|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
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 Über 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 Über) 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 Über is effectively pointless. |
Quote:
who, as usual, overlooked all the crucial issues and concentrated on a side issue which he misunderstood. I have no connection with Uber. I don't use them. I don't work for them. I don't own shares in them and I don't speak for them. Of course they should comply with the law passed by Tony Blair's Government and administered by TfL, and, of course, they should not have special privileges denied to other minicab firms. But forcing Uber to toe the line is not the issue here. The reason Uber have upset the applecart is because they have recognised a huge change in the market and have worked out how to cater to that changed market. Essentially it's a generation issue. Today's young generation is obsessed with modern technology, in particular smart phones. Go on the underground and watch young adults. They are all face down, concentrating on their smart phones. They don't read books or newspapers and they certainly don't engage in conversations. Nope. They have one obsession only. They use their phones to listen to music in very poor quality sound. Even more absurdly, they watch movies - made to be seen on the big screen - on their phones! They prefer to watch films on a 3" screen to watching at home of a decent sized TV! And when it comes to ordering a cab, they want to use their phones. The taxi trade can bleat and whine as much as they want, and fools like James O'Brien can bark up the wrong tree to their hearts' content, but none of that will change the core issue. The old adage remains valid: he who pays the piper calls the tune. Taxi drivers are not paying for the journey; the passenger is. The passenger can choose how he or she will spend their money. It's not illegal to order a cab via a smart phone and it's not illegal to use a minicab in preference to a taxi. It's not illegal to spend one's money foolishly. TfL can regulate cab firms but they can't regulate the customers, and the customers don't give a tuppenny ha'ppeny damn about TfL or about minicab regulations. I strongly suspect that Uber will eventually put most minicab firms out of business too. One of the central elements of Uber's business model is that payment is done in the same way as with Amazon and other on-line traders. Prospective customers open an account and supply their credit card details. When a cab is ordered, Uber work out the distance involved and debit the credit card accordingly. The passenger does not pay the driver. This eliminates the biggest single complaint customers make about minicabs: drivers overcharging. I foresee a time when large numbers of minicab customers refuse to use their local minicab firms because they have been "ripped off" too often and use Uber instead. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
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. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 10/1/2015 1:55 AM, 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 Über 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 Über) 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 Über 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. So you wouldn't get into a car with anyone as anyone could be a mass murderer, the fact they haven't been caught yet is pretty irrelevant (as, if they were a mass murderer and had been caught surely they would be behind bars?) I have no problem with those conditions though (although forcing (c) in this day and age is a bit odd - as long as they have record keeping to a given, not egregious, standard), as long as all the inspections and licensing are reasonable and at cost. However, I think Uber operate under certainly a and b, and hiring a room with a printer in it could satisfy c. I *like* Uber - it's seemingly reliable, cheap, takes me from A to B (a black cab rarely starts from A - I have to head for a main thoroughfare to find it), and is in fact a lot less "dodgy" (you know how the fare is calculated and the two way review system ensures civility and vehicle cleanliness etc) |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"JNugent" wrote in message ... 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 Über 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 Uber will claim that they do do (a) and (b) (I have no idea if they are right or not) (c) the operator (presumably Über) establishes a base within Greater London and submits to the appropriate licensing regime, thereafter complying with the requirements for record-keeping, etc. and whilst this does seem unnecessarily nanny state, complying with it isn't impossible for them Do all of those (especially assessing and licensing the drivers to weed out dodgy characters) and Über is effectively pointless. Except that anecdotally, it isn't tim |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"Recliner" wrote in message ... 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. One of the points I have issue with is the prohibition of "ride sharing" (by customer choice). Personally, I think that it should be encouraged, I can't understand the Taxi "industries" dislike of it. When travelling in e.g. Germany/Sweden/Finland (all personal experiences), on arrival at the airport I can go to the taxi pick up and chose to share a ride with other people going my way (at the appropriate discount). ISTM that there would be more punters for long distance rides if this was available in the UK. I'm buggered if I'm going to walk up to the rank for a 150 pound taxi for a journey I can do by train for 20 quid, but if offered the opportunity to share the ride with 2 others for 50 quid each I would happily take it. Why is the aversion to this so great that the authorities think that they have to legislate against it, not for it (as other countries do)? tim |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk