In article ,
(tim.....) wrote:

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

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

so what does the team think?

The law is clear.

"Services" such as Über cannot operate lawfully unless:

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

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

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

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

The law requires the state in some form to deal with that, not farm it out
to those who have an interest in ignoring them.

(c) the operator (presumably Über) establishes a base within
Greater London and submits to the appropriate licensing regime,
thereafter complying with the requirements for record-keeping, etc.

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

They may not have to comply with that bit much long if the Law Commission
report is legislated for. The coalition somehow managed to let it slip, and
not because Lib Dems didn't agree with it so I wouldn't bank on it, though.

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

Except that anecdotally, it isn't

Vehicle tests, DBS & Police checks, knowledge tests. Not sure how many could
be credibly done by an operator.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(tim.....) wrote:

One of the points I have issue with is the prohibition of "ride
sharing" (by customer choice).

Personally, I think that it should be encouraged, I can't understand
the Taxi "industries" dislike of it.

When travelling in e.g. Germany/Sweden/Finland (all personal
experiences), on arrival at the airport I can go to the taxi pick up
and chose to share a ride with other people going my way (at the
appropriate discount).

ISTM that there would be more punters for long distance rides if this
was available in the UK. I'm buggered if I'm going to walk up to the
rank for a 150 pound taxi for a journey I can do by train for 20
quid, but if offered the opportunity to share the ride with 2 others
for 50 quid each I would happily take it.

Why is the aversion to this so great that the authorities think that
they have to legislate against it, not for it (as other countries do)?

I agree that should be easier (it's not impossible, outside London at least,
now) but it's nothing to do with Uber as such. It needs changes in taxi law
much of which goes back to the days of horse-drawn hansom cabs.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
In article ,
(tim.....) wrote:

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

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

so what does the team think?

The law is clear.

"Services" such as Ãœber cannot operate lawfully unless:

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

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

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

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

The law requires the state in some form to deal with that, not farm it out
to those who have an interest in ignoring them.

(c) the operator (presumably Ãœber) establishes a base within
Greater London and submits to the appropriate licensing regime,
thereafter complying with the requirements for record-keeping, etc.

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

They may not have to comply with that bit much long if the Law Commission
report is legislated for. The coalition somehow managed to let it slip, and
not because Lib Dems didn't agree with it so I wouldn't bank on it, though.

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

Except that anecdotally, it isn't

Vehicle tests, DBS & Police checks, knowledge tests. Not sure how many could
be credibly done by an operator.


I was talking to someone today who's an enthusiastic Uber user. He reckons
that not only are they typically less than half the price of a black cab,
but the service is much better, too.

He said that on the few occasions when the service wasn't up to standard
(eg, the driver took a different, longer route than the Uber app
recommended), Uber agreed and not only refunded the full fare, but even
paid compensation. It seems Uber keeps a full record of the actual route
the driver took, and so can see if he took the wrong route. He also said
that, unlike black cabs, Uber drivers can't reject a fare if it's not where
they want to go (they only discover the destination after accepting the
booking via the app).

What also works well is the international nature of the service: once
you're signed up, you can use the service anywhere in the world that Uber
operates, without having to register locally. And, of course, you don't
need local cash to do so.

It seems like it would be very unwise for the authorities to try to bring
in new rules that favour out-of-date producer interests rather than
consumers who are enjoying a much better, cheaper service.

On 2015-10-01 17:53:47 +0000, tim..... said:

Why is the aversion to this so great that the authorities think that
they have to legislate against it, not for it (as other countries do)?

Something to do with bus regulation, perhaps? I think the
jitney/matatu type approach would work quite well in some UK towns,
particularly smaller ones, and that making it a little less chaotic by
using app-based booking would put a nice civilised edge on it.

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

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

On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 06:46:33PM +0100, tim..... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote:
(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)

Uber taxis have PCO stickers in the window, so they certainly appear to.

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club"

What a lovely day! Now watch me spoil it for you.

On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 09:19:46PM +0000, Recliner wrote:

I was talking to someone today who's an enthusiastic Uber user. He reckons
that not only are they typically less than half the price of a black cab,
but the service is much better, too.

I agree, it is better.

Unlike local minicab offices, I actually know how to get in touch with
Uber, wherever I am. Unlike black cabs, available Uber cabs actually
exist in places that I want to get cabs from. Those alone make Uber far
better than their competitors.

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club"

If you have received this email in error, please add some nutmeg
and egg whites, whisk, and place in a warm oven for 40 minutes.

wrote in message
...
In article ,
(tim.....) wrote:

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

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

so what does the team think?

The law is clear.

"Services" such as Über cannot operate lawfully unless:

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

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

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

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

The law requires the state in some form to deal with that, not farm it out
to those who have an interest in ignoring them.

Ok I should have said "Uber will claim that their drivers do do that" (and
that they "check" that they have. Though I agree that experiences from
other countries shows that this checking process is somewhat cursory)


(c) the operator (presumably Über) establishes a base within
Greater London and submits to the appropriate licensing regime,
thereafter complying with the requirements for record-keeping, etc.

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

They may not have to comply with that bit much long if the Law Commission
report is legislated for. The coalition somehow managed to let it slip,
and
not because Lib Dems didn't agree with it so I wouldn't bank on it,
though.

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

Except that anecdotally, it isn't

Vehicle tests, DBS & Police checks, knowledge tests. Not sure how many
could
be credibly done by an operator.

One of use has misunderstood the meaning of "pointless".

I took it to mean unnecessary, as in "the marker will fill the customer's
needs without it"

I repeat "anecdotally, that doesn't appear to be the case"

tim

On 01/10/2015 18:53, tim..... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...

wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 30/09/2015 17:49, tim..... wrote:

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

so what does the team think?

tim

The law is clear.

"Services" such as Ãœber cannot operate lawfully unless:

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

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

(c) the operator (presumably Ãœber) establishes a base within Greater
London and submits to the appropriate licensing regime, thereafter
complying with the requirements for record-keeping, etc.

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

Indeed. The absolutely crucial protection for the public is (b). Why
people
think it's a good idea to get into cars with possible mass murderers
I just
don't understand.

Those seem fair enough, but I think it would be absurd to stop cabs being
boarded within 5 mins or showing a map of locally available cars. By all
means protect consumers, but not cartels. For example, in an Internet and
Cloud age, why does record keeping have to be based locally? The changes
should be based strictly on increasing competition while protecting
consumers, not suppliers.

One of the points I have issue with is the prohibition of "ride sharing"
(by customer choice).

Personally, I think that it should be encouraged, I can't understand the
Taxi "industries" dislike of it.

When travelling in e.g. Germany/Sweden/Finland (all personal
experiences), on arrival at the airport I can go to the taxi pick up and
chose to share a ride with other people going my way (at the appropriate
discount).

ISTM that there would be more punters for long distance rides if this
was available in the UK. I'm buggered if I'm going to walk up to the
rank for a 150 pound taxi for a journey I can do by train for 20 quid,
but if offered the opportunity to share the ride with 2 others for 50
quid each I would happily take it.

Why is the aversion to this so great that the authorities think that
they have to legislate against it, not for it (as other countries do)?

tim

There is nothing in the London Cab Acts or the Town Police Clauses Act
which prevents passengers from teaming up for a joint-hiring. AAMOF,
they do it all the time.

What the law will not stomach is the operator and/or driver of the cab
(or pirate car) doing the arranging. It has to be up to the passenger to
do the picking and choosing of travelling companions.

On 01/10/2015 18:46, tim..... wrote:

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

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

so what does the team think?

tim

The law is clear.
"Services" such as Über cannot operate lawfully unless:
(a) each vehicle is tested and licensed before commencing operations,
(b) each driver applies for a licence, is investigated and not found
ineligible, before commencing operations, and

Uber will claim that they do do (a) and (b)
(I have no idea if they are right or not)

*If* they do, there's no problem.

At least, not with those aspects.

(c) the operator (presumably Über) establishes a base within Greater
London and submits to the appropriate licensing regime, thereafter
complying with the requirements for record-keeping, etc.

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

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

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

Except that anecdotally, it isn't

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

A pirate car driver breaking the law? Heavens forfend...

tim