Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#161
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2017-04-07 10:24:31 +0000, tim... said:
There's currently an argument in Brighton about Uber drivers from London being allowed to operate in the city (on their London registration papers) because Brighton's requirements for the vehicle are stricter - one of which is that cars MUST be fitted with CCTV recording in-cab (for passenger safety, apparently) This kind of thing is the problem. I see no reason for Councils to do their own thing on this at all - a national scheme would be better (and would protect people better, as a ban or suspension would be national too). Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
#162
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at 11:24:31 on Fri, 7 Apr 2017,
tim... remarked: How would that enable your car to be tested for compliance? Compliance with what? Is the MoT not adequate? If it isn't, then it needs beefing up for *all* cars, there is no reason to specifically single out private-hire cars for that purpose. There's currently an argument in Brighton about Uber drivers from London being allowed to operate in the city (on their London registration papers) because Brighton's requirements for the vehicle are stricter - one of which is that cars MUST be fitted with CCTV recording in-cab (for passenger safety, apparently) And iirc Oxford tried to mandate CCTV that also captured the voices, but got slapped down by the ICO. -- Roland Perry |
#163
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at 11:44:21 on Fri, 7 Apr
2017, Neil Williams remarked: There's currently an argument in Brighton about Uber drivers from London being allowed to operate in the city (on their London registration papers) because Brighton's requirements for the vehicle are stricter - one of which is that cars MUST be fitted with CCTV recording in-cab (for passenger safety, apparently) This kind of thing is the problem. I see no reason for Councils to do their own thing on this at all - a national scheme would be better (and would protect people better, as a ban or suspension would be national too). The difficulty is you may find some of the individual local laws being contradictory[1] and by the time you've amalgamated them, all the list will be impossibly long and much of it irrelevant or unworkable in some localities. [1] You MUST or MUST-NOT use a taxi meter, is one that spring to mind. -- Roland Perry |
#164
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#165
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at 16:18:42 on Thu, 6 Apr
2017, Neil Williams remarked: What change is required - I hope you don't mean "no hire/reward insurance and no CRB checking"? DBS checking (you're out of date there) is dead easy to do, so no, not that. I run loads of them for Scouting purposes and have one myself. I think what I'd change is make licensing a national remit and design it for ease of obtaining one (and ease of cancellation if you don't behave), e.g. a smooth online process. Just seen proposals from my District Council to reform the rules, which are in response to *local* considerations, including: Enhancing the existing dress code. DBS check annually rather than every three years. Driver medicals every three years. (The current system asks for a medical on application then nothing until the age of 45. Then every five years until the age of 65 when it switches to annual medicals.) Allowing novelty vehicles like fire engines, army vehicles and tuk tuk rickshaws to register. [This appears to reverse a decision in 2008 that all taxis should be painted a standard colour, for easy recognition, and has certain tensions with the dress code - surely a novelty vehicle would really need a novelty uniform] -- Roland Perry |
#166
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2017-04-17 06:51:56 +0000, Roland Perry said:
Just seen proposals from my District Council to reform the rules, which are in response to *local* considerations, including: Enhancing the existing dress code. I would consider that a commercial matter for the operator and not something a local authority should be getting involved in for private hire. DBS check annually rather than every three years. A pointless and expensive waste of time. Can't they just use the update service, which essentially gives a continuous check at a far lower cost? Driver medicals every three years. (The current system asks for a medical on application then nothing until the age of 45. Then every five years until the age of 65 when it switches to annual medicals.) People don't get sick in Cambridge more than elsewhere. That is not a local consideration at all. Allowing novelty vehicles like fire engines, army vehicles and tuk tuk rickshaws to register. [This appears to reverse a decision in 2008 that all taxis should be painted a standard colour, for easy recognition, and has certain tensions with the dress code - surely a novelty vehicle would really need a novelty uniform] That's a niche case, really. Recognition of a private hire vehicle has become moot, because almost everyone will be informed in some way of the registration number of their allocated vehicle prior to its arrival. Only if you telephone for one using a landline would this not occur, which is heading dangerously towards the proverbial goats these days. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
#167
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#168
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at 23:05:11 on Mon, 17
Apr 2017, Neil Williams remarked: On 2017-04-17 06:51:56 +0000, Roland Perry said: Just seen proposals from my District Council to reform the rules, which are in response to *local* considerations, including: Enhancing the existing dress code. I would consider that a commercial matter for the operator and not something a local authority should be getting involved in for private hire. The licencing authority doesn't want tourists arriving at the station to be greeted by a load of scruffs in beaten up taxis. DBS check annually rather than every three years. A pointless and expensive waste of time. Can't they just use the update service, which essentially gives a continuous check at a far lower cost? That sounds like a useful contribution to the consultation. Driver medicals every three years. (The current system asks for a medical on application then nothing until the age of 45. Then every five years until the age of 65 when it switches to annual medicals.) People don't get sick in Cambridge more than elsewhere. That is not a local consideration at all. It's not Cambridge, and it's not about the flu - rather degeneration because of age, which happens everywhere. Allowing novelty vehicles like fire engines, army vehicles and tuk tuk rickshaws to register. [This appears to reverse a decision in 2008 that all taxis should be painted a standard colour, for easy recognition, and has certain tensions with the dress code - surely a novelty vehicle would really need a novelty uniform] That's a niche case, really. Recognition of a private hire vehicle has become moot, because almost everyone will be informed in some way of the registration number of their allocated vehicle prior to its arrival. Only if you telephone for one using a landline would this not occur, which is heading dangerously towards the proverbial goats these days. Cambridge only got Uber a few months ago. I've just asked for a quote to get from here to Cambridge, and Uber says £32-44 "no cars available". The fare by regular minicab is £38 (fixed). The further one goes, the more the fares diverge. eg To Sansted, Uber quotes £72-£97, whereas local firms charge variously £55-£70. -- Roland Perry |
#169
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#170
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Woking to Heathrow | London Transport | |||
Woking to Heathrow | London Transport | |||
Jetpod - Woking to London in 4 minutes | London Transport |