On 06/10/2015 14:37, David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 06:18:59PM +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 05/10/2015 16:02, y wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:54:47 +0100
JNugent wrote:
On 05/10/2015 14:26, David Cantrell wrote:
On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 10:34:57PM +0100, JNugent wrote:
There is no such thing as a mini cab.
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/234043
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/taxis-and-minicabs/
Forgive me if I take their word for it over yours.
The word "cab" has a legal definition.
Is english your 2nd language? When 2 words are combined they generally no
longer mean the same as each original word. For example: a riverbus isn't a
red double decker that happens to float.
The word "cab" still has a legal definition, even if you wish it didn't.

So does "bus".

Does it?

What is it?

In message , at 16:55:30 on Tue, 6 Oct
2015, JNugent remarked:

Are they perhaps (in London, anyway) "checking that a driver has been
vetted". The system in other cities may well be different.

No, it isn't.

The system is exactly the same in London and the rest of E&W: the
operator has to check that drivers to whom he sub-contracts (or
provides) work are licensed and insured.

Vetting also includes criminal records. And checking insurance on the
day they join doesn't guarantee they are insured the day after.
--
Roland Perry

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 18:47, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 04/10/2015 14:50, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-10-04 13:14:08 +0000, JNugent said:

Buses are still available, if not always convenient. A taxi is not a
bus.

The hybrid matatu/jitney model works reasonably well in many countries.

A public transport operator is free to apply for the necessary
permissions to make that work.

Your preferences are not a reason to abolish protection for
taxi-passengers.

Who's proposing to abolish your ability to hire a taxi to yourself?
What
is being proposed is allowing people who wish to to take a shared taxi.
Those who do not wish to can continue to take one to themselves,
obviously at a fare commensurate to that.

As I have already said, several times: that is already allowed.

It's just that the passenger decides on the sharing, not the driver or
operator.

No, the passenger has to (somehow) find the other passages, that's not
the same thing at all (and completely impractical for out of London
destinations)

It could be done via an app on mobile phones. There are already similar
ways of locating people in an area with similar interests.

But don't make the mistake of assuming that your requirements are the same
as everyone else's.

What like you have do you mean?

assuming that nobody wants the option of making an ad hoc paring with
someone else in the queue, just because you don't want to

(not for the first time) what a hypocrite you are

tim

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 06/10/2015 08:15, Someone Somewhere wrote:

On 10/5/2015 8:58 PM, JNugent wrote:
On 05/10/2015 18:47, tim..... wrote:

No, the passenger has to (somehow) find the other passages, that's not
the same thing at all (and completely impractical for out of London
destinations)

It could be done via an app on mobile phones. There are already similar
ways of locating people in an area with similar interests.

But don't make the mistake of assuming that your requirements are the
same as everyone else's.

So your only argument against all of this is that the driver shouldn't
be burdened with somehow putting together the relevant group of
passengers?

No, not at all.

It is that he shouldn't be *trusted* with it.

See if you can work out why.

No I can't

he isn't making a choice from people he is nominating, and can hence
gerrymander

it is being made from a selection of random walk-ups, probably on a next
arrival (for the same/similar destination) basis. And if you don't like
that person as a travel companion you are free to decline.

The idea that there is more risk involved because the driver is offering the
choice rather than via a random app, is balderdash

tim

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 20:48, Neil Williams wrote:

On 2015-10-04 22:21:04 +0000, said:

We couldn't find a mechanism to manage this, even from the station
with its legendary taxi queues.

At the station might it have just about worked to put up a sign saying
something like "Why not ask others if they will share your taxi to keep
costs down and keep things moving? Wait here if you'd like to do this."
- leaving it to the passengers to get together to hire a taxi and split
its fare, and thus making it legal?

That might work, though there is a real risk that unlicensed touts would
interpose themselves and start offering "service".

Incidentally, there is a working system at Newark Airport where a
despatcher (employed by the airport) allocates passengers/groups of
passengers to taxis with a flat fare (flat by the vehicle, not per capita)
to specific places. That's places, not addresses. The last time I used it
I paid $45 from the airport to a NJ city on the Hudson.

Oh, so it's all right for you to take advantage of it in the US.

but it not all right for me to use this method in London, for no other
reason that because you don't think it should be allowed to be offered.

I can only repeat:

what a hypocrite!

tim

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 21:01, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 18:41, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 09:18, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 10/4/2015 2:10 PM, JNugent wrote:
On 03/10/2015 09:07, Someone Somewhere wrote:
Seriously?

Because a taxi is - in its very essence - a *private* space which
can be
hired by the passenger to the exclusion of others. It is not a
bus.
If a
bus is what is wanted, buses are available.


What? There's a bus that takes me from Heathrow to outside my
house in
Shadwell?

Provided you're willing to change a few times, yes.


More times than the TfL planner can cope with to get outside my
house.

That's a problem you have with buses. Not everyone has it.

The fact that you do is not a good reason for disrupting the
legitimate livelihood of others.

How is my saying "if you wont provide a legitimate way of my sharing a
cab (on an ad hoch basis with someone that I don't know), I wont be
using a cab at all" an attack on a legitimate business

Was that a question?

I'll assume that it was a question.

Your saying anything at all on usenet is not an attack on a legitimate
business. Or at least, not one worth the name.

It is the proposed de-regulation of the licensed taxi trade and the
proposed relaxation of controls on pirate cars which would disrupt the
legitimate livelihood of others.

I explaining to them how they can get business that they have otherwise
lost

Who is "them"?

cabbies

And how do you propose to "explaining" this to cabbies?

I've just done so

If you don't understand, go buy a dictionary

tim

wrote in message
...
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,

I presume that you are incapable of reading the old world solution - the
fold-up bus map!

tim

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 21:01, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 20:28, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 17:26, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:11:53 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:45:22 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
the pavement outside the venue in the pouring rain, or perhaps
five
minutes earlier when they are inside in the warm and can more
comfortably use their phone to order a car to arrive in five
minute's
time?

Since thats exactly how people used to order minicabs I'm
wondering what
exactly is the killer selling point of Uber. Other than it means
Aspergers
types don't actually have to talk to a person and get all
stressed.

You don't have to know the names and phone numbers of local mini
cab firms,

Google.

Obviously you like making things more difficult than they need to be.


nor explain the address to someone who may not have a shared
language.

Right, because Uber drivers are always natives.

Of course not, but you seem not to know how Uber works.


Either or both parties may be in a noisy environment.

What's more, Uber probably gets you a car more quickly, you don't
need to
pay cash (a particular advantage when abroad, if you don't have
local
currency), and it's typically cheaper.

Of course its cheaper - unvetted drivers whose only qualification is
owning
a car and smartphone.

Wrong again.

That is precisely the point; no-one has been (so far) able to say with
certainty that Uber drivers *are* vetted and licensed.

The fact that Uber themselves claim to do the vetting" is alarming.

I don't believe that they do

they claim that they have checked the driver has been vetted (the rest
is just lost in lazy journalism)

Every "private hire" operator has to do that.

so what were you complaining about then?

The current situation is completely unclear.

In particular, it is far from clear that Uber's sub-contractor drivers
*are* licensed, even as "private hire" drivers.

Uber themselves claim to do the vetting

as I said befo

that is likely to be just lazy jurno speak for "the driver gets the
authorities to do the necessary vetting and Uber check that they (the
driver) has done this"

tim

wrote in message
...
In article ,
(tim.....) wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 10:36:06 on Sun, 4 Oct
2015, tim..... remarked:

And one issue here is the problem of disability access. If all "ply
for
hire" cabs have to conform with the disability act and provide equal
access, then all "contract hire" cabs should as well. This is one area
where Uber is deficient that he should be MADE to comply with.

It's not necessarily important for every private hire vehicle to
offer disability access, because the are pre-booked. As long as
each firm has some minimum number of such vehicles available if
requested, that should be sufficient.

That I understand

but unless that "minimum number" is somewhat larger than you might
first calculate, you either end up with the accessible cabs waiting
around all day for the one disabled passenger, or no accessible cabs
free at the time that passenger turns up.

And of course, it leaves the possibility of (illegal) increase in
price for the disabled cab. If all cabs are accessible them the
disabled pax doesn't need to announce their requirement, but if they
are required to announce it how do you ensue that the request hasn't
magically entered the "surge pricing" zone?

Doesn't seem to cause problems in Cambridge. Both the Hackney Carriage and
Hire Car fleets are mixed and telephone-booked business is mixed between
both fleets because all hire cars use meters set to the same tariff as the
hackneys.

Yes I know

I enquired about booking cab from the office to the station one day and when
I got told it would be 18 quid for a 6 mile journey. I politely declined

I was expecting pre-booking to offer a discount, not in Cambridge it seems

tim



--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 20:31:42 on Mon, 5 Oct 2015,
tim..... remarked:

It's not necessarily important for every private hire vehicle to offer
disability access, because the are pre-booked. As long as each firm
has some minimum number of such vehicles available if requested, that
should be sufficient.

That I understand

but unless that "minimum number" is somewhat larger than you might first
calculate, you either end up with the accessible cabs waiting around all
day for the one disabled passenger, or no accessible cabs free at the
time that passenger turns up.

It's queuing theory 101, not that difficult.

to a graduate level statistician perhaps,

You do Stats 101 in the first year!

In the first year of what?

to the average numpty who runs a cab office?

You think decisions about fleet procurement are done by a numpty in the
cab office?

Yep


What's likely to happen is that there's a ready reckoner, perhaps even
stipulated by the local authority, saying something like: "fleets of 2-10
should have one accessible vehicle; 11-25 three; 26-50 four" or whatever.

But the numpty dispatcher can also use their experience to see how often a
person wanting an accessible car is kept waiting "too long", and make
recommendations to the owner.

btw, they don't sit around waiting for an accessible fare - they take
regular passengers if there's no booking in the queue for an accessible
ride.

so then the disabled pax might have an hour wait for a free cab

tim


--
Roland Perry