On Feb 26, 6:30*pm, Steve Fitzgerald ] wrote:

Mizter T writes

Agreed to some extent, as setting down is so much slower as there is a
financial transaction to perform. Another way of reducing the impact
of this might perhaps be for taxis to accept Oyster PAYG?

Err, see what started this thread - giving shifty minicab drivers the
ability to devour your Oyster PAYG credit probably ain't a winning
idea.

I should get round to offer the counterpoint to the above, if only to
balance things out.

(A somewhat clumsy sentence on my part, but YKWIM).


I'm sure someone will be along shortly to point out that a Taxi driver
isn't a 'shifty minicab driver'.

I wasn't suggesting they would be.


Apples and Oranges innit?

I'm totally aware of the difference (I be a Londoner after all!), and
wasn't confusing them together, though I see that what I wrote may
have successfully confused nonetheless!

I was thinking that the suggestion was perhaps to give both Taxi *and*
minicab drivers the ability to take payment by Oyster PAYG - but
thinking and reading it through again, given 'Basi Jet' and Neil were
discussing stopping on red routes and were in apparent agreement that
minicabs needn't have this right, I suppose Neil was only thinking
about black cabs (proper Taxis, whatever you want to call them).

FWIW I think there is an argument in favour of letting minicabs stop
on red routes (i.e. what is currently allowed), though the best place
for me to put it forward would be in response to Basil Jet's post
upthread.

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

black cabs (proper Taxis, whatever you want to call them).

ITYM "Hackney Carriages". HTH, HAND, etc.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:28:52AM -0800, Mizter T wrote:

I was thinking that the suggestion was perhaps to give both Taxi *and*
minicab drivers the ability to take payment by Oyster PAYG

They won't like that - think of the tips, most of which are "keep the
change" as opposed to "hmm, the bill's GBP7.40, so add 10% and make it
GBP8.14 my good man".

And there's nothing "shifty" about minicab drivers. Not, at least, if
you use a minicab instead of a random stranger touting for business on
the street illegally. If a minicab driver rips you off on your Oyster
card, well, you and TfL will know who it was, or at least which company
it was, and they'll be strongly incentivised not to do that.

--
David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice

Perl: the only language that makes Welsh look acceptable

David Cantrell wrote:

And there's nothing "shifty" about minicab drivers. Not, at least, if
you use a minicab instead of a random stranger touting for business on
the street illegally. If a minicab driver rips you off on your Oyster
card, well, you and TfL will know who it was, or at least which
company it was, and they'll be strongly incentivised not to do that.

Like the way Lewis Day Minicabs were strongly incentivised not to swindle
quarter of a million quid out of the NHS?

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 02:52:01PM -0000, Basil Jet wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
And there's nothing "shifty" about minicab drivers. Not, at least, if
you use a minicab instead of a random stranger touting for business on
the street illegally. If a minicab driver rips you off on your Oyster
card, well, you and TfL will know who it was, or at least which
company it was, and they'll be strongly incentivised not to do that.
Like the way Lewis Day Minicabs were strongly incentivised not to swindle
quarter of a million quid out of the NHS?

It would, obviously, rely on people bothering to complain, and having a
personal incentive to chase TfL if they don't sort it out pronto.

And in any case, Lewis Day did get caught, and didn't they have to pay
the money back, with interest?

--
David Cantrell | even more awesome than a panda-fur coat

engineer: n. one who, regardless of how much effort he puts in
to a job, will never satisfy either the suits or the scientists

David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 02:52:01PM -0000, Basil Jet wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
And there's nothing "shifty" about minicab drivers. Not, at least,
if you use a minicab instead of a random stranger touting for
business on the street illegally. If a minicab driver rips you off
on your Oyster card, well, you and TfL will know who it was, or at
least which company it was, and they'll be strongly incentivised
not to do that.
Like the way Lewis Day Minicabs were strongly incentivised not to
swindle quarter of a million quid out of the NHS?

It would, obviously, rely on people bothering to complain, and having
a personal incentive to chase TfL if they don't sort it out pronto.

And in any case, Lewis Day did get caught, and didn't they have to pay
the money back, with interest?

How would that disincentivise them from trying it again? No-one's been
prosecuted AFAIK. Lewis Day still have the NHS contract and are still
TfL-approved. The man responsible is now at another TfL-approved minicab
company. The NHS managers who awarded the contract to Lewis Day and then
told the whistleblower to take no notice of the 250k gone AWOL still have
their jobs and pensions AFAIK.

I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to
facilitate corruption by public service managers. If an NHS manager is
paying double the going rate for beds or biros, it sticks out like a sore
thumb on the balance sheets, but "taxi" contracts for unmetered vehicles can
be awarded for way above the going rate without it being noticeable unless
you study a map. After all, metered fares in taxis were introduced because
the potential for exploiting taxi customers who are in an unfamiliar area
was so much greater than the potential for exploiting mars bar customers or
shoe customers, so the corruption potential of allowing non-metered vehicles
to perform "taxi" services under contracts awarded by public service
managers is obvious. One of the non-existant journeys in the Lewis Day scam
was 105 pounds for 21 miles in the daytime (Hammersmith Hospital to Gerrards
Cross), which is nearly twice what a ride in a hailed £33,000 taxi would
cost - this would be robbery of the taxpayers even if the journey had been
performed.

When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they know that
much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets, tax-free, all
of whom will vote Labour.

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

On Mar 3, 12:45*pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
[snip]
I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to
facilitate corruption by public service managers. [...]

That's simply nuts, so much so that I have to assume you're simply
trying to provoke, because I can't think that any sane person would
believe that. Advance-trolling, as it were!


When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they
know that much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets,
tax-free, all of whom will vote Labour.

The whole affair was a disgrace (though I'm not expertly acquainted on
all the details). But the above comment - that the Labour government/
party approves of NHS funds ending up as backhanders to corrupt
managers - is simply ****ing mental.

On Mar 3, 1:24*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Mar 3, 12:45*pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
[snip]
I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to
facilitate corruption by public service managers. [...]

That's simply nuts, so much so that I have to assume you're simply
trying to provoke, because I can't think that any sane person would
believe that. Advance-trolling, as it were!


When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they
know that much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets,
tax-free, all of whom will vote Labour.

The whole affair was a disgrace (though I'm not expertly acquainted on
all the details). But the above comment - that the Labour government/
party approves of NHS funds ending up as backhanders to corrupt
managers - is simply ****ing mental.

And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the
above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps
it could have been expressed in more temperate tones.