Taxi Driver protests against legislation.

[Puggie]

SheffTF & others

 

My Uber "credentials" as you call them are simply that of end user.

 

I was using Uber as an example to highlight that safeguards can be built into the business model which are valuable to the customer despite these not being required by regulation.

 

That's why I said I am not particularly fussed about the underlying badge.

 

Many of the problems being described on this thread, like wreckless driving by taxi drivers, are matters for enforcement not the initial licensing stage.

[sgtkate]

You asked a question in #47 here:

 

 

 

There was an answer in post #51 but you might not have seen it as it didn't quote you, it was answering a similar question earlier.

 

 

 

and in mind fox, this is just drivers, this is nothing to do with the vehicles.

 

We can't just take any old MoT certificate into a village Post Office and get a Hackney Licence and Plate. SCC test my vehicle twice a year - they MoT it, and compliance test it.

 

I know people in here can't see sense when talking about taxis, but can you not see that someone like me who has to pass lots of tests, has to have their car a certain age, heavily checked, heavy expenses, and working genuinely to all the rules, isn't annoyed when people are deliberately bending the rules and avoiding all our costs to undercut us?

 

 

Ash, I do agree with you completely, but Uber isn't the issue here, it's the entire licensing system allowing local councils to set their own rules that is the problem. I can get a Network taxi with a driver who is licensed by Rossendale, I have no way of knowing that before I book it, or who the driver will be, or if it's logged anywhere, none of that. With Uber I can and with City I can now, but ONLY because they were trade to Uber so were forced to up their game. So in my eyes, Uber has made the taxi trade far better for everyone as now I will only use a taxi service that I know is tracked and logged, hence City or Uber for the time being.

 

If you and SheffTF were arguing for equal rules UK wide then you'd have my support, but as SheffTF (I don't know exactly what you want?) seems to think that only Sheffield drivers should be allowed to work in Sheffield because they have some mystical 'knowledge' skills that are rarely shown by any taxi driver (City, black cab or Uber) then I simply don't agree. Sat navs are the way forward and not relying on some cabbies memory skills to get from A to B. Sat navs show traffic and can route you around the blockage, your memory cannot, sat navs can also offer confidence to the passenger in an unknown city, they can see the route on the screen and what the driver does so they can see if they are being taken the looooooooooooooooooong route.

 

The issue for me is solely down to different standards being applied in different locations and that needs to stop, but beyond that it just sounds like a lot of complaining from people who don't want to adapt.

[SheffTF]

SheffTF & others

 

My Uber "credentials" as you call them are simply that of end user.

 

I was using Uber as an example to highlight that safeguards can be built into the business model which are valuable to the customer despite these not being required by regulation.

 

That's why I said I am not particularly fussed about the underlying badge.

 

Many of the problems being described on this thread, like wreckless driving by taxi drivers, are matters for enforcement not the initial licensing stage.

 

To use words like ride and platform are a typical America language used by Uber to distance themselves from the regular taxi trade and as such then argue that they are a ride sharing 'platform' and not a taxi service, which of course they are, but use that as an excuse then to imply that regular taxi rules don't apply to them. Having done the same thing in Denmark this week they have been kicked out of the Denmark but British politicians already in their pocket are dragging their feet a little.

As in end user however, do you accept that Uber are not doing any more than City Taxis were already doing here in Sheffield? Why buy in to their rhetoric as being special when they are circumventing the local licensing laws in order to maximise profit by potentially endangering the end users? The differences and the dangers I have repeatedly pointed out that enforcement is a key issue and most of their business model lends itself to avoidance of local enforcement due to the fact that one council cannot check another council's licensed vehicle. They know what they are doing and have managed to pull wool over the eyes of many gullible people through word gymnastics, doing the same as other whilst making out they are somehow special.

[sgtkate]

To use words like ride and platform are a typical America language used by Uber to distance themselves from the regular taxi trade and as such then argue that they are a ride sharing 'platform' and not a taxi service, which of course they are, but use that as an excuse then to imply that regular taxi rules don't apply to them. Having done the same thing in Denmark this week they have been kicked out of the Denmark but British politicians already in their pocket are dragging their feet a little.

As in end user however, do you accept that Uber are not doing any more than City Taxis were already doing here in Sheffield? Why buy in to their rhetoric as being special when they are circumventing the local licensing laws in order to maximise profit by potentially endangering the end users? The differences and the dangers I have repeatedly pointed out that enforcement is a key issue and most of their business model lends itself to avoidance of local enforcement due to the fact that one council cannot check another council's licensed vehicle. They know what they are doing and have managed to pull wool over the eyes of many gullible people through word gymnastics, doing the same as other whilst making out they are somehow special.

 

They are doing exactly what City did, taking advantage of a business opportunity within the law. Simple. City only released their tracking app after Uber came along, and while it's great they've done it, I don't believe they would have considered it until Uber starting pinching their trade.

[SheffTF]

Ash, I do agree with you completely, but Uber isn't the issue here, it's the entire licensing system allowing local councils to set their own rules that is the problem. I can get a Network taxi with a driver who is licensed by Rossendale, I have no way of knowing that before I book it, or who the driver will be, or if it's logged anywhere, none of that. With Uber I can and with City I can now, but ONLY because they were trade to Uber so were forced to up their game. So in my eyes, Uber has made the taxi trade far better for everyone as now I will only use a taxi service that I know is tracked and logged, hence City or Uber for the time being.

 

If you and SheffTF were arguing for equal rules UK wide then you'd have my support, but as SheffTF (I don't know exactly what you want?) seems to think that only Sheffield drivers should be allowed to work in Sheffield because they have some mystical 'knowledge' skills that are rarely shown by any taxi driver (City, black cab or Uber) then I simply don't agree. Sat navs are the way forward and not relying on some cabbies memory skills to get from A to B. Sat navs show traffic and can route you around the blockage, your memory cannot, sat navs can also offer confidence to the passenger in an unknown city, they can see the route on the screen and what the driver does so they can see if they are being taken the looooooooooooooooooong route.

 

The issue for me is solely down to different standards being applied in different locations and that needs to stop, but beyond that it just sounds like a lot of complaining from people who don't want to adapt.

You make valid points from your perspective and I would agree with you if that was really the situation as you understand it. There is nothing to adapt to as we are already doing what Uber are doing and then some, ie cash payments and account as well as card payments (as Uber do ONLY CARD PAYMENTS) etc and all are tracked, plus all local drivers/company accountable and accessible being a phone call away. Out of town drivers are not accountable to the customer nor the local licensing authority and in case of complaints things do get complicated. I may not have expressed my view clearly in that I don't consider Sheffield drivers to be superior people but simply local drivers are accountable to the local laws and out of tow2n drivers are not so, which ever local authority that may be not just Sheffield. This is same mess Taxi trade is faced with and fighting against in all Cities across the whole Country.

 

---------- Post added 30-03-2017 at 13:24 ----------

 

They are doing exactly what City did, taking advantage of a business opportunity within the law. Simple. City only released their tracking app after Uber came along, and while it's great they've done it, I don't believe they would have considered it until Uber starting pinching their trade.

....and your opinion on a company deliberately setting out to circumvent the local licensing laws so as to avoid enforcement and accountability please?

Edited March 30, 2017 by SheffTF

[Puggie]

SheffTF - Uber competes against the taxi trade because they are forced to under UK law. Uber drivers in the UK have to be licensed cab drivers, and their cars have to be licenced under private hire regulations.

 

This is very different to how Uber operates over in America where any licenced driver can become an Uber driver. So as you can imagine the experience is very different. Your Uber driver might be teacher, an office worker, or even a college student earning some extra cash on the weekends.

 

Fly to the Middle East and again the implementation is very different. Uber can only operate under licence by way of partnership with a local firm.

[sgtkate]

You make valid points from your perspective and I would agree with you if that was really the situation as you understand it. There is nothing to adapt to as we are already doing what Uber are doing and then some, ie cash payments and account as well as card payments (as Uber do ONLY CARD PAYMENTS) etc and all are tracked, plus all local drivers/company accountable and accessible being a phone call away. Out of town drivers are not accountable to the customer nor the local licensing authority and in case of complaints things do get complicated. I may not have expressed my view clearly in that I don't consider Sheffield drivers to be superior people but simply local drivers are accountable to the local laws and out of tow2n drivers are not so, which ever local authority that may be not just Sheffield. This is same mess Taxi trade is faced with and fighting against in all Cities across the whole Country.

 

---------- Post added 30-03-2017 at 13:24 ----------

 

....and your opinion on a company deliberately setting out to circumvent the local licensing laws so as to avoid enforcement and accountability please?

 

Which company is doing that? The police should be enforcing driving issues and that's irrelevant of where the license was issued. The problem again is having different licensing requirements across the country. Create fixed requirements that each council enforce on any taxis that are operating within their jurisdiction as well as handling licensing for any driver who *lives* in that area not just applies there. Problem solved.

[SheffTF]

SheffTF - Uber competes against the taxi trade because they are forced to under UK law. Uber drivers in the UK have to be licensed cab drivers, and their cars have to be licenced under private hire regulations.

 

This is very different to how Uber operates over in America where any licenced driver can become an Uber driver. So as you can imagine the experience is very different. Your Uber driver might be teacher, an office worker, or even a college student earning some extra cash on the weekends.

 

Fly to the Middle East and again the implementation is very different. Uber can only operate under licence by way of partnership with a local firm.

OK, so why is everyone avoiding the elephant in the room question of regulation and accountability? As a one size fits all model that Uber are trying to implement it simply cannot and so will not work. In Canada when challenged in court they described the Uber platform as not taking responsibility because it is the driver that accepts the job directly from the customer and uber merely facilitate the communication between the two parties. Now in UK because the operator licensing system requires the operator to take the booking and so accept legal responsibility to provide a driver they have used argument to describe the same platform as Uber accepting the job and the responsibility for booking. The problem comes about now when they are being challenged to accept booking without a driver being present in a location and sending a driver to cover that booking. they simply cannot do that and although are falling foul of the law, no one seems to have the guts to challenge them here. so they get away through word play. Sheffield Council was asked whether they are sure Uber are doing things legally, and the answer was yes they are because they said so. Total gutless subservient attitude in face of a company that throws money at every problem. So I assure you I know how they operate and how they use verbal gymnastics to confuse and bamboozle the hapless pen pushers working for local authorities, they are the Dell Boy of the taxi world

My only concern is the accountability and not as one chap kept distracting to DBS checks. why would anyone run 160 miles for a licence when they have nothing to hide?

 

---------- Post added 30-03-2017 at 14:52 ----------

 

Which company is doing that? The police should be enforcing driving issues and that's irrelevant of where the license was issued. The problem again is having different licensing requirements across the country. Create fixed requirements that each council enforce on any taxis that are operating within their jurisdiction as well as handling licensing for any driver who *lives* in that area not just applies there. Problem solved.

Uber are coaching people how to avoid Sheffield licencing regime by taking them step by step through applications for TFL licence in order for them to work here in Sheffield. They use exaggerated figures to sell the idea and also hard sell finance scheme to the drivers into buying cars financed by Uber partner company. When they are tied down they are committed to working only for Uber and work they must because otherwise bills and finance don't get paid so Uber is guaranteed bonded slaves at their behest. In London the Uber drivers in that situation are earning well below minimum wage and stuck with it for the coming years.

To change Council rules and regulations it takes years with consultations and the will and opinions of hundreds to be taken into account and not just do this and do that and problem solved. Rossendale changed their policy restricting drivers from more than 30 miles away amongst other changes and now they are facing a judicial review from their local drivers who are suffering some of the changes. It's not as simple as it sounds.

Edited March 30, 2017 by SheffTF

[Puggie]

Uber are coaching people how to avoid Sheffield licencing regime by taking them step by step through applications for TFL licence

 

It's a free market and it's perfectly legal.

 

I'm not Sheffield born & bred, and I know I'd fail miserably if I was being tested on my local knowledge of the every possible route to get from A to B.

 

Can you see why the Council's licencing requirements have little relevence to today's methods of navigating?

 

Heck even the DVLA are now testing new drivers on their ability to navigate using GPS navigation. It's part of the new syllabus and part of everyday life.

[sgtkate]

OK, so why is everyone avoiding the elephant in the room question of regulation and accountability? As a one size fits all model that Uber are trying to implement it simply cannot and so will not work. In Canada when challenged in court they described the Uber platform as not taking responsibility because it is the driver that accepts the job directly from the customer and uber merely facilitate the communication between the two parties. Now in UK because the operator licensing system requires the operator to take the booking and so accept legal responsibility to provide a driver they have used argument to describe the same platform as Uber accepting the job and the responsibility for booking. The problem comes about now when they are being challenged to accept booking without a driver being present in a location and sending a driver to cover that booking. they simply cannot do that and although are falling foul of the law, no one seems to have the guts to challenge them here. so they get away through word play. Sheffield Council was asked whether they are sure Uber are doing things legally, and the answer was yes they are because they said so. Total gutless subservient attitude in face of a company that throws money at every problem. So I assure you I know how they operate and how they use verbal gymnastics to confuse and bamboozle the hapless pen pushers working for local authorities, they are the Dell Boy of the taxi world

My only concern is the accountability and not as one chap kept distracting to DBS checks. why would anyone run 160 miles for a licence when they have nothing to hide?

 

---------- Post added 30-03-2017 at 14:52 ----------

 

Uber are coaching people how to avoid Sheffield licencing regime by taking them step by step through applications for TFL licence in order for them to work here in Sheffield. They use exaggerated figures to sell the idea and also hard sell finance scheme to the drivers into buying cars financed by Uber partner company. When they are tied down they are committed to working only for Uber and work they must because otherwise bills and finance don't get paid so Uber is guaranteed bonded slaves at their behest. In London the Uber drivers in that situation are earning well below minimum wage and stuck with it for the coming years.

To change Council rules and regulations it takes years with consultations and the will and opinions of hundreds to be taken into account and not just do this and do that and problem solved. Rossendale changed their policy restricting drivers from more than 30 miles away amongst other changes and now they are facing a judicial review from their local drivers who are suffering some of the changes. It's not as simple as it sounds.

 

Now we've got a proper discussion going. I see where you are coming from, but I don't agree. I don't think Uber or others going to TFL are 'hiding' anything, I genuinely think that SCC are far too harsh in their licensing with no benefit to either driver or passenger. DBS checks are an absolute minimum and if Uber ever didn't have those or any taxi then I wouldn't use them, but they remain for every driver regardless of company they work for. The knowledge test is pointless in my opinion and usage of technology should be tested instead. I'd say language test was important as if you can't communicate with your driver then there are clearly potential issues there. So if we can find a better system than what we have now that makes things easier for the good drivers, harder or impossible for the bad ones and protects passengers, then I'm all for it; Uber or not.