In Pancras Road - the road that runs between Kings Cross
and St. Pancras stations - the waiting time allowed is three
minutes, if I recall correctly.

In message , at 17:54:43 on Sun, 24
Apr 2016, JNugent remarked:

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.

Five minutes is enough - because then there's a more level playing field
between drivers who are parked legally five minutes away, and those who
are parked illegally zero minutes away.

The objective being to disincentivise the zero-minutes-away mob, and
also stop them touting at the kerbside then asking the passenger to call
in the "booking".
--
Roland Perry

On 24/04/2016 18:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:54:43 on Sun, 24
Apr 2016, JNugent remarked:

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.

Five minutes is enough - because then there's a more level playing field
between drivers who are parked legally five minutes away, and those who
are parked illegally zero minutes away.

The objective being to disincentivise the zero-minutes-away mob, and
also stop them touting at the kerbside then asking the passenger to call
in the "booking".

There's always been a good case for the advance booking period for a
so-called "private hire car" to be at least twenty-four hours.

The advance period is the "get out of jail free card" from the charge of
illegal plying for hire, so let's strengthen it.

JNugent wrote:
On 24/04/2016 18:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:54:43 on Sun, 24
Apr 2016, JNugent remarked:

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.

Five minutes is enough - because then there's a more level playing field
between drivers who are parked legally five minutes away, and those who
are parked illegally zero minutes away.

The objective being to disincentivise the zero-minutes-away mob, and
also stop them touting at the kerbside then asking the passenger to call
in the "booking".

There's always been a good case for the advance booking period for a
so-called "private hire car" to be at least twenty-four hours.

Only 24 hours? Surely you'd prefer it to be 31 days, to be booked only in
writing, counter-signed by a magistrate, and delivered by black cab?


The advance period is the "get out of jail free card" from the charge of
illegal plying for hire, so let's strengthen it.

Presumably you regard any form of non-black-cabbing as a criminal offence
worthy of capital punishment?

In message , at 19:06:35 on Sun, 24
Apr 2016, Robin9 remarked:

if someone threatened to ticket them they could claim they are waiting
for a customer and that they are allowed ?20 minutes for that.

In Pancras Road - the road that runs between Kings Cross
and St. Pancras stations - the waiting time allowed is three
minutes, if I recall correctly.

I have never heard of any such a restriction, but will be there tomorrow
and will check.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

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.

In a case where drivers caught plying for hire were brought before
councillors for their licences to be considered at least one had not been
prosecuted for not having insurance on the grounds I gave. I can't give you
more details but the driver was operating for the largest local operator.
Decisions to prosecute are of course taken by the police and CPS and not by
councillors. The offences were disclosed in a joint operation between the
police and council licensing enforcement staff.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 24/04/2016 21:24, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 24/04/2016 18:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:54:43 on Sun, 24
Apr 2016, JNugent remarked:

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.

Five minutes is enough - because then there's a more level playing field
between drivers who are parked legally five minutes away, and those who
are parked illegally zero minutes away.

The objective being to disincentivise the zero-minutes-away mob, and
also stop them touting at the kerbside then asking the passenger to call
in the "booking".

There's always been a good case for the advance booking period for a
so-called "private hire car" to be at least twenty-four hours.

Only 24 hours? Surely you'd prefer it to be 31 days, to be booked only in
writing, counter-signed by a magistrate, and delivered by black cab?

Only 24 hours.

The advance period is the "get out of jail free card" from the charge of
illegal plying for hire, so let's strengthen it.

Presumably you regard any form of non-black-cabbing as a criminal offence
worthy of capital punishment?

For unlicensed (and therefore uninsured) plying for hire, that's a
suggestion worthy of serious consideration. Thank you for making it.

On 25/04/2016 00:04, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

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.

In a case where drivers caught plying for hire were brought before
councillors for their licences to be considered at least one had not been
prosecuted for not having insurance on the grounds I gave. I can't give you
more details but the driver was operating for the largest local operator.
Decisions to prosecute are of course taken by the police and CPS and not by
councillors. The offences were disclosed in a joint operation between the
police and council licensing enforcement staff.

Dodgy decision.

The insurer would definitely have wriggled out of a claim by an
unlicensed taxi whose driver had plied for hire illegally. They would
have to do that in order to protect their underwriters. And that's the
(only) test.

It's some time since I've been there, but on the St. Pancras
Station side, there were small signs attached to lamp posts
saying that three minutes was the maximum waiting period. My
guess is they're still there.

In message , at 18:04:05
on Sun, 24 Apr 2016, remarked:

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.
....

In a case where drivers caught plying for hire were brought before
councillors for their licences to be considered at least one had not been
prosecuted for not having insurance on the grounds I gave. I can't give you
more details but the driver was operating for the largest local operator.

That'll be on account of them having a fleet policy, which is precisely
what Uber doesn't. Each driver has to source his own insurance (that's
for being a minicab, not plying for hire). This arrangement doesn't
scale well and the black cab activists claim that TfL is simply unable
to police whether or not the hugely increased number of sole trader
drivers are insured or not.
--
Roland Perry