JNugent wrote:
On 27/04/2016 17:21, Robin9 wrote:

'JNugent[_5_ Wrote:


If his
experience is that it's pretty pointless to try to find a
Hackney cab, that's enough reason for him to opt for a
minicab instead. Like everyone else, he is under no
obligation to use Hackney cabs.

Quite so.

But so-called private hire cars have to operate within a set of
restrictive rules. Those rules exist at least in part so as (attempt) to
prevent them from operating as if they were taxis.

If the rules were tightened (as they have been - after all, it's a
comparatively short time since registration was even introduced in
London), that would become the new background and the new environment in
which hirings took place.

Some people seem to have either forgotten (or not to know) why the
loophole of "private hire" exists in the first place.

Why would they care? Minicabs provide an efficient, economic, popular
service that meets the needs that old-fashioned taxis don't. Like many
other people, I regularly use minicabs, but go out of my way not to use
black cabs. That was true even when I could claim cab fares on expenses.

Not only do you like distorted logic, you like obfuscation as
well!

Your entire post is irrelevant to the point being discussed
which is his right to choose whatever - legal - means of
transport he prefers.

On 27/04/2016 22:45, Robin9 wrote:[color=blue][i]

'JNugent[_5_ Wrote:
;155301']On 27/04/2016 15:27, Recliner wrote:-
JNugent wrote:-
On 27/04/2016 02:15, Recliner wrote:-
JNugent wrote:
On 26/04/2016 19:28, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 26/04/2016 18:19, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 25/04/2016 14:18, David Cantrell wrote:

On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 06:13:47PM +0100, JNugent wrote:

There's always been a good case for the advance booking period for a
so-called "private hire car" to be at least twenty-four hours.

No there hasn't.
Imagine, for example, that you are in an industrial estate in Peckham.
There are no black cabs cruising the industrial estate looking for
passengers.
How do you get home?

The whole reason why unlicensed* "private hire cars" (so-called) can
operate with their unlicensed* drivers is a loophole in the law which
distinguishes immediate hirings from advance bookings.

Immediate hirings - taxis.

Advance bookings - taxis (of course) *or* "private hire cars".

But unless a significant minimum period for that advance booking is
established and enforced, in practice, the law prohibiting unlicensed
plying-for-hire cannot be operated properly.

[* "licensed" here means licensed as a taxi or as a taxi-driver.]

Isn't the number of taxis limited a certain number while there are no
such limits to the number of hire cars because the law doesn't allow
it?

No.

That was certainly the situation in Cambridge until 2001, with the
number of taxi licences clearly far too few for the business on offer.
I'm surprised you would support such monopolistic practice if there is
a limit.

The Transport Act of either 1995 or 2005 (I forget which, though 1995
rings the louder bell) forbade such limitation of the number of taxi
vehicles licences.

Limitation - if used (it isn't used everywhere) - now has to be
determined by quasi-scientific means. The usual method is to survey
the trade at "busy" times, whereas the correct method would be to
survey the trade at non-busy times, eg: a fine dry Tuesday
mid-morning in April.

Such limits are still legal outside London since the 1985 Transport Act
(the
one that deregulated buses) but as you say only when supported by
survey
evidence of "no unmet demand".

The trade are notorious for all sorts of dodgy practices while such
surveys
are carried out to persuade survey firms there is no unmet demand.

After Labour regained control of Cambridge City Council in 2014 they
re-imposed a limit at the number of licences then held. To be fair,
without
a limit the number of hackneys had been pretty static for some time
following a sharp rise after the Council, under Liberal Democrat
control,
removed the limit in 2001.

One important difference between Cambridge and London is that hire cars
have
meters and, though they don't have to, do in fact charge the same fares
as
hackneys (with the city at least). Several operators have mixed fleets
with
hackneys, city-licensed hire cars and South Cambs DC licensed hire
cars
(which outnumber the rest by a large margin). So someone ring them up
may
get any time of vehicle but will always be charged the same fare.

The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, under which
most districts license private hire (so-called) cars provides that
where
a meter is fitted to a private hire [sic] vehicle, it has to be
regulated to the rates charged by local taxis.

Why the 'sic'? If it's the correct legal term, there's no need for it.
And
if it's not, use the correct term. The 'sic' should only be used when
quoting someone else's incorrect use of a word, like your incorrect use
of
'sic'.-

The use of the phrase "private hire" is problematic and for that
reason, not an accurate description.
Few of them are never used to accept illegal public hirings.-

And how do you know that with such certainty?-

You are either in denial or have made no observations of the industry.

Unlicensed plying for hire is endemic.
.

I realise you find distorted logic useful but it's unacceptable
here. The fact there are locations where private hire drivers
make themselves available to the general public does not
mean that most private hire drivers do it.

Indeed it doesn't.

Which is why I remarked that the PP had not observed the industry (and
meant the remark generally).

PS: Your attribution indent setting (or lack of one) is confusing.

On 28/04/2016 06:24, Robin9 wrote:
'JNugent[_5_ Wrote:
;155318']On 27/04/2016 17:21, Robin9 wrote:
-
'JNugent[_5_ Wrote:-
;155296']On 27/04/2016 12:02, David Cantrell wrote:-
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 05:04:16PM +0100, JNugent wrote:--
--
No London green-badged cab driver can afford to hang around in the
suburbs where there isn't enough work to keep him busy.
However, there is the London yellow-badged driver, licensed only to
ply for hire within certain London suburban areas (known as sectors).
They are available in the whole of outer London:---
--
I do not recall ever seeing a black cab cruising around looking for
customers in Thornton Heath. Those yellow badges might as well not
exist.---
--
That's rock-solid proof, then?--
-
He doesn't have to prove anything.-

Neither does anyone else have to accept his anecdote as substantial
evidence.
-
He has the right to choose whatever means of transport he prefers.-

Up to a point, certainly. But not beyond that.

For instance, he may not ride in an unlicensed taxi (at least, not
unless he can persuade the driver to do the job free of charge). He may

not ride an uninsured motor-bike, or use a car which has no MOT or Road
Tax.

He does not have the option of riding on an unlicensed and unauthorised

bus, still less on an unregulated train or Tube line.
-
If his
experience is that it's pretty pointless to try to find a
Hackney cab, that's enough reason for him to opt for a
minicab instead. Like everyone else, he is under no
obligation to use Hackney cabs.-

Quite so.

But so-called private hire cars have to operate within a set of
restrictive rules. Those rules exist at least in part so as (attempt) to

prevent them from operating as if they were taxis.

If the rules were tightened (as they have been - after all, it's a
comparatively short time since registration was even introduced in
London), that would become the new background and the new environment in

which hirings took place.

Some people seem to have either forgotten (or not to know) why the
loophole of "private hire" exists in the first place.

Not only do you like distorted logic, you like obfuscation as
well!

Your entire post is irrelevant to the point being discussed
which is his right to choose whatever - legal - means of
transport he prefers.

Plying for hire by unlicensed drivers in unlicensed drivers *is*
illegal. It always has been.

Perhaps you think it should not be illegal.

But it is.

More obfuscation! David Cantrell did not say he might
want to use a minicab driver touting for business.

On 28/04/2016 16:27, Robin9 wrote:

'JNugent[_5_ Wrote:
;155327']On 28/04/2016 06:24, Robin9 wrote:-
'JNugent[_5_ Wrote:-
;155318']On 27/04/2016 17:21, Robin9 wrote:
-
'JNugent[_5_ Wrote:-
;155296']On 27/04/2016 12:02, David Cantrell wrote:-
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 05:04:16PM +0100, JNugent wrote:--
--
No London green-badged cab driver can afford to hang around in the
suburbs where there isn't enough work to keep him busy.
However, there is the London yellow-badged driver, licensed only to
ply for hire within certain London suburban areas (known as sectors).
They are available in the whole of outer London:---
--
I do not recall ever seeing a black cab cruising around looking for
customers in Thornton Heath. Those yellow badges might as well not
exist.---
--
That's rock-solid proof, then?--
-
He doesn't have to prove anything.-

Neither does anyone else have to accept his anecdote as substantial
evidence.
-
He has the right to choose whatever means of transport he prefers.-

Up to a point, certainly. But not beyond that.

For instance, he may not ride in an unlicensed taxi (at least, not
unless he can persuade the driver to do the job free of charge). He
may

not ride an uninsured motor-bike, or use a car which has no MOT or
Road
Tax.

He does not have the option of riding on an unlicensed and
unauthorised

bus, still less on an unregulated train or Tube line.
-
If his
experience is that it's pretty pointless to try to find a
Hackney cab, that's enough reason for him to opt for a
minicab instead. Like everyone else, he is under no
obligation to use Hackney cabs.-

Quite so.

But so-called private hire cars have to operate within a set of
restrictive rules. Those rules exist at least in part so as (attempt)
to

prevent them from operating as if they were taxis.

If the rules were tightened (as they have been - after all, it's a
comparatively short time since registration was even introduced in
London), that would become the new background and the new environment
in

which hirings took place.

Some people seem to have either forgotten (or not to know) why the
loophole of "private hire" exists in the first place.-

Not only do you like distorted logic, you like obfuscation as
well!

Your entire post is irrelevant to the point being discussed
which is his right to choose whatever - legal - means of
transport he prefers.-

Plying for hire by unlicensed drivers in unlicensed drivers *is*
illegal. It always has been.

Perhaps you think it should not be illegal.

But it is.

More obfuscation! David Cantrell did not say he might
want to use a minicab driver touting for business.

A question for you:

Where have you encountered the phrase "Taxu demos at KXStP"?

Oh yes... in the thread title... of course...

It's about illegal plying for hire at two mainline stations (and others
as well, I'd suggest).

In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

Road Tax.

wossat then?

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ

On 28/04/2016 13:20, JNugent wrote:
On 28/04/2016 06:24, Robin9 wrote:
'JNugent[_5_ Wrote:
;155318']On 27/04/2016 17:21, Robin9 wrote:
-
'JNugent[_5_ Wrote:-
;155296']On 27/04/2016 12:02, David Cantrell wrote:-
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 05:04:16PM +0100, JNugent wrote:--
--
No London green-badged cab driver can afford to hang around in the
suburbs where there isn't enough work to keep him busy.
However, there is the London yellow-badged driver, licensed only to
ply for hire within certain London suburban areas (known as sectors).
They are available in the whole of outer London:---
--
I do not recall ever seeing a black cab cruising around looking for
customers in Thornton Heath. Those yellow badges might as well not
exist.---
--
That's rock-solid proof, then?--
-
He doesn't have to prove anything.-

Neither does anyone else have to accept his anecdote as substantial
evidence.
-
He has the right to choose whatever means of transport he prefers.-

Up to a point, certainly. But not beyond that.

For instance, he may not ride in an unlicensed taxi (at least, not
unless he can persuade the driver to do the job free of charge). He may

not ride an uninsured motor-bike, or use a car which has no MOT or Road
Tax.

He does not have the option of riding on an unlicensed and unauthorised

bus, still less on an unregulated train or Tube line.
-
If his
experience is that it's pretty pointless to try to find a
Hackney cab, that's enough reason for him to opt for a
minicab instead. Like everyone else, he is under no
obligation to use Hackney cabs.-

Quite so.

But so-called private hire cars have to operate within a set of
restrictive rules. Those rules exist at least in part so as (attempt) to

prevent them from operating as if they were taxis.

If the rules were tightened (as they have been - after all, it's a
comparatively short time since registration was even introduced in
London), that would become the new background and the new environment in

which hirings took place.

Some people seem to have either forgotten (or not to know) why the
loophole of "private hire" exists in the first place.

Not only do you like distorted logic, you like obfuscation as
well!

Your entire post is irrelevant to the point being discussed
which is his right to choose whatever - legal - means of
transport he prefers.

Plying for hire by unlicensed drivers in unlicensed drivers *is*
illegal. It always has been.

Perhaps you think it should not be illegal.

But it is.

Ok - let's play devil's advocate here - why not allow anyone properly
insured and checked to ply for hire and accept fares (at a published
rate) for hire and reward. All "cabs" have to have a Uber like
smartphone solution for being requested, but could pick up by being hailed.

To ensure they are properly insured and checked, offer an app on a
smartphone (or a text interface on a dumb phone) to photograph the plate
of the vehicle, or a QR code displayed in the window, to return the
current insurance and driver status (including a picture and name of the
driver for smartphones). Similarly a "live" license could be displayed
on an old smartphone installed in the taxi showing similar data (care
would need to be taken with UI design that it was "live" and not a mockup).

Enforce parking, waiting and other restrictions and moving traffic
violations, via whatever means, including CCTV (it's not sneaky - if
it's against regulations to park there, don't park there!)

Get rid of all the ancient and archaic privileges and practices of the
black cab trade, including ranks (increases availability of general
parking), the insane situation in London with plying for hire with cabs
cruising already crowded streets hoping for hire, the fact they are
allowed to use and block bus lanes when they are the least efficient
method of transport in the Capital (why? they spend some porportion of
their time being a motor vehicle on the highway which is not actually
conveying anyone anywhere), the regulations on vehicles that make them
costly and inefficient, and everything that involves infectious
diseases, bales of hay and urinating in policemans helmets.

Local councils could be free to regulate the overall number of currently
live licenses (and this could be done to manage times of peak and so on
too) but would have no self-interest in the trade other than that. They
would however have access to anonymised location data for all vehicles
with a current live license so could track and report on alleged
clustering and other practices that wardens hadn't yet got a grip on.

So, outside of job protection (which few of us have anyway), what is
wrong with the above?

On 29/04/2016 01:48, Paul Cummins wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

Road Tax.

wossat then?

Don't start that nonsense.

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 03:23:20PM +0100, JNugent wrote:

Few of them are never used to accept illegal public hirings.

And your proof of this is what?

--
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence

I know that you believe you understand what you think you wrote, but
I'm not sure you realize that what you wrote is not what you meant.