"Theo" wrote

Woking-Clapham Junction
Clapham Junction-Feltham
285 bus to LHR

is the most obvious alternative, though somewhat slow.

Guildford-Worcester Park
X26 bus to LHR

is one I haven't tried.

I suspect if the M25 is borked then Woking to Heathrow is going to be
difficult whatever. Staying on the train and getting off a Surbiton (if it
stops) then taking a taxi might be one way to avoid it.

Bus (any) Surbiton to Kingston then X26 to LHR is workable.

Rail via Weybridge to Egham or Staines then, eg 441 bus works but Feltham is
faster.

--
Mike D

In uk.railway Recliner wrote:
I'm not sure if this applies in the UK:

Uber requires all of their drivers to have car insurance, and provides
supplemental insurance coverage, but only while the app is on.

Here’s how it works: When the Uber app is off, a driver is covered by their
own personal car insurance. When the Uber app is turned on, a low level of
liability insurance becomes active. When a trip is accepted, a higher level
of coverage kicks in and remains active until the passenger exits the
vehicle. Previously Uber had only offered coverage when a passenger was in
the car, but the company updated their policy after a series of accidents
which resulted in various lawsuits.

I suspect, but don't know, that insurance companies won't see it that way.
For instance, you get a job that takes you a long way from home and then you
'clock off'. I suspect the insurance company would not count the return
journey as 'commuting', because that journey was generated by the job that
you picked up, even if you're not technically working at that point.
Typically insurance policies define it as 'commuting to a single place of
work', which this isn't. I don't know if the deadheading parts are
acceptable as business miles on conventional insurance policies.

In the employees-not-contractors case, the judge allowed the time from
turning on the app to getting a job as working time for hours calculations,
but not the time to commute from outside of London to the edge of the Uber
zone (I think the example was Southampton to Woking or thereabouts). I
don't think you'd get away with saying your single place of work was Greater
London.

Theo

Theo wrote:
In uk.railway Recliner wrote:
I'm not sure if this applies in the UK:

Uber requires all of their drivers to have car insurance, and provides
supplemental insurance coverage, but only while the app is on.

Here’s how it works: When the Uber app is off, a driver is covered by their
own personal car insurance. When the Uber app is turned on, a low level of
liability insurance becomes active. When a trip is accepted, a higher level
of coverage kicks in and remains active until the passenger exits the
vehicle. Previously Uber had only offered coverage when a passenger was in
the car, but the company updated their policy after a series of accidents
which resulted in various lawsuits.

I suspect, but don't know, that insurance companies won't see it that way.
For instance, you get a job that takes you a long way from home and then you
'clock off'. I suspect the insurance company would not count the return
journey as 'commuting', because that journey was generated by the job that
you picked up, even if you're not technically working at that point.
Typically insurance policies define it as 'commuting to a single place of
work', which this isn't. I don't know if the deadheading parts are
acceptable as business miles on conventional insurance policies.

In the employees-not-contractors case, the judge allowed the time from
turning on the app to getting a job as working time for hours calculations,
but not the time to commute from outside of London to the edge of the Uber
zone (I think the example was Southampton to Woking or thereabouts). I
don't think you'd get away with saying your single place of work was Greater
London.

No, Uber drivers need to have the same (expensive) private hire insurance
as any other minicab:

Quote:

Uber drivers require private hire vehicle insurance with hire and reward.
This level of cover ensures both the vehicle and passengers are covered in
the event of an accident.

http://www.staveleyhead.co.uk/commer...insurance/uber

Quote:

What kind of taxi insurance do Uber drivers need?

If you are an Uber driver then you need to have commercial taxi insurance.
A normal car insurance policy would be insufficient and is likely to be
voided in the event that you have an accident while driving for Uber.

Even if Uber doesn’t classify itself as a taxi service, and refers to its
drivers as ‘your friend with a car’, the fact is that if you are picking up
passengers for financial reward at a pre-booked location, you are
effectively a private hire taxi driver. A private hire taxi insurance
policy is therefore a legal requirement to cover your vehicle usage. And
getting the right type of insurance is down to you – not Uber.

It is particularly important that you have public liability cover as part
of your policy, as otherwise you could be liable for all compensation costs
should a passenger or a third party be injured.

While Uber and similar services remain in a grey area for now and the laws
surrounding it are likely to change in coming years, the best advice for
Uber drivers for now is to make sure that their insurance policy is
correct.

From:
http://parkinsurance.co.uk/uber-driv...axi-insurance/

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

because that's what you did when I questioned the possibility that Uber
might fail in an earlier discussion

you used the spurious argument that some large company (Amazon was it)
had
invested and they wouldn't be investing in a company that might fail.

No, it has the backing of large VC funds,

no you didn't, you named a specific HITech company - thinking more it was
probably Google

which Amazon is not. Don't you
know the difference?

Don't be silly

It is well know that all of the major HiTech companies invest in new starts
ups, separate from their trading operations.

They are awash with money, they have to do something with it.

And I didn't discuss whether might one day fail to repay their investment.

Yes you did - you told me I was an idiot for even considering the
possibility.

What I pointed out was that losing lots of money at this stage in its life
was all part of the business plan, which its investors fully understood
and
supported.

Nope, that wasn't the conversation at all

If you want an example of an over-hyped company with an absurd valuation,
which also loses money hand over fist, look at Tesla.

Oh you agree then, I have been saying that for ages

On that basis you should hold the opinion that none of these billion
dollar
companies can fail because it is 100% certain that all of them have the
backing of some large company or other

No. It just means you don't understand the difference between trading
companies and investment funds.

Nonsense

You clearly said that the company wouldn't fail because some other company
had invested 100s of millions in it, and they wouldn't have done that if
there was a possibility it might fail. And you called me an idiot for
thinking otherwise.

The names of the companies here are irrelevant. The point that you made at
the time stood on its own merits (or not) without them.

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


"D A Stocks" wrote in message
news
"Arthur Conan Doyle" wrote in message
news:uk9vdc1iusv3qbo78opsvoja1ik1sljco1@None...
"D A Stocks" wrote:

if my initial experience is
anything to go by, nicer cars, nicer drivers and cheaper. What's not
to
like?

I used Uber Lux for a ride across London recently. Very nice. Wondered
if
the
driver was doing a little moonlighting with his employer's vehicle, but
that's
his business.

I'm not sure if the rules for Uber Lux are different, but my
understanding
is that Uber drivers use their own vehicles.

FSVO

The point about Uber's model is that they don't own them

but that doesn't mean that the driver does either - he could be
"borrowing"
it

(FTAOD - I'm not making some pedantic point about Lease-Hire)

The driver can't just turn up in a random borrowed vehicle.

who said it was "randomly borrowed"

Uber must
approve, and knows exactly what car he drives. It presumably does some
checks on its ownership,

really - why on earth would it need to do that?

suitability,

this is just a case of looking at the marque and the age

whether it's licensed and insured for
private hire, etc.

Isn't this in the drivers name?

tim

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 20:19:18 on Sat, 1 Apr 2017, Recliner
remarked:
The point about Uber's model is that they don't own them

but that doesn't mean that the driver does either - he could be
"borrowing"
it

(FTAOD - I'm not making some pedantic point about Lease-Hire)

The driver can't just turn up in a random borrowed vehicle. Uber must
approve, and knows exactly what car he drives. It presumably does some
checks on its ownership, suitability, whether it's licensed and insured
for
private hire, etc.

https://www.uber.com/en-GB/drive/lon...-requirements/

The main complaint is that they don't (do much checking). And reportedly
the problem with insurance is they don't track cancellations

I'm not even sure there's a mechanism for that even if they wanted to

tim

"Theo" wrote in message
...
In uk.railway Recliner wrote:
I'm not sure if this applies in the UK:

Uber requires all of their drivers to have car insurance, and provides
supplemental insurance coverage, but only while the app is on.

Here’s how it works: When the Uber app is off, a driver is covered by
their
own personal car insurance. When the Uber app is turned on, a low level
of
liability insurance becomes active. When a trip is accepted, a higher
level
of coverage kicks in and remains active until the passenger exits the
vehicle. Previously Uber had only offered coverage when a passenger was
in
the car, but the company updated their policy after a series of accidents
which resulted in various lawsuits.

I suspect, but don't know, that insurance companies won't see it that way.
For instance, you get a job that takes you a long way from home and then
you
'clock off'. I suspect the insurance company would not count the return
journey as 'commuting', because that journey was generated by the job that
you picked up, even if you're not technically working at that point.
Typically insurance policies define it as 'commuting to a single place of
work', which this isn't. I don't know if the deadheading parts are
acceptable as business miles on conventional insurance policies.

In the employees-not-contractors case, the judge allowed the time from
turning on the app to getting a job as working time for hours
calculations,
but not the time to commute from outside of London to the edge of the Uber
zone (I think the example was Southampton to Woking or thereabouts). I
don't think you'd get away with saying your single place of work was
Greater
London.

There are people who drive from Southampton to London to work as Uber
drivers

no wonder they don't cover their costs

(Why can't they just work as a mini-cab in Southampton?)

tim

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 18:48:05 on Sat, 1 Apr 2017,
tim... remarked:
I'm not sure if the rules for Uber Lux are different, but my
understanding is that Uber drivers use their own vehicles.

FSVO

The point about Uber's model is that they don't own them

but that doesn't mean that the driver does either - he could be
"borrowing" it

See "and thus a lack of insurance".

Can you not get private hire add-on insurance for a car that you do not own?

Surely the assessable additional part of the risk here sits with the driver.

tim

In message 576780849.512775565.610417.recliner.ng-
, at 21:44:09 on Sat, 1 Apr
2017, Recliner remarked:
The main complaint is that they don't (do much checking). And reportedly
the problem with insurance is they don't track cancellations and
renewals.

Do you have a link for that?

I'm not sure if this applies in the UK:

Uber requires all of their drivers to have car insurance, and provides
supplemental insurance coverage, but only while the app is on.

Here’s how it works: When the Uber app is off, a driver is covered by their
own personal car insurance. When the Uber app is turned on, a low level of
liability insurance becomes active. When a trip is accepted, a higher level
of coverage kicks in and remains active until the passenger exits the
vehicle. Previously Uber had only offered coverage when a passenger was in
the car, but the company updated their policy after a series of accidents
which resulted in various lawsuits.

From
https://www.answerfinancial.com/insurance-center/how-does-car-insurance-work-for-uber-drivers

Also see
http://www.gocompare.com/taxi-insurance/uber-and-other-ride-sharing-apps/#2YBrm8moZhlIIt7v.97

Why did Uber conduct a campaign against this, and decline to comment to
the paper, if "we already have hire and reward operator insurance", was
the case?

http://www.cityam.com/249983/london-...ites-uber-and-
other-private-hire
--
Roland Perry

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 01:30:12 on Sun, 2 Apr 2017, Recliner
remarked:

If you are an Uber driver then you need to have commercial taxi insurance.
A normal car insurance policy would be insufficient and is likely to be
voided in the event that you have an accident while driving for Uber.

Even if Uber doesn’t classify itself as a taxi service, and refers to its
drivers as ‘your friend with a car’, the fact is that if you are picking up
passengers for financial reward at a pre-booked location, you are
effectively a private hire taxi driver.

But hat if they don't - who is checking?

A private hire taxi insurance policy is therefore a legal requirement
to cover your vehicle usage. And getting the right type of insurance is
down to you - not Uber.

That answers the supposed Uber-provided supplemental insurance then.

--
Roland Perry