On 06/10/2015 17:35, tim..... wrote:

"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 ...

I'm trying to decide whether you're being dishonest or disingenuous.

It's one of the two, though.

In article ,
() wrote:

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

This is a London problem. They had no control of hire cars until decades
after the rest of the country where it dates from 1976. Councils that have
adopted the legislation can impose knowledge requirements. Cambridge is one
that does.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On 2015-10-05 21:17:42 +0000, said:

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.

So is there no competition between the private hire firms on price?
Interesting. There are some "dual purpose" taxis in Milton Keynes,
but the rate used depends on whether you've pre-booked (private hire)
or not (hackney). I can't remember if the meter is used in the
private hire case with a different rate, though there are places
where it is.

The above is closer to Germany etc - there are just taxis which you
can either hail or pre-book - no distinction.

There is competition for trade across the City boundary. Also for larger
groups of people in larger vehicles.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 06/10/2015 17:05, Roland Perry wrote:
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....

Which, of course, a private company cannot do.

And checking insurance on the
day they join doesn't guarantee they are insured the day after.

True.

But taking the example of a taxi (a proper taxi, I mean) where the
proprietor/driver does not work for or via anyone but himself, the only
foolproof way of checking continuous insurance would be for the
licensing authority to check it every day.

That might be thought to be a bit much. But checking at least once every
few months (and ensuring that the certificate demonstrates a logical
audit trail of uninterrupted cover) is easier and less onerous.

On 06/10/2015 17:30, tim..... wrote:

"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

You must be desperate if you're resorting to that nonsense.

On 06/10/2015 17:40, tim..... wrote:

"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.

Indeed. And if LHR decided to do the same here, I'd support that -
mainly because it would be lawful, whereas allowing the driver to do it
would not be.

but it not all right for me to use this method in London,

It's *perfectly* alright for you or anyone else to use such a system
(where an independent third party does the matching and pairing).

for no other
reason that because you don't think it should be allowed to be offered.

Oh dear...

You weren't thinking, were you?

I can only repeat:
what a hypocrite!

That must be a self description, because it certainly does not describe
my logical and consistent stance.

On 06/10/2015 18:03, tim..... wrote:

"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

Which posters are the "cabbies" (as you disrepectfully call them)?

And what makes you "think" they're taking any notice of you?

If you don't understand, go buy a dictionary

You don't like losing, do you?

On 06/10/2015 18:12, tim..... wrote:

"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"

"likely".

The law requires certainty.

So does passenger security and general road safety.

On 2015-10-06 08:56:54 +0000, y said:

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

Eh? Ever taken a taxi of any kind on Christmas Day? Or to a lesser
extent after midnight?

It's not as sophisticated as Uber, but it is certainly a price based on
a combination of demand and the unwillingness of drivers to work.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On 2015-10-06 08:47:47 +0000, said:

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.

I've long thought that journey planners are just about the best thing
that ever happened to public transport. Go back 20 years and you could
never find out anything about local public transport at the end of a
long distance rail journey. These days put it in Google Maps and you
know straight off - and it often suggests something you didn't even
consider.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.