On Tuesday, 6 October 2015 09:53:15 UTC+2, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
15:16:31 on Mon, 5 Oct 2015, remarked:
On Monday, 5 October 2015 14:34:22 UTC+2, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
05:01:26 on Mon, 5 Oct 2015, remarked:
Of course, but you did seem to present Google Maps as a better answer.

It's an acceptable answer, I'd say.

FSVO...

But it fails and/or misleads, aside from being unavailable at some times
to some people.

Right, but the context here is arranging a journey by Uber. Under what
circumstances is it possible to order a car from Uber but be unable to
check the route via Apple or Google maps?

When the destination isn't mapped, or is mapped incorrectly.

You can only order an Uber car via the internet. You therefore have
the ability to check this fact on hand right then and there. If the
collected wisdom of the entire internet is unable to allow you to
figure out where you intend to go, then I would suggest you ought to be
reconsidering the wisdom of undertaking the journey until you get some
sort of clarification first.

This is a classic case of "let them eat cake". It's perfectly acceptable
to expect to be driven around an unfamiliar area by someone you are
paying to do it.

This has always been the distinction between a hackney carriage and a minicab. it's existed for decades. It has always been the case that minicab drivers won't be expected to have the same knowledge of routes and destination as proper taxi drivers, that's part of the trade-off for the (potentially) lower prices. In this context, Uber is just another minicab operator. If you are not comfortable with this level of driver knowledge, take a "proper" taxi. There is absolutely nothing new here that Uber brings to the argument.

The "private hire" industry (i.e. minicabs) have not had a requirement
for doing "the knowledge" for decades. I recall getting in a minicab
in Croydon over 20 years ago and discovering the driver had no clue
where he was going.

I've been in a Nottingham Hackney that got lost two miles from the
station

I don't know what standards Nottingham applies to its Hackney drivers, but potentially that ought to be grounds for a complaint to the licensing authority.

At least with Uber you know the driver will have GPS enabled maps
available (that's how they find their customers, after all).

If you can find your destination on a map.

Right, so we're back to the choice of a Hackney where you have reasonable confidence that the driver knows the area, or a minicab (of which Uber is a subset) where the driver may not. If you don't know where you're going, and can't figure it out, that's a pretty good indicator a minicab driver won't either, in which case you probably ought to be paying the higher price for the premium service offered by a proper Hackney carriage.

There's nothing wrong, on the face of it, with a minicab company
externalising much of its 'local knowledge' to the passengers, as long
as we understand it won't work for everyone.

A rubicon that was crossed a long time ago by the minicab industry, and
has been greatly alleviated by GPS based navigation methods.

Minicab drivers, especially in the provinces, do often know where places
are "the Hilton somewhere near Stansted Airport", and so on.

A google search provided its location on a map in less than 3 seconds more than the time it took me to type "hilton stansted airport" into google search. The point is, the overlap between "places I (or a minicab driver) can't find on google" and "places people set out to go to without knowing where they are" is tiny.

And that's before we look at the Digital Divide and possible
disadvantages to people looking
for timely and affordable traditional solutions.

That ship sailed a long time ago. There is pretty much no aspect of
any part of travelling from one place to another in the modern world in
which the most timely and affordable solutions are available without an
internet connection. If this were uk.railway I would mention goats.

That's simply not true. I'm very happy to catch buses without any input
from the Internet - just a timetable and map at the bus stop.

You might be happy to do this, but it is definitely not the most "timely and affordable" way of doing things. Just the other day I was going to a friend's house in greater London, and wanted to get a bus from the station to avoid a 20 minute walk. There are two potential routes, leaving from two different bus stops by the station. If I went with your "go to the bus stop and see what I get" approach, I have a 50/50 chance of picking the wrong one and getting a less timely journey. As it happened I used modern technology to solve this problem, and was able to find out which bus was better based on the specific circumstances of my journey. Of course your solution also fails if the information displayed on the bus stop is out of date or rendered illegible due to vandalism.

Robin

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 07:12:13 +0200
Robin9 wrote:
The scare propaganda is FUD put out by the black cab trade
because they are not willing to compete in the open market on
even terms and want instead to have their competition made
illegal.

Presumably Ubers fake taxis are FUD too?

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/ubers-phantom-cabs

And lets not forget about their "surge" pricing, when black cabs and most
minicabs have a fixed rate.

And are you so naive to believe that if Uber did put all the black cabs
and minicabs out of business their prices would somehow remain low?

Uber is nothing more than another bunch of silicon valley slimeballs who move
in unregulated to make a fast buck, disrupting other operators in the process
who have to follow the law, THEN they comply with the law if they're forced to.
And you think this is a business model to admire?

--
Spud

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:47:31 on Sun, 4 Oct
2015, Neil Williams remarked:

That's no help if all I know is the name of a place, and can't locate
it on a map. If in a strange City it can be very difficult to
correlate random destinations with "points on a map".

You've used Google Maps' search facility before, I'm assuming?

Yes, and the results in strange overseas cities can often be very
patchy.

The trouble with strange cities is you have no 'hang on a minute, that
doesn't make sense' function.

For example, 'satnav blunders' like Stamford Bridge (Chelsea) v Stamford
Bridge (battle of), Stratford v Stratford-upon-Avon, Newcastle under Lyme v
upon Tyne, Kingston (upon Hull), Leeds Castle, etc etc.

We all have a good laugh about those, but imagine doing the same in, say,
China? With added local fun that if you get the tone wrong you could end up
asking for a different place entirely.

Not that a local taxi driver would necessarily help here (if they don't
speak English) but they might be able to ask 'are you sure you don't mean
major tourist site not shacks behind the chemical factory?'

Theo

In message , at
01:47:47 on Tue, 6 Oct 2015, remarked:
On Tuesday, 6 October 2015 09:53:15 UTC+2, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
15:16:31 on Mon, 5 Oct 2015, remarked:
On Monday, 5 October 2015 14:34:22 UTC+2, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
05:01:26 on Mon, 5 Oct 2015, remarked:
Of course, but you did seem to present Google Maps as a
better answer.

It's an acceptable answer, I'd say.

FSVO...

But it fails and/or misleads, aside from being unavailable at
some times
to some people.

Right, but the context here is arranging a journey by Uber. Under what
circumstances is it possible to order a car from Uber but be unable to
check the route via Apple or Google maps?

When the destination isn't mapped, or is mapped incorrectly.

You can only order an Uber car via the internet. You therefore have
the ability to check this fact on hand right then and there. If the
collected wisdom of the entire internet is unable to allow you to
figure out where you intend to go, then I would suggest you ought to be
reconsidering the wisdom of undertaking the journey until you get some
sort of clarification first.

This is a classic case of "let them eat cake". It's perfectly acceptable
to expect to be driven around an unfamiliar area by someone you are
paying to do it.

This has always been the distinction between a hackney carriage and a
minicab. it's existed for decades.

I'm talking about the very right wing "Devil take the hindmost" approach
to those not kitted out with all the very latest expensive technology.

It has always been the case that minicab drivers won't be expected to
have the same knowledge of routes and destination as proper taxi
drivers, that's part of the trade-off for the (potentially) lower
prices. In this context, Uber is just another minicab operator. If
you are not comfortable with this level of driver knowledge, take a
"proper" taxi. There is absolutely nothing new here that Uber brings
to the argument.

Getting back to the "Knowledge" thing, it's never been the case that you
needed to point to your destination on a map when instructing a minicab
driver. If it's not possible to describe the destination to them so they
recognise it, they have an A to Z, and if all else fails they can call
the office - I had that happen in Dubai once, when what I assumed to be
their equivalent of a private hire car didn't know where a particular
5-star hotel was, two miles from the airport.

Having got there, perhaps if I'd said "across the road from the main
police station" that would have rung a larger bell.

The "private hire" industry (i.e. minicabs) have not had a requirement
for doing "the knowledge" for decades. I recall getting in a minicab
in Croydon over 20 years ago and discovering the driver had no clue
where he was going.

I've been in a Nottingham Hackney that got lost two miles from the
station

I don't know what standards Nottingham applies to its Hackney drivers,
but potentially that ought to be grounds for a complaint to the
licensing authority.

This was "south of the river" and not in the City. even though only two
miles from the station. I don't know what their rules are for that kind
of potentially out-of-area trip.

At least with Uber you know the driver will have GPS enabled maps
available (that's how they find their customers, after all).

If you can find your destination on a map.

Right, so we're back to the choice of a Hackney where you have
reasonable confidence that the driver knows the area, or a minicab (of
which Uber is a subset) where the driver may not. If you don't know
where you're going, and can't figure it out, that's a pretty good
indicator a minicab driver won't either,

That's nonsense because the minicab is driving around the streets all
day, every day of the week. Of course he'll be more familiar than I am
about where some random destination I've never been before might be
located.

in which case you probably ought to be paying the higher price for the
premium service offered by a proper Hackney carriage.

There's nothing wrong, on the face of it, with a minicab company
externalising much of its 'local knowledge' to the passengers, as long
as we understand it won't work for everyone.

A rubicon that was crossed a long time ago by the minicab industry, and
has been greatly alleviated by GPS based navigation methods.

Minicab drivers, especially in the provinces, do often know where places
are "the Hilton somewhere near Stansted Airport", and so on.

A google search provided its location on a map in less than 3 seconds

I deliberate picked an example that even the numptiest minicab driver
should be able to find. Having said that there was an ambulance that
couldn't find Addenbrookes Hospital in Cambridge in the news about a
year ago.

more than the time it took me to type "hilton stansted airport" into
google search. The point is, the overlap between "places I (or a
minicab driver) can't find on google" and "places people set out to go
to without knowing where they are" is tiny.

Read the examples posted at the weekend. There are many arising from
just a couple of straw polls.

And that's before we look at the Digital Divide and possible
disadvantages to people looking
for timely and affordable traditional solutions.

That ship sailed a long time ago. There is pretty much no aspect of
any part of travelling from one place to another in the modern world in
which the most timely and affordable solutions are available without an
internet connection. If this were uk.railway I would mention goats.

That's simply not true. I'm very happy to catch buses without any input
from the Internet - just a timetable and map at the bus stop.

You might be happy to do this, but it is definitely not the most
"timely and affordable" way of doing things.

It's more affordable than buying a smartphone.

Just the other day I was going to a friend's house in greater London,
and wanted to get a bus from the station to avoid a 20 minute walk.
There are two potential routes, leaving from two different bus stops by
the station. If I went with your "go to the bus stop and see what I
get" approach, I have a 50/50 chance of picking the wrong one and
getting a less timely journey. As it happened I used modern technology
to solve this problem, and was able to find out which bus was better
based on the specific circumstances of my journey. Of course your
solution also fails if the information displayed on the bus stop is out
of date or rendered illegible due to vandalism.

And where I live there are only two bus stops in the High Street, twenty
feet apart.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 09:58:11 on Tue,
6 Oct 2015, Theo Markettos remarked:
Yes, and the results in strange overseas cities can often be very
patchy.

The trouble with strange cities is you have no 'hang on a minute, that
doesn't make sense' function.

For example, 'satnav blunders' like Stamford Bridge (Chelsea) v Stamford
Bridge (battle of), Stratford v Stratford-upon-Avon, Newcastle under Lyme v
upon Tyne, Kingston (upon Hull), Leeds Castle, etc etc.

And Hampton Court in Islington instead of the Tudor palace.
--
Roland Perry

On 2015-10-06, wrote:
In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

8 --------

Some solutions for wheelchair accessibility make things worse for
those who can walk but only just. For instance, while low-floor
buses are good for everyone, the removal of the central pole does
make it difficult for people to climb aboard. I saw this today,
FWIW, and see it most times I use a bus - there is an elderly person
who finds it hard to walk aboard almost every bus, but almost never a
wheelchair, at least outside London. And I can see why - if I were
in a wheelchair and able to drive an adapted car, I would travel
exclusively by car. And I think most wheelchair users do if it is an
option.

I'm not sure of the answer to this if the regional bus companies
continue to insist on not using a dual-door approach, where a pole
could be provided at the front and wheelchairs board at the centre
door. Though even in London the pole is missing, even at the rear of
the Boris bus where that door is not used for wheelchairs - there is
a pole, but it isn't in the middle so there is still no way to board
while using both hands to help haul yourself up.

It's not just wheelchairs. Before my granddaughter was walking and in a
buggy her mother couldn't get her onto older local buses (London cast-offs)
because of the centre pole in the entrances which she could not get the
buggy past. To get her and baby onto the bus and fold the buggy she needed 3
hands. Some drivers treated her appallingly.

I said this 3 years ago, but it's worth saying it again:

The problem here is usually the buggy. What we used to do is move child
to parent's left arm, kick the right place between the back wheels
while holding one handle with right hand, bend knees and grab the bit
below the handle and the bit above a front wheel, stand up again. Thus
we had a child on one arm and a folded "buggy" in the other hand,
ready to get on. Did it lots, got very good at doing it quickly.

Of course this wasn't a buggy, but what we called a stroller and you
would probably call a push-chair. The problem here is the buggies with
their big wheels and heavy framework that seem to be designed and used
as general cargo carriers, with a space for the baby that often seems
somewhat secondary.

Wanting people to have a folding "buggy" is nowhere near as bad as wanting
everyone to have permanent internet access before they can do anything.

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 11:42:49 +0200
Eric wrote:
Wanting people to have a folding "buggy" is nowhere near as bad as wanting
everyone to have permanent internet access before they can do anything.

Unfortunately the dream of a lot of socially inept techy types is a society
entirely based around non human interaction via the internet. And naturally
companies go along with it because its cheaper and politicians go along with
it because they're clueless and they think it makes them look like they have
their finger on the pulse.

--
Spud

On 2015\10\04 17:07, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-10-04 15:00:03 +0000, Roland Perry said:

One of the main complaints in London is that they lurk around places
where people might want a cab, and then presumably get the customer to
book them on the spot. That's the reason for the 5-minute timeout
proposed in the consultation.

God forbid they should do anything convenient for the user.

Having people in non-wheelchair-accessible cars surrounding venues,
charging 20 or 30 pound minimum fares and threatening to behead any taxi
drivers who try to get near the venue isn't quite as convenient to the
user as you seem to imply.

On 2015-10-06, y wrote:
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 11:42:49 +0200
Eric wrote:
Wanting people to have a folding "buggy" is nowhere near as bad as wanting
everyone to have permanent internet access before they can do anything.

Unfortunately the dream of a lot of socially inept techy types is a society
entirely based around non human interaction via the internet. And naturally
companies go along with it because its cheaper and politicians go along with
it because they're clueless and they think it makes them look like they have
their finger on the pulse.

Very good!

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry

On Tuesday, 6 October 2015 11:22:55 UTC+2, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
01:47:47 on Tue, 6 Oct 2015, remarked:
On Tuesday, 6 October 2015 09:53:15 UTC+2, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
15:16:31 on Mon, 5 Oct 2015, remarked:
On Monday, 5 October 2015 14:34:22 UTC+2, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
05:01:26 on Mon, 5 Oct 2015, remarked:
Of course, but you did seem to present Google Maps as a
better answer.

It's an acceptable answer, I'd say.

FSVO...

But it fails and/or misleads, aside from being unavailable at
some times
to some people.

Right, but the context here is arranging a journey by Uber. Under what
circumstances is it possible to order a car from Uber but be unable to
check the route via Apple or Google maps?

When the destination isn't mapped, or is mapped incorrectly.

You can only order an Uber car via the internet. You therefore have
the ability to check this fact on hand right then and there. If the
collected wisdom of the entire internet is unable to allow you to
figure out where you intend to go, then I would suggest you ought to be
reconsidering the wisdom of undertaking the journey until you get some
sort of clarification first.

This is a classic case of "let them eat cake". It's perfectly acceptable
to expect to be driven around an unfamiliar area by someone you are
paying to do it.

This has always been the distinction between a hackney carriage and a
minicab. it's existed for decades.

I'm talking about the very right wing "Devil take the hindmost" approach
to those not kitted out with all the very latest expensive technology.

A smartphone with GPS and access to google maps is not "the very latest expensive technology", it's cheap commodity off the shelf technology that most people already have. You can buy an android handset SIM free for about £100 these days.

It has always been the case that minicab drivers won't be expected to
have the same knowledge of routes and destination as proper taxi
drivers, that's part of the trade-off for the (potentially) lower
prices. In this context, Uber is just another minicab operator. If
you are not comfortable with this level of driver knowledge, take a
"proper" taxi. There is absolutely nothing new here that Uber brings
to the argument.

Getting back to the "Knowledge" thing, it's never been the case that you
needed to point to your destination on a map when instructing a minicab
driver. If it's not possible to describe the destination to them so they
recognise it, they have an A to Z

So your point is you don't have to point out your destination on a map because they have a map (on which you can point out your destination)?

The "private hire" industry (i.e. minicabs) have not had a requirement
for doing "the knowledge" for decades. I recall getting in a minicab
in Croydon over 20 years ago and discovering the driver had no clue
where he was going.

I've been in a Nottingham Hackney that got lost two miles from the
station

I don't know what standards Nottingham applies to its Hackney drivers,
but potentially that ought to be grounds for a complaint to the
licensing authority.

This was "south of the river" and not in the City. even though only two
miles from the station. I don't know what their rules are for that kind
of potentially out-of-area trip.

At least with Uber you know the driver will have GPS enabled maps
available (that's how they find their customers, after all).

If you can find your destination on a map.

Right, so we're back to the choice of a Hackney where you have
reasonable confidence that the driver knows the area, or a minicab (of
which Uber is a subset) where the driver may not. If you don't know
where you're going, and can't figure it out, that's a pretty good
indicator a minicab driver won't either,

That's nonsense because the minicab is driving around the streets all
day, every day of the week. Of course he'll be more familiar than I am
about where some random destination I've never been before might be
located.

What's your point here? Before you were arguing that minicab drivers might not know where you are going and how terrible that was, and now you are saying that minicab drivers will know where they are going because they drive around the place all the time and get to know the neighbourhood. Well which is it?

in which case you probably ought to be paying the higher price for the
premium service offered by a proper Hackney carriage.

There's nothing wrong, on the face of it, with a minicab company
externalising much of its 'local knowledge' to the passengers, as long
as we understand it won't work for everyone.

A rubicon that was crossed a long time ago by the minicab industry, and
has been greatly alleviated by GPS based navigation methods.

Minicab drivers, especially in the provinces, do often know where places
are "the Hilton somewhere near Stansted Airport", and so on.

A google search provided its location on a map in less than 3 seconds

I deliberate picked an example that even the numptiest minicab driver
should be able to find.

You've been banging on about all these places you might want to go that can't be found on google maps, and then when you give an example you chose one that can be found on google maps in a trifle. So where are all these places people want to go that can't be found on google maps?

And that's before we look at the Digital Divide and possible
disadvantages to people looking
for timely and affordable traditional solutions.

That ship sailed a long time ago. There is pretty much no aspect of
any part of travelling from one place to another in the modern world in
which the most timely and affordable solutions are available without an
internet connection. If this were uk.railway I would mention goats.

That's simply not true. I'm very happy to catch buses without any input
from the Internet - just a timetable and map at the bus stop.

You might be happy to do this, but it is definitely not the most
"timely and affordable" way of doing things.

It's more affordable than buying a smartphone.

So is staying at home. You specifically didn't say "cheapest possible", you chose to argue on a condition, "timely and affordable". Smartphones are not expensive these days and have myriad uses beyond finding public transport.