Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

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.

--
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

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

"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.

Only when we are permitted to fit politicians with bull**** detectors.
;-))

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

"John Rowland" wrote the
following in:

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

Obviously he never rides night buses then.

--
message by the incredible Robin May.
"The British don't like successful people" - said by British failures

Who is Abi Titmuss? What is she? Why is she famous?
http://robinmay.fotopic.net

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

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.

Whatever happened to the small sky blue box cars that disabled people used to
drive about in? Often used to see loads of them parked near to the terraces at
Highfield Road and Ibrox on the TV. Maybe they should be bought back to help
disabled people get about?

Burkey

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

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?

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

JWBA68 wrote:
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.

Whatever happened to the small sky blue box cars that disabled people
used to drive about in? Often used to see loads of them parked near
to the terraces at Highfield Road and Ibrox on the TV. Maybe they
should be bought back to help disabled people get about?


(sigh) The world has moved on. Those "sky blue box cars" were considered to
be unsafe and anti-social (in that they were single seat, no room for a
family) so they were done away with (although I understand that a few are
still in use). Ordinary cars are now available through the Motability scheme
with adaptations if necessary.

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

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.

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.

"Car drivers" shouldn't be driving in London, and even if they
absolutely have to, they shouldn't be driving fast in London. If they
have a problem with it, I suggest they get on a sensible form of
transport. If they intend to drive dangerously, I suggest they are
stopped from driving.

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.

That's capitalism for you. But then as I said above, the trend is to fit
them to all cars, so this competitive advantage is unlikely to continue.

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.

As far as I am concerned no taxi drivers want to take me home anyway, so
why should I care for their demise? Minicab drivers have always treated
me with far more respect. I cannot afford to live in Central London
although would love to, so I have to live in the suburbs and commute in.

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.

This is a fair concern.

Dan

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

"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.

How does he expect this to work? Any tall buildings or tunnels will disrupt
the satellite signal plus , though I expect bus & taxi companies wouldn't
break the law , there would be nothing to prevent an owner-operator taxi driver
disconnecting or shielding the aerial of the unit wherever it may be in the
vehicle so it can't pick up any satellite signals. And if these things ever
have to be fitted to private cars thats exactly what I'll do.

B2003

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

"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.


This rather hysterical scenario is all based on a false premise.

People don't choose to use a black cab because they think the driver will
break the speed limit to get them home quicker. The black cab's advantages
are all to do with safety, reliability, solidity, legality, etc. So they
have nothing to fear from this measure. It could even become a selling
point.

If I wanted a driver to speed, I'd avoid black cabs and offer a minicab
driver an extra fiver. I very rarely see black cabs speeding.

Jim

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
"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.

How does he expect this to work? Any tall buildings
or tunnels will disrupt the satellite signal plus ,
though I expect bus & taxi companies wouldn't
break the law , there would be nothing to prevent
an owner-operator taxi driver disconnecting or
shielding the aerial of the unit wherever it may
be in the vehicle so it can't pick up any satellite signals.

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
necessary. Any taxi driver who did the above would lose his badge. 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.

--
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

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

"Dan Gravell" wrote in message
...

As far as I am concerned no taxi drivers want to take
me home anyway, so why should I care for their demise?

I wasn't suggesting that the All-London taxi drivers would be affected, but
that the suburban taxi drivers, who have only done the knowledge for a part
of the suburbs and are only allowed to pick up in that area, would be
affected. If you're angry with All-London taxi drivers who won't take you to
the suburbs, don't take it out on suburban taxi drivers.

Incidentally, the new directional rank at Cranbourn Street should make it a
lot easier to get a taxi to the furthest reaches of the suburbs, at least
late at night.

--
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

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

"Dan Gravell" wrote in message
...

As far as I am concerned no taxi drivers want to take me home anyway, so
why should I care for their demise? Minicab drivers have always treated me
with far more respect.


IAWTW.

Getting back to South London from town in the middle of the night is
relatively cheap and painless in a minicab. I wouldn't even like to think
about how much it might cost in a Taxi, or how unwelcome my custom would be.


I cannot afford to live in Central London although would love to, so I
have to live in the suburbs and commute in.


The irony is that despite the best efforts of Westminster City Council there
are still a load of people living in Central London for whom it costs almost
nothing, and who don't even have jobs that they need to be there for.


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.

This is a fair concern.


They could always use the London Underground - Look out for the wheelchair
symbol on the line maps.

Disabled people obviously only want to go from West Ham to Hammersmith or
Woodford to Stratford anyway...

Ahem.

BTN

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

John Rowland wrote:

Incidentally, the new directional rank at Cranbourn Street should make it a
lot easier to get a taxi to the furthest reaches of the suburbs, at least
late at night.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of this, I'll take a look.

Dan

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

In article ,
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" wrote:
"Dan Gravell" wrote in message
...

I cannot afford to live in Central London although would love to, so I
have to live in the suburbs and commute in.

The irony is that despite the best efforts of Westminster City Council there
are still a load of people living in Central London for whom it costs almost
nothing, and who don't even have jobs that they need to be there for.

From where do you get the idea that one should only be permitted to live
in central London if one needs to be there for ones' job? My constituents
in Westminster, many of whom struggle to find well-paid jobs, would be
appalled.

--
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.

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

"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.

necessary. Any taxi driver who did the above would lose his badge. 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! :)

B2003

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

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 :-)

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

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?

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

"David Boothroyd" wrote in message
...

I cannot afford to live in Central London although would love to, so I
have to live in the suburbs and commute in.

The irony is that despite the best efforts of Westminster City Council
there
are still a load of people living in Central London for whom it costs
almost
nothing, and who don't even have jobs that they need to be there for.

From where do you get the idea that one should only be permitted to live
in central London if one needs to be there for ones' job? My constituents
in Westminster, many of whom struggle to find well-paid jobs, would be
appalled.


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.

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.

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.

BTN

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

In article ,
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" wrote:
"David Boothroyd" wrote in message
...
From where do you get the idea that one should only be permitted to live
in central London if one needs to be there for ones' job? My constituents
in Westminster, many of whom struggle to find well-paid jobs, would be
appalled.

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.

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. The
fact is that there has always been a working-class population in central
London. The area between Victoria Street, Pimlico and the river was
historically a very poor one containing slums, and Peabody blocks have
replaced slum housing by Aldwych and in Soho. Even in Mayfair there are
social housing blocks (around Balderton Street).

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?

--
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.

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

"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...


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

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

"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

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

"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

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

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 ...

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

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

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

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

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

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.

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

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?

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

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!

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

"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

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

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.

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

"dave F" wrote in message
...
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.

John! How are ya?

John! I'm great, how are you?

I'm great. What you been up to?

I've been on ULL having a chat with a nice bloke. He's called myself.

--
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

Livingstone's latest wheeze
 

In message , Dave Arquati
writes
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
I'm sure you'll find a lot of jobs up here in Cumbria, they may not pat
well but you won't have the commute, will you?
--
Clive Coleman