On 2017-04-07 10:24:31 +0000, tim... said:

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)

This kind of thing is the problem. I see no reason for Councils to do
their own thing on this at all - a national scheme would be better (and
would protect people better, as a ban or suspension would be national
too).

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

In message , at 11:24:31 on Fri, 7 Apr 2017,
tim... remarked:

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)

And iirc Oxford tried to mandate CCTV that also captured the voices, but
got slapped down by the ICO.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:44:21 on Fri, 7 Apr
2017, Neil Williams remarked:
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)

This kind of thing is the problem. I see no reason for Councils to do
their own thing on this at all - a national scheme would be better (and
would protect people better, as a ban or suspension would be national
too).

The difficulty is you may find some of the individual local laws being
contradictory[1] and by the time you've amalgamated them, all the list
will be impossibly long and much of it irrelevant or unworkable in some
localities.

[1] You MUST or MUST-NOT use a taxi meter, is one that spring to mind.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

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.

Why do you say taxis are not public transport? For many people they are the
only form of public transport they can use.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 16:18:42 on Thu, 6 Apr
2017, Neil Williams remarked:
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 and design
it for ease of obtaining one (and ease of cancellation if you don't
behave), e.g. a smooth online process.

Just seen proposals from my District Council to reform the rules, which
are in response to *local* considerations, including:

Enhancing the existing dress code.

DBS check annually rather than every three years.

Driver medicals every three years. (The current system asks for a
medical on application then nothing until the age of 45. Then every five
years until the age of 65 when it switches to annual medicals.)

Allowing novelty vehicles like fire engines, army vehicles and tuk tuk
rickshaws to register. [This appears to reverse a decision in 2008 that
all taxis should be painted a standard colour, for easy recognition, and
has certain tensions with the dress code - surely a novelty vehicle
would really need a novelty uniform]
--
Roland Perry

On 2017-04-17 06:51:56 +0000, Roland Perry said:

Just seen proposals from my District Council to reform the rules, which
are in response to *local* considerations, including:

Enhancing the existing dress code.

I would consider that a commercial matter for the operator and not
something a local authority should be getting involved in for private
hire.

DBS check annually rather than every three years.

A pointless and expensive waste of time. Can't they just use the
update service, which essentially gives a continuous check at a far
lower cost?

Driver medicals every three years. (The current system asks for a
medical on application then nothing until the age of 45. Then every
five years until the age of 65 when it switches to annual medicals.)

People don't get sick in Cambridge more than elsewhere. That is not a
local consideration at all.

Allowing novelty vehicles like fire engines, army vehicles and tuk tuk
rickshaws to register. [This appears to reverse a decision in 2008 that
all taxis should be painted a standard colour, for easy recognition,
and has certain tensions with the dress code - surely a novelty vehicle
would really need a novelty uniform]

That's a niche case, really. Recognition of a private hire vehicle has
become moot, because almost everyone will be informed in some way of
the registration number of their allocated vehicle prior to its
arrival. Only if you telephone for one using a landline would this not
occur, which is heading dangerously towards the proverbial goats these
days.

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

In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On 2017-04-17 06:51:56 +0000, Roland Perry said:

Just seen proposals from my District Council to reform the rules,
which are in response to *local* considerations, including:

Enhancing the existing dress code.

I would consider that a commercial matter for the operator and not
something a local authority should be getting involved in for private
hire.

DBS check annually rather than every three years.

A pointless and expensive waste of time. Can't they just use the
update service, which essentially gives a continuous check at a far
lower cost?

An interesting point. Is that a case of the council not catching up with the
changes from the previous system when DBS started?

Driver medicals every three years. (The current system asks for a
medical on application then nothing until the age of 45. Then every
five years until the age of 65 when it switches to annual medicals.)

People don't get sick in Cambridge more than elsewhere. That is not
a local consideration at all.

Roland is referring to East Cambridgeshire, not Cambridge.

Allowing novelty vehicles like fire engines, army vehicles and tuk
tuk rickshaws to register. [This appears to reverse a decision in
2008 that all taxis should be painted a standard colour, for easy
recognition, and has certain tensions with the dress code - surely
a novelty vehicle would really need a novelty uniform]

That's a niche case, really. Recognition of a private hire vehicle
has become moot, because almost everyone will be informed in some way
of the registration number of their allocated vehicle prior to its
arrival. Only if you telephone for one using a landline would this
not occur, which is heading dangerously towards the proverbial goats
these days.

In Cambridge there are other issues, like admission to restricted city
centre areas. So probably not an issue in East Cambs.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 23:05:11 on Mon, 17
Apr 2017, Neil Williams remarked:
On 2017-04-17 06:51:56 +0000, Roland Perry said:

Just seen proposals from my District Council to reform the rules,
which are in response to *local* considerations, including:
Enhancing the existing dress code.

I would consider that a commercial matter for the operator and not
something a local authority should be getting involved in for private
hire.

The licencing authority doesn't want tourists arriving at the station to
be greeted by a load of scruffs in beaten up taxis.

DBS check annually rather than every three years.

A pointless and expensive waste of time. Can't they just use the
update service, which essentially gives a continuous check at a far
lower cost?

That sounds like a useful contribution to the consultation.

Driver medicals every three years. (The current system asks for a
medical on application then nothing until the age of 45. Then every
five years until the age of 65 when it switches to annual medicals.)

People don't get sick in Cambridge more than elsewhere. That is not a
local consideration at all.

It's not Cambridge, and it's not about the flu - rather degeneration
because of age, which happens everywhere.

Allowing novelty vehicles like fire engines, army vehicles and tuk
tuk rickshaws to register. [This appears to reverse a decision in
2008 that all taxis should be painted a standard colour, for easy
recognition, and has certain tensions with the dress code - surely a
novelty vehicle would really need a novelty uniform]

That's a niche case, really. Recognition of a private hire vehicle has
become moot, because almost everyone will be informed in some way of
the registration number of their allocated vehicle prior to its
arrival. Only if you telephone for one using a landline would this not
occur, which is heading dangerously towards the proverbial goats these
days.

Cambridge only got Uber a few months ago. I've just asked for a quote to
get from here to Cambridge, and Uber says £32-44 "no cars available".

The fare by regular minicab is £38 (fixed).

The further one goes, the more the fares diverge. eg To Sansted, Uber
quotes £72-£97, whereas local firms charge variously £55-£70.
--
Roland Perry

On 2017-04-17 23:02:15 +0000, said:

Roland is referring to East Cambridgeshire, not Cambridge.

I bet people don't get sick there any more than anywhere else either.

In Cambridge there are other issues, like admission to restricted city
centre areas. So probably not an issue in East Cambs.

Enforcement is typically by camera and registration plate anyway.

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

In message , at 18:02:15
on Mon, 17 Apr 2017, remarked:

That's a niche case, really. Recognition of a private hire vehicle
has become moot, because almost everyone will be informed in some way
of the registration number of their allocated vehicle prior to its
arrival. Only if you telephone for one using a landline would this
not occur, which is heading dangerously towards the proverbial goats
these days.

In Cambridge there are other issues, like admission to restricted city
centre areas. So probably not an issue in East Cambs.

The City cab trade never fails to point out there are more out-of-area
vehicles than City ones on the streets. I'm not sure whether that's not
merely an artefact of Panther (fleet ~500) being based at a cheaper site
near Waterbeach, just outside the City limits.

Of course, despite being north of the City, that's in South Cambs!

East Cambs doesn't start until the A10 crosses the Great Ouse, north
[yes, I know!] of Chittering.
--
Roland Perry