In message , at 11:14:10 on Sun, 2 Apr 2017,
tim... 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

They could do spot checks on the drivers, say once a month on average
for each, and blacklist the ones without insurance.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:18:38 on Sun, 2 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?

You might be able to, if you declare the vehicle.

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

The vehicle will make a difference too. A minibus, versus a Toyota
versus a Jag.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 18:05:09
on Sat, 1 Apr 2017, remarked:
In this country any hire car is subject to local authority licensing and
testing.

Although reportedly TfL is overwhelmed by the number of Uber cars
being brought into the system, and may not be checking as thoroughly
as they could.

That may be the legislation in London, different from that in the rest of
the country, not being fit for purpose.

TfL is simply failing to cope with the doubling of the number of such
vehicles in a couple of years.

--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 11:14:10 on Sun, 2 Apr
2017, tim... 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

They could do spot checks on the drivers, say once a month on average
for each, and blacklist the ones without insurance.

I think you mean take them to court to get 6 points on their licence?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
18:05:09 on Sat, 1 Apr 2017, remarked:
In this country any hire car is subject to local authority licensing
and testing.

Although reportedly TfL is overwhelmed by the number of Uber cars
being brought into the system, and may not be checking as thoroughly
as they could.

That may be the legislation in London, different from that in the rest
of the country, not being fit for purpose.

TfL is simply failing to cope with the doubling of the number of such
vehicles in a couple of years.

Elsewhere that might be the Uber cars' problem.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 09:47:12 +0100, e27002 aurora
wrote:


OK, so I have had it with the Woking RailAir coach link. I need an
alternative means of reaching the airport. Train from the South Coast
to Woking is fine. But what are the alternatives for reaching the
airport?

Has anyone used Uber? How does it work? What is the service like?

There are very good reasons to go to Heathrow - I still go there to
catch long haul flights. I'm prepared to put up with GWR to Reading
then the bus to get a non stop flight. Equally Gatwick sometimes via
Reading.

That said, going from Bristol, Southampton or Exeter (all
possibilities for me) means a shorter and easier journey at the UK end
but for long haul will mean a chage of plane somewhere.

Are you in a position to make somekind of trade off and use either
Southampton or Gatwick?

On 02/04/2017 11:16, tim... wrote:


"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?)


The money is better than here perhaps. Also some local mini-cab
companies have embraced Uber and have the infrastructure to play it both
ways as required.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 02/04/2017 12:54, Graham Harrison wrote:
On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 09:47:12 +0100, e27002 aurora
wrote:


OK, so I have had it with the Woking RailAir coach link. I need an
alternative means of reaching the airport. Train from the South Coast
to Woking is fine. But what are the alternatives for reaching the
airport?

Has anyone used Uber? How does it work? What is the service like?

There are very good reasons to go to Heathrow - I still go there to
catch long haul flights. I'm prepared to put up with GWR to Reading
then the bus to get a non stop flight. Equally Gatwick sometimes via
Reading.

That said, going from Bristol, Southampton or Exeter (all
possibilities for me) means a shorter and easier journey at the UK end
but for long haul will mean a chage of plane somewhere.

Are you in a position to make somekind of trade off and use either
Southampton or Gatwick?


No flights from Southampton to the US.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

tim... wrote:


"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

Yes, they apparently contact the insurance company the driver claimed to
have a policy with, and they could ask to be informed if the policy lapsed.
That may be even be available online.

tim... wrote:


"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.


That's definitely not the way I remember it. You're going to have to dig up
the thread if you want to pursue this.