Uber taxis

[Tetchytyke]

Uber is ideal for people who want a prearranged ride, rather than to wait for a black cab. It is also convenient for Londoners with disabilities.

I'm not sure how a taxi company that doesn't have any wheelchair accessible vehicles can call itself "convenient" for people with disabilities...

Furthermore, I believe in free enterprise. The more competition there is, the more options Londoners have.

I'd agree with that too, but that competition should be on a level playing field. Black cabs are heavily regulated, with private hire taxis significantly less so. Uber are trying to act like a black cab company when it suits them but they're happy to ignore all the obligations and responsibilities that operating black cabs bring.

TfL really have two choices at this stage: either force Uber to abide by the regulations or deregulate black cabs to the same level as private hires. Forcing significant expense on black cab drivers- the Knowledge, accessible vehicles, specified turning circles, and, most importantly, fixed, non-negotiable metered fares- yet allowing the likes of Uber to directly compete with them on the street is simply not sustainable.

The simple fact is that Uber don't want "free enterprise". They want regulation...for their competitors.

 

[dcsprior]

Uber are trying to act like a black cab company when it suits them but they're happy to ignore all the obligations and responsibilities that operating black cabs bring.

I'd say that uber are attempting to behave like minicab firms do in most parts of the country - where there's more of an overlap between minicabs and black taxis - London is an oddity in this regard.

As far as I can see, the rejected suggestions from the association representing black cabs appear to be focused on making uber's product less good (e.g. introducing a minimum wait time) surely the way to compete is to make their own product more attractive (e.g by reducing the price)

On another note, I've still yet to use uber in Edinburgh since it launched there - there doesn't seem to consistently be availability when I leave for the airport, so I can't give up the security of pre-booking something.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure how a taxi company that doesn't have any wheelchair accessible vehicles can call itself "convenient" for people with disabilities...

While I agree they perhaps need more wheelchair accessible vehicles, you are missing a fairly commonly-missed point that wheelchairs are not the only form of disability, nor even the most common one by any stretch of the imagination.

Being tall, I find black cabs generally (even the minibus style ones) awkward to access. I have to basically get in on my knees, swivel round (getting mucky knees as I do) then back onto the seat (edit: or I suppose sit facing backwards in a tip-up, but that is less safe).

I'm 36 and don't have mobility issues (I have an iffy knee due to a bike accident, but it's not *so* iffy that it causes problems...yet!). When I am 76, I would expect to be completely unable to use a black cab because of this.

The modern solution? Have a fleet of different vehicles suited to different purposes, because you can use your phone (or similar adapted device) to book the one you need at the time you need it. For most people, the most accessible type of vehicle with plenty of luggage space is something like a Citroen Berlingo. Direct access to the seating from the door, and unlike a saloon you aren't sitting down into it. And they are cheap so far as cars go.

Another example, FWIW, is the loss of the central pole at bus doors which make it much harder for those with things like leg problems but able to walk to board. The German approach of no pole at the centre doors but a pole at the front doors (which has the added benefit of separating passengers paying the driver from passengers not needing to, allowing a faster boarding flow) solves this one. A further example is ticket machines and ATMs with very low down screens - those new "smart wall" things with a big screen able to show the TVM UI at multiple heights is a solution to that.

 

[Tetchytyke]

As far as I can see, the rejected suggestions from the association representing black cabs appear to be focused on making uber's product less good (e.g. introducing a minimum wait time) surely the way to compete is to make their own product more attractive (e.g by reducing the price)

The issue- both in London and elsewhere- is that Hackney Carriage operators do not have flexibility on price. TfL in London, and the local authority elsewhere, set the fares. These fares are non-negotiable. In London, as well as the Knowledge, TfL also set a minimum specification required for a Hackney Carriage, including accessibility and turning circle, which dramatically reduces the range of vehicles a Hackney Carriage operator can use.

In exchange for these regulations, Hackney Carriage operators are the only ones who can use ranks or be hired on the street.

The point of the minimum booking time is to prevent Uber from being hired "on the street", which is what can currently happen because of the app.

TfL are eventually going to have to choose whether they are going to increase regulation on Private Hires, or whether they are going to decrease regulation on Hackney Carriages. The current situation is simply not sustainable.

I'd say that uber are attempting to behave like minicab firms do in most parts of the country - where there's more of an overlap between minicabs and black taxis - London is an oddity in this regard.

There's definitely more of a distinction in London, as most other LAs don't have the same level of regulation on Hackney Carriages, meaning Hackney Carriage drivers can reduce their overheads with a "normal" car.

But minicab firms cannot pick up on the street anywhere.

Uber's new technology is a problem everywhere- there have been protests from Hackney Carriage drivers in Newcastle- and things are going to eventually come to a head. Why would Hackney Carriage drivers agree to the increased regulatory cost if the LAs are just going to let Uber trample all over their business? They may as well switch to Private Hire, have much reduced regulation, and charge whatever they want.

 

[Bletchleyite]

TfL are eventually going to have to choose whether they are going to increase regulation on Private Hires, or whether they are going to decrease regulation on Hackney Carriages. The current situation is simply not sustainable.

Is the solution "meeting in the middle" with more regulation for private hire but less for Hackney carriages? Having the two as distinct things is a curious UK-ism - in most other European countries you just have "taxis" that do both things - and they are mostly saloon cars, not expensive, heavy, highly polluting adapted vehicles not needed by the vast majority of users, where for the others alternative provision could be made.

For London, accessibility aside, the Daewoo Matiz or similar city car would make the perfect black cab for the typical user with one person and their laptop bag.

 

[deltic]

TfL really have two choices at this stage: either force Uber to abide by the regulations or deregulate black cabs to the same level as private hires. Forcing significant expense on black cab drivers- the Knowledge, accessible vehicles, specified turning circles, and, most importantly, fixed, non-negotiable metered fares- yet allowing the likes of Uber to directly compete with them on the street is simply not sustainable.

.

My understanding is that taxi fares are negotiable - the metered rate is the maximum that can be charged - the driver and passenger can negotiate a non-metered fare if they are both willing. TfL website states

"The passenger will be expected to pay the full fare displayed on the meter at the end of the journey unless the driver and passenger agree on the final fare to be charged before the start of the journey"

 

[Bletchleyite]

The point of the minimum booking time is to prevent Uber from being hired "on the street", which is what can currently happen because of the app.

But this is nothing to do with Uber or the app other than that Uber is a very high profile target. It's effectively been possible to hail a minicab on the street for ages - pull out your mobile phone and call the number on the side of it, telling them which cab it is you've seen. The Milton Keynes private hire operators have done this for years - a small number of them sit in wait at the station, and as soon as you phone one of them is "dispatched" to you. I'm not aware of any law being broken.

There is even an officially sanctioned (by the Council) booking office provided in the centre on a Saturday evening. You go into the booking office, book your private hire vehicle, and as if by magic it pulls up outside seconds later.

It is in fact the mobile phone that has created this issue, not Uber.

 

[Greenback]

The regulations have clearly not kept pace with the changes that we've seen in our society as the result of technological advances. That's fair comment.

Yet I think Arctic Troll is right about the level playing field.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yet I think Arctic Troll is right about the level playing field.

Yes, I do see that point as well.

Maybe it's because I'm not a Londoner (!) that I think black cabs are increasingly an irrelevance, though?

 

[Tetchytyke]

My understanding is that taxi fares are negotiable - the metered rate is the maximum that can be charged - the driver and passenger can negotiate a non-metered fare if they are both willing.

Sort of, of course a taxi driver can choose to accept a lower amount for payment than what is shown on the meter. But they have to, by law, use the meter. They cannot charge more than what is on the meter and they cannot- unlike private hire drivers- refuse fares, even if someone's only going 300 yards down the street and it's not worth their bother.

There is even an officially sanctioned (by the Council) booking office provided in the centre on a Saturday evening. You go into the booking office, book your private hire vehicle, and as if by magic it pulls up outside seconds later

Indeed, but you have to walk to the office and book through the office. You can't just wave a private hire down. Mobile phones make it a lot easier, sure, but I think there's a subtle difference between ringing up to book the Private Hire parked right in front of you and effectively hailing a Private Hire through the app. Especially as Hackney Carriage drivers can't charge you whatever they want because it's pouring with rain or there's a tube strike or it is New Year's Eve, whereas Uber can and does do that with surge pricing.

Perhaps reduced regulation for Hackney Carriages is the solution, given that Uber and Addison Lee are clearly providing what the public want.

What I don't like is making Hackney Carriage drivers jump through hoops- be forced to buy expensive specialist cars, be forced to pay their way through the Knowledge, be forced to accept all fares, and be told the maximum they can charge- only for TfL or the local authority to turn round and shrug their shoulders and say that's just healthy competition and they should suck it up.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Maybe it's because I'm not a Londoner (!) that I think black cabs are increasingly an irrelevance, though?

But even up here Hackney Carriage drivers have to jump through hoops that Private Hire drivers don't.

Perhaps Hackney Carriages are an anachronism. But the solution isn't to strangle them with regulation, then let Uber trample all over their business and turn round and call it "healthy competition".

 

[Bletchleyite]

Especially as Hackney Carriage drivers can't charge you whatever they want because it's pouring with rain or there's a tube strike or it is New Year's Eve, whereas Uber can and does do that with surge pricing.

But we don't all object to yield management on trains and planes, do we? That's basically what it is.

Perhaps reduced regulation for Hackney Carriages is the solution, given that Uber and Addison Lee are clearly providing what the public want.

I think it may well be.

What I don't like is making Hackney Carriage drivers jump through hoops- be forced to buy expensive specialist cars, be forced to pay their way through the Knowledge, be forced to accept all fares, and be told the maximum they can charge- only for TfL or the local authority to turn round and shrug their shoulders and say that's just healthy competition and they should suck it up.

Yes, I see the point. I'm particularly unconvinced about the cars - provided it is easy to identify a Hackney carriage by something on it (if we're going to have that) like a specific piece of signage on the roof, I see no reason every one has to be a specific type of vehicle.

It probably does make sense to have some Hackney carriages wheelchair accessible, and it probably also makes sense to have a facility, exclusive to wheelchair users, to request one. That is not outside the bounds of technology.

But even up here Hackney Carriage drivers have to jump through hoops that Private Hire drivers don't.

I think you could abolish Hackney carriages entirely in most small to medium sized provincial towns/cities without actually annoying anybody (other than their drivers), particularly if a taxi freephone was provided at stations etc as a substitute for a taxi rank.

Actually, doing so might have traffic benefits. How often have you been delayed on a bus in a city like London because someone has hailed a taxi in a downright dangerous or obstructive location, which they have done because, by and large, taxis ply main roads? I have, lots. If the person had phoned for a taxi or requested it on an app, they could have requested it to go to somewhere a little more sensible that most likely is actually nearer where their journey actually starts.

 

[Tetchytyke]

But we don't all object to yield management on trains and planes, do we? That's basically what it is.

My point is not that Uber are being naughty by charging more at popular times, my point is that Hackney Carriage drivers are prohibited by law from doing so.

The exchange for the set fares used to be that Hackney Carriage drivers had privileges that Private Hire drivers did not. That's clearly not the case anymore, as nobody is prepared to clamp down on Private Hire firms touting for business.

That's not really very fair, is it?

I'm particularly unconvinced about the cars - provided it is easy to identify a Hackney carriage by something on it (if we're going to have that) like a specific piece of signage on the roof, I see no reason every one has to be a specific type of vehicle.

So am I, but again that isn't the point. The point is TfL say Hackney Carriage vehicles must meet a certain spec- turning circle as well as accessibility- which most standard road vehicles don't meet. They are then not prepared to protect the Hackney Carriage drivers who, I'm sure, would rather be driving a Prius that costs £20k rather than a TX4 that costs nearly £45k.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The exchange for the set fares used to be that Hackney Carriage drivers had privileges that Private Hire drivers did not. That's clearly not the case anymore, as nobody is prepared to clamp down on Private Hire firms touting for business.

That's not really very fair, is it?

I agree. However, I wouldn't come at this with the view that we should stop Private Hire firms "touting for business" because they are doing increasingly what the customer wants.

Should we actually consider abolishing the Hackney carriage?

So am I, but again that isn't the point. The point is TfL say Hackney Carriage vehicles must meet a certain spec- turning circle as well as accessibility- which most standard road vehicles don't meet. They are then not prepared to protect the Hackney Carriage drivers who, I'm sure, would rather be driving a Prius that costs £20k rather than a TX4 that costs nearly £45k.

Quite - so let's stop making them drive the polluting, impractical, overweight and old-fashioned TX4, then. I'd rather ride in a Prius, too, and it'll be more environmentally friendly.

I am aware of the wheelchair access issue, but there *must* be a better way of dealing with that that doesn't effectively result in a large number of what are effectively small, filth-belching, ageing minibuses running around the place on the off chance a wheelchair user might hail one, while mostly carrying one or two passengers and a laptop bag or two.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
To look at it differently - let's say we were designing, from scratch, a by-the-vehicle personal transport system for a city now, with no history at all. What would it look like? I venture the view it'd look more like Uber, though perhaps with a little more regulation on things like driver quality, and perhaps a fare cap (but one well above what would normally be charged).

 

[Mojo]

The reason the establishment supports Uber is becuase it's supporting the business of a multinational conglomerate rather than traditional working class Londoners, who have almost entirely been wiped out.

Uber makes sense in places like New York, where the Yellow Cab service is regarded as a joke all over the world. The London taxi service is consistently ranked the best in the world; I don't see any reason to lessen the regulatory requirements too much; although perhaps make the fees payable for Hackney Carriages equal to those charged for PHVs; a PHV driver license costs £250 (plus DBS/medical fees) and a PHV license costs £100. To become a Hackney Carriage driver, the fee is £272 (plus DBS/medical fees), then you have to pay over £90 to the DSA to do a test, at the very least £400 to TfL to sit the knowledge, and again get a license for your vehicle.

It can often be hard to get a black cab in subruban London; PHVs play their part in that, but in my view Uber is misusing the legislation that was drawn up before the days of Apps or whatever. Legally, I couldn't see the point of going to court over the use of iPhones as Taximeters because that made no sense to me, even if Uber had "lost" there were plenty of ways around it, such as moving to the model of Addison Lee. Whilst it might be compliant, it isn't in the spirit of the legislation.

 

[miami]

Times move on. Traditional working class farriers were almost entirely wiped out when the Model T came out.

The biggest stumbling block preventing black cab drivers from going "right, screw you guys, I'm going home" is the threat of changes to the law. If they decided, en-mass, to create a new private hire company, using the their own app, and operating under the same conditions as Uber, charging similar amounts, providing a similar service, being as professional and polite as the typical Uber driver, no more "not going south of the river" statements, but owned as a co-operative rather than by a multinational company, and operated as Private Hire rather than taxi, I suspect they would get a lot of fans in London (if people love them as much as you say, and if the regulations of a hackney carriages are as problematic as you say)

 

[LateThanNever]

Times move on. Traditional working class farriers were almost entirely wiped out when the Model T came out.

The biggest stumbling block preventing black cab drivers from going "right, screw you guys, I'm going home" is the threat of changes to the law. If they decided, en-mass, to create a new private hire company, using the their own app, and operating under the same conditions as Uber, charging similar amounts, providing a similar service, being as professional and polite as the typical Uber driver, no more "not going south of the river" statements, but owned as a co-operative rather than by a multinational company, and operated as Private Hire rather than taxi, I suspect they would get a lot of fans in London (if people love them as much as you say, and if the regulations of a hackney carriages are as problematic as you say)

Times do indeed move on as you say.

The problem is that the law has not kept pace with the times. The scandal is that Boris doesn't seem to think it has to. He have received a lot more respect if, like Seoul, he'd launched a municipal version of Uber for existing taxi drivers. That would capitalise on the skills of the existing workforce. But he didn't even consider it - he's not a Tory for nothing.

 

[NY Yankee]

I see that the price of New York City taxi medallions has fallen significantly due to competition from Uber. I have never understood why the Land of the Free as so many anti-competitive rules and regulations.

Not to get off topic, but NYC taxi drivers tend to ignore black and Hispanic customers. They think that minority passengers will skip out on the fare or possibly assault them. Of course, that rubbish wouldn't happen in London

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-taxi-driver-accused-refusing-ride-al-roker-fined-article-1.2493812

In addition, yellow cab drivers only serve Manhattan below 59 Street (an area similar to Canary Wharf, Trafalgar Square, and Piccadilly Circus). With the exception of the airports, they refuse to serve the outskirts of the city. I don't feel sorry for yellow cab drivers. Uber serves the entire city and they don't turn down passengers based on race.

 

[Deerfold]

Times do indeed move on as you say.

The problem is that the law has not kept pace with the times. The scandal is that Boris doesn't seem to think it has to. He have received a lot more respect if, like Seoul, he'd launched a municipal version of Uber for existing taxi drivers. That would capitalise on the skills of the existing workforce. But he didn't even consider it - he's not a Tory for nothing.

There are already apps for hailing Black Cabs - are far as I know any driver can join up with them. Presumably those who have not chosen to have their reasons. Why would government duplicate these apps?

If they decided, en-mass, to create a new private hire company, using the their own app, and operating under the same conditions as Uber, charging similar amounts, providing a similar service, being as professional and polite as the typical Uber driver, no more "not going south of the river" statements, but owned as a co-operative rather than by a multinational company, and operated as Private Hire rather than taxi, I suspect they would get a lot of fans in London (if people love them as much as you say, and if the regulations of a hackney carriages are as problematic as you say)

One of the advantages to the passenger of Black Cabs is supposed to be that they will go anywhere within Greater London (and a short distance outside). If they won't but have their light on, they're breaking their license and can be reported.

If they did as you suggest, and operated as Private Hire, they would no longer be able to use bus lanes, or stop anywhere they felt like

 

[PermitToTravel]

Though anecdotally, most people who try reporting a cabbie to the PCO for things like the ubiquitous "I don't go south of the river mate" get nowhere

 

[Bletchleyite]

Must admit I don't support any taxi using a bus lane. A taxi is effectively private transport, not to be encouraged.

 

[miami]

Must admit I don't support any taxi using a bus lane. A taxi is effectively private transport, not to be encouraged.

+1

like the ZIL lanes in Soviet Moscow, they allow the rich and powerful to speed through the traffic.

 

[deltic]

Though anecdotally, most people who try reporting a cabbie to the PCO for things like the ubiquitous "I don't go south of the river mate" get nowhere

Due to business travel I used taxis a lot - and tended to use them also for private use - however as I do live south of the river I got fed up of the sarcastic remarks from drivers and a different employers attitude to not taking taxis means I havent used one in London for years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I certainly would not encourage the business use of taxis in London - the Tube is cheaper and usually faster.

 

[Busaholic]

The issue- both in London and elsewhere- is that Hackney Carriage operators do not have flexibility on price. TfL in London, and the local authority elsewhere, set the fares. These fares are non-negotiable. In London, as well as the Knowledge, TfL also set a minimum specification required for a Hackney Carriage, including accessibility and turning circle, which dramatically reduces the range of vehicles a Hackney Carriage operator can use.

In exchange for these regulations, Hackney Carriage operators are the only ones who can use ranks or be hired on the street.

The point of the minimum booking time is to prevent Uber from being hired "on the street", which is what can currently happen because of the app.

TfL are eventually going to have to choose whether they are going to increase regulation on Private Hires, or whether they are going to decrease regulation on Hackney Carriages. The current situation is simply not sustainable.



There's definitely more of a distinction in London, as most other LAs don't have the same level of regulation on Hackney Carriages, meaning Hackney Carriage drivers can reduce their overheads with a "normal" car.

But minicab firms cannot pick up on the street anywhere.

Uber's new technology is a problem everywhere- there have been protests from Hackney Carriage drivers in Newcastle- and things are going to eventually come to a head. Why would Hackney Carriage drivers agree to the increased regulatory cost if the LAs are just going to let Uber trample all over their business? They may as well switch to Private Hire, have much reduced regulation, and charge whatever they want.

There's another big distinction between black cabs and the others in London -black cabs don't have to pay the Congestion Charge.

 

[miami]

There's another big distinction between black cabs and the others in London -black cabs don't have to pay the Congestion Charge.

"Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles are exempt from paying the Congestion Charge when actively licensed with London Taxi and Private Hire (TPH). The exemption for Private Hire Vehicles only applies when undertaking private hire bookings."

I'm not sure what that means if you get a minicab into the congestion charge zone, then get out. The minicab would then be stuck there, unable to move without causing a charge?

It's something they're looking at changing, and charging minicabs (but not black taxis)

In an ideal world every mile driven in the congestion area would be charged at say £1 per mile, divided by the number of occupants, so a car with 7 people in would cost 14p/mile, but one with 1 person in would be £1 a mile. A minicab with 4 people ending a long journey into London at Baker Street for example would attract £1 for the trip, but a car (Uber, Black Cab, whatever) spending the whole day driving around may rack up £100, due to causing far more congestion than the quick trip into Baker Street.

 

[Mojo]

There's another big distinction between black cabs and the others in London -black cabs don't have to pay the Congestion Charge.

PHVs don't pay the congestion charge either.

 

[stut]

Not to get off topic, but NYC taxi drivers tend to ignore black and Hispanic customers. They think that minority passengers will skip out on the fare or possibly assault them. Of course, that rubbish wouldn't happen in London

Anecdotally, from black and South Asian friends, that rubbish very definitely does happen in London (and they are massive Uber fans as a result...)

With the exception of the airports, they refuse to serve the outskirts of the city. I don't feel sorry for yellow cab drivers. Uber serves the entire city and they don't turn down passengers based on race.

"South of the river at this time of night?" has long been a black cab stereotype in London. Sure, they're not supposed to refuse based on destination, but then the old "my light was off, I'm only picking up someone out of courtesy if they're on my way home..."

Not that Uber is without problems. There are residential streets around Heathrow that have become Uber driver hangouts, and subjected to all sorts of antisocial behaviour. The street behind my office in central London is similar - they do a great job of blocking the back road (and the delivery drivers trying to get to and from). And I've had far more problems with driving standards than I even had with black cabs.

A recent (again, anecdotal) phenomenon is people seeing their journeys cancelled just before surge pricing comes into effect.

 

[NY Yankee]

Like I said, Uber is convenient for people who missed the "last train" and do not want to ride a slow and overcrowded night bus. It is also convenient for people with a lot of luggage who are coming from Heathrow (yes, there's the Heathrow Express, but it makes limited stops). They should allow Uber but set up some parameters (not operating in the central business district during rush hours, not idling in residential areas...).

 

[LateThanNever]

There are already apps for hailing Black Cabs - are far as I know any driver can join up with them. Presumably those who have not chosen to have their reasons. Why would government duplicate these apps?

Probably because they are mostly more expensive than Uber - you can't impose regulations on one lot and ignore them for another lot and expect the resulting competion to be fair can you? Paricularly as Uber haven't yet made a profit and are in effect 'buying' the market - as the attached linked article makes clear:
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ab-ride-uber-true-cost-google-wealth-taxation

 

[jon0844]

Seems like investing in Uber is far better than paying tax on the money! Everyone wins.

Well, not everyone! Someone always pays.