London Banter - View Single Post

Recliner[_3_] · April 25th 16, 08:51 AM posted to uk.transport.london

Roland Perry wrote:
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.

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.