On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 14:18:29 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 06:13:47PM +0100, JNugent wrote:

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.

No there hasn't.

Imagine, for example, that you are in an industrial estate in Peckham.
There are no black cabs cruising the industrial estate looking for
passengers.

How do you get home?

Bus or train?

--
Spud

In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

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.

Is that what happens in London? The view taken here is that a penalty
applied by the licensing authority should not be disproportionate to that
applied by the courts. So a license suspension of 1-3 months is more common
following a plying for hire conviction to allow the driver to ponder what he
needs to do to make himself a fit and proper person to be a hire car driver
again.

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.

You'll have to argue that with the CPS.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 25/04/2016 09:51, Recliner wrote:

I wonder if there's scope for Uber being held responsible for the insurance
of any ride booked through it? So, if one of its drivers turned out not to
have valid insurance, Uber would be forced to settle any claims. That way,
it might be a lot more careful about checking its drivers' insurance.

Who has actually proven that Uber are not careful about checking its
drivers' insurance?

The accusation seems to stem from FUD spread by the Black cab brigade.

Boris Johnson introduced a one-strike-and-you're-out policy
regarding private hire drivers touting for business. If they are
caught doing it, they lose their private hire license which means
no licensed cab firm can give them work.

Many thanks.

Uber is responsible for checking that any driver they give work to
has valid private hire insurance. This is a fundamental requirement
of every minicab firm licensed by TfL.

Neither Uber nor any minicab firm can insure cars in which they
have no insurable interest. A firm like Addison Lee which leases
cars and is therefore responsible to the leasing company for the
return of the cars in good condition clearly has an insurable
interest. A cab firm which does not provide cars to the drivers has
no such insurable interest. (This was one of the blind alleys TfL
went down cheerfully at, it must be said, the behest of those
twin ignorames Val Shawcross and Caroline Pidgeon. I believe
TfL have now been informed of some of the basic rules of
insurance)

On 24/04/2016 17:54, JNugent wrote:
[...]
In that case, the advance booking period needs to be a more-credible 24
hours.

Is that all? It should be at least three months, with a process a bit
like booking a holiday on the other side of the world. Prospective
customers should have to front a significant deposit - we're talking
taking out a new mortgage territory. And they should have to present at
least three proofs of identity to the driver.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

On 25/04/2016 14:52, d wrote:

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 14:18:29 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 06:13:47PM +0100, JNugent wrote:

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.

No there hasn't.

Imagine, for example, that you are in an industrial estate in Peckham.
There are no black cabs cruising the industrial estate looking for
passengers.

How do you get home?

Bus or train?


Yep, David's managed to come up with a rather odd way to put forward the
argument against Mr Nugent's much odder and totally unworkable proposition.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
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".

That just has to be illegal and would get you a conviction if caught by a
"mystery shopper".

And, of course, getting caught by a mystery shopper is the only way that you
*are* going to get caught so why then bother with the "phone in" pretence

tim

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 13:16:28 on
Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Recliner remarked:

Unfortunately that looks like a Parking restriction, not a Waiting
restriction.

I don't think you can have a session-limited "No Waiting" sign.

As no unattended parking is allowed by the Police, what's the
difference between a Waiting and a Parking restriction?

That's not a compulsory sign, though. And the whole problem is that the
police *don't* enforce anything in practice.

surely that's because it has been "devolved" to the council

(Sorry, forget the real word)

tim