On 2017-04-06 18:24:40 +0000, said:

Because in this country there are regulations governing hire cars which mean
just doing a bit of casual Uber driving with ones own car is not on.

And I propose that it needs to be on. Regulation should not prevent
people doing things when there is really no good reason to prevent it.

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

In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On 2017-04-06 18:24:40 +0000, said:

How would that enable your car to be tested for compliance?

Compliance with what? Is the MoT not adequate? If it isn't, then it
needs beefing up for *all* cars, there is no reason to specifically
single out private-hire cars for that purpose.

Hire cars usually have to meet emissions standards, mainly by not being too
old. This may only apply outside London. I know the law is different there.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On 2017-04-06 18:24:40 +0000, said:

How would that enable your car to be tested for compliance?

Compliance with what? Is the MoT not adequate? If it isn't, then it
needs beefing up for *all* cars, there is no reason to specifically
single out private-hire cars for that purpose.

Hire cars usually have to meet emissions standards, mainly by not being too
old. This may only apply outside London. I know the law is different there.


Yes, there are age limits in London:

- All new vehicles or vehicles new to licensing must be no older than five
years and meet the Euro 4 standards for emissions at time of licensing

- Vehicles already licensed by us must be no older than 10 years at time of
licensing

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-an...ehicle-licence

London taxis and private hire vehicles also have to have standard MoT tests
every six months plus an annual taxi vehicle specific inspection:

http://www.thechauffeur.com/new-doub...ire-operators/


I don't know if the rules are as strict elsewhere.

On 2017-04-07 07:52:49 +0000, Recliner said:

Yes, there are age limits in London:

There are other ways of enforcing that kind of thing than an in-person
inspection, though I'll be honest, I don't support it. There is no
reason to single out specific vehicles on the road for emissions
restrictions. It should be all vehicles, nationally, or not at all.

In practice high fuel taxes handle it naturally for most people - this
is a much less blunt instrument. It's one of the many reasons I would
put VED onto fuel, and look to move long-term to handling this for
plug-in vehicles via road pricing of some kind.

London taxis and private hire vehicles also have to have standard MoT tests
every six months plus an annual taxi vehicle specific inspection:

http://www.thechauffeur.com/new-doub...ire-operators/


If the MoT is inadequate, it (and enforcement and spot-checks) needs
beefing up, again for *all* vehicles, not just private hire.

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

Neil Williams wrote:
On 2017-04-07 07:52:49 +0000, Recliner said:

Yes, there are age limits in London:

There are other ways of enforcing that kind of thing than an in-person
inspection, though I'll be honest, I don't support it. There is no
reason to single out specific vehicles on the road for emissions
restrictions. It should be all vehicles, nationally, or not at all.

In practice high fuel taxes handle it naturally for most people - this
is a much less blunt instrument. It's one of the many reasons I would
put VED onto fuel, and look to move long-term to handling this for
plug-in vehicles via road pricing of some kind.

London taxis and private hire vehicles also have to have standard MoT tests
every six months plus an annual taxi vehicle specific inspection:

http://www.thechauffeur.com/new-doub...ire-operators/


If the MoT is inadequate, it (and enforcement and spot-checks) needs
beefing up, again for *all* vehicles, not just private hire.

That would significantly push up the cost of running private cars, most of
which do much lower mileages than taxis and minicabs. Also, we insist on
higher safety standards for all forms of public transport than for private
travel, so why should taxis be different?

In message , at 00:57:31 on Fri, 7 Apr
2017, Neil Williams remarked:

How would that enable your car to be tested for compliance?

Compliance with what? Is the MoT not adequate?

iirc they have to be tested to MOT standard twice a year (in some
jurisdictions anyway).

If it isn't, then it needs beefing up for *all* cars, there is no
reason to specifically single out private-hire cars for that purpose.

Higher mileage, and consumer protection. Juts like the kitchen at the
restaurant has to be a much higher standard than the one at your home.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 16:18:42 on Thu, 6 Apr
2017, Neil Williams remarked:
On 2017-04-06 11:59:51 +0000, Roland Perry said:

What change is required - I hope you don't mean "no hire/reward
insurance and no CRB checking"?

DBS checking (you're out of date there) is dead easy to do, so no, not
that. I run loads of them for Scouting purposes and have one myself.

I think what I'd change is make licensing a national remit

Currently it's localised, an I can't see that changing.

with "as needed" insurance provided through the taxi company

That's what Uber is apparently refusing to do. And that's the problem.

a smooth online process

With pretty much everything else governmental online being a nightmare,
why would this project be different?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 00:58:00 on Fri, 7 Apr
2017, Neil Williams remarked:

Because in this country there are regulations governing hire cars which mean
just doing a bit of casual Uber driving with ones own car is not on.

And I propose that it needs to be on. Regulation should not prevent
people doing things when there is really no good reason to prevent it.

You've fallen into the "well-behaved middle-aged graduate" trap. Out on
the streets the minicab business is a lot grubbier than that, and needs
regulation to be local if it's to work at all.
--
Roland Perry

On 2017-04-07 09:15:15 +0000, Recliner said:

That would significantly push up the cost of running private cars, most of
which do much lower mileages than taxis and minicabs. Also, we insist on
higher safety standards for all forms of public transport than for private
travel, so why should taxis be different?

Because taxis are not really public transport. And many private cars
do very high mileages.

A fair solution might be that the MoT is completed once every 1 year or
15K miles, say.

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

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On 2017-04-06 18:24:40 +0000, said:

How would that enable your car to be tested for compliance?

Compliance with what? Is the MoT not adequate? If it isn't, then it
needs beefing up for *all* cars, there is no reason to specifically single
out private-hire cars for that purpose.

There's currently an argument in Brighton about Uber drivers from London
being allowed to operate in the city (on their London registration papers)
because Brighton's requirements for the vehicle are stricter - one of which
is that cars MUST be fitted with CCTV recording in-cab (for passenger
safety, apparently)

tim