To not understand the point of black cabs now?

[Userlavender]

Aside from all the uber controversy (i use addison lee and local minicabs) can someone please tell me - what is the point of black cabs in 2017?!

They are insanely expensive, surely the knowledge is irrelevant now that everyone has satnav and they love going the long way round to get extra £££? This has happened to me a few times. Cab to the airport using my local minicab which sends driver details and tracking is £18. With a black cab the estimate is 'about £80'. Surely they are no longer sustainable due to prices? Am I missing something? Who are all these people who pay black cabs their ridiculous prices?

itsoverpeople No black cab drivers are going to be forced to drive a diesel vehicle when the low emission charges come in. They are all allowed to get electric ones. Of course, they aren't going to be charged the low emissions charge, so there will be less incentive for them to change over quickly but, fortunately, taxpayers payers are going to be funding subsidies to try and balance out that lack of incentive. Hurrah! ( )

There are no electric vehicles that a taxi driver could buy and drive in London. Therefore it's unfair to complain about polluting black cabs. As I already pointed out many older cabs now run on LPG.

BoomBoom So as of now today they are forced to drive diesel vehicles or pay £10,000 for an LPG conversion.

By the end of the year one model will be available but even if every driver could afford one (the list price starts at £55,000) now there isn't the capacity to produce that many.

The headline about subsidies apply to drivers swapping in a diesel cabs as and when an electric option is available.

Taxis are allowed to be a maximum of 15 years old. If you swap a cab at the end of its life then there are no subsidies.

If you are swapping a cab that still has five years left on its plate and may have set you back the best part of £50,000 to purchase then I think it's fair to offer an incentive?

Here's a link I hope works to the new electric taxi to replace diesel ones, which should all be phased out by 2032 I think.

www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/3014907/levc-opens-order-book-for-gbp55-600-electric-black-taxis

If you are swapping a cab that still has five years left on its plate and may have set you back the best part of £50,000 to purchase then I think it's fair to offer an incentive?

Yet that incentive is not given to minicab drivers, who, while they currently have a wider choice of vehicles, did not get more notice than Black cab drivers and will not get any relief or subsidy.

I'm not trying to say it's the same thing and Black cab drivers are in exactly the same position as minicab drivers. But I very much disagree that Black cabs should be exempt from charges and that taxpayers should be subsidizing the conversion. The costs of regulation and compliance for both Black Cabs and minicabs should come out of the revenue they generate, not from all the residents of London (either through suffering greater emissions, lost emission charges revenue or tax subsidies).

If you are swapping a cab that still has five years left on its plate and may have set you back the best part of £50,000 to purchase then I think it's fair to offer an incentive?

Few will pay the amount in full, the majority will do what they already do: lease or HP for the cab. Autotrader report they expect 90% to lease with deals starting at £177 and the new cab offers fuel savings of £100 a week.

I don't see a need for an incentive when they are likely to make massive savings on fuel.

I thought Uber were great at first, and have used them a few times......... Never again. The last time I used them I got the correct make of car, the correct reg, but when I got in the car it was 100% not the correct driver. That was not the first time either. Another time the same thing........ Correct car, right reg, but it was being driven by a woman, when it should have been a man! Lovely lady, but obviously did not have a P.C.O licence, or hire and reward insurance, and it was all very illegal. Uber have not got a clue who is driving their customers around. You could be in the car with some rapist. Very worrying indeed. There have been lots of sex attacks on woman, and that is why the police told the P.C.O and TFL not to licence them. Quite often their cars stink, the drivers English is poor, and when in London, and their sat navs lose reception they don't have a clue where their going. One driver I had fell asleep because he had been working for so long. The congestion caused by them in central London is shockingl

On the other hand, black cabs are expensive, but offer a far superior service. Mostly I use my local mini-cab firm. Their minimum fair is cheaper than Uber, and the same for longer jobs.The people in the office have a relationship with their drivers, they know who they are, at some point during their shift they will see them outside, or inside the office, or speak to them on the phone, and therefore they know the driver who is supposed to be in the car is. Unlike Uber. My DH knows an Uber driver, and yes, he is P.C.O licenced, and has had a police check and medical and has hire and reward insurance etc etc. However, he admits that he allows his two brothers to work using his car and app and they have nothing. Uber know this, but do nothing. Very disturbing..........

Uber are bullies, and think because they have billion dollar backers they can do want they want. Up until now they have got away with it, but don't believe their b***t. Once this gets to court it will all come out.

What really makes me puke is their faux concern for their drivers welfare, when in truth they treat their drivers like dirt. Not only that, but they are investing hundreds of millions in driverless technology. Their end game is to have no drivers at all, and I promise you, they wont care about them then. Uber are losing billions at the moment, their investors are getting very nervous now.

Tourists

Minicabs are exempt from the high emission charge. If you can pick up a second hand hybrid for under 6 grand why the need for an incentive?

I'm not trying to convince anyone to use black cabs. I have my reasons why I do and you have a choice.

The playing field is not level as things stand. By all means have the debate about the solution being reduced regulation on the incumbent service but don't try to convince me that things are fair now.

There are no electric vehicles that a taxi driver could buy and drive in London. Therefore it's unfair to complain about polluting black cabs. As I already pointed out many older cabs now run on LPG.

Why not? The complaint, obviously, should not be levelled at black cabs themselves, but to the body preventing them from buying electric vehicles.

Anyone who is slightly concerned about 40,000 people losing their jobs don't be. Uber are in court this morning trying to deny these 40,000 any right to minimum wage, sick pay and holiday pay.

In the event uber do lose their licence there are 2,400 other minicab firms in London.

You may have to pay a bit more so they don't have to drive for 18 hours straight but if that bothers you then I don't really think the existence of black cabs is your biggest problem.

Itsoverpeople
Anyone who is slightly concerned about 40,000 people losing their jobs don't be. Uber are in court this morning trying to deny these 40,000 any right to minimum wage, sick pay and holiday pay. Whilst TFL and the unions are trying to deny 40,000 drivers their livelihood.

They are not "denying their right", Uber (and many of us self-employed people like them) would argue we work for ourselves, there is no "minimum wage" for the self-employed and never has been, we don't get "sick pay and holiday pay" and never have, we can work whenever we want and forever we want, we are our own employer, not anybody else. So all this "rights" is a load of rubbish.

Uber (and many of us) are arguing that self-employed drivers who have no employment contract with Uber, and can leave at the drop of a hat, and can work for anyone they want to are... self-employed drivers.

so they don't have to drive for 18 hours straight How is Uber making anybody drive for 18 hours straight?

Sorry to burst your self employed bubble but you are not self employed because it suits uber to say you are. You are not self employed because you yourself believe you are.

Your employment status is defined by the work that you do. Uber set and control all the terms. A self employed person would be free to negotiate.

Whilst no-one is forced to work 18 hour days, the fixed costs involved in driving for uber are such that when held against potential revenues it is often the case that many drivers work a standard week before there is any oppotunity for profit.

this sums up most of the issues.

I would read the full judgement in the original tribunal. It is scathing of Uber's business practices.

Uber's cause is not one that anyone should be defending.

@Franklin......... Don't even try to defend Uber. They are a nasty, immoral company. They know it, I know it, and in truth you know it.

The only reason that certain people defend them is because they don't want to lose their Uber slave.

They're not fit for purpose, and in reality, they are not safe to use. Very dodgy.......

Itsoverpeople Sorry to burst your self employed bubble Oh don't worry, you really, really haven't.

but you are not self employed because it suits uber to say you are. You are not self employed because you yourself believe you are. I am self employed, thanks. As for Uber drivers, they do work for a company/several companies with which there is no employment contract. As I do. I employ myself and port my labour to whoever I want, whenever I want, as Uber drivers do.

Uber set and control all the terms. Could you explain precisely how they set and control all the terms, when any Uber driver can leave whenever they want, drive as few hours as they want, do whatever shifts they want, and work for any other minicab/black cab or any other work providers or employers or study at a university or organise their day however they want?

A self employed person would be free to negotiate. Negotiate what exactly? How can a negotiate number of hours worked when Uber only requests you work 1 shift a month and nothing else? What on earth are you talking about? Negotiate what?

Uber's cause is not one that anyone should be defending. Thankfully, it's not up to you to dictate what I should think. Like Uber drivers, unless the unions and Khan destroys their livelihoods, I am free to do what I want with my thoughts and aspirations.

How exactly do you believe someone who has no employment contract, can stop working for a client instantly, can work whenever and wherever they want, can work for competitors, can pick and choose to offer a service at their own whim and who doesn't have to give notice when they want to leave, is an employee of a company?????

bridgetoc @Franklin......... Don't even try to defend Uber. They are a nasty, immoral company. They know it, I know it, and in truth you know it. Please stop dictating what you believe I am allowed to think, and assuming you know what I know. You don't.

The only reason that certain people defend them is because they don't want to lose their Uber slave. Again, no. I have only used Uber twice in my life, once in London and once in Holland. Both times the car was organised by clients of mine. What are you on about?

**Franklin I linked to a document which clearly explains the uber drivers cannot be self employed due to the nature of the work they undertake.

It seems you would rather than take the time to read it (even skim read it?) you would like me to re-read it and then explain it for you.

This might be Mumsnet but I am not your Mother!

I am working so if you can't be bothered you'll have to wait until this evening for me to spoon feed you.

If I haven't burst your self employed bubble then look up the legal definition of a worker.

You mah we'll be self-employed. Uber drivers most certainly are not.

* you may well*

itsoverpeople Franklin I linked to a document...if you can't be bothered you'll have to wait... for me to spoon feed you. Here we go again, another poster who, when asked for their thoughts, don't have any so link to a document, and then when you ignore that (because it's not your thoughts is it?) they come out with the whole "do you want me to read it for you?" wet as a lettuce reply.

Now then, back to my questions to you to back up accusations you have made (in the same ilk as you claiming they have to work 18 hours a day before admitting they don't have to):
Could you explain precisely how they set and control all the terms? No?
Negotiate what exactly? Nothing?
How exactly do you believe someone who has no employment contract, can stop working for a client instantly, can work whenever and wherever they want, can work for competitors, can pick and choose to offer a service at their own whim and who doesn't have to give notice when they want to leave, is an employee of a company????? Do you have your own thoughts, or are you just full of links to other peoples'?

Why are my thoughts on uber drivers being self employed relevant to you? It has been tested in the courts. The link you refuse to read is not the uninformed opinion in some article. It is a court judgement giving uber drivers the status of "worker".

In the evidence presented to court which you refuse to read, drivers gave witness statements outlining the amount of hours you would need to work to make any money. In my original comment I didn't say uber force anyone to work set hours or excessive hours.

That said if someone is earning in the region of £3.70 an hour after expenses (in the link you refuse to read) then the compulsion to increase the hours worked is quite strong. If in your self employed work as a (insert occupation) you were paid so poorly you couldn't pay your bills. I believe that in the absence of better remunerated work you would "have" to work more and more to meet your commitments.

If the expenses are mostly fixed then the amount of hours you work after meeting those costs means you profit more once you work 60, 70 or even 91 hours a week (again all in the link I sent).

You can keep telling me they are self employed. I trust the judgement of the court and would be (having been bothered to read the judgement) amazed if it were overturned without a huge change in Uber's business model.

Since I now know you won't read the judgement here is a quote covering what you are desperate to know but refuse to read yourself...

“The notion that Uber in London is a mosaic of 30,000 small businesses linked by a common ‘platform’ is to our minds faintly ridiculous.
“Drivers do not and cannot negotiate with passengers … They are offered and accept trips strictly on Uber’s terms.”

Drivers are not even given the courtesy of knowing the destination before accepting the fare.

Drivers are penalised for refusing fares.

Drivers are penalised for driving a route different from that specified by Uber.

Subject to an appeal you are wrong about this. We have sub-contractors who carry out work for us. We changed the way we operate following a similar tribunal against Pimlico Plumbers which I will now link to but know you won't bother reading go on read it! It will only take a few minutes!

At our firm and certainly at Pimlico plumbers the self definition of self employed can be beneficial to both parties. That doesn't mean they are in reality self employed.

I should add that you seem to believe that working one day and then the next not at all or for someone else = self employed. It doesn't.

Itsoverpeople Why are my thoughts on uber drivers being self employed relevant to you? What?! Because you have made statements about Uber and the way it treats drivers on MN, and we are both on this thread.

It has been tested in the courts. The link you refuse to read is not the uninformed opinion in some article. It is a court judgement giving uber drivers the status of "worker". I know it's been tested in the courts. Uber is appealing. What difference does that make to your beliefs and mine? You don't blindly believe every court judgment do you? Do you believe the law is some static God-like rule that has to be blindly believed?

drivers gave witness statements outlining the amount of hours you would need to work to make any money. So what? We all have to work a minimum number of hours to make money. 18 hours a day, which is what you said is not needed to "make money" as an Uber driver. Why do you keep on lying?

Since I now know you won't read the judgement... refuse to read yourself...having been bothered to read the judgement Oh do grow up. I read the judgment when it came out. Oh dear, you didn't even bother to consider that did you? You just assumed I hadn't on the singular basis that I didn't take a court's ruling as your beliefs which underpin your arguments, which is why I ignored them. I repeat - sending links to other people's views when somebody asks you for yours is irrelevant. I'll always ignore replies like that.

Everything you listed are basic service levels that any client demands of a supplier. My clients and partners provide a list very similar to the blurb you just posted. I am still self employed. If I don't do certain things, I make them look bad and decrease the value of the service. It's a lie that Uber drivers cannot refuse a fare - what they cannot do is accept it and turn up and refuse to carry the passenger. You're complaining that Uber doesn't want drivers leaving passengers stranded, is that it? Unbelievable.

Subject to an appeal you are wrong about this. No, I am no wrong. I hold a view which many self employed do, and employers across the land, which is at odds with a recent court judgment. Big difference.

Black cabs have resisted modernisation for many years at their peril. I say that as a habitual black cab user for many years. Instead of blocking London, complaining bitterly to customers (like me) and putting ridiculous posters on the street misusing stats on sexual assault (they’ve been told to take them down) to help their cause they should have introduced card machines and an easy and consistently decent booking app years ago (not just last year) to start reflecting how customer operates these days.

I use all three: BC, Uber and Add Lee as each has its purpose. The extremely negative campaigning by black cab drivers didn’t do them any favours at all. That recent furore with the poster misusing sexual assault stats was particularly grating. In a bid to get at Uber they don’t mind using victims of assault as a prop. That paired with me getting into a black cab and having to listen to constant barrage of complaints heavily laced with xenophobic innuendo is just not an effective strategy of securing customers.

I took a black cab yesterday as I was stranded with my baby in a pushchair few miles from home and cancelled trains. The driver was polite, knowledgable, drove carefully. We got onto the subject of traffic and he said that he understood Uber drivers needing the work just as he does. When I left he gave me a leaflet with two apps for booking black cabs and a discount voucher off first booking. This was a refreshing and positive experience which restored some of my faith in the BC trade.

I'm wasting so much time on this

i know it's being tested in the courts. What difference does that make to your beliefs and mine

To your beliefs It clearly makes no difference. To mine it does. What informs your opinion exactly? You have offered nothing to this debate.

"Worker" is a legal status and has nothing to do with my opinion. I've already said that believing someone is self employed does not make it so.

You don't blindly believe every court judgment do you? Do you believe the law is some static God-like rule that has to be blindly believed?

No actually. Things are legal that I believe should be illegal and vice versa.

You may well believe uber drivers are self employed. Pending an appeal this is not the case. What matters is the consequences of the decision. If it is upheld then as far as the law is concerned it is "true".

I believe majuana should be legal. If I tried to tell the police that I believed it isn't illegal I could still be arrested.

You may not believe the law but there are consequences if you fail to follow it.

i read the judgement when it came out
you may have and I didn't consider that. However assuming that is true you've forgotten everything contained in it as you asked me to repeat it for you. As below

Could you explain precisely how they set and control all the terms? No?
Negotiate what exactly? Nothing?
How exactly do you believe someone who has no employment contract, can stop working for a client instantly, can work whenever and wherever they want, can work for competitors, can pick and choose to offer a service at their own whim and who doesn't have to give notice when they want to leave, is an employee of a company????? Do you have your own thoughts, or are you just full of links to other peoples'?

I don't really want to carry this on because you are telling me I'm wrong and the sole reason you give is that you believe it to be so.

Why did you claim that working for more than one person makes you self employed?

Why did you claim that being able to choose the hours of work make you self employed?

Why if you read and understood the judgement did you claim that they drivers wanted to be classified as employed when it's clear that that isn't true?

itsoverpeople You have offered nothing to this debate. Other than challenge your lies and ask you questions which you are incapable of answering.

"You don't blindly believe every court judgment do you? Do you believe the law is some static God-like rule that has to be blindly believed?"
No actually. Then why did you whinge and whinge that I should read a court judgment when I asked you for your beliefs?

You may not believe the law but there are consequences if you fail to follow it. What's that got to do with anything? Uber is challenging the judgement, nobody is not following the law. Whether I or Uber or others disagree with it has nothing to do with whatever you are rambling on about now.

you may have and I didn't consider that. No, you blindly went ahead assuming, didn't you?

However assuming that is true you've forgotten everything Oh, here we go again...

as you asked me to repeat it for you. Hello? Earth calling. No, I did not. I asked you to explain how they set all the terms. A couple of COMPLETELY NORMAL terms between supplier and client is not ALL THE TERMS. Do they set working hours? No. Do they state you have to work for Uber only? No. Do they state that a driver has to accept every fare even when it may not suit them? No. Etc, etc etc..

I see you can't answer my questions. Read your posts, you're one of those posters that bases so much on assuming you know all sorts of things about other posters, but you don't, yet you spend half your time arguing against things in your head. I haven't said or done most of the things you accuse me of, but it's so much easier to get angry at stuff you make up, and not reality, because other posters' questions asking you to justify your rants are just a bit too inconvenient and difficult to get your head round. Bye!