On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 13:44:23 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Wed, 01 Feb 2017 12:13:56 +0000
David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:24:00AM +0000, d wrote:

For such a large company you'd think they could have designed something a
bit less utterly butt ugly than the horror that was presented the other day.

Have you not seen any cars manufactured by large companies recently?

Yes, there are plenty of ugly vehicles out there. But usually its a one off
balls up by the company concerned. However taxis by LTI have been consistently
ugly for 50 years. Thats not a balls up, its complete indifference to any sort
of aesthetic appeal.

Has it not occurred to you that not everyone shares your concept of
aesthetics?

On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 11:32:12 +0000
Recliner wrote:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 13:44:23 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Wed, 01 Feb 2017 12:13:56 +0000
David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:24:00AM +0000, d wrote:

For such a large company you'd think they could have designed something a
bit less utterly butt ugly than the horror that was presented the other
day.

Have you not seen any cars manufactured by large companies recently?

Yes, there are plenty of ugly vehicles out there. But usually its a one off
balls up by the company concerned. However taxis by LTI have been
consistently
ugly for 50 years. Thats not a balls up, its complete indifference to any
sort
of aesthetic appeal.

Has it not occurred to you that not everyone shares your concept of
aesthetics?

Given that its the interests of car manufacturers who actually have some
decent competition (unlike LTI) to make cars that people want to buy, I think
the style of modern cars tells you all you need to know. So while not everyone
shares my idea of style (fiat multipla still sold) I think I'm probably in the
majority and I very much doubt the majority of cabbies are happy paying a small
fortune for such a pig ugly vehicle.

--
Spud

On 2017-02-03 09:34:00 +0000, d said:

Given that its the interests of car manufacturers who actually have some
decent competition (unlike LTI) to make cars that people want to buy, I think
the style of modern cars tells you all you need to know. So while not everyone
shares my idea of style (fiat multipla still sold) I think I'm probably in the
majority and I very much doubt the majority of cabbies are happy paying a small
fortune for such a pig ugly vehicle.

I think the "small fortune" is in some ways the issue. Really, the
Chevrolet Matiz (or an electric version thereof) would be ideal for
taxi use in the city carrying one passenger, as most of them do. In
India, that kind of thing is increasingly the norm.

You have to work out how to provide for wheelchair users, but having
every single taxi driving around the place sized like a small minibus
belching out diesel fumes on the off-chance of a wheelchair user
wanting it seems to me to be a ludicrous idea when we have the kind of
modern technology which could summon an accessible vehicle very easily
from a rather smaller pool sized to ensure availability of such
vehicles for the likely number of wheelchair users only.

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

In message , at 11:10:58 on Fri, 3 Feb
2017, Neil Williams remarked:

I think the "small fortune" is in some ways the issue. Really, the
Chevrolet Matiz (or an electric version thereof) would be ideal for
taxi use in the city carrying one passenger, as most of them do. In
India, that kind of thing is increasingly the norm.

An improvement from a tuk-tuk then.
--
Roland Perry

On 2017-02-03 15:49:42 +0000, Roland Perry said:

In message , at 11:10:58 on Fri, 3
Feb 2017, Neil Williams remarked:

I think the "small fortune" is in some ways the issue. Really, the
Chevrolet Matiz (or an electric version thereof) would be ideal for
taxi use in the city carrying one passenger, as most of them do. In
India, that kind of thing is increasingly the norm.

An improvement from a tuk-tuk then.

True

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

On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 11:10:58 +0000
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2017-02-03 09:34:00 +0000, d said:

Given that its the interests of car manufacturers who actually have some
decent competition (unlike LTI) to make cars that people want to buy, I think
the style of modern cars tells you all you need to know. So while not
everyone
shares my idea of style (fiat multipla still sold) I think I'm probably in
the
majority and I very much doubt the majority of cabbies are happy paying a
small
fortune for such a pig ugly vehicle.

I think the "small fortune" is in some ways the issue. Really, the
Chevrolet Matiz (or an electric version thereof) would be ideal for
taxi use in the city carrying one passenger, as most of them do. In
India, that kind of thing is increasingly the norm.

You have to work out how to provide for wheelchair users, but having
every single taxi driving around the place sized like a small minibus
belching out diesel fumes on the off-chance of a wheelchair user
wanting it seems to me to be a ludicrous idea when we have the kind of
modern technology which could summon an accessible vehicle very easily
from a rather smaller pool sized to ensure availability of such
vehicles for the likely number of wheelchair users only.

I tend to agree. There could be some incentive for having a wheelchair friendly
taxi - being allowed to work longer hours or tax breaks perhaps - but forcing
all cabbies to drive around in these overpriced mechanical antiques seems
ridiculous.

Normal cars serve perfectly well as minicabs, there's no reason they couldn't
do the same as black cabs. And the whole turning circle thing its an anachronism
since on a lot of londons roads its a dangerous (or illegal) manouveur to make
anyway plus most normal cars could manage it too in all but the narrowest of
streets.

--
Spud

On 2017\02\06 09:31, d wrote:

I tend to agree. There could be some incentive for having a wheelchair friendly
taxi - being allowed to work longer hours or tax breaks perhaps - but forcing
all cabbies to drive around in these overpriced mechanical antiques seems
ridiculous.

Cabbies currently have no limit on their hours.

Normal cars serve perfectly well as minicabs, there's no reason they couldn't
do the same as black cabs. And the whole turning circle thing its an anachronism
since on a lot of londons roads its a dangerous (or illegal) manouveur to make
anyway plus most normal cars could manage it too in all but the narrowest of
streets.


Old Street east of Great Eastern Street is a permanent traffic jam at
night because of minicabs doing three-point turns. Extending that to all
of London all day doesn't sound like a good plan.

There is also the danger of allowing car-height vehicles in bus lanes...
you need to be able to see over most other vehicles in order to whiz
past a jam without killing pedestrians. Obviously there are mass
produced high vehicles that don't have the turning circle. I would be
interested to hear experience from outside London on this.

On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 14:57:47 +0000
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\02\06 09:31, d wrote:

I tend to agree. There could be some incentive for having a wheelchair
friendly
taxi - being allowed to work longer hours or tax breaks perhaps - but forcing
all cabbies to drive around in these overpriced mechanical antiques seems
ridiculous.

Cabbies currently have no limit on their hours.

Fair enough, but flip it around then - if the cabbie wants to buy an
ordinary car with no disabled access then their hours per day are limited.

Old Street east of Great Eastern Street is a permanent traffic jam at
night because of minicabs doing three-point turns. Extending that to all

Hmm, I'll take that with a pinch of salt. I suspect the minicabs are doing a
3 point turn because of the traffic jams, not causing them.

There is also the danger of allowing car-height vehicles in bus lanes...
you need to be able to see over most other vehicles in order to whiz
past a jam without killing pedestrians. Obviously there are mass

Nah, not buying it. The driving position in a black cab isn't that much
higher than a normal car - certainly less than most 4x4s.

--
Spud

In article , d () wrote:

On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 14:57:47 +0000
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\02\06 09:31, d wrote:

I tend to agree. There could be some incentive for having a wheelchair
friendly taxi - being allowed to work longer hours or tax breaks
perhaps - but forcing all cabbies to drive around in these overpriced
mechanical antiques seems ridiculous.

Cabbies currently have no limit on their hours.

Fair enough, but flip it around then - if the cabbie wants to buy an
ordinary car with no disabled access then their hours per day are
limited.

Under what legal provision would you achieve that?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
In article , d () wrote:

On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 14:57:47 +0000
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\02\06 09:31, d wrote:

I tend to agree. There could be some incentive for having a wheelchair
friendly taxi - being allowed to work longer hours or tax breaks
perhaps - but forcing all cabbies to drive around in these overpriced
mechanical antiques seems ridiculous.

Cabbies currently have no limit on their hours.

Fair enough, but flip it around then - if the cabbie wants to buy an
ordinary car with no disabled access then their hours per day are
limited.

Under what legal provision would you achieve that?

Plus, more than one driver can share one cab. That often happens in London.