Cyclist Know For Aggression Towards London Taxi Drivers, Launches Unwarranted Attack On Female Cabby.

A cyclist known for his aggression towards London Taxi drivers, launched a horrendous attack on a lady Taxi driver, yesterday afternoon. The whole incident was recorded on a bus CCTV, behind the Taxi. 

The bus driver has said he is a willing to be a witness to the attack. Police were called to the incident, but the cyclist with 'FUCK TAXI' tattoos on his legs ran off before they arrived.

Observers said, the cyclist approached the Licensed Taxi at the lights. He got off his bike and proceeded to smash both of the lady's wing mirrors off. He then threw three punches at the female Taxi drivers face through the open window, as she sat terrified in her cab.  

Police said, "This cyclist is well known to us and will be easy to find”.

The police have shown great interest in this unwarranted attack. 

 The lady driver was not far from her garage and after a phone call, a mechanic rushed to her assistance in his van. 

The bus driver was very helpful and the whole incident has been captured on the buses CCTV system. 

When the police came, the despicable, cowardly cyclist shot off.

If you see this man, please alert the police. The job's dangerous enough without having to put up with lunatics like this!

TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT: 

What they said on Twitter!

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2tUku5p
via IFTTT

Uber Accused Of Silencing Women Who Claim Sexual Assault By Drivers

A Game of Cat and Mouse, or Uber keeping out of the Courts... by Lee Ward.

Well, my hangover has finally dissipated from the session I went on after the hearing in Sheffield on Tuesday, I think.

Let me take this time to reflect on what was said, what decision was made and what has happened since.

Uber came to the hearing fully armed, the local manager, the head of Cities in the North of England, an inhouse legal representative and Phillip Kolvin QC, all suited and booted and a brief case I wouldn’t fill if I used it for a weekend away at Skeg Vegas.

I sat and listened to Mr Kolvin explain somewhere in the region of 14 points that Uber are going to implement through thiscoming year, all to make the journey safer for the public….. SAFER for the PUBLIC, now I don’t know about you people out there, but isn’t that exactly what an operator should ensure anyway?

Geo Fencing the UK to appease local authorities regardingCross Border Hiring, ‘local’ authorities that are still 50 to 70 miles apart. However, they were adamant that each City or Town will not have its own Geo Fence.

Showing the customer where the driver is licensed when they are shown what driver and vehicle are coming to collect them. Giving the customer a chance to cancel if they don’t want someone from Out of Town to pick them up, provided it isn’t surging of course.

A landline for customers to call someone if they are feeling threatened, that same landline that they said was not needed because of the safety aspect of their App.

If a driver receives too many complaints, they will inform licensing of them when they deactivate his account.

If licensing require the GPS trail of a driver who may have been plying for hire then they will supply that information when asked, just like all operators already do, its called a Section 73 but I am sure Mr Kolvin knew this.

A couple of Air Quality tick boxes were also thrown in for good measure, because every council is on a mission for emissions.

Making all UberX vehicles to be Hybrid by 2020 and all electric by 2024, at the customers expense which they failed to mention, but it made them look good.

Installing a charge point infrastructure for the electric vehicles that they will consider the public to be allowed to use also, why not, they did pay for them after all.

So, from this speech, and a great speech it was too, the Licensing Sub Committee (for those that are not familiar, the sub committee is 3 councilors and a legal advisor) got to ask some questions of Uber.

Now, I have to say that at this point I knew what the outcome was going to be, I have represented drivers for minor issues who were asked more questions than Uber were asked in that meeting.

One of the questions that was asked however was who accepts the booking and Mr Kolvin stated that it is Uber that accept the booking and not the driver and that what is happening in London is not relevant to Sheffield because the 98 Act and the 76 Act are different, of course there was no mention of the App being the same though.

I had submitted a 52 page document to Sheffield in objection to this license being granted and went to great detail in who invited and accepted the booking, I can only assume that it was not read, or if it was then was not understood.

We were all then asked to leave the room for the Sub Committee to make a decision on the license, no one was allowed to talk from the trade (from both sides of the argument)

While we waited, Mr Kolvin told me that I had spoilt his weekend with my objection paper (guess someone read it then) and that I made a great argument or words to that effect, I was pulling the knives from my back at the time.

Anyway, we all get called by in to be told the verdict...

Granted a five year license as applied for.

However.

Should the court cases that are under way prove to not go in Ubers favor, we will have no other option than to bring you before the committee to decide on what implications those decisions may have.

95% of the room had smiles from ear to ear, I had resignation throughout my whole body and waited for the fun and games to begin from the Uber Defense League that to be fair to them was nothing as bad as I expected, I had already reached for my bull shit deflectors and had them at the ready, so fair play to them.

 

This is myself after the decision with Nadeem Najib and Mick Swift who drive for Uber in Sheffield

 

Now, lets look at what happens next, it gets a little interesting.

The following day, Uber drop their appeal against the decision in York, why?

Was it because the last thing Uber wanted is for the court to go against Uber and Sheffield have them back in?

This is no disrespect to the Associations in York who put up a grand fight, but do Uber consider Sheffield more important than York?

Perhaps, they have according to Mr Kolvin 400 drivers licensed by Sheffield on the Uber platform that I beg to differ, because they include part time drivers who also work on other companies too. 

Full time drivers, I would estimate to be around 200 but 400 always sounds better when the mindset is that a decision may put 400 drivers out of work, or more importantly deciding that 400 drivers work for more traditional and legal taxi companies but that never gets mentioned.

Then comes the news of Uber stating that they have updated their App so that customers know that a booking is now accepted by Uber London Limited, however, they have not updated their terms and Conditions, so even if a miracle of code writing has occurred, Uber are still not held accountable by the customer should anything happen.

I wonder what’s next, will Mr Kolvin advise Uber to ‘assist’ the drivers who pleaded not guilty for Plying for Hire in Reading so that Uber once again keep the process of their platform out of court, perhaps, they are after all spending £160,000 on drivers who worked in Sheffield while licensed in such as Wolverhampton (that’s another story), London and Rossendale.

The fact is, as time goes by, Uber can recode what they want, toshow what they want while the system still in effect works as it always has, again both here and abroad.

I will keep this one shorter than usual, but I am going to put a request out to (in no particular order) Steve Wright (UPHD), Trevor Merrills (UCG), Grant Davies (LCDC), Steve McNamara (LTDA) Steve Garelick (GMB).

Please, stop the infighting, stop the bigotry and work together for the TfL case coming up in June, just 13 or so weeks away.

The trade look to you for guidance, help and support. They don’t want to hear all the negative arguments between the Organisations. The trade’s subs go towards fighting for them not towards fighting between each other, if you want a pissing contest then do it on your own time and not at the expense of the drivers.

I have done all I can on shirt buttons lads, do what you can with what you have in those chests, share the cost. The drivers will respect you more for a hard fight and spending every penny than no fight and having a chest full of dusty fivers.

It’s down to London now, I can’t afford a Judicial Revue, unless there is a benefactor out there that believes in my fight and what I fight for….

3 month, that’s all we have left, the government is not going to help, the councils can’t afford to help and the trade doesn’t seem to want to help themselves.

In a society filled with the best lawyers and state of the art technology it's obscene to just let this trade wither away and die.

Every driver is covered by an insurance policy that they paid good money for, not a lot of money but good honest money, their licenses and their subs.

I am alone in this fight, seriously outgunned and I am scared…but I am right and I swear revenge…

Be lucky out there and stay safe.

Wardy

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2pfLXda
via IFTTT

Other News updates from TfL

Cross border hiring

We've published a proposal for legislative change relating to cross border hiring. 

Read it here 

OnRoute

The latest issue of OnRoute magazine includes articles about managing stress and anxiety, checking your rented private hire vehicle, test driving the new TX eCity, and useful advice on where you can and cannot park in the Capital.

 Read Here

Results of Oxford Street transformation consultation

With more than 22,000 consultation responses received, plans to transform Oxford Street and the surrounding area into an unrivalled place to live, work and visit have received widespread support. Read the full report here 

New electric vehicle charging points

Source London has announced a partnership with LEVC that means black cab drivers can benefit from discounted charging rates and a limited-time welcome offer of a free one-year membership. 

Read here

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2tXV6Mr
via IFTTT

TfL To Change Legislation In Order To Suit Private Hire Ride Share Apps.

After the recent exposes from Tim Fenton, which shows us that not only have Uber been operating illegally all along, but that TfL knew about this, did and said nothing in a massive cover up. 

We now find that TfL are actively changing the regulations to suit Ride Sharing App companies. 

Can't confirm to existing legislation....no problem we'll just change it to suit you !

TfL has published a new policy statement setting out how private hire and ride-sharing services can operate in the Capital :-

This is in response to changes in the private hire industry and the many new services being offered. 

It has been designed to ensure London remains the world leader in regulating taxi and private hire services while maintaining the safety of passengers.

The private hire and ride-sharing market has been transformed in recent years as new technology has made it easier and cheaper to book rides through apps, resulting in a significant increase in the number of people opting to use private hire services. An increasing number of services are also emerging in London that include ride-sharing, in which passengers share vehicles and pay separate fares.

Current legislation was introduced before these technologies were developed and TfL recognises the need for clarity on what is now required to ensure the highest possible standards are maintained.

Helen Chapman, 'Interim' Director of Licensing, Regulation and Charging, said: ‘The private hire market is unrecognisable from when current legislation was introduced. The growth of ride-sharing and other advances mean that regulation has to be fit for the next decade and not the last. 

Our vision sets out clearly how we will manage these new developments that improve convenience for customers, while ensuring safety remains our top priority. The document also makes clear that any new developments in the sector have to fit with the objectives of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy.’

With companies illegally licensed, passenger sexual attacks including rapes from PH drivers up by 50%, data hacking, tracking passengers after they've left the vehicle, the GreyBall program, customer credit card fraud and massive increases in road traffic accidents, TFL's record to date is shockingly poor!

TfL is already progressing new regulations to assess private hire drivers and applicants on safeguarding, disability, equality and knowledge of private hire legislation as part of an enhanced driver assessment package.

It is also already considering proposals

for consultation in relation to an advanced driving test, private hire operator fleet insurance and private hire vehicle signage, and the impact of removing the Congestion Charge exemption for private hire vehicles.

To ensure regulation keeps up with the rapidly evolving private hire sector, licences may be issued for shorter periods during the programme of regulatory reform. Any advances in convenience for the customer have to be accompanied by the appropriate protections for passengers. 

Taxi Leaks Extra Bit : 

There have been calls for motorbikes to be able to use the capitals new system of segregated cycle lanes in order to bring down the shocking number of fatalities to riders and passengers. 

Can't wait to see the reaction from the cycle lobby when they find out they may have to share their cycle super highways with scooters, mopeds and motorbikes. 

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2HAFnEH
via IFTTT

Safety Campaigners Allege TfL Withheld Key Audit Report From Tram CrashInvestigators

A transport safety campaigner has accused Transport for London of suppressing vital information related to the causes of the Sandilands tram crash by keeping secret an audit report into the events of November 9, 2016, even to the point of not releasing the information to its own investigation into the fatal derailment.

Seven people were killed and all 62 other passengers on board sustained injuries when a tram travelling from New Addington to Wimbledon left the tracks on a sharp bend approaching the Sandilands stop 18 months ago.

Now, transport campaigner Tom Kearney, has accused TfL of withholding a key report, from June last year, from the official Rail Accident Investigation Board and its own internal investigators. 

The report was a safety audit of the fatigue risk management system operated by FirstGroup, the company which operates the tram system on behalf of TfL. Driver fatigue was a key area of investigation into the causes of the Sandilands crash.

Tom Kearney: wants explanations

According to Kearney, “The description of the problems which prompted the nine  management actions detailed in TfL’s excellent internal audit conducted in June 2017 and published on September 15 last year reads like ‘Nine Billboards in Front of Croydon Town Hall’.

“If TfL management were truly interested in understanding the origins of the Croydon tram crash, I cannot think of any reason why they insisted that this document be issued as ‘restricted and confidential’ to only a handful of managers.

“And why they did not make this important piece of evidence available to the RAIB and their own independent investigator in time for their own investigations completed last December and January.

“I am especially concerned that Leon Daniels, until recently TfL’s managing director for surface transport, told a TfL safety panel that the audit, ‘did not give rise to any concerns’.  

“If that’s indeed the case, then why was the audit not released, at least to the investigators?”

Leon Daniels: he should face scrutiny questions in Croydon next week

A question submitted last month to Mayor’s Question Time by London Assembly Member Caroline Pidgeon revealed that Internal Audit IA 17 1780 – to give it its full titles – was  released to the RAIB, SNC Lavalin (the independent investigator brought in by TfL), the Office of Rail and Road and British Transport Police only on February 12 this year.

Pidgeon has followed up with another MQT asking why the audit wasn’t released sooner. This is due to get a response by the end of this month.

Next week, Sean Fitzsimons, the Addiscombe councillor who chairs the council’s scrutiny committee, is holding a session at the Town Hall on the tram network, including the Sandilands crash. Kearney has suggested that Fitzsimons should invite Daniels to answer questions about the withheld audit report and the reasons for its delayed release.

Kearney asked: “Improving the safety culture of TfL surface transport will depend on such public scrutiny from our elected representatives. Just think about it: how many more “Internal Audit IA 17-1780s” are gathering dust in TfL filing cabinets?”

Tom Kearney is an award-winning public transport safety campaigner, himself a survivor of a TfL bus crash, who can be found on Twitter @comadad 

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2GsYfpU
via IFTTT

Uber Britannia Limited withdraws York licence appeal

Uber Britannia Limited (UBL) today withdrew its appeal against the decision by York City Council (December 12 2017) refusing to renew its PHV operator’s licence.

Background & Chronology

On 24 December 2015 The City of York Council issued a 12-month PHV operator’s licence to UBL. On 21 December 2016 the council’s Licensing and Regulatory Committee renewed UBL’s York PHV operator’s licence for a further period of 12 months (i.e. expiring on 23 December 2017).

Between the 2016 renewal of UBL’s licence and consideration of the 2017 application for further renewal, York Council received a substantial number of complaints relating to Uber drivers/vehicles operating in York. A significant number of these complaints were that ‘out of town’ Uber driver and vehicles (i.e. licensed by authorities other than York) were plying for hire in York.

Complaints about ‘out of town’ Uber drivers working in York included complaints about drivers/vehicles licensed by:

• Bradford: 44 complaints.
• Leeds: 33 complaints.
• Kirklees: 10 complaints.
• Rossendale: 6 complaints.
• Newcastle upon Tyne: 5 complaints.

In each of the above instances, the relevant licensed operator was UBL.

By letter dated 6 December 2017 the York Taxi Section wrote to York Council to draw its attention to reports of a worldwide data breach in which some 57 million Uber account-holders’ personal details, and some 600,000 Uber driver details were stolen by hackers in October 2016. The letter pointed in particular to –

• Uber’s payment of $100,000 ‘ransom money’ to the criminal hackers.
• Uber’s failure to report the crime to the police or regulators.
• Uber’s failure to inform the victims of the data breach until a year later.
• Uber’s remaining silent about the breach during its discussions with TfL when consideration was being given to the renewal of Uber’s (ULL) London PHV operator’s licence.

Other objections by York PHV associations

The York Hackney Carriage Drivers Association and the York Private Hire Association and (among many others) appeared at the licensing hearing on 12 December 2017 to object to the renewal of UBL’s licence. The issues raised by the associations included:-

• that the Uber business model unlawfully requires PHV bookings in York to be accepted by Uber drivers;
• that Uber drivers licensed by other authorities were working in York on the Uber platform (“the cross-border issue”) in the full knowledge of UBL and at their behest;
• that traffic and parking issues arose as a result of these activities;
• that UBL were unable to explain who passengers contract with or who accepted bookings;
• that Uber’s activities affected the physical and online safety of its customers;
• that when questioned by other authorities about its operating model, UBL withdraw applications;
• that evidence has been given by Uber in the Aslam litigation and elsewhere that bookings were backfilled by Uber after they had been accepted by drivers;
• that driver involvement in the booking process contravened a standard condition imposed by the Council on PHV operator’s licences that an operator is not permitted to accept bookings forwarded by a PHV driver;
• that inadequate background safety checks were carried out by UBL; and
• that Uber have improperly used ‘Greyball’ and other software to restrict access to data when regulatory checks were carried out by authorities.

The decision

After deliberating in open session, York’s Regulatory and Licensing Committee refused (by majority) to renew UBL’s York PHV operator’s licence under section 62(1)(b) LGMPA 1976, namely “conduct on the part of the operator which appears to the district council to render him unfit to hold an operator’s licence.” The committee’s reasons may be summarised –

• The failure by Uber to inform the relevant authorities until November 2017 of a serious data breach that occurred in 2016 (and which affected York users of the Uber App) rendered UBL unfit to hold a PHV operator’s licence.
• The increasing number of complaints received by York Council about private hire vehicles operated by UBL and driving in York gave rise to concerns about the proper management by UBL of its drivers.

Additional grounds of refusal under section 62 of the LGMPA 1976

Section 62 of the LGMPA 1976 provides: –

62   (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Part of this Act a district council may… (on application therefor under section 55 of this Act) refuse to renew an operator’s licence on any of the following grounds: —

• any offence under, or non-compliance with, the provisions of this Part of this Act;
• any conduct on the part of the operator which appears to the district council to render him unfit to hold an operator’s licence;
• [material change in circumstances of operator; conviction of immigration offence, etc.]; or
• any other reasonable cause.

If the appeal had not been withdrawn, the associations would have submitted that there were compelling grounds for the refusal of UBL’s operator’s licence under section 62(1)(a) and 62(1)(d).

The Appeal: applications by York PHV associations to participate

UBL appealed the decision to the magistrates’ court. The York Hackney Carriage Drivers Association and the York Private Hire Association were not statutory parties to the appeal: applications to participate were therefore made by them and were due to be heard by the Chief Magistrate on 20 March. The issues which the associations wished to raise included UBL’s non-compliance with the Act (section 62(1)(a)) and the undermining of the principle of local licensing (section 62(1)(d)).

Non-compliance with the Act

It was the associations’ case that UBL actively sent Uber drivers, equipped with the Uber driver’s APP, to work on the Uber platform in controlled districts in which neither UBL nor the drivers are licensed under the 1976 Act. In so doing, UBL were potentially guilty of offences under section 46(1)(d) – i.e. making provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings in a controlled district without holding a licence from that district. Section 62(1)(a) is triggered.

Other reasonable grounds for refusing to renew

The associations also claimed that UBL encourageddrivers not licensed by York to carry out PHV bookings in York (where UBL hold an operator’s licence). Further, that UBL similarly encouraged drivers to go to other controlled districts in which they, but not the drivers, are licensed, in order to wait for PHV bookings. The associations would have submitted that UBL’s active encouragement and employment of ‘out of town’ drivers who are not subject to York’s licensing requirements seriously undermined the principle of local licensing control that underpins the legislation. Section 62(1)(d) is triggered.

In Shanks v North Tyneside Borough Council[1]Latham LJ said that a central purpose of the 1976 Act is “that the authorities responsible for granting licences should have the authority to exercise full control” over all vehicles and drivers being operated within its area. In Blue Line Taxis v Newcastle upon Tyne City Council[2] Hickinbottom J said that “the hallmark of the licensing regulatory regime was localism.”

Notwithstanding representations by the associations, local councillors and committee members expressing concern at the undermining of local control and the lowering of locally imposed standards because of an influx of ‘out of town’ drivers, the licensing committee was advised that their decision was “not about the arguments for and against drivers out of town operating in the City.”. The licensing committee was further told that their decision was “solely about” whether UBL was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The licensing committee does not appear to have been referred to the grounds of refusal given by section 62(1)(a) & (d).

If anyone want an LTR window stick send your address by DM to @mirna0405 and we’ll get one sent out to you.

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2FB2P8q
via IFTTT