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

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

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.

The train company, more likely. They control access to the station
forecourt. It's not part of the public highway.

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.

In Cambridge, I gather a few hire cars are signed up to Uber but the
established firms seem to have the market pretty well sewn up. Within the
city they go by the meter.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 05:49:31
on Tue, 18 Apr 2017, remarked:
The licencing authority doesn't want tourists arriving at the station
to be greeted by a load of scruffs in beaten up taxis.

The train company, more likely. They control access to the station
forecourt. It's not part of the public highway.

No, it's the council.

In Cambridge, I gather a few hire cars are signed up to Uber but the
established firms seem to have the market pretty well sewn up. Within the
city they

The Uber ones?

go by the meter.

--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
05:49:31 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017, remarked:
The licencing authority doesn't want tourists arriving at the
station
to be greeted by a load of scruffs in beaten up taxis.

The train company, more likely. They control access to the station
forecourt. It's not part of the public highway.

No, it's the council.

On what basis do you make that mendacious claim?

In Cambridge, I gather a few hire cars are signed up to Uber but the
established firms seem to have the market pretty well sewn up. Within
the city they

The Uber ones?

No. Hire cars licensed by the city council AIUI. I am assuming that Uber is
relying on existing operators' cars.

go by the meter.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 09:53:14
on Tue, 18 Apr 2017, remarked:

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

The train company, more likely. They control access to the station
forecourt. It's not part of the public highway.

No, it's the council.

On what basis do you make that mendacious claim?

Reading between the lines of the article in the Ely Standard.

In Cambridge, I gather a few hire cars are signed up to Uber but the
established firms seem to have the market pretty well sewn up. Within
the city they

The Uber ones?

No. Hire cars licensed by the city council AIUI. I am assuming that Uber is
relying on existing operators' cars.

Perhaps so, because they have to be licenced by someone.

But would a car licenced to a council far away be allowed to be an Uber
in Cambridge, and to use their app rather than charging on the meter?

After all, the latter would almost completely destroy their proposition.

go by the meter.


--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
09:53:14 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017, remarked:

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

The train company, more likely. They control access to the station
forecourt. It's not part of the public highway.

No, it's the council.

On what basis do you make that mendacious claim?

Reading between the lines of the article in the Ely Standard.

I'm not certain about the position in Ely but I am in Cambridge. It's
railway land and I think the Ely station forecourt is too. What did the
article say exactly?

In Cambridge, I gather a few hire cars are signed up to Uber but the
established firms seem to have the market pretty well sewn up. Within
the city they

The Uber ones?

No. Hire cars licensed by the city council AIUI. I am assuming that Uber
is relying on existing operators' cars.

Perhaps so, because they have to be licenced by someone.

But would a car licenced to a council far away be allowed to be an
Uber in Cambridge, and to use their app rather than charging on the
meter?

After all, the latter would almost completely destroy their
proposition.

I must admit I don't entirely understand how the Uber proposition fits with
UK Hire Car licensing law. local hire car operators seem to manage though.

go by the meter.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 11:11:17
on Tue, 18 Apr 2017, remarked:

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

The train company, more likely. They control access to the station
forecourt. It's not part of the public highway.

No, it's the council.

On what basis do you make that mendacious claim?

Reading between the lines of the article in the Ely Standard.

I'm not certain about the position in Ely but I am in Cambridge. It's
railway land and I think the Ely station forecourt is too. What did the
article say exactly?

"promotes public safety and a professional taxi service in the
district."

In Cambridge, I gather a few hire cars are signed up to Uber but the
established firms seem to have the market pretty well sewn up. Within
the city they

The Uber ones?

No. Hire cars licensed by the city council AIUI. I am assuming that Uber
is relying on existing operators' cars.

Perhaps so, because they have to be licenced by someone.

But would a car licenced to a council far away be allowed to be an
Uber in Cambridge, and to use their app rather than charging on the
meter?

After all, the latter would almost completely destroy their
proposition.

I must admit I don't entirely understand how the Uber proposition fits with
UK Hire Car licensing law. local hire car operators seem to manage though.

They rely upon the ability to negotiate a fixed fee for the journey at
the start. And famously to adapt the fee to the instantaneous demand.
--
Roland Perry