Tfl has issued this statment:

"TfL's High Court injunction prevents Addison Lee from instructing its
drivers to use bus lanes

Following a ruling from the High Court today (Thursday 26 April) Addison
Lee is prevented from instructing or encouraging its drivers to drive in
bus lanes and must remove the statement on its website instructing
drivers to do so.[...]" [1]

But this is what Addison Lee says:

"TfL fails in its bid to silence Addison Lee over bus lanes

Transport for London has been forced to abandon its application for a
mandatory injunction requiring Addison Lee and its chairman John Griffin
to withdraw their letter to drivers stating that they are entitled to
drive in London bus lanes[...]" [2]

Clever use of language, or are they contradicting each other?

-----
[1] http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/23547.aspx
[2] http://www.addisonlee.com/press/read/561

--
jhk

Paul Corfield wrote:

Clearly TfL have come away with a decision that broadly supports its
position. However Addison Lee seem intent on pursuing their argument
that they are being "discriminated" against. The timing of all of this
is extremely dubious in my view and is only about AL making shedloads
of money while not giving a damn about what happens to London's bus
service.

I fail to see why that applies any differently to Hackney carriages.

My view is that taxis of any kind, private hire or Hackney carriage, are
private transport and should not be permitted in bus lanes at all.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

On 2012\04\26 19:51, Neil Williams wrote:
Paul wrote:

Clearly TfL have come away with a decision that broadly supports its
position. However Addison Lee seem intent on pursuing their argument
that they are being "discriminated" against. The timing of all of this
is extremely dubious in my view and is only about AL making shedloads
of money while not giving a damn about what happens to London's bus
service.

I fail to see why that applies any differently to Hackney carriages.

My view is that taxis of any kind, private hire or Hackney carriage, are
private transport and should not be permitted in bus lanes at all.

Taxis are selectively allowed in those bus lanes where they do not
inhibit the buses. There are numerous bus lanes in Kings Cross,
Islington, Heathrow, The City, Acton, Harrow etc. from which taxis are
forbidden.

Do you also believe that taxis should be permitted to charge whatever
they like, the way most self-employed businessmen do and the way
minicabs do? Why is a bus charging five people GBP11.50 to travel four
miles public transport, but a taxi which is legally compelled to take
the same five people and legally limited to charging them about a tenner
for the same journey in the daytime not public transport?

I'd like to hear your definition of public transport... I suspect it
goes along the lines of "I'm a transport enthusiast with a travelcard,
and I spit the dummy whenever I find public transport that won't take my
travelcard".

Basil Jet wrote:

Do you also believe that taxis should be permitted to charge whatever
they like, the way most self-employed businessmen do and the way minicabs do?

Minicabs are usually cheaper than black cabs, no?

Why is a bus charging five people GBP11.50 to travel four miles public
transport, but a taxi which is legally compelled to take the same five
people and legally limited to charging them about a tenner for the same
journey in the daytime not public transport?

Most taxis are not transporting 5 people. Perhaps there is an argument for
allowing any car with more than 3 passengers in the bus lane, then? But
not taxis.

I'd like to hear your definition of public transport... I suspect it goes
along the lines of "I'm a transport enthusiast with a travelcard, and I
spit the dummy whenever I find public transport that won't take my travelcard".

In London? Buses, trains, tubes and scheduled (not tourist) boats, IMO.
Black taxis work as an addition to public transport and may encourage its
use on longer journeys, but are not in themselves efficient use of road
space nor of pollution, though if Boris's talk about moving to electric
vehicles happens they will gain on the latter point.

Except for those of limited mobility, a taxi is rarely a public transport
necessity in Central London where this sort of thing is an issue. The Tube
is almost always faster, IMX.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

On 2012\04\26 21:13, Neil Williams wrote:
Basil wrote:

Do you also believe that taxis should be permitted to charge whatever
they like, the way most self-employed businessmen do and the way minicabs do?

Minicabs are usually cheaper than black cabs, no?

No, it depends on the extent to which they feel they have any
competition. They are staggeringly cheaper than taxis for runs to and
from the airport or Zone 1 terminus when booked by telephone. They are
quite a bit more expensive than a taxi to the airport when booked
through a hotel concierge, because the concierge gives the job to
whichever minicab company offers him the biggest bung. They tend to be
slightly cheaper than taxis when booked by phone for long journeys
suburb to suburb but more expensive than taxis for short journeys. The
minicabs booked through clipboard johnnies outside nightclubs are likely
to be dearer than taxis. Five Star Car Hire in Kensal Green seem to be
nearly twice taxi fares for any distance if you walk in to the office
late at night, e.g. 35 quid to Ealing Broadway versus 20 in a taxi. The
sign next to the freephone offering minicabs in Charing Cross Hospital
brags about how the price is the same day or night, and warns that taxis
charge more in the night than in the day ... but when you compare the
actual fares, they are more expensive than taxi night fares, and
probably more expensive than taxi day fares (although obviously taxi
fares in the daytime can be a bit unpredictable).

When you consider the cost of the vehicle and the fuel consumption (and
consequent safety) are so much lower than a taxi, only in the case of
telephone booking to the airport does the vehicle/fuel saving get passed
on to the passenger - in all the other cases listed above, the profit
made is higher than in a taxi, and the minicab boss pockets that profit
(not the driver). This is why John Griffin chose to be a minicab boss
instead of a taxi boss, and he has been whining about his unfair lot
ever since he chose it. Competition in the minicab industry largely
doesn't work - if you walk into a minicab office late at night with a
good looking girl on your arm and a bulge in your trousers, they know
that you have to get the girl home before she can change her mind, so
there is no way you will walk around and compare competitors prices, and
they exploit this to the hilt.


Why is a bus charging five people GBP11.50 to travel four miles public
transport, but a taxi which is legally compelled to take the same five
people and legally limited to charging them about a tenner for the same
journey in the daytime not public transport?

Most taxis are not transporting 5 people. Perhaps there is an argument for
allowing any car with more than 3 passengers in the bus lane, then? But
not taxis.

What about when buses only have one passenger, should they be kicked out
of the bus lane? Do they cease to be public transport?

I'd like to hear your definition of public transport... I suspect it goes
along the lines of "I'm a transport enthusiast with a travelcard, and I
spit the dummy whenever I find public transport that won't take my travelcard".

In London? Buses, trains, tubes and scheduled (not tourist) boats, IMO.

I presume you've omitted trams by accident. But you have refused or
failed to give a definition, and supplied a list which arbitrarily
excludes taxis, and your failure to provide a definition is an attempt
to cover that up. Why are aeroplanes not public transport? I don't see a
conceptual difference between a metal box full of people rolling from
Euston to Glasgow Central and a metal box full of people flying from
Heathrow to Paisley... except that AFAIK the train fares are controlled
by government (like taxi fares) and the aeroplane fares are not (like
minicab fares).

Black taxis work as an addition to public transport and may encourage its
use on longer journeys, but are not in themselves efficient use of road
space nor of pollution, though if Boris's talk about moving to electric
vehicles happens they will gain on the latter point.

Public transport existed before the invention of the internal combustion
engine. You're moving goalposts all over the place.


Except for those of limited mobility, a taxi is rarely a public transport
necessity in Central London where this sort of thing is an issue. The Tube
is almost always faster, IMX.

Buses are slower than the tube, but they're still public transport. More
moving goalposts.

Basil Jet wrote:

What about when buses only have one passenger, should they be kicked out
of the bus lane? Do they cease to be public transport?

Their punctuality with one on board will affect more passengers later. So
no.

I presume you've omitted trams by accident. But you have refused or
failed to give a definition, and supplied a list which arbitrarily
excludes taxis, and your failure to provide a definition is an attempt to
cover that up. Why are aeroplanes not public transport? I don't see a
conceptual difference between a metal box full of people rolling from
Euston to Glasgow Central and a metal box full of people flying from
Heathrow to Paisley... except that AFAIK the train fares are controlled
by government (like taxi fares) and the aeroplane fares are not (like minicab fares).

Aeroplanes are public transport, so are ro-ro ferries. Private jets,
however, are more like taxis and are not. But as this discussion is about
London, I omitted them. Indeed, trams were omitted in error. Coaches were
also omitted as they aren't really relevant to transport within London.

If you want a definition I would suggest that it is something like
"transport modes operating to a timetable or at high frequency on which any
member of the public may travel on payment of an individual fare".

Because a taxi fare is payable for a hire of the whole car, to the
exclusion of any other passenger, that doesn't fit. Share taxis or jitneys
(the former existing in London on a very limited basis, and the latter not
at all) also fit.

Black taxis work as an addition to public transport and may encourage its
use on longer journeys, but are not in themselves efficient use of road
space nor of pollution, though if Boris's talk about moving to electric
vehicles happens they will gain on the latter point.

Public transport existed before the invention of the internal combustion
engine. You're moving goalposts all over the place.

Not at all. Bus lanes increase the punctuality and reliability of public
transport. As public transport nowadays in London (the topic under
discussion) is environmentally beneficial as a whole, and reduces overall
journey times versus everyone travelling by car due to better use of road
space, bus lanes can be encouraged on that basis,

Buses are slower than the tube, but they're still public transport. More moving goalposts.

Nope. The Tube was used as an example because it is usually the fastest
way to travel around central London (motorbikes possibly aside). It
renders the use of taxis for anything other than those of limited mobility,
and those who desire higher comfort or don't feel like doing any walking,
fairly pointless. It is the backbone of central London travel, and can be
used in conjunction with buses where it doesn't directly serve your
journey.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

Basil Jet wrote:

When you consider the cost of the vehicle and the fuel consumption (and
consequent safety) are so much lower than a taxi


Eh? Are hackney cabs fitted with air bags? Do hackney cabs have to
pass compulsory crash tests? Have any hackney cabs achieved a 5-star
rating in the NCAP tests, or indeed any NCAP rating at all?

So where is this "consequent safety" of which you write?

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 08:13:10PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:

Except for those of limited mobility, a taxi is rarely a public transport
necessity in Central London

Nor is a bus or a train. You can walk all the way across Central London
in about an hour and a half.

People use buses and trains because they're more convenient than
walking. Well, people use taxis because they're more convenient than
buses and tubes.

--
David Cantrell | Hero of the Information Age

More people are driven insane through religious hysteria than
by drinking alcohol. -- W C Fields

In message , at 13:15:42
on Mon, 30 Apr 2012, David Cantrell remarked:
Except for those of limited mobility, a taxi is rarely a public transport
necessity in Central London

Nor is a bus or a train. You can walk all the way across Central London
in about an hour and a half.

People use buses and trains because they're more convenient than
walking. Well, people use taxis because they're more convenient than
buses and tubes.

And it depends on the definition of "necessity". If walking (or taking
bus/tube) means you'll miss the last train home, how necessary is that?

OK, going to the theatre isn't "necessary", but ultimately that argument
would bring a great deal of civilisation to a halt.
--
Roland Perry

On 2012\04\26 21:13, Neil Williams wrote:

Except for those of limited mobility, a taxi is rarely a public transport
necessity in Central London where this sort of thing is an issue. The Tube
is almost always faster, IMX.

You don't wear high heels, I take it.