Taxi drivers to block traffic in London.
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Well done that driver!
Next: The_day_I_hit_a_child_at_20mph_–_and_realised_the_ speed_limit_must_be_cut
From: Dave Plowman on 6 Jun 2010 18:56 In article <872fmiFfhlU1(a)mid.individual.net>, JNugent <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote: > Dave Plowman wrote: > > JNugent <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote: > >>> They only go to the garage at the end of the day - so how is that > >>> different from a cab? > >> Very few cabs have garages at all, except when they need service or > >> repair. The driver usually takes the vehicle home or to the home of > >> another driver on the opposite shift. > > At one time the carriage office required them to be garaged when not in > > use. > But not now. So that's irrelevant. > > However, I assume the driver has a loo at his home - same as there > > would be one at a bus garage? Or have you completely lost the plot? > I think it might be you that's lost the plot, since you seem to have > forgotten what the discussion was about. > A driver can certainly go home to use the toilet, I suppose. If he lives > in Lambeth, that's one thing. If he lives in Watford, Crawley or > Chelmsford (and plenty do), that's another thing. The bus driver ends his work period at the bus garage. A taxi driver at his home. What is the fundamental difference? Except that the bust driver has to work to the hours in his contract of employment - a taxi driver decides when he starts and finishes work. > >> The authorised standing place at either end of the route is a clue. One > >> of those is usually at a bus station or in a spot where the facilities > >> exist nearby. > > Since a cab driver has no route, what is the relevance? > It means that he will not necessarily find himself, in due course, in a > position where he can lawfully leave his cab for a while to use a toilet. So he can't park where private motorist do? Are you making this up as you go along? > >> I'm not saying that bus-drivers can't encounter a problem. Only that > >> it is already recognised and covered (to some extent) within the > >> organisation of the working day. The problem for a cab-driver in > >> London, though (which is where the concern is raised) is particularly > >> acute. > > Absolute rubbish. Most people manage to time their loo breaks round > > work. > Most people indeed do manage that, since they are provided - by law - > with toilet facilities at their workplace. Are you managing to follow > the point, at all? A bus driver has a loo onboard? Think you're not following anything. > > Except on rare occasions. Cab drivers tend to stick to a particular > > area so should know where the loos are. And if they get caught short > > and have to stop in a restricted area to use a public loo, why should > > they be treated differently from any other - like say a van driver? > Ah... so you *do* say that if a cab-driver uses his knowledge to locate > a local public toilet, and uses it, he should get a parking ticket. No = you've just said that. > Ever heard of "Catch 22"? > It seesm that it is your mindset - and that of people who "think" like > you - which those drivers are seeking to challenge. They've clearly got > their work cut out. More rubbish. > >>> And some routes take a very long time to cover. A cab driver can > >>> stop any time he wants - unlike a bus driver. > He can only stop if he is allowed to stop. You've already made your > position clear on that: you think he should stop to use a toilet only > if prepared to pay a �60 FPN for the privilege. So the same as any private motorist, van driver etc if they choose to park where it's not allowed? > That, of course, is the issue. > Not exactly a liberal on these matters, are you, hmmm? I didn't realise before you are a cab driver. It certainly explains a lot. And why they have such a bad reputation. > >> Being able to stop and being allowed to stop without penalty are two > >> different things. > > A bus driver can get fined too for stopping in an unauthorised place. > Different legislation. There is no "unauthorised place" as far as taxis > are concerned. Just yellow and red lines. Perhaps you need to get out more. Plenty of roads have neither. Although, of course most bus routes have. But then a cab doesn't have to use those. > >>> A licensed black cab driver could > >>> also be expected to know the location of loos etc. > >> Indeed. That isn't the problem. The problem is stopping on a double > >> yellow or red line. > > It's a total non event. Just typical of some black cab drivers thinking > > they deserve special treatment. > Er... yes... you say that it's �60 to stop and use the toilet, like or > lump it, so one wonders what on Earth the fuss can be about, eh? How > reasonable can you be? I'll ask you again since you seem to be incapable of answering a simple question. Why should a cab driver have special privileges over other working drivers - like those who drive delivery vans etc? And if they had they would inevitably abuse them, given how little regard they already have for the laws. -- *If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled? * Dave Plowman dave(a)davesound.co.uk London SW 12
From: Dave Plowman on 6 Jun 2010 18:59 In article <872fr0FfhlU2(a)mid.individual.net>, JNugent <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote: > >>> Stop either a few yards earlier or later. It's called having > >>> consideration for other road users. Something you wouldn't know > >>> about. > >> So you *do* want the passenger dropped off in a spot other than where > >> he wants to go, for your enhanced convenience. I see. > > For the convenience of others. You really have lost the plot. > So not for your convenience t all, then, only for the convenience of > "others"...,? > Yeah, right. Your bleating gets worse with every post. > >>>> Let him off the fare if he takes a little too long in paying for > >>>> your liking? > >>> Were you born a prat or did you have to work on it? > >> Don't be silly. It was you who was calling for inconvenience for > >> others (the passengers) in order to bolster your own convenience. And > >> it was you who was complaining that a passenger took longer than you > >> would have liked to count out the fare, therebu holding you up. > >> Where you born that selfish or did you acquire it later in life? > > Given the cab didn't stop outside a house or shop etc door, the > > passenger would still have to walk to his final destination. > You don't know what he wants to do next. And nor do you. I, however, observed the whole thing while stuck behind this selfish driver. > Not every taxi journey ends at > the passenger's final destination. Is this too hard for you... > understanding that other people have needs and requirements...? Is it too hard for you to read and understand the facts? Not your strong point. certainly. > > But of course your > > views on being able to park or drive anywhere you wish are well known. > > Are you in fact a cab driver? > Unfortunately not. A failed one then. You must be thick. -- *I have plenty of talent and vision. I just don't care. Dave Plowman dave(a)davesound.co.uk London SW 12
From: Dave Plowman on 6 Jun 2010 19:00 In article <872g2rFhjsU1(a)mid.individual.net>, JNugent <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote: > >> You *have* to be joking! > >> Extending the length of a journey (for a passenger paying a metered > >> fare) is a specific offence under the London Cab Acts. And quite right > >> too. Why do you think passengers take taxis in the first place? > > I'd suggest you use a cab now and then over the same journey. And see > > if they always take the same route... > That is not the deliberate and unnecessary extension of a journey. Going > with a paying passenger from point A to point B via point X because the > driver wishes to to stop there and use the toilet would be an offence. Yes, pet. Wriggle away. -- *Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot. Dave Plowman dave(a)davesound.co.uk London SW 12
From: Brimstone on 6 Jun 2010 19:13 "Dave Plowman" <dave(a)davesound.co.uk> wrote in message news:5123592bdbdave(a)davenoise.co.uk... > In article <872fr0FfhlU2(a)mid.individual.net>, > JNugent <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote: >> > Given the cab didn't stop outside a house or shop etc door, the >> > passenger would still have to walk to his final destination. > >> You don't know what he wants to do next. > > And nor do you. I, however, observed the whole thing while stuck behind > this selfish driver. > What leads you to suppose it was the driver being selfish rather than the passenger demanding that he stop "this instant"?
From: JNugent on 6 Jun 2010 19:18
Dave Plowman wrote: > JNugent <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote: >> Dave Plowman wrote: >>> JNugent <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote: >>>> Very few cabs have garages at all, except when they need service or >>>> repair. The driver usually takes the vehicle home or to the home of >>>> another driver on the opposite shift. >>> At one time the carriage office required them to be garaged when not in >>> use. >> But not now. So that's irrelevant. >>> However, I assume the driver has a loo at his home - same as there >>> would be one at a bus garage? Or have you completely lost the plot? >> I think it might be you that's lost the plot, since you seem to have >> forgotten what the discussion was about. >> A driver can certainly go home to use the toilet, I suppose. If he lives >> in Lambeth, that's one thing. If he lives in Watford, Crawley or >> Chelmsford (and plenty do), that's another thing. > The bus driver ends his work period at the bus garage. A taxi driver at > his home. What is the fundamental difference? Except that the bust driver > has to work to the hours in his contract of employment - a taxi driver > decides when he starts and finishes work. By referring to a timetable, a bus driver knows where he will be, and at what time. The taxi-driver cannot know in advance where he will be. See if you can work out why that is. >>>> The authorised standing place at either end of the route is a clue. One >>>> of those is usually at a bus station or in a spot where the facilities >>>> exist nearby. >>> Since a cab driver has no route, what is the relevance? >> It means that he will not necessarily find himself, in due course, in a >> position where he can lawfully leave his cab for a while to use a toilet. > So he can't park where private motorist do? Are you making this up as you > go along? What ARE you on about? No - a taxi-driver cannot leave his cab wherever a private motorist could not leave his car. And that's the problem. The cab-driver risks a fine for going to take a leak whilst at work. Do YOU face a fine for doing that? *I* don't. And I don't see why anyone should. >>>> I'm not saying that bus-drivers can't encounter a problem. Only that >>>> it is already recognised and covered (to some extent) within the >>>> organisation of the working day. The problem for a cab-driver in >>>> London, though (which is where the concern is raised) is particularly >>>> acute. >>> Absolute rubbish. Most people manage to time their loo breaks round >>> work. >> Most people indeed do manage that, since they are provided - by law - >> with toilet facilities at their workplace. Are you managing to follow >> the point, at all? > A bus driver has a loo onboard? Think you're not following anything. See above. You are trying to fabricate an argument out of nothing. The bus-driver knows where he will be at all times. It is in any case almost unheard of for a ticket to be issued to a bus. And the driver has known and predictable stopping and waiting places and times, as well as breaks in a particular place. That, as I have already remarked, is NOT the same as saying that bus-drivers can't have a problem with using a toilet. But it is ameliorated by the nature of their work. >>> Except on rare occasions. Cab drivers tend to stick to a particular >>> area so should know where the loos are. And if they get caught short >>> and have to stop in a restricted area to use a public loo, why should >>> they be treated differently from any other - like say a van driver? >> Ah... so you *do* say that if a cab-driver uses his knowledge to locate >> a local public toilet, and uses it, he should get a parking ticket. > No = you've just said that. No, I said that he risks it. I did not say that that is in any way fair. It was you who said that. >> Ever heard of "Catch 22"? >> It seesm that it is your mindset - and that of people who "think" like >> you - which those drivers are seeking to challenge. They've clearly got >> their work cut out. > More rubbish. Since you believe that cab-drivers should get a �60 ticket for taking a leak, it is hardly rubbish to point that out. >>>>> And some routes take a very long time to cover. A cab driver can >>>>> stop any time he wants - unlike a bus driver. >> He can only stop if he is allowed to stop. You've already made your >> position clear on that: you think he should stop to use a toilet only >> if prepared to pay a �60 FPN for the privilege. > So the same as any private motorist, van driver etc if they choose to park > where it's not allowed? >> That, of course, is the issue. >> Not exactly a liberal on these matters, are you, hmmm? > I didn't realise before you are a cab driver. It certainly explains a lot. > And why they have such a bad reputation. You "realise" wrong. I am not a professional driver of any sort. >>>> Being able to stop and being allowed to stop without penalty are two >>>> different things. >>> A bus driver can get fined too for stopping in an unauthorised place. >> Different legislation. There is no "unauthorised place" as far as taxis >> are concerned. Just yellow and red lines. > Perhaps you need to get out more. Plenty of roads have neither. And where a public toilet is located in one of them, it doesn't present a problem and does not form part of the drivers' complaint. Howver, as you seem not to understand, a street or road in Central London without yellow or red lines is a rarity indeed. > Although, > of course most bus routes have. But then a cab doesn't have to use those. Well, not unless he wants to earn a living, anyway. >>>>> A licensed black cab driver could >>>>> also be expected to know the location of loos etc. >>>> Indeed. That isn't the problem. The problem is stopping on a double >>>> yellow or red line. >>> It's a total non event. Just typical of some black cab drivers thinking >>> they deserve special treatment. >> Er... yes... you say that it's �60 to stop and use the toilet, like or >> lump it, so one wonders what on Earth the fuss can be about, eh? How >> reasonable can you be? > I'll ask you again since you seem to be incapable of answering a simple > question. Why should a cab driver have special privileges over other > working drivers - like those who drive delivery vans etc? And if they had > they would inevitably abuse them, given how little regard they already > have for the laws. You can try to rephrase it however you like. You've already said it: you think that a cab-driver should get fined �60 for using a public toilet whilst at work. Don't - for shame - try to justify that on the basis that other people should get the same fine. As long as it isn't you facing the fine, that's OK, isn't it? |