They aren't getting it ...

[B1ts]

And someone knowingly submitting false documentation should be reported. Shouldn't .

In the case of uber who do you assume is doing that reporting and to whom with what effect?

Btw did you report your earlier uber driver you spoke of that was working both for uber and addison lee consecutively? Or did your extensive research fail to illuminate he was almost certainly invalidating his insurance policy if not his licencing conditions (which addison lee would have verified he held, unlike uber) and absolutely certainly his working t&c with addison lee (the latter 2 nearly always invalidates phv insurance in any case) by doing so?
Or was this another assumed to be properly checked but isnt yet you see no issue situation?

To me this whole event is just an attempt to undermine and discredit the competition.

Yes that is quite clear, to you it has to be else it does not fit your original hypothesis that the black cabs "dont get it" and are able to just choose to operate as uber currently do with no crippling downside to them or us the travelling public and their protests are purely to keep things as they are.

One last time .....you are absolutely correct that the current system is old antiquated unfit for modern purpose needs reform etc etc etc.....saying the black cab drivers "dont get it" because they protest against uber operating unfairly against the compliant licensed taxi trade is absolutely incorrect.
RIGHT problem.
WRONG target.
*sigh*

 

[B1ts]

It was a sting operation by a journalist. This country has a proud tradition of allowing such things as, when used appropriately, they are an important tool in the arsenal of the investigative journalist.

Trying to set the law on them amounts to an attempt to intimidate the press. Not cool.

I don't have a problem with Uber's business model, which is innovative, but if we are going to regulate the industry (and there are strong safety reasons to do so), then that regulation needs to apply to all, without allowing certain firms to leverage outdated legislation (as Uber have done with their meter-that-isn't-a-meter) at the expense of existing industry. If the rules are dumb, change them. But don't let one side cheat.

Precisely

 

[dejongj]

In the case of uber who do you assume is doing that reporting and to whom with what effect?

Btw did you report your earlier uber driver you spoke of that was working both for uber and addison lee consecutively? Or did your extensive research fail to illuminate he was almost certainly invalidating his insurance policy if not his licencing conditions (which addison lee would have verified he held, unlike uber) and absolutely certainly his working t&c with addison lee (the latter 2 nearly always invalidates phv insurance in any case) by doing so?
Or was this another assumed to be properly checked but isnt yet you see no issue situation?



Yes that is quite clear, to you it has to be else it does not fit your original hypothesis that the black cabs "dont get it" and are able to just choose to operate as uber currently do with no crippling downside to them or us the travelling public and their protests are purely to keep things as they are.

One last time .....you are absolutely correct that the current system is old antiquated unfit for modern purpose needs reform etc etc etc.....saying the black cab drivers "dont get it" because they protest against uber operating unfairly against the compliant licensed taxi trade is absolutely incorrect.
RIGHT problem.
WRONG target.
*sigh*

What is your obsession with reporting people and companies?

Anyway are you still maintaining your earlier mis information about no driver checks, vehicle checks etc? Or are you just ignoring the points and the operating model now? I mean for someone who is so well informed in the industry it is rather surprising that you dish out so much mis information regarding private hire.

 

[B1ts]

What is your obsession with reporting people and companies?

It was in response to:

And someone knowingly submitting false documentation should be reported. Shouldn't they?

As just one example he (your dual driver) would have had to supply his original phv licence copy (if he actually has one, no actual checks are made by uber who is actually driving the car vs who the licence is for, and yes compliant companies and tfl do this, at an overhead cost to drivers) to the company he works through, so he knowingly provided at least one false document and the only one who could know this apart from him was you and you didn't know or if you did wouldn't see it as your business as you already alluded to....or he possibly gave addison lee the real one as they do check, and strongly indicates either uber got a forgery or didnt bother at all....

 

[Llamaman]

Regarding sting operations I agree. However there is sting and there is sting. They can't go too far. It is a whole different discussion all together with lots of ideology involved. Some I agree with and some I don't. Personally I don't think it is good enough to just say it was done in the name of a sting.

I agree that that a "sting" operation to embarrass a football manager is not in the public interest. But checking out whether the legally mandated checks on taxis are being effectively carried out is.
Uber should have adopted the approach of tech firms towards 'white hat' hackers - thank them for exposing a weakness and move to correct it. Throwing a hissy fit and trying to shoot the messenger reveals a great deal about their mindset. An organization in "siege" mentality tends to lose perspective and focus only on how to get out of the current predicament. It might help get a sports team over the line of a championship, but it's no way to run a business where public safety is at stake.

So why do you and b1ts suggest they don't? I'm happy to change my stance if they aren't subjected to that, however all the evidence and legal reports have found such allegations to be false.

I'm not going to answer for B1ts' posts but I stand by more comment re: insurance and have already provided my reasoning, including a link to an article written by an insurance claims expert. Who, truth be told, is probably is a bit more clued into the vagaries of the insurance industry than the civil servants at TFL, whose own investigations have been proven to be lacking, as exposed by the sting.
It really isn't beyond the wit of man to independently check the records presented to them (a former employer of mine phoned my exam boards to check my results) or to carry out random spot-checks throughout the year.
This might be true of other private hire licenses as well as Uber... but that just makes the situation worse, not better.

 

[B1ts]

Anyway are you still maintaining your earlier mis information about no driver checks, vehicle checks etc? Or are you just ignoring the points and the operating model now? I mean for someone who is so well informed in the industry it is rather surprising that you dish out so much mis information regarding private hire.

Yes I am and if you read what llamaan also said in regard to uber checking the drivers claims to be following the legal regulations you would see your repeated lying (see I use that term deliberately rather than some generalised claim without accurate foundation of mis information).
I dare you to show me where I have given any mis information about licensed private hire? In fact I have gone to great lengths to explain, had you bothered to read, that both private hire and hackney have all those checks and they are verified properly.
UBER do not, they should do, they are supposed to, they someways even claim to, they do not abide by them in practice, other licensed taxi providers do abide by them, pay the overheads involved and have to charge accordingly.

Those you suggest should join them would then not be able to provide their existing services (rank, flag) because it would be illegal for them to then do so.
Do you not realise these are laws and byelaws? Do you not realise the drivers cannot change them? Are you really not aware that the system is top down driven and the legislators are at fault/able to change our current sysytem?

I am not saying you are maliciously lying you ignore the information given to you and champion uber as being on a level playing field to other licensed taxi providers be they phv or hackney when they really are not.

Are you still maintaining your assertion that black cab drivers are the ones that "dont get it" and are the correct target to be those able to change the system and its laws and regulations and should just change vehicle type and join uber and this will lead to a better system for both drivers and public ?

 

[B1ts]

It was in response to:


As just one example he (your dual driver) would have had to supply his original phv licence copy (if he actually has one, no actual checks are made by uber who is actually driving the car vs who the licence is for, and yes compliant companies and tfl do this, at an overhead cost to drivers) to the company he works through, so he knowingly provided at least one false document and the only one who could know this apart from him was you and you didn't know or if you did wouldn't see it as your business as you already alluded to....or he possibly gave addison lee the real one as they do check, and strongly indicates either uber got a forgery or didnt bother at all....

Apologies to @Llamaman I see he "liked" my above post before I edited it beyond just the quotes, just for clarity here as he may/may not want that to stand after my content adding edit just now.....

 

[B1ts]

So why do you and b1ts suggest they don't? I'm happy to change my stance if they aren't subjected to that, however all the evidence and legal reports have found such allegations to be false.

Please show these legal reports on allegations disproven.
Aiui pretty much the only court case so far has concluded that the smartphone is not a meter, are their verdicts in cases dealing with any other allegations in the uk?
Or are you just imagining these found false cases?
You have already been quoted instances showing uber and or their drivers breaching the things you say they comply with.
You are so nearly there in understanding, and hopefully going forward these things will be tested in court and we may get a level playing field for all involved, it is not currently so unfortunately, hence your blame initially at the black cab drivers being missplaced however well intentioned you meant to be.

 

[B1ts]

Uber should have adopted the approach of tech firms towards 'white hat' hackers - thank them for exposing a weakness and move to correct it. Throwing a hissy fit and trying to shoot the messenger reveals a great deal about their mindset. An organization in "siege" mentality tends to lose perspective and focus only on how to get out of the current predicament. It might help get a sports team over the line of a championship, but it's no way to run a business where public safety is at stake.

Spot on.

 

[B1ts]

I'm not going to answer for B1ts' posts but I stand by more comment re: insurance

This might be true of other private hire licenses as well as Uber... but that just makes the situation worse, not better.

It is not true of many other companies especially those licensed outside london where not only do operating companies have to audit and prove insurance etc so do the local authorities (sadly as already expressed due to each authority dealing with their local taxi system alongside those few national laws that apply everywhere).

So thankfully the situation re insurance outside of uber is not hopefully worse however this is another of those 'could do with common sense filtering' being applied evenly across the country as with a lot of the localised byelaws etc.
There is much needing addressing/changing in the taxi trade imho and as I repeatedly bang on it is not the drivers that need the pressure to change and as long as this is missunderstood the real agents of change can happily sit on their hands

 

[B1ts]

It was in response to:


As just one example he (your dual driver) would have had to supply his original phv licence copy (if he actually has one, no actual checks are made by uber who is actually driving the car vs who the licence is for, and yes compliant companies and tfl do this, at an overhead cost to drivers) to the company he works through, so he knowingly provided at least one false document and the only one who could know this apart from him was you and you didn't know or if you did wouldn't see it as your business as you already alluded to....or he possibly gave addison lee the real one as they do check, and strongly indicates either uber got a forgery or didnt bother at all....

Apologies realised the above is poss not as clear as could be, although there is currently (soon to be changed and actually cited by uber themselves as the death of them, since they currently rely on other companies to carry overheads they then avoid) no tfl reg against multi company working, but nearly every phv insurance policy does dissallow it and or dissallow working if outside your operating companies t&c which nearly all include a no working for others clause.

This is what I alluded to many posts back, that the system is (overly) complicated so some things look to the end user as ok but due to the complexity behind it all it is broken, especially in the case of uber, to provide every possible permutation of what ifs would be impossible here nut maybe this shows a good example.

God help us if we ever need to consider uber operating in other regions where the rules are often different, in my particular one they would def be illegal due to our authority insisting a recognised meter must be used, the opposite of tfl, and they also already have the one company only ruling........

 

[dejongj]

It was in response to:


As just one example he (your dual driver) would have had to supply his original phv licence copy (if he actually has one, no actual checks are made by uber who is actually driving the car vs who the licence is for, and yes compliant companies and tfl do this, at an overhead cost to drivers) to the company he works through, so he knowingly provided at least one false document and the only one who could know this apart from him was you and you didn't know or if you did wouldn't see it as your business as you already alluded to....or he possibly gave addison lee the real one as they do check, and strongly indicates either uber got a forgery or didnt bother at all....

I didn't realise that an independent licensed driver is only allowed to work for one operator. That seems to be against European directives and anti competitive.

The rest are just loads of unfounded assumptions.

 

[dejongj]

I agree that that a "sting" operation to embarrass a football manager is not in the public interest. But checking out whether the legally mandated checks on taxis are being effectively carried out is.
Uber should have adopted the approach of tech firms towards 'white hat' hackers - thank them for exposing a weakness and move to correct it. Throwing a hissy fit and trying to shoot the messenger reveals a great deal about their mindset. An organization in "siege" mentality tends to lose perspective and focus only on how to get out of the current predicament. It might help get a sports team over the line of a championship, but it's no way to run a business where public safety is at stake.


I'm not going to answer for B1ts' posts but I stand by more comment re: insurance and have already provided my reasoning, including a link to an article written by an insurance claims expert. Who, truth be told, is probably is a bit more clued into the vagaries of the insurance industry than the civil servants at TFL, whose own investigations have been proven to be lacking, as exposed by the sting.
It really isn't beyond the wit of man to independently check the records presented to them (a former employer of mine phoned my exam boards to check my results) or to carry out random spot-checks throughout the year.
This might be true of other private hire licenses as well as Uber... but that just makes the situation worse, not better.

So there are three checks during the year already. And there are compliance teams out and about. I think that is sufficient, I have no data on that, but that seems quite a lot of time checking already.

 

[dejongj]

Yes I am and if you read what llamaan also said in regard to uber checking the drivers claims to be following the legal regulations you would see your repeated lying (see I use that term deliberately rather than some generalised claim without accurate foundation of mis information).
I dare you to show me where I have given any mis information about licensed private hire? In fact I have gone to great lengths to explain, had you bothered to read, that both private hire and hackney have all those checks and they are verified properly.
UBER do not, they should do, they are supposed to, they someways even claim to, they do not abide by them in practice, other licensed taxi providers do abide by them, pay the overheads involved and have to charge accordingly.

Those you suggest should join them would then not be able to provide their existing services (rank, flag) because it would be illegal for them to then do so.
Do you not realise these are laws and byelaws? Do you not realise the drivers cannot change them? Are you really not aware that the system is top down driven and the legislators are at fault/able to change our current sysytem?

I am not saying you are maliciously lying you ignore the information given to you and champion uber as being on a level playing field to other licensed taxi providers be they phv or hackney when they really are not.

Are you still maintaining your assertion that black cab drivers are the ones that "dont get it" and are the correct target to be those able to change the system and its laws and regulations and should just change vehicle type and join uber and this will lead to a better system for both drivers and public ?

Well TFL and the legal system seem to disagree with you. What more can I say. I trust them more than some bloke on the Internet.

I don't understand how you suggest that other private hire firms are fine, yet uber isn't. That would insinuate that TFL is in on the game to let uber go free without checks.

 

[dejongj]

Please show these legal reports on allegations disproven.
Aiui pretty much the only court case so far has concluded that the smartphone is not a meter, are their verdicts in cases dealing with any other allegations in the uk?
Or are you just imagining these found false cases?
You have already been quoted instances showing uber and or their drivers breaching the things you say they comply with.
You are so nearly there in understanding, and hopefully going forward these things will be tested in court and we may get a level playing field for all involved, it is not currently so unfortunately, hence your blame initially at the black cab drivers being missplaced however well intentioned you meant to be.

You've also been demonstrated that taxicab drivers flaunt the rules as well. It's human nature, why else would there be enforcement teams around?

Here is an interesting report on the operating model of uber as well.

I really don't get why you so single them out and taxicab drivers all adhere to the rules by the same people and the same regulators etc.
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/TfL Uber legal advice_0.pdf

 

[B1ts]

I didn't realise that an independent licensed driver is only allowed to work for one operator. That seems to be against European directives and anti competitive.

The rest are just loads of unfounded assumptions.

See below...

 

[B1ts]

There is a lot you don't realise, thats my point, thats what happens when you do not have specific knowledge and why sometimes it can be good to actually listen to those that do. I would not pretend to have a magical solution to whatever may aile your area of knowledge and experience.

I did try to clarify however that although that is definitely the case where I am currently specifically v tfl are still trying to implement it officially, however the by product remains it very likely invalidates the insurance regardless due to the points raised in that clarification.

As said it is the intricacies and complications that make it so impossible for the black cab drivers to do as you suggest, you keep overlooking this and keep alluding that I support the currentvsytem or am anti uber etc etc....for someone that consistently says others do not read what you have said in your other posts in another thread it is remarkable to me how you cannot grasp that we are in agreement about the need for change, just not who can actually enable that change or should be blamed for the current system.

Your first paragraph is an example of the unfounded assumption you complain of and your second contradicts your earlier assertion that these were allegations that had been been tested officially and found untrue?
So where are the links to these legal test cases please as asked for before?

 

[B1ts]

You've also been demonstrated that taxicab drivers flaunt the rules as well. It's human nature, why else would there be enforcement teams around?

Here is an interesting report on the operating model of uber as well.

I really don't get why you so single them out and taxicab drivers all adhere to the rules by the same people and the same regulators etc.
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/TfL Uber legal advice_0.pdf

You singled them out as saying the black cabs dont "get it" and they should not just do as uber do.
Which as explained to you to death now really they are constrained from doing.
If uber acted properly and or if the black cabs had the practical ability to do what you wish then fine, they don't.

You prob dont understand why not just the london black cabs but a lot of the world are also saying they do not operate as they should but why let all that affect your uninformed narrow minded attitude hey its just me one bloke on the internet that disagrees with your "solution".

 

[dejongj]

See below...

Linky to the evidence and regulation please? I mean you haven't drawn an equal picture on other matters either. That would be most useful thank you.

 

[B1ts]

Here is an interesting report on the operating model of uber as well.

I really don't get why you so single them out and taxicab drivers all adhere to the rules by the same people and the same regulators etc.
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/TfL Uber legal advice_0.pdf

They dont adhere to them and since you cant prove a negative I can only say that when checked they have been shown not too...as per some links already given...but it is immaterial in our debate really since my point was and always has been that the black cab drivers are not the ones "not getting it" nor able to do as you suggest they should.

Yes interesting reading...full of we do not think etc as it is a guidance document not law it proves exactly my point, there are many vagueries, and these just in the tfl area not even looking at outside london authorities, that need to be legally tested/changed/repealled whatever.
The black cab driver is unable to do that.

It needs doing but they are not the ones to do it which has always been my point, all this diverting off track and expecting me to have all the other answers is daft I am not as repeatedly said supporting or not supporting either side simply trying to get through to you that there is far more involved than you knew doing as you suggest they should. You seem unable to comprehend this base point.

There has been private hire either licensed or not vs hackney carriage for many decades, does it not cross your mind that as it only seems to be the advent of uber that has caused problems worldwide that they might just be doing something different to all the other providers all over the world and if it was as easy as you say to compete at least some would be doing so?
You say one bloke on the internet I would posit that nearly every person with a working knowledge of the current systems seems to disagree with your assesment.

I really cannot be bothered having to spend so much time on this now, if you actually post those legal cases you say have proved the allegations against uber unfounded then I may revisit but for now life is just too short.....

 

[dejongj]

You singled them out as saying the black cabs dont "get it" and they should not just do as uber do.
Which as explained to you to death now really they are constrained from doing.
If uber acted properly and or if the black cabs had the practical ability to do what you wish then fine, they don't.

You prob dont understand why not just the london black cabs but a lot of the world are also saying they do not operate as they should but why let all that affect your uninformed narrow minded attitude hey its just me one bloke on the internet that disagrees with your "solution".

Oh no lots of other countries attempt to apply the same level of protectionism. Absolutely agree with you on that one.

However so far I've quoted and linked directly from those who regulate and enforce. None of which is supporting the comments you, and black cab drivers make against uber. On the contrary they highlight very clearly how they are subject to the same regulations. Yet somehow you keep denying that private hire drivers are licenses subject to checks. That their vehicle have regular inspections. And that the operators are licensed the same.

Perhaps now is a good time, as I am getting rather bored, to provide some evidence that they are not subject to those regulations and thus compete unfairly.

 

[dejongj]

They dont adhere to them and since you cant prove a negative I can only say that when checked they have been shown not too...as per some links already given...but it is immaterial in our debate really since my point was and always has been that the black cab drivers are not the ones "not getting it" nor able to do as you suggest they should.

Yes interesting reading...full of we do not think etc as it is a guidance document not law it proves exactly my point, there are many vagueries, and these just in the tfl area not even looking at outside london authorities, that need to be legally tested/changed/repealled whatever.
The black cab driver is unable to do that.

It needs doing but they are not the ones to do it which has always been my point, all this diverting off track and expecting me to have all the other answers is daft I am not as repeatedly said supporting or not supporting either side simply trying to get through to you that there is far more involved than you knew doing as you suggest they should. You seem unable to comprehend this base point.

There has been private hire either licensed or not vs hackney carriage for many decades, does it not cross your mind that as it only seems to be the advent of uber that has caused problems worldwide that they might just be doing something different to all the other providers all over the world and if it was as easy as you say to compete at least some would be doing so?
You say one bloke on the internet I would posit that nearly every person with a working knowledge of the current systems seems to disagree with your assesment.

I really cannot be bothered having to spend so much time on this now, if you actually post those legal cases you say have proved the allegations against uber unfounded then I may revisit but for now life is just too short.....

So nothing then? Just a feeling then?

 

[B1ts]

Tell you what...you are right there you go now all we need is for the black cabs to do as you suggest.

Option 1. Sell up buy a merc and join uber.

That leaves us the public without ranked cabs and unable to flag one either, all we can do is order by app....assuming we have an account a charged phone etc.
Great for you maybe but you are not the only user of what is after all supposed to be a public transport system not a dejongi private chauffeur (if you really want an exec car with your aircon etc and are not going by price it is readily available to you, has been for years)

It leaves the ex blackcab drivers now working for a company that has publically stated they do not have the system for exclusivety, their model relies on other companies work taking cabs around so they then can cover ubers cheaper jobs, the driving around overhead and insurance etc effectively being covered by the other companies work. There quantity of work artificially being supportive of their fleet size. So the ex black cabs likely cannot earn enough to survive so yeah cannot see why they dont all clammer for that opportunity.

Option 2. They just operate as uber do staying as they are but just change to mercs or other newer and nicer vehicles for you.

They have to use the prescribed vehicles as already covered.
Where does the money come from to use these nicer vehicles vs the designed for the job (albeit not up to your personal standards but again it is public transport you are free to use an alternative) ones that are a compromise of usability reliability and sustainability that is deemed as needed for public transport by the powers that be (not the drivers). Not even considering the where do they park and who pays for the wasted fuel if they just circle around between app bookings nor the affect on our environment.

The ex black cab drivers now have a v expensive vehicle and lost 2 of 3 revenue streams to get there and not even ubers jobs to help.

My god the idiots! Clearly they just do not get it!

Option 3 and my particular favourite.
Realise the system needs changing and updating and pressure those that can do so to do it. Take the unfairness out like the extra cost for the black cabs license etc since the new apps take away much of the advantage that was being paid for by the drivers. Indeed address why in this day and age we even need (especially outside central london) a two tier system of taxi especially in boroughs where they are tested identically.

Expecting option 1 or 2 to do it? Nah.

 

[B1ts]

Oops almost forgot to add with your option 1 solution of course we the public then lose the knowledge from the system as there is no requirement nor incentive to bother, the driver will get the job regardless, we might get one who knows where to go we may not, of course you will say with modern satnav who cares?
Well apart from the now non use of bus lanes both making the journey longer both in distance sometime where bus routes differ to public road and time as we sit in the congestion which by default would also increase with the thousands of extra vehicles not able to either travel on the bus route as they would have done or being able to park and shut off engines I personally like the driver to have the ability to know the better routes and not just what a satnav is suggesting.

Hmmm yeah it is clear to me now how wrong these bloody protests are, no wonder they offended you so

 

[Marc]

Well, ain't this thread making people dizzy!