Taxi Driver Online

Uber drivers’ exhausting shifts make them a ‘danger to public safety’

Uber poses a threat to public safety because it encourages its drivers to work long, exhausting hours, according to a union. In a court hearing, the GMB union made its case for why it should be involved in the legal battle between Transport for London and the taxi app.

‘Large numbers’ of Uber drivers are members of the union, making it ‘well placed’ to provide insight to Uber’s appeal against TfL, Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard. The firm is appealing TfL’s decision not to refuse its licence in London on the grounds of ‘public safety and security implications’.

Gerry Facenna, representing GMB, told the court: ‘GMB is seriously concerned by the threat posed by Uber’s business model to public safety.’ This is because it encourages drivers to work excessive hours just to earn the living wage, he said. Uber has faced a number of concerns, including how it carries out background checks and its approach to reporting criminal offences.

Mr Facenna said: ‘From a public safety point of view, being driven around London by a driver who has worked a 15-hour shift is no better than being driven around by a driver who has not had background checks.’ The union wants a maximum hours cap to be introduced, as well as a limit on how many drivers can operate in an area at the same time.

But Thomas De La Mare, for Uber, said the suggestions were ‘obviously misdirected’ and any issues would affect all private hire operators, not just Uber. He told the court: ‘We don’t accept that there is any particular specific problem in relation to (Uber), where Uber should be singled out by way of licence conditions. ‘If there is a problem, it cannot be shown to be anything other than a systemic problem.’

The Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association (LTDA) also wants to become a participant in the case. Gerald Gouriet, appearing on behalf of the group, said: ‘Uber posed as an operator to obtain its operator licence as a sham to disguise the fact that what was happening was unlawful.’

Mr De La Mare responded by saying the LTDA’s argument had ‘long since faltered’, having failed when put forward in other cases. An Uber spokesperson said: ‘Drivers spend an average of 30 hours a week logged into our app. ‘However, this is not the same as the number of hours spent driving since drivers can log in while on a break or doing other things. ‘We take the issue of tired driving seriously, which is why we regularly remind drivers to take rest breaks and will shortly be introducing hours limits in our app.’

_________________
IDFIMH

Uber Loses Bid to Lock Taxi Drivers Out of London License Appeal

Uber Technologies Inc. lost a bid to prevent two unions representing taxi drivers from taking part in the appeal of Transport for London’s decision to ban the company from operating in the city.

The GMB union and the Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association can take part in the appeal on a limited basis, Judge Emma Arbuthnot ruled at a London hearing Tuesday. The five-day hearing will start on June 25, she said.

The London fight over the company’s right to pickup passengers is one of many legal battles Uber faces in Europe. On Wednesday, the European Union’s top court will issue a closely-watched ruling on whether Uber should be considered a taxi company or a digital app provider for regulatory purposes.

GMB will be allowed to make submissions on issues surrounding the health and safety of Uber’s drivers, where the company’s business model "encourages and incentivises drivers to work excessive hours, putting public safety at serious risk," lawyers for the union said.

LTDA’s role in the appeal will be more clearly defined once TfL has decided on the scope of its arguments ahead of the trial. But the group, which represents drivers of London’s iconic black cabs, can’t argue that Uber’s operating model is illegal, Arbuthnot said.

A spokesman for Uber declined to comment after the decision. The unions didn’t immediately respond to requests to comment. The decision leaves more than six months for the transport regulator and Uber to reach an agreement on the license to operate -- a resolution both sides have expressed a desire to reach.

The appeal will have important implications for Uber’s business. London is the company’s largest market outside the U.S., and a loss of its license or change to its labor rules could hurt attempts by the company, which is losing billions of dollars a year, to become profitable.

_________________
IDFIMH

Uber lawyers or company spokespersons just cannot get it through their thick skulls that the driver accepting the booking before the company does is illegal,every driver on their circuit requires a private hire operators license and it is about time Councils enforced this requirement or have the fat brown envelopes been delivered again.

do LTDA members work for Uber ? NO well why should they be allowed on the bandwagon this is about uber drivers trying to take on and change their employer

The LTDA which represents rivals to UBER needs to keep their beaks out or they might find they get the opposite effect with UBER being seen as the victim of a mass campaign by competitors to discredit them

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Do you have any evidence to support this allegation?

_________________
Grandad,

That was not an allegation,it was a question.

They do not need the help of any other organisation to discredit them,they make a dam good job of doing that themselves.

I think you are getting confused about different cases against uber...It is quite easy to do...there are so many cases against them..
The case You are talking about is the employment tribunal case which is drivers v uber...that has already been lost by uber twice...
This case which LTDA are wishing to join in is about uber operators licence in London...It is actually the argument put forward by LTDA that tfl are relying on to refuse uber the licence to operate in London.
The main argument is...uber bookings are taken directly by the driver as opposed to uber who have the operators licence.The was uber are working ...legally means that every driver would need to have an operators licence to take the bookings and they don't have these licences ....so effectively they are ''Plying For Hire'' in the eyes of the law !

Clearly the LTDA wish to stir the anti Uber pot, but I think the Chief Magistrate allowed them to join the party based on TfL's view that Uber lied to the court in respect of the LTDA -v - Uber Taximeter court case.

I suspect that cost the LTDA a lot of money, and they will quite rightly want that back.

But looking again at blogs etc maybe they are also looking at the issue of booking procedure as it appears TfL aren't using that as a reason to refuse. Maybe because they should be prosecuting if Uber are in fact not adhering to the act.

_________________
IDFIMH