Woking to Heathrow
 

In message , at 11:39:23 on Tue, 4 Apr
2017, Neil Williams remarked:
On 2017-04-04 09:53:31 +0000, Roland Perry said:

In message , at 10:16:06 on Tue, 4
Apr 2017, Neil Williams remarked:
The loophole seems to be the way they take bookings, but then
outsource the driving to subcontractors.
That's what basically every minicab company does. Uber is just a
minicab company. The only difference from a regular one is that
dispatch is automatic rather than a person doing it.
But maybe a regular minicab company has a fleet insurance policy.

Typically no it does not unless it owns the fleet.

Normally, minicab drivers drive their own car and arrange their own insurance.

Cite please. The situation with Uber has reportedly brought these
policies into the glare of publicity - covering the hire and reward
supplement for all the drivers/cars when on duty, irrespective of who
owns the car.
--
Roland Perry

Woking to Heathrow
 

In message , at 11:20:17 on Tue, 4 Apr 2017,
tim... remarked:
The ongoing training programme, training of new guards, and as you
suggest the employment of new on-train staff at a different grade,
despite not "demoting" the grandfathered-in existing guards.

That's what BA did when it hired in new starters (on lower salaries) to
work new routes from LGW.

and look what happens

a couple of years later they go on strike because they aren't earning
the same as legacy workers flying from LHR.

Still saved (and is saving) BA a lot of money.
--
Roland Perry

Woking to Heathrow
 

wrote:
On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 11:12:51 +0200
Jarle Hammen Knudsen wrote:
On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 09:27:52 +0100, e27002 aurora
wrote:

Have you ever tried to manoeuvre on the Underground with a large
suitcase and a sizable piece of hand baggage, i.e. a pilot's case? I
only tried once. :-)

Yes, but in later years it's been two suitcases and a carry-on
backpack, and often a large shoulder bag added when going home.

Why do some people feel the need to take half their wardrobe with them when
they go on holiday? If I can't fit everything into a medium sized hold-all
when I go away then I chuck stuff out until I can.

How do you fit in your walking boots, waterproofs, fleece, walking
trousers, etc with shirts and underwear for a couple of weeks into that?

;-)

--
Jeremy Double

Woking to Heathrow
 

On 4 Apr 2017 16:20:19 GMT, Jeremy Double
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 11:12:51 +0200
Jarle Hammen Knudsen wrote:
On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 09:27:52 +0100, e27002 aurora
wrote:

Have you ever tried to manoeuvre on the Underground with a large
suitcase and a sizable piece of hand baggage, i.e. a pilot's case? I
only tried once. :-)

Yes, but in later years it's been two suitcases and a carry-on
backpack, and often a large shoulder bag added when going home.

Why do some people feel the need to take half their wardrobe with them when
they go on holiday? If I can't fit everything into a medium sized hold-all
when I go away then I chuck stuff out until I can.

How do you fit in your walking boots, waterproofs, fleece, walking
trousers, etc with shirts and underwear for a couple of weeks into that?

;-)

You wear your walking boots, waterproofs, fleece and walking trousers,
of course. That leaves space in the holdall for the underwear and
shirts. You may get strange looks in the terminal, but it certainly
minimises luggage :-)

Disregarding the smiley, when I used to fly to Switzerland regularly
for my work, usually just for two to four days at a time, I found that
travelling in winter made it a lot easier to have everything in
carry-on luggage, as a big coat with lots of pockets can take a
surprising amount of stuff.

Mark

Woking to Heathrow
 

On 04/04/17 19:34, wrote:
Some firms make special wearable luggage now if people want to take
things to extremes.
eg http://www.jaktogo.com/

I expect that shoplifters could be another marketing opportunity.

G.Harman

Producing goods that are attractive to shoplifters may not be a
profitable strategy.

Woking to Heathrow
 

In article , d () wrote:

On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 11:12:51 +0200
Jarle Hammen Knudsen wrote:
On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 09:27:52 +0100, e27002 aurora
wrote:

Have you ever tried to manoeuvre on the Underground with a large
suitcase and a sizable piece of hand baggage, i.e. a pilot's case? I
only tried once. :-)

Yes, but in later years it's been two suitcases and a carry-on
backpack, and often a large shoulder bag added when going home.

Why do some people feel the need to take half their wardrobe with them
when they go on holiday? If I can't fit everything into a medium sized
hold-all when I go away then I chuck stuff out until I can.

I don't think Usenet is the sort of place to get an honest answer to such
questions.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Woking to Heathrow
 

On 04/04/2017 19:34, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:59:17 +0100, Mark Goodge
wrote:


How do you fit in your walking boots, waterproofs, fleece, walking
trousers, etc with shirts and underwear for a couple of weeks into that?

;-)

You wear your walking boots, waterproofs, fleece and walking trousers,
of course. That leaves space in the holdall for the underwear and
shirts. You may get strange looks in the terminal, but it certainly
minimises luggage :-)
Apart from the waterproofs I have done that a couple of times,of
course if you are traveling to somewhere where it is hot at the
airport but taking clothing for colder parts of the country it can be
a bit uncomfortable till you can change.


Disregarding the smiley, when I used to fly to Switzerland regularly
for my work, usually just for two to four days at a time, I found that
travelling in winter made it a lot easier to have everything in
carry-on luggage, as a big coat with lots of pockets can take a
surprising amount of stuff.

Some firms make special wearable luggage now if people want to take
things to extremes.
eg http://www.jaktogo.com/

I expect that shoplifters could be another marketing opportunity.


Round your part of the world I would have thought poachers were ahead of
the game.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Woking to Heathrow
 

On 04/04/2017 18:59, Mark Goodge wrote:
[snip]

You wear your walking boots, waterproofs, fleece and walking trousers,
of course. That leaves space in the holdall for the underwear and
shirts. You may get strange looks in the terminal, but it certainly
minimises luggage :-)

Disregarding the smiley, when I used to fly to Switzerland regularly
for my work, usually just for two to four days at a time, I found that
travelling in winter made it a lot easier to have everything in
carry-on luggage, as a big coat with lots of pockets can take a
surprising amount of stuff.


Can recall flying from Saudi Arabia on a flight late evening (still hot
and humid) and watching a passenger wearing shorts and T-shirt shivering
walking from the plane at Charles de Galle at something like 0600 in the
winter ...

--
Colin

Woking to Heathrow
 

tim... wrote:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 23:33:00 on Mon, 3 Apr 2017,
Anna Noyd-Dryver remarked:

If a train is stranded without a functional driver then the situation
can serious especially if the signalling is such that the signaller
doesn't know exactly where the train is. I dread to think what might
happen if this is somewhere without mobile coverage.

It's a balance between what might go wrong once a year, and the cost of
all those guards.

Taking the recent concrete example of introduction of DOO, I'm pretty sure
the agreements on Southern (for now at least) involve a member of staff
being on every train (with limited exceptions), and I'm pretty sure they
were re-employed on their new contracts with no loss of pay. Obviously
both
of these things may change in the future, but at present, where does your
huge cash saving come from?

The ongoing training programme, training of new guards, and as you suggest
the employment of new on-train staff at a different grade, despite not
"demoting" the grandfathered-in existing guards.

That's what BA did when it hired in new starters (on lower salaries) to work
new routes from LGW.

and look what happens

a couple of years later they go on strike because they aren't earning the
same as legacy workers flying from LHR.

Not quite. The 'Mixed fleet' cabin crew fly from LHR, not LGW. They
actually earn less than the LGW crew, who earn less than those on the
former BEA LHR routes, who earn less than those on the old BOAC contracts.

Woking to Heathrow
 

On 2017-04-04 14:46:19 +0000, Roland Perry said:

Cite please.

Cite please that a minicab company *does* arrange insurance?

The situation with Uber has reportedly brought these policies into the
glare of publicity - covering the hire and reward supplement for all
the drivers/cars when on duty, irrespective of who owns the car.

Uber does not have such a policy in the UK. It does in the US of course.

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

Woking to Heathrow
 

In message , at 23:55:35 on Tue, 4 Apr
2017, Neil Williams remarked:
On 2017-04-04 14:46:19 +0000, Roland Perry said:

Cite please.

Cite please that a minicab company *does* arrange insurance?

http://www.acorninsure.co.uk/taxi-in...eet-insurance/

We offer fantastic taxi fleet insurance policies for any fleet
size between 3 and 500 cars and are able to cover a mixed fleet
of both vehicle and driver credentials and experience.

And it's not just for vehicles the operator owns:

We will look more favourably at a taxi fleet policy if the taxi
fleet drivers own their own vehicles and the cover is taken out
for the owner only to driver their vehicle.

The situation with Uber has reportedly brought these policies into
the glare of publicity - covering the hire and reward supplement for
all the drivers/cars when on duty, irrespective of who owns the car.

Uber does not have such a policy in the UK.

Yes, that's the problem.

It does in the US of course.

Why "of course"?
--
Roland Perry

Woking to Heathrow
 

"Jarle Hammen Knudsen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:21:10 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

if you're paying 200 pounds in excess baggage fee, the cost of the taxi is
immaterial

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

because that's what some airlines charge


And it's about £25 per extra bag with one bag included.

for the first bag, many airlines have a much higher charge for the second
extra bag, typically 60-70 pounds

which (plus the first bag's 25 quid) times 2 is 200 quid (close enough)

tim

Woking to Heathrow
 

On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:59:17 +0100
Mark Goodge wrote:
Disregarding the smiley, when I used to fly to Switzerland regularly
for my work, usually just for two to four days at a time, I found that
travelling in winter made it a lot easier to have everything in
carry-on luggage, as a big coat with lots of pockets can take a
surprising amount of stuff.

I don't fly much, but when I do I get everything in a carry on (since like a
lot of people these days I never go away for more than a week at a time due to
work). Its such a nice feeling breezing past all the poor sods at baggage
collection!

--
Spud

Woking to Heathrow
 

On 2017-04-05 06:02:42 +0000, Roland Perry said:

Why "of course"?

Because it's already been discussed.

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

Woking to Heathrow
 

In message , at 09:38:24 on Wed, 5 Apr
2017, Neil Williams remarked:

Why "of course"?

Because it's already been discussed.

OK, remind me. Is it some kind of US minicab-law or something else?
--
Roland Perry

Woking to Heathrow
 

tim... wrote:


"Jarle Hammen Knudsen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:21:10 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

if you're paying 200 pounds in excess baggage fee, the cost of the taxi is
immaterial

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

because that's what some airlines charge


And it's about £25 per extra bag with one bag included.

for the first bag, many airlines have a much higher charge for the second
extra bag, typically 60-70 pounds

which (plus the first bag's 25 quid) times 2 is 200 quid (close enough)

You seem to assume that everyone flies on LCCs; some of us prefer, and can
afford, not to.

These are the baggage allowances I normally get:

Carry on:
1 handbag/laptop bag (max. 23kg / 51lb and up to 45 x 36 x 20cm / 18 x 14 x
8in)
plus
1 additional cabin bag (max. 23kg / 51lb and up to 56 x 45 x 25cm / 22 x 18
x 10in)

Checked:
2 bags (max. 32kg / 70lb per bag)

https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb...age-essentials

Woking to Heathrow
 

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:30:29 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"Jarle Hammen Knudsen" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:21:10 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

if you're paying 200 pounds in excess baggage fee, the cost of the taxi is
immaterial

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

because that's what some airlines charge

The other conclusion, that the cost of the taxi is immaterial.

--
jhk

Woking to Heathrow
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Jarle Hammen Knudsen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:21:10 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

if you're paying 200 pounds in excess baggage fee, the cost of the taxi
is
immaterial

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

because that's what some airlines charge


And it's about £25 per extra bag with one bag included.

for the first bag, many airlines have a much higher charge for the second
extra bag, typically 60-70 pounds

which (plus the first bag's 25 quid) times 2 is 200 quid (close enough)

You seem to assume that everyone flies on LCCs; some of us prefer, and can
afford, not to.

No, even some of the majors charge this

These are the baggage allowances I normally get:

Carry on:
1 handbag/laptop bag (max. 23kg / 51lb and up to 45 x 36 x 20cm / 18 x 14
x
8in)
plus
1 additional cabin bag (max. 23kg / 51lb and up to 56 x 45 x 25cm / 22 x
18
x 10in)

Checked:
2 bags (max. 32kg / 70lb per bag)

unless flying to a short list of countries, that will be premium economy
then - so you've paid how much extra for the flight to get this "free" bag?

tim

Woking to Heathrow
 

tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Jarle Hammen Knudsen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:21:10 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

if you're paying 200 pounds in excess baggage fee, the cost of the taxi
is
immaterial

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

because that's what some airlines charge


And it's about £25 per extra bag with one bag included.

for the first bag, many airlines have a much higher charge for the second
extra bag, typically 60-70 pounds

which (plus the first bag's 25 quid) times 2 is 200 quid (close enough)

You seem to assume that everyone flies on LCCs; some of us prefer, and can
afford, not to.

No, even some of the majors charge this

These are the baggage allowances I normally get:

Carry on:
1 handbag/laptop bag (max. 23kg / 51lb and up to 45 x 36 x 20cm / 18 x 14
x
8in)
plus
1 additional cabin bag (max. 23kg / 51lb and up to 56 x 45 x 25cm / 22 x
18
x 10in)

Checked:
2 bags (max. 32kg / 70lb per bag)

unless flying to a short list of countries, that will be premium economy
then - so you've paid how much extra for the flight to get this "free" bag?

No, I've never flown BA Premium Economy. I nearly always fly business
class.

Woking to Heathrow
 

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 16:10:50 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Jarle Hammen Knudsen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:21:10 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

if you're paying 200 pounds in excess baggage fee, the cost of the taxi
is
immaterial

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

because that's what some airlines charge


And it's about £25 per extra bag with one bag included.

for the first bag, many airlines have a much higher charge for the second
extra bag, typically 60-70 pounds

which (plus the first bag's 25 quid) times 2 is 200 quid (close enough)

You seem to assume that everyone flies on LCCs; some of us prefer, and can
afford, not to.

No, even some of the majors charge this

These are the baggage allowances I normally get:

Carry on:
1 handbag/laptop bag (max. 23kg / 51lb and up to 45 x 36 x 20cm / 18 x 14
x
8in)
plus
1 additional cabin bag (max. 23kg / 51lb and up to 56 x 45 x 25cm / 22 x
18
x 10in)

Checked:
2 bags (max. 32kg / 70lb per bag)

unless flying to a short list of countries, that will be premium economy
then - so you've paid how much extra for the flight to get this "free" bag?

tim



Huh? Icelandair YVR-KEF-ARN, & OSL-KEF-YVR last August had one
carry-on, one checked included in base cattle class.

A recent Air Canada YVR-SYD, and SCL-YYZ-YVR was the same, including
the domestic sector.

Woking to Heathrow
 

On 2017-04-05 09:01:30 +0000, Roland Perry said:

In message , at 09:38:24 on Wed, 5
Apr 2017, Neil Williams remarked:

Why "of course"?

Because it's already been discussed.

OK, remind me. Is it some kind of US minicab-law or something else?

No, it just came up on the thread further up that Uber in the US
provide insurance cover for hire and reward when you are signed onto
the app, and a higher level when a passenger is on board, that's all.

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

Woking to Heathrow
 

In message , at 01:00:38 on Thu, 6 Apr
2017, Neil Williams remarked:
Why "of course"?
Because it's already been discussed.
OK, remind me. Is it some kind of US minicab-law or something else?

No, it just came up on the thread further up that Uber in the US
provide insurance cover for hire and reward when you are signed onto
the app, and a higher level when a passenger is on board, that's all.

Why do they provide that in the USA and not the UK?
--
Roland Perry

Woking to Heathrow
 

On 2017-04-06 08:51:37 +0000, Roland Perry said:

Why do they provide that in the USA and not the UK?

I have no idea. I don't have a suitable car, FWIW, but if they did
provide it here and I did I might well do the odd bit of Ubering to
make a quid here or there, which is the true opportunity of the gig
economy stuff.

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

Woking to Heathrow
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 01:00:38 on Thu, 6 Apr
2017, Neil Williams remarked:
Why "of course"?
Because it's already been discussed.
OK, remind me. Is it some kind of US minicab-law or something else?

No, it just came up on the thread further up that Uber in the US
provide insurance cover for hire and reward when you are signed onto
the app, and a higher level when a passenger is on board, that's all.

Why do they provide that in the USA and not the UK?

Just speculation, but perhaps it's harder to check if Uber drivers in the
US have procured suitable insurance themselves? Or maybe it's much cheaper
to purchase collectively?

Woking to Heathrow
 

Neil Williams wrote:
On 2017-04-06 08:51:37 +0000, Roland Perry said:

Why do they provide that in the USA and not the UK?

I have no idea. I don't have a suitable car, FWIW, but if they did
provide it here and I did I might well do the odd bit of Ubering to
make a quid here or there, which is the true opportunity of the gig
economy stuff.

Yes, it could be that in the US there are more ordinary car owners just
doing a little Uber driving to top up their income, whereas iver here, most
Uber drivers are doing it as their main job.

Woking to Heathrow
 

On 2017-04-06 09:04:41 +0000, Recliner said:

Yes, it could be that in the US there are more ordinary car owners just
doing a little Uber driving to top up their income, whereas iver here, most
Uber drivers are doing it as their main job.

I'd genuinely like to be able to do that, but the UK's approach to taxi
licensing and insurance prohibits it. I do understand the need for
regulation, but it really needs to keep up with the advance of
technology so we are not prevented from taking such opportunities.

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

Woking to Heathrow
 

In message , at 11:43:17 on Thu, 6 Apr
2017, Neil Williams remarked:
Yes, it could be that in the US there are more ordinary car owners just
doing a little Uber driving to top up their income, whereas iver here, most
Uber drivers are doing it as their main job.

I'd genuinely like to be able to do that, but the UK's approach to taxi
licensing and insurance prohibits it. I do understand the need for
regulation, but it really needs to keep up with the advance of
technology so we are not prevented from taking such opportunities.

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

Woking to Heathrow
 

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 and design
it for ease of obtaining one (and ease of cancellation if you don't
behave), e.g. a smooth online process. I'd also like to see the Uber
US approach to insurance.

So I should be able to log onto gov.uk, apply for a licence, attend
somewhere once for 10 minutes for a DBS document verification (the only
thing that would be in person) and follow the process online, with "as
needed" insurance provided through the taxi company. And the licence
would be valid throughout the UK.

It should be equally possible to make a complaint against a driver
online and progress that complaint through.

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

Woking to Heathrow
 

In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

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 and design
it for ease of obtaining one (and ease of cancellation if you don't
behave), e.g. a smooth online process. I'd also like to see the Uber
US approach to insurance.

So I should be able to log onto gov.uk, apply for a licence, attend
somewhere once for 10 minutes for a DBS document verification (the
only thing that would be in person) and follow the process online,
with "as needed" insurance provided through the taxi company. And
the licence would be valid throughout the UK.

It should be equally possible to make a complaint against a driver
online and progress that complaint through.

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

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Woking to Heathrow
 

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.

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

Woking to Heathrow
 

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.

Woking to Heathrow
 

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

Woking to Heathrow
 

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.

Woking to Heathrow
 

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.

Woking to Heathrow
 

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?

Woking to Heathrow
 

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

Woking to Heathrow
 

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

Woking to Heathrow
 

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

Woking to Heathrow
 

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.

Woking to Heathrow
 

"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