. . . and round and round you go in your determination to
prevent the discussion concentrating on an issue of major
importance: the right of the passenger to choose the mode
of transport for which he/she is paying which, of course,
includes the right to avoid using Hackney cabs.

On 29/04/2016 18:30, Robin9 wrote:

'JNugent[_5_ Wrote:
;155354']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 [that
second "drivers" should have been "vehicles"] *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).-

. . . and round and round you go in your determination to
prevent the discussion concentrating on an issue of major
importance: the right of the passenger to choose the mode
of transport for which he/she is paying which, of course,
includes the right to avoid using Hackney cabs.

Who forces anyone to ride in a taxi / hackney carriage / cab / taxicab*?


[The phrase "Hackney cab" refers to nothing that actually exists.]

On 29/04/2016 08:14, Someone Somewhere wrote:
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.

If that's what you want, lobby Parliament to amend the law to suit you.
You might find, though, that others object to a law which simply suits
you and want law which suits them.

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!)

See above.

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.

See above.

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?

If that's what you want, you won't see anything wrong with it even when
it is pointed out.

On 30/04/2016 21:31, Steve Fitzgerald wrote:

JNugent writes

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

Actually your quoting of a plethora of lines to add just 4 yourself is
even worse and why I treat your responses with the contempt they deserve.

If I can:

(a) make my point,
(b) keep it within context and
(c) provide the foregoing justification

by judicious snipping, I do so.

If it is not clear that this can be managed, I don't.

HTH.

On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 16:52:12 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 29/04/2016 18:30, Robin9 wrote:


. . . and round and round you go in your determination to
prevent the discussion concentrating on an issue of major
importance: the right of the passenger to choose the mode
of transport for which he/she is paying which, of course,
includes the right to avoid using Hackney cabs.

Who forces anyone to ride in a taxi / hackney carriage / cab / taxicab*?


[The phrase "Hackney cab" refers to nothing that actually exists.]

I thought you were rather keen on forcing people not to ride in almost
anything that isn't a hackney carriage?

No-one does, for the simple reason that those who would
like to are unable to do so.

On 01/05/2016 12:36, Recliner wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 29/04/2016 18:30, Robin9 wrote:

. . . and round and round you go in your determination to
prevent the discussion concentrating on an issue of major
importance: the right of the passenger to choose the mode
of transport for which he/she is paying which, of course,
includes the right to avoid using Hackney cabs.

Who forces anyone to ride in a taxi / hackney carriage / cab / taxicab*?

[The phrase "Hackney cab" refers to nothing that actually exists.]

I thought you were rather keen on forcing people not to ride in almost
anything that isn't a hackney carriage?

Only in your imagination.

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:56:55PM +0100, JNugent wrote:

For instance, he may not ride in an unlicensed taxi ...

I used to do that, because black cab drivers didn't provide a good
enough service - there weren't enough of them, and they often wouldn't
take me to where I wanted to go - and there also weren't enough legal
minicabs, so I and a great many other Londoners used illegal drivers
plying for hire.

Since about 2000 (I forget exactly when) there have been sufficient
minicabs that I've used them instead. And lately I've used the Uber
variation on the theme of minicab.

If you make using a minicab less convenient by, for example, making them
harder to contact and making me book ages in advance, you won't drive
people into your beloved black cabs, because there still aren't enough
of them and they still have an attitude problem towards people living
further south than roughly Vauxhall. You'll drive them to illegal
operators instead who understand that what people want is a decent
service at a sensible price.

The black cab guild keeps banging on about safety, but their helpful
suggestions on how to achieve that will in fact achieve the exact
opposite, by making illegal operators look more attractive.

--
David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire

I hate baby seals. They get asked to all the best clubs.

On Tue, 03 May 2016 13:05:27 +0100, David Cantrell
wrote:

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:56:55PM +0100, JNugent wrote:

For instance, he may not ride in an unlicensed taxi ...

I used to do that, because black cab drivers didn't provide a good
enough service - there weren't enough of them, and they often wouldn't
take me to where I wanted to go - and there also weren't enough legal
minicabs, so I and a great many other Londoners used illegal drivers
plying for hire.

Since about 2000 (I forget exactly when) there have been sufficient
minicabs that I've used them instead. And lately I've used the Uber
variation on the theme of minicab.

If you make using a minicab less convenient by, for example, making them
harder to contact and making me book ages in advance, you won't drive
people into your beloved black cabs, because there still aren't enough
of them and they still have an attitude problem towards people living
further south than roughly Vauxhall. You'll drive them to illegal
operators instead who understand that what people want is a decent
service at a sensible price.

The black cab guild keeps banging on about safety, but their helpful
suggestions on how to achieve that will in fact achieve the exact
opposite, by making illegal operators look more attractive.

But at least black cabs are safe, aren't they?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32118391

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...boys-case.html

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2016 13:05:27 +0100, David Cantrell
wrote:

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:56:55PM +0100, JNugent wrote:

For instance, he may not ride in an unlicensed taxi ...

I used to do that, because black cab drivers didn't provide a good
enough service - there weren't enough of them, and they often wouldn't
take me to where I wanted to go - and there also weren't enough legal
minicabs, so I and a great many other Londoners used illegal drivers
plying for hire.

Since about 2000 (I forget exactly when) there have been sufficient
minicabs that I've used them instead. And lately I've used the Uber
variation on the theme of minicab.

If you make using a minicab less convenient by, for example, making them
harder to contact and making me book ages in advance, you won't drive
people into your beloved black cabs, because there still aren't enough
of them and they still have an attitude problem towards people living
further south than roughly Vauxhall. You'll drive them to illegal
operators instead who understand that what people want is a decent
service at a sensible price.

The black cab guild keeps banging on about safety, but their helpful
suggestions on how to achieve that will in fact achieve the exact
opposite, by making illegal operators look more attractive.

But at least black cabs are safe, aren't they?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32118391


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ms-could-sue-i
n-black-cab-rapist-John-Worboys-case.html

I remember Esther Rantzen telling us they weren't, years ago.

--
Colin Rosenstiel