Adrian wrote:

Your original claim was that a lower proportion of those using taxis would
be likely to be affected than the population at general.

We are not talking about proportions of taxi users, but I think that's just
your bad English. What I said was:

'People who take taxis are less likely to be those affected by living near
heavy traffic.'

The socioeconomic data - eg from that stroke paper - clearly shows this to be
the case, unless you can prove that taxi passengers in London are just as
likely to be from the deprived groups affected more by proximity to major
roads.

E.

eastender ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Your original claim was that a lower proportion of those using taxis
would be likely to be affected than the population at general.

We are not talking about proportions of taxi users, but I think that's
just your bad English.

Not mine.

What I said was:

'People who take taxis are less likely to be those affected by living
near heavy traffic.'

Exactly.

Let's say 50% of people are affected.

For taxi users to be less likely to be affected, less than 50% of them
would be affected. I'm suggesting that is not the case, and you're
interpreting that suggestion to mean that taxi users are 50% of the
populace.

Adrian wrote:

For taxi users to be less likely to be affected, less than 50% of them
would be affected. I'm suggesting that is not the case, and you're
interpreting that suggestion to mean that taxi users are 50% of the
populace.

This is nonsense.

Let's take it step by step.

The original point is that taxi passengers can well afford higher fares to
cut the particulate output that disproportionately affects more deprived
groups, as per the stroke paper, resulting in health costs that are almost
certainly higher than fitting emission controls.

In other words, I'm saying that taxi passengers in London are not the same
group as the group affected most by pollution. You are saying they either
are or could be.

Perhaps it will help you to visualise a black cab belching its way down the
Mile End Road. Is the passenger most likely to be:

A City stockbroker
A Bangladeshi woman with diabetes
Adrian
Lord Lucan.

E.

eastender wrote:

Perhaps it will help you to visualise a black cab belching its way
down the Mile End Road. Is the passenger most likely to be:

A City stockbroker
A Bangladeshi woman with diabetes
Adrian
Lord Lucan.

Thanks to the Taxicard scheme, it's most likely to be a Bangladeshi woman
with diabetes.

"Mike Hughes" wrote in message
...
What about the costs - they will be passed on somehow so how does that
benefit people?

I'd say "living longer" is quite a benefit.

--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Adrian wrote:

eastender ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

**** me, but you really do have a problem with comprehension, don't
you?

Well, if I've understood you correctly, you are indeed f**ked on this
one.

And therein lies the problem. You clearly DON'T understand me correctly,
because you have an axe to grind.

Your original claim was that a lower proportion of those using taxis
would be likely to be affected than the population at general.

I don't believe that is so, and repeated claims (of the blindingly
obvious fact) that more people are poor than rich doesn't come close to
justifying your assertion.

You're either illiterate, simple, or just not paying attention properly.

The original claim is "People who take taxis are less likely to be those
affected by living near heavy traffic"; i take it we're agreed in assuming
that the 'less likely' means 'less likely than in the whole population of
London'.

The argument supporting this is a good old-fashioned syllogism consisting
of two premises:

- people who take taxis are less likely to be from deprived areas.

- people who live in deprived areas are more likely to be those affected
by living near heavy traffic

Either the structure of the argument is duff, the first premise is false,
the second premise is false, or the claim is true.

The structure looks okay to me. If you don't think so, do explain.

The first premise looks good to me - even with taxicard getting poor
cripples into cabs, i'd say cabs are mostly used by well-off people. If
Mike Hughes, or any other cab driver, is reading this, perhaps he could
give us his impression?

The second premise is supported by studies people have posted. If you want
to overturn it, you're going to need some hard data. Do you have that?

If not, you have to admit that either the claim is true, or that you're
illiterate, simple or not paying attention properly.

tom

--
10 PARTY : GOTO 10

In article ,
(Mike Hughes) wrote:

I can understand the desire to make the environment better and as a
taxi driver sitting in traffic I would benefit from it, but to have
to make everyone retro fit rather than allow for natural turnover
with a higher standard for newer vehicles is not going to win many
friends in motoring circles. What about the costs - they will be
passed on somehow so how does that benefit people?

An alternative applied in Cambridge banning vehicles over 8 years old
from being licensed as Hackneys. The basis for doing it that way is the
confusion over standards preventing them from requiring retro-fitting.

How did Ken do it? Special legislation in London again?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article 31,
(Adrian) wrote:

So the "But not the M25" exclusion applies to about 200yds
somewhere out towards Essex.

And a longer section in Havering.

--
Colin Rosenstiel