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.

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.

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.

"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

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".

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.

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?

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.

On 07/10/2015 17:10, Robin9 wrote:
'JNugent[_5_ Wrote:
;150709']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?

Nice try but I'm not going to do your homework for you.

I would *never* ask you to do that.

I'm asking for *your* homework (which you claim to have done).

But perhaps your dog ate it?

Your proposition = your onus for evidence.

You could
look through back copies of various trade magazines or you could
contact TfL directly. You could even try the Internet. (I believe TfL
now has a new on-line magazine for taxi drivers. Ask there)

No need.

No evidence = no proof.

That's the way it works.

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.