|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 2015\10\07 17:23, JNugent wrote:
But the PCO (which at one time was a branch of the Met Police) And is now called TfL Taxis & Private Hire. The PCO name is dead. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 07/10/2015 18:17, Roland Perry wrote:
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. Well, applicants have to be the holder of an acceptable driving licence, a citizen of one of only a limited number of countries, in good health and of good character. But none of those restrictions are unreasonable, as I'm sure you'll agree. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 07/10/2015 19:53, tim..... wrote:
"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) No, I did not. I urged you to bear in mind that the fact that you want something does not mean that everyone wants it. As far as I was concerned, it might have been a point you'd never even considered, let alone pronounced on. 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 I support the operation of the law and I oppose attempts to undermine it. If it pleases you to imagine that I am the only person taking that stance, carry on. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"JNugent" wrote in message ... On 07/10/2015 19:53, tim..... wrote: "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) No, I did not. so what does "But don't make the mistake of assuming that your requirements are the same as everyone else's" mean then? I urged you to bear in mind that the fact that you want something does not mean that everyone wants it. As far as I was concerned, it might have been a point you'd never even considered, let alone pronounced on. Oh don't be stupid, of course I considered that. The very idea that I might have not is so preposterous that your post cannot possibly have meant something this simple (and in any case, my request does not affect anyone else if they don't want to use it) 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 I support the operation of the law and I oppose attempts to undermine it. I'm not undermining it I suggesting that it needs to change If it pleases you to imagine that I am the only person taking that stance, carry on. which stance is that? The one that is only there as a protectionist measure to protect a vested interest and all of the vested interests want it to stay. Well of course they do, don't they, when did turkey's vote of Christmas? So if we exclude them, what are we left with precisely? tim |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 07/10/2015 20:00, tim..... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote: On 06/10/2015 17:40, tim..... wrote: "JNugent" wrote: 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? You have a vivid imagination. I have said NO SUCH THING. There is no law forbidding passengers - or a bona fide third party - from getting together to hire a shared taxi and I have not suggested or state that there is (look above at the quoted material if you want evidence of that). What the law says is that the driver or operator may not do the arranging. but it not all right for me to use this method in London, The Newark Method? The only thing that stops you using it in London is that the airports don't provide the service. 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) You could not be more wrong if you tried really hard. I have said what I said I said and not said what you said I said. 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") The law prevents the driver or operator from operating a taxi (or pirate car) as a stage carriage or PSV. It does not prevent passengers clubbing together, with or without the assistance of others (as long as "others" does not include the driver or operator). 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 It's not often that a usenet contributor provides an open goal like that. But I shan't make a meal of it. 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? That would be both inconsistent and untrue. So it's a good thing that I have never said it, isn't it? what a load of inconsistent ******** what a ****** you are. tosser tim You're the one with the comprehension difficulties. As you said (and I quote you verbatim in order to be scrupulously fair): "I don't understand in the slightest". |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 07/10/2015 20:05, tim..... wrote:
"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. You saw your own error. That's an improvement. 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. Your postings - like mine and everyone else's - are neither here nor their. It is the argument that the law should be changed which amou8nts to an attack on the taxi trade. 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? You have to be describing your own position there. It certainly isn't mine. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 07/10/2015 20:07, tim..... wrote:
"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. And a large proportion of persons arrested for crime assure the police that they're innocent. So any discussion abut what is reported third hand does not require such certainty Can you see a flaw in that? |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 07/10/2015 20:41, tim..... wrote:
"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). "[Name of Subject] 101" is a well-known way of describing first year ("freshman") courses at university. It stems from American universities, but it has been in use in the UK by (at least) the Open University since 1977. It is fairly well understood in the UK, I'd say. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 07/10/2015 22:21, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\10\07 17:23, JNugent wrote: But the PCO (which at one time was a branch of the Met Police) And is now called TfL Taxis & Private Hire. The PCO name is dead. It is still used daily. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 07/10/2015 22:40, tim..... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message ... On 07/10/2015 19:53, tim..... wrote: "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) No, I did not. so what does "But don't make the mistake of assuming that your requirements are the same as everyone else's" mean then? Have you not read the next sparagraph in the post to which you responded? I recommend you do just that. Here it is... stand by... I urged you to bear in mind that the fact that you want something does not mean that everyone wants it. As far as I was concerned, it might have been a point you'd never even considered, let alone pronounced on. Oh don't be stupid, of course I considered that. The very idea that I might have not is so preposterous that your post cannot possibly have meant something this simple (and in any case, my request does not affect anyone else if they don't want to use it) You say you considered it. Your post did not even hint at your having done so. 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 I support the operation of the law and I oppose attempts to undermine it. I'm not undermining it I suggesting that it needs to change You want to change the law so that it offers less protection to the trade and to passengers but you don't want to undermine it? I see... If it pleases you to imagine that I am the only person taking that stance, carry on. which stance is that? The stance I had described in the sentence immediately prior to that one. It's still there, a few lines abobe this one. The one that is only there as a protectionist measure to protect a vested interest and all of the vested interests want it to stay. Well of course they do, don't they, when did turkey's vote of Christmas? So if we exclude them, what are we left with precisely? Why do you feel you have a right / duty to exclude the views of the people involved? I'd be genuinely interested to know the answer to that. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 01:40:24 on Wed, 7 Oct 2015, remarked: The USP appears to be a much larger pool of available drivers nearby than ringing the phone number of some random minicab company. Not so great when the local hire car and taxi trade is concentrated into an operator as large as Panther in Cambridge? I did say "nearby". Anecdotal evidence from Cambridge suggests that if you order a Panther car it's not very likely to turn up within five minutes, or even sometimes twenty-five. Not so from family experience. We have found Panther reliable and professional. There's nothing wrong with the cars once they arrive, but you probably get better service on account of being so centrally located. The family experience includes my daughter in Barnwell Road, far from central. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In article ,
(tim.....) wrote: "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 The reason I asked whether it was truly in Cambridge was because fares going outside the city are entirely up to negotiation between taxi driver and hirer. Where was the planned hire from? -- Colin Rosenstiel |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message , at 20:41:01 on Wed, 7 Oct 2015,
tim..... remarked: 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" "101" is the urban slang for the basic starter course in the first year at college. That's what I'm surprised you don't know. -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In message
-septe mber.org, at 08:19:13 on Thu, 8 Oct 2015, Recliner remarked: "101" is the urban slang for the basic starter course in the first year at college. That's what I'm surprised you don't know. It's American slang, known in Britain mainly by those who've had business dealings with Americans. Or watched a bit of American TV over here. It had to be explained to me the first time I came across it in a conference in America (many years ago). -- Roland Perry |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:24:52 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message -septe mber.org, at 08:19:13 on Thu, 8 Oct 2015, Recliner remarked: "101" is the urban slang for the basic starter course in the first year at college. That's what I'm surprised you don't know. It's American slang, known in Britain mainly by those who've had business dealings with Americans. Or watched a bit of American TV over here. One would have to be pretty dense not to understand: "Hey dude, that's math 1.01". Just the same it is sometimes unwise to usethe more widely used version English when speaking to the insular souls that inhabit this parish. :-) It had to be explained to me the first time I came across it in a conference in America (many years ago). |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 16:46:34 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2015 06:12, Robin9 wrote: ;150666 Wrote: In article , (JNugent) wrote: - 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 (and, IIRC, to provide hire and reward insurance). None of that is necessary in the normal run of things (the drivers have to deal with these things direct to TFL) and the fact that Uber claim it undermines any theory that all the drivers (and their vehicles) are even known to the authorities.- Are the drivers local authority (or PCO) licensed or not? They are illegal if not. -- Colin Rosenstiel To repeat an earlier point: TfL have carried out their most thorough check ever on a minicab firm, and they have found that Uber are complying with the various regulations. In other words, Uber's drivers are licensed and have had CRB checks, health and eyesight tests. They have valid drivers' licences and correct insurance. 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. Perhaps in order to counter this "scare propaganda", you can point to a checkable and credible source for your information? Credible source that TfL have carried out a compliance check on Uber and found everything in order? What about http://content.tfl.gov.uk/15-14-tph-...dnesday-10.pdf "Transport for London Board Statement - Uber Wednesday 10 December 2014" ... "I would also repeat that all PH operators are subject to periodic compliance checks. The last check at Uber was found to be satisfactory but in common with all operators further checks will take place at a time of our choosing." |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"JNugent" wrote in message ... On 07/10/2015 22:40, tim..... wrote: "JNugent" wrote in message ... On 07/10/2015 19:53, tim..... wrote: "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) No, I did not. so what does "But don't make the mistake of assuming that your requirements are the same as everyone else's" mean then? Have you not read the next sparagraph in the post to which you responded? I recommend you do just that. Here it is... stand by... I urged you to bear in mind that the fact that you want something does not mean that everyone wants it. As far as I was concerned, it might have been a point you'd never even considered, let alone pronounced on. Oh don't be stupid, of course I considered that. The very idea that I might have not is so preposterous that your post cannot possibly have meant something this simple (and in any case, my request does not affect anyone else if they don't want to use it) You say you considered it. Your post did not even hint at your having done so. Why should I at no point did I ever suggest that my need should be compulsory to use, so the attitude of others is completely irrelevant You're making an issue where there isn't one 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 I support the operation of the law and I oppose attempts to undermine it. I'm not undermining it I suggesting that it needs to change You want to change the law so that it offers less protection to the trade and to passengers but you don't want to undermine it? It's a free choice If you don't want to use it (or even, a driver) to offer it you don't have to. We make these choices all the time, I don't see why the law should forbid me from making that choice if I want. The very idea that is should is ridiculous I refer you back to the point about women going out on their own (or whatever it was I suggested). I see... If it pleases you to imagine that I am the only person taking that stance, carry on. which stance is that? The stance I had described in the sentence immediately prior to that one. It's still there, a few lines abobe this one. The one that is only there as a protectionist measure to protect a vested interest and all of the vested interests want it to stay. Well of course they do, don't they, when did turkey's vote of Christmas? So if we exclude them, what are we left with precisely? Why do you feel you have a right / duty to exclude the views of the people involved? I'd be genuinely interested to know the answer to that. Because their view is simply one of "protectionist" tim |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
wrote in message ... In article , (tim.....) wrote: "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 The reason I asked whether it was truly in Cambridge was because fares going outside the city are entirely up to negotiation between taxi driver and hirer. Where was the planned hire from? It was from a Northern Village (so in S Cambs) I can't actually remember if I wanted to go to Waterbeach station (and hence wholly inside S Cambs) instead of my normal destination of Cambridge station, but either way I thought the cost ridiculous and went on the bus (to Cambridge, of course) tim |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 20:41:01 on Wed, 7 Oct 2015, tim..... remarked: 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" "101" is the urban slang for the basic starter course in the first year at college. That's what I'm surprised you don't know. There was me thinking it came from a TV program (that I have never watched) (and no, I didn't know) tim |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"Recliner" wrote in message ... Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 20:41:01 on Wed, 7 Oct 2015, tim..... remarked: 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" "101" is the urban slang for the basic starter course in the first year at college. That's what I'm surprised you don't know. It's American slang, known in Britain mainly by those who've had business dealings with Americans. It had to be explained to me the first time I came across it in a conference in America (many years ago). Just like when I was with a group of graduate at a network [1] conference and the first time an American presenter said "Wrouting", we had to have it translated for us :-) tim [1] as in comms networking nor personal networking |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"e27002 aurora" wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:24:52 +0100, Roland Perry wrote: In message -septe mber.org, at 08:19:13 on Thu, 8 Oct 2015, Recliner remarked: "101" is the urban slang for the basic starter course in the first year at college. That's what I'm surprised you don't know. It's American slang, known in Britain mainly by those who've had business dealings with Americans. Or watched a bit of American TV over here. One would have to be pretty dense not to understand: "Hey dude, that's math 1.01". Not give what the answer actually is I assumed it meant school level (any why not?) - but, as I have learnt today, it does not! tim |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"JNugent" wrote in message ... On 07/10/2015 20:07, tim..... wrote: "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. And a large proportion of persons arrested for crime assure the police that they're innocent. So any discussion abut what is reported third hand does not require such certainty Can you see a flaw in that? I have already accepted that Uber may be being "economical with the truth", but that point was never the main issue, which was the simple grammatical one tim |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"JNugent" wrote in message ... On 07/10/2015 20:05, tim..... wrote: "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. You saw your own error. That's an improvement. This isn't an English exam , it's a general discussion group the point is to discuss issue, not pick people up on their spelling. 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. Your postings - like mine and everyone else's - are neither here nor their. It is the argument that the law should be changed which amou8nts to an attack on the taxi trade. Not if the contention is that that they will get more business offering this service, than by not offering it. There is no-one more protectionist than German Cabbies. Yet they see the need to offer this type of service. They understand that cabs are simply too expensive for the individual travellers who is paying his own fare (and in these more stringent times, even many who are expensing it) and if they don't offer more competitive options, they don't get the business at all. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"JNugent" wrote in message ... On 07/10/2015 20:00, tim..... wrote: "JNugent" wrote: On 06/10/2015 17:40, tim..... wrote: "JNugent" wrote: 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? You have a vivid imagination. I have said NO SUCH THING. There is no law forbidding passengers - I accept you said that as allowed. But it's pretty useless for most people or a bona fide third party - from getting together to hire a shared taxi and I have not suggested or state that there is (look above at the quoted material if you want evidence of that). But you said that this was forbidden, in the case where the this party was the "rank" operator. What the law says is that the driver or operator may not do the arranging. but it not all right for me to use this method in London, The Newark Method? The only thing that stops you using it in London is that the airports don't provide the service. That is not what has been said here - if not by you by others. tim |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 20:48:20 on Wed, 7 Oct 2015, remarked: Not so great when the local hire car and taxi trade is concentrated into an operator as large as Panther in Cambridge? I did say "nearby". Anecdotal evidence from Cambridge suggests that if you order a Panther car it's not very likely to turn up within five minutes, or even sometimes twenty-five. Not so from family experience. We have found Panther reliable and professional. There's nothing wrong with the cars once they arrive, but you probably get better service on account of being so centrally located. The family experience includes my daughter in Barnwell Road, far from central. Still very central. Try the exercise again somewhere like Willingham, or Earith. City taxis operate within the city. If you must live in the countryside you have to put up with countryside transport constraints. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Quote:
We are not in a criminal court where proof beyond reasonable doubt is required. If you need to check if my assertions are correct, you have options available to you. In case you have forgotten, information is still not provided exclusively via the Internet. TfL make their announcements through various channels, e. g. Metro. I don't store back copies of newspapers or magazines just in case I need to substantiate something in an Internet forum. Incidentally TfL made their announcement about 4 or 5 months ago. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
In article ,
(tim.....) wrote: wrote in message ... In article , (tim.....) wrote: "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 The reason I asked whether it was truly in Cambridge was because fares going outside the city are entirely up to negotiation between taxi driver and hirer. Where was the planned hire from? It was from a Northern Village (so in S Cambs) I can't actually remember if I wanted to go to Waterbeach station (and hence wholly inside S Cambs) instead of my normal destination of Cambridge station, but either way I thought the cost ridiculous and went on the bus (to Cambridge, of course) SCDC licence very few hackney carriages and I don't know how they set fares. Not much of a market I suspect. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
|
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 08/10/2015 02:48, wrote:
In article , (tim.....) wrote: "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 The reason I asked whether it was truly in Cambridge was because fares going outside the city are entirely up to negotiation between taxi driver and hirer. Where was the planned hire from? As someone else has already remarked (it might have been you), the "pre-booking" does not confer any advantage on anyone (except for not having to do it close to the time of travel). The driver will simply be handed a job over his radio. He will experience no difference as between a pre-booking or one that has just been rung in by a member of the public. Given that, it's hard to see why or how a discount for early booking could be expected. Taxi-drivers are not airline pilots. They are not filling up a diary or seating plan. Indeed, if a driver tried to do anything like that (at ordinary fares), it would put him at a disadvantage since sometime or other, he'd have to cease his normal run of work in order to be at the hiring point for a pre-booked job in time, perhaps having to travel across a city to do so. The fact is that the driver given the job is just the one nearest to the pick-up point at (or just before) the appointed time. There is thus no room for discounts. The point about travel beyond city boundaries is a good one, but some cities have different "compellable" distances. In London, the maximum compellable used to be six miles. It might still be. In Liverpool, it used to be (and may still be) six miles beyond the city boundary (thereby including most immediate suburbs and a huge chunk of the Wirral). |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 08/10/2015 09:19, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 20:41:01 on Wed, 7 Oct 2015, tim..... remarked: 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" "101" is the urban slang for the basic starter course in the first year at college. That's what I'm surprised you don't know. It's American slang, known in Britain mainly by those who've had business dealings with Americans. It had to be explained to me the first time I came across it in a conference in America (many years ago). It has been in official use by the Open University ever since it opened its doors in 1977. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 08/10/2015 10:46, David Walters wrote:
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 16:46:34 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 06/10/2015 06:12, Robin9 wrote: ;150666 Wrote: In article , (JNugent) wrote: - 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 (and, IIRC, to provide hire and reward insurance). None of that is necessary in the normal run of things (the drivers have to deal with these things direct to TFL) and the fact that Uber claim it undermines any theory that all the drivers (and their vehicles) are even known to the authorities.- Are the drivers local authority (or PCO) licensed or not? They are illegal if not. To repeat an earlier point: TfL have carried out their most thorough check ever on a minicab firm, and they have found that Uber are complying with the various regulations. In other words, Uber's drivers are licensed and have had CRB checks, health and eyesight tests. They have valid drivers' licences and correct insurance. 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. Perhaps in order to counter this "scare propaganda", you can point to a checkable and credible source for your information? Credible source that TfL have carried out a compliance check on Uber and found everything in order? What about http://content.tfl.gov.uk/15-14-tph-...dnesday-10.pdf "Transport for London Board Statement - Uber Wednesday 10 December 2014" ... "I would also repeat that all PH operators are subject to periodic compliance checks. The last check at Uber was found to be satisfactory but in common with all operators further checks will take place at a time of our choosing." Well... let's have a look... QUOTE 1: "Uber remains a licensed PH operator in London, fulfilling the requirements as set out in private hire legislation." OK. So far, so good. But what are those requirements? See below. QUOTE 2: "There has been a concern from the taxi trade that individuals could be licensed as drivers from countries where the current DBS checks cannot be obtained. The position regarding drivers who have recently arrived in the UK and apply for a private hire driver’s licence remains the same as before. To be licensed, and in the absence of a DBS check, a certificate of good conduct is required from the Embassy of the country of origin. This discloses any offences that have been recorded against the individual." That has nothing specifically to do with Uber as far as one can see. It would apply to any "private hire" operator anywhere in the UK where licensing is in force. To do with the "requirements" mentioned above: QUOTE 3: "I should remind Board Members this is a long standing requirement which applies to all PH drivers and predates the arrival of Uber in this market. I would also repeat that all PH operators are subject to periodic compliance checks. The last check at Uber was found to be satisfactory but in common with all operators further checks will take place at a time of our choosing." So what are those checks? Answer: they are checks as to whether Uber is fulfilling *its own* duties, the main few of which are keeping records of the work done and the drivers to whom it has been referred, and checking that new drivers are licensed at the point of the arrangenments being entered into. With the best will in the world, neither Uber nor any other operator is in a position to ensure that the vehicle is constantly and continually insured for hire and reward, or that only licensed drivers drive it. So fears that Uber's drivers include the unlicensed or the uninsured have not been and cannot be allayed. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 08/10/2015 13:17, tim..... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message ... On 07/10/2015 22:40, tim..... wrote: "JNugent" wrote in message ... On 07/10/2015 19:53, tim..... wrote: "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) No, I did not. so what does "But don't make the mistake of assuming that your requirements are the same as everyone else's" mean then? Have you not read the next sparagraph in the post to which you responded? I recommend you do just that. Here it is... stand by... I urged you to bear in mind that the fact that you want something does not mean that everyone wants it. As far as I was concerned, it might have been a point you'd never even considered, let alone pronounced on. Oh don't be stupid, of course I considered that. The very idea that I might have not is so preposterous that your post cannot possibly have meant something this simple (and in any case, my request does not affect anyone else if they don't want to use it) You say you considered it. Your post did not even hint at your having done so. Why should I at no point did I ever suggest that my need should be compulsory to use, so the attitude of others is completely irrelevant You're making an issue where there isn't one 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 I support the operation of the law and I oppose attempts to undermine it. I'm not undermining it I suggesting that it needs to change You want to change the law so that it offers less protection to the trade and to passengers but you don't want to undermine it? It's a free choice If you don't want to use it (or even, a driver) to offer it you don't have to. We make these choices all the time, I don't see why the law should forbid me from making that choice if I want. The very idea that is should is ridiculous To you. you mean. Not to everyone (remember the point about remembering that what you want is not what everyone wants, or should satisfice at?). I refer you back to the point about women going out on their own (or whatever it was I suggested). Presumably, your view that the law should not seek to offer protection applies to all passengers, females as well as males. I see... If it pleases you to imagine that I am the only person taking that stance, carry on. which stance is that? The stance I had described in the sentence immediately prior to that one. It's still there, a few lines abobe this one. The one that is only there as a protectionist measure to protect a vested interest and all of the vested interests want it to stay. Well of course they do, don't they, when did turkey's vote of Christmas? So if we exclude them, what are we left with precisely? Why do you feel you have a right / duty to exclude the views of the people involved? I'd be genuinely interested to know the answer to that. Because their view is simply one of "protectionist" Well, that's your view (not everyone's), but... so what? If they're right, they're right (and they're right). |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 08/10/2015 13:40, tim..... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message ... On 07/10/2015 20:00, tim..... wrote: "JNugent" wrote: On 06/10/2015 17:40, tim..... wrote: "JNugent" wrote: 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? You have a vivid imagination. I have said NO SUCH THING. There is no law forbidding passengers - I accept you said that as allowed. But it's pretty useless for most people or a bona fide third party - from getting together to hire a shared taxi and I have not suggested or state that there is (look above at the quoted material if you want evidence of that). But you said that this was forbidden, in the case where the this party was the "rank" operator. What the law says is that the driver or operator may not do the arranging. but it not all right for me to use this method in London, The Newark Method? The only thing that stops you using it in London is that the airports don't provide the service. That is not what has been said here - if not by you by others. I'll be magnanimous and take that as an apology. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
"JNugent" wrote in message ... On 08/10/2015 02:48, wrote: In article , (tim.....) wrote: "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 The reason I asked whether it was truly in Cambridge was because fares going outside the city are entirely up to negotiation between taxi driver and hirer. Where was the planned hire from? As someone else has already remarked (it might have been you), the "pre-booking" does not confer any advantage on anyone (except for not having to do it close to the time of travel). The driver will simply be handed a job over his radio. He will experience no difference as between a pre-booking or one that has just been rung in by a member of the public. Given that, it's hard to see why or how a discount for early booking could be expected. I think it perfectly reasonable when you think you are ringing a mini-cab firm tim |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 08/10/2015 13:40, tim..... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote: [ ... ] 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? You have a vivid imagination. I have said NO SUCH THING. There is no law forbidding passengers - I accept you said that as allowed. But it's pretty useless for most people or a bona fide third party - from getting together to hire a shared taxi and I have not suggested or state that there is (look above at the quoted material if you want evidence of that). But you said that this was forbidden, in the case where the this party was the "rank" operator. I did not say that. It is the driver (of any type) or the private hire operator (I have never heard of a "rank operator" in the UK, WTMB) who must not do the pairing up. And that is for very obvious passenger safety reasons. *If* there were some desire at London's airports (in practice, it only means Heathrow and Docklands) to provide a voluntary match-up service for passengers, that would be fair enough. It would additionally be lawful (it's what happens at Newark, incidentally). What the law says is that the driver or operator may not do the arranging. but it not all right for me to use this method in London, The Newark Method? The only thing that stops you using it in London is that the airports don't provide the service. That is not what has been said here - if not by you by others. I am not responsible for what others say, any more than you are. |
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber
On 08/10/2015 20:35, tim..... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message ... On 08/10/2015 02:48, wrote: In article , (tim.....) wrote: "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 The reason I asked whether it was truly in Cambridge was because fares going outside the city are entirely up to negotiation between taxi driver and hirer. Where was the planned hire from? As someone else has already remarked (it might have been you), the "pre-booking" does not confer any advantage on anyone (except for not having to do it close to the time of travel). The driver will simply be handed a job over his radio. He will experience no difference as between a pre-booking or one that has just been rung in by a member of the public. Given that, it's hard to see why or how a discount for early booking could be expected. I think it perfectly reasonable when you think you are ringing a mini-cab firm Even though it has been explained to you that there is no advantage to the driver in being given a job that was booked some time ago as compared with one that has just come in? Tell you what, though... being forced (by the operator) to give a discount to the passenger would result in fewer drivers being willing to accept (over the radio) those jobs which happen to have been pre-booked. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk