"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
"John Rowland" wrote in
message
...
The PCO is legally entitled to visit a taxi-driver's house at any time
of
the day or night and inspect his taxi there and then, waking him if

Ah , didn't know that. HOw often would they actually
do it though? After all, he might be out working.

Or he might live in Brighton! I haven't a clue how often they do it... Mike?

Anyway, since the only places where a GPS unit
would lose the signal for a significant period of time
are all 30mph limit anyway, the unit would probably
default to 30 unless it has reason to believe that it is
on a road where the speed limit is higher.

You mean like the dartford tunnel?
Yeah , 30mph would go down well there!

Since the unit would know that it had been on the Dartford Tunnel southern
approach road a minute earlier, it would have (quoting myself) "reason to
believe that it is on a road where the speed limit is higher".

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

"SWT User" wrote in message
om...
Dan Gravell wrote in message
...
My thoughts...

1) Taxis will become significantly slower than minicabs,
and so will become a distress purchase for people who
can't get a minicab. People will prefer
any minicab, even an illegal one, to a taxi.

I think the general trend is to fit these things to
all cars in London, or at least that's what I read.

What and lose all that revenue from Speed
Cameras. I can't see that happening :-)

Good point. It is more likely that they will force every car to be fitted
with a device which phones the police every time you break a speed limit,
and they will make speed limiters illegal.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

In article ,
Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article , John Rowland
writes
Apparently Livingstone wants to fit GPS-controlled speed limiters to buses
and taxis which will prevent them from ever breaking the speed limit.
[...]
1) Taxis will become significantly slower than minicabs,
[...]
3) Taxi drivers will earn less money,

So you believe that taxis can't survive as a commercial proposition
without breaking the law? What *are* you taking?

He's taking the Piccadilly line, everyone knows that ...

Nick
--
http://www.leverton.org/ ... So express yourself ...

Sir Benjamin Nunn wrote:
"David Boothroyd" wrote in message
...


The point is that a lot of people with jobs in Central London cannot
afford
to live there and thus the transport infrastructure is pushed to
unnecessary
extremities.

What a surprise that not all of the 1,000,000 people who work in the City
of London and Westminster can live there. Even if we had developed at
the typical densities of European capitals (instead of our unusually
low densities), there is no way all of them could possibly live within
easy reach of their workplaces.



They don't all need to - but if *more* of them did, there would be less
crowding on transport and the other benefits that go with it. For a lot of
people, the choice isn't there.



I've struggle to find well-paid jobs, and I'm appalled at the number of
people who have to pay lots of money to live in not-particularly-nice
areas
that aren't close to their workplaces, and suffer miserable commutes
every
day.

For nine years I've paid over the odds to live in central London, but
that's my choice. I could have a much larger home in the suburbs but I
prefer to live here.

But I don't begrudge home to those in social housing in Westminster.



And I do.

I find the idea that people given a free home can choose where they live,
while those who work hard and pay tax are often forced into living where
they can afford it contemptibly unfair. Although not surprising in this
country, admittedly.

If I actually had to work in Westminster, I think I'd be even more angry at
this situation.

Having given up on London, I've been searching hard for a flat close to my
office lately - somewhere cheap and not particularly good. There are lots of
such places in central Ipswich, lots of them unoccupied, and practically
none of them are on the market to either buy or let because they all belong
to housing associations and are intended for people that don't need to be
close to my office. Or indeed any office.

Instead, I'm facing pressure to live somewhere 'more desirable' (expensive)
miles away from the town centre and necessitating a car journey. Typically
everything on the market is aimed at conventional, conformist 'families' and
miles from my own personal requirements. ****s.

The biggest ****ing irony of all is that there are people in Suffolk who
commute daily into London...

I can understand why you are upset that it's so difficult for many
people to get a place close to work in London, but don't forget that
whilst you *can* afford to commute (whether you like it or not), that's
not the case for a significant number of workers in central London who
don't have nice office jobs.

Radical idea, I know, but if people who wanted to do so were actually
able
to live close to their workplaces, there would be savings in transport
costs
(both to the customer and the state), reduced pollution, reduced
disparity
in deprivation, and increased leisure time.

Do you think people are prepared to put up with housing densities which
will go considerably over 1,000 habitable rooms per hectare in the city
centre? Or are you the new Pol Pot, determined to abolish cities and
move everyone back to the land?



Heh. If I could live and work in a more rural area, I'd do it in a second,
but the option isn't there. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Anathaema to your sort though it may be, I just want to live in a world of
greater choice.

BTN




--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:34:50 +0100, "Clive D. W. Feather"
said:

So you believe that taxis can't survive as a commercial proposition
without breaking the law? What *are* you taking?

Dunno what he's on, but they make him think that the Evening Standard
and a conspiracy theory website are reliable sources of information
too.

--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

In article ,
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" wrote:
"David Boothroyd" wrote in message
...
What a surprise that not all of the 1,000,000 people who work in the City
of London and Westminster can live there. Even if we had developed at
the typical densities of European capitals (instead of our unusually
low densities), there is no way all of them could possibly live within
easy reach of their workplaces.

They don't all need to - but if *more* of them did, there would be less
crowding on transport and the other benefits that go with it.

And a lot more crowding in the centres of cities, for which the
infrastructure is not there.

I don't begrudge home to those in social housing in Westminster.

And I do.

I find the idea that people given a free home can choose where they live,
while those who work hard and pay tax are often forced into living where
they can afford it contemptibly unfair. Although not surprising in this
country, admittedly.

1) Social housing is not free. The residents must pay rent.
2) The vast majority of them work hard and pay tax. The largest group of
people in Westminster who neither work hard nor pay tax are the very
rich who live off investments and family trusts.
3) The residents do not 'choose where they live' in any real sense. They
are the local working-class population and their descendants who have
lived in central London for generations and only now find it difficult
to afford open-market prices.

Do you think people are prepared to put up with housing densities which
will go considerably over 1,000 habitable rooms per hectare in the city
centre? Or are you the new Pol Pot, determined to abolish cities and
move everyone back to the land?

Heh. If I could live and work in a more rural area, I'd do it in a second,
but the option isn't there. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Anathaema to your sort though it may be, I just want to live in a world of
greater choice.

You were just arguing against choice for those in the social housing
sector. I want to live in a world where choice is available to everybody
from all backgrounds whereas you seem to want your own choice and deny
it to others.

--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"The guilty party was the Liberal Democrats and they were hardened offenders,
and coded racism was again in evidence in leaflets distributed in September
1993." - Nigel Copsey, "Contemporary British Fascism", page 62.

John Rowland wrote in message
...
Apparently Livingstone wants to fit GPS-controlled speed limiters to buses
and taxis which will prevent them from ever breaking the speed limit.


http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...nderbonnet.htm

The consequences seem fairly obvious to me.

1) Taxis will become significantly slower than minicabs, and so will
become
a distress purchase for people who can't get a minicab. People will prefer
any minicab, even an illegal one, to a taxi.

2) Car drivers will do everything they can to prevent taxis pulling out in
front of them, so that they won't be held up. This will make taxis even
slower with respect to minicabs.

3) Taxi drivers will earn less money, because there will be less demand
for
them, and they will take longer to do the jobs that they get but won't get
any extra money for them. Minicab drivers will earn more money, because
there will be more demand for minicabs.

4) Although taxis will probably survive in Central London, they will cease
to exist in the suburbs, because there will be no point in spending a year
or more doing the suburban knowledge and buying or hiring an expensive
wheelchair-accessible vehicle if you can earn more money as a minicab
driver.

5) The decimation of the suburban taxi trade and growth of the minicab
trade
will mean that the disabled won't be able to get around at all.

--


Are taxi drivers the only ones earning a living on the road?

Is it acceptable for a black cab to undertake just ONE car by darting into
the Bus Lane?

Marc Brett wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:00:30 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

Apparently Livingstone wants to fit GPS-controlled speed limiters to
buses
and taxis which will prevent them from ever breaking the speed limit.


http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...nderbonnet.htm

The consequences seem fairly obvious to me.

snip

Eh? If cab drivers have to obey the law they'll become economically
unviable?
If that's the case, then they DESERVE TO LOSE THEIR JOBS. Why should
society
tolerate people who make their living by breaking the law?

Oh come on! At least you can identify a reckless driver.

Who knows a poor Black cabbie?

Anyone ever heard of an unemployed Black Cabbie due to being late for work?

If a black cab opts to use the Bus Lane - STAY IN IT!

"dave F" wrote in message
...

Who knows a poor Black cabbie?

Suburban black cabbies (the main subject of the thread) are not wealthy. As
for All-London cabbies, if you think they are overpaid for what they do,
no-one is stopping you from becoming one.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

John Rowland wrote in message
...
"dave F" wrote in message
...

Who knows a poor Black cabbie?

Suburban black cabbies (the main subject of the thread) are not wealthy.
As
for All-London cabbies, if you think they are overpaid for what they do,
no-one is stopping you from becoming one.



Sorry but I actually know quite a few cabbies and they are not short of a
few quid.