Skip to content

Uber Pool and Ride Sharing Dangers Letter To TFL and Deputy Mayor

Attention TFL:

During the cause of last year and this year we wrote in our consultation responses of our concerns relating to car sharing excepts are below this text.

Therefore it comes as no surprise that a member has experienced issues and there are further anecdotal references to similar problems.

I am also concerned that once one journey is booked that the driver is then exhibited by the operator as able to accept further journeys to my mind this puts the driver at risk of allegations of touting as Uber are showing availability to accept further bookings.

Not only does this put drivers in a legal quandary but however you look at the sworn affidavit used in Toronto recently would point to this.

Based on this not being a variable in any market that Uber operates in this seems to be in direct contravention of the law and must cease immediately.

We also request that TFL contacts all past riders to learn of their real experience rather than the claimed experience for want of a better phrase ‘peddled’ by Ubers PR and driver liaison.

I am satisfied that not only are drivers facing an imposed driving option but they are facing issues because of the imposition.

To presume that this is what drivers want or demand is poppycock.

Drivers expect a level of safety that others expect or demand as seen frequently on signage in Hospitals, Police Stations, Clinics and other institutions.

Why should it be any different for drivers?

The reality is that whilst Uber may claim alarm they are not prepared to pull this imposed project because of the money spinning aspect.

Please now stop Uber from operating this service until either suitable legislation is in place or it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt this is not touting putting or drivers at risk.

Steve Garelick
Branch Secretary Professional Drivers G56
07565 456776

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please delete it and remove it from any server or system. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual or individuals named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Nothing in this email constitutes an order unless a purchase order number is enclosed. The comments herein may only be the personal opinion of the writer on occasion and may not constitute GMB Union Policy at such times. Unless stated otherwise all emails are sent on a without prejudice basis. GMB Professional Drivers Branch G56 Thorne House, 152 Brent St, London NW4 2DP 020 8202 8272

June 2012 TFL Consultation.

Ride Sharing.

The context of this question is unclear and we have answered accordingly however this will require clarification by TFL.

A further response to Unsilenced ride shares has been discussed in the general section of this submission.

We feel ride sharing is dangerous to Drivers and Passengers as strangers together could lead to arguments over politics, football, race etc.

There is no protection to drivers in these instances.

It could also mean a passenger knows the home address of the ride share or that a property is empty or in worst incident increased chance of sexual assault a female alone with perhaps a partner meeting an unknown individual or individuals is open to attack.

If the driver is unable to assist in such an instance more serious ramifications would exist.

Ride share also puts needed extra responsibility on the driver should a problem or disagreement occur.

A passenger disagreement over as example who should be dropped first could become a serious altercation causing injury and probable damage to the vehicle carrying out the transfer.

Even at busy train stations on public hirer ranks as customers would rather wait in the rain then share a taxi.

Ride share should not even be considered due to the many shortfalls that could occur with drivers losing out as a result.

Arguments could also happen if one client needs to change destination which then puts out the other customer or it may create extra pressure for the driver who has to make the decision on what to do to satisfy both customers,

The provision of ridesharing may be seen as improving fares for those sharing but in view of the already low fares on offer to the public this only is at the expense of the driver.

Drivers cannot be put in a position of arbitrating between passengers.
There is a danger to drivers should a dispute break out between passengers.

Ride share does not work as a credible or safe facility unless strict guidelines are followed and consent , fares and dispatchers use consideration when considering this as an option.

TFL impact assessment February 2016


Ride sharing is dangerous and because its new and there is a lack of data does not mean it will have a harmful effect on driver incomes and the dangers are clear and obvious.
It will be difficult to stop ride share once the proverbial horse has bolted.

Full guidelines should have been in place before allowing ride share.

We also feel that public rideshares for non licensed vehicles is a safety risk on multiple levels.

Posted: 15th June 2016

X Share