On 2015-10-04 15:00:03 +0000, Roland Perry said:

One of the main complaints in London is that they lurk around places
where people might want a cab, and then presumably get the customer to
book them on the spot. That's the reason for the 5-minute timeout
proposed in the consultation.

God forbid they should do anything convenient for the user.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 15:16:43 on Sun, 4 Oct 2015, Recliner
remarked:
Why makes Uber cabs "pirate cars"?

Unlicensed plying-for-hire, of course.

But they don't. They can only come when a registered customer books one. So
they're not pirate cars.

One of the main complaints in London is that they lurk around places
where people might want a cab, and then presumably get the customer to
book them on the spot. That's the reason for the 5-minute timeout
proposed in the consultation.

It wouldn't be at all surprising if they lurk near places with high demand.

Except it causes traffic congestion because they park in awkward places.

That's exactly what they're meant to do. They can't get customers to book
them on the spot: the booking has to be made through Uber.

They can get the customer to book them through Uber, on the spot. Or
possibly do an off books "deal" with the customer.

And, if the
demand is very high, they may be able to benefit from "surge pricing".

I see no customer benefit from a five minute delay rule.

Perhaps you don't see a customer benefit in private hire cars not being
able to operate as hackneys. But that's what the law says.

That's the equivalent of high street retailers insisting that Internet
retailers not be allowed to offer quick delivery.

There isn't an easy retail analogy; except perhaps an unlicenced street
trader lurking outside a blue-chip shop and offering to sell people
about to enter, "exclusive" items at a discount.
--
Roland Perry

On 2015-10-04 14:49:57 +0000, Eric said:

It has been known to get addresses wrong or fail to find them entirely.

So have taxi drivers.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On 2015-10-04, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-10-04 14:49:57 +0000, Eric said:

It has been known to get addresses wrong or fail to find them entirely.

So have taxi drivers.

Of course, but you did seem to present Google Maps as a better answer.

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry

On 2015-10-04 16:08:41 +0000, Roland Perry said:

Except it causes traffic congestion because they park in awkward places.

That, surely, is a matter for traffic enforcement.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On 2015-10-04 16:23:18 +0000, Recliner said:

I don't think they can. You can't pick a particular vehicle to book through
Uber, can you?

I thought you could (or the review thing would be a bit pointless).

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On 04/10/2015 15:41, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 03/10/2015 02:16, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 02/10/2015 06:26, Robin9 wrote:
;150401 Wrote:
Vehicle tests, DBS & Police checks, knowledge tests. Not sure how many
could
be credibly done by an operator.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

The vehicle tests and criminal record checks are not done by
the operators. Negligent TfL has only delegated knowledge testing
to the cab firms who, of course, pass every driver because they
want as many drivers as possible.

TIs there a street knowledge test (or requirement) for the drivers of
the unlicensed vehicles?

Surely that's only for taxi-drivers?

Surely it's only for black cab drivers in Central London?

All London cab-driver applicants have to pass a version of the
Knowledge, whether they are going for the "All London" (green badge) or
a "suburban rank" (yellow badge).

There is no parallel test for the would-be drivers of pirate cars.

Just to be clear, is "pirate cars" your description of all mini cabs?

There is no such thing as a mini cab.

Do you want to re-phrase your question using valid terms?

Other cabbies of
all types don't have to get the "knowledge". And are there any other
professionals who can only qualify by not using modern technology?

Cab-drivers have to be able to do it with their brain.

Whenever I've taken a black cab home, I have to provide more driving
directions than I do with a mini cab.

The Knowledge doe not extend to your street, unless you live in the West
End, the City, Kensington or somewhere equally salubrious.

One can only conjecture as to why such a requirement might not be
appropriate for pirates.

Conjecture all you like: mini cabs have technology on their side.

There's nothing to stop taxis using satnav.

On 04/10/2015 15:41, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 03/10/2015 09:07, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 10/3/2015 2:29 AM, JNugent wrote:
On 03/10/2015 02:08, Recliner wrote:

What the law will not stomach is the operator and/or driver of the cab
(or pirate car) doing the arranging. It has to be up to the
passenger to
do the picking and choosing of travelling companions.

Why is that deemed to be a passenger benefit?

What?

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.

Please explain why you think that's a benefit to the customer?

I don't.

It is not I who recommends that you share a small-ish vehicle with some
stranger who may do you harm.

Or perhaps
you needn't bother, as you've made clear your extreme hostility to
customers.

Or, as the case actually is, my hostility to any idea that it is right
to deny the rights of those passengers.

HTH.

On 04/10/2015 14:58, Neil Williams wrote:

On 2015-10-04 13:13:13 +0000, JNugent said:

In order to protect the passenger and preserve his/her right to privacy.

Which they could still choose by requesting sole use of the taxi, just
as they do now. The point is not to ban single-user taxis, it is to
allow another method of operation.

What would you think if a minicab driver picked up your daughter in
the West End late at night, then airily informed her that she had to
share the vehicle from Marble Arch to Ealing with his brother-in-law
the convicted rapist and the Southall Strangler?

She wouldn't have requested a shared taxi when booking so the situation
would not arise. She would have requested a sole-use taxi.

One rule to apply to all.

Vagueness could lead to the passenger being (unnecessarily) in harm's way.

It would seem
to provide an effective half-bus half-taxi means of transport in smaller
towns where proper bus operation is increasingly unaffordable.

Safety first.

Why do you seek to deny the option of a money saving shared taxi to
those who want it?

I don't.

I don't what the driver or operator to dictate it to the passenger,
that's all.

Not never, not nohow, no exceptions, less scope for error.

This would not prevent those who don't want a shared
taxi from having one to themselves by paying the fare, as at present,
for the whole vehicle.

That's good of you.

On 04/10/2015 14:50, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-10-04 13:14:08 +0000, JNugent said:

Buses are still available, if not always convenient. A taxi is not a bus.

The hybrid matatu/jitney model works reasonably well in many countries.

A public transport operator is free to apply for the necessary
permissions to make that work.

Your preferences are not a reason to abolish protection for
taxi-passengers.

Who's proposing to abolish your ability to hire a taxi to yourself? What
is being proposed is allowing people who wish to to take a shared taxi.
Those who do not wish to can continue to take one to themselves,
obviously at a fare commensurate to that.

As I have already said, several times: that is already allowed.

It's just that the passenger decides on the sharing, not the driver or
operator.