JNugent wrote:
On 26/04/2016 16:23, David Walters wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 07:14:45 -0700 (PDT), Steve Lewis wrote:
You can go to the trouble of finding out the phone number of a taxi
firm in your current locality. Or you can just use the Uber app that
you have already installed on your smartphone.

But that wouldn't help in the situtation being discussed where private
hire requires 24 hours notice and I require a cab in my bit of suburban
North London right now for an emergency so need a black cab.

Although if private hire did require 24 hours notice there might be more
black cabs about serving the short notice requirement.

No London green-badged cab driver can afford to hang around in the
suburbs where there isn't enough work to keep him busy.

However, there is the London yellow-badged driver, licensed only to ply
for hire within certain London suburban areas (known as sectors). They
are available in the whole of outer London:

http://www.theknowledgetaxi.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/suburban.jpg


Why would someone ring for one of those when they could equally well ring a
local mini cab firm, which would be much cheaper, and provide a less
polluting vehicle (probably a modern hybrid car, not a rattling, smelly
diesel)?

So what?

Nearly all minicab drivers in the London area are self-employed.
That they are self-employed does not mean they can accept
work on their own. TfL has mandated that any booking of a
minicab must be done at/with a licensed cab firm. A driver
cannot accept a booking unless he is also licensed as an
operator. (I understand a few are)

Therefore in practice a minicab driver has to be accepted
by a licensed cab firm which is not allowed to take on drivers
if they do not have a valid license.

I assure you in some outer suburbs of London black cabs
available for hire are very rare indeed. You do see some black
cabs not available because a few drivers live in the suburbs.

Yes, that's your policy and it's fine for you. Other people
have a different attitude. Some do not object to Uber.
Some go out of their area and the minicab service they
normally use does not have cars in that location. Most do not
carry phone numbers of dozens of different car firms.

Very few car firms, possibly only Addison Lee and Uber,
have cars all over London.

Recliner writes:

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

Whether or not the engine is turned off, and for automatics whether it
is in 'neutral' or 'park'?

In article ,
(Robin9) wrote:

;155190 Wrote:
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.

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.

That is very harsh given the penalties applied by the courts and against the
legal advice given to Cambridge councillors. Drivers (outside London at
least) have a right of appeal to the Magistrates' Court. Have any disbarred
drivers so appealed, and with what outcome?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 25/04/2016 14:18, 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?

The whole reason why unlicensed* "private hire cars" (so-called) can
operate with their unlicensed* drivers is a loophole in the law which
distinguishes immediate hirings from advance bookings.

Immediate hirings - taxis.

Advance bookings - taxis (of course) *or* "private hire cars".

But unless a significant minimum period for that advance booking is
established and enforced, in practice, the law prohibiting unlicensed
plying-for-hire cannot be operated properly.

[* "licensed" here means licensed as a taxi or as a taxi-driver.]

Isn't the number of taxis limited a certain number while there are no such
limits to the number of hire cars because the law doesn't allow it? That was
certainly the situation in Cambridge until 2001, with the number of taxi
licences clearly far too few for the business on offer. I'm surprised you
would support such monopolistic practice if there is a limit.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 26/04/2016 17:11, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 26/04/2016 16:23, David Walters wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 07:14:45 -0700 (PDT), Steve Lewis wrote:
You can go to the trouble of finding out the phone number of a taxi
firm in your current locality. Or you can just use the Uber app that
you have already installed on your smartphone.

But that wouldn't help in the situtation being discussed where private
hire requires 24 hours notice and I require a cab in my bit of suburban
North London right now for an emergency so need a black cab.

Although if private hire did require 24 hours notice there might be more
black cabs about serving the short notice requirement.

No London green-badged cab driver can afford to hang around in the
suburbs where there isn't enough work to keep him busy.
However, there is the London yellow-badged driver, licensed only to ply
for hire within certain London suburban areas (known as sectors). They
are available in the whole of outer London:
http://www.theknowledgetaxi.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/suburban.jpg

Why would someone ring for one of those when they could equally well ring a
local mini cab firm, which would be much cheaper, and provide a less
polluting vehicle (probably a modern hybrid car, not a rattling, smelly
diesel)?

You seem very certain of that.

On 26/04/2016 18:19, wrote:
In article ,
(Robin9) wrote:

;155190 Wrote:
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.

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.

That is very harsh given the penalties applied by the courts and against the
legal advice given to Cambridge councillors. Drivers (outside London at
least) have a right of appeal to the Magistrates' Court. Have any disbarred
drivers so appealed, and with what outcome?

If they can prove that after all, they are a fit and proper person to
hold a hire car driver's licence, despite clear evidence to the
contrary, they ought to succeed.

FX: rolls eyes

On 26/04/2016 18:19, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 25/04/2016 14:18, 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?

The whole reason why unlicensed* "private hire cars" (so-called) can
operate with their unlicensed* drivers is a loophole in the law which
distinguishes immediate hirings from advance bookings.

Immediate hirings - taxis.

Advance bookings - taxis (of course) *or* "private hire cars".

But unless a significant minimum period for that advance booking is
established and enforced, in practice, the law prohibiting unlicensed
plying-for-hire cannot be operated properly.

[* "licensed" here means licensed as a taxi or as a taxi-driver.]

Isn't the number of taxis limited a certain number while there are no such
limits to the number of hire cars because the law doesn't allow it?

No.

That was
certainly the situation in Cambridge until 2001, with the number of taxi
licences clearly far too few for the business on offer. I'm surprised you
would support such monopolistic practice if there is a limit.

The Transport Act of either 1995 or 2005 (I forget which, though 1995
rings the louder bell) forbade such limitation of the number of taxi
vehicles licences.

Limitation - if used (it isn't used everywhere) - now has to be
determined by quasi-scientific means. The usual method is to survey the
trade at "busy" times, whereas the correct method would be to survey the
trade at non-busy times, eg: a fine dry Tuesday mid-morning in April.