Dangerous Drivers (especially cabs)

slink85

dacouch wrote: »

The data gathering is a bonus, the real reason for Uber is to establish the brand in readiness for the driver less cars /cabs. Once they're introduced, Uber will not need to use other drivers or their vehicles, it will just run a fleet of it's own driver less cabs and massively increase it's profit.

Driver less cars are inevitable and in densely populated and congested cities such as London, the authorities will be welcoming to them than you believe as they will reduce congestion and accidents.

I'm not sure what your comment about slavery has to do with a driver less car unless you believe an intel microchip can be enslaved

never going to happen in our lifetime, driverless cars without a 'real' driver is a thing of fantasy.

bigjl

BykerSands wrote: »

Maybe a better upbringing would have got you some manors and a better education would have seen you in a job able to support your family with one job.

But do keep up the insults as your post contain more to them then evidence to back up your poor arguements.

Well my education was good enough to know how to spell "manners" and "arguments"

Actually what does your second sentence actually mean?

You could always ask an adult for help.

If you think that they were "insults" then I was indeed correct, you have led a very sheltered life.

The life of a keyboard warrior very probably.

You probably have multiple sign ins so you can support your own misguided opinions on life.

bigjl

Bipex wrote: »

Thanks to those who helped with answers to my enquiry.

Then what happened?? Some kind of mud-slinging debate seems to have taken off!

Anyway, I will post what results from the reportage of the incident. For the record, no obvious company signage was on the cab.

You will struggle to get much done.

If no actual damage occurred the Police will not be interested and as many PH cars in London are rented it is not easy to actually track down the driver.

The car could have been rented to one person and been driven by another.

It is getting more common for PH drivers to allow family members to use their car, often with the family member not being a PH driver.

Unfortunately London is becoming more and more like the Wild West.

Which is why I would advise anybody that has to travel into Central London to consider a DashCam of some kind.

They are cheap and priceless when you have an accident of have a near miss/witness something like dangerous driving.

There have been convictions resulting from DashCam footage.

I wouldn't worry unduly about the mudslinging.

It does appear that some people are unable to accept when they know less about something than others.

If I don't know something about a subject I read and learn, not try and attack those offering their opinion based on their own experiences.

bigjl

BykerSands wrote: »

All in his head.

Yes my knowledge is all in my head.

Where else EXACTLY would it be?

In Wikipedia?

Which is I suspect where you get most of your information.

bigjl

dacouch wrote: »

I don't believe London's roads will be a problem that the technology will not be able to overcome especially in a city such as London where there is big money to be made. Even if the technology has issues with certain roads it would not be difficult for them to program their systems to send a human driver to a job that includes a road the driver less car cannot use.

The possible use by criminals will have no or little impact on driver less cars. If the potential use by criminals was an issue for technology the government would ban PAYG mobile phonesn an PAYG credit cards etc.

The unaccompanied (No passenger) use of the vehicles for the delivery of drugs or guns is fairly easy to overcome by only allowing the door to be opened from the inside.

If you mean drugs and guns being delivered with a passenger in the vehicle, then it would be no different to now where it can be carried out in a Black Cab, PH or Uber.

The vandalism & vomiting etc in the vehicle is not that big an issue as the incidences will be relatively low but even when they do happen the software can just allow the passenger to reject the vehicle and another clean vehicle be sent in replacement.

With driverless cars introduced the rates will be slow that here will be no more drivers in cars.

And no I don't mean with a passenger in the car.

The guns and drugs etc would just be dropped into the vehicle, just like criminals used to do with couriers back in the 80's and 90's.

They would phone any number of small courier firms and book a motorbike for cash on pickup.

Criminals rarely put themselves in the frame.

Unless they are low level like Mark Duggan, who was put in the frame so somebody could get themselves out of trouble. In fact most Police operations that involve a hard stop are as a result of an informant.

Low level criminals use PH vehicle for errands all the time, in similar ways that they use Hire Cars hired under bogus names.

As far as the door only being opened from the inside that wouldn't work as the car could be involved in a collision and under Taxi/PH Licencing regs at the moment all the doors have to work correctly.

And anyway it is easy enough to smash a window.

That is before you look at the interaction between vehicles and pedestrians and also cyclists and motorcyclists.

They would have to set them up to always be cautious, which means getting out of some junctions would be nearly impossible and mini roundabouts would be something else that would cause delays.

They may well work well in a grid system like New York.

But London?

Sorry can't see them working.

Inexperienced PH drivers with SatNavs cause enough havoc.

bigjl

Nodding_Donkey wrote: »

The PH game in London was dying long before Uber came along. Uber is just the latest excuse the LTDA has to demonise minicabs.

PH wasn't dying but there was very little flexibility for drivers.

Uber gave driver this flexibility for a while.

Sadly it was a Bait&Switch and they very soon changed the rules, dropped the rates and soon after dropped the standards.

The LTDA only seem interested in paying lip service whilst working toward the personal agendas of senior people in the Association.

The LPHCA are only interested in making PH drivers stick with one company so that that company can do what they like when they like.

Which is why LPHCA only have Operators as members and are closely linked to Addison Lee.

GMB were thought to be driver orientated but unfortunately that was not how things progressed.

One senior member is using GMB to attack Uber due to them affecting his own business interests.

As far as the other Taxi trade Organisations goes they seem more interested in fighting amongst themselves.

Twitter is full of Taxi drivers that sometimes post up stuff that could be considered racist.

Which is a shame as it means when other Cabbies post information or pictures of PH drivers doing dangerous and stupid things they have less credibility than they should.

BykerSands

bigjl wrote: »

PH wasn't dying but there was very little flexibility for drivers.

Uber gave driver this flexibility for a while.

Sadly it was a Bait&Switch and they very soon changed the rules, dropped the rates and soon after dropped the standards.

The LTDA only seem interested in paying lip service whilst working toward the personal agendas of senior people in the Association.

The LPHCA are only interested in making PH drivers stick with one company so that that company can do what they like when they like.

Which is why LPHCA only have Operators as members and are closely linked to Addison Lee.

GMB were thought to be driver orientated but unfortunately that was not how things progressed.

One senior member is using GMB to attack Uber due to them affecting his own business interests.

As far as the other Taxi trade Organisations goes they seem more interested in fighting amongst themselves.

Twitter is full of Taxi drivers that sometimes post up stuff that could be considered racist.

Which is a shame as it means when other Cabbies post information or pictures of PH drivers doing dangerous and stupid things they have less credibility than they should.

You keep spouting this rubbish but cannot back it up.

dacouch

bigjl wrote: »

Twitter is full of Taxi drivers that sometimes post up stuff that could be considered racist.

As are Black Cabs

Car_54

bigjl wrote: »

PH wasn't dying but there was very little flexibility for drivers.

Uber gave driver this flexibility for a while.

Sadly it was a Bait&Switch and they very soon changed the rules, dropped the rates and soon after dropped the standards.

The LTDA only seem interested in paying lip service whilst working toward the personal agendas of senior people in the Association.

The LPHCA are only interested in making PH drivers stick with one company so that that company can do what they like when they like.

Which is why LPHCA only have Operators as members and are closely linked to Addison Lee.

GMB were thought to be driver orientated but unfortunately that was not how things progressed.

One senior member is using GMB to attack Uber due to them affecting his own business interests.

As far as the other Taxi trade Organisations goes they seem more interested in fighting amongst themselves.

Twitter is full of Taxi drivers that sometimes post up stuff that could be considered racist.

Which is a shame as it means when other Cabbies post information or pictures of PH drivers doing dangerous and stupid things they have less credibility than they should.

So: None of Uber, LDTA, LPHCA, GMB, "all the other Taxi trade Organisations" and the Twitter users agree with you.

That doesn't mean you're wrong ... or paranoid ...

Hermione_Granger

bigjl wrote: »

Which is why LPHCA only have Operators as members and are closely linked to Addison Lee.

So the LPHCA only have operators as members?
Maybe that is because the LPHCA is an association that was formed to represent private hire operators so who else do you expect them to have as members?