On 04/10/2015 14:48, Neil Williams wrote:

On 2015-10-04 13:17:54 +0000, JNugent said:

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

Are you unable to understand that?

They could when riding a bus or train, as well.

True.

Is that a reason to introduce the same dangers to travelling in a taxi?

On 04/10/2015 15:42, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 04/10/2015 02:44, Denis McMahon wrote:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 18:46:33 +0100, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...

The law is clear.

"Services" such as Ãœber cannot operate lawfully unless:

(a) each vehicle is tested and licensed before commencing operations,

(b) each driver applies for a licence, is investigated and not found
ineligible, before commencing operations, and

Uber will claim that they do do (a) and (b)

(a) and (b) might refer to licenses issued by the local authority or
other delegated body, in addition to any licensing requirements simply to
drive a vehicle on the road.

This would mean that Uber drivers and vehicles would be subject to
relevant local authority licensing regimes.

It seems to me that Uber is acting as a Private Hire operator. In doing
so, it should be subject to the same regulatory regime as other private
hire operators.

Exactly.

Has anyone suggested otherwise? Regardless, you'll still call them "pirate
cars".

The "private hire" driver who never plies for hire in his unlicensed
vehicle is a bit like the unlicensed TV watcher who never watches "live TV".

Yeah, right.

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

Why makes Uber cabs "pirate cars"?

Unlicensed plying-for-hire, of course.

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

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

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

I suggested in an earlier post that eventually Uber will kill-off
a large chunk of the conventional minicab firms. Perhaps that's
why minicab firms are complaining although until now their main
grievance has been losing so many of their drivers to Uber.

The allegations about plying-for-hire are unsubstantiated. Most of
the assertions in this regard made about Uber have in the past
been made about minicab drivers in general. If a minicab driver
parks up instead of driving around pointlessly, the black cab trade
accuses the driver of plying for hire. He's not! He's just saving
petrol while waiting for his next job!

In message , at 17:07:06 on Sun, 4 Oct
2015, Neil Williams remarked:

Yes, and the results in strange overseas cities can often be very patchy.

True, though London, the city in question, has extremely good coverage,
and I have never had issues finding anywhere I wanted to go on it.
Indeed, it is my primary tool for finding places in London whatever
mode of transport I happen to be using.

I wonder how up to date the maps are. In my home town there's a set of
premises which used to be a Vauxhall Garage, that closed about three
years ago, but is still marked as such on Google maps. The place was
empty for a couple of years and is now a convenience store (invisible to
Google maps). Closer to the centre of town, Google hasn't yet caught up
with the Post Office, which moved to new premises at the end of last
year.

Perhaps they rely over-much on crowd-sourcing their premises
information, because a couple of retailers who have only been going
since the summer *are* shown correctly. But that process doesn't flush
out the dross - a branch of Lloyds Pharmacy which closed two years ago
in the High Street and was refitted as a Subway/Spar is listed alongside
those two on the map.

The last place I needed to find on Google Maps was a charity-run care
home, and that's completely missing too (it was built in 2005).
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 17:07:43 on Sun, 4 Oct
2015, Neil Williams remarked:

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.

That "convenience" would turn the minicab regulations on their head.
--
Roland Perry

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 16:23:18 on Sun, 4 Oct 2015, Recliner
remarked:

They can't get customers to book
them on the spot: the booking has to be made through Uber.

They can get the customer to book them through Uber, on the spot.

I don't think they can. You can't pick a particular vehicle to book through
Uber, can you? And Uber cars aren't marked.

That doesn't matter if you are already sat in it, talking to the driver.

Or possibly do an off books "deal" with the customer.

Not legally they can't. And Uber would take a dim view of it as well.

If there was no illegality going on, we simply wouldn't be having this
conversation.

And, if the
demand is very high, they may be able to benefit from "surge pricing".

I see no customer benefit from a five minute delay rule.

Perhaps you don't see a customer benefit in private hire cars not being
able to operate as hackneys. But that's what the law says.

That's the equivalent of high street retailers insisting that Internet
retailers not be allowed to offer quick delivery.

There isn't an easy retail analogy; except perhaps an unlicenced street
trader lurking outside a blue-chip shop and offering to sell people
about to enter, "exclusive" items at a discount.

Uber drivers are not unlicensed,

They are unlicenced when it comes to plying for hire.

and the audit trail for their bookings is
far more detailed than any black cab's.

--
Roland Perry

In message , at 17:28:43 on Sun, 4 Oct
2015, Neil Williams remarked:

Except it causes traffic congestion because they park in awkward places.

That, surely, is a matter for traffic enforcement.

Yes, and thousands of them are "moved on". Better for them not to be
causing the anti-social menace in the first place.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 18:50:09 on Sun, 4 Oct
2015, Roland Perry remarked:
Yes, and the results in strange overseas cities can often be very patchy.

True, though London, the city in question, has extremely good
coverage, and I have never had issues finding anywhere I wanted to go
on it. Indeed, it is my primary tool for finding places in London
whatever mode of transport I happen to be using.

I wonder how up to date the maps are. In my home town there's a set of
premises which used to be a Vauxhall Garage, that closed about three
years ago, but is still marked as such on Google maps. The place was
empty for a couple of years and is now a convenience store (invisible
to Google maps). Closer to the centre of town, Google hasn't yet caught
up with the Post Office, which moved to new premises at the end of last year.

Perhaps they rely over-much on crowd-sourcing their premises
information, because a couple of retailers who have only been going
since the summer *are* shown correctly. But that process doesn't flush
out the dross - a branch of Lloyds Pharmacy which closed two years ago
in the High Street and was refitted as a Subway/Spar is listed
alongside those two on the map.

The last place I needed to find on Google Maps was a charity-run care
home, and that's completely missing too (it was built in 2005).

And of course iPhone maps has a completely different subset of
missing/wrong/outdated information
--
Roland Perry

In message , Roland Perry
writes
The last place I needed to find on Google Maps was a charity-run care
home, and that's completely missing too (it was built in 2005).

I once needed to check on Google Maps how to get from my place
(London/Essex borders) to London Bridge

Much to my surprise (I kid you not) the route was

Drive to Dover
Swim the English Channel to France
Swim the Atlantic to New York
Drive from New York to Lake Havasu City Arizona
London Bridge (the old one rebuilt there)

I assume some programmer at Google had a sense of humour.
--
Bryan Morris
Public Key http://www.pgp.uk.demon.net - 0xCC6237E9