|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
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 (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. Do all of those (especially assessing and licensing the drivers to weed out dodgy characters) and Über is effectively pointless. |
Quote:
who, as usual, overlooked all the crucial issues and concentrated on a side issue which he misunderstood. I have no connection with Uber. I don't use them. I don't work for them. I don't own shares in them and I don't speak for them. Of course they should comply with the law passed by Tony Blair's Government and administered by TfL, and, of course, they should not have special privileges denied to other minicab firms. But forcing Uber to toe the line is not the issue here. The reason Uber have upset the applecart is because they have recognised a huge change in the market and have worked out how to cater to that changed market. Essentially it's a generation issue. Today's young generation is obsessed with modern technology, in particular smart phones. Go on the underground and watch young adults. They are all face down, concentrating on their smart phones. They don't read books or newspapers and they certainly don't engage in conversations. Nope. They have one obsession only. They use their phones to listen to music in very poor quality sound. Even more absurdly, they watch movies - made to be seen on the big screen - on their phones! They prefer to watch films on a 3" screen to watching at home of a decent sized TV! And when it comes to ordering a cab, they want to use their phones. The taxi trade can bleat and whine as much as they want, and fools like James O'Brien can bark up the wrong tree to their hearts' content, but none of that will change the core issue. The old adage remains valid: he who pays the piper calls the tune. Taxi drivers are not paying for the journey; the passenger is. The passenger can choose how he or she will spend their money. It's not illegal to order a cab via a smart phone and it's not illegal to use a minicab in preference to a taxi. It's not illegal to spend one's money foolishly. TfL can regulate cab firms but they can't regulate the customers, and the customers don't give a tuppenny ha'ppeny damn about TfL or about minicab regulations. I strongly suspect that Uber will eventually put most minicab firms out of business too. One of the central elements of Uber's business model is that payment is done in the same way as with Amazon and other on-line traders. Prospective customers open an account and supply their credit card details. When a cab is ordered, Uber work out the distance involved and debit the credit card accordingly. The passenger does not pay the driver. This eliminates the biggest single complaint customers make about minicabs: drivers overcharging. I foresee a time when large numbers of minicab customers refuse to use their local minicab firms because they have been "ripped off" too often and use Uber instead. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
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. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 10/1/2015 1:55 AM, 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 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 (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. Do all of those (especially assessing and licensing the drivers to weed out dodgy characters) and Über 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. 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?) I have no problem with those conditions though (although forcing (c) in this day and age is a bit odd - as long as they have record keeping to a given, not egregious, standard), as long as all the inspections and licensing are reasonable and at cost. However, I think Uber operate under certainly a and b, and hiring a room with a printer in it could satisfy c. I *like* Uber - it's seemingly reliable, cheap, takes me from A to B (a black cab rarely starts from A - I have to head for a main thoroughfare to find it), and is in fact a lot less "dodgy" (you know how the fare is calculated and the two way review system ensures civility and vehicle cleanliness etc) |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"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) (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 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 tim |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"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 |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
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 |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
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. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
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. |
Quote:
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. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
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. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
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. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
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 |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
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. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
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 |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 02/10/2015 06:26, Robin9 wrote:
;150401 Wrote: Vehicle tests, DBS & Police checks, knowledge tests. Not sure how many could be credibly done by an operator. -- Colin Rosenstiel 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. TIs there a street knowledge test (or requirement) for the drivers of the unlicensed vehicles? Surely that's only for taxi-drivers? |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 03/10/2015 02:08, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote: 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. Why is that deemed to be a passenger benefit? What? 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. Far too many of these rules look like they're there to protect suppliers, not consumers. But not that one. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 10/3/2015 2:29 AM, JNugent wrote:
On 03/10/2015 02:08, Recliner wrote: 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. Why is that deemed to be a passenger benefit? What? 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? |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015-10-03 01:29:58 +0000, JNugent said:
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. But demand-responsive hailable shared transport (unless you arrange the share) is not available, and seems to be illegal. Why? It would seem to provide an effective half-bus half-taxi means of transport in smaller towns where proper bus operation is increasingly unaffordable. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015-10-03 01:12:37 +0000, JNugent said:
TIs there a street knowledge test (or requirement) for the drivers of the unlicensed vehicles? Surely that's only for taxi-drivers? Who cares? It's 2015, there is sat-nav. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message
-septe mber.org, at 09:57:52 on Sat, 3 Oct 2015, Recliner remarked: Once during a Metro strike in Paris, I shared a cab to the airport with three strangers from the long taxi queue. I'm pretty sure that in times of great stress (like tube strikes) there are measures put in place at some London mainline terminal stations to 'force' people to share taxis to nearby destinations. And in the USA I've been at several Conference Centres where the taxi line at the end of the day is managed by the site's security staff and they 'force' people heading for the same destination (usually a hotel) to share a cab. A lot of Americans dislike this idea, but are given the choice of "share a cab or walk". It's remarkably easy to organise - the person at the head of the queue tells the cab marshal where they are going, and he calls that out eg: "Downtown Hilton". And until they have enough additional 'volunteers' from the queue to fill the cab, it goes nowhere. -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
... In message , at 05:32:14 on Sat, 3 Oct 2015, remarked: TIs there a street knowledge test (or requirement) for the drivers of the unlicensed vehicles? Surely that's only for taxi-drivers? Who cares? It's 2015, there is sat-nav. Hollow laugh How many sat-nav howlers are you aware of? Satnavs aren't always very good at trips to *places* rather than *addresses*. I remember many years ago getting into a cab in central London with a visitor from the USA and telling the driver the name of a small restaurant in Kensington. Where he whisked us with no additional prompting. The visitor was amazed! -- Roland Perry With Uber you confirm the pickup and drop off points on a map, and the search function is probably linked to Google so it will already know most places. It would make sense for the app to learn anything that isn't already in the search DB so if anyone is ever picked up or dropped off there it gets added to the search function. Sat-Nav howlers tend to be confined to standalone units (e.g. units fitted in cars) with out of date map data; everyone else uses a smartphone with online data. The driver of a taxi I pulled off the rank at Newark,NJ airport recently only had a standalone unit with limited address data and had great difficulty finding my hotel. Uber (which I started using once I had got there) would have found the same hotel with no problem. I've only had a couple of glitches with Uber in New Jersey: 1. The driver for what should have been my very first journey cancelled the booking when he realised he would be driving 10 miles to pick me up for a 2 mile trip, so I used a local cab firm instead. 2. When I requested a taxi to meet me off a train the driver arrived at the wrong side of the tracks and both the nearest crossing points - a bridge and a level crossing - were closed to road traffic due to engineering work on the railroad. A rather long diversion was required but that was his problem, not mine. -- DAS |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"JNugent" wrote in message ... On 01/10/2015 18:53, tim..... wrote: 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. That's no bloody use to a solo traveller arriving at an airport (off a plane) What the law will not stomach why the hell not? what's the rational for this visceral aversion? None that I can see! I can understand if the argument was "protectionist" (though I wouldn't agree with it), But "will not stomach" That's an absolutely bollox reason is the operator and/or driver of the cab (or pirate car) doing the arranging. But it wouldn't be the driver if it was arranged by an airport "official" It has to be up to the passenger to do the picking and choosing of travelling companions. Why? (and don't say "because the law says so" [1] - The question here is "why does the law say so") tim [1]Which is what you did last time I broached this subject |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message , at 12:48:53 on Sat, 3 Oct
2015, D A Stocks remarked: Satnavs aren't always very good at trips to *places* rather than *addresses*. I remember many years ago getting into a cab in central London with a visitor from the USA and telling the driver the name of a small restaurant in Kensington. Where he whisked us with no additional prompting. The visitor was amazed! With Uber you confirm the pickup and drop off points on a map, and the search function is probably linked to Google so it will already know most places. That's no help if all I know is the name of a place, and can't locate it on a map. If in a strange City it can be very difficult to correlate random destinations with "points on a map". -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"JNugent" wrote in message ... On 03/10/2015 02:08, Recliner wrote: JNugent wrote: 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. Why is that deemed to be a passenger benefit? What? 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. not from the Airport to my required destination (or even close) tim |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
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. -- Denis McMahon, |
Quote:
registered with TfL and therefore have complied with all the requirements, e.g. health checks, CRB checks. TfL claim they have carried out on Uber their most thorough check ever on a minicab firm. Nearly all the scare propaganda about Uber comes from people with a vested interest in denigrating them, i.e the black cab trade and politicians too lazy to learn the facts. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message , at 09:32:10 on Sun, 4
Oct 2015, Robin9 remarked: So far, there is no evidence that Uber drivers in London are not registered with TfL and therefore have complied with all the requirements, e.g. health checks, CRB checks. TfL claim they have carried out on Uber their most thorough check ever on a minicab firm. Nearly all the scare propaganda about Uber comes from people with a vested interest in denigrating them, i.e the black cab trade and politicians too lazy to learn the facts. Curiously, it's other minicab firms which are also complaining. I've not seen much about Uber's drivers failing to be checked by Uber regarding health and DBS checks, but there's a certain amount of FUD regarding insurance, which it's claimed is only checked on day-1 and is the driver's responsibility (rather than traditionally the fleet's responsibility). The biggest compliant, however, is that Uber's drivers ply-for-hire and cause a nuisance by parking up at what are in effect "pirate ranks". It's a bit ironic that a system allegedly designed to be able to more easily *pre*-book a car, is in fact being used to circumvent the distinction between hackneys and private hire. -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"Denis McMahon" wrote in message ... 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. I don't think anyone disagree with that: What the discussion is really about is should those rules be deliberately written in such a way as to exclude anyone from operating as a "cab" company unless they either : 1) have done "the knowledge" or 2) operate as a one man band out of an office in Haringey (or whatever). Whilst it is clear that individual drivers have to be insured, run safe cars, be CRB checked etc etc etc what possible reason could there be for e.g. banning the operation of the "one man cab" out of an office in Slough? I can see that there are general consumer issues with contracting a service from a company who operates from a foreign base, but what is there that makes a taxi company different here? There aren't rules in place than forbid other types of service being sold by other foreign companies (and for companies within the EU such rules would be illegal). It for the consumer to decide if he wants to take thus risk in return for a "better" product. Of course part of this argument is about the extra costs of obtaining/running a "ply for hire" cab against the costs of running a pre-booked cab, when the pre-booked cabs try to find ways of operating as "ply for hire" in fact without doing so in law. But this problem should be approached for what it is. 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. tim |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
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. -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 04.10.15 8:32, Robin9 wrote:
'Denis McMahon[_4_ Wrote: ;150468']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. -- Denis McMahon, So far, there is no evidence that Uber drivers in London are not registered with TfL and therefore have complied with all the requirements, e.g. health checks, CRB checks. TfL claim they have carried out on Uber their most thorough check ever on a minicab firm. Nearly all the scare propaganda about Uber comes from people with a vested interest in denigrating them, i.e the black cab trade and politicians too lazy to learn the facts. I wonder if there are any accusations of carteling by the black cab trade. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 03/10/2015 13:08, tim..... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message ... On 01/10/2015 18:53, tim..... wrote: 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. That's no bloody use to a solo traveller arriving at an airport (off a plane) I've done it in Sofia (which meant I only got a /bit/ ripped off compared to getting in a taxi without someone with local knowledge...) and somewhere else I've forgotten. I suggested it to someone in the queue^H^H line with me at a US airport who was getting off the same flight to go to the same hotel for the same conference, but she clearly thought I was mad and quite possibly an ax(e)-murderer and so we joined the convoy of one-passenger cars heading into town. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:49 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk