On 08/10/2015 17:16, Robin9 wrote:
'JNugent[_5_ Wrote:
;150838']On 07/10/2015 17:10, Robin9 wrote:-
'JNugent[_5_ Wrote:-
;150709']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?-

Nice try but I'm not going to do your homework for you.-

I would *never* ask you to do that.
I'm asking for *your* homework (which you claim to have done).
But perhaps your dog ate it?
Your proposition = your onus for evidence.

You could
look through back copies of various trade magazines or you could
contact TfL directly. You could even try the Internet. (I believe TfL
now has a new on-line magazine for taxi drivers. Ask there)-

No need.
No evidence = no proof.
That's the way it works.

Another nice try, another failure.
We are not in a criminal court where proof beyond reasonable
doubt is required.

No, but *some* evidence is needed.

If you need to check if my assertions are
correct, you have options available to you.

Quite right.

Asking you for it is the obvious one.

In case you have forgotten, information is still not provided
exclusively via the Internet. TfL make their announcements
through various channels, e. g. Metro. I don't store back copies
of newspapers or magazines just in case I need to substantiate
something in an Internet forum.
Incidentally TfL made their announcement about 4 or 5 months ago.

No evidence = no proof.


BTW: Someone else provided a pdf link. It didn't support what you claim,
but then again, it might not be connected with what you claim.

On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:49:57 +0100, JNugent wrote:

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?

You appeared to be suggesting that a private hire operator making a pick
up in London needed to be London based.

Here's some other (and not uncommon, I know a people who do these)
scenarios.

Person living in Eastleigh or Southampton engages a Winchester or
Basingstoke private hire operator for journeys between Eastleigh or
Southampton and LHR.

People living in Havant using a Portsmouth private hire operator for
travel to Fareham, Southampton, Eastleigh and Winchester.

--
Denis McMahon,

In message , at 20:24:58 on Thu, 8 Oct
2015, JNugent remarked:


With the best will in the world, neither Uber nor any other operator is
in a position to ensure that the vehicle is constantly and continually
insured for hire and reward,

They are, if they have a fleet policy.

or that only licensed drivers drive it.

That's true of any vehicle really.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:45:36
on Thu, 8 Oct 2015, remarked:
Still very central. Try the exercise again somewhere like Willingham,
or Earith.

City taxis operate within the city.

err... Panther... Waterbeach... Not the City.

City HACKNEY CARRIAGES.

Anecdotal evidence from Cambridge suggests that
if you order a Panther car it's not very likely to turn up within
five minutes, or even sometimes twenty-five.

Panther operate City Hackneys too?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 20:35:59 on Thu, 8 Oct 2015,
tim..... remarked:

As someone else has already remarked (it might have been you),

It was me.

the "pre-booking" does not confer any advantage on anyone (except for
not having to do it close to the time of travel).

The driver will simply be handed a job over his radio. He will
experience no difference as between a pre-booking or one that has
just been rung in by a member of the public. Given that, it's hard to
see why or how a discount for early booking could be expected.

I think it perfectly reasonable when you think you are ringing a
mini-cab firm

The only scenario where pre-booking might be expected to attract a
discount is an "airport run" where the driver can hope that the company
arranges for him to have a fare in both directions. Not unsurprisingly
most companies express this "discount" as a flat-fare to nominated
airports, which is cheaper per mile than a random booking. They can also
quote for different sized vehicles, whereas for normal bookings you'll
just get sent whatever the nearest available one is.

eg:
http://www.panthertaxis.co.uk/index....&view=article&
id=11&Itemid=60
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
13:45:36 on Thu, 8 Oct 2015, remarked:
Still very central. Try the exercise again somewhere like
Willingham, or Earith.

City taxis operate within the city.

err... Panther... Waterbeach... Not the City.

City HACKNEY CARRIAGES.

Anecdotal evidence from Cambridge suggests that
if you order a Panther car it's not very likely to turn up within
five minutes, or even sometimes twenty-five.

Panther operate City Hackneys too?

Certainly do. If you call them whether you get City hackney, city hire car
or South cambs hire can is almost completely random.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 09/10/2015 06:12, Denis McMahon wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:49:57 +0100, JNugent wrote:

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?

You appeared to be suggesting that a private hire operator making a pick
up in London needed to be London based.

"Appeared to be"?

I was *not* suggesting it and I certainly didn't say it. I am not
responsible for what others imagine.

An operator from outside London is entitled to send a vehicle into
London to bring a passenger back to the operator's area, whether private
hire or a licensed taxi.

Here's some other (and not uncommon, I know a people who do these)
scenarios.
Person living in Eastleigh or Southampton engages a Winchester or
Basingstoke private hire operator for journeys between Eastleigh or
Southampton and LHR.
People living in Havant using a Portsmouth private hire operator for
travel to Fareham, Southampton, Eastleigh and Winchester.

I don't know what the conditions of licensing in those areas might be
and make no comment on them.

On 09/10/2015 08:59, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:24:58 on Thu, 8 Oct
2015, JNugent remarked:


With the best will in the world, neither Uber nor any other operator
is in a position to ensure that the vehicle is constantly and
continually insured for hire and reward,

They are, if they have a fleet policy.

Do they?

or that only licensed drivers drive it.

That's true of any vehicle really.

So no controversy there.

In message , at 15:45:18 on Fri, 9 Oct
2015, JNugent remarked:

With the best will in the world, neither Uber nor any other operator
is in a position to ensure that the vehicle is constantly and
continually insured for hire and reward,

They are, if they have a fleet policy.

Do they?

Apparently one of the issues people have with Uber is they don't.

--
Roland Perry

On 09/10/2015 18:42, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:45:18 on Fri, 9 Oct
2015, JNugent remarked:

With the best will in the world, neither Uber nor any other operator
is in a position to ensure that the vehicle is constantly and
continually insured for hire and reward,

They are, if they have a fleet policy.

Do they?

Apparently one of the issues people have with Uber is they don't.

If that is correct, it means that their assurances on insurance are as
meaningless as those of any other operator.

And yet there are those who insist that Uber "check" all their drivers
(a plainly impossible task).