Recliner wrote:

It's not looking good:

Time for common sense to prevail and for all brands of accessible minibus
to be permitted instead? I am unconvinced of the turning circle argument.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 12:56:34 +0000
Recliner wrote:
I was surprised just how small the operation already was, even before
these latest redundancies. I assume that most of the real
manufacturing must already have moved to China, with only final
assembly happening in the UK. I don't suppose recent London cabs
actually have very much UK content, so it's not much of a loss if the
British facade is finally removed.

A conspiracy theorist might suggest that the chinese deliberately supplied
dodgy parts and - apparently - refused to replace them.

B2003

On 1 Nov 2012 13:06:33 GMT
Neil Williams wrote:
Recliner wrote:

It's not looking good:

Time for common sense to prevail and for all brands of accessible minibus
to be permitted instead? I am unconvinced of the turning circle argument.

It would be better for all if the cabs didn't have a small turning circle then
their drivers might be less inclined to do dangerous 180s on busy roads.

B2003

On 01/11/2012 13:06, Neil Williams wrote:

Recliner wrote:

It's not looking good:

Time for common sense to prevail and for all brands of accessible minibus
to be permitted instead? I am unconvinced of the turning circle argument.

And I'm unconvinced of your interpretation of 'common sense'!

Mizter T wrote:

Time for common sense to prevail and for all brands of accessible minibus
to be permitted instead? I am unconvinced of the turning circle argument.

And I'm unconvinced of your interpretation of 'common sense'!

LTI taxis are rather more expensive than the alternatives, both to buy and
to run, so long as you lose the turning circle requirement. Taxi fares
could be lower if costs were lower. You could still paint them black and
have a taxi sign on the top.

This is sounding rather similar, I suppose, to the argument against the
Boris Bus.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

wrote:

It would be better for all if the cabs didn't have a small turning circle then
their drivers might be less inclined to do dangerous 180s on busy roads.

That is a good point. And you could always hail the taxi and cross the
road yourself, then he can run three sides of a block or use an appropriate
sideroad to turn around. Far more sensible.

Before anyone says "but it might be dangerous to cross the road", it's
unlikely to be safe to do a U turn on a road where it isn't safe to cross
as a pedestrian.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 08:54:00 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 00:42:55 +0100
Bruce wrote:
The LTI cabs are built like Army trucks. I have a feeling that it

Translation: Its a road car in 2012 still being built using a ladder frame
chassis.

The company really only has itself to blame for its downfall for charging
silly money for an antique because it had a monopoly. Well, not any longer
and when they realised they'd have to up their game what did they do? Improve
the taxi? Design something modern? Nope, they used cheap **** components from
china. Genius.

According to Wikipedia these are supplied from China as semi-complete
knock-down kits so the British 'management' may have had little say in
the matter.

On 01/11/2012 15:17, Neil Williams wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

Time for common sense to prevail and for all brands of accessible minibus
to be permitted instead? I am unconvinced of the turning circle argument.

And I'm unconvinced of your interpretation of 'common sense'!

LTI taxis are rather more expensive than the alternatives, both to buy and
to run, so long as you lose the turning circle requirement. Taxi fares
could be lower if costs were lower. You could still paint them black and
have a taxi sign on the top.

This is sounding rather similar, I suppose, to the argument against the
Boris Bus.

There is currently one alternative on the market, the Merc Vito, and the
imminent arrival of another, the Nissan NV200.

Neil Williams wrote:
Recliner wrote:

It's not looking good:

Time for common sense to prevail and for all brands of accessible minibus
to be permitted instead? I am unconvinced of the turning circle argument.


That would mean that the turning circle at the Savoy Hotel would have
to be declared off-limits for taxis; there is no room to enlarge it.

Both the Mercedes Taxi and the new Nissan L200-derived Taxi are
approved for London and meet the turning circle requirement.

Neil Williams wrote:

wrote:

It would be better for all if the cabs didn't have a small turning circle then
their drivers might be less inclined to do dangerous 180s on busy roads.

That is a good point. And you could always hail the taxi and cross the
road yourself, then he can run three sides of a block or use an appropriate
sideroad to turn around. Far more sensible.

Before anyone says "but it might be dangerous to cross the road", it's
unlikely to be safe to do a U turn on a road where it isn't safe to cross
as a pedestrian.


Do you have any statistics for the frequency of accidents caused by
taxis making U-turns? Or is it, as I strongly suspect, a problem that
exists only in theory?