• UberPeople.NET - Independent community of rideshare drivers. It's FREE to be a person and enjoy all the benefits of membership. JOIN US! CLICK HERE
Inshur

TfL Consultation:- are you kidding me?

Blubbering

Active Member
Felt obliged to complete the TfL consultation and was amazed at some of their proposals. Unbelievable!

Minimum 5 minutes waiting? How does that help the driver or pax? "We happen to have a driver right outside your door luv but you gonna have to wait 5 minutes before getting in". Fair enough we can't use bus lanes but minimum waiting time is definitely a restriction of trade issue. Just one of many such proposals in the consultation.

They kept using the phrase "some consultees" to justify their proposals. They should have used "some cabbies" "LTDA" or "pissed off operators" instead.

Now I understand when cabbies say TfL aren't fit for purpose.
 

taxiapplover

Well-Known Member
There wasn't any representation of minicab drivers at all.
Even GMB agreed on those proposals.
Uber wasn't interested to be part of those propsals at all.
If you look at the list of consultees than you will be shocked to see that almost every single black cab group has a representation but non of the minicab group except British Bangladeshi Private Hire Drivers Association. Even I never heared the name of this group.
We need our own representation not on Facebook but on the panel of tfl consultees.
 

pingpongman

Active Member
GMB have been lobbying in the parliament, never mind agreeing to the proposals, they were one of the main instigators behind the proposals, and uber, despite asking to join this jolly , have had the door shut on their faces, and us the ph drivers, the single biggest body of them all, the original contractor of the ph act, are not even regarded important enough by TFL to be invited to the group, yet it's the ph drivers who are being exploited and suffering at the hands of these so - called consultee's, and as a result the proposals are nothing but something very cleverly engineered to destroy the app and enslave the ph drivers further to the minicab bosses, and the bods at TFL (tossers for london), ought to be brought to book for not just their incompetence, but also for serious conflict of interest.
 

LondonRider

Active Member
In fact this is anti uber law. Uber or any other company f... K our ass, TFL as well, everyone. And we can do nothing about it. Not now. Because we are not organized nor represented in any way.
But, I hope, in one day, I will see 80 000 minicabs on strike meeting in London.
 

stillhere3

Well-Known Member
At last some logic from the above three members.

There is and has been only one problem at that problem is TfL (Not Fit for purpose & Totally Failing London)

It was TfL who oversaw the introduction of Licensed Private Hire and because the 'agreements' were generally understood by both those who said they represented taxi drivers and those who said they represented ph drivers TfL were very lapse in the way they formulated those agreement in law.

TfL can now hardly blame the likes of Uber for scrutinising those very vague and ambiguous laws and finding all the possible gaps and loop holes. The current 'proposals' can at best be seen as no more than a stop gap method to take out some of the previous ambiguity but falls a long way short of addressing the overall abuse of ph & taxi drivers.

If you did get together an 80,000 demo in London what would your primary objective be?
 

Instigator2000

Active Member
At last some logic from the above three members.

There is and has been only one problem at that problem is TfL (Not Fit for purpose & Totally Failing London)

It was TfL who oversaw the introduction of Licensed Private Hire and because the 'agreements' were generally understood by both those who said they represented taxi drivers and those who said they represented ph drivers TfL were very lapse in the way they formulated those agreement in law.

TfL can now hardly blame the likes of Uber for scrutinising those very vague and ambiguous laws and finding all the possible gaps and loop holes. The current 'proposals' can at best be seen as no more than a stop gap method to take out some of the previous ambiguity but falls a long way short of addressing the overall abuse of ph & taxi drivers.

If you did get together an 80,000 demo in London what would your primary objective be?
ah ha ha ha ha...

ha ha...

.
 

pingpongman

Active Member
At last some logic from the above three members.

There is and has been only one problem at that problem is TfL (Not Fit for purpose & Totally Failing London)

It was TfL who oversaw the introduction of Licensed Private Hire and because the 'agreements' were generally understood by both those who said they represented taxi drivers and those who said they represented ph drivers TfL were very lapse in the way they formulated those agreement in law.

TfL can now hardly blame the likes of Uber for scrutinising those very vague and ambiguous laws and finding all the possible gaps and loop holes. The current 'proposals' can at best be seen as no more than a stop gap method to take out some of the previous ambiguity but falls a long way short of addressing the overall abuse of ph & taxi drivers.

If you did get together an 80,000 demo in London what would your primary objective be?
The current consultation is engineered to make sure the minicab bosses can carry on abusing ph drivers and the black cabs carry on as they were, minicab bosses can not represent ph drivers nor do they have the mandate, if they did it'd be a serious conflict of interest, uber is not exploiting any gaps or loopholes, at least no more than the entire membership of the LPHCA, because of the extent of abuse of its drivers, the ph industry tends to have a very transient nature, and as such the average ph driver would not be inclined to take action, like a demo, but if they did, the main objective should be to bring the minicab firms to book, and the only way to do this, is to force TFL to regulate the fares that minicab firms pay to their drivers, but not necessarily what they charge to the customers, as that would be established by the market naturally, and yes this would mean doom for most of these operators, but then it goes to show, that they never should ' ve been there in the first place, thus separating the good from the bad and the ugly, as well as largely curing the causes of touting, but enough dreaming, we all know it will take years of strike action just to bend TFL'S ear, much less getting them to actually do something, my personal view is as I described it nearly a year ago on this forum, the most direct and quickest result would come if a DRIVER BUY-OUT can be established,, but I'm afraid, if you want to read about that in detail, you'll have to go onto the archives, as it was a big topic to cover, one other option would be, and I have to ask you first, if you are wearing your seat belt, because I don't want you falling out of your cab when you hear it, and that would be black cabs and minicabs getting together and forming their own company, Which If Done For The Right Reasons could really work for both parties, eventually eliminating most of our grievances.
 

stillhere3

Well-Known Member
The current consultation is engineered to make sure the minicab bosses can carry on abusing ph drivers and the black cabs carry on as they were, minicab bosses can not represent ph drivers nor do they have the mandate, if they did it'd be a serious conflict of interest, uber is not exploiting any gaps or loopholes, at least no more than the entire membership of the LPHCA, because of the extent of abuse of its drivers, the ph industry tends to have a very transient nature, and as such the average ph driver would not be inclined to take action, like a demo, but if they did, the main objective should be to bring the minicab firms to book, and the only way to do this, is to force TFL to regulate the fares that minicab firms pay to their drivers, but not necessarily what they charge to the customers, as that would be established by the market naturally, and yes this would mean doom for most of these operators, but then it goes to show, that they never should ' ve been there in the first place, thus separating the good from the bad and the ugly, as well as largely curing the causes of touting, but enough dreaming, we all know it will take years of strike action just to bend TFL'S ear, much less getting them to actually do something, my personal view is as I described it nearly a year ago on this forum, the most direct and quickest result would come if a DRIVER BUY-OUT can be established,, but I'm afraid, if you want to read about that in detail, you'll have to go onto the archives, as it was a big topic to cover, one other option would be, and I have to ask you first, if you are wearing your seat belt, because I don't want you falling out of your cab when you hear it, and that would be black cabs and minicabs getting together and forming their own company, Which If Done For The Right Reasons could really work for both parties, eventually eliminating most of our grievances.
Unfortunately TfL, even if they had a mind to, could not regulated fares in the manner you suggest. It would have to be as taxi fares in being the 'maximum' that the customer can be charged. So after those important company profits your cut would get smaller and it would take much longer to get any fare increase through TfL.

TfL & Government keep harping on about 'market forces' and that supply and demand will always sort the situation out. What they never say (if they even know) that it has nothing to do with 'supply & demand' it is all about 'market share'.

To over simplify it - if there are 3 big firms and one customer each firm wants that customer so will constantly push for more and more new drivers so they stand the best chance of getting that customer/market share. So it works out that the demand (one customer) is being over supplied and because none of the 3 big firms know where that customer is likely to pop up they want even more drivers spread out over London so it will be them (the firm) that get the job (market share).

Other businesses have to carefully balance out staffing levels with all other costs as each member of staff 'has a cost at the start to the business'. With ph and indeed taxis they cost the firm nothing so the numbers of drivers is irrelevant as a cost to the company or restriction to balance drivers numbers with viable drivers incomes.

In other businesses what drives 'wages' up is a shortage of quality staff so every worker has a value to the firm and is not that easy to replace (not ten a penny queuing up for a job). This being the avenue to go down with the most likely chance of success for ph drivers.

The questions are-

How do you make each ph driver a valuable asset that firms not only want but need to keep in the short-medium & long term and not just encourage in at the start with a few perks.

Would it be in the travelling publics and society in general best interest if the ph industry became a stable industry and less of the transient give it a try situation
 

Instigator2000

Active Member
Unfortunately TfL, even if they had a mind to, could not regulated fares in the manner you suggest. It would have to be as taxi fares in being the 'maximum' that the customer can be charged. So after those important company profits your cut would get smaller and it would take much longer to get any fare increase through TfL.

TfL & Government keep harping on about 'market forces' and that supply and demand will always sort the situation out. What they never say (if they even know) that it has nothing to do with 'supply & demand' it is all about 'market share'.

To over simplify it - if there are 3 big firms and one customer each firm wants that customer so will constantly push for more and more new drivers so they stand the best chance of getting that customer/market share. So it works out that the demand (one customer) is being over supplied and because none of the 3 big firms know where that customer is likely to pop up they want even more drivers spread out over London so it will be them (the firm) that get the job (market share).

Other businesses have to carefully balance out staffing levels with all other costs as each member of staff 'has a cost at the start to the business'. With ph and indeed taxis they cost the firm nothing so the numbers of drivers is irrelevant as a cost to the company or restriction to balance drivers numbers with viable drivers incomes.

In other businesses what drives 'wages' up is a shortage of quality staff so every worker has a value to the firm and is not that easy to replace (not ten a penny queuing up for a job). This being the avenue to go down with the most likely chance of success for ph drivers.

The questions are-

How do you make each ph driver a valuable asset that firms not only want but need to keep in the short-medium & long term and not just encourage in at the start with a few perks.

Would it be in the travelling publics and society in general best interest if the ph industry became a stable industry and less of the transient give it a try situation
complete bs.
 

Ubend R.S.

Well-Known Member
and the bods at TFL (tossers for london), ought to be brought to book for not just their incompetence, but also for serious conflict of interest.
at last we agree on something.

i didn't moan about the judges decision. it was his job to read the wording of the law then determine whether uber's server fell foul of it. it wasn't his job to understand why the law was there. it was TFL's job to apply the law as they so determine, which actually gives them wiggle room. wiggle room that would have seen them ban this model should 'AA Cars of Shoreditch' tried implementing it.
the 5 min wait is subtle as a house brick but it is a way of ensuring only taxis can be instantly hired.
unlike you i feel this consultation is more a way of allowing uber to continue just as they are. TFL need only say the overall response was to keep things as they are and uber carry on unhindered.

i've said this before but either way we all need to know. defining 'ply for hire' isn't gonna happen. but if the consultation goes the way i think it will then the time to re-train is now.
 

WHU STEVE

Well-Known Member
at last we agree on something.

i didn't moan about the judges decision. it was his job to read the wording of the law then determine whether uber's server fell foul of it. it wasn't his job to understand why the law was there. it was TFL's job to apply the law as they so determine, which actually gives them wiggle room. wiggle room that would have seen them ban this model should 'AA Cars of Shoreditch' tried implementing it.
the 5 min wait is subtle as a house brick but it is a way of ensuring only taxis can be instantly hired.
unlike you i feel this consultation is more a way of allowing uber to continue just as they are. TFL need only say the overall response was to keep things as they are and uber carry on unhindered.

i've said this before but either way we all need to know. defining 'ply for hire' isn't gonna happen. but if the consultation goes the way i think it will then the time to re-train is now.
Why should only Taxis be instantly hired? I agree as the law stands you should be the ones that gets hailed in the street, but its not in the publics interest to wait for a for a certain time! its like, Oh, you have to wait while its pissing down with rain before you get in my car!!! You have to wait there for five minutes like a naughty boy, and then you can ruin my car with your wet clothes!!
Or, you have to wait there and see if you can get mugged because you're not allowed in my car until you have been!!!

You cabbies are right dinosaurs! You should be extinct like them!!! Move with times and stop reverting back to Oliver Cromwell!.
 

uberR

Active Member
I can see the grievances from the black cab side tho, if you allow almost instant pick ups by minicab then black cabs lose out on one of their key aspects that makes them different to a minicab. End of the day there is a difference between minicabs and black cabs in London, although these lines are being blurred now with modern tech.
 

WHU STEVE

Well-Known Member
I can see the grievances from the black cab side tho, if you allow almost instant pick ups by minicab then black cabs lose out on one of their key aspects that makes them different to a minicab. End of the day there is a difference between minicabs and black cabs in London, although these lines are being blurred now with modern tech.
They can get hailed on the street, they can use bus lanes , and they think they own them as well!. They can use 15 year old plus cabs that don't need a dpf! Because the diesel that comes out of a black is not as dangerous as the diesel that comes out of our cars! They have plenty of dispensation, and they've had it for far too long.
 

stillhere3

Well-Known Member
Why should only Taxis be instantly hired? I agree as the law stands you should be the ones that gets hailed in the street, but its not in the publics interest to wait for a for a certain time! its like, Oh, you have to wait while its pissing down with rain before you get in my car!!! You have to wait there for five minutes like a naughty boy, and then you can ruin my car with your wet clothes!!
Or, you have to wait there and see if you can get mugged because you're not allowed in my car until you have been!!!

You cabbies are right dinosaurs! You should be extinct like them!!! Move with times and stop reverting back to Oliver Cromwell!.
Such a shame that your last paragraph spoiled you post.

Taxis can be hailed in the street or immediately hired from taxi ranks because they offer the same standard of knowledge/vehicle/meter as every other taxi and can almost immediately (as soon as passenger bum on seat) get on with driving to the customers destination without need to refer to any book or electronic aid.

You must have noticed that a taxi can be hailed at any point in London and how quick that cab instinctively knows to spin round or take next left or right without reference to post codes/A-Z or sat nav. Basically that driver will get an image of the destination flash up in their minds eye and driving to it just becomes natural and quite effortless. I am not trying to put any ph driver down just explained how & why taxis can do certain things.

Now I don't expect ph drivers to be able to do that and the strong argument put up on licensing ph was that they did not need any form of knowledge testing as they had time to look up routes prior to collecting the passenger. Now with ever improving sat nav technology the time scale to 'enter details & plot route is greatly reduced' although the whole journey is done on 'faith in the equipment and driver input of details' rather than any tested knowledge.

Now this suggested '5 minute' idea. Not sure it is the best way to deal with the situation or not as it does sound all a bit naff to me. However something has to be done regarding ph operators/drivers getting ever closer to operating like taxis or should the original 'no knowledge' argument now be considered outdated and filed under dinosaur and every driver ph & taxi should have the same knowledge test requirement.
 

stillhere3

Well-Known Member
They can get hailed on the street, they can use bus lanes , and they think they own them as well!. They can use 15 year old plus cabs that don't need a dpf! Because the diesel that comes out of a black is not as dangerous as the diesel that comes out of our cars! They have plenty of dispensation, and they've had it for far too long.
'Dispensations' would you really want them all if it meant doing 3-4 years training before even your 1st fare. Driving a purpose built vehicle that cost twice as much as you entry level vehicle, done half the mgp and was only half as comfortable to drive on a long trip and plus TfL had complete control of what vehicle you could use for the job and specified the least likely vehicle you would choose to drive.
 

pingpongman

Active Member
Unfortunately TfL, even if they had a mind to, could not regulated fares in the manner you suggest. It would have to be as taxi fares in being the 'maximum' that the customer can be charged. So after those important company profits your cut would get smaller and it would take much longer to get any fare increase through TfL.

TfL & Government keep harping on about 'market forces' and that supply and demand will always sort the situation out. What they never say (if they even know) that it has nothing to do with 'supply & demand' it is all about 'market share'.

To over simplify it - if there are 3 big firms and one customer each firm wants that customer so will constantly push for more and more new drivers so they stand the best chance of getting that customer/market share. So it works out that the demand (one customer) is being over supplied and because none of the 3 big firms know where that customer is likely to pop up they want even more drivers spread out over London so it will be them (the firm) that get the job (market share).

Other businesses have to carefully balance out staffing levels with all other costs as each member of staff 'has a cost at the start to the business'. With ph and indeed taxis they cost the firm nothing so the numbers of drivers is irrelevant as a cost to the company or restriction to balance drivers numbers with viable drivers incomes.

In other businesses what drives 'wages' up is a shortage of quality staff so every worker has a value to the firm and is not that easy to replace (not ten a penny queuing up for a job). This being the avenue to go down with the most likely chance of success for ph drivers.

The questions are-

How do you make each ph driver a valuable asset that firms not only want but need to keep in the short-medium & long term and not just encourage in at the start with a few perks.

Would it be in the travelling publics and society in general best interest if the ph industry became a stable industry and less of the transient give it a try situation
The most pressing issue for the ph driver at the moment are the pay rates or the extortionate amount the so called ph firms are able to charge, tfl can regulate this without much of an issue, there is no need for it to get involved in customer pricing, not only this would remedy touting, but also force ph firms Inc. uber to put their prices up, bringing about a more level playing field for taxis as well
 

LondonRider

Active Member
Would be funny when the client is just near me to say him(her) : can't take you before 5 min, enjoy the weather please. You know, law requirements.
 
Top