On 06/10/2015 01:09, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 05/10/2015 20:48, Neil Williams wrote:

On 2015-10-05 13:19:08 +0000, David Cantrell said:

TfL staff manage to do it at central London stations occasionally, so
there's no reason that their Cambridge equivalent couldn't, or that the
local taxi companies couldn't find people to do it for their drivers.

I thought the law was that the taxi companies could in fact not do it?
Not sure about the Council though.

The council is just a third party and could lawfully do it.

Whether they would is another matter.

In Cambridge the station forecourt taxi rank is not public highway. This
means the railway charges taxi drivers a tidy annual sum for access and
limits it to only some hackney carriages. Any activity with queues could
only happen with the co-operation of the railway company. I tried to get the
council to insist that the new rank being created in the current station
redevelopment would be public highway but this was successfully resisted by
the railway industry.

There has to be another taxi rank further from the station but on the public
highway to allow for the next time the railway company tries to raise the
charges excessively to a level the trade won't pay. Happened in BR days and
again 25 years later.

It stinks but the local authorities seem powerless to stop the scam.

I have heard of these "pay to get onto the rank" schemes before.

BR don't do it everywhere (not in London or Liverpool, that's certain),
but it always causes bad feeling when they di it.

On 06/10/2015 11:49, Eric wrote:
On 2015-10-06, y wrote:
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 11:42:49 +0200
Eric wrote:
Wanting people to have a folding "buggy" is nowhere near as bad as wanting
everyone to have permanent internet access before they can do anything.

Unfortunately the dream of a lot of socially inept techy types is a society
entirely based around non human interaction via the internet. And naturally
companies go along with it because its cheaper and politicians go along with
it because they're clueless and they think it makes them look like they have
their finger on the pulse.

Very good!

Eric

+1.

On 06/10/2015 01:09, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

In particular, it is far from clear that Uber's sub-contractor
drivers *are* licensed, even as "private hire" drivers.

Uber themselves claim to do the vetting (and, IIRC, to provide hire
and reward insurance). None of that is necessary in the normal run of
things (the drivers have to deal with these things direct to TFL) and
the fact that Uber claim it undermines any theory that all the
drivers (and their vehicles) are even known to the authorities.

Are the drivers local authority (or PCO) licensed or not? They are illegal
if not.

Quite so.

On the information so far available, either could be the case.

But why on Earth would Uber claim to do any "vetting" when they would
know - if they were a licensed operator - that the vetting is done by
the licensing authority - and may not be avoided?

On the Occam's Razor principle, the drivers are not licensed (which
means not vetted by any competent authority) and Uber expect to get away
with it.

On 06/10/2015 06:12, Robin9 wrote:

;150666 Wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:
-
In particular, it is far from clear that Uber's sub-contractor
drivers *are* licensed, even as "private hire" drivers.

Uber themselves claim to do the vetting (and, IIRC, to provide hire
and reward insurance). None of that is necessary in the normal run of
things (the drivers have to deal with these things direct to TFL) and
the fact that Uber claim it undermines any theory that all the
drivers (and their vehicles) are even known to the authorities.-

Are the drivers local authority (or PCO) licensed or not? They are
illegal
if not.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

To repeat an earlier point: TfL have carried out their most thorough
check ever on a minicab firm, and they have found that Uber are
complying with the various regulations. In other words, Uber's drivers
are licensed and have had CRB checks, health and eyesight tests.
They have valid drivers' licences and correct insurance.

The scare propaganda is FUD put out by the black cab trade
because they are not willing to compete in the open market on
even terms and want instead to have their competition made
illegal.

Perhaps in order to counter this "scare propaganda", you can point to a
checkable and credible source for your information?

On 06/10/2015 01:12, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 05/10/2015 21:01, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 18:41, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 09:18, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 10/4/2015 2:10 PM, JNugent wrote:
On 03/10/2015 09:07, Someone Somewhere wrote:
Seriously?

Because a taxi is - in its very essence - a *private* space which
can be
hired by the passenger to the exclusion of others. It is not a bus.
If a
bus is what is wanted, buses are available.


What? There's a bus that takes me from Heathrow to outside my
house in
Shadwell?

Provided you're willing to change a few times, yes.


More times than the TfL planner can cope with to get outside my house.

That's a problem you have with buses. Not everyone has it.

The fact that you do is not a good reason for disrupting the
legitimate livelihood of others.

How is my saying "if you wont provide a legitimate way of my sharing a
cab (on an ad hoch basis with someone that I don't know), I wont be
using a cab at all" an attack on a legitimate business

Was that a question?

I'll assume that it was a question.

Your saying anything at all on usenet is not an attack on a legitimate
business. Or at least, not one worth the name.

It is the proposed de-regulation of the licensed taxi trade and the
proposed relaxation of controls on pirate cars which would disrupt the
legitimate livelihood of others.

I explaining to them how they can get business that they have otherwise
lost

Who is "them"?

cabbies

And how do you propose to "explaining" this to cabbies?

And for a bonus point, why should they pay you any attention?

The history of the last 55 years or so is littered with people who
wanted to disrupt the taxi industry, always for selfish reasons.

Yes, because there's a market for much lower fares. Customers want them,
and many suppliers are prepared to meet that demand. Selfishly, the taxi
trade is trying to defend very high fares using monopolistic practices.

The fares for taxis are set by a public authority (in other words, they
are set by law), not by the drivers.

If you "think" that the fares vary at the whim of the driver or
operator, you must be thinking of Uber's MO.

On 06/10/2015 03:39, Denis McMahon wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 20:20:37 +0100, JNugent wrote:

The law is clear.

(c) the operator (presumably Ãœber) establishes a base within Greater
London and submits to the appropriate licensing regime, thereafter
complying with the requirements for record-keeping, etc.

Does this mean that it's unlawful for a private hire company based
outside of London to accept a booking for a journey starting in London?

Not if it finishes in the operator's area.

Rather a limited business model, though, as I'm sure you'll agree.

For example, I am going to some place abroad on holiday, flying from LHR.
I book a local private hire company to where I live to (a) take me to the
airport to catch my flight and (b) collect me from the airport on my
return.

You seem to be suggesting that the second journey is illegal.

Do I?

If LHR is a special case, substitute St Pancras International. Or even
staying in a central London Hotel for a few days.

Not a special case.

That's just your imagination.

On 06/10/2015 08:15, Someone Somewhere wrote:

On 10/5/2015 8:58 PM, JNugent wrote:
On 05/10/2015 18:47, tim..... wrote:

No, the passenger has to (somehow) find the other passages, that's not
the same thing at all (and completely impractical for out of London
destinations)

It could be done via an app on mobile phones. There are already similar
ways of locating people in an area with similar interests.

But don't make the mistake of assuming that your requirements are the
same as everyone else's.

So your only argument against all of this is that the driver shouldn't
be burdened with somehow putting together the relevant group of passengers?

No, not at all.

It is that he shouldn't be *trusted* with it.

See if you can work out why.

On 06/10/2015 08:55, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:18:46 on Mon, 5 Oct
2015, JNugent remarked:

Uber themselves claim to do the vetting (and, IIRC, to provide hire
and reward insurance).

On of the cliams made against Uber is precisely that they don't provide
such 'fleet insurance' and so passengers have to trust that the driver
has bought his own.

That is the case with all taxis and pirate cars where the fleet belongs
to a multiplicity of individuals (strictly, it's the vehicle's
proprietor who buys the insurance, which will not always be the driver).

Since it applies widely, I'm not seeking to use it a stick for beating
Uber with.

On 06/10/2015 09:00, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 23:59:10 on Mon, 5 Oct
2015, JNugent remarked:
That is precisely the point; no-one has been (so far) able to say
with certainty that Uber drivers *are* vetted and licensed.

The fact that Uber themselves claim to do the vetting" is alarming.

Vetting is a job for the PCO, with access to CRB, DVLC and other
records.

If Uber are operating within UK hire car law as we are told they are
then
vetting is through the local authority (PCO in London).

Quite.

So Uber would have no need, occasion or access to resources to do any
"vetting" - so why do they and their acolytes make anything out of it?

Are they perhaps (in London, anyway) "checking that a driver has been
vetted". The system in other cities may well be different.

No, it isn't.

The system is exactly the same in London and the rest of E&W: the
operator has to check that drivers to whom he sub-contracts (or
provides) work are licensed and insured.

On 06/10/2015 14:25, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 12:47:50AM +0100, JNugent wrote:

The history of the last 55 years or so is littered with people who
wanted to disrupt the taxi industry, always for selfish reasons.

Yes, it's called "profit".

It's the same selfish reason that drives black cab Luddites to whine
about losing their monopoly.

What monopoly?