My thoughts...

1) Taxis will become significantly slower than minicabs, and so will become
a distress purchase for people who can't get a minicab. People will prefer
any minicab, even an illegal one, to a taxi.

I think the general trend is to fit these things to all cars in London,
or at least that's what I read.

2) Car drivers will do everything they can to prevent taxis pulling out in
front of them, so that they won't be held up. This will make taxis even
slower with respect to minicabs.

"Car drivers" shouldn't be driving in London, and even if they
absolutely have to, they shouldn't be driving fast in London. If they
have a problem with it, I suggest they get on a sensible form of
transport. If they intend to drive dangerously, I suggest they are
stopped from driving.

3) Taxi drivers will earn less money, because there will be less demand for
them, and they will take longer to do the jobs that they get but won't get
any extra money for them. Minicab drivers will earn more money, because
there will be more demand for minicabs.

That's capitalism for you. But then as I said above, the trend is to fit
them to all cars, so this competitive advantage is unlikely to continue.

4) Although taxis will probably survive in Central London, they will cease
to exist in the suburbs, because there will be no point in spending a year
or more doing the suburban knowledge and buying or hiring an expensive
wheelchair-accessible vehicle if you can earn more money as a minicab
driver.

As far as I am concerned no taxi drivers want to take me home anyway, so
why should I care for their demise? Minicab drivers have always treated
me with far more respect. I cannot afford to live in Central London
although would love to, so I have to live in the suburbs and commute in.

5) The decimation of the suburban taxi trade and growth of the minicab trade
will mean that the disabled won't be able to get around at all.

This is a fair concern.

Dan

"Dan Gravell" wrote in message
...

As far as I am concerned no taxi drivers want to take
me home anyway, so why should I care for their demise?

I wasn't suggesting that the All-London taxi drivers would be affected, but
that the suburban taxi drivers, who have only done the knowledge for a part
of the suburbs and are only allowed to pick up in that area, would be
affected. If you're angry with All-London taxi drivers who won't take you to
the suburbs, don't take it out on suburban taxi drivers.

Incidentally, the new directional rank at Cranbourn Street should make it a
lot easier to get a taxi to the furthest reaches of the suburbs, at least
late at night.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

John Rowland wrote:

Incidentally, the new directional rank at Cranbourn Street should make it a
lot easier to get a taxi to the furthest reaches of the suburbs, at least
late at night.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of this, I'll take a look.

Dan

"Dan Gravell" wrote in message
...

As far as I am concerned no taxi drivers want to take me home anyway, so
why should I care for their demise? Minicab drivers have always treated me
with far more respect.


IAWTW.

Getting back to South London from town in the middle of the night is
relatively cheap and painless in a minicab. I wouldn't even like to think
about how much it might cost in a Taxi, or how unwelcome my custom would be.


I cannot afford to live in Central London although would love to, so I
have to live in the suburbs and commute in.


The irony is that despite the best efforts of Westminster City Council there
are still a load of people living in Central London for whom it costs almost
nothing, and who don't even have jobs that they need to be there for.


5) The decimation of the suburban taxi trade and growth of the minicab
trade
will mean that the disabled won't be able to get around at all.

This is a fair concern.


They could always use the London Underground - Look out for the wheelchair
symbol on the line maps.

Disabled people obviously only want to go from West Ham to Hammersmith or
Woodford to Stratford anyway...

Ahem.

BTN

In article ,
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" wrote:
"Dan Gravell" wrote in message
...

I cannot afford to live in Central London although would love to, so I
have to live in the suburbs and commute in.

The irony is that despite the best efforts of Westminster City Council there
are still a load of people living in Central London for whom it costs almost
nothing, and who don't even have jobs that they need to be there for.

From where do you get the idea that one should only be permitted to live
in central London if one needs to be there for ones' job? My constituents
in Westminster, many of whom struggle to find well-paid jobs, would be
appalled.

--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"The guilty party was the Liberal Democrats and they were hardened offenders,
and coded racism was again in evidence in leaflets distributed in September
1993." - Nigel Copsey, "Contemporary British Fascism", page 62.

"David Boothroyd" wrote in message
...

I cannot afford to live in Central London although would love to, so I
have to live in the suburbs and commute in.

The irony is that despite the best efforts of Westminster City Council
there
are still a load of people living in Central London for whom it costs
almost
nothing, and who don't even have jobs that they need to be there for.

From where do you get the idea that one should only be permitted to live
in central London if one needs to be there for ones' job? My constituents
in Westminster, many of whom struggle to find well-paid jobs, would be
appalled.


The point is that a lot of people with jobs in Central London cannot afford
to live there and thus the transport infrastructure is pushed to unnecessary
extremities.

I've struggle to find well-paid jobs, and I'm appalled at the number of
people who have to pay lots of money to live in not-particularly-nice areas
that aren't close to their workplaces, and suffer miserable commutes every
day.

Radical idea, I know, but if people who wanted to do so were actually able
to live close to their workplaces, there would be savings in transport costs
(both to the customer and the state), reduced pollution, reduced disparity
in deprivation, and increased leisure time.

BTN

In article ,
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" wrote:
"David Boothroyd" wrote in message
...
From where do you get the idea that one should only be permitted to live
in central London if one needs to be there for ones' job? My constituents
in Westminster, many of whom struggle to find well-paid jobs, would be
appalled.

The point is that a lot of people with jobs in Central London cannot afford
to live there and thus the transport infrastructure is pushed to unnecessary
extremities.

What a surprise that not all of the 1,000,000 people who work in the City
of London and Westminster can live there. Even if we had developed at
the typical densities of European capitals (instead of our unusually
low densities), there is no way all of them could possibly live within
easy reach of their workplaces.

I've struggle to find well-paid jobs, and I'm appalled at the number of
people who have to pay lots of money to live in not-particularly-nice areas
that aren't close to their workplaces, and suffer miserable commutes every
day.

For nine years I've paid over the odds to live in central London, but
that's my choice. I could have a much larger home in the suburbs but I
prefer to live here.

But I don't begrudge home to those in social housing in Westminster. The
fact is that there has always been a working-class population in central
London. The area between Victoria Street, Pimlico and the river was
historically a very poor one containing slums, and Peabody blocks have
replaced slum housing by Aldwych and in Soho. Even in Mayfair there are
social housing blocks (around Balderton Street).

Radical idea, I know, but if people who wanted to do so were actually able
to live close to their workplaces, there would be savings in transport costs
(both to the customer and the state), reduced pollution, reduced disparity
in deprivation, and increased leisure time.

Do you think people are prepared to put up with housing densities which
will go considerably over 1,000 habitable rooms per hectare in the city
centre? Or are you the new Pol Pot, determined to abolish cities and
move everyone back to the land?

--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"The guilty party was the Liberal Democrats and they were hardened offenders,
and coded racism was again in evidence in leaflets distributed in September
1993." - Nigel Copsey, "Contemporary British Fascism", page 62.

Dan Gravell wrote in message ...
My thoughts...

1) Taxis will become significantly slower than minicabs, and so will become
a distress purchase for people who can't get a minicab. People will prefer
any minicab, even an illegal one, to a taxi.

I think the general trend is to fit these things to all cars in London,
or at least that's what I read.

What and lose all that revenue from Speed Cameras. I can't see that happening :-)

"SWT User" wrote in message
om...
Dan Gravell wrote in message
...
My thoughts...

1) Taxis will become significantly slower than minicabs,
and so will become a distress purchase for people who
can't get a minicab. People will prefer
any minicab, even an illegal one, to a taxi.

I think the general trend is to fit these things to
all cars in London, or at least that's what I read.

What and lose all that revenue from Speed
Cameras. I can't see that happening :-)

Good point. It is more likely that they will force every car to be fitted
with a device which phones the police every time you break a speed limit,
and they will make speed limiters illegal.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

"John Rowland" wrote in message ...
Apparently Livingstone wants to fit GPS-controlled speed limiters to buses
and taxis which will prevent them from ever breaking the speed limit.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...nderbonnet.htm

The consequences seem fairly obvious to me.

How does he expect this to work? Any tall buildings or tunnels will disrupt
the satellite signal plus , though I expect bus & taxi companies wouldn't
break the law , there would be nothing to prevent an owner-operator taxi driver
disconnecting or shielding the aerial of the unit wherever it may be in the
vehicle so it can't pick up any satellite signals. And if these things ever
have to be fitted to private cars thats exactly what I'll do.

B2003