In message , at 17:20:25 on Wed, 7 Oct
2015, JNugent remarked:

Since anyone can become a black cab driver if they want to learn the
knowledge I really don't see the problem.

I'd be a bit disappointed if convicted sex offenders could.

They can't.
At least, not in London.
Maybe - just - if the conviction was 40 years ago.

So not "anyone" then. Glad we got that clarified.

Not sure what you mean.

That not "anyone" can become a black cab driver.
--
Roland Perry

David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 04:40:00PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
05:10:58 on Tue, 6 Oct 2015, remarked:
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.
And roaming data?

Data coverage is pretty much universal in London, and if you're in a
local black spot walking a few yards in any direction will fix that for
you.

Roaming is cheap in the EU, but in any case if you're travelling abroad
then you can jolly well afford a few bytes. It'll cost peanuts compared
to your travel and accomodation.

I'd not bet on that - Vodafone UK have charged me more in one hour for
roaming data than several night's accomodation in east Ukraine.

Of course rampant inflation/currency devaluation/the fact east Ukraine's
not ecactly a tourist destination at the moment mean accommodation is
remarkably good value there...

Nevertheless, roaming charges outside the EU remain horrendous. (Of course
I have a Ukrainian PAYG SIM now... Dual-SIM phones really are a godsend.)

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
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.

It's not nonsense.

You accused me of suggesting that everybody wanted something just because I
wanted it (which, in fact, I did not do)

and then you say that I can't have something just because you don't want it
(on the basis that everybody wants it that way, just because you do)

And you can't see that that's hypocritical

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
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.

So why have you spent the last 4 days saying that the law forbidding this
operation is a good law and should be kept?

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).

but that's exactly what I have be arguing for, that you keep on saying that
I can't have (the independent third party in my scenario being the marshal
of the rank at e.g. the airport)

I keep on saying that this is what I want and you keep on saying "you can't
have that because it's illegal,. the fact that it's illegal is good law and
the law should stay that way")

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 don't understand in the slightest

I can only repeat:
what a hypocrite!

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

So it's consist to say: the system in NY is so good you "used it twice", but
that operating the same system in the UK being illegal is a good thing?

what a load of inconsistent ********

what a ****** you are.

tosser

tim

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
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

Oh yes very funny.

I didn't mean that I had directly conveyed it to them

I meant that I had written the words that I would use should I want to do so

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

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

That's not the point, your issue was that I was "disrupting their
livelihood" by my request.

I was discussing with you the justification for my request, not asking for
it directly


If you don't understand, go buy a dictionary

You don't like losing, do you?

If you are going to make stupid changes to the pitch half way through what's
the point?

tim

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
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.

It has already been explained to you that when questioned first hand Uber
explain that they do comply with the law.

So any discussion abut what is reported third hand does not require such
certainty

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 01:40:23 on
Wed, 7 Oct 2015, remarked:
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

Where from? Must have been outside the city.

I think he means he expected a discount because of booking ahead at all.

I expected a discount in the same way that I get a discount pre-booking a
contract cab instead of hailing a hackney carriage in other towns.

in Cambridge, it seems, you do not get such a discount

Their loss

tim

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 18:21:49 on Tue, 6 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?

The undergraduate course. I can't believe you really didn't know that.

your post was unclear.

I really didn't know what it was you were saying (you could have meant
"first year at school", for all I knew).

Assuming you now mean "I can't believe you really didn't know that this is
part of Y1 stats", I really have no idea what the curriculum for graduate
level stats is, and I agree that I was exaggerating when I suggested that it
would need the full course to solve this problem - a failed grad would do.

But the point that I was making was that this isn't school level knowledge,
nor (as one) is it graduate level engineering knowledge (if you don't
optionally take that specialisation - ISTR that you once said you did).

This isn't a simple 40 hour a week problem. You have to solve it for 7 days
a week 24 hours a days, with (presumably) variable demand and potential
supply at various parts of the day

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

That explains quite a lot.

Yep (though I think you mean that in a negative way!)

So to explain,

I have a low expectation of people who start businesses. In particular
about the amount of specialist knowledge that they have about their chosen
trade before they start

It doesn't seem unreasonable - it's the reason so many of them go bust!

Just watch one of those restaurant/hotel rescue programs and see how often
the proprietor is someone who has never worked in the industry before
thinking "I'm going to run a restaurant next week" (A real life Bert Large!)

Your expecting otherwise seems to be the outlier to me, especially for a
business with low barriers to entry such as operating a taxi!

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

That's why you need a sensible ratio, but it's not 100% of the cars.

TBH Roland I was insulted that you thought I might think that the accessible
cars would sit around all day waiting for a disable pax.

It's bleeding obvious that they would take normal business as it arrived,
that why the problem is so hard

To wait an hour for the next accessible cab to be available would indicate
an *extremely* small fleet, of course.

many individual cab offices do run a small fleet

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 18:17:56 on Tue, 6 Oct 2015,
tim..... remarked:
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

Indeed, as Colin has said several times recently - they are metered,

I know

but why?

not haggled.

I wasn't looking to haggle. I was looking for the standard contract hire
rate, which I naturally expected to be less than the metered rate - it is
everywhere else in the country (subject to the list of exceptions that I
feel sure you are going to inform me of)

tim

On 2015\10\07 20:46, tim..... wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message ,
at 02:53:33 on Wed, 7 Oct 2015, remarked:

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.

And roaming data?

Having bought your cheapo SIM-free handset, getting a local SIM
card at your point of arrival in your foreign destination is dirt
cheap.

Have you actually tried that in authoritarian countries like India
or Egypt?

having not done this, I'm surprised

You don't even need to get land side at Beijing (which I sure most
would consider is in an authoritarian country) before you could have
three different sims in your hand

That's China for you! I'm sure you can get them surgically removed now
you're back in England.