On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 18:09:55 -0600
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?

Are laws cast in stone? No. Where there's a will etc ...

Anyway, there are already laws about the max hours truckers and bus drivers
can do , it could easily be extended to cab drivers.

--
Spud

On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 01:05:54 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
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.

Its the driver we're talking about, not the vehicle itself.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 01:05:54 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
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.

Its the driver we're talking about, not the vehicle itself.

Yes, but you couldn't realistically restrict any cabbie from working less
than, say, 45 hours per week, and you wouldn't want them working very much
longer than that. And if you're trying to encourage them to drive a more
expensive cab, it's the capital cost that's the issue. As many cabs are
usually shated by more than one driver, you can't realistically limit the
cab's hours either.

I think the only way to encourage the use of more expensive cabs is to
allow them to charge more, or for the state to subsidise the fares for the
disabled people who need the higher spec cabs.

On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 09:49:58 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Its the driver we're talking about, not the vehicle itself.

Yes, but you couldn't realistically restrict any cabbie from working less
than, say, 45 hours per week, and you wouldn't want them working very much
longer than that. And if you're trying to encourage them to drive a more
expensive cab, it's the capital cost that's the issue. As many cabs are
usually shated by more than one driver, you can't realistically limit the
cab's hours either.

How many hours the actual vehicle works is irrelevant. Allowing the drivers
to use normal cars if they wish but giving an incentive for them to drive
the more expensive disabled friendly vehicles is the problem.

I think the only way to encourage the use of more expensive cabs is to
allow them to charge more,

All that will happen then is that no one will flag down the more expensive
cabs apart from the disabled and the cabbies will go out of business.

or for the state to subsidise the fares for the
disabled people who need the higher spec cabs.

IMO the disabled should get subsidised fares on PT anyway. They're life is
difficult enough already.

--
Spud

In article , d () wrote:

On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 18:09:55 -0600
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?

Are laws cast in stone? No. Where there's a will etc ...

Anyway, there are already laws about the max hours truckers and bus
drivers can do , it could easily be extended to cab drivers.

The record on updating taxi law isn't good. Much of it still dates back to
1847.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 01:05:54 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
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.

Its the driver we're talking about, not the vehicle itself.

Yes, but you couldn't realistically restrict any cabbie from working less
than, say, 45 hours per week, and you wouldn't want them working very much
longer than that. And if you're trying to encourage them to drive a more
expensive cab, it's the capital cost that's the issue. As many cabs are
usually shated

ITYF most drivers are pretty upset if their cab is shated

tim

wrote in message
...
In article , d () wrote:

On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 18:09:55 -0600
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?

Are laws cast in stone? No. Where there's a will etc ...

Anyway, there are already laws about the max hours truckers and bus
drivers can do , it could easily be extended to cab drivers.

The record on updating taxi law isn't good. Much of it still dates back to
1847.

is that why, elsewhere, there is a discussion about bales of hay?

tim

On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 11:01:35AM +0000, d wrote:

IMO the disabled should get subsidised fares on PT anyway.

We do.

I sometimes think, though, that given the huge expense of making the bus
and train network wheelchair-friendly (yes, I know other disabilities
exist, and this this also helps other groups) making transport
disabled-accessible might have been better done by just giving
wheelchair users massively subsidised taxi fares. That probably wouldn't
cost any more, and would actually mean that the whole city was opened up
to them instead of just those bits where installing lifts and things
wasn't too difficult.

--
David Cantrell | even more awesome than a panda-fur coat

You can't spell "slaughter" without "laughter"

On 2017-02-09 11:31:13 +0000, David Cantrell said:

I sometimes think, though, that given the huge expense of making the bus
and train network wheelchair-friendly (yes, I know other disabilities
exist, and this this also helps other groups) making transport
disabled-accessible might have been better done by just giving
wheelchair users massively subsidised taxi fares. That probably wouldn't
cost any more, and would actually mean that the whole city was opened up
to them instead of just those bits where installing lifts and things
wasn't too difficult.

That has certainly occurred to me. As has just making the deal on cars
better - if I were in a wheelchair and could drive a modified car,
that's what I would do for every journey except the kind of very local
one where I would probably, if able, wheel myself as a substitute for
walking. I wouldn't want to use public transport, as it would be a
massive nuisance. There are comparatively few such people compared
with the general population, and ensuring they have the freedom to
drive and park easily would not be much of an overhead.

As one example, the railway is put off building more stations due to
massive costs of lifts, ramps etc. Why not be allowed to build basic
"passive" stations, provided it does save substantial money not
providing access[1] and provided an accessible taxi on demand to the
nearest accessible station is always provided (at the rail fare that
would have been paid were the station accessible) should any wheelchair
user wish to travel?

I wouldn't argue for a main station to be devoid of lifts, but a
low-demand rural one?

[1] If you were building a two-platform station accessed from a road at
one end with a level crossing, it would for example be stupid not to
just make the end ramps shallower so suitable for a wheelchair, as it'd
cost next to nothing.

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