wrote in message
...
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?

It was from a Northern Village (so in S Cambs)

I can't actually remember if I wanted to go to Waterbeach station (and hence
wholly inside S Cambs) instead of my normal destination of Cambridge
station, but either way I thought the cost ridiculous and went on the bus
(to Cambridge, of course)

tim

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
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.

There was me thinking it came from a TV program (that I have never watched)

(and no, I didn't know)

tim

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Roland Perry wrote:
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.

It's American slang, known in Britain mainly by those who've had business
dealings with Americans. It had to be explained to me the first time I
came
across it in a conference in America (many years ago).

Just like when I was with a group of graduate at a network [1] conference
and the first time an American presenter said "Wrouting", we had to have it
translated for us :-)

tim

[1] as in comms networking nor personal networking

"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
...
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".

Not give what the answer actually is

I assumed it meant school level (any why not?) - but, as I have learnt
today, it does not!

tim

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 07/10/2015 20:07, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 06/10/2015 18:12, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 21:01, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 20:28, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 17:26, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:11:53 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:45:22 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
the pavement outside the venue in the pouring rain, or
perhaps
five
minutes earlier when they are inside in the warm and can more
comfortably use their phone to order a car to arrive in five
minute's
time?

Since thats exactly how people used to order minicabs I'm
wondering what
exactly is the killer selling point of Uber. Other than it
means
Aspergers
types don't actually have to talk to a person and get all
stressed.

You don't have to know the names and phone numbers of local
mini
cab firms,

Google.

Obviously you like making things more difficult than they need to
be.


nor explain the address to someone who may not have a shared
language.

Right, because Uber drivers are always natives.

Of course not, but you seem not to know how Uber works.


Either or both parties may be in a noisy environment.

What's more, Uber probably gets you a car more quickly, you
don't
need to
pay cash (a particular advantage when abroad, if you don't have
local
currency), and it's typically cheaper.

Of course its cheaper - unvetted drivers whose only
qualification is
owning
a car and smartphone.

Wrong again.

That is precisely the point; no-one has been (so far) able to say
with
certainty that Uber drivers *are* vetted and licensed.

The fact that Uber themselves claim to do the vetting" is
alarming.

I don't believe that they do

they claim that they have checked the driver has been vetted (the
rest
is just lost in lazy journalism)

Every "private hire" operator has to do that.

so what were you complaining about then?

The current situation is completely unclear.

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

as I said befo

that is likely to be just lazy jurno speak for "the driver gets the
authorities to do the necessary vetting and Uber check that they (the
driver) has done this"

"likely".

The law requires certainty.

It has already been explained to you that when questioned first hand
Uber explain that they do comply with the law.

And a large proportion of persons arrested for crime assure the police
that they're innocent.

So any discussion abut what is reported third hand does not require such
certainty

Can you see a flaw in that?

I have already accepted that Uber may be being "economical with the truth",
but that point was never the main issue, which was the simple
grammatical one

tim

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 07/10/2015 20:05, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 06/10/2015 18:03, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 21:01, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 18:41, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/10/2015 09:18, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 10/4/2015 2:10 PM, JNugent wrote:
On 03/10/2015 09:07, Someone Somewhere wrote:
Seriously?

Because a taxi is - in its very essence - a *private* space
which
can be
hired by the passenger to the exclusion of others. It is not a
bus.
If a
bus is what is wanted, buses are available.


What? There's a bus that takes me from Heathrow to outside my
house in
Shadwell?

Provided you're willing to change a few times, yes.


More times than the TfL planner can cope with to get outside my
house.

That's a problem you have with buses. Not everyone has it.

The fact that you do is not a good reason for disrupting the
legitimate livelihood of others.

How is my saying "if you wont provide a legitimate way of my
sharing a
cab (on an ad hoch basis with someone that I don't know), I wont be
using a cab at all" an attack on a legitimate business

Was that a question?

I'll assume that it was a question.

Your saying anything at all on usenet is not an attack on a legitimate
business. Or at least, not one worth the name.

It is the proposed de-regulation of the licensed taxi trade and the
proposed relaxation of controls on pirate cars which would disrupt the
legitimate livelihood of others.

I explaining to them how they can get business that they have
otherwise
lost

Who is "them"?

cabbies

And how do you propose to "explaining" this to cabbies?

I've just done so

Oh yes very funny.

You saw your own error.

That's an improvement.

This isn't an English exam , it's a general discussion group

the point is to discuss issue, not pick people up on their spelling.



I didn't mean that I had directly conveyed it to them
I meant that I had written the words that I would use should I want to
do so

Which posters are the "cabbies" (as you disrepectfully call them)?
And what makes you "think" they're taking any notice of you?

That's not the point, your issue was that I was "disrupting their
livelihood" by my request.

Your postings - like mine and everyone else's - are neither here nor
their. It is the argument that the law should be changed which amou8nts to
an attack on the taxi trade.

Not if the contention is that that they will get more business offering this
service, than by not offering it.

There is no-one more protectionist than German Cabbies. Yet they see the
need to offer this type of service.

They understand that cabs are simply too expensive for the individual
travellers who is paying his own fare (and in these more stringent times,
even many who are expensing it) and if they don't offer more competitive
options, they don't get the business at all.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 07/10/2015 20:00, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

On 06/10/2015 17:40, tim..... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote:
On 05/10/2015 20:48, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2015-10-04 22:21:04 +0000, said:

We couldn't find a mechanism to manage this, even from the station
with its legendary taxi queues.

At the station might it have just about worked to put up a sign
saying
something like "Why not ask others if they will share your taxi to
keep costs down and keep things moving? Wait here if you'd like to
do this."
- leaving it to the passengers to get together to hire a taxi and
split its fare, and thus making it legal?

That might work, though there is a real risk that unlicensed touts
would interpose themselves and start offering "service".

Incidentally, there is a working system at Newark Airport where a
despatcher (employed by the airport) allocates passengers/groups of
passengers to taxis with a flat fare (flat by the vehicle, not per
capita) to specific places. That's places, not addresses. The last
time I used it I paid $45 from the airport to a NJ city on the Hudson.

Oh, so it's all right for you to take advantage of it in the US.

Indeed. And if LHR decided to do the same here, I'd support that -
mainly because it would be lawful, whereas allowing the driver to do
it would not be.

So why have you spent the last 4 days saying that the law forbidding
this operation is a good law and should be kept?

You have a vivid imagination. I have said NO SUCH THING.

There is no law forbidding passengers -

I accept you said that as allowed. But it's pretty useless for most people

or a bona fide third party - from getting together to hire a shared taxi
and I have not suggested or state that there is (look above at the quoted
material if you want evidence of that).

But you said that this was forbidden, in the case where the this party was
the "rank" operator.


What the law says is that the driver or operator may not do the arranging.

but it not all right for me to use this method in London,

The Newark Method?

The only thing that stops you using it in London is that the airports
don't provide the service.

That is not what has been said here - if not by you by others.


tim

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

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.

City taxis operate within the city. If you must live in the countryside you
have to put up with countryside transport constraints.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Another nice try, another failure.

We are not in a criminal court where proof beyond reasonable
doubt is required. If you need to check if my assertions are
correct, you have options available to you.

In case you have forgotten, information is still not provided
exclusively via the Internet. TfL make their announcements
through various channels, e. g. Metro. I don't store back copies
of newspapers or magazines just in case I need to substantiate
something in an Internet forum.

Incidentally TfL made their announcement about 4 or 5 months ago.

In message , at 10:30:57
on Thu, 8 Oct 2015, remarked:

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

City taxis operate within the city.

err... Panther... Waterbeach... Not the City.
--
Roland Perry