|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 04:57:02PM +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2015 14:25, David Cantrell wrote: It's the same selfish reason that drives black cab Luddites to whine about losing their monopoly. What monopoly? Oh dear. Thank god that I normally use Uber cabs driven by immigrants instead of anything driven by you, because they, unlike you, actually understand the English language. -- David Cantrell | top google result for "topless karaoke murders" Godliness is next to Englishness |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 13:06:05 +0100
David Cantrell wrote: On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 04:57:02PM +0100, JNugent wrote: On 06/10/2015 14:25, David Cantrell wrote: It's the same selfish reason that drives black cab Luddites to whine about losing their monopoly. What monopoly? Oh dear. Thank god that I normally use Uber cabs driven by immigrants instead of anything driven by you, because they, unlike you, actually understand the English language. Since anyone can become a black cab driver if they want to learn the knowledge I really don't see the problem. Is there something stopping those immigrants driving you around in some knackered toyota from learning it? -- Spud |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 04:57:20PM +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2015 14:37, David Cantrell wrote: On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 06:18:59PM +0100, JNugent wrote: On 05/10/2015 16:02, y wrote: JNugent wrote: 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". Does it? What is it? The definition isn't relevant, all that matters is that it exists and is at odds with what a "data bus" is. And yet, despite that, data buses continue to exist. Well, the same applies to "cab" and "mini cab". TfL - you know, the body responsible for licensing the things - agrees: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/taxis-and-minicabs/ If you really care, then look at the construction and use regulations. But I don't recommend it, they're incredibly dull. -- David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life -- Samuel Johnson |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 04:40:00PM +0100, 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? Data coverage is pretty much universal in London, and if you're in a local black spot walking a few yards in any direction will fix that for you. Roaming is cheap in the EU, but in any case if you're travelling abroad then you can jolly well afford a few bytes. It'll cost peanuts compared to your travel and accomodation. -- David Cantrell | Hero of the Information Age Guns aren't the problem. People who deserve to die are the problem. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 07/10/2015 08:27, Roland Perry wrote:
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. If you have unlimited data and unlimited calls within the UK on a Three package, it also applies at the same rates (ie, inclusive) in the USA and loads of other places. But you have, of course, to pay international rates for calls within the USA (or wherever). |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 07/10/2015 10:58, 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. Uber cannot guarantee that every one of their drivers has hire and reward insurance. Or a "private hire" licence for the vehicle or for himself. Operators need more hands-on contact with the drivers to be anywhere near sure of that. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 07/10/2015 11:04, y wrote:
On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 10:58:05 +0100 David Walters wrote: 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. Quite. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 08:56:54AM +0000, y 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 It's certainly not something I've come across. If the app says that there's an available car nearby, then I get picked up quickly. And lets not forget about their "surge" pricing, when black cabs and most minicabs have a fixed rate. So? You know in advance if you'll be affected. If you don't like it, you can pick another mode of transport. With a black cab though, you won't find out until you're stuck in a traffic jam. Uber is nothing more than another bunch of silicon valley slimeballs who move in unregulated As far as I know they have always been regulated in London, and have always operated as a minicab company. -- David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice 23.5 degrees of axial tilt is the reason for the season |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 07/10/2015 13:06, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 04:57:02PM +0100, JNugent wrote: On 06/10/2015 14:25, David Cantrell wrote: It's the same selfish reason that drives black cab Luddites to whine about losing their monopoly. What monopoly? Oh dear. Thank god that I normally use Uber cabs driven by immigrants instead of anything driven by you, because they, unlike you, actually understand the English language. Let us imagine, for a moment, that I am a licensed all-London (green badge) cab driver. What monopoly do I have? Do I have a monopoly on renting a licensed cab from a proprietor? Do I have a monopoly on obtaining credit to buy a cab from Mann & Overton? Do I have a monopoly on buying from M&O for cash? Do I have a monopoly on getting a (bought) cab tested and licensed by the PCO? Do I have a monopoly on obtaining a taxi-meter (whether rented or bought outright)? Even after jumping through all those non-monopolistic hoops, when I'm finally out on the road, do I have a monopoly of the potential fares, or do the other (approx) 22,000 (sorry: 21,999) cab-drivers have an effect on it? |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 11:38:53AM +0100, Basil Jet wrote:
Having people in non-wheelchair-accessible cars surrounding venues, charging 20 or 30 pound minimum fares and threatening to behead any taxi drivers If that's common I'm sure you can point at the news reports of the resulting criminal trials. The rozzers and the courts take death threats quite seriously. Please note that just one or two reports is insufficient. You are implying that it is *common*. Therefore the trials should also be common. Also I insist that they be reports *of trials* and not reports of rumours and allegations. -- David Cantrell | A machine for turning tea into grumpiness Irregular English: you have anecdotes; they have data; I have proof |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 07/10/2015 13:37, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 04:57:20PM +0100, JNugent wrote: On 06/10/2015 14:37, David Cantrell wrote: On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 06:18:59PM +0100, JNugent wrote: On 05/10/2015 16:02, y wrote: JNugent wrote: 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". Does it? What is it? The definition isn't relevant, all that matters is that it exists and is at odds with what a "data bus" is. And yet, despite that, data buses continue to exist. Well, the same applies to "cab" and "mini cab". TfL - you know, the body responsible for licensing the things - agrees: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/taxis-and-minicabs/ If you really care, then look at the construction and use regulations. But I don't recommend it, they're incredibly dull. The leading case was one in which the words "taxi" and "cab", however (mis)spelled and whether in use on their own or as part of another word, were held to be protected under the London Cab Act(s). |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015\10\01 07:42, Someone Somewhere wrote:
So you wouldn't get into a car with anyone as anyone could be a mass murderer, the fact they haven't been caught yet is pretty irrelevant (as, if they were a mass murderer and had been caught surely they would be behind bars?) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...n-murders.html |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message , at 13:55:43 on Wed, 7 Oct
2015, JNugent 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. If you have unlimited data and unlimited calls within the UK on a Three package, Is that a contract, or a pay monthly/PAYG thing? it also applies at the same rates (ie, inclusive) in the USA and loads of other places. That'll be the "Feel at Home" destinations, a whole 18 countries out of 200. And has all sorts of anomalies - covering France and Switzerland, but not Belgium and the Netherlands, for example. -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 07/10/2015 15:07, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:55:43 on Wed, 7 Oct 2015, JNugent 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. If you have unlimited data and unlimited calls within the UK on a Three package, Is that a contract, or a pay monthly/PAYG thing? Both. it also applies at the same rates (ie, inclusive) in the USA and loads of other places. That'll be the "Feel at Home" destinations, a whole 18 countries out of 200. And has all sorts of anomalies - covering France and Switzerland, but not Belgium and the Netherlands, for example. Gift horses, mouths, etc. The USA is a useful place for it to work, wouldn't you say? |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 07/10/2015 14:53, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:33:41 on Wed, 7 Oct 2015, y remarked: Since anyone can become a black cab driver if they want to learn the knowledge I really don't see the problem. I'd be a bit disappointed if convicted sex offenders could. They can't. At least, not in London. Maybe - just - if the conviction was 40 years ago. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message , at 15:23:34 on Wed, 7 Oct
2015, JNugent remarked: Since anyone can become a black cab driver if they want to learn the knowledge I really don't see the problem. I'd be a bit disappointed if convicted sex offenders could. They can't. At least, not in London. Maybe - just - if the conviction was 40 years ago. So not "anyone" then. Glad we got that clarified. -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message , at 15:21:40 on Wed, 7 Oct
2015, JNugent remarked: it also applies at the same rates (ie, inclusive) in the USA and loads of other places. That'll be the "Feel at Home" destinations, a whole 18 countries out of 200. And has all sorts of anomalies - covering France and Switzerland, but not Belgium and the Netherlands, for example. Gift horses, mouths, etc. The USA is a useful place for it to work, wouldn't you say? Only if one goes there often enough. I used to spend much more time in Netherlands and Belgium than the USA. Although Switzerland was probably 3rd and France 4th. -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015\10\07 15:23, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2015 14:53, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 12:33:41 on Wed, 7 Oct 2015, y remarked: Since anyone can become a black cab driver if they want to learn the knowledge I really don't see the problem. I'd be a bit disappointed if convicted sex offenders could. They can't. At least, not in London. Maybe - just - if the conviction was 40 years ago. For Brits, I doubt that such a conviction would ever be considered spent. An immigrant's criminal record is only checked for the time they've been in Britain, whether they are becoming taxi drivers or PH. |
Quote:
look through back copies of various trade magazines or you could contact TfL directly. You could even try the Internet. (I believe TfL now has a new on-line magazine for taxi drivers. Ask there) |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 07/10/2015 15:30, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent remarked: Since anyone can become a black cab driver if they want to learn the knowledge I really don't see the problem. I'd be a bit disappointed if convicted sex offenders could. They can't. At least, not in London. Maybe - just - if the conviction was 40 years ago. So not "anyone" then. Glad we got that clarified. Not sure what you mean. The conditions - including character requirements - for starting "on the Knowledge" are not a secret and are displayed on the PCO website. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 07.10.15 16:05, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\10\04 20:45, wrote: Bear in mind that "accessible" isn't a simple binary. My late mother couldn't use black cabs late in her life because she couldn't make the step up to climb in. She could use conventional saloons though. So some cabs are not accessible to wheelchairs but are accessible to some old people. That is why the Cambridge Hackney carriage fleet continues to have both types of vehicle licensed. Traditional London taxis have a step which is kept in the boot and can be fitted if the driver is asked. They also have a swivel seat which can help. I'm not sure what the Mercedes taxis have. The old Checker Cabs in New York City had swivel seats in the back, IIRC. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 07/10/2015 16:14, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\10\07 15:23, JNugent wrote: On 07/10/2015 14:53, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 12:33:41 on Wed, 7 Oct 2015, y remarked: Since anyone can become a black cab driver if they want to learn the knowledge I really don't see the problem. I'd be a bit disappointed if convicted sex offenders could. They can't. At least, not in London. Maybe - just - if the conviction was 40 years ago. For Brits, I doubt that such a conviction would ever be considered spent. An immigrant's criminal record is only checked for the time they've been in Britain, whether they are becoming taxi drivers or PH. It isn't necessary for a conviction to be spent in order to get onto the Knowledge. After all, some offences - characterised by the punishment, not by the actual offence itself - are never spent. But the PCO (which at one time was a branch of the Met Police) does take past convictions seriously. It's fair to say that a 10-yr-old conviction for embezzlement would present (much) less of a problem than a 25-yr-old conviction for a sexual offence. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 07/10/2015 15:32, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:21:40 on Wed, 7 Oct 2015, JNugent remarked: {re the Three network:] it also applies at the same rates (ie, inclusive) in the USA and loads of other places. That'll be the "Feel at Home" destinations, a whole 18 countries out of 200. And has all sorts of anomalies - covering France and Switzerland, but not Belgium and the Netherlands, for example. Gift horses, mouths, etc. The USA is a useful place for it to work, wouldn't you say? Only if one goes there often enough. I used to spend much more time in Netherlands and Belgium than the USA. Although Switzerland was probably 3rd and France 4th. Give it time. We can all recall when PAYG phones didn't work outside the UK at all. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
What "fake taxis?" No-one is taking Uber's word for anything. It's TfL who has said that Uber are abiding by the regulations. As I don't have a smart phone myself, I am well aware that many people manage without them. However you don't seem to understand that minicab firms need a level of regular business to retain drivers and survive. If, as several posters in this thread have said, people prefer to use Uber when booking a car from a location far from home, this inevitably means that local minicab firms in that location lose some of their work. It is also certain that once people have signed up with Uber, they will start using them instead of their local minicab firm. At some point the better drivers will desert their cab firm and join Uber . . . and the cab firm derives its income from the drivers. |
Quote:
on drivers. It's TfL's job to ensure that prescribed checks have been done properly, and only then to give a driver his licence. It's the minicab firm's duty not to give work to anyone who does not have a TfL licence to work as a minicab driver. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message , at 17:20:25 on Wed, 7 Oct
2015, JNugent remarked: Since anyone can become a black cab driver if they want to learn the knowledge I really don't see the problem. I'd be a bit disappointed if convicted sex offenders could. They can't. At least, not in London. Maybe - just - if the conviction was 40 years ago. So not "anyone" then. Glad we got that clarified. Not sure what you mean. That not "anyone" can become a black cab driver. -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 04:40:00PM +0100, 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? Data coverage is pretty much universal in London, and if you're in a local black spot walking a few yards in any direction will fix that for you. Roaming is cheap in the EU, but in any case if you're travelling abroad then you can jolly well afford a few bytes. It'll cost peanuts compared to your travel and accomodation. I'd not bet on that - Vodafone UK have charged me more in one hour for roaming data than several night's accomodation in east Ukraine. Of course rampant inflation/currency devaluation/the fact east Ukraine's not ecactly a tourist destination at the moment mean accommodation is remarkably good value there... Nevertheless, roaming charges outside the EU remain horrendous. (Of course I have a Ukrainian PAYG SIM now... Dual-SIM phones really are a godsend.) |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"JNugent" wrote in message ... 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. It's not nonsense. You accused me of suggesting that everybody wanted something just because I wanted it (which, in fact, I did not do) and then you say that I can't have something just because you don't want it (on the basis that everybody wants it that way, just because you do) And you can't see that that's hypocritical |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"JNugent" wrote in message ... 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. So why have you spent the last 4 days saying that the law forbidding this operation is a good law and should be kept? 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). but that's exactly what I have be arguing for, that you keep on saying that I can't have (the independent third party in my scenario being the marshal of the rank at e.g. the airport) I keep on saying that this is what I want and you keep on saying "you can't have that because it's illegal,. the fact that it's illegal is good law and the law should stay that way") 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 don't understand in the slightest I can only repeat: what a hypocrite! That must be a self description, because it certainly does not describe my logical and consistent stance. So it's consist to say: the system in NY is so good you "used it twice", but that operating the same system in the UK being illegal is a good thing? what a load of inconsistent ******** what a ****** you are. tosser tim |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"JNugent" wrote in message ... 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 Oh yes very funny. I didn't mean that I had directly conveyed it to them I meant that I had written the words that I would use should I want to do so Which posters are the "cabbies" (as you disrepectfully call them)? And what makes you "think" they're taking any notice of you? That's not the point, your issue was that I was "disrupting their livelihood" by my request. I was discussing with you the justification for my request, not asking for it directly If you don't understand, go buy a dictionary You don't like losing, do you? If you are going to make stupid changes to the pitch half way through what's the point? tim |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"JNugent" wrote in message ... 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. It has already been explained to you that when questioned first hand Uber explain that they do comply with the law. So any discussion abut what is reported third hand does not require such certainty |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 01:40:23 on Wed, 7 Oct 2015, remarked: 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 Where from? Must have been outside the city. I think he means he expected a discount because of booking ahead at all. I expected a discount in the same way that I get a discount pre-booking a contract cab instead of hailing a hackney carriage in other towns. in Cambridge, it seems, you do not get such a discount Their loss tim |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... 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. your post was unclear. I really didn't know what it was you were saying (you could have meant "first year at school", for all I knew). Assuming you now mean "I can't believe you really didn't know that this is part of Y1 stats", I really have no idea what the curriculum for graduate level stats is, and I agree that I was exaggerating when I suggested that it would need the full course to solve this problem - a failed grad would do. But the point that I was making was that this isn't school level knowledge, nor (as one) is it graduate level engineering knowledge (if you don't optionally take that specialisation - ISTR that you once said you did). This isn't a simple 40 hour a week problem. You have to solve it for 7 days a week 24 hours a days, with (presumably) variable demand and potential supply at various parts of the day 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. Yep (though I think you mean that in a negative way!) So to explain, I have a low expectation of people who start businesses. In particular about the amount of specialist knowledge that they have about their chosen trade before they start It doesn't seem unreasonable - it's the reason so many of them go bust! Just watch one of those restaurant/hotel rescue programs and see how often the proprietor is someone who has never worked in the industry before thinking "I'm going to run a restaurant next week" (A real life Bert Large!) Your expecting otherwise seems to be the outlier to me, especially for a business with low barriers to entry such as operating a taxi! 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. TBH Roland I was insulted that you thought I might think that the accessible cars would sit around all day waiting for a disable pax. It's bleeding obvious that they would take normal business as it arrived, that why the problem is so hard To wait an hour for the next accessible cab to be available would indicate an *extremely* small fleet, of course. many individual cab offices do run a small fleet |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... 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, I know but why? not haggled. I wasn't looking to haggle. I was looking for the standard contract hire rate, which I naturally expected to be less than the metered rate - it is everywhere else in the country (subject to the list of exceptions that I feel sure you are going to inform me of) tim |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015\10\07 20:46, tim..... wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... 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? having not done this, I'm surprised You don't even need to get land side at Beijing (which I sure most would consider is in an authoritarian country) before you could have three different sims in your hand That's China for you! I'm sure you can get them surgically removed now you're back in England. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk