Taxi Driver protests against legislation.

[SheffTF]

 

---------- Post added 02-04-2017 at 17:10 ----------

 

no matter what you say, competition is here to stay in whatever form it take's.

some taxi drivers have a could not care less attitude and made a good living as well.

 

i wiil repeat in case you missed it, or you chose not to comment. uber are just as legal as any taxi in Sheffield irrespective of where the driver was born or the taxi was licensed, and, i might add in disagreement with you normally uber are cheaper than lets say other taxi's in Sheffield and elsewhere.

I am not a poster that knows the deregulation rules i will leave that to puggie, i am a poster that thinks so long as every body works legal, competition in the taxi trade is a must.

it does not matter to me how the taxi trade operates, i am commenting as a outsider looking in.

I dont mean this facetiously but i think it is a case of a big big bunch of sour grapes.

Despite a full explanation of the deregulation law and how it was intended you choose to rely on an Uber student under uber script guidance for your own guidance, to be fair who has demonstrated he knows very little about the trade let alone the intricacies of the law or the taxi deregulation of 2015, well done you

There is ignorance and then there is feigned ignorance and I feel yours is the latter just because you can't bring yourself to address the issues highlighted in the previous few pages. To you it's ok for drivers not being accountable to the local customer, that's fine as long as they are 30 pence cheaper, good for you. Please do disregard what I said about Uber being welcome to comlpete and do go ahead with your accusation of sour grapes because you haven't a counter argument to face the facts. Is it really not competition if these incompetent individuals who can't pass the Sheffield test go over to London to get a licence with all intentions of working in Sheffield and avoiding any enforcement by local authority. Why would it not be competition if these incompetent people tried a little harder and passed the local test here? There really is nothing stopping them apart from their own desire to stay dodgy.

I just hope you or yours does not suffer the consequences of your choices.

Edited April 2, 2017 by SheffTF

[*_ash_*]

no matter what you say, competition is here to stay in whatever form it take's.

some taxi drivers have a could not care less attitude and made a good living as well.

 

Competition is good, it keeps firms on their toes. However, the rule change has instantly made it an unfair advantage to drivers who work in big cities. I know some of you can't see it. But I'm telling you it's there.

The dereg was originally designed in part to make it fairer for small companies to compete with the big boys, and often those who often in the past semi-legally cross-border hire. Not for hundreds of cars to rank up for work in cross-border plots.

 

As for a good living, no one is earning a good living, unless they work mental hours. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or cheating somehow (i.e these tossers in town on busy nights when asking for high fares which give us all a bad name, which has gone on for years - but now Uber have legalised it )

 

i wiil repeat in case you missed it, or you chose not to comment. uber are just as legal as any taxi in Sheffield irrespective of where the driver was born or the taxi was licensed, and, i might add in disagreement with you normally uber are cheaper than lets say other taxi's in Sheffield and elsewhere.

I am not a poster that knows the deregulation rules i will leave that to puggie, i am a poster that thinks so long as every body works legal, competition in the taxi trade is a must.

it does not matter to me how the taxi trade operates, i am commenting as a outsider looking in.

 

I dont mean this facetiously but i think it is a case of a big big bunch of sour grapes.

 

First bold: I know this, I've said it loads of times kidley. People who don't know, don't care. Like I said if the nursing rules were relaxed slightly to encourage the need for more, and 300,000 nurses wages went down, there'd be absolute UKwide uproar. I know people don't give a toss. I was chatting to a customer earlier who I picked up and asked if it was busy, and I told him how much I'd done in my shift he thought I was joking

 

Do you think I would work 7 days a week by choice kidley?

 

Second bold, if you are facebook, join 'sheffield taxi forum' as you were invited to. They'll accept you I think, and you can read what we talk about, it's not all uber bashing, most ubers are on there! You don't have to contribute to it. You'll be welcome to post

[ECCOnoob]

So what happened to the "what sticks out in your mind that City Cars are doing the same thing as Uber?" Firstly you make a point and when it's answered you move over to another irrelevant point without acknowledging the first. This is not about who gets the rent, but are the drivers and operators accountable to the local people using their services. I maintain that those drivers who choose to go outside of Sheffield to get their licenses do so for ulterior motives and can therefore be an unavoidable danger to the public, that is the REAL BEEF. Do you disagree?

Uber drivers licensed locally are not the problem and neither is Uber or the efficiency of the app nor is it a problem if they compete against City or whoever. If they operated within the spirit of the law as was intended then many more Sheffield drivers would be working for them thereby increasing competition and also safety and trust. Can we at least the 'aah but' tactics and stay on points that we can discuss to a conclusion so we are no constantly going back to same old worn out repetitive arguments?

 

---------- Post added 02-04-2017 at 15:31 ----------

 

The explanation of spirit of the law as was intended in the deregulation of 2015 which is often referred to is this. Uber created a problem by reducing competition where intention was to help competition. The intention was that smaller companies being able to subcontract work out to a local companies in a neighbouring licensed could compete against bigger operators with larger number of cars. It was never intended for drivers to get a licence in another area to then come and work 62 miles in case of Rossendale and 170 miles in case of TFL. The competition is reduced by Uber trying to dominate the market, firstly by getting easier licenses and secondly to reduce effectiveness of regulation, effectively creating a free for all. City although growing to some Uber loyalist's irritation are keeping to that spirit of the law and do use cross border hiring but only in neihghouring areas and not hundreds of miles away. The drivers also work predominately in their own areas with advantage that if they are in a neighbouring district they have a chance of the odd pick up. How is that in the remotest like Uber please do explain to me if I've missed anything?

 

There is no such thing as spirit of the law - something is either legal or it isn't. If a company is doing the former then there is nothing wrong.

 

Your focus on what city is doing is about to fall apart as is your insistence that cross border is somehow a bad thing. What is to stop a city driver from Chesterfield taking up work in Sheffield and Barnsley. What is to stop City expanding even further and having regional or national operations with centralised call centres. Does that become a chauffer company such as black line who already do this. Maybe at that point we are straying into the ride sharing territory. I'm no expert in these boundaries but those in the know certainly are and they will be fully aware of what they can and can't do.

 

These arguments regarding regulation and safety or wholly subjective. To me, maybe the biggest problem is that the government hasn't developed the regulations to allow for such companies. If you run a hotel there are a 1001 regulations that you have to jump through in order to comply with HSE, tourism board standards and to get your ratings but that never stops people going for airbnb accommodation instead.

 

I can only speak from an end user basis but in my opinion there are just as many potential safety concerns with black cab or minicab drivers as much as a ride share service. When using uber every vehicle I've had so far has been a lot newer than most of the mini cabs and has often been better service to some of the hackney carriage drivers particularly those who choose to be on their mobile phone yakking throughout the entire journey barely paying me attention.

 

Uber is not a perfect model and is subject to many grey areas that I will fully argue need sorting. However when looking through some of the aggression these threads there is no doubt to me there are signs of sour grapes due to potential competition against the overprotected bubble that is licensed drivers.

 

Ultimately it will be for the customers to decide. Time to stop the moaning and to embrace the new regime. Why can't the licensed drivers use their unique selling points and be better than the competition. For a simple start it's about time that we had a blanket acceptance of credit and debit card in taxis and more firms developing a proper app based booking system. That's clearly how people are living their lives now and definitely will be going forward.

 

Until the regulated trade get the basics sorted uber is only going to get bigger.

 

---------- Post added 02-04-2017 at 18:01 ----------

 

So what happened to the "what sticks out in your mind that City Cars are doing the same thing as Uber?" Firstly you make a point and when it's answered you move over to another irrelevant point without acknowledging the first. This is not about who gets the rent, but are the drivers and operators accountable to the local people using their services. I maintain that those drivers who choose to go outside of Sheffield to get their licenses do so for ulterior motives and can therefore be an unavoidable danger to the public, that is the REAL BEEF. Do you disagree?

Uber drivers licensed locally are not the problem and neither is Uber or the efficiency of the app nor is it a problem if they compete against City or whoever. If they operated within the spirit of the law as was intended then many more Sheffield drivers would be working for them thereby increasing competition and also safety and trust. Can we at least the 'aah but' tactics and stay on points that we can discuss to a conclusion so we are no constantly going back to same old worn out repetitive arguments?

 

---------- Post added 02-04-2017 at 15:31 ----------

 

The explanation of spirit of the law as was intended in the deregulation of 2015 which is often referred to is this. Uber created a problem by reducing competition where intention was to help competition. The intention was that smaller companies being able to subcontract work out to a local companies in a neighbouring licensed could compete against bigger operators with larger number of cars. It was never intended for drivers to get a licence in another area to then come and work 62 miles in case of Rossendale and 170 miles in case of TFL. The competition is reduced by Uber trying to dominate the market, firstly by getting easier licenses and secondly to reduce effectiveness of regulation, effectively creating a free for all. City although growing to some Uber loyalist's irritation are keeping to that spirit of the law and do use cross border hiring but only in neihghouring areas and not hundreds of miles away. The drivers also work predominately in their own areas with advantage that if they are in a neighbouring district they have a chance of the odd pick up. How is that in the remotest like Uber please do explain to me if I've missed anything?

 

There is no such thing as spirit of the law - something is either legal or it isn't. If a company is doing the former then there is nothing wrong.

 

Your focus on what city is doing is about to fall apart as is your insistence that cross border is somehow a bad thing. What is to stop a city driver from Chesterfield taking up work in Sheffield and Barnsley. What is to stop City expanding even further and having regional or national operations with centralised call centres. Does that become a chauffer company such as black line who already do this. Maybe at that point we are straying into the ride sharing territory. I'm no expert in these boundaries but those in the know certainly are and they will be fully aware of what they can and can't do.

 

These arguments regarding regulation and safety or wholly subjective. To me, maybe the biggest problem is that the government hasn't developed the regulations to allow for such companies. If you run a hotel there are a 1001 regulations that you have to jump through in order to comply with HSE, tourism board standards and to get your ratings but that never stops people going for airbnb.

 

I can only speak from an end user basis but in my opinion there are just as many potential safety concerns with black cab or minicab drivers as much as a ride share service. When using uber every vehicle I've had so far has been a lot newer than most of the mini cabs and has often been better service to some of the hackney carriage drivers particularly those who choose to be on their mobile phone yakking throughout the entire journey barely paying me attention.

 

Uber is not a perfect model and is subject to many grey areas that I will fully argue need sorting. However when looking through some of the aggression these threads there is no doubt to me there are signs of sour grapes due to potential competition against the overprotective bubble that is licensed drivers.

 

Ultimately it will be for the customers to decide. Time to stop the moaning and to embrace the new regime. Why can't the licensed drivers use their unique selling points and be better than the competition. For a simple start it's about time that we had a blanket acceptance of credit and debit card in taxis and more firms developing a proper app based booking system. That's clearly how people are living their lives now and definitely will be going forward.

 

Until the regulated trade get the basics sorted uber is only going to get bigger.

Edited April 2, 2017 by ECCOnoob

[Puggie]

​

those drivers who choose to go outside of Sheffield to get their licenses do so for ulterior motives and can therefore be an unavoidable danger to the public

 

SheffTF - I've lost count of the number of times you've tripped over yourself.

 

I'll try and simplify it. (folks no giggling..)

 

Mr Hussain is yearning to become an IT technician for his local school district.

 

He still hasn't earned himself an IT qualification, so he starts shopping around and comparing the numerous qualifications on offer.

 

He decides that a qualification from Micro$oft was most relevant to today's industry standards. It was affordable and enrolment was quick and easy. He earns his qualification in a matter of months.

 

Mr Hussain was glad he didn't choose a qualification from Ci$co. Not only were they 3x more expensive, the application process was slow and bureaucratic. He also couldn't understand why he was being asked to memorise all 118 elements on the periodic table, back to front and upside down..

 

Mr Hussain knows that irrespective of the his underlying qualification, he will still need to pass identity and criminal background checks in order to work at his local school.​

Edited April 2, 2017 by Puggie

[*_ash_*]

There is no such thing as spirit of the law - something is either legal or it isn't. If a company is doing the former then there is nothing wrong.

 

Too black and white. The law just rushed, not thought out, written by people with no knowledge of the industry, it was changed and instantly made it unfair for current drivers at the time.

 

Your focus on what city is doing is about to fall apart as is your insistence that cross border is somehow a bad thing. What is to stop a city driver from Chesterfield taking up work in Sheffield and Barnsley. What is to stop City expanding even further and having regional or national operations with centralised call centres.

 

Again not in the reason for the law change, it was supposed to make it fairer for all (i.e. small companies can compete better), the effect was the opposite, one tech company taking all the money, and small companies can't compete. Hence why City is trying to compete by doing this.

 

What they are doing isn't popular with a lot of drivers from what I hear.

 

I can only speak from an end user basis but in my opinion there are just as many potential safety concerns with black cab or minicab drivers as much as a ride share service. When using uber every vehicle I've had so far has been a lot newer than most of the mini cabs and has often been better service to some of the hackney carriage drivers particularly those who choose to be on their mobile phone yakking throughout the entire journey barely paying me attention.

 

2 reasons: (not talking about uber, just OOT in general)

 

1. OOT town already know they can undercut our insurance and licensing fees and regs. Do you think I'd buy a brand new car with my worthless SCC licence? Only an idiot would buy a new one at the momemnt.

 

2. Because they advertise in the Sheffield job centre that potential earnings are £700 in a week (which they are, potentially), I could get a fare tomorrow and them give me a grand for taking them to Manchester airport, but it's not typical earnings. Companies can advise finance deals with new pruiss which glues them to whatever app and huge repayments. And guess what old taxis fetch when it comes to getting rid?

 

 

Uber is not a perfect model and is subject to many grey areas that I will fully argue need sorting. However when looking through some of the aggression these threads there is no doubt to me there are signs of sour grapes due to potential competition against the overprotected bubble that is licensed drivers.

 

I've rarely seen any aggression. I saw comments before they were removed and at me, it was nothing more than pub talk. I didn't find it offensive nor feeling the need to be aggressive back

 

Ultimately it will be for the customers to decide. Time to stop the moaning and to embrace the new regime. Why can't the licensed drivers use their unique selling points and be better than the competition. For a simple start it's about time that we had a blanket acceptance of credit and debit card in taxis and more firms developing a proper app based booking system. That's clearly how people are living their lives now and definitely will be going forward.

 

I agree with this. When I was in London the main complaint from the people in the pub I was chatting to was that black cabs don't like credit card machines. My only dislike to them when on Mercury was it was slow and caused issues when dropping in the sticks. Have I been paid or what when there is a circle going around on the screen for minutes!?

[mafya]

City taxis is buying up all the local firms and ones in Barnsley and Chesterfield, maybe you should moan about that instead of moaning about Uber.

City even took on its payroll a guy who runs a private hire Union for drivers called Alpha.

The taxi game is changing compared to 30 years ago when I was operating on my dads firms and it will keep changing so don't expect it to be how you like it for ever...

Edited April 2, 2017 by mafya

[*_ash_*]

Of course the answer is it's non-existant and will continue to remain that way for a multitude of reasons. You can expect brands like Uber to capitalize on this by highlighting how their business model aligns beautifully with customer outcomes such as reduced wait times, increased competition, and lower costs.

 

I'm not ignoring your reply to me btw.

 

I covered most of it in my later responses to kidley and ECCO.

 

This bit above I didn't though...

 

Yes I expect companies to capitalise on the dereg. Like I said later, City are doing this now, to try and compete. I think it's an unnecessary adjustment though, because other than a few niggles (like the 2 tier as you say), the system was fine before. The dereg was supposed to iron out the niggles, not ruin 300,000 workers livelihoods.

 

Of course the answer is it's non-existant and will continue to remain that way for a multitude of reasons. You can expect brands like Uber to capitalize on this by highlighting how their business model aligns beautifully with customer outcomes such as reduced wait times, increased competition, and lower costs.

 

Reduced wait times is something that's always been worked on. Companies want their customers to have quick service obviously. That's what I want too, and what I did for years. My aim was every job ontime, and other than obvious pairing of job/cust, an algorithm with no person to ask isn't better than I was.

 

There are times when you have to wait longer though, like pub kicking, big event etc. This is the time when the highest percentage of the population experience taxis. Hence why we're all crap.

 

The objective view that I have experience of... It's no different to me going to a bar on Saturday night in town and expecting to not queue for a drink. I want serving quickly!

 

Busy times means of course I want to earn a lot of money, but there's only so quick I can drive, so I want short trips. The alternative is high prices that Uber opts for. Fair enough, and I like the model in that respect. However, these hundreds of new cars are now clogging up the roads and plots sat around all day wondering where this £700 is coming from.

 

I wrote more, but I've had enough of this now. You'll pick things up when you finish studying.

 

---------- Post added 02-04-2017 at 18:53 ----------

 

City taxis is buying up all the local firms and ones in Barnsley and Chesterfield, maybe you should moan about that instead of moaning about Uber.

 

The moan is about legislation, not Uber.

 

The taxi game is changing compared to 30 years ago when I was operating on my dads firms and it will keep changing so don't expect it to be how you like it for ever...

 

Aren't you licensed in Sheffield?

[kidley]

Competition is good, it keeps firms on their toes. However, the rule change has instantly made it an unfair advantage to drivers who work in big cities. I know some of you can't see it. But I'm telling you it's there.

The dereg was originally designed in part to make it fairer for small companies to compete with the big boys, and often those who often in the past semi-legally cross-border hire. Not for hundreds of cars to rank up for work in cross-border plots.

 

As for a good living, no one is earning a good living, unless they work mental hours. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or cheating somehow (i.e these tossers in town on busy nights when asking for high fares which give us all a bad name, which has gone on for years - but now Uber have legalised it )

 

 

 

First bold: I know this, I've said it loads of times kidley. People who don't know, don't care. Like I said if the nursing rules were relaxed slightly to encourage the need for more, and 300,000 nurses wages went down, there'd be absolute UKwide uproar. I know people don't give a toss. I was chatting to a customer earlier who I picked up and asked if it was busy, and I told him how much I'd done in my shift he thought I was joking

 

Do you think I would work 7 days a week by choice kidley?

 

Second bold, if you are facebook, join 'sheffield taxi forum' as you were invited to. They'll accept you I think, and you can read what we talk about, it's not all uber bashing, most ubers are on there! You don't have to contribute to it. You'll be welcome to post

 

Ash

I do respect your opinion above others on this subject.

[Puggie]

Does anyone feel like going through all 120 posts on here and writing up a summary?

[mafya]

Does anyone feel like going through all 120 posts on here and writing up a summary?

 

Deregulation and Uber are not something most Sheffield taxi drivers are happy about as they want things to stay as they were before.