Most of us are aware that we need to clear the snow from our car before we set out on a journey. However, one motorist was left furious after receiving a parking fine because snow had fallen on his car while he was at work and obscured where the permit was located.

Mysterious fine

Ollie Claxton was confused when he received a £70 parking fine through the post. The penalty had been issued by a Derby City Council parking warden and left Ollie puzzled because had a permit for where he had parked. He had been working away in London for a few months before receiving the letter on December 12th containing the fine.

He visited the council’s website where he could view a picture of his car and instantly realised what had happened – it had been snowing while he was in work and the windscreen of the car had a light covering on it. The parking warden had not bothered to dust the snow off to look for the permit and instead continued to issue the penalty.

Derby Council then admitted that snow and ice can cover a permit and revoked the fine after media outrage. It also came to light that the parking warden had accidentally put in the number plate wrong and was therefore not able to cross reference the number plate with a permit. The last digit had been inputted as a zero rather than the letter ‘O’.

Derby City Council said: “Drivers are responsible for ensuring that permits are clearly displayed, but snow and ice can temporarily obscure the visibility of a permit.

“Officers are advised not to touch vehicles to avoid possible complaints that they have caused any damage.”

This driver works for Network Rail, then off for a shift in his Uber Car.....other benefits -free parking.

In 2015, Uber cut the rates it paid per mile and per minute. “LOWER PRICES = HIGHER EARNINGS,” the company announced to incredulous drivers, who already had to foot the bill for fuel, maintenance, car leases, and benefits like health care.

Uber insisted that the cost-per-ride cuts would cause passenger demand to rise, and that the increase would translate to higher earnings for its gig workers. But drivers recoiled at this “Uber math”—the less-than-affectionate term some started using to describe the company’s communications—recognizing that the equation really meant that they’d have to do more trips and work longer hours to see the alleged boost. This certainly wouldn’t be the last time that Uber would push drivers to up their workload either.

For ride-hail drivers, such pressures have become routine. The companies make regular changes to pay and conditions, often with the effect of squeezing more out of their drivers. Uber is known to intervene based on the app’s tracking of driver braking and acceleration, ride acceptance and cancellation rates, and, of course, passenger-sourced ratings. For years, ride-hail apps have also sent out frequent nudges to incentivize workers to get or keep on the road. For example, when a tired Uber driver working near Penn State University tried to go offline at 4 a.m. one morning in 2015, a playful in-app notification from Uber popped up to say, “YOU’RE $1 AWAY FROM EARNING $40. Don’t stop now, keep driving!” He posted the notification to a driver forum, commenting, “They better cough up $40 or there will be heck to pay!” He continued working until he received another ride request.

So when, two weeks ago, Uber announced a new policy limiting drivers to 12-hour shifts in the name of helping to “keep riders and drivers safe on the road while preserving the flexibility drivers tell us they love,” its stated motivation struck me as only part of the story. Since 2014, I’ve been studying Uber from the perspective of the drivers. I’ve made daily visits to online forums where drivers post updates about their work, traveled to interview local drivers in more than 25 cities in the U.S. and Canada, and kept up with its corporate policies and communications. While Uber may have taken a step to get drowsy drivers off the road in the name of public safety, it obscures the fact that it still pushes its drivers in other concerning ways.

Uber’s official new policy states that drivers who engage in a total of 12 hours of driving time will be shown a prompt requiring them to go offline for a six-hour break. As an Uber executive told the Washington Post, the app will use GPS and telematics to measure an individual’s cumulative driving time. The app won’t count long stops, such as waiting for a ride request in an airport parking lot (a policy that highlights the fact that Uber doesn’t pay workers for all of their time on the clock), but will count short traffic stops and multiple stints in a day—say, three four-hour shifts—taken without a six-hour rest in between. It will also give drivers periodic notifications when a driver is close to hitting the 12-hour max before automatically going offline. It’s similar to restricted hours Uber had already rolled out in New York City and to caps implemented by the NYC Taxi & Limousine Commission to prevent driver fatigue.

Drivers have had mixed responses to this change. For example, a driver I recently interviewed who works for Uber and Lyft in Boston said that she thought it was a good policy. She had started driving part time for the ride-hail apps last year to supplement her income working full time at a restaurant, but said she soon found the ride-hail work less exhausting and more flexible than her regular job. She suggested that the new rules might get individuals who start working before the morning rush at 5 or 6 a.m. and drive nonstop late into the night to take a break sooner. “It’s the human body, you get tired, you may doze off a little … and that could be dangerous for everyone involved,” she told me. She said she thought drivers could make up for the lost income by better timing the hours they picked to be on the road.

On an online driver forum, Ethan, a part-time driver who’s been working for Uber and Lyft for a little more than a year in and around Burlington, Vermont, posted, “From a safety standpoint this is important. My honest opinion is that people deep down aren’t really pissed about not being able to work this much. They’re pissed because they HAVE to work this much to make ends meet and can’t now.” Considering that, as independent contractors, drivers aren’t entitled to a minimum wage, benefits, or reimbursements for costs, this squeeze can be very real. A recent study released by MIT of more than 1,100 Uber and Lyft drivers in 2017 seem to bolster this point: The authors determined that 74 percent of those surveyed earned less than the minimum wage in their state. What’s more, the researchers also determined that a startling 30 percent were actually losing money once vehicle expenses were included.

These moves from Uber and Lyft seem to align with their gig-economy model of employment, which structures work as an individual pursuit and individual liability.

In its release about the changes, Uber suggested that the new rule won’t affect the “nearly 60 percent of U.S. drivers [who] use Uber less than 10 hours a week.” But the statement fails to acknowledge that the change will hit Uber’s most invested drivers the hardest. While it’s true that most drivers work part time, a minority of them do work full time or longer—and do so without overtime pay. They’re the individuals most likely to rely on the ride-hailing apps as their primary income, and the most likely to make investments, like buying a new car, to do this work. They’re also the most affected by compensation cuts, hence pushing themselves to work dangerously long hours to make up for the losses. Some part-timers who devote long hours to intense weekend shifts after working at their primary jobs during the week will be hit too. Plus, migratory workers who commute from their homes into a city with more work—some of whom sleep over in supermarket and airport parking lots to make ends meet—will certainly feel the impact when they can’t log in to work but can’t easily go home either.

There’s also the question of whether such policies will even be effective. Some drivers running up against Uber’s 12-hour limit quickly found an easy way around the system: going to competitors. Many Uber drivers had already been working for rival platforms like Lyft, toggling between the apps depending on demand and rates (a fact that also suggests any company’s claim that the majority of their gig workers only drive part time deserves greater scrutiny—many are essentially cobbling together full-time hours from multiple part-time ride-hail jobs). Uber may limit its drivers to 12-hour Uber shifts. But if drivers can simply switch apps in a patchwork job market, the policy may do little to curb drowsy driving—especially if they still feel financial pressures to stay on the clock.

The Boston area driver I interviewed who praised the change, for example, told me she hasn’t used Uber for 12 straight hours in some time. But she said she has definitely worked to the limit for Lyft, which has a policy that requires drivers to take a six-hour break after 14 hours in driver mode. David Aguirre, an Uber driver in Houston who started driving as a side gig but switched to full time after the company he worked for went under, said he also already felt the pull of putting in just a few more hours. He told me that the first time he reached the 12-hour limit under Uber’s new rules, he thought that it was a good policy to help keep drivers and passengers safe. But he admitted, “That day I just wanted to keep going a little longer to get to $500 for the day.” He said one of the first things he did after the automatic timeout was to apply to drive for Lyft.

Karen Levy, an assistant professor in the Department of Information Science at Cornell University (who’s also affiliated with Data & Society, where I work as a researcher) found a similar conundrum in her research with truckers. For years, they have technically been restricted from working too long by law—and, in some cases, are also electronically monitored for enforcement—but found ways to skirt it in practice. “Truckers don’t work without sleep for dangerously long stretches (as many acknowledge having done) because it’s fun,” she wrote in an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, “They do it because they have to earn a living. The market demands a pace of work that many drivers say is impossible to meet if they’re ‘driving legal.’ ”

I certainly agree with Uber’s stated goal of making the roads safer for drivers, passengers, and others. But, short of implementing troublingly invasive monitoring of off-app drivers (which, considering Uber’s shady history of secretly tracking drivers working for competitors, may not be a far-fetched scenario) or giving drivers fairer compensation, Uber and Lyft won’t be doing enough to significantly address the safety issues that come with overworked drivers. Instead, the new policies respond to public pressure about the problem by shifting a shared liability for these dangers onto its drivers. The companies now bear less of the responsibility if a driver goes beyond the shift restrictions—the app timed out! The blame falls entirely on the worker, who managed their time poorly, who irresponsibly circumvented the safety feature.

These moves from Uber and Lyft seem to align with their gig-economy model of employment, which structures work as an individual pursuit and individual liability. But even this sell is misleading. While, for many drivers, the idea of being independent at work is very appealing, their ability to make entrepreneurial decisions is consistently constrained by the ride-hail apps’ nudges and other algorithmic management, rules, external costs, and wage cuts.

Perhaps the shortened amount of hours they can get out of a single driver might spur Uber and Lyft, who often compete for workers as well as passengers, to offer more attractive compensation. Or perhaps the poor pay and new limits might tip the scales for some superdrivers to trade the flexibility the ride-hail apps offer for other types of work. They can do the “Uber math.”

An Uber car has crashed into the gate of Buckingham Palace in the early hours of Sunday Morning.

The incident took place a little before 12:30 a.m. local time, Sunday (7:30 p.m. EST, Saturday). Images of the aftermath of the incident show Police at the scene standing in front of anyone filming or taking photos.

According to initial reports, the car in question appeared to be an Uber and the crash is being treated as an isolated vehicular accident. It is not being looked at as a deliberate act of violence or a terrorist attack (there's a surprise)

"So scary. Loads of police here. Being told to move back by the police,” said Mathew Vincent, who witnessed the scene. "Police were stopping anyone trying to video the scene". 

It's not immediately known how many members of the royal family were present at the palace at the time of the attack. Also, it is yet to be determined if the police have apprehended the driver of the car.

TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT:

Looks like we could see another cover up of TfL stakeholder Uber. It's already gone from most all UK news channels.

It's been alleged by our insider, that top TfL staff were called in early this morning, to discuss the incident. 

Last October, we saw an Uber driver mow down pedestrians on Exhibition Road. 

Although eleven members of the public were taken to hospital, the story was killed in the press within hours.

CAN YOU IMAGINE THE NEWS COVERAGE THIS INCIDENT WOULD HAVE RECIEVED, HAD IT BEEN A LONDON TAXI??? 

This is the second time a car has driven into gates at Buckingham Palace. Back in January 1995, a Volkswagen Sirocco smash through the gates. 

Taxi Leaks Late Night Extra :

As we said earlier this story has now been buried. No mention on UK news channels since breakfast this morning . 

And yet a friend has just had a call from family members on holiday in Mexico who said its all over the news there. 

Not often they handcuff someone at the scene of an "accident"😏, no mention of the driver being drunk either...

A 72-year-old Taxi driver who crashed into an oncoming motorbike sending the pillion passenger “somersaulting” through the air before she died was consoled by her family as he was spared jail.

Jerome Lee had picked up a family and was dropping them to their home on Farringdon Road, London, at around 8.45pm on February 21, last year.

As he made a u-turn near the junction with Clerkenwell Road, Lee swung into the path of an oncoming, speeding Ducati motorcycle, the Old Bailey was told on Monday.

Rider Shaun Hoffman was thrown to the ground and survived. But his passenger, Claire Berretti, was thrown a “considerable distance” and suffered catastrophic head injuries.

She was pronounced dead at the scene, jurors heard.

Lee was found guilty on Thursday by a majority of 10-2 of causing death by careless driving and sentenced to a 12-month community order with an unpaid work requirement of 60 hours.

He was also ordered to pay £200 in costs, carry out 10 hours of rehabilitation and was disqualified from driving for 12 months.

Ms Berretti’s family hugged and consoled Lee as he sobbed after being sentenced.

The trial heard mother-of-two Jessenia Gonzalez was in the back of Lee’s silver taxi with her children and husband at the time of the crash.

In a statement read to the court she said that before starting the turn, Lee moved his head as if checking for traffic.

Describing the collision, she added: “There was a screeching of brakes and a loud crunch, and I knew right away that we had hit something.

“[I remember] seeing the girl somersaulting through the air like a gymnast.

“She flew so high through the air, turning and then landing.”

Opening the case prosecutor Joel Smith told jurors: “At the time that the defendant decided to turn around and perform a u-turn, a red Ducati motorcycle was travelling in the other direction nearby, up the Farringdon Road.

“The traffic lights at the junction were staggered. At the time that the defendant performed the manoeuvre the traffic lights at the junction were showing red to him – southbound traffic, but green to northbound traffic.

“Given what was said by the defendant at the scene, it appears he erroneously assumed that they were showing red in both directions, and that he would be able to conduct a u-turn without running into oncoming traffic.

“He was wrong – the prosecution say he was careless.”

Jurors heard Mr Hoffman was riding at 40mph, twice the speed limit, and that he was prosecuted and pleaded guilty to speeding.

Lee, from Edgware, north west London, had denied one count of causing death by careless driving.

Source : Daily Echo 

A U.S. District Court judge has just handed some Uber drivers a win by concluding the ride-hailing company breached a contract pertaining to “Safe Rides” fees. In U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers’ opinion on damages, she wrote “there is no question that drivers were financially harmed by Uber’s breach of contract.”

The lead plaintiffs, Matthew Clark, Ryan Cowden, Dominicus Rooijackers and Jason Rosenberg, sued Uber for $5 million in 2016 on behalf of 9,602 drivers who opted out of arbitration. However, the exact extent of the damages has not yet been determined.

The plaintiffs alleged Uber, despite saying it wouldn’t, took the “Safe Rides Fees” from the fares drivers charged riders on minimum fare rides between April 2014 and November 2015. The plaintiffs specifically alleged Uber breached its contract with drivers.

In her order yesterday, Rogers granted the drivers’ motion for summary judgment, saying, “Nothing in the Agreement provides a formula for Uber to deduct $1.00 from the Minimum Fare and then deduct another 20% from the balance. The fact that Uber chose not to follow the precise terms of the Agreement for the 19 months of the class period and is now attempting to rationalize its conduct is not relevant to the instant claim.”

She added, by Uber taking out the $1 Safe Ride fee from the minimum fair before paying drivers, the company “breached the plain terms of the Agreement.”

Judge Rogers also ruled all Uber drivers who signed a 2013, June 2014 or November 2014 agreement — or some combination of three — opted out of arbitration, and completed at least one minimum fare ride for UberX when the Safe Rides Fee applied before Nov. 16, 2015 are eligible to be part of the class.

Uber first added the $1 safe ride fee in April 2014 to help pay for its safety program, which includes driver training, background checks and vehicle inspections. But it wasn’t until November 16, 2015, the lawsuit alleges, that Uber updated its terms to notify drivers the fee would be taken from their minimum fares.

Here’s a key nugget from the original complaint:

After instituting the Safe Rides program, Uber’s Service Fee Schedules and published local fare webpages continued to show the fares that riders would pay, including a minimum fare, for each area. Consistent with its contract and its emails to drivers, those schedules and fare webpages also showed the new Safe Rides Fee as a separate surcharge for riders. Until approximately November 2015, nothing in Uber’s contract, schedules, emails, or fare webpages suggested that drivers would pay Uber’s Safe Rides Fee out of the driver’s own fares.

Despite the clear terms of its written contracts including Uber’s incorporated emailed promises that it would not do so — Uber took its Safe Rides Fee charges out of the drivers’ fares when drivers charged riders minimum fares. In other words, when a driver provided a minimum fare ride, Uber did not charge the Safe Rides Fees to the riders (as a separate surcharge), but, instead, charged that fee to the drivers by taking it from their fare.

This win for drivers comes a couple of years after Uber settled with riders over the Safe Rides fee. In 2016, Uber made a $28.5 million settlement with riders, who alleged in a class-action lawsuit that they should not have had to pay the fee because the company’s background checks were misleading and not “industry leading,” as Uber had previously claimed. The lawsuits also cited “unfortunate incidents” that had happened to passengers during Uber rides.

I’ve reached out to Uber and will update this story if I hear back.