On Wed, 04 May 2011 00:44:44 +0100
JNugent wrote:
On 03/05/2011 20:56, Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 19:51:18 +0100, JNugent wrote:
What do you mean?

Taxis often stop to pick up or drop off where they are causing an
obstruction. Is this also legal?

Of course it is.

What's the alternative?

Ooo I know , how about they stop where they DON'T cause an obstruction!

Radical idea but you never know - it might just work.

B2003

On 04/05/2011 09:33, d wrote:

wrote:
d wrote:

I'm guessing there isn't one. Or they're exempt. Otherwise how can a black
cab stop halfway across a signalled junction in the middle of the road, on a
corner, on double red lines in central london, blocking the traffic behind to
pick up a passenger and some plods in a van nearby do absolutely bugger all?

Do you know what a taxi is for?

Apparently you don't.

I take it you don't complain when a bus stops at a bus-stop?

Bus stops arn't generally sighted on corners in the middle of a traffic
light controlled junction are they you brainless ****wit?

Buses stop where they stop (which frequently *is* at or very close to road
junctions). Taxis stop where they stop. If you don't understand that a taxi
might stop to pick up a passenger or drop one off, should you be trusted with
a driving licence?

The whole world is a taxi-driver's taxi-stop (or at least, that bit of it
which is within his licensed area). Stopping to pick passengers up is what
taxis do.

Passengers are capable of walking an extra 10 metres if the cap stops up
the road in a safe position.

Why should they have to?

On 04/05/2011 09:36, d wrote:

wrote:
On 03/05/2011 20:56, Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 19:51:18 +0100, wrote:

What do you mean?

Taxis often stop to pick up or drop off where they are causing an
obstruction. Is this also legal?

Of course it is.
What's the alternative?

Ooo I know , how about they stop where they DON'T cause an obstruction!
Radical idea but you never know - it might just work.

Relax. The answer is already known: it wouldn't work. There is nowhere one
can stop on the highway without "obstructing" traffic behind. To argue that
no such obstruction is permissible is to argue that taxi drivers must not be
allowed to ply their trade and that taxi passengers are not entitled to a
service.

The whole idea of hailing a taxi is that it stops for you, you get in, tell
the driver where you want to go and off you go. Is this explanation news to you?

On Wed, 04 May 2011 13:40:09 +0100
JNugent wrote:
Relax. The answer is already known: it wouldn't work. There is nowhere one
can stop on the highway without "obstructing" traffic behind. To argue that
no such obstruction is permissible is to argue that taxi drivers must not be
allowed to ply their trade and that taxi passengers are not entitled to a
service.

Don't be an ass all your life. Is your dad a taxi driver by any chance?

B2003

On Wed, 04 May 2011 13:35:58 +0100
JNugent wrote:
Bus stops arn't generally sighted on corners in the middle of a traffic
light controlled junction are they you brainless ****wit?

Buses stop where they stop (which frequently *is* at or very close to road
junctions). Taxis stop where they stop. If you don't understand that a taxi
might stop to pick up a passenger or drop one off, should you be trusted with
a driving licence?

I think I'll keep your post as one of the best examples of ****wittedness
I've read this year.

Passengers are capable of walking an extra 10 metres if the cap stops up
the road in a safe position.

Why should they have to?

QED.

B2003

On 04/05/2011 13:47, d wrote:

wrote:

Bus stops arn't generally sighted on corners in the middle of a traffic
light controlled junction are they you brainless ****wit?

Buses stop where they stop (which frequently *is* at or very close to road
junctions). Taxis stop where they stop. If you don't understand that a taxi
might stop to pick up a passenger or drop one off, should you be trusted with
a driving licence?

I think I'll keep your post as one of the best examples of ****wittedness
I've read this year.

You do yourself a great disservice. I could never compete with someone who
recognises a taxi when he sees one but doesn't know what it is, what it does
or that it might stop.

Passengers are capable of walking an extra 10 metres if the cap stops up
the road in a safe position.

Why should they have to?

QED.

Do you know what that actually means?

On Wed, 04 May 2011 14:02:47 +0100
Passengers are capable of walking an extra 10 metres if the cap stops up
the road in a safe position.

Why should they have to?

QED.

Do you know what that actually means?

Why do you ask, you don't think your final sentence demonstrated your complete
mastery of the art of ****wittedness? Well please post some more, I need
a laugh.

B2003

On 04/05/2011 14:15, d wrote:

Passengers are capable of walking an extra 10 metres if the cap stops up
the road in a safe position.

Why should they have to?

QED.

Do you know what that actually means?

Why do you ask,

Because you have demonstrated nothing (other than that you don't know what
"QED" means).

you don't think your final sentence demonstrated your complete
mastery of the art of ****wittedness? Well please post some more, I need
a laugh.

There is no reason why a taxi-passenger (prepared to pay out good money)
should be disadvantaged simply because you are behind "their" cab and have
not anticipated that the vehicle might stop to pick up a passenger. It's what
taxis do. Remember that simple fact and never get up so close behind one that
you are forced to stop if it stops (this especially so in an urban
environment). You know it makes sense.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 May 2011 14:02:47 +0100
Passengers are capable of walking an extra 10 metres if the cap stops
up
the road in a safe position.

Why should they have to?

QED.

Do you know what that actually means?

Why do you ask, you don't think your final sentence demonstrated your
complete
mastery of the art of ****wittedness? Well please post some more, I need
a laugh.

\*point* boltar is trying to appear tough again g

--
--

https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

On Wed, 04 May 2011 14:24:47 +0100
JNugent wrote:
Why do you ask,

Because you have demonstrated nothing (other than that you don't know what
"QED" means).

If you say so. Though so far all you've said is crap so I won't hold much
store by it.

There is no reason why a taxi-passenger (prepared to pay out good money)
should be disadvantaged simply because you are behind "their" cab and have

Whatever. Substitue taxi and passenger for 7.5 tonner and delivery and watch
london grind to a halt.

not anticipated that the vehicle might stop to pick up a passenger. It's what
taxis do. Remember that simple fact and never get up so close behind one that
you are forced to stop if it stops (this especially so in an urban
environment). You know it makes sense.

You're a cabbie or you're related to one arn't you. Only someone in the trade
would defend the indefensible with such hollow and idiotic arguments. You'll
be ranting about it to Nick Ferrari on LBC next.

B2003