Taxi Driver Online

Tory MP Richard Fuller backs Uber London calling for parliament to scrutinise TfL's proposals for new laws


A member of a powerful commons committee is calling on colleagues in parliament to scrutinise Transport for London (TfL) over its drastic new proposals to impose draconian regulations on Uber and other private hire car services.

Richard Fuller, a Conservative MP who sits on the business select committee, told City A.M. the proposals were “precisely the sort of thing the committee should be looking at”.

“What is the purpose of some of the regulations? Why is it in anyone’s interest to make people wait longer for a taxi?” Fuller said. “I don’t understand why a regulator feels that these are so important for the public interest. And if they’re not for the public interest, then who is the regulator working for?”

TfL said yesterday that it will consult on multiple proposals to regulate private hire cars, including imposing a minimum waiting time of five minutes, banning ride sharing and stopping companies from displaying nearby drivers’ availability on apps. It has also suggested forcing operators to offer pre-booking seven days in advance, and requiring drivers to work for only one operator at a time.

Read more: Uber at risk as TfL bows to pressure from taxi drivers and minicab firms

By last night, an online petition against the proposals had attracted more than 100,000 signatures in under a day.

Simon Walker, director general of the Institute of Directors (IoD), slammed the proposals, calling them “a Luddite solution to a problem that doesn’t exist”. He added that they would “damage London’s reputation as a city which celebrates innovation”.

“Boris Johnson, George Osborne and Sajid Javid have set themselves up as passionate advocates of the free market,” he said. “How they proceed from here is a crucial test of those ideals.”

Johnson was last night called upon by six Westminster councillors, who want him to ditch the planned regulations and instead “cut Black Cab red tape and leave Uber alone.”

Earlier this year, business secretary Javid dismissed other cities’ regulations on private hire cars, telling an audience in London: “Berlin and Paris might want to ban Uber. We welcome disruptive technology.

“We want the best deal for customers. They will decide, and they have already decided with their wallets they want to pay for that service. We can’t stand in the way of technology.”

In May, when Black Cab drivers brought traffic to a standstill with an anti-Uber protest, the Prime Minister’s spokesman made a similar point, saying Cameron had a “pro-punter position... He does not see it as either one or the other; it’s about, within a properly regulated system, consumers being able to make the choices that best suit them.”

A transport department spokesperson said yesterday that the government would study TfL’s proposals and respond “in due course”.

source: http://www.cityam.com/225555/uber-fightback-begins

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Richard Fuller .........that name rings a bell

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

ahh yes - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17224124

he was the one concerned at us getting all killed and stuff

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

And what has the GMBPDB got to say about these ideas, some of which will certainly assist the Branch secs Private hire business ?? at the expense of course of Drivers ..............not to worry ehh !

SNOUT IN THE TROUGH .............................YOU BET ...........................PONCEEEEEEEEEEEE!

_________________
All posts by this contributor are made in a strictly personal capacity

I AM PROUD TO BE A CITIZEN NOBODY'S SUBJECT http://www.republic.org.u

F88K EM ALL WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND

BOOZE BOOZE BOOZE

Struggle to argue with that.

_________________
IDFIMH

No one is against new competition Sussex, Uber bringing more cars than their currently is, is not the problem, they want to play by their own rules, the rules ain't broke Sussex it's been a level playing field for decades why change it just to suit the big boy capitalist's.

_________________
Alway's been about Tightening the Grip!

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Didn't he have interests in a cctv company or was that somebody else who was pretending to be concerned about driver safety

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

no it was him - I wrote an article - when I was able to write;

It’s Groundhog Day so bury me in platitudes

On 29th February the House of Commons debated Taxi & Private Hire safety, a full transcript of the debate is available on the National Taxi Association website, I guess to some it would make interesting reading, presuming you’re interested.

I seem to write at least once per year about taxi and private hire drivers being beaten and murdered whilst doing their jobs. The latest in an all too long line of licensed drivers to be murdered is Mehar Dhariwal, 61, who died following an attack in January. I wish to offer my condolences to his family during this terrible time, I sincerely hope the perpetrators are brought to justice.

The abuse the majority of us face on a daily basis simply wouldn’t be accepted in any other occupation. This abuse goes from verbal insults, to threats, to physical violence and vehicles getting kicked. We all experience it, and following on from my article last month (in respect of bilkers etc) it goes largely unreported. It is reasonable to also say, there has recently been a disturbing increase in reports of bus drivers being subject to similar attacks, although not on the same scale.

So the great and good met to discuss our plight, like they did a few short months ago, and like the time before. They huffed and they puffed and they showered us in platitudes. The law commission were even mentioned, so presumably they’ll bring in a law making it illegal to beat up, maim and murder cab drivers?

Any cab driver who has any concern for our welfare, justice being done and integrity should be overjoyed by the House of Commons taking an interest in our plight, and should be awaiting a tacit government response to the debate.

The indictment of the increasing violence aimed at us should however include not only the murder and beatings of licensed drivers but also, rather crucially, the neglect of local authorities who might have taken more than a negligible passing interest in years previous.

Many times, certain councillors (ergo local authorities) view (that) whatever the sins of the perpetrators’, their often drunken state was a more believable story than the one of the cab driver.

During February, Councillor Jan Brown, chairman of licensing at Watford Borough Council, stated: “The council’s specific role is to license taxis. We don’t provide CCTV cameras to private businesses like taxis, in the same way that we don’t pay for CCTV cameras in shops, offices or homes, for example.”

With the usual display of moral integrity, Brown’s statement overlooked the broken bones and bruises of drivers in her area; it did however echo similar thoughts of councillors we have mentioned in the past.

Such statements reflect a deeply rooted culture of ignorance in officialdom – I’ll even give it a name - the doctrine of ignorance, this doctrine is invoked by various councillors each time there is a public outcry about drivers being beaten to a pulp, although the doctrine isn’t just there for councillors alone. The content of the doctrine is: "Yes, we know crimes are being committed, but there isn’t going to be any public money available to prevent it. But now that's all over, why don’t you give me a photo opportunity on things the public are really concerned about – like picking up dog sh*t."

The doctrine is dishonest and cowardly, but it does have advantages: It saves them from addressing the true social (and sometimes economic) reasons why these incidents actually do happen and how they need to address the serious issues.

For example, one regular reasons for delimiting taxi numbers is to prevent social disorder in town and city centres, more cabs will diffuse the situation and empty the centres quicker, it doesn’t actually address the fact that people in deregulated areas are equally as drunk – and prone to equal amounts of disorder as those in restricted areas – nor does it address the fact that the situation is merely moved to another area. There has been precious little research, but that’s not important.

Nobody believes that now, not even those that pushed for those polices in the first place.

The new reason is that we need more cabs to drive down prices, in fact, the OFT are so red-faced about a situation they went to extraordinary lengths to create, they now want pressure exerted on local authorities to lower cab fares.

Sometimes, the repetition of these postures reaches the level of rapturous acclaim.

Last month, for example, Richard Fuller, the MP for Bedford, described “a cursory review of local newspapers will readily identify cases of assault—frequently sexual assault—of passengers by taxi drivers”. This was after a decent start to his debate - pointing out that licensed drivers regularly suffer at the hands of passengers.

Fuller was particularly impressed with “Am I safe?”, a legally dubious iphone application that obtains information via local authority licensing registers giving information to a third party, he described access to this information so "that it makes sense to make this regulated information more accessible and more accurate".

Maybe that helps explain Fuller’s new role – he recently became Non Executive Director of OpSec Security Group plc, “Governments use OpSec’s technologies to guard against counterfeiting of currency, tax stamps, passports, drivers' licenses, ID cards, and other government documents.”

You would believe if sufficient research had been carried out the MP in question would actually know the difference between hackney carriages and private hire, instead he used the ubiquitous expression ‘taxi’ to describe both trades, an avenue which will not exactly endear the poor chap to many of you.

All this is irrelevant because of the convenient doctrine of ignorance.

So, yes, Fuller's heart bleeds for licensed drivers being beaten - but the record now shows ignorance, it's just that boring old stuff that they always get confused about.

Of course, if you want to know why the MP is confused you need look no further than where he obtained the evidence he presented. One might recall a work of fiction that went “You cannot compare the illegal cabs to the legitimate, pre-booked industry. He also talked about the assaults that take place in private hire vehicles. They don't take place in private hire vehicles at all; they take place in illegal cabs. They don't take place in private hire vehicles.” I am of course quoting from oral evidence given before the transport select committee last year by the Licensed Private Hire Car Association.

Perhaps Masood Ahmed who worked for a firm in London and was jailed for 11 years for raping and threatening to kill an 18-year-old woman in Surrey was a one off – although technically the assault and rape didn’t take place in a private hire car – the unfortunate victim ran off to try to escape her attacker, Ahmed pursued and raped her in some nearby woods. – so perhaps the statement made by the LPHCA stands true on a technicality.

The LPHCA similarly denounced the “Unions” in an outburst about private-hire cars ranking; “There is no ranking in London. It is a common thing for the trade unions to say ranking is taking place in London. No prosecutions against private hire ranking in London have ever taken place. It's a myth. They deem cars parked up in a row to be a rank, which is not the case.”

After reviewing video footage provided by ‘the Anderson shelter’ taxi blog, I think it is fair to suggest the above statement is a gross misrepresentation of the facts – although my growing fan base in London would no doubt choose rather more colourful words. In actual fact, case law does suggest private-hire cars form ranks when parked in a row.

What's revealing and important to the future of the taxi trade is the House of Common's apparent display of contempt for driver safety with calls for safety to be addressed by the Law Commission.

To be able to carry that off is an impressive achievement, hard to imitate even MP’s used to such duplicity.

I guess I’m growing tired or cynical in my old age.

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Tfl are not doing anything to curtail competition.
All they are doing is making sure Uber follow the laws as laid down by parliament.
Hackney Carriages are available for ''Instant Hire''.
PH have to be pre-booked.
With Uber technology...passengers can see vehicles and instantly book them.
What Tfl are saying is :
There should be a 5 minute wait before a vehicle becomes available and they should not be visible to the hirer.
That is laid down in the laws in 1976.
Further. Tfl are saying that Uber should provide a service to allow ''pre-booked'' service as most PH do
like booking a car for 9am on Monday...This is currently not available with Uber.
A lot of drivers are working with Yber AND another ''base'' in London and Tfl want these drivers to work
with only one base.
All withing the requirements of current laws.

Isn't one second pre-booked?

_________________
IDFIMH

The government should decide what Uber is, Uber claims it's a ridesharing app, It can't and shouldn't be allowed to claim it's a ridesharing App, there's nothing sharing about its service, it's service is more akin to a taxi journey, punter books journey via electronic means, taxi or ph could turn up, punter gets in and pay's the driver at journey's end, exactly the same as when I do a job via electronic means, the device is the same or similar but the software is different, if Uber don't offer pre-booked then that's a fault in their working model, if a new ph company started up tomorrow and didn't offer a pre-booked service, it wouldn't last a week, pre-booked is offered regardless of trade, taxi and ph, both trades should be jumping on this fault in the Uber way, Uber&Gett are trying to mimick a street hail but street hails cannot be replicated by electronic means, any booking by electronic means must be regarded as a private hire booking, any company offering a cab booking service via electronic means should be classified appropriately, Uber, Gett and any other falsely claiming to be a ridesharing app should be classified as either a Taxi booking service or Private Hire company, they should through competition law be forced to play the game as the local or national regulation dictates, their should be no exceptions or exemptions.

Over the last 35 years in this capitalist world we live in, we have witnessed in many sectors the man in the street getting shafted by the greed of the vulture capitalist's, it's our, the trades turn now, are we just going to sit back and accept it, in Edinburgh we are not, we are ready, we have the barricades up, Uber have had a booking office license for a few months now but still no sign of them operating here, the co-operative model scares the life out of them, Edinburgh has nearly 900 co-op members, we have an established app and we have the will power to not only embrace competitors but to compete with them, all we ask is that competition play's the game by the laws of our land, our government are pro-active, they take customer safety and quality of service very seriously.

It's time our trade UK wide man up and demand fair play.

_________________
Alway's been about Tightening the Grip!

I think you could argue that available vehicles being visible on an app and then the user pressing a button to flag them is the electronic equivalent of them driving down the street and being hailed.

I think this is what TFL are trying to address but maybe not in the right way perhaps it is something the government should address on a national basis

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Private Hire Regulation Review

Just sent my opinion to consultations@tfl.gov.uk

My view re-worked, if you agree with my opinion feel free to copy and paste my opinion only onto an e-mail, the consultation is open to anyone.



Hi,
Here is my opinion, I'd like the view added to other responses concerning the Private Hire Regulation Review.

The local or/and national regulators should decide what type of company Uber is, Uber claims it's a ridesharing app not a transportation company, It can't and shouldn't be allowed to claim it's a ridesharing App, there's nothing sharing about its service, it's service is more akin to a taxi journey, punter books journey by electronic means/device, taxi or private hire vehicle could/will turn up, punter gets in and pay's the driver at journey's end, exactly the same as when I carry out a job via electronic means/device, the device is the same or similar but the software maybe different, if Uber don't offer pre-booked then that's a fault in their working model, if a new ph company started up tomorrow and didn't offer a pre-booked service, it wouldn't last a week, pre-booked is offered regardless of trade, taxi and ph, both trades should be jumping on this fault in the Uber Model.

Uber&Gett are trying to mimick a street hail but street hails cannot be replicated by electronic means, more so in the hailing of a private hire vehicle, any booking by electronic means must be regarded as a private hire booking, any company offering a cab booking service via electronic means should be classified appropriately, Uber, Gett and any other falsely claiming to be a ridesharing app should be classified as either a Taxi booking service or Private Hire company first and foremost, they should through competition law be forced to play the game as the local or national regulation dictates, their should be no exceptions or exemptions.

Fare paying journey's should be about, Customer and Driver Safety plus a high level of Quality of service.

_________________
Alway's been about Tightening the Grip!