Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew
 

Brimstone wrote:
MIG wrote:

On Feb 3, 5:51 pm, "Brimstone" wrote:

John Rowland wrote:

MIG wrote:

Hailing taxis and having them dart over to the kerb is dangerous
and illegal in any case, regardless of any bus lanes.

It's not dangerous if the driver doesn't do it dangerously. As for
it being illegal ... what *are* you talking about? Are you thinking
of minicabs?

I'd query "thinking".

The current rules seem to go back to 1999, I don't know how they
changed, if they did.

On one hand it seems to be fine to hail a taxi if it isn't dangerous
or causing a nuisance (which it usually is), but on the other hand
drivers can't ply their trade away from a rank. Seems to depend on
whether they are moving.


Which rules are you quoting?

The wrong ones, I suspect.

Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew
 

MIG wrote:
On Feb 3, 6:32 pm, "Brimstone" wrote:

MIG wrote:

On Feb 3, 5:51 pm, "Brimstone" wrote:

John Rowland wrote:

MIG wrote:

Hailing taxis and having them dart over to the kerb is dangerous
and illegal in any case, regardless of any bus lanes.

It's not dangerous if the driver doesn't do it dangerously. As for
it being illegal ... what *are* you talking about? Are you thinking
of minicabs?

I'd query "thinking".

The current rules seem to go back to 1999, I don't know how they
changed, if they did.

On one hand it seems to be fine to hail a taxi if it isn't dangerous
or causing a nuisance (which it usually is), but on the other hand
drivers can't ply their trade away from a rank. Seems to depend on
whether they are moving.

Which rules are you quoting?-


This is why I say "seems" and hope from a contribution who knows more
detail. The relevant Acts would seem to have been updated in 1999 for
the GLA, but there's a lot to wade through to find anything relevant,
for example, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/Revise..._18500007_en_1
which seems to be all about the setting up of ranks, and there's loads
of other bits and pieces.

My general understanding of where taxis can ply trade may apparently
not apply to moving taxis, from what it says on TfL. The Cambridge
report refers to danger and nuisance, but TfL doesn't.

It's confusing, given that it's difficult for a taxi to be able to
claim not to be plying for trade when it comes to refusing someone.

It isn't difficult at all.

If a taxi-driver stops in response to a street hail, he's playing for
hire and must take the fare (subject to the local restrictions on
compellability). If he drives straight past (and there may be
occasions when he will choose to do that), he isn't plying for hire
and cannot be compelled to take the fare.

On a rank, he is deemed to be plying for hire and must take the fare
(subject to the local restrictions on compellability).

If he is stopped in traffic or at a red light, he will almost always
accept a fare who climbs in, but he doesn't have to if he doesn't want to.

Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew
 

Brimstone wrote:
MIG wrote:

On Feb 3, 6:32 pm, "Brimstone" wrote:

MIG wrote:

On Feb 3, 5:51 pm, "Brimstone"
wrote:

John Rowland wrote:

MIG wrote:

Hailing taxis and having them dart over to the kerb is dangerous
and illegal in any case, regardless of any bus lanes.

It's not dangerous if the driver doesn't do it dangerously. As for
it being illegal ... what *are* you talking about? Are you
thinking of minicabs?

I'd query "thinking".

The current rules seem to go back to 1999, I don't know how they
changed, if they did.

On one hand it seems to be fine to hail a taxi if it isn't dangerous
or causing a nuisance (which it usually is), but on the other hand
drivers can't ply their trade away from a rank. Seems to depend on
whether they are moving.

Which rules are you quoting?-

This is why I say "seems" and hope from a contribution who knows more
detail. The relevant Acts would seem to have been updated in 1999 for
the GLA, but there's a lot to wade through to find anything relevant,
for example,
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/Revise..._18500007_en_1
which seems to be all about the setting up of ranks, and there's loads
of other bits and pieces.

My general understanding of where taxis can ply trade may apparently
not apply to moving taxis, from what it says on TfL. The Cambridge
report refers to danger and nuisance, but TfL doesn't.

It's confusing, given that it's difficult for a taxi to be able to
claim not to be plying for trade when it comes to refusing someone.


The basic legislation covering Hackney Carriages is still the 1847 Town and
Police Clauses Act. It would appear that some places have added to it over
the years but the essentials haven't changed.

That's for outside London (in England and Wales). Scotland has an Act
with a similar name ("Burgh Police"?). London has its own special
legislation. The TPCA 1847 does not operate in London.

Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew
 

Response to JNugent
What you seem to suggest *would be* "changing the rules". Taxis are
operating according the "the rules" as they have been since at least
as far back as the nineteenth century.

That reminds me - I was surprised, given your interest in the subject
(based AFAICT both on intellectual curiosity and on an amount of BEER
which depended on the answer) that you didn't respond to my post re cab
law a few days ago. Did you miss it?



--
Mark, UK
"It is one of the happiest characteristics of this glorious country that
official utterances are invariably regarded as unanswerable."

Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew
 

Mark McNeill wrote:
Response to JNugent

What you seem to suggest *would be* "changing the rules". Taxis are
operating according the "the rules" as they have been since at least
as far back as the nineteenth century.


That reminds me - I was surprised, given your interest in the subject
(based AFAICT both on intellectual curiosity and on an amount of BEER
which depended on the answer) that you didn't respond to my post re cab
law a few days ago. Did you miss it?

I must have done.

Still have it?

Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew
 

1/

Name a "militant cyclist" who "hates other road users" and provide
evidence for your claim, you know, like a concrete example of anyone
here ever saying anything that justifies this petulant outburst. Got
any examples?

2/

" (although only 40 of 800 cyclists [11 of which were
Spindrift, "

You claim some of the posts on The Telegraph web page are from me.
Evidence, please, since my name doesn't appear anywhere on that page.

3/


"who isn't really a cyclist at all "

15 mile commute a day, cycle from Cherbourg to Corfu a whiole ago, Col
du Tourmalet 4 months ago, Budapest to Krakow in July.

There's photos of me on the Tourmalet on this newsgroup.

You seem a strange, obsessive figure, and on motorbikes in bus lanes
I'd refer you to conclusive
evidence that it makes things much more unpleasant for cyclists:

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article13.html


http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4789

http://www.croydon-lcc.org.uk/campai..._bus_lanes.htm

Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew
 

spindrift (spindrift ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Name a "militant cyclist" who "hates other road users" and provide
evidence for your claim, you know, like a concrete example of anyone
here ever saying anything that justifies this petulant outburst. Got any
examples?

Other than Duhg, y'mean?

and on motorbikes in bus lanes I'd refer you to conclusive evidence
that it makes things much more unpleasant for cyclists:

Boo. Hoo. You'll be complaining that the presence of buses in bus lanes
makes life "unpleasant" for cyclists next.

Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew
 

Sir Jeremy wrote:
On 3 Feb, 15:33, Nick wrote:
Nuxx Bar wrote:

You don't get it.
Militant cyclist **** people off and turn all cyclists into objects of
hate

Yes they may have that effect on some people.

But they make drivers think about cyclists more and hence be more aware
of cyclists on the road. The risk of being deliberately killed by a
psychopath is a lot less than the risk of being killed by someone trying
to ignore me.

I have no doubt that cars in central London are more aware of cyclists
and take more care to avoid collisions than drivers in the suburbs.
This also coincides with the militancy of the cyclists.

Essentially people may resent other people asserting their rights but
they tend to respect them more in future. Where as they will show no
respect for wimps.

I'm sure many of them such as yourself like to indulge in a bit of
ineffectual whining, but who cares?

Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew
 

"Other than Duhg, y'mean? "

A quick search reveals nobody by that name posts on the UK Rec cycling
forum, and it's interesting you still have no actual examples.


"Boo. Hoo. You'll be complaining that the presence of buses in bus
lanes
makes life "unpleasant" for cyclists next."

No. Buses move largely in a predictable fashion at relatively lower
speeds than motorbikes- the crux of the argument against allowing
PTW's in bus lanes, as you'd know had you read the links.

So, any examples of an "anti-motorist" agenda here, or a shred of
evidence for the paranoid claims about the posts on the torygraph
site?


Anything at all?

Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew
 

Every single study shows that more cyclists on the roads results in
fewer cyclist/vehicle accidents. Since allowing PTW's in bus lanes
acts as a disincentive to cycling, it should be opposed.