wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 30/09/2015 17:49, tim..... wrote:

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tph...hire-proposals

so what does the team think?

tim

The law is clear.

"Services" such as Ãœber cannot operate lawfully unless:

(a) each vehicle is tested and licensed before commencing operations,

(b) each driver applies for a licence, is investigated and not found
ineligible, before commencing operations, and

(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.

Do all of those (especially assessing and licensing the drivers to
weed out dodgy characters) and Ãœber is effectively pointless.

Indeed. The absolutely crucial protection for the public is (b). Why people
think it's a good idea to get into cars with possible mass murderers I just
don't understand.

Those seem fair enough, but I think it would be absurd to stop cabs being
boarded within 5 mins or showing a map of locally available cars. By all
means protect consumers, but not cartels. For example, in an Internet and
Cloud age, why does record keeping have to be based locally? The changes
should be based strictly on increasing competition while protecting
consumers, not suppliers.