NOW CYCLISTS ACT AS UNPAID SPEED COPS!

If you thought cyclists were just a nuisance, prepare yourself for a shock!...by Alan Fisher

Over the years, we've heard many true stories that at the time we found difficult to believe, but the one involving a Dial-a-Cab driver just before Christmas outside the Houses of Parliament has surely moved to the very top of the list! 

It also brings into play a situation that is not just shocking, but in reality puts our licenses and very livelihoods into the hands of our Mayor’s undoubted favourites – his fellow cyclists!

Debbie Hope had been travelling along St Margaret’s Street towards the Parliament Square traffic lights. Soon after – on Christmas Eve in fact - she received a police letter enclosing three stills taken from a video camera appearing to show that Debbie’s taxi had been driven through the lights whilst they were red.

Debbie's tells her story in the lasted Dial-a-cab in house magazine Call Sign. 

“The photos undoubtedly showed my cab going through the lights on red and although I couldn’t understand how I missed them, I obviously did and was prepared to hold my hands up,” Debbie told Call Sign. “The first photo showed me a short distance away from the lights with them showing red and amber, so the next sequence should have been green. But they obviously must have changed straight back to red because the second photo showed the lights as being red again and my cab going through them.”

Continuing with her story, Debbie told us: “Receiving that on Christmas Eve was bad enough, but the police then said that on looking at files, I did not have any insurance and that frightened me even more! So far as I knew, I was insured with Quotax and had never had any renewal problems. But the letter now made me wonder if, and for how long, I had been driving while uninsured? It really did frighten me.”

Debbie phoned Quotax and they confirmed that she was insured and that any police enquiry must have shown an incorrect registration. But she still faced the possibility of three points for what their own photographic evidence proved was an incorrect light change sequence. 

So Debbie then phoned the number on the letter and they confirmed that she was indeed being prosecuted for going through a red light. But what they told her next not only amazed her, but should shock every single taxi driver in London.

“I asked if I had been filmed by a yellow camera because I had never noticed one there. When I was told no, I then asked if it was a police hand-held camera and again the answer came back as no. So I asked where the footage had come from and after a few moments of silence, the voice at the other end said it had been taken by a member of the public!

“My husband, Duncan, took a look at the photos and said that in his view they seemed to be still shots from a video that had been taken by a cyclist with a helmet camera who must have been behind Debbie and passed the footage of a taxi going through a red light over to the police!

“I was still reeling from the shock of what I had been told by both the police and then Duncan, but pulled myself together enough to call the police again and explain that the sequence of lights was obviously wrong and although I admitted going through a red light because the photo showed it, surely the incorrect lights sequence was mitigation enough for the matter to be dropped? 

The voice at the other end said she would look at the footage and call straight back, obviously hearing the concern in my voice. True to her word, she did phone back and confirmed that I had indeed gone through a red light, but went on to add that an incorrect sequence was no defence. She also apologised for the police making a mistake re my insurance, but they were not going to cancel the offence.

“Because I now believed it was probably a cyclist, I asked if that footage was allowed as evidence for something serious enough to carry three points if proved and she said yes! 

"I was truly stunned and several days later when I spotted a policeman in the street, I asked if he could confirm that cyclists’ helmet camera footage was acceptable. He said that he too was amazed and had never heard of it!”

Debbie, who has been with DaC for 15 years, went on to tell the magazine that she now has a camera in her taxi and had contemplated passing over footage of any cyclist that jumped a red light! But she added that with their advantage of not needing registration plates, they all looked the same from behind! And besides, that would probably be a full time job!

“I assume that the cyclist who passed the footage of my cab over to the police just didn’t like taxi drivers and has probably done it before,” said Debbie, “but I doubt that an all-out war between us would do anyone any good. 

However, I’d like to warn all Taxi drivers that with so many cyclists having helmet-cams, this may be just the thin end of the wedge."

Source : Call Sign Feb 2016.

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/1KSKhb8
via IFTTT

PH Regs Review And The LTDA, Who's Side Are They On? ...by Gerald Coba

An email from the LTDA to its members, followed by an article in an online business blog!!!

And now in the words of reggae's Johnny Nash

"There are more questions than answers".

Towards the end of the consultation period relating to the new Private Hire regulations, the LTDA sent all members a detailed email, explaining how they should respond.

It contained this passage regarding a preposed 5 minute wait between an operator receiving a booking and the driver arriving at the pick up.

See image:

After TfL's update on the PH regulation review was announced last week, LTDA members recieved an email containing this paragraph:

Private Hire Regulations Review 

You will probably be aware that Transport for London (TfL) announced the results and their intentions following the Private Hire Vehicles Consultation. Unfortunately they have decided not to implement several of the proposals that would have gone a long way to bringing Uber and other minicab app based services within the regulatory framework. However some of the proposals that they will be proceeding with, including the decision to make minicabs pay the congestion charge and scrapping minicab satellite offices, are to be welcomed. I have attached a full breakdown of all the proposals and TfL's decisions to this email.

Ends.

Then this article below authored by TfL's fall guy Garret Emmerson, appears on the CityAM blog

Read the whole article here:

>CLICK HERE<

Summary:

This is the paragraph from Emmerson's article we find most interesting, it states:

 

On the so-called ‘five minute rule’ there were always strong arguments for and against. In the consultation responses, major stakeholders - almost universally - said they didn’t support the proposal. This included everybody from major private hire companies to businesses, from politicians to consumer and community groups to even the LTDA – the largest of the taxi driver associations.

This statement goes directly against the message the LTDA had previously pervaded to their subscribers in the email detailing how they should respond. Also, no mention was made in the follow up email appertaining to the LTDA's change of direction.

If Emmerson's statement is factual, it would appear that LTDA backed down again, in the face of TfL's continued support for Uber to be allowed to circumnavigate current legislation.

Questions needing answers:

• Is Emmerson telling the truth???

• Did the LTDA executive and COM consult with any of their membership on policy change, before going directly against the advice previously given to their members?

• Why did the LTDA feel it necessary to omit their policy change from the follow up email sent to the membership?

Intended Fare Increase And Fitted Contactless Terminals:

Last week, one of our colleagues was present at a meeting with TFL. Helen chapman was present and it was explained how customers will blame driver for fare increase, that tfl need to release a press statement stating the reasons for increase, because this will put passengers off from using us and that tfl are playing with people's futures. 

It is alleged by our colleague the Chapman actually laughed at the thought of our demise and after protests from those present, had to apologise.

Interestingly, she stated that if any driver is reported for having a sock or bag over the terminal TfL intend to mandate fitted in back, compliance will put a stop on the cab. 

She made it clear that this will be a priority for enforcement.

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/1P0mw58
via IFTTT

Immediate Private Hire....Or Plying For Hire...Scripted Or Improvised BS?

TfL have also invented a completely new term "immediate Private Hire". Does this refer to a pre booked minicab that's available for immediate hire....isn't that plying for hire. 

What is the definition of pre booking?

If you flag down or approach a parked private hire car....is that pre booking by asking the driver are you for hire?

Ever though that the TfL Twitter account @TfLTPH is no more than scripted smoke and mirrors, designed solely to protect the corrupted interpitation of the private hire act 1998 by TfL senior management?

            And then....there was silence!

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/1SNXIkv
via IFTTT

The Dancing On Heads Of Pins Goes On And On....by I'm Spartacus.

So folks here we have all we need to know about TfL and its intentions from the impact report.

          Displaying of cars available in app:

TfL recognise it's likely be plying for hire but have abrogated their duty to prevent it by passing the buck for someone else to challenge. So much for Mayor Boris Johnson's "Uber are  breaking the law in all sorts of minor ways".

The Mayor has announced "subject to TfL Board approval in March 2016 TfL is not intending to proceed with this proposal. However, it is likely that this concept will be tested in the courts, providing a determination on whether this constitutes plying for hire".

Don't fret it gets worse! They (TfL) have not 'engaged' with us, despite us having three hundred years plus experience in this sector and a whole host of legal precedence on matters. We were of course allowed to write in, only to be ignored.  

He went on to say, "It is understood that the impacts of some of these proposals, and whether they are implemented or not, could have wider impacts on other transport providers, for example public transport and the taxi sector. Engagement has not been undertaken with representatives of these wider transport provider groups to date as part of this IIA"

So the next step is for the TfL board, they can reject it and instruct Daniels and co to go back to the drawing board or perhaps even man up and take someone to court for the in app availability that all legal precedent states 'is Plying for Hire'

We all know who's on the TfL board and today they should state their intent at the meeting on the 17th of March. 

It's simple they are either with us if they reject or against us if they adopt this report.

Date for your diary: 

17th March 2016 TfL Board Meeting

I'm Spartacus

P.s can we now assume that the UTG trade orgs will repudiate the 'engagement policy' for the sham that it is and join their taxi driving brethren?

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/1NFfCOx
via IFTTT

Edmonton Taxis Lose Battle To Stop Uber Becoming Legal

The bylaw includes the creating of two licences: one for ride-sharing companies like Uber, the other for taxis. Plus, Uber would pay $70,000 every year for all of their cars to operate in Edmonton, in addition to six cents per trip, while taxis would have to pay $410 per year for their licence.

Discussion on the bylaw has been met with protests from taxi drivers – two separate council meetings on the subject were interrupted when the taxi drivers in attendance started protesting.

The bylaw passed Wednesday will go into effect March 1.

Shortly after the decision was made, a statement was released on behalf of Uber’s General Manager for Alberta, Ramit Kar.

“Uber applauds the City of Edmonton for its leadership in being the first Canadian jurisdiction to adopt progressive regulations that embrace ridesharing.

“While these newly adopted regulations contain concessions for ridesharing service providers, the rules put in place a workable regulatory approach.”

Later the Alberta Taxi Group issued a statement in response to the vote, saying the group was disappointed, and the decision leaves Edmontonians “at the mercy of an unregulated market”.

In the statement, the group said Uber “set the agenda” and operated in the City illegally “without regard for the democratic process”.

Pascal Ryffel, spokesperson for the group, called the bylaw “essentially exactly what Uber has asked for since the beginning.

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/23wtwy8
via IFTTT

TfL : Dancing On The Head Of A Pin....by I'm Spartacus.

So here it is folks an extract from the impact assessment from tunnel engineers MottMcDonald paid by TfL about the refusal of TfL to implement the 5 minute rule

We no longer have Plying for Hire and Pre Booking for PH but another concept of 'more immediate private hire' also known as for centuries as Plying for Hire for anyone with an ounce of brain.

'Operators offering digital only bookings: 

'Whilst all operators could be impacted by this proposal in theory, the operator group expected to be most affected by this proposal will be those only offering digital booking because the technology used is aimed at providing more "immediate private hire". 

'Stakeholder engagement also suggests that current average wait times for this operator group are below five minutes. Services could be deemed less flexible/convenient to passengers as a result of this proposal and therefore there is a risk that this could reduce patronage. This proposal is also likely to impact on vehicle utilisation, and the potential to offer more trips which would affect income.

'As this is a long term impact which could affect business operations and trade, the impact has been assessed as major adverse'. 

Nothing about how anything adverse is for us, public safety or anything else.

So Boris and TfL you had your chance to right a wrong, you have blown it.

'Those who sow the wind, reap the whirlwind'

I'm Spartacus

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/1PVQgxI
via IFTTT

LTDA Refuse Help With Crowdfunding Project And LCDC To Join With Campaigning Uber Drivers.

I've been told that the Action For Cabbies group, asked the LTDA to post an article in the new edition of Taxi paper. 

Allegedly, their request was rejected. The editor of Taxi paper obviously feels the story of a Taxi drivers acquitted of involvement in the Hatton Garden Heist would be of more interest to its readers, than the struggle of the wives, family and friends of Taxi drivers crowdfunding appeal to take TfL to court.

They then asked if the LTDA would kindly email their members informing them of the Action for Cabbies crowdfunding page. This too we are told, has been rejected.

 

Today, we find that the group representing private hire drivers, have been advertising the  Action for Cabbies campaign on social media and we believe they will now be encouraging all their members to pledge funding.

Even stranger however, after the LCDC's outright refusal to support the UCG's Whitehall demonstration, Grant Davis is now trying to gather support from all trade orgs and unions, to join up with the United Private Hire Drivers Group (this is the group which represents Uber drivers) with a demo in Whitehall.

In a leaked email to trade orgs, Grant said George Galloway would attend. Galloway recently address the UPHD meeting-also attended by the secretary of the LCDC-saying he would do everything in his power to support Private Hire drivers.

Grant said he hopes the UCG will cancel their demo and join with other trade orgs to support the Uber drivers who are on £4 an hour and have to claim benefit to make a living. 

So there you have it ...All this talk about unity and we have our largest association, offering no help to the Action for Cabbies group....And the LCDC who refused to support past and future demonstration by the UCG wanting to throw their lot in with Uber drivers.

Whether or not the other orgs and unions support this call, looks like the LCDC have already agreed to join with the Uber drivers in their struggle to get a bigger share from the work they are stealing from us.

Wonder how their membership feel about this! 

Did they even bother to ask their members?

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/1SKDoQS
via IFTTT