|
Woking to Heathrow
On 2017-04-07 10:24:31 +0000, tim... said:
There's currently an argument in Brighton about Uber drivers from London being allowed to operate in the city (on their London registration papers) because Brighton's requirements for the vehicle are stricter - one of which is that cars MUST be fitted with CCTV recording in-cab (for passenger safety, apparently) This kind of thing is the problem. I see no reason for Councils to do their own thing on this at all - a national scheme would be better (and would protect people better, as a ban or suspension would be national too). Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
Woking to Heathrow
In message , at 11:24:31 on Fri, 7 Apr 2017,
tim... remarked: How would that enable your car to be tested for compliance? Compliance with what? Is the MoT not adequate? If it isn't, then it needs beefing up for *all* cars, there is no reason to specifically single out private-hire cars for that purpose. There's currently an argument in Brighton about Uber drivers from London being allowed to operate in the city (on their London registration papers) because Brighton's requirements for the vehicle are stricter - one of which is that cars MUST be fitted with CCTV recording in-cab (for passenger safety, apparently) And iirc Oxford tried to mandate CCTV that also captured the voices, but got slapped down by the ICO. -- Roland Perry |
Woking to Heathrow
In message , at 11:44:21 on Fri, 7 Apr
2017, Neil Williams remarked: There's currently an argument in Brighton about Uber drivers from London being allowed to operate in the city (on their London registration papers) because Brighton's requirements for the vehicle are stricter - one of which is that cars MUST be fitted with CCTV recording in-cab (for passenger safety, apparently) This kind of thing is the problem. I see no reason for Councils to do their own thing on this at all - a national scheme would be better (and would protect people better, as a ban or suspension would be national too). The difficulty is you may find some of the individual local laws being contradictory[1] and by the time you've amalgamated them, all the list will be impossibly long and much of it irrelevant or unworkable in some localities. [1] You MUST or MUST-NOT use a taxi meter, is one that spring to mind. -- Roland Perry |
Woking to Heathrow
|
Woking to Heathrow
In message , at 16:18:42 on Thu, 6 Apr
2017, Neil Williams remarked: What change is required - I hope you don't mean "no hire/reward insurance and no CRB checking"? DBS checking (you're out of date there) is dead easy to do, so no, not that. I run loads of them for Scouting purposes and have one myself. I think what I'd change is make licensing a national remit and design it for ease of obtaining one (and ease of cancellation if you don't behave), e.g. a smooth online process. Just seen proposals from my District Council to reform the rules, which are in response to *local* considerations, including: Enhancing the existing dress code. DBS check annually rather than every three years. Driver medicals every three years. (The current system asks for a medical on application then nothing until the age of 45. Then every five years until the age of 65 when it switches to annual medicals.) Allowing novelty vehicles like fire engines, army vehicles and tuk tuk rickshaws to register. [This appears to reverse a decision in 2008 that all taxis should be painted a standard colour, for easy recognition, and has certain tensions with the dress code - surely a novelty vehicle would really need a novelty uniform] -- Roland Perry |
Woking to Heathrow
On 2017-04-17 06:51:56 +0000, Roland Perry said:
Just seen proposals from my District Council to reform the rules, which are in response to *local* considerations, including: Enhancing the existing dress code. I would consider that a commercial matter for the operator and not something a local authority should be getting involved in for private hire. DBS check annually rather than every three years. A pointless and expensive waste of time. Can't they just use the update service, which essentially gives a continuous check at a far lower cost? Driver medicals every three years. (The current system asks for a medical on application then nothing until the age of 45. Then every five years until the age of 65 when it switches to annual medicals.) People don't get sick in Cambridge more than elsewhere. That is not a local consideration at all. Allowing novelty vehicles like fire engines, army vehicles and tuk tuk rickshaws to register. [This appears to reverse a decision in 2008 that all taxis should be painted a standard colour, for easy recognition, and has certain tensions with the dress code - surely a novelty vehicle would really need a novelty uniform] That's a niche case, really. Recognition of a private hire vehicle has become moot, because almost everyone will be informed in some way of the registration number of their allocated vehicle prior to its arrival. Only if you telephone for one using a landline would this not occur, which is heading dangerously towards the proverbial goats these days. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
Woking to Heathrow
|
Woking to Heathrow
In message , at 23:05:11 on Mon, 17
Apr 2017, Neil Williams remarked: On 2017-04-17 06:51:56 +0000, Roland Perry said: Just seen proposals from my District Council to reform the rules, which are in response to *local* considerations, including: Enhancing the existing dress code. I would consider that a commercial matter for the operator and not something a local authority should be getting involved in for private hire. The licencing authority doesn't want tourists arriving at the station to be greeted by a load of scruffs in beaten up taxis. DBS check annually rather than every three years. A pointless and expensive waste of time. Can't they just use the update service, which essentially gives a continuous check at a far lower cost? That sounds like a useful contribution to the consultation. Driver medicals every three years. (The current system asks for a medical on application then nothing until the age of 45. Then every five years until the age of 65 when it switches to annual medicals.) People don't get sick in Cambridge more than elsewhere. That is not a local consideration at all. It's not Cambridge, and it's not about the flu - rather degeneration because of age, which happens everywhere. Allowing novelty vehicles like fire engines, army vehicles and tuk tuk rickshaws to register. [This appears to reverse a decision in 2008 that all taxis should be painted a standard colour, for easy recognition, and has certain tensions with the dress code - surely a novelty vehicle would really need a novelty uniform] That's a niche case, really. Recognition of a private hire vehicle has become moot, because almost everyone will be informed in some way of the registration number of their allocated vehicle prior to its arrival. Only if you telephone for one using a landline would this not occur, which is heading dangerously towards the proverbial goats these days. Cambridge only got Uber a few months ago. I've just asked for a quote to get from here to Cambridge, and Uber says £32-44 "no cars available". The fare by regular minicab is £38 (fixed). The further one goes, the more the fares diverge. eg To Sansted, Uber quotes £72-£97, whereas local firms charge variously £55-£70. -- Roland Perry |
Woking to Heathrow
|
Woking to Heathrow
|
Woking to Heathrow
In message , at 08:31:02 on Tue, 18
Apr 2017, Neil Williams remarked: Roland is referring to East Cambridgeshire, not Cambridge. I bet people don't get sick there any more than anywhere else either. .... get older... I think we probably do. In Cambridge there are other issues, like admission to restricted city centre areas. So probably not an issue in East Cambs. Enforcement is typically by camera and registration plate anyway. Bollards, mate. -- Roland Perry |
Woking to Heathrow
On 2017-04-18 07:39:42 +0000, Roland Perry said:
... get older... I think we probably do. You get older quicker than everywhere else in the country? Seems unlikely. People are people, and I see no reason for any local standard on such things. Indeed, as I said, I see no reason for local standards on private hire cars *at all*. National licencing would work perfectly well and would adapt much better to new services like Uber. In Cambridge there are other issues, like admission to restricted city centre areas. So probably not an issue in East Cambs. Enforcement is typically by camera and registration plate anyway. Bollards, mate. Assuming that referred to raising bollards rather than being a euphemism, those are done by registration number too, not car colour. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
Woking to Heathrow
In message , at 10:18:38 on Tue, 18
Apr 2017, Neil Williams remarked: ... get older... I think we probably do. You get older quicker than everywhere else in the country? Seems unlikely. People are people, and I see no reason for any local standard on such things. The Cambridge City medical requirement differs too, it goes annual at the age of 60, with others required at 25, 30, 35 and 40, as well as every five years from 45 onwards. Obviously there must be a lot of suspected decrepit 25-40yr old drivers there! Let alone 60-65 requiring an annual test nit currently required in East Cambs. Indeed, as I said, I see no reason for local standards on private hire cars *at all*. National licencing would work perfectly well and would adapt much better to new services like Uber. Very few people would agree with you. Especially the local councils who insist on local variations (and the cabbies who would resist anything additional to the currently in force local requirement). In Cambridge there are other issues, like admission to restricted city centre areas. So probably not an issue in East Cambs. Enforcement is typically by camera and registration plate anyway. Bollards, mate. Assuming that referred to raising bollards rather than being a euphemism, those are done by registration number too, not car colour. Nope. In Cambridge it's by transponder. -- Roland Perry |
Woking to Heathrow
On 2017-04-18 10:06:00 +0000, Roland Perry said:
Nope. In Cambridge it's by transponder. Still not car colour. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
Woking to Heathrow
|
Woking to Heathrow
In message , at 11:32:32 on Tue, 18
Apr 2017, Neil Williams remarked: Nope. In Cambridge it's by transponder. Still not car colour. No-one ever claimed it was. -- Roland Perry |
Woking to Heathrow
|
Woking to Heathrow
|
Woking to Heathrow
|
Woking to Heathrow
|
Woking to Heathrow
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 05:49:31 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017, remarked: In Cambridge there are other issues, like admission to restricted city centre areas. So probably not an issue in East Cambs. The City cab trade never fails to point out there are more out-of-area vehicles than City ones on the streets. I'm not sure whether that's not merely an artefact of Panther (fleet ~500) being based at a cheaper site near Waterbeach, just outside the City limits. That's an artifice of Hire Car licensing law. They can benefit from slacker regulation in South Cambs with the same operational rights in any area. Ah-ha! So Neils plan for countrywide harmonised regs would scupper that - at the risk of watering down the rules inside the City. Unless of course the rule is set to the highest anywhere for each aspect. That's the least of it. Cambridge treats hire cars as public transport and allows them in bus lanes and into restricted city centre areas. London doesn't allow minicabs (as they call them) in bus lanes. I've no idea about other restrictions in London or the rules elsewhere. Panther has offices inside and outside the city. Of course, despite being north of the City, that's in South Cambs! East Cambs doesn't start until the A10 crosses the Great Ouse, north [yes, I know!] of Chittering. You're looking in the wrong direction. I was looking north (to Panther's depot and beyond). You can look in any direction. As long as an operator has a office in a district it can have a licence from that district. Going east from Cambridge you only have to get to between Stow-cum-Quy and Lode to enter East Cambridgeshire. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Woking to Heathrow
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 05:49:31 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017, remarked: The licencing authority doesn't want tourists arriving at the station to be greeted by a load of scruffs in beaten up taxis. The train company, more likely. They control access to the station forecourt. It's not part of the public highway. No, it's the council. On what basis do you make that mendacious claim? In Cambridge, I gather a few hire cars are signed up to Uber but the established firms seem to have the market pretty well sewn up. Within the city they The Uber ones? No. Hire cars licensed by the city council AIUI. I am assuming that Uber is relying on existing operators' cars. go by the meter. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Woking to Heathrow
In message , at 09:53:14
on Tue, 18 Apr 2017, remarked: Assuming that referred to raising bollards rather than being a euphemism, those are done by registration number too, not car colour. Nope. In Cambridge it's by transponder. More "was" than "is" now. The only transponder-operated gates left only work for buses. The rest are ANPR? -- Roland Perry |
Woking to Heathrow
|
Woking to Heathrow
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 09:53:14 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017, remarked: Assuming that referred to raising bollards rather than being a euphemism, those are done by registration number too, not car colour. Nope. In Cambridge it's by transponder. More "was" than "is" now. The only transponder-operated gates left only work for buses. The rest are ANPR? ANPR is now the preferred method of enforcement. The bollards near Brooklands Avenue are quite new so they seem to be keeping them for now. It's why the signage was changed to make the gates into bus lanes, in case you'd missed that. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Woking to Heathrow
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 09:53:14 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017, remarked: The licencing authority doesn't want tourists arriving at the station to be greeted by a load of scruffs in beaten up taxis. The train company, more likely. They control access to the station forecourt. It's not part of the public highway. No, it's the council. On what basis do you make that mendacious claim? Reading between the lines of the article in the Ely Standard. I'm not certain about the position in Ely but I am in Cambridge. It's railway land and I think the Ely station forecourt is too. What did the article say exactly? In Cambridge, I gather a few hire cars are signed up to Uber but the established firms seem to have the market pretty well sewn up. Within the city they The Uber ones? No. Hire cars licensed by the city council AIUI. I am assuming that Uber is relying on existing operators' cars. Perhaps so, because they have to be licenced by someone. But would a car licenced to a council far away be allowed to be an Uber in Cambridge, and to use their app rather than charging on the meter? After all, the latter would almost completely destroy their proposition. I must admit I don't entirely understand how the Uber proposition fits with UK Hire Car licensing law. local hire car operators seem to manage though. go by the meter. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Woking to Heathrow
|
Woking to Heathrow
|
Woking to Heathrow
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 11:11:17 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017, remarked: Assuming that referred to raising bollards rather than being a euphemism, those are done by registration number too, not car colour. Nope. In Cambridge it's by transponder. More "was" than "is" now. The only transponder-operated gates left only work for buses. The rest are ANPR? ANPR is now the preferred method of enforcement. And is deployed at any bollards in Cambridge? The bollards have either gone completely or been disabled. The layouts have changed, with many of the cycle bypass lanes removed. If you cycled in Cambridge you would have noticed a year or more ago. The bollards near Brooklands Avenue are quite new so they seem to be keeping them for now. As buses/transponders only? Yes. It's why the signage was changed to make the gates into bus lanes, in case you'd missed that. Which gates? The bollards were located at bus gates. Do keep up. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Woking to Heathrow
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 11:11:17 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017, remarked: The licencing authority doesn't want tourists arriving at the station to be greeted by a load of scruffs in beaten up taxis. The train company, more likely. They control access to the station forecourt. It's not part of the public highway. No, it's the council. On what basis do you make that mendacious claim? Reading between the lines of the article in the Ely Standard. I'm not certain about the position in Ely but I am in Cambridge. It's railway land and I think the Ely station forecourt is too. What did the article say exactly? "promotes public safety and a professional taxi service in the district." What does that say that implies the station forecourt is not railway land? Do taxis require a permit to ply for hire at the station? If they do it confirms it is railway land. Councils don't issue such permits. In Cambridge, I gather a few hire cars are signed up to Uber but the established firms seem to have the market pretty well sewn up. Within the city they The Uber ones? No. Hire cars licensed by the city council AIUI. I am assuming that Uber is relying on existing operators' cars. Perhaps so, because they have to be licenced by someone. But would a car licenced to a council far away be allowed to be an Uber in Cambridge, and to use their app rather than charging on the meter? After all, the latter would almost completely destroy their proposition. I must admit I don't entirely understand how the Uber proposition fits with UK Hire Car licensing law. local hire car operators seem to manage though. They rely upon the ability to negotiate a fixed fee for the journey at the start. And famously to adapt the fee to the instantaneous demand. I'm not up to date in this area but journeys across the city boundary can always operate on that basis anyway. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
RFC : cam.boring.private-hire
Once again a thread in this newsgroup has descended into an irrelevant,
off topic discussion of taxi/private hire/minicab licensing in Cambridgeshire - a subject that some denizens of this realm seem to be inordinately fascinated with. Is there any chance that it can be taken elsewhere - maybe the two main protagonists could perhaps meet up in person, drink a few shandies and then take it outside to the car park? If there is nowhere else to take the discussion, maybe we can collectively vote for a new newsgroup where they can slug it out until they stupify each other rather than the rest of us? |
Woking to Heathrow
|
Woking to Heathrow
|
Woking to Heathrow
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:28:08 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 16:07:44 If you cycled in Cambridge you would have noticed a year or more ago. I'll look more carefully next time I walk. -- On a related cambridge note - why do some parts of the "guided" busway not have guiderails? I don't mean the bits that cross other roads, I'm talking about segregated sections such as the bit in Orchard Park? I'm struggling to see the logic. -- Spud |
Woking to Heathrow
|
Woking to Heathrow
|
Woking to Heathrow
On 19/04/2017 13:47, d wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:28:08 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 16:07:44 If you cycled in Cambridge you would have noticed a year or more ago. I'll look more carefully next time I walk. -- On a related cambridge note - why do some parts of the "guided" busway not have guiderails? I don't mean the bits that cross other roads, I'm talking about segregated sections such as the bit in Orchard Park? I'm struggling to see the logic. My understanding is that the guidance system is designed for high-speed running on large-radius curves (i.e. on an old railway alignment), and does not cope safely with curves below a certain radius. In order to fit around the Orchard Park devlopment, that section of busway has a bend which is too tight for guidance. It doesn't matter, as that section is low-speed, and only a short distance between the junction with the main busway and the point at which the busway ends. At both of those points the driver has to take over the steering anyway, so doing so between them is no great matter. The only other significant unguided segregated section I am aware of is the new piece between Milton Road and Cambridge North Station. This doesn't have sharp bends, but again is short and low-speed. I would guess that cost was the deciding factor there. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
Woking to Heathrow
In article , (Alan Grayer)
wrote: On 19/04/2017 13:47, d wrote: On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:28:08 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 16:07:44 If you cycled in Cambridge you would have noticed a year or more ago. I'll look more carefully next time I walk. On a related cambridge note - why do some parts of the "guided" busway not have guiderails? I don't mean the bits that cross other roads, I'm talking about segregated sections such as the bit in Orchard Park? I'm struggling to see the logic. My understanding is that the guidance system is designed for high-speed running on large-radius curves (i.e. on an old railway alignment), and does not cope safely with curves below a certain radius. In order to fit around the Orchard Park devlopment, that section of busway has a bend which is too tight for guidance. It doesn't matter, as that section is low-speed, and only a short distance between the junction with the main busway and the point at which the busway ends. At both of those points the driver has to take over the steering anyway, so doing so between them is no great matter. The exception on the Orchard Park section is the stops and a short eastbound section near Histon Road. They were built with true guideway sections. All newer guidance is by steel strips on flat road surfaces. The only other significant unguided segregated section I am aware of is the new piece between Milton Road and Cambridge North Station. This doesn't have sharp bends, but again is short and low-speed. I would guess that cost was the deciding factor there. This is probably true but the unguided section at Orchard Park probably and the approach section to Cambridge North station definitely are unguided on cost grounds. The guideway track sections were cast at a concrete factory set up specially for the purpose at (I think) Longstanton. Once the sections were made it was demolished and the site is now a park and ride car park. So the cost of making new guideway sections would be prohibitive and that's before you talk about getting the special laying machine back on site. I'm not even sure what happened to that. None of the Cambridgeshire kit was used for the Luton busway which has shorter track sections which can be laid by mobile crane. They probably don't have a track section casting capability at Luton any more either. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Woking to Heathrow
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 16:07:44 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017, remarked: The bollards have either gone completely or been disabled. So a failed experiment then? Over nearly 20 years? Technology moves on, as you of all people should know. At least out-of-town taxis now only risk getting a ticket (assuming they aren't allowed in that particular bus lane), rather than a smashed sump. Smashed sumps in general happened to chancers not out-of-town taxis. The layouts have changed, with many of the cycle bypass lanes removed. Does that mean cycles are not permitted or are they thrown into the chicane with the buses? No change to cycle access rules. But they share with other vehicles at some of the bus gates now. If you cycled in Cambridge you would have noticed a year or more ago. I'll look more carefully next time I walk. It's going past on a daily basis that showed me the changes as they happened. I also noticed that the New Square bollards stopped working long before they were officially replaced. Obviously none of us locals made that public, not wanting any more chancers going through illicitly. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk