George Galloway promises to crack down on Uber if he becomes
Mayor of London. He won't become Mayor of course, but although
I disagree with him on most issues, I'd rather have him as Mayor
than any of the more likely candidates. I'm going to make him my
second choice.

In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 22/04/2016 22:50, Mizter T wrote:

On 22/04/2016 20:05, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 19:12:08 on Fri, 22 Apr
2016, Mizter T remarked:

The complaint is they claim minicabs are plying for hire around St
Pancras and KX.

More specifically, uninsured minicabs.

Wrong, that's not the complaint.

Private hire cars (aka minicabs) are not allowed to ply for hire on the
streets, only taxis can do that.

I'd suggest that you'll find very few, if any, TfL-licensed but
uninsured minicabs out on the street in London - being uninsured means
they'll lose their licence.

The lack of insurance is automatic (irrespective of any policy paid
for) if (or perhaps when) the driver of the pirate car plies for hire
by approaching or responding to would-be passengers in the street.

Not always so, actually. In a case I dealt with as a member of the Cambridge
licensing committee, one hire car driver caught plying for hire was driving
for a firm that also had hackneys so insured all its vehicles for both
plying for both uses. This is much more unlikely in London where there isn't
the cross-over in fleets that there s in Cambridge.

It's not like the good old bad old days when anyone could be a minicab
driver in London, when undoubtedly a fair few weren't properly insured.

If (ie, when) they ply for hire, they still aren't. They cannot be.

They can as I said above have insurance that covers plying for hire. They
are still guilty of other offences of course but tend to get fewer points on
their licences because the minimum for insurance offences is six points.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 10:36:21 on Sat, 23 Apr 2016,
tim... remarked:

Sometime because selling that way is genuinely cheaper and sometimes (as
here) that saving has come about because the product on offer doesn't have
to jump through the regulatory hoops that have historically been set up
for that type of business, usually either to enforce tax collection or
improve consumer standards.

Or in this case, invent their own pirate ranks on double yellow lines,

So ticket them, I don't see the problem here (well I do see the problem,
what I don't see is why we have to "invent" a new solution, there is an
adequate one already available)

and clog the traffic as well as making it much harder to black cabs to
pick up and drop off at various venues.

I'm not sure if "having insurance" comes under your "consumer standards"

Of course

I am not on the side of Uber here

I think they are a predatory cherry picker.

And then of course there's the "employment standards" where the drivers
are trading short term work for longer term security.

Casual drivers are self employed, as long as they meet that definition
(supply own equipment, work hours to suit them etc etc) it's their choice.
If they don't like it they need to apply for a real job like the rest of us.
(By which I mean the rest of us have made that free choice, not that we are
all "employed" - because I know that WE are not)

But that's also the model for other ecommerce supplier with courier
drivers on zero hours self employed contracts.

That's a different matter (and possibly one that wouldn't stand to a legal
challenge if there were people with both the means and the motivation to
take it that far)

When they get too old or sick to work, the public purse will have to pick
up the tab.

as it will with employed people who haven't contributed sufficiently to a
pension. That's a total red herring

tim

"Robin9" wrote in message
...

Roland Perry;155109 Wrote:
In message , at 11:17:17 on Sat, 23 Apr
2016, tim... remarked:
--
What Uber have done is turn a large number of sets of double yellow
lines into illegal "Uber Ranks".-

so go and ticket them then - simples.-

Apparently the authorities aren't doing this - which would explain why
the black cabs are taking direct action.
-
If it's so prevalent as you say it should be as easy a shooting fish in

an barrel and return the costs of doing so in a heartbeat-

They probably move off as soon as they see the Ritas on the horizon.
--
It's all very well to say their business model is attracting lots of
customers, but a big part of that is because they are operating in
this grey market with very little regulation.-

Oh I agree, but I don't see this 5 minute wait as being a solution to
any of the problems-

It would help solve the parking issues.
--
Roland Perry

The obvious way to impose fines on Uber drivers who "cluster"
and contravene parking and waiting regulations is to use a "spy car"
- my term - which is car with a camera inside. In my part of London,
both Redbridge and Waltham Forest use "spy cars" ferociously.

(to be) made illegal by Deregulation Act 2015

S53 provides the power for the SoS to create a list of "technological" means
by which parking tickets cannot be enforced, presumably to make the
legislation future proof.

the stated intention of this change was to prohibit the use of camera cars
(except on Red Routes) and presumably the order creating the list containing
that item can be found somewhere in the government's workload (though I
haven't managed it yet

tim

In message , at 23:22:19 on Sat, 23 Apr
2016, tim... remarked:

Or in this case, invent their own pirate ranks on double yellow lines,

So ticket them, I don't see the problem here (well I do see the
problem, what I don't see is why we have to "invent" a new solution,
there is an adequate one already available)

I expect the problem is that in the absence of "No Stopping" zones, even
if someone threatened to ticket them they could claim they are waiting
for a customer and that they are allowed ?20 minutes for that.
--
Roland Perry

On 23/04/2016 17:14, Robin9 wrote:
Roland Perry;155109 Wrote:
In message , at 11:17:17 on Sat, 23 Apr
2016, tim... remarked:
--
What Uber have done is turn a large number of sets of double yellow
lines into illegal "Uber Ranks".-

so go and ticket them then - simples.-

Apparently the authorities aren't doing this - which would explain why
the black cabs are taking direct action.
-
If it's so prevalent as you say it should be as easy a shooting fish in

an barrel and return the costs of doing so in a heartbeat-

They probably move off as soon as they see the Ritas on the horizon.


It would help solve the parking issues.
--
Roland Perry

The obvious way to impose fines on Uber drivers who "cluster"
and contravene parking and waiting regulations is to use a "spy car"
- my term - which is car with a camera inside. In my part of London,
both Redbridge and Waltham Forest use "spy cars" ferociously.



Or of course councils can ticket off CCTV cameras can't they? Or are we
saying these areas are also coincidentally not covered?

In message , at 12:19:16 on Sun, 24 Apr
2016, Someone Somewhere remarked:

The obvious way to impose fines on Uber drivers who "cluster"
and contravene parking and waiting regulations is to use a "spy car"
- my term - which is car with a camera inside. In my part of London,
both Redbridge and Waltham Forest use "spy cars" ferociously.

Or of course councils can ticket off CCTV cameras can't they?

I don't think so.

Or are we saying these areas are also coincidentally not covered?

How can you identify individual cars from CCTV if half a dozen are
parked end to end?
--
Roland Perry

On 24/04/2016 12:23, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:19:16 on Sun, 24 Apr
2016, Someone Somewhere remarked:

The obvious way to impose fines on Uber drivers who "cluster"
and contravene parking and waiting regulations is to use a "spy car"
- my term - which is car with a camera inside. In my part of London,
both Redbridge and Waltham Forest use "spy cars" ferociously.

Or of course councils can ticket off CCTV cameras can't they?

I don't think so.

They could until 18 months ago (I just checked) - sorry!


Or are we saying these areas are also coincidentally not covered?

How can you identify individual cars from CCTV if half a dozen are
parked end to end?

At some point they have to get in and out and you can easily read a
plate then, but the point is moot as it's now illegal to ticket in that way.

On 23/04/2016 10:14, tim... wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 22:50:11 on Fri, 22 Apr
2016, Mizter T remarked:
The complaint is they claim minicabs are plying for hire around St
Pancras and KX.

More specifically, uninsured minicabs.

Wrong, that's not the complaint.

Private hire cars (aka minicabs) are not allowed to ply for hire on
the streets, only taxis can do that.

I'd suggest that you'll find very few, if any, TfL-licensed but
uninsured minicabs out on the street in London - being uninsured
means they'll lose their licence.

No, the complaint is that because Uber has roughly doubled the number
of minicabs in London, the TfL compliance department has been
overwhelmed and can no longer adequately police whether the cabs do
have proper insurance. That's insurance for being a minicab at all,
not insurance for pretending to be a hackney.

There's a secondary gripe, about Uber cars lurking around hot spots
like Kings Cross, blocking the streets as they don't have any ranks to
use, so that they can pick up their fares in seconds. One of the
changes that's being asked for is a period of purdah (5 minutes
perhaps) between someone ordering a Uber and it being allowed to pick
them up.

I can't see the connection between those two things though.

The 5 minute wait was just a "ruse" to disrupt the business model and
ISTM is unlikely to have any effect on drivers congregating "just around
the corner" from major pick up points. It's so short that they would
just wait there for 5 minutes longer.

In that case, the advance booking period needs to be a more-credible 24
hours.

On 23/04/2016 20:16, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 22/04/2016 22:50, Mizter T wrote:

On 22/04/2016 20:05, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 19:12:08 on Fri, 22 Apr
2016, Mizter T remarked:

The complaint is they claim minicabs are plying for hire around St
Pancras and KX.

More specifically, uninsured minicabs.

Wrong, that's not the complaint.

Private hire cars (aka minicabs) are not allowed to ply for hire on the
streets, only taxis can do that.

I'd suggest that you'll find very few, if any, TfL-licensed but
uninsured minicabs out on the street in London - being uninsured means
they'll lose their licence.

The lack of insurance is automatic (irrespective of any policy paid
for) if (or perhaps when) the driver of the pirate car plies for hire
by approaching or responding to would-be passengers in the street.

Not always so, actually. In a case I dealt with as a member of the Cambridge
licensing committee, one hire car driver caught plying for hire was driving
for a firm that also had hackneys so insured all its vehicles for both
plying for both uses. This is much more unlikely in London where there isn't
the cross-over in fleets that there s in Cambridge.

It's not like the good old bad old days when anyone could be a minicab
driver in London, when undoubtedly a fair few weren't properly insured.

If (ie, when) they ply for hire, they still aren't. They cannot be.

They can as I said above have insurance that covers plying for hire. They
are still guilty of other offences of course but tend to get fewer points on
their licences because the minimum for insurance offences is six points.

Let's be clear: does the insurance company cover illegal, unlicensed,
criminal plying for hire (eg, by drivers with convictions for rape in
vehicles which do not satisfy the requirements for lawful plying for hire)?

The mere fact that some broker has issued a cover note might mean that a
casual HORT1 stop by the police can be deflected. But it will not
necessarily mean that the passenger will be covered if his spine is
injured in a traffic accident.