In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2016 13:05:27 +0100, David Cantrell
wrote:

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:56:55PM +0100, JNugent wrote:

For instance, he may not ride in an unlicensed taxi ...

I used to do that, because black cab drivers didn't provide a good
enough service - there weren't enough of them, and they often wouldn't
take me to where I wanted to go - and there also weren't enough legal
minicabs, so I and a great many other Londoners used illegal drivers
plying for hire.

Since about 2000 (I forget exactly when) there have been sufficient
minicabs that I've used them instead. And lately I've used the Uber
variation on the theme of minicab.

If you make using a minicab less convenient by, for example, making them
harder to contact and making me book ages in advance, you won't drive
people into your beloved black cabs, because there still aren't enough
of them and they still have an attitude problem towards people living
further south than roughly Vauxhall. You'll drive them to illegal
operators instead who understand that what people want is a decent
service at a sensible price.

The black cab guild keeps banging on about safety, but their helpful
suggestions on how to achieve that will in fact achieve the exact
opposite, by making illegal operators look more attractive.

But at least black cabs are safe, aren't they?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32118391


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ms-could-sue-i
n-black-cab-rapist-John-Worboys-case.html

I remember Esther Rantzen telling us they weren't, years ago.

--
Colin Rosenstiel