Paul Corfield wrote on Thu, 26 Apr 2012
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:50:51 +0200, Jarle H Knudsen
wrote:

Tfl has issued this statment:

"TfL's High Court injunction prevents Addison Lee from instructing its
drivers to use bus lanes

Following a ruling from the High Court today (Thursday 26 April) Addison
Lee is prevented from instructing or encouraging its drivers to drive in
bus lanes and must remove the statement on its website instructing
drivers to do so.[...]" [1]

But this is what Addison Lee says:

"TfL fails in its bid to silence Addison Lee over bus lanes

Transport for London has been forced to abandon its application for a
mandatory injunction requiring Addison Lee and its chairman John Griffin
to withdraw their letter to drivers stating that they are entitled to
drive in London bus lanes[...]" [2]

Clever use of language, or are they contradicting each other?

I think it is clever use of language. The AL release uses some very
careful wording in order to present as positive a picture of the
decision. Words like "noted by the judge" suggesting agreement
whereas I doubt the judge offered any such endorsement. The term
"mandatory injunction" also looks rather technical and is without
context as we do not know exactly what TfL did ask the Court for.

Clearly TfL have come away with a decision that broadly supports its
position. However Addison Lee seem intent on pursuing their argument
that they are being "discriminated" against. The timing of all of this
is extremely dubious in my view and is only about AL making shedloads
of money while not giving a damn about what happens to London's bus
service.

The judgement can be read at
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/1105.html. It's only a
sub-issue in a campaign by AL that is continuing and will be going to
judicial review.

The judge said of AL in paragraph 80:

" a. Despite protestations to the contrary (including an assertion in
Ms Demetriou QC's skeleton argument that, and I quote, "Mr Griffin has
not instructed his drivers to use the bus lanes"), it seems to me plain
that Mr Griffin and AL have, in effect, been characterising the Notice
sent to AL's PHV drivers on 14 April as an "instruction".

b. The video clip showing Mr Griffin instructing one of his drivers
to go into the bus lane and offering to pay any money the driver may be
charged is the clearest possible evidence of Mr Griffin's willingness to
risk flouting the law."

The judgement concluded:

"For all these reasons, it is my conclusion that it is both necessary
and just and convenient to grant the injunction sought by TfL in the
form sought ie until determination by the Administrative Court of the
judicial review proceedings in claim CO10424/2011 or further order, an
injunction restraining the defendants from causing, encouraging or
assisting any private hire vehicle driver to use bus lanes marked for
use by taxis during the hours when restrictions apply, save to pick up
or set down passengers subject to the cross-undertaking by TfL as set
out above. I will also grant the interim declaration as set out above,
accept the undertakings proffered by the defendants and make an order
that the judicial review proceedings be expedited."
--
Iain Archer

On 2012\04\27 10:27, Neil Williams wrote:
Roland wrote:

They are both "public transport" which helps dissuade people from driving
their own cars into cities, have to find somewhere to park etc.

They do not have a congestion or environmental benefit in the city itself,
though.

London taxis do, because of the tight turning circle. If every taxi was
replaced by cars that had to do three-point turns instead of U-turns,
congestion would be worse. Witness the congestion caused by minicabs
doing three-point turns in Old Street at 2am on the weekend.

On 2012\04\27 12:04, Bruce wrote:
Basil wrote:

When you consider the cost of the vehicle and the fuel consumption (and
consequent safety) are so much lower than a taxi


Eh? Are hackney cabs fitted with air bags? Do hackney cabs have to
pass compulsory crash tests? Have any hackney cabs achieved a 5-star
rating in the NCAP tests, or indeed any NCAP rating at all?

So where is this "consequent safety" of which you write?

Weight. If a London taxi has a head-on collision with a minicab, the
taxi passengers will go ballistic metaphorically, the minicab passengers
will go ballistic literally.

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2012\04\27 12:04, Bruce wrote:
Basil wrote:

When you consider the cost of the vehicle and the fuel consumption (and
consequent safety) are so much lower than a taxi


Eh? Are hackney cabs fitted with air bags? Do hackney cabs have to
pass compulsory crash tests? Have any hackney cabs achieved a 5-star
rating in the NCAP tests, or indeed any NCAP rating at all?

So where is this "consequent safety" of which you write?

Weight. If a London taxi has a head-on collision with a minicab, the
taxi passengers will go ballistic metaphorically, the minicab passengers
will go ballistic literally.


That's a fallacy. The London taxi lacks most of the active and
passive safety features that are either mandatory or are usually
fitted to private cars including those use for minicabs.

The idea that weight is in itself of some benefit to safety is
nonsense. The structural strength of the passenger cabin and the
efficiency at absorbing kinetic energy in the crumple zones that
surround it are key.

There is no evidence that the horribly outdated design of the London
taxi has either the strong cabin or the efficient crumple zones that
are now common in private cars, and hence minicabs. A vehicle with a
ladder chassis and bolt-on body panels has never achieved top safety
ratings in collision testing.

There is of course an exception here, in that the Mercedes Taxi (which
is approved as a hackney cab in London) has much higher safety
standards. However that model represents only a small subset of the
London hackney cab fleet.

Of course if the London Taxi Company voluntarily put its models
through Euro NCAP tests we would know just how safe it is, or isn't,
in a collision. The fact that it has never been tested suggests that
they know their ladder chassis and bolt-on body panels offers very
little in the way of protection to occupants in a collision.

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
03:29:09 on Fri, 27 Apr 2012, remarked:
The distinction between taxis and hire cars is a tricky judgement for
local authorities. We had the same debate in Cambridge over 30 years ago.
But here the hire cars have taximeters and generally charge the same
fares as taxis,

The Cambridge council website says:

"The [private hire] fares are set by the company's meter or quoted in
advance."

It's quite common in that scenario for trips to airports etc to be
done at a fixed fee.

Indeed. I was contrasting Cambridge with other cities, e.g. Birmingham,
where meters are banned and all fares must be agreed before starting the
hire.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

So what happens when a customer agrees a price,
begins the journey and then changes his or her mind
about where they are going? The negotiated price is
no longer valid.

In article ,
(Robin9) wrote:

;130197 Wrote:
In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:
-
In message , at
03:29:09 on Fri, 27 Apr 2012, remarked:-
The distinction between taxis and hire cars is a tricky judgement for
local authorities. We had the same debate in Cambridge over 30 years
ago. But here the hire cars have taximeters and generally charge the
same fares as taxis,-

The Cambridge council website says:

"The [private hire] fares are set by the company's meter or quoted
in advance."

It's quite common in that scenario for trips to airports etc to be
done at a fixed fee.-

Indeed. I was contrasting Cambridge with other cities, e.g.
Birmingham,

where meters are banned and all fares must be agreed before
starting the hire.

So what happens when a customer agrees a price,
begins the journey and then changes his or her mind
about where they are going? The negotiated price is
no longer valid.

At that point they negotiate the fare again. They do have a meter to guide
them.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Neil Williams wrote:

My view is that taxis of any kind, private hire or Hackney carriage, are
private transport and should not be permitted in bus lanes at all.


Hackney cabs are *most certainly public transport*. Everyone is
entitled to use them on payment of a regulated fare.

I don't see how having a regulated fare has anything to do with it. Buses
can charge what they like for any given journey.

So on that basis you are left with "anyone can use them on paynet of a fare"
so that makes minicabs PT as well

tim

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 08:13:10PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:

Except for those of limited mobility, a taxi is rarely a public transport
necessity in Central London

Nor is a bus or a train. You can walk all the way across Central London
in about an hour and a half.

People use buses and trains because they're more convenient than
walking. Well, people use taxis because they're more convenient than
buses and tubes.

--
David Cantrell | Hero of the Information Age

More people are driven insane through religious hysteria than
by drinking alcohol. -- W C Fields

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 10:12:41AM +0100, tim.... wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Hackney cabs are *most certainly public transport*. Everyone is
entitled to use them on payment of a regulated fare.
I don't see how having a regulated fare has anything to do with it. Buses
can charge what they like for any given journey.

Not in London they can't.

Even the most died-in-the-wool Oyster hater wouldn't say that the
unpredictable fares and frequent errors are quite *that* bad.

--
David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire

All principles of gravity are negated by fear
-- Cartoon Law V