On 07/10/2015 22:40, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 07/10/2015 19:53, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 06/10/2015 17:30, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 18:47, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 04/10/2015 14:50, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-10-04 13:14:08 +0000, JNugent said:

Buses are still available, if not always convenient. A taxi is
not a
bus.

The hybrid matatu/jitney model works reasonably well in many
countries.

A public transport operator is free to apply for the necessary
permissions to make that work.

Your preferences are not a reason to abolish protection for
taxi-passengers.

Who's proposing to abolish your ability to hire a taxi to
yourself?
What
is being proposed is allowing people who wish to to take a shared
taxi.
Those who do not wish to can continue to take one to themselves,
obviously at a fare commensurate to that.

As I have already said, several times: that is already allowed.

It's just that the passenger decides on the sharing, not the
driver or
operator.

No, the passenger has to (somehow) find the other passages,
that's not
the same thing at all (and completely impractical for out of London
destinations)

It could be done via an app on mobile phones. There are already
similar ways of locating people in an area with similar interests.

But don't make the mistake of assuming that your requirements are the
same as everyone else's.

What like you have do you mean?

assuming that nobody wants the option of making an ad hoc paring with
someone else in the queue, just because you don't want to

(not for the first time) what a hypocrite you are

You must be desperate if you're resorting to that nonsense.

It's not nonsense.

You accused me of suggesting that everybody wanted something just
because I wanted it (which, in fact, I did not do)

No, I did not.

so what does

"But don't make the mistake of assuming that your requirements are the
same as everyone else's"

mean then?

Have you not read the next sparagraph in the post to which you responded?

I recommend you do just that. Here it is... stand by...


I urged you to bear in mind that the fact that you want something does
not mean that everyone wants it.
As far as I was concerned, it might have been a point you'd never even
considered, let alone pronounced on.

Oh don't be stupid, of course I considered that. The very idea that I
might have not is so preposterous that your post cannot possibly have
meant something this simple (and in any case, my request does not affect
anyone else if they don't want to use it)

You say you considered it. Your post did not even hint at your having
done so.

and then you say that I can't have something just because you don't want
it (on the basis that everybody wants it that way, just because you do)
And you can't see that that's hypocritical

I support the operation of the law and I oppose attempts to undermine it.

I'm not undermining it
I suggesting that it needs to change

You want to change the law so that it offers less protection to the
trade and to passengers but you don't want to undermine it?

I see...

If it pleases you to imagine that I am the only person taking that
stance, carry on.

which stance is that?

The stance I had described in the sentence immediately prior to that one.

It's still there, a few lines abobe this one.

The one that is only there as a protectionist measure to protect a
vested interest and all of the vested interests want it to stay.
Well of course they do, don't they, when did turkey's vote of Christmas?
So if we exclude them, what are we left with precisely?

Why do you feel you have a right / duty to exclude the views of the
people involved? I'd be genuinely interested to know the answer to that.

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
01:40:24 on Wed, 7 Oct 2015, remarked:

The USP appears to be a much larger pool of available drivers nearby
than ringing the phone number of some random minicab company.

Not so great when the local hire car and taxi trade is concentrated
into an operator as large as Panther in Cambridge?

I did say "nearby". Anecdotal evidence from Cambridge suggests that
if you order a Panther car it's not very likely to turn up within
five minutes, or even sometimes twenty-five.

Not so from family experience. We have found Panther reliable and
professional.

There's nothing wrong with the cars once they arrive, but you
probably get better service on account of being so centrally located.

The family experience includes my daughter in Barnwell Road, far from
central.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 18:17:56 on Tue, 6 Oct
2015, tim..... remarked:
Doesn't seem to cause problems in Cambridge. Both the Hackney Carriage
and Hire Car fleets are mixed and telephone-booked business is mixed
between both fleets because all hire cars use meters set to the same
tariff as the hackneys.

Yes I know

I enquired about booking cab from the office to the station one day and
when I got told it would be 18 quid for a 6 mile journey. I politely
declined

I was expecting pre-booking to offer a discount, not in Cambridge it
seems

Indeed, as Colin has said several times recently - they are metered,
not haggled.

Discounts can be given on meter charges. They are maxima, not mandatory.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(tim.....) wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at
01:40:23 on Wed, 7 Oct 2015,
remarked:
I enquired about booking cab from the office to the station one day
and when I got told it would be 18 quid for a 6 mile journey. I
politely declined

I was expecting pre-booking to offer a discount, not in Cambridge it
seems

Where from? Must have been outside the city.

I think he means he expected a discount because of booking ahead at
all.

I expected a discount in the same way that I get a discount
pre-booking a contract cab instead of hailing a hackney carriage in
other towns.

in Cambridge, it seems, you do not get such a discount

Their loss

The reason I asked whether it was truly in Cambridge was because fares going
outside the city are entirely up to negotiation between taxi driver and
hirer. Where was the planned hire from?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 20:48:20
on Wed, 7 Oct 2015, remarked:
Not so great when the local hire car and taxi trade is concentrated
into an operator as large as Panther in Cambridge?

I did say "nearby". Anecdotal evidence from Cambridge suggests that
if you order a Panther car it's not very likely to turn up within
five minutes, or even sometimes twenty-five.

Not so from family experience. We have found Panther reliable and
professional.

There's nothing wrong with the cars once they arrive, but you
probably get better service on account of being so centrally located.

The family experience includes my daughter in Barnwell Road, far from
central.

Still very central. Try the exercise again somewhere like Willingham, or
Earith.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 20:41:01 on Wed, 7 Oct 2015,
tim..... remarked:
It's queuing theory 101, not that difficult.

to a graduate level statistician perhaps,

You do Stats 101 in the first year!

In the first year of what?

The undergraduate course. I can't believe you really didn't know that.

your post was unclear.

I really didn't know what it was you were saying (you could have meant
"first year at school", for all I knew).

Assuming you now mean "I can't believe you really didn't know that this
is part of Y1 stats"

"101" is the urban slang for the basic starter course in the first year
at college. That's what I'm surprised you don't know.
--
Roland Perry

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 08:19:13 on Thu, 8 Oct 2015, Recliner
remarked:

"101" is the urban slang for the basic starter course in the first year
at college. That's what I'm surprised you don't know.

It's American slang, known in Britain mainly by those who've had business
dealings with Americans.

Or watched a bit of American TV over here.

It had to be explained to me the first time I came across it in a
conference in America (many years ago).

--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:24:52 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 08:19:13 on Thu, 8 Oct 2015, Recliner
remarked:

"101" is the urban slang for the basic starter course in the first year
at college. That's what I'm surprised you don't know.

It's American slang, known in Britain mainly by those who've had business
dealings with Americans.

Or watched a bit of American TV over here.

One would have to be pretty dense not to understand: "Hey dude, that's
math 1.01".

Just the same it is sometimes unwise to usethe more widely used
version English when speaking to the insular souls that inhabit this
parish. :-)

It had to be explained to me the first time I came across it in a
conference in America (many years ago).

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 16:46:34 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2015 06:12, Robin9 wrote:

;150666 Wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:
-
In particular, it is far from clear that Uber's sub-contractor
drivers *are* licensed, even as "private hire" drivers.

Uber themselves claim to do the vetting (and, IIRC, to provide hire
and reward insurance). None of that is necessary in the normal run of
things (the drivers have to deal with these things direct to TFL) and
the fact that Uber claim it undermines any theory that all the
drivers (and their vehicles) are even known to the authorities.-

Are the drivers local authority (or PCO) licensed or not? They are
illegal
if not.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

To repeat an earlier point: TfL have carried out their most thorough
check ever on a minicab firm, and they have found that Uber are
complying with the various regulations. In other words, Uber's drivers
are licensed and have had CRB checks, health and eyesight tests.
They have valid drivers' licences and correct insurance.

The scare propaganda is FUD put out by the black cab trade
because they are not willing to compete in the open market on
even terms and want instead to have their competition made
illegal.

Perhaps in order to counter this "scare propaganda", you can point to a
checkable and credible source for your information?

Credible source that TfL have carried out a compliance
check on Uber and found everything in order? What about
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/15-14-tph-...dnesday-10.pdf

"Transport for London Board Statement - Uber Wednesday 10
December 2014"

...

"I would also repeat that all PH operators are subject to
periodic compliance checks. The last check at Uber was found to
be satisfactory but in common with all operators further checks
will take place at a time of our choosing."

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 07/10/2015 22:40, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 07/10/2015 19:53, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 06/10/2015 17:30, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 18:47, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 04/10/2015 14:50, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-10-04 13:14:08 +0000, JNugent said:

Buses are still available, if not always convenient. A taxi is
not a
bus.

The hybrid matatu/jitney model works reasonably well in many
countries.

A public transport operator is free to apply for the necessary
permissions to make that work.

Your preferences are not a reason to abolish protection for
taxi-passengers.

Who's proposing to abolish your ability to hire a taxi to
yourself?
What
is being proposed is allowing people who wish to to take a shared
taxi.
Those who do not wish to can continue to take one to themselves,
obviously at a fare commensurate to that.

As I have already said, several times: that is already allowed.

It's just that the passenger decides on the sharing, not the
driver or
operator.

No, the passenger has to (somehow) find the other passages,
that's not
the same thing at all (and completely impractical for out of London
destinations)

It could be done via an app on mobile phones. There are already
similar ways of locating people in an area with similar interests.

But don't make the mistake of assuming that your requirements are
the
same as everyone else's.

What like you have do you mean?

assuming that nobody wants the option of making an ad hoc paring with
someone else in the queue, just because you don't want to

(not for the first time) what a hypocrite you are

You must be desperate if you're resorting to that nonsense.

It's not nonsense.

You accused me of suggesting that everybody wanted something just
because I wanted it (which, in fact, I did not do)

No, I did not.

so what does

"But don't make the mistake of assuming that your requirements are the
same as everyone else's"

mean then?

Have you not read the next sparagraph in the post to which you responded?

I recommend you do just that. Here it is... stand by...


I urged you to bear in mind that the fact that you want something does
not mean that everyone wants it.
As far as I was concerned, it might have been a point you'd never even
considered, let alone pronounced on.

Oh don't be stupid, of course I considered that. The very idea that I
might have not is so preposterous that your post cannot possibly have
meant something this simple (and in any case, my request does not affect
anyone else if they don't want to use it)

You say you considered it. Your post did not even hint at your having done
so.

Why should I

at no point did I ever suggest that my need should be compulsory to use, so
the attitude of others is completely irrelevant

You're making an issue where there isn't one


and then you say that I can't have something just because you don't
want
it (on the basis that everybody wants it that way, just because you do)
And you can't see that that's hypocritical

I support the operation of the law and I oppose attempts to undermine
it.

I'm not undermining it
I suggesting that it needs to change

You want to change the law so that it offers less protection to the trade
and to passengers but you don't want to undermine it?

It's a free choice If you don't want to use it (or even, a driver) to offer
it you don't have to.

We make these choices all the time, I don't see why the law should forbid me
from making that choice if I want. The very idea that is should is
ridiculous

I refer you back to the point about women going out on their own (or
whatever it was I suggested).


I see...

If it pleases you to imagine that I am the only person taking that
stance, carry on.

which stance is that?

The stance I had described in the sentence immediately prior to that one.

It's still there, a few lines abobe this one.

The one that is only there as a protectionist measure to protect a
vested interest and all of the vested interests want it to stay.
Well of course they do, don't they, when did turkey's vote of Christmas?
So if we exclude them, what are we left with precisely?

Why do you feel you have a right / duty to exclude the views of the people
involved? I'd be genuinely interested to know the answer to that.

Because their view is simply one of "protectionist"

tim