for that trip. Then you report them and refuse to pay. Why would someone do that, especially if offered a discount fare? -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 16:26:53 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: wrote: Google. Obviously you like making things more difficult than they need to be. Well, if you can't read the signs or cards advertising minicabs that are usually in obvious positions in a lot of establishments. And in fact some hospitals have a dedicated phone that goes straight through to the local cab office. 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. I think you'll find you'll have to actually speak to the driver at some point. Unless you intend to text him via google translate from the back seat. 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. So fill us in on how they're vetted then. -- Spud |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message , at 20:31:42 on Mon, 5 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! to the average numpty who runs a cab office? You think decisions about fleet procurement are done by a numpty in the cab office? 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. -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:18:59 +0100
JNugent wrote: On 05/10/2015 16:02, y wrote: On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:54:47 +0100 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. Is english your 2nd language? When 2 words are combined they generally no longer mean the same as each original word. For example: a riverbus isn't a red double decker that happens to float. The word "cab" still has a legal definition, even if you wish it didn't. It doesn't have a legal definition when combined with another word to form a new word. -- Spud |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On Tuesday, 6 October 2015 09:53:15 UTC+2, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:16:31 on Mon, 5 Oct 2015, remarked: 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. This is a classic case of "let them eat cake". It's perfectly acceptable to expect to be driven around an unfamiliar area by someone you are paying to do it. This has always been the distinction between a hackney carriage and a minicab. it's existed for decades. It has always been the case that minicab drivers won't be expected to have the same knowledge of routes and destination as proper taxi drivers, that's part of the trade-off for the (potentially) lower prices. In this context, Uber is just another minicab operator. If you are not comfortable with this level of driver knowledge, take a "proper" taxi. There is absolutely nothing new here that Uber brings to the argument. 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. I've been in a Nottingham Hackney that got lost two miles from the station :( I don't know what standards Nottingham applies to its Hackney drivers, but potentially that ought to be grounds for a complaint to the licensing authority. At least with Uber you know the driver will have GPS enabled maps available (that's how they find their customers, after all). If you can find your destination on a map. Right, so we're back to the choice of a Hackney where you have reasonable confidence that the driver knows the area, or a minicab (of which Uber is a subset) where the driver may not. If you don't know where you're going, and can't figure it out, that's a pretty good indicator a minicab driver won't either, in which case you probably ought to be paying the higher price for the premium service offered by a proper Hackney carriage. 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. Minicab drivers, especially in the provinces, do often know where places are "the Hilton somewhere near Stansted Airport", and so on. A google search provided its location on a map in less than 3 seconds more than the time it took me to type "hilton stansted airport" into google search. The point is, the overlap between "places I (or a minicab driver) can't find on google" and "places people set out to go to without knowing where they are" is tiny. 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. That's simply not true. I'm very happy to catch buses without any input from the Internet - just a timetable and map at the bus stop. You might be happy to do this, but it is definitely not the most "timely and affordable" way of doing things. Just the other day I was going to a friend's house in greater London, and wanted to get a bus from the station to avoid a 20 minute walk. There are two potential routes, leaving from two different bus stops by the station. If I went with your "go to the bus stop and see what I get" approach, I have a 50/50 chance of picking the wrong one and getting a less timely journey. As it happened I used modern technology to solve this problem, and was able to find out which bus was better based on the specific circumstances of my journey. Of course your solution also fails if the information displayed on the bus stop is out of date or rendered illegible due to vandalism. Robin |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
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 |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:47:31 on Sun, 4 Oct 2015, Neil Williams remarked: 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". You've used Google Maps' search facility before, I'm assuming? Yes, and the results in strange overseas cities can often be very patchy. The trouble with strange cities is you have no 'hang on a minute, that doesn't make sense' function. For example, 'satnav blunders' like Stamford Bridge (Chelsea) v Stamford Bridge (battle of), Stratford v Stratford-upon-Avon, Newcastle under Lyme v upon Tyne, Kingston (upon Hull), Leeds Castle, etc etc. We all have a good laugh about those, but imagine doing the same in, say, China? With added local fun that if you get the tone wrong you could end up asking for a different place entirely. Not that a local taxi driver would necessarily help here (if they don't speak English) but they might be able to ask 'are you sure you don't mean major tourist site not shacks behind the chemical factory?' Theo |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message , at
01:47:47 on Tue, 6 Oct 2015, remarked: On Tuesday, 6 October 2015 09:53:15 UTC+2, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 15:16:31 on Mon, 5 Oct 2015, remarked: 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. This is a classic case of "let them eat cake". It's perfectly acceptable to expect to be driven around an unfamiliar area by someone you are paying to do it. This has always been the distinction between a hackney carriage and a minicab. it's existed for decades. 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. It has always been the case that minicab drivers won't be expected to have the same knowledge of routes and destination as proper taxi drivers, that's part of the trade-off for the (potentially) lower prices. In this context, Uber is just another minicab operator. If you are not comfortable with this level of driver knowledge, take a "proper" taxi. There is absolutely nothing new here that Uber brings to the argument. 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, and if all else fails they can call the office - I had that happen in Dubai once, when what I assumed to be their equivalent of a private hire car didn't know where a particular 5-star hotel was, two miles from the airport. Having got there, perhaps if I'd said "across the road from the main police station" that would have rung a larger bell. 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. I've been in a Nottingham Hackney that got lost two miles from the station :( I don't know what standards Nottingham applies to its Hackney drivers, but potentially that ought to be grounds for a complaint to the licensing authority. This was "south of the river" and not in the City. even though only two miles from the station. I don't know what their rules are for that kind of potentially out-of-area trip. At least with Uber you know the driver will have GPS enabled maps available (that's how they find their customers, after all). If you can find your destination on a map. Right, so we're back to the choice of a Hackney where you have reasonable confidence that the driver knows the area, or a minicab (of which Uber is a subset) where the driver may not. If you don't know where you're going, and can't figure it out, that's a pretty good indicator a minicab driver won't either, 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. in which case you probably ought to be paying the higher price for the premium service offered by a proper Hackney carriage. 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. Minicab drivers, especially in the provinces, do often know where places are "the Hilton somewhere near Stansted Airport", and so on. A google search provided its location on a map in less than 3 seconds I deliberate picked an example that even the numptiest minicab driver should be able to find. Having said that there was an ambulance that couldn't find Addenbrookes Hospital in Cambridge in the news about a year ago. more than the time it took me to type "hilton stansted airport" into google search. The point is, the overlap between "places I (or a minicab driver) can't find on google" and "places people set out to go to without knowing where they are" is tiny. Read the examples posted at the weekend. There are many arising from just a couple of straw polls. 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. That's simply not true. I'm very happy to catch buses without any input from the Internet - just a timetable and map at the bus stop. 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. Just the other day I was going to a friend's house in greater London, and wanted to get a bus from the station to avoid a 20 minute walk. There are two potential routes, leaving from two different bus stops by the station. If I went with your "go to the bus stop and see what I get" approach, I have a 50/50 chance of picking the wrong one and getting a less timely journey. As it happened I used modern technology to solve this problem, and was able to find out which bus was better based on the specific circumstances of my journey. Of course your solution also fails if the information displayed on the bus stop is out of date or rendered illegible due to vandalism. And where I live there are only two bus stops in the High Street, twenty feet apart. -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message , at 09:58:11 on Tue,
6 Oct 2015, Theo Markettos remarked: Yes, and the results in strange overseas cities can often be very patchy. The trouble with strange cities is you have no 'hang on a minute, that doesn't make sense' function. For example, 'satnav blunders' like Stamford Bridge (Chelsea) v Stamford Bridge (battle of), Stratford v Stratford-upon-Avon, Newcastle under Lyme v upon Tyne, Kingston (upon Hull), Leeds Castle, etc etc. And Hampton Court in Islington instead of the Tudor palace. -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015-10-06, wrote:
In article , (Neil Williams) wrote: 8 -------- 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. I said this 3 years ago, but it's worth saying it again: The problem here is usually the buggy. What we used to do is move child to parent's left arm, kick the right place between the back wheels while holding one handle with right hand, bend knees and grab the bit below the handle and the bit above a front wheel, stand up again. Thus we had a child on one arm and a folded "buggy" in the other hand, ready to get on. Did it lots, got very good at doing it quickly. Of course this wasn't a buggy, but what we called a stroller and you would probably call a push-chair. The problem here is the buggies with their big wheels and heavy framework that seem to be designed and used as general cargo carriers, with a space for the baby that often seems somewhat secondary. Wanting people to have a folding "buggy" is nowhere near as bad as wanting everyone to have permanent internet access before they can do anything. Eric -- ms fnd in a lbry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 11:42:49 +0200
Eric wrote: Wanting people to have a folding "buggy" is nowhere near as bad as wanting everyone to have permanent internet access before they can do anything. Unfortunately the dream of a lot of socially inept techy types is a society entirely based around non human interaction via the internet. And naturally companies go along with it because its cheaper and politicians go along with it because they're clueless and they think it makes them look like they have their finger on the pulse. -- Spud |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015\10\04 17:07, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-10-04 15:00:03 +0000, Roland Perry said: 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. God forbid they should do anything convenient for the user. Having people in non-wheelchair-accessible cars surrounding venues, charging 20 or 30 pound minimum fares and threatening to behead any taxi drivers who try to get near the venue isn't quite as convenient to the user as you seem to imply. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On Tuesday, 6 October 2015 11:22:55 UTC+2, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 01:47:47 on Tue, 6 Oct 2015, remarked: On Tuesday, 6 October 2015 09:53:15 UTC+2, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 15:16:31 on Mon, 5 Oct 2015, remarked: 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. This is a classic case of "let them eat cake". It's perfectly acceptable to expect to be driven around an unfamiliar area by someone you are paying to do it. This has always been the distinction between a hackney carriage and a minicab. it's existed for decades. 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. It has always been the case that minicab drivers won't be expected to have the same knowledge of routes and destination as proper taxi drivers, that's part of the trade-off for the (potentially) lower prices. In this context, Uber is just another minicab operator. If you are not comfortable with this level of driver knowledge, take a "proper" taxi. There is absolutely nothing new here that Uber brings to the argument. 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)? 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. I've been in a Nottingham Hackney that got lost two miles from the station :( I don't know what standards Nottingham applies to its Hackney drivers, but potentially that ought to be grounds for a complaint to the licensing authority. This was "south of the river" and not in the City. even though only two miles from the station. I don't know what their rules are for that kind of potentially out-of-area trip. At least with Uber you know the driver will have GPS enabled maps available (that's how they find their customers, after all). If you can find your destination on a map. Right, so we're back to the choice of a Hackney where you have reasonable confidence that the driver knows the area, or a minicab (of which Uber is a subset) where the driver may not. If you don't know where you're going, and can't figure it out, that's a pretty good indicator a minicab driver won't either, 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? in which case you probably ought to be paying the higher price for the premium service offered by a proper Hackney carriage. 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. Minicab drivers, especially in the provinces, do often know where places are "the Hilton somewhere near Stansted Airport", and so on. A google search provided its location on a map in less than 3 seconds I deliberate picked an example that even the numptiest minicab driver should be able to find. 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? 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. That's simply not true. I'm very happy to catch buses without any input from the Internet - just a timetable and map at the bus stop. 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. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 12:47:50AM +0100, JNugent wrote:
The history of the last 55 years or so is littered with people who wanted to disrupt the taxi industry, always for selfish reasons. Yes, it's called "profit". It's the same selfish reason that drives black cab Luddites to whine about losing their monopoly. -- David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig Are you feeling bored? depressed? slowed down? Evil Scientists may be manipulating the speed of light in your vicinity. Buy our patented instructional video to find out how, and maybe YOU can stop THEM |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 06:18:59PM +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 05/10/2015 16:02, y wrote: On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:54:47 +0100 JNugent wrote: On 05/10/2015 14:26, David Cantrell wrote: On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 10:34:57PM +0100, JNugent wrote: 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. Is english your 2nd language? When 2 words are combined they generally no longer mean the same as each original word. For example: a riverbus isn't a red double decker that happens to float. The word "cab" still has a legal definition, even if you wish it didn't. So does "bus". That doesn't stop "data buses" from existing. -- David Cantrell | A machine for turning tea into grumpiness Human Rights left unattended may be removed, destroyed, or damaged by the security services. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 03:45:22PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:38:01 on Mon, 5 Oct 2015, David Cantrell remarked: If anything it would increase it. Customers don't want to be forced to pointlessly wait so would be more inclined to go with a driver offering an illegal service. I certainly would. Depends when you think people order a Uber. Is it when they are stood on 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? Different people will do different things. Also, I don't know what it's like where you live, but here in London it doesn't rain that often. Last time I summoned an Uber I was already out on the street when I summoned it. I was at a bus stop and the countdown thingy showed that there were no convenient buses for another quarter of an hour. -- header FROM_DAVID_CANTRELL From =~ /david.cantrell/i describe FROM_DAVID_CANTRELL Message is from David Cantrell score FROM_DAVID_CANTRELL 15.72 # This figure from experimentation |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 06.10.15 6:12, Robin9 wrote:
;150666 Wrote: 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 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. Cartel. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 05.10.15 20:44, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-10-05 15:02:38 +0000, y said: Is english your 2nd language? When 2 words are combined they generally no longer mean the same as each original word. For example: a riverbus isn't a red double decker that happens to float. Or Milton Keynes is not a city, but it is a "New City", which is a term coined by the CNT to simply mean a large New Town. Neil When is the PRT in Milton Keynes sue to start operating, BTW? |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015\10\04 14:56, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-10-04 10:20:19 +0000, Roland Perry said: 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. Indeed. The principle should be that the accessible vehicles are available on the same terms as the non-accessible ones (e.g. they are kept available for such bookings such that the bookings are satisfied within the same sort of time period as for a non-accesible vehicle) not that every vehicle has to be accessible. .... which implies that the drivers buying and fuelling the most expensive vehicles are deliberately given the least work so that they will always be available. This could only be achieved if the model by which minicab drivers are paid was changed to a normal employment situation, and they would then acquire normal holiday / sick pay / pregnancy leave rights, which would massively inflate the price charged to the user, which would then destroy minicabs' number one selling point and ultimately put all the minicab drivers back on the dole. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 06/10/2015 01:09, wrote:
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. I have heard of these "pay to get onto the rank" schemes before. BR don't do it everywhere (not in London or Liverpool, that's certain), but it always causes bad feeling when they di it. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 06/10/2015 01:09, wrote:
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. Quite so. On the information so far available, either could be the case. But why on Earth would Uber claim to do any "vetting" when they would know - if they were a licensed operator - that the vetting is done by the licensing authority - and may not be avoided? On the Occam's Razor principle, the drivers are not licensed (which means not vetted by any competent authority) and Uber expect to get away with it. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 06/10/2015 06:12, Robin9 wrote:
;150666 Wrote: 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 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. Perhaps in order to counter this "scare propaganda", you can point to a checkable and credible source for your information? |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 06/10/2015 01:12, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote: 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. Yes, because there's a market for much lower fares. Customers want them, and many suppliers are prepared to meet that demand. Selfishly, the taxi trade is trying to defend very high fares using monopolistic practices. The fares for taxis are set by a public authority (in other words, they are set by law), not by the drivers. If you "think" that the fares vary at the whim of the driver or operator, you must be thinking of Uber's MO. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 06/10/2015 03:39, Denis McMahon wrote:
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? Not if it finishes in the operator's area. Rather a limited business model, though, as I'm sure you'll agree. 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. Do I? If LHR is a special case, substitute St Pancras International. Or even staying in a central London Hotel for a few days. Not a special case. That's just your imagination. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 06/10/2015 08:15, Someone Somewhere wrote:
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? No, not at all. It is that he shouldn't be *trusted* with it. See if you can work out why. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 06/10/2015 08:55, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:18:46 on Mon, 5 Oct 2015, JNugent remarked: Uber themselves claim to do the vetting (and, IIRC, to provide hire and reward insurance). On of the cliams made against Uber is precisely that they don't provide such 'fleet insurance' and so passengers have to trust that the driver has bought his own. That is the case with all taxis and pirate cars where the fleet belongs to a multiplicity of individuals (strictly, it's the vehicle's proprietor who buys the insurance, which will not always be the driver). Since it applies widely, I'm not seeking to use it a stick for beating Uber with. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 06/10/2015 09:00, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 23:59:10 on Mon, 5 Oct 2015, JNugent remarked: 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? 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. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 06/10/2015 14:25, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 12:47:50AM +0100, JNugent wrote: The history of the last 55 years or so is littered with people who wanted to disrupt the taxi industry, always for selfish reasons. Yes, it's called "profit". It's the same selfish reason that drives black cab Luddites to whine about losing their monopoly. What monopoly? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk