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

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)

SCDC licence very few hackney carriages and I don't know how they set fares.
Not much of a market I suspect.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

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.

City HACKNEY CARRIAGES.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 08/10/2015 02:48, wrote:
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?

As someone else has already remarked (it might have been you), the
"pre-booking" does not confer any advantage on anyone (except for not
having to do it close to the time of travel).

The driver will simply be handed a job over his radio. He will
experience no difference as between a pre-booking or one that has just
been rung in by a member of the public. Given that, it's hard to see why
or how a discount for early booking could be expected.

Taxi-drivers are not airline pilots. They are not filling up a diary or
seating plan. Indeed, if a driver tried to do anything like that (at
ordinary fares), it would put him at a disadvantage since sometime or
other, he'd have to cease his normal run of work in order to be at the
hiring point for a pre-booked job in time, perhaps having to travel
across a city to do so.

The fact is that the driver given the job is just the one nearest to the
pick-up point at (or just before) the appointed time. There is thus no
room for discounts.

The point about travel beyond city boundaries is a good one, but some
cities have different "compellable" distances. In London, the maximum
compellable used to be six miles. It might still be. In Liverpool, it
used to be (and may still be) six miles beyond the city boundary
(thereby including most immediate suburbs and a huge chunk of the Wirral).

On 08/10/2015 09:19, Recliner wrote:
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).

It has been in official use by the Open University ever since it opened
its doors in 1977.

On 08/10/2015 10:46, David Walters wrote:
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.

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."

Well... let's have a look...

QUOTE 1:
"Uber remains a licensed PH operator in London, fulfilling the
requirements as set out in private hire legislation."

OK. So far, so good.

But what are those requirements? See below.

QUOTE 2:
"There has been a concern from the taxi trade that individuals could be
licensed as drivers from countries where the current DBS checks cannot
be obtained. The position regarding drivers who have recently arrived in
the UK and apply for a private hire driver’s licence remains the same as
before. To be licensed, and in the absence of a DBS check, a certificate
of good conduct is required from the Embassy of the country of origin.
This discloses any offences that have been recorded against the individual."

That has nothing specifically to do with Uber as far as one can see. It
would apply to any "private hire" operator anywhere in the UK where
licensing is in force.

To do with the "requirements" mentioned above:

QUOTE 3:
"I should remind Board Members this is a long standing requirement which
applies to all PH drivers and predates the arrival of Uber in this
market. 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."

So what are those checks?

Answer: they are checks as to whether Uber is fulfilling *its own*
duties, the main few of which are keeping records of the work done and
the drivers to whom it has been referred, and checking that new drivers
are licensed at the point of the arrangenments being entered into.

With the best will in the world, neither Uber nor any other operator is
in a position to ensure that the vehicle is constantly and continually
insured for hire and reward, or that only licensed drivers drive it.

So fears that Uber's drivers include the unlicensed or the uninsured
have not been and cannot be allayed.

On 08/10/2015 13:17, tim..... wrote:

"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

To you. you mean.

Not to everyone (remember the point about remembering that what you want
is not what everyone wants, or should satisfice at?).

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

Presumably, your view that the law should not seek to offer protection
applies to all passengers, females as well as males.

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"

Well, that's your view (not everyone's), but... so what?

If they're right, they're right (and they're right).

On 08/10/2015 13:40, tim..... wrote:

"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.

I'll be magnanimous and take that as an apology.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 08/10/2015 02:48, wrote:
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?

As someone else has already remarked (it might have been you), the
"pre-booking" does not confer any advantage on anyone (except for not
having to do it close to the time of travel).

The driver will simply be handed a job over his radio. He will experience
no difference as between a pre-booking or one that has just been rung in
by a member of the public. Given that, it's hard to see why or how a
discount for early booking could be expected.

I think it perfectly reasonable when you think you are ringing a mini-cab
firm

tim

On 08/10/2015 13:40, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

[ ... ]

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.

I did not say that. It is the driver (of any type) or the private hire
operator (I have never heard of a "rank operator" in the UK, WTMB) who
must not do the pairing up. And that is for very obvious passenger
safety reasons.

*If* there were some desire at London's airports (in practice, it only
means Heathrow and Docklands) to provide a voluntary match-up service
for passengers, that would be fair enough. It would additionally be
lawful (it's what happens at Newark, incidentally).

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.

I am not responsible for what others say, any more than you are.

On 08/10/2015 20:35, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 08/10/2015 02:48, wrote:
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?

As someone else has already remarked (it might have been you), the
"pre-booking" does not confer any advantage on anyone (except for not
having to do it close to the time of travel).

The driver will simply be handed a job over his radio. He will
experience no difference as between a pre-booking or one that has just
been rung in by a member of the public. Given that, it's hard to see
why or how a discount for early booking could be expected.

I think it perfectly reasonable when you think you are ringing a
mini-cab firm

Even though it has been explained to you that there is no advantage to
the driver in being given a job that was booked some time ago as
compared with one that has just come in?

Tell you what, though... being forced (by the operator) to give a
discount to the passenger would result in fewer drivers being willing to
accept (over the radio) those jobs which happen to have been pre-booked.