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