On 17/06/2014 09:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:03:42 on Tue, 17 Jun
2014, Someone Somewhere remarked:
Whilst I appreciate threads have a habit of drifting, how is this
seriously now related to uk.transport.london ?

The same principle may apply to several railway stations on the edge of
London.

For example I happen to know the Herts boundary is very close to
Chorleywood station. So there's a wider issue here about hailability of
hackneys in the vicinity of railway stations very close to licencing
boundaries.

And Chorleywood is, as per the charter for U.T.L., in the "London area",
or at least as Wikipedia says "It is part of the London commuter belt,
and included in the government-defined Greater London Urban Area.".

However, the discussion seems to be entirely about pedantic points
regarding Cambridge, and South Cambridgeshire taxi/minicab/hackney
carriage licensing - something that does not relate to the "London area"
at all.

If some of the posts were making entirely general points about licensing
which may be applicable then fine, but I can't see a single post which
does not contain phraseology specific to Cambridge.

I don't have anything against Cambridge, lovely city, just don't give a
toss about its taxis (or whatever the correct term is).

Going back to Uber - I love how people make up things about a service
when actually what they mean is they don't like change.

It's no worse than any minicab company - you just book via the Uber app
on your phone rather than with the phone app on your phone. I assume
they are, as they say, fully licensed as a minicab firm with the PCSO
and all drivers/vehicles are appropriately checked (again, as per a
minicab firm).

If the Uber app were to be banned, then presumably you would have to
(illegally) remove all odometers (oooh - is that a meter? or even an
metre?) from minicabs, along with confiscating drivers watches, and
certainly no calculators or pen and paper could be allowed in case he
tried to calculate a fare based off time and distance...