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

so what does the team think?

tim

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.

This was "discussed" today by that opinionated bully James O'Brien
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.

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.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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.

"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

In article ,
(tim.....) wrote:

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)?

I agree that should be easier (it's not impossible, outside London at least,
now) but it's nothing to do with Uber as such. It needs changes in taxi law
much of which goes back to the days of horse-drawn hansom cabs.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 2015-10-01 17:53:47 +0000, tim..... said:

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)?

Something to do with bus regulation, perhaps? I think the
jitney/matatu type approach would work quite well in some UK towns,
particularly smaller ones, and that making it a little less chaotic by
using app-based booking would put a nice civilised edge on it.

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

On 01/10/2015 18:53, tim..... wrote:

"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

There is nothing in the London Cab Acts or the Town Police Clauses Act
which prevents passengers from teaming up for a joint-hiring. AAMOF,
they do it all the time.

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.

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)