|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message , at 16:55:30 on Tue, 6 Oct
2015, JNugent remarked: 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. Vetting also includes criminal records. And checking insurance on the day they join doesn't guarantee they are insured the day after. -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"JNugent" wrote in message ... 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. What like you have do you mean? assuming that nobody wants the option of making an ad hoc paring with someone else in the queue, just because you don't want to (not for the first time) what a hypocrite you are tim |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"JNugent" wrote in message ... 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. No I can't he isn't making a choice from people he is nominating, and can hence gerrymander it is being made from a selection of random walk-ups, probably on a next arrival (for the same/similar destination) basis. And if you don't like that person as a travel companion you are free to decline. The idea that there is more risk involved because the driver is offering the choice rather than via a random app, is balderdash tim |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"JNugent" wrote in message ... 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. Oh, so it's all right for you to take advantage of it in the US. but it not all right for me to use this method in London, for no other reason that because you don't think it should be allowed to be offered. I can only repeat: what a hypocrite! tim |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"JNugent" wrote in message ... 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? I've just done so If you don't understand, go buy a dictionary tim |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
wrote in message ... 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, I presume that you are incapable of reading the old world solution - the fold-up bus map! tim |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"JNugent" wrote in message ... 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 as I said befo that is likely to be just lazy jurno speak for "the driver gets the authorities to do the necessary vetting and Uber check that they (the driver) has done this" tim |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
wrote in message ... 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. Yes I know I enquired about booking cab from the office to the station one day and when I got told it would be 18 quid for a 6 mile journey. I politely declined I was expecting pre-booking to offer a discount, not in Cambridge it seems tim -- Colin Rosenstiel |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... 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! In the first year of what? to the average numpty who runs a cab office? You think decisions about fleet procurement are done by a numpty in the cab office? Yep 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. so then the disabled pax might have an hour wait for a free cab tim -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 06/10/2015 17:35, tim..... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message ... 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. No I can't ... I'm trying to decide whether you're being dishonest or disingenuous. It's one of the two, though. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote: 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. There is competition for trade across the City boundary. Also for larger groups of people in larger vehicles. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 06/10/2015 17:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:55:30 on Tue, 6 Oct 2015, JNugent remarked: 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. Vetting also includes criminal records.... Which, of course, a private company cannot do. And checking insurance on the day they join doesn't guarantee they are insured the day after. True. But taking the example of a taxi (a proper taxi, I mean) where the proprietor/driver does not work for or via anyone but himself, the only foolproof way of checking continuous insurance would be for the licensing authority to check it every day. That might be thought to be a bit much. But checking at least once every few months (and ensuring that the certificate demonstrates a logical audit trail of uninterrupted cover) is easier and less onerous. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 06/10/2015 17:30, tim..... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message ... 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. What like you have do you mean? assuming that nobody wants the option of making an ad hoc paring with someone else in the queue, just because you don't want to (not for the first time) what a hypocrite you are You must be desperate if you're resorting to that nonsense. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 06/10/2015 17:40, tim..... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message ... 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. Oh, so it's all right for you to take advantage of it in the US. Indeed. And if LHR decided to do the same here, I'd support that - mainly because it would be lawful, whereas allowing the driver to do it would not be. but it not all right for me to use this method in London, It's *perfectly* alright for you or anyone else to use such a system (where an independent third party does the matching and pairing). for no other reason that because you don't think it should be allowed to be offered. Oh dear... You weren't thinking, were you? I can only repeat: what a hypocrite! That must be a self description, because it certainly does not describe my logical and consistent stance. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 06/10/2015 18:03, tim..... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message ... 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? I've just done so Which posters are the "cabbies" (as you disrepectfully call them)? And what makes you "think" they're taking any notice of you? If you don't understand, go buy a dictionary You don't like losing, do you? |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 06/10/2015 18:12, tim..... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message ... 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 as I said befo that is likely to be just lazy jurno speak for "the driver gets the authorities to do the necessary vetting and Uber check that they (the driver) has done this" "likely". The law requires certainty. So does passenger security and general road safety. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015-10-06 15:40:00 +0000, Roland Perry said:
And roaming data? £2/day if you're an O2 user. It's getting more sensibly affordable. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015-10-06 08:03:31 +0000, Roland Perry said:
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? Because I booked Uber to pay, stress and negotiation free, by credit card. That's one of its big selling points. I might not even be carrying enough cash for a supposed cash fare. I take great pleasure in telling people to get lost when they try to offer me money to end an eBay auction by adding a buy now. I put it on auction for a reason. FWIW, every time I have got more than I was offered. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015-10-06 10:38:53 +0000, Basil Jet said:
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. There are perfectly good criminal laws to deal with threatening behaviour and menace. And if they charge £20 or £30 minimum, perhaps they wouldn't if passengers told them to get lost. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
Quote:
Uber deploy fake taxis and TfL are not either. To the best of my knowledge Uber drivers use conventional saloon cars like the Toyota Prius. Uber is a minicab firm that has analysed the market with great precision and has worked out how to tap into that market by utilising modern technology that happens also to be fashionable. As I said earlier I have no connection with Uber and I don't use them, so I don't care what they charge. It's a free market and they, like anyone else, are entitled to charge what the market will bear. If people don't like or don't approve of surge pricing, they shouldn't use Uber when demand is high, e.g. during a tube strike. Uber are not disrupting other service providers. They are competing with them and they are not unregulated. TfL have confirmed that Uber are conforming to the same regulations as other London minicab firms. I admire any company that can analyse a market shrewdly and enter that market late in the day and quickly outperform longstanding players. I don't necessarily like such companies but I respect them. How this eventually plays out, no-one knows. The black cab trade clearly hasn't the first clue how to compete with Uber and I suspect that small, local minicab firms do not realise that their days are numbered. What I do not want is Uber to have a near monopoly. I hope that the more alert minicab companies, like Addison Lee, Keen and Greyhound will offer the same app-based service that Uber are providing and give Uber some real competition. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015-10-06 18:36:20 +0000, Robin9 said:
I hope that the more alert minicab companies, like Addison Lee, Keen and Greyhound will offer the same app-based service that Uber are providing and give Uber some real competition. Apparently Addison Lee have: http://www.addisonlee.com/apps/ They appear to be specifically pushing the lack of surge pricing as a selling point. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote: On 06/10/2015 01:09, wrote: 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. Whether it's done presumably depends on the presence of railway-owned land. Did they do it at London termini in the days when taxi ranks were between the platforms? Isn't it done at Heathrow? -- Colin Rosenstiel |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 16:17:43 on Mon, 5 Oct 2015, remarked: 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? I did say "nearby". Anecdotal evidence from Cambridge suggests that if you order a Panther car it's not very likely to turn up within five minutes, or even sometimes twenty-five. Not so from family experience. We have found Panther reliable and professional. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message , at 19:21:45 on Tue, 6 Oct
2015, Neil Williams remarked: And roaming data? £2/day if you're an O2 user. It's getting more sensibly affordable. That's only in Europe. Their standard rates outside Europe are £1/MB it seems. -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message , at 19:02:56 on Tue, 6 Oct
2015, JNugent remarked: 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. Vetting also includes criminal records.... Which, of course, a private company cannot do. That's one reason why local authorities are involved in the vetting process. And checking insurance on the day they join doesn't guarantee they are insured the day after. True. But taking the example of a taxi (a proper taxi, I mean) where the proprietor/driver does not work for or via anyone but himself, the only foolproof way of checking continuous insurance would be for the licensing authority to check it every day. That might be thought to be a bit much. But checking at least once every few months (and ensuring that the certificate demonstrates a logical audit trail of uninterrupted cover) is easier and less onerous. The "Uber issue" is that every driver provides his own insurance. If Uber had fleet insurance, as I gather most minicab companies do, then there's several orders of magnitude less paperwork to check. -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message , at 18:21:49 on Tue, 6 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! In the first year of what? The undergraduate course. I can't believe you really didn't know that. to the average numpty who runs a cab office? You think decisions about fleet procurement are done by a numpty in the cab office? Yep That explains quite a lot. 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. so then the disabled pax might have an hour wait for a free cab That's why you need a sensible ratio, but it's not 100% of the cars. To wait an hour for the next accessible cab to be available would indicate an *extremely* small fleet, of course. -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message , at 18:17:56 on Tue, 6 Oct 2015,
tim..... remarked: 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. Yes I know I enquired about booking cab from the office to the station one day and when I got told it would be 18 quid for a 6 mile journey. I politely declined I was expecting pre-booking to offer a discount, not in Cambridge it seems Indeed, as Colin has said several times recently - they are metered, not haggled. -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 20:36:20 +0200
Robin9 wrote: ;150682 Wrote: 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 What fake taxis are you talking about? I'm not aware that Uber deploy fake taxis and TfL are not either. To the best of my knowledge Uber drivers use conventional saloon cars like the Toyota Prius. Here's an idea - how about reading the website I conveniently gave you a link to first before posting drivel. Uber are not disrupting other service providers. They are competing with them and they are not unregulated. TfL have confirmed that Uber are conforming to the same regulations as other London minicab firms. Oh really? So Uber saying they conform is good enough is it? Anyone done any spot checks? Its rather easy with a minicab firm that has an office, not so much when its just some guy with a car and a phone linked to customers via a server in the USA. How this eventually plays out, no-one knows. The black cab trade clearly hasn't the first clue how to compete with Uber and I suspect that small, local minicab firms do not realise that their days are numbered. Apparently you don't realise that not everyone is a 20-something with a smartphone who is happy using some program - sorry, "app" - to order a cab. Minicabs might go out of business one day but it'll be years yet. -- Spud |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On Tuesday, 6 October 2015 17:50:21 UTC+2, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 05:10:58 on Tue, 6 Oct 2015, remarked: 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. And roaming data? Having bought your cheapo SIM-free handset, getting a local SIM card at your point of arrival in your foreign destination is dirt cheap. 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)? No, I don't point at their paper map because I don't know exactly where the destination is. It's their job to translate the description of the destination to co-ordinates. So just like an Uber driver then. Except that Uber drivers have the ability to search on google if they don't recognise your description, whereas a conventional minicab driver with an AtoZ will just be left guessing. 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? It's the way that Uber drivers can apparently fail to concede they have any local knowledge about destinations, because it's the passenger's responsibility to point to a location on a map. Do you have experience of Uber drivers behaving like this, or are you just making this up? I mean it's not like Uber drivers are making a living by driving people around where they might notice local landmarks or anything. 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? Your starter for ten: The Ely Post Office. Typing that into the maps app on my phone puts a pin in the map on Market St, a little to the east of where the pedestrianised "Chequer Ln" meets it. It also offers up a link to www.postoffice.co.uk, and if I follow that and type "Ely" into its branch finder, it offers a street address of Central Hall, Unit 2, Market Street, Ely, Cambridgeshire CB7 4LU A google search for "Ely Post Office" also turns up some local newspaper stories form January suggesting it has moved to "permanent" premises on Market St after being in a portacabin for a while. Has it moved again (and www.postoffice.co.uk not been updated)? 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. Are we really arguing about the difference between "most affordable" and "cheapest possible". If so I give up. No, "timely and affordable" is not the same as "most affordable" or "cheapest possible". Walking to the bus stop and looking at the signs on it (and hoping they are correct) is cheaper than using a smart phone, but is not the most efficient way of conducting that journey. Smartphones have reached the price point where they are affordable to all parts of society. And where I live there are only two bus stops in the High Street, twenty feet apart. Which is not in London. As this is uk.transport.london, I figured an example of buses in London would be a more appropriate example. London is big enough, I could find a similar example if I wanted to. Right, but without knowing a priori that there is or is not a second alternative bus route, you have no way of knowing that the bus stop you have chosen is the best one to use for your journey. Some journeys have only a single bus route, others have multiple. If you want the most timely journey option, you need to do a bit of research. Back in the day the time taken to do that was prohibitive. Today, with modern, affordable technology, it is not. Robin |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 10:58:05 +0100
David Walters wrote: On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 08:26:10 +0000 (UTC), y wrote: Uber are not disrupting other service providers. They are competing with them and they are not unregulated. TfL have confirmed that Uber are conforming to the same regulations as other London minicab firms. Oh really? So Uber saying they conform is good enough is it? Anyone done any spot checks? Its rather easy with a minicab firm that has an office, not so much when its just some guy with a car and a phone linked to customers via a server in the USA. Uber London Limited have a Private hire Operator Licence (#7979) and an office in Tower Hamlets (1st Floor Aldgate Tower, 2 Leman Street). TfL say they have done compliance checks. So they've done background checks on all the drivers have they? Yeah, right. -- Spud |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message , at
02:53:33 on Wed, 7 Oct 2015, remarked: 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. And roaming data? Having bought your cheapo SIM-free handset, getting a local SIM card at your point of arrival in your foreign destination is dirt cheap. Have you actually tried that in authoritarian countries like India or Egypt? And when I went looking for a local SIM in Brussels it took me several days to find a shop which had one - they don't have phone stores on every street corner like we do in London. 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)? No, I don't point at their paper map because I don't know exactly where the destination is. It's their job to translate the description of the destination to co-ordinates. So just like an Uber driver then. Except that Uber drivers have the ability to search on google if they don't recognise your description, whereas a conventional minicab driver with an AtoZ will just be left guessing. Hold on! I thought you couldn't get a Uber driver to be assigned to you unless *you* had *first* pointed to the destination on an online map. 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? It's the way that Uber drivers can apparently fail to concede they have any local knowledge about destinations, because it's the passenger's responsibility to point to a location on a map. Do you have experience of Uber drivers behaving like this, or are you just making this up? See above. What's your experience of hiring a Uber driver and then *afterwards* discussing with them where you want to go? I mean it's not like Uber drivers are making a living by driving people around where they might notice local landmarks or anything. 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? Your starter for ten: The Ely Post Office. Typing that into the maps app on my phone puts a pin in the map on Market St, a little to the east of where the pedestrianised "Chequer Ln" meets it. That's presumably an iPhone, not Google maps. It also offers up a link to www.postoffice.co.uk, and if I follow that and type "Ely" into its branch finder, it offers a street address of Central Hall, Unit 2, Market Street, Ely, Cambridgeshire CB7 4LU A google search for "Ely Post Office" also turns up some local newspaper stories form January suggesting it has moved to "permanent" premises on Market St after being in a portacabin for a while. Has it moved again (and www.postoffice.co.uk not been updated)? That's the final location, but Google maps hasn't caught up yet. 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. Are we really arguing about the difference between "most affordable" and "cheapest possible". If so I give up. No, "timely and affordable" is not the same as "most affordable" or "cheapest possible". Walking to the bus stop and looking at the signs on it (and hoping they are correct) is cheaper than using a smart phone, but is not the most efficient way of conducting that journey. Smartphones have reached the price point where they are affordable to all parts of society. I disagree. Neither a monthly contract, nor an unlocked phone plus a maze of "SIM only" deals to negotiate, are value for money for someone who only needs it once or twice a month. And where I live there are only two bus stops in the High Street, twenty feet apart. Which is not in London. As this is uk.transport.london, I figured an example of buses in London would be a more appropriate example. London is big enough, I could find a similar example if I wanted to. Right, but without knowing a priori that there is or is not a second alternative bus route, you have no way of knowing that the bus stop you have chosen is the best one to use for your journey. Some journeys have only a single bus route, others have multiple. If you want the most timely journey option, you need to do a bit of research. Back in the day the time taken to do that was prohibitive. Not when there are two adjacent bus stops, and about four routes to choose from. Today, with modern, affordable technology, it is not. Actually, very many online bus timetable resources in the provinces are woefully out of date. -- Roland Perry |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk