On 27/04/2016 11:52, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:14:57PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

Are they really so rare that you couldn't phone for one and have it
arrive as soon as a minicab? The places I've lived outside of London
with a mixture of hackneys and minicabs it's been just as simple to call
one of the former as the latter.

Surely in the interests of fairness the black cab would have to wait 24
hours, just like the minicab, when not being hailed on the street.

Why?

The taxi-driver (driving a taxi) is entitled to accept immediate hirings
in any event, and does not rely upon any recent legislation for that
right. Some cab-ranks in London have, for many decades (certainly
pre-dating the appearance of "Welbeck Minicabs") been equipped with a
telephone so that people (within the reasonably local area) can hire a
cab when it's on the rank without havinjg to go to the rank in person.

On 27/04/2016 12:02, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 05:04:16PM +0100, JNugent wrote:

No London green-badged cab driver can afford to hang around in the
suburbs where there isn't enough work to keep him busy.

However, there is the London yellow-badged driver, licensed only to ply
for hire within certain London suburban areas (known as sectors). They
are available in the whole of outer London:

I do not recall ever seeing a black cab cruising around looking for
customers in Thornton Heath. Those yellow badges might as well not
exist.

That's rock-solid proof, then?

On 27/04/2016 15:27, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 27/04/2016 02:15, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 26/04/2016 19:28, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 26/04/2016 18:19, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 25/04/2016 14:18, David Cantrell wrote:

On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 06:13:47PM +0100, JNugent wrote:

There's always been a good case for the advance booking period for a
so-called "private hire car" to be at least twenty-four hours.

No there hasn't.
Imagine, for example, that you are in an industrial estate in Peckham.
There are no black cabs cruising the industrial estate looking for
passengers.
How do you get home?

The whole reason why unlicensed* "private hire cars" (so-called) can
operate with their unlicensed* drivers is a loophole in the law which
distinguishes immediate hirings from advance bookings.

Immediate hirings - taxis.

Advance bookings - taxis (of course) *or* "private hire cars".

But unless a significant minimum period for that advance booking is
established and enforced, in practice, the law prohibiting unlicensed
plying-for-hire cannot be operated properly.

[* "licensed" here means licensed as a taxi or as a taxi-driver.]

Isn't the number of taxis limited a certain number while there are no
such limits to the number of hire cars because the law doesn't allow it?

No.

That was certainly the situation in Cambridge until 2001, with the
number of taxi licences clearly far too few for the business on offer.
I'm surprised you would support such monopolistic practice if there is
a limit.

The Transport Act of either 1995 or 2005 (I forget which, though 1995
rings the louder bell) forbade such limitation of the number of taxi
vehicles licences.

Limitation - if used (it isn't used everywhere) - now has to be
determined by quasi-scientific means. The usual method is to survey
the trade at "busy" times, whereas the correct method would be to
survey the trade at non-busy times, eg: a fine dry Tuesday
mid-morning in April.

Such limits are still legal outside London since the 1985 Transport Act (the
one that deregulated buses) but as you say only when supported by survey
evidence of "no unmet demand".

The trade are notorious for all sorts of dodgy practices while such surveys
are carried out to persuade survey firms there is no unmet demand.

After Labour regained control of Cambridge City Council in 2014 they
re-imposed a limit at the number of licences then held. To be fair, without
a limit the number of hackneys had been pretty static for some time
following a sharp rise after the Council, under Liberal Democrat control,
removed the limit in 2001.

One important difference between Cambridge and London is that hire cars have
meters and, though they don't have to, do in fact charge the same fares as
hackneys (with the city at least). Several operators have mixed fleets with
hackneys, city-licensed hire cars and South Cambs DC licensed hire cars
(which outnumber the rest by a large margin). So someone ring them up may
get any time of vehicle but will always be charged the same fare.

The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, under which
most districts license private hire (so-called) cars provides that where
a meter is fitted to a private hire [sic] vehicle, it has to be
regulated to the rates charged by local taxis.

Why the 'sic'? If it's the correct legal term, there's no need for it. And
if it's not, use the correct term. The 'sic' should only be used when
quoting someone else's incorrect use of a word, like your incorrect use of
'sic'.

The use of the phrase "private hire" is problematic and for that reason,
not an accurate description.

Few of them are never used to accept illegal public hirings.

And how do you know that with such certainty?

You are either in denial or have made no observations of the industry.

Unlicensed plying for hire is endemic.

Just because you disapprove of cheaper, more convenient, cleaner,
legal competitors doesn't make them illicit. It just makes you look like a
white (or, actually) black elephant.

Unlicensed plying for hire *is* illegal.

Uninsured carriage of passengers for hire and reward *is* illegal.

It's pity that you cannot answer argument with argument, isn't it?

I already did.

Perhaps you think you did.

He doesn't have to prove anything. He has the right to
choose whatever means of transport he prefers. If his
experience is that it's pretty pointless to try to find a
Hackney cab, that's enough reason for him to opt for a
minicab instead. Like everyone else, he is under no
obligation to use Hackney cabs.

On 2016-04-27 08:57:42 +0000, Mizter T said:

In Greater London, a taxi is a taxi, and a minicab is a private hire
care is a minicab, but they are very distinct things.

Anywhere else they are just known as taxis. Often they are even the
same vehicles, with the meter being used if hailed and something else,
e.g. an app, if booked.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

In message , at 18:04:20 on Wed, 27
Apr 2016, Neil Williams remarked:
In Greater London, a taxi is a taxi, and a minicab is a private hire
care is a minicab, but they are very distinct things.

Anywhere else they are just known as taxis.

No they aren't. The distinction between the two is palpable in
Cambridge, Cambridgeshire and Nottingham, to name but three places I
have recent direct experience of.
--
Roland Perry

On 27/04/2016 18:04, Neil Williams wrote:
On 2016-04-27 08:57:42 +0000, Mizter T said:

In Greater London, a taxi is a taxi, and a minicab is a private hire
care is a minicab, but they are very distinct things.

Anywhere else they are just known as taxis.

No, they aren't.

The Twon Police Clauses Act 1847, various (big city) Corporation Acts
and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 all
distinguish taxis (hackney carriages) from "pricate hire vehicles".

Often they are even the
same vehicles, with the meter being used if hailed and something else,
e.g. an app, if booked.

Have you encountered a vehicle bearing a taxi licence plate and a
private hire plate?

What would be the point of that, since being licensed as a taxi means
the vehicle may also be used for private hirings?

On 27/04/2016 18:46, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:04:20 on Wed, 27
Apr 2016, Neil Williams remarked:
In Greater London, a taxi is a taxi, and a minicab is a private hire
care is a minicab, but they are very distinct things.

Anywhere else they are just known as taxis.

No they aren't. The distinction between the two is palpable in
Cambridge, Cambridgeshire and Nottingham, to name but three places I
have recent direct experience of.

And, in fact, in every town and city in England and Wales where
licensing is done under the 1847 and 1976 Acts.

Some rural districts - where work is patchy anyway, are more relaxed
about it.

I realise you find distorted logic useful but it's unacceptable
here. The fact there are locations where private hire drivers
make themselves available to the general public does not
mean that most private hire drivers do it.

On 27/04/2016 17:21, Robin9 wrote:

'JNugent[_5_ Wrote:
;155296']On 27/04/2016 12:02, David Cantrell wrote:-
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 05:04:16PM +0100, JNugent wrote:

No London green-badged cab driver can afford to hang around in the
suburbs where there isn't enough work to keep him busy.
However, there is the London yellow-badged driver, licensed only to
ply for hire within certain London suburban areas (known as sectors).
They are available in the whole of outer London:-

I do not recall ever seeing a black cab cruising around looking for
customers in Thornton Heath. Those yellow badges might as well not
exist.-

That's rock-solid proof, then?

He doesn't have to prove anything.

Neither does anyone else have to accept his anecdote as substantial
evidence.

He has the right to choose whatever means of transport he prefers.

Up to a point, certainly. But not beyond that.

For instance, he may not ride in an unlicensed taxi (at least, not
unless he can persuade the driver to do the job free of charge). He may
not ride an uninsured motor-bike, or use a car which has no MOT or Road Tax.

He does not have the option of riding on an unlicensed and unauthorised
bus, still less on an unregulated train or Tube line.

If his
experience is that it's pretty pointless to try to find a
Hackney cab, that's enough reason for him to opt for a
minicab instead. Like everyone else, he is under no
obligation to use Hackney cabs.

Quite so.

But so-called private hire cars have to operate within a set of
restrictive rules. Those rules exist at least in part so as (attempt) to
prevent them from operating as if they were taxis.

If the rules were tightened (as they have been - after all, it's a
comparatively short time since registration was even introduced in
London), that would become the new background and the new environment in
which hirings took place.

Some people seem to have either forgotten (or not to know) why the
loophole of "private hire" exists in the first place.