A taxi driver for the taxi service Uber died in a bizarre accident in Manhattan.



Police say a 58-year-old man stopped his SUV on Madison Avenue near East 49th Street and stepped out.

Authorities say the car then started to roll backward.

The driver tried to jump back into the front seat, but part of his body was still outside the car.
Police say an SUV then sideswiped a parked car, pinning the man in between before completely knocking him out of the vehicle.

One witness says the scene was chaotic.

“I thought this was a movie because it was just like, I’m crossing the street and this man is screaming in the middle of the street ‘Get out of the way!’ and there’s cars going in full reverse on the middle of 48th Street and Madison Avenue in the middle of a work day on a Thursday. I thought they were recording a movie and next thing you know there’s a man laying on the floor and it was severe. The whole place is still closed up,” said the witness.

The victim was taken to the hospital where he was pronounced dead.

In a statement, Uber said it was saddened by the loss and extended condolences to the the driver’s family.

Uber and Lyft told to shut down by Virginia as rows erupt worldwide

Uber ridesharing app
Uber told to ‘cease and desist’ by Virginia as it fights black-cab drivers in London. Photograph: Oli Scarff/Getty Images

Transport services Uber and Lyft have been ordered to shut down their operations in Virginia, the US’s 12th most populous state, in yet another tussle with authority for the internet-based companies.

The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) issued cease-and-desist letters to the two companies. It joins a long line of cities and states in the US and elsewhere, including London, where Uber in particular has faced legal challenges to its operations, which connect drivers and would-be riders via an app. Opponents say it is running an unlicensed taxi service – but Uber describes itself as a ride-sharing service, as does Lyft.

The motoring authority in Virginia, which has 8.2 million residents, previously fined both Uber and Lyft more than $35,000 (£20,800), claiming they were operating without proper permits under Virginia’s passenger carrier laws, which the state says applies to “any business that receives compensation to provide or facilitate transportation”.

“I am once again making clear that Uber must cease and desist operating in Viriginia until it obtains proper authority,” Richard Holcomb, commissioner of the Virginia DMV said in order sent to Uber on Thursday. Lyft was simultaneously sent the same letter.

“The DMV will issue civil penalties to Uber’s drivers that do not have authority to provide transportation for compensation,” Holcomb warned.

‘Uber’s operations are not ridesharing arrangements’

Uber, which has raised over $300m in venture capital, has long portrayed its business as being based on ride-sharing, and that it is simply “connecting riders to drivers”.

Uber approves drivers, and issues them with equipment in the form of an app. But they do not have in-car meters, which the company argues exempts it from taxi licensing laws. Riders choose a pickup point and destination; the driver takes them between the desired places, at which the rider leaves the car without paying the driver. Instead, Uber bills the rider, based on time and distance. Uber pays the driver.

However Holcomb says that Uber and Lyft must be licensed as a traditional taxi company.

“Uber’s operations are not ridesharing arrangements as defined in Virginia law because Uber receives compensation for its services,” said Holcomb.

But in a statement released to the Washington Post, Uber said: “Uber has been providing Virginians with safe, affordable and reliable transportation options for months and has continued to work in good faith with the DMV to create a regulatory framework for ridesharing. We look forward to continuing to work with the Virginia DMV to find a permanent home for ridesharing in the Commonwealth [of Virginia].”

Lyft said in a statement to the Washington Post: “We’ve reviewed state transportation codes and believe we are following the applicable rules. We’ll continue normal operations as we work to make policy progress.”

Fighting on many fronts

Virginia is not the first state or city in the US to take action against Uber and other app-based services. It has been banned in Portland, New Orleans and Miami. Houston, the US’s fourth-largest city with 2.6m people and the biggest not to allow Uber, is currently in a battle with the company, which has started to operate in the city but only on a no-fee basis. Houston legislation currently prohibits the app-based services operating for profit, and politicians there have not been pleased with Uber’s tactics.

Uber is also facing opposition in Maryland, with 5.2 million people, where the state’s chief public utility law judge said it must file an application to operate as a for-hire carrier – a traditional taxi company.

Outside the US Uber’s reception has been mixed. London’s cab drivers are currently in a row with the company and Transport for London (TfL) over what is and isn’t a taxi meter, which has been pushed to the high court.

Only London taxis can charge using a meter, but black-cab drivers claim Uber’s app – which tracks rides using GPS – is tantamount to a meter. TfL says it is not because the smartphone using the GPS is not physically attached to the cars.

The outcome at the high court will not only affect Uber’s London operations, but also its recently launched Manchester service.

Uber and Lyft had not responded to a Guardian request for comment by the time of publication.

 

Source: The Guardian

Taximen could stop lift-sharing apps getting a free ride here

 

USERS of ‘peer to peer’ car transportation rental apps may be facing a crackdown in Ireland, as regulators and taxi drivers start to take notice of booming online services.

As London taxi drivers continue to agitate against the private car hire app Uber, Irish taxi drivers are starting to complain about smartphone apps that allow people to organise lifts with laymen drivers.

Such ‘peer to peer’ driver services, including Wundercar, which launches in Dublin today, are starting to pop up following the success of accommodation equivalents such as Airbnb. However, some may be falling foul of the law here.

“In the case of an app-based or online service using unlicensed drivers or unlicensed vehicles, both the driver and the provider of the app or service are committing offences,” a spokesman for the National Transport Authority told the Irish Independent.

“The driver of the vehicle operating without both a driver and vehicle licence is liable to a fine of up to €5,000.”

That puts dozens of apps, including relative newcomers such as Wundercar or online services such as Carpooling.com, squarely in the transportation authority’s crosshairs.

Taxi drivers here say it’s not before time. Although not as militant as counterparts in London and Paris, where large demonstrations have either occurred or are planned, Dublin taxi drivers are starting to complain about the issue.

“It’s an aberration of the law and of fairness,” said Jerry Brennan, the national secretary of the National Irish Taxi Association (NITA). “There are so many of these things coming over the horizon and many are completely unregulated. It’s not for the sake of complaining, but unregulated cars really do open up a huge can of worms for passenger and vehicle safety.”

According to the National Transport Authority, Irish law allows “non-commercial” car sharing services “a limited exception” to the general licensing requirements “where any payment given to the driver does not exceed the fuel costs of the journey”. That is supposed to allow ordinary people to hitch lifts without criminalising the act of sharing the petrol or diesel costs.

It would also appear to give services such as Carpooling.com, which is set up across Europe to encourage non-commercial car-sharing, leeway to operate in Ireland.

However, even these services are viewed with suspicion by established Irish taxi drivers.

“I was disappointed that the NTA should allow this sort of thing,” said the NITA’s Jerry Brennan. “It’s still promoting a service that’s unlicensed.

“Look, every single taxi driver has to get his licence first, with background checks, then an exam with only 20pc pass rate.

“Then the appointed vehicle is NCT’d and tested again every year. It’s constantly under observation from 24 compliance officers. And this is all for the safety of the passenger. Honestly, nobody knows who might be driving some of these services. We think they could really be dangerous.”

However, taxi drivers here are less upset about Uber, the soaraway €12bn private car hire app, or taxi app Hailo. In Hailo’s case, it’s because the entire service was founded and run by taxi drivers. With Uber, it is partly because drivers of its fleet cars here are generally licensed in the same way as limousine drivers.

“Uber are not so much of a threat here,” said Brennan. “You don’t have 3,000 or 4,000 private hire vehicles here, partly because Irish law effectively did away with hackney drivers. That’s different from the UK, where private hire drivers still represent a large number of vehicles.”

But what about payment? Isn’t Uber’s mechanism – the payment of drivers through an app, depending on the length of the journey – not undermining the idea of a taxi meter?

“I’ve heard that claim,” said Brennan. “But when it comes to the law it’s a very different thing.”

The National Transport Authority says that it won’t be drawn into comment on “individual parties or individual cases”. However, it’s fairly clear about some ground rules.

“The offence in the case of the app provider may be, depending on circumstances, the provision of a booking service without what is known as a Dispatch Operator Licence,” a spokesman said. “If prosecuted and found guilty of such an offence, the fine is up to €50,000.”

– See more at: http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/news/taximen-could-stop-liftsharing-apps-getting-a-free-ride-here-30330116.html#sthash.G9ljg0o0.dpuf

Will Uber kill the black cab?

Black cabs – long a quintessential feature of London’s identity – are under threat from an American app that wants to change the way we order taxis in the UK and across the globe. So what do the drivers make of it?

Notting Hill in London

Cabbies are concerned that TfL has ‘given the nod’ to an American app that wants to change taxi ordering not just in London but the whole of Britain and the world. Photograph: Massimo Borchi/Corbis

I once suggested in print that the correct collective noun for London taxi drivers – the drivers of black cabs, that is – would be a “grumble”. Pretty feeble, I admit, and a reader wrote in to suggest that a “Nuremberg rally” of taxi drivers would be nearer the mark This is how they are commonly viewed: 20,000 Jeremy Clarksons, motorised barrow boys, ardent free marketeers except when it comes to their own bit of the market and the 300 years of legislation that enshrines their privileges.

But this time they’ve really got the hump. On 11 June London taxi drivers plan to create gridlock on the streets of the capital. The nominal target of the protest is Transport for London and its “fitness as a regulator”. The cabbies’ big concern is that TfL has “given the nod” to an American appthat wants to change taxi ordering not just in London but the whole of Britain and the world. Just as retail booksellers met their Amazon, and coffee shops their Starbucks, now taxi drivers are meeting … Uber.

Uber, which is backed by Goldman Sachs and Google, is on course for record-breaking fundraising that could bring its value to $17bn (£10bn), its chief executive, Travis Kalanick, trumpeted this week. We can imagine it as a blubbery monster that lurched out of Silicon Valley four years ago and began picking fights with taxi drivers. There have been protests against – and sometimes violent clashes with – Uber drivers in New York, Sydney, Toronto, Berlin, Brussels and Paris. Uber was licensed as a private-hire operator in London a couple of years ago, and the fight has been brewing ever since.

All you need to order a minicab through Uber is a smartphone … which I do not actually have, so I asked my better-equipped son to download the app. We registered and gave the details of a credit card. We were invited to enter a destination. I wanted to go from my home in north London to King’s Cross. But the app didn’t seem to acknowledge the existence of King’s Cross railway station, so I selected Euston Road, on which King’s Cross stands. We were invited to seek an estimate of the fare, which came up as between £10 and £15. We pressed the order button, and watched the word “requesting” for two minutes. Then came a text: “Your Uber is on its way. Abdel (4.3 stars) will pick you up in 13 minutes.”

Abdel (I have changed his name) was a nice man in a nice, new Prius. He was uncertain about my destination, which it seemed I hadn’t properly specified. He said: “What is the postcode of your destination?” I said: “I don’t know offhand.” Tapping at his satnav, Abdel counselled politely: “You should always have the postcode because London is a very big city, you know.” And as he spoke those words and performed that action, I thought of all the dead black-cab drivers turning in their graves.

I asked him whether he worked full-time for Uber. He did, but many of their 3,000 registered drivers do not. Uber sees itself as part of the “sharing economy”. Like Airbnb, which allows people to rent out rooms in their houses for short stays, Uber allows anyone who owns a good car – and can pass the regulatory tests – to make money as a minicab driver.

When we reached Euston Road, Abdel pressed a button marked “end of journey” on what I will call a device. He said that if I was interested to see what the fare was, I could wait a minute and it would appear on the device. Either way the fare would be deducted from my card. Being naturally distrustful, I waited: the fare was £10. Reasonable enough, but at times of high demand (a Tube strike) Uber will implement what it brazenly calls “surge pricing”, and higher rates apply. There was no question of a tip. The app had advised me not to give one, and Abdel was obviously fine about that, being happy with his 80% of the fare. Uber would be taking the other 20.

The transaction just described has infuriated not only the black-cab drivers of London, but also the non-Uber minicab drivers. Steve McNamara, of the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, which represents black-cab drivers, said: “For the first time in 40 years, we agree with minicab drivers on something.” The objections go back to the legal agglomeration enshrining black-cab rights. McNamara accepts that many of those laws are redundant. So we’re not talking about how the taxi driver must always carry a bale of hay. We are talking about Section 11 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. “No vehicles to which a PHV Licence relates shall be equipped with a taximeter.”

McNamara contends that the device in Uber cars is a taximeter. He argues that it calculates the fare by a combination of distance and time “exactly like our meters. If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it is a duck.” The LTDA announced this week that it will be launching private prosecutions against Uber drivers on the grounds of the illegality of their meters.

Travis Kalanick Uber Technologies CEO InterviewTravis Kalanick, chief executive officer at Uber Technologies. Photograph: Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesI sensed a certain opacity from McNamara about why nobody else should be metered. I suppose one possible answer might have sounded mercenary: a meter compensates for traffic. If a taxi falls below a certain speed, the meter keeps ticking – on the basis of time rather than distance. The meter is also a badge of the prowess of black-cab drivers. Only they are trusted to be summoned directly – to be hailed; only they can carry someone across London with a fare calculated as they go. The meter is their office and they carry it with them. They have earned this trust by having passed the notoriously difficult Knowledge exam. They know every street, and everything on every street, in a six-mile radius of Charing Cross.

In the case of the minicab driver – the driver, that is, of a “private hire” vehicle – there can be no immediate consummation with the passenger. The minicab driver cannot be “hailed”. Foreplay is mandated or, to continue this bawdy strain, three-in-a-bed is compulsory. The passenger must deal with the driver via an intermediary, namely a licensed operator working from licensed premises: the minicab controller. It is sometimes thought that the destination must be agreed in advance. That is not actually a requirement. So it doesn’t really matter that when, having turned from King’s Cross, I made an Uber request for a taxi to Timbuktu, the app blithely responded with a quote of between £6,528 and £7,659.

But, to repeat, the licensed office is a requirement. This is why all minicab firms, in London or elsewhere, have shelled out for their licensed offices. They are proud of their organic local connection. I mentioned Uber to the highly effective – if outspoken – controller in my own nearest minicab office, and he said: “All these apps are used by young computer-minded …” and here he paused, searching for the right word, “twats.” Any intelligent person sources a decent minicab firm. If they’ve got a mobile phone they’ve logged our number on it. But we don’t want their bank details,” he said with disgust, “and if they have a problem they know where we are.”

Now does Uber have a licensed controller, or was I dealing directly with Abdel? There seemed to be no human being between us. There was some software. The professional rivals of Uber consider that in summoning Abdel, I had in effect hailed him just as surely as if I had been a Guards officer raising a furled umbrella. (It is said that Guards officers carried their umbrellas for no other reason than to hail taxis.)

On this question of intermediacy, Leon Daniels, managing director of Surface Transport at TfL announced with satisfaction this week that: “Uber have a base within the territory, and that has warm bodies inside it.” As to whether the Uber device counts as a meter, TfL are referring that to the high court. Mr Daniel thinks it is not, since it “operates independently of the vehicle”.

TfL, Mr Daniel said, has subjected Uber to its “largest ever compliance investigation, and found it meets the current requirements on record keeping … its drivers hold the relevant licenses and insurance.” There are some technical aspects of Uber’s operating model that are “being addressed”. But TfL is too well-disposed to Uber for the liking of the taxis and minicabs of London, and both are talking of legal action against TfL. According to McNamara: “TfL is scared of Uber’s money.” So the chances of their being unlicensed were nil.

As of last month, Uber is also operating in Manchester. Max Lines, general manager of the Manchester operation, says: “The growth has been incredible. The ultimate mission plan is for Uber to be present in every British town.” Uber may not be so strongly resisted outside London, where minicabs are allowed to be metered and there are fewer hailable taxis (Hackney carriages, in the jargon).

Jo Bertram, Uber general manager for the UK and Ireland, says Uber is “bringing competition to an industry that hasn’t evolved in years”. But the black-cab drivers say they have modernised, and they have an app of their own: Hailo, which “works with London’s 23,000 trusted black-cab drivers” under the slogan “Back to black”. Or it did, because the cabbies have got the hump about that as well. Hailo recently announced it will apply to become a private hire operator extending its services to minicabs, presumably in a way that passes the test of intermediacy. Its London HQ was daubed with the word “scab” and many cabbies have now “come off the app”. One driver told me he thought Hailo had gone “a bit tits up actually” as a result of this backlash. Whether this is true, I can’t say because a representative from Hailo would not speak to me.

My conversations with taxi drivers this week were mainly about Uber, but I seemed to hit a freak strain of perfectly equable cabbies. The first one said: “To be honest, fella, I only read about it in the taxi press and that’s bound to be a bit biased, isn’t it?” Another one went so far as to concede the usefulness of GPS technology. “Late at night, you’ll get a guy in the back who’s had a few, and you’ll say: ‘Just give me your postcode mate, then you can relax, have a little kip.'” He thought the Knowledge was still relevant, but primarily as a symbol of achievement; of character. I thought of Jack Rosenthal’s very amusing TV play of 1979, The Knowledge. At the start, two aspirants, “Knowledge boys”, are talking in a caff. The first peremptorily demands of the second: “French Embassy to Fulham cemetery.” “What?” says the second.”‘What do you mean: ‘what’?” says the first. The second man responds: “Try me on Woburn Square to North London Polytechnic, I know that one.” The first man then leans towards the second and says with disdain: “It’s your mother what asks you the ones you know. Them sadists up the road asks you the ones you don’t know.”

Uber’s Bertram magnanimously added: “London black taxis are iconic, and I’m sure they’re here to stay.” But who can say that anything is here to stay with Uber/Google on the march? Pedals, steering wheel, driver … all are absent from the driverless car unveiled by the company this week. There is a passenger, of course, and soon we will all be passengers, numb sightseers on the great Google highway.

 

Source: The Gurdian

Cars, taxis and trucks to face Tottenham Court road ban

Council bosses have unveiled a radical plan to ban cars and lorries from the one of the busiest streets in the West End.

Credit: Simon Harris/ITV News

Camden’s Labour leaders plan to widen the pavements in Tottenham Court Road to coincide with the arrival of Crossrail.

Credit: Simon Harris/ITV News

They claim the new Crossrail interchange will make Tottenham Court Rd station “busier than Heathrow” used by more than 300,000 people a day.

Tottenham Court Road as it looks today
Tottenham Court Road as it will look without cars and taxis

The current northbound one-way system will become two-way traffic but cars, lorries and vans will be banned between 8am and 7pm.

The council plans “protected cycle lanes” but believes fully-segregated lanes are unnecessary.

Almost 300 trees will be planted and in Alfred Place, the tarmac will be replaced by turf to create a new park.

Alfred Place, central London Credit: ITV News

The £32m scheme will also see two-way traffic in Gower Street and some roads closed to traffic altogether.