On 07/10/2015 20:00, tim..... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote:
On 06/10/2015 17:40, tim..... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote:
On 05/10/2015 20:48, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-10-04 22:21:04 +0000, said:
We couldn't find a mechanism to manage this, even from the station
with its legendary taxi queues.
At the station might it have just about worked to put up a sign saying
something like "Why not ask others if they will share your taxi to
keep costs down and keep things moving? Wait here if you'd like to
do this."
- leaving it to the passengers to get together to hire a taxi and
split its fare, and thus making it legal?
That might work, though there is a real risk that unlicensed touts
would interpose themselves and start offering "service".
Incidentally, there is a working system at Newark Airport where a
despatcher (employed by the airport) allocates passengers/groups of
passengers to taxis with a flat fare (flat by the vehicle, not per
capita) to specific places. That's places, not addresses. The last
time I used it I paid $45 from the airport to a NJ city on the Hudson.
Oh, so it's all right for you to take advantage of it in the US.
Indeed. And if LHR decided to do the same here, I'd support that -
mainly because it would be lawful, whereas allowing the driver to do
it would not be.
So why have you spent the last 4 days saying that the law forbidding
this operation is a good law and should be kept?
You have a vivid imagination. I have said NO SUCH THING.
There is no law forbidding passengers - or a bona fide third party -
from getting together to hire a shared taxi and I have not suggested or
state that there is (look above at the quoted material if you want
evidence of that).
What the law says is that the driver or operator may not do the arranging.
but it not all right for me to use this method in London,
The Newark Method?
The only thing that stops you using it in London is that the airports
don't provide the service.
It's *perfectly* alright for you or anyone else to use such a system
(where an independent third party does the matching and pairing).
but that's exactly what I have be arguing for, that you keep on saying
that I can't have (the independent third party in my scenario being the
marshal of the rank at e.g. the airport)
You could not be more wrong if you tried really hard.
I have said what I said I said and not said what you said I said.
I keep on saying that this is what I want and you keep on saying "you
can't have that because it's illegal,. the fact that it's illegal is
good law and the law should stay that way")
The law prevents the driver or operator from operating a taxi (or pirate
car) as a stage carriage or PSV.
It does not prevent passengers clubbing together, with or without the
assistance of others (as long as "others" does not include the driver or
operator).
for no other
reason that because you don't think it should be allowed to be offered.
Oh dear...
You weren't thinking, were you?
I don't understand in the slightest
It's not often that a usenet contributor provides an open goal like that.
But I shan't make a meal of it.
I can only repeat:
what a hypocrite!
That must be a self description, because it certainly does not
describe my logical and consistent stance.
So it's consist to say: the system in NY is so good you "used it twice",
but that operating the same system in the UK being illegal is a good thing?
That would be both inconsistent and untrue.
So it's a good thing that I have never said it, isn't it?
what a load of inconsistent ********
what a ****** you are.
tosser
tim
You're the one with the comprehension difficulties.
As you said (and I quote you verbatim in order to be scrupulously fair):
"I don't understand in the slightest".