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: Brimstone on 9 Jun 2010 13:47 "Dave Plowman" <dave(a)davesound.co.uk> wrote in message news:5124b94b60dave(a)davenoise.co.uk... > In article <CNednQCZW-blBJLRnZ2dnUVZ8iidnZ2d(a)bt.com>, > Brimstone <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > So there's no need for them to use the loo, then? After all they're not >> > earning then. Unless you know something I don't. > >> It's quite obvious that you're not human if you don't need to dispose of >> your bodily waste from time to time. > > Strange the way I manage that when on a journey without asking for special > privileges over parking. As do pretty well everyone else. Cab drivers are not on journeys and there are precious few motorway service areas in central London. >> >> > Which in practice is what would happen with many cab drivers. Who >> >> > already consider themselves above the law. Rather like cyclists >> >> > ignoring red lights. Etc. >> >> > >> >> I've never seen a cab driver acting outside the law, have you? >> > >> > You either never drive round London or shouldn't be allowed to drive >> > with such poor powers of observation. >> >> >> Just because another driver does something that your not expecting >> doesn't make his action illegal. > > I could take you to one junction where you'll see black cabs turning right > regularly - despite a no right turn sign. Just one example of many. The junction being? Google Maps will help. >> Are these really the best responses you can manage? > > If you've never seen a black cab break the law and you drive in London you > shouldn't be driving. > When driving in central London, I'm more interested in what I'm doing rather than watching other people in case they do something naughty.
From: JNugent on 9 Jun 2010 15:20 Phil W Lee wrote: > JNugent <JN(a)npptg.com> considered Sat, 05 Jun 2010 22:26:08 +0100 the > perfect time to write: > >> Dave Plowman wrote: >>> In article <qfrNn.29288$Az1.11061(a)hurricane>, >>> Mrcheerful <nbkm57(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >>>> Dave Plowman wrote: >>>>> In article <86mn7sF8ugU6(a)mid.individual.net>, >>>>> Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Dave Plowman <dave(a)davesound.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much >>>>>> like they were saying: >>>>>>> What do bus drivers do? Seems to me they have more of a problem than >>>>>>> taxis. >>>>>> Less, I'd have thought - they have set routes and set stopping >>>>>> points/ times. >>>>> But they can hardly drive to the nearest loo if caught short - unlike >>>>> a cab. >>>> they usually go back to the depot on a regular basis, black cabs don't >>>> usually have a depot >>> A black cab doesn't follow a route or a timetable. And the drivers are all >>> - or mostly - self employed so what they do in terms of breaks is up to >>> them. >> They are all self-employed. >> There is no employment-and-wages model that would work. > They are not all self-employed, and therefore there obviously is at > least one employment-and-wages model that works. What is it? And how is the driver incentivised to maximise his efforts (including his efforts at times he'd rather be doing something else) and the vehicle's takings? Please be aware that in any case where the proprietor contrives to "employ" the driver whilst letting the driver be a free agent for tax purposes (ie, the situation prior to April 1974), the law is being broken. Please also be aware that in any case where the proprietor contrives to "employ" the driver on a nominally low "wage" so that he can conceal his real earnings, the law is very obviously being broken. But I wouldn't put it past some to attempt it.
From: Dave Plowman on 9 Jun 2010 18:49 In article <xumdnbVaFdYjTpLRnZ2dnUVZ8sednZ2d(a)bt.com>, Brimstone <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Strange the way I manage that when on a journey without asking for > > special privileges over parking. As do pretty well everyone else. > Cab drivers are not on journeys and there are precious few motorway > service areas in central London. So you've decided to define a journey now? > >> >> > Which in practice is what would happen with many cab drivers. Who > >> >> > already consider themselves above the law. Rather like cyclists > >> >> > ignoring red lights. Etc. > >> >> > > >> >> I've never seen a cab driver acting outside the law, have you? > >> > > >> > You either never drive round London or shouldn't be allowed to drive > >> > with such poor powers of observation. > >> >> > >> Just because another driver does something that your not expecting > >> doesn't make his action illegal. > > > > I could take you to one junction where you'll see black cabs turning > > right regularly - despite a no right turn sign. Just one example of > > many. > The junction being? Google Maps will help. It won't help you see vehicles ignoring the sign. > >> Are these really the best responses you can manage? > > > > If you've never seen a black cab break the law and you drive in London > > you shouldn't be driving. > > > When driving in central London, I'm more interested in what I'm doing > rather than watching other people in case they do something naughty. So you don't watch other traffic? As I said, you shouldn't be driving. > -- *He who dies with the most toys is, nonetheless, dead. Dave Plowman dave(a)davesound.co.uk London SW 12
From: Dave Plowman on 9 Jun 2010 18:50 In article <3ukv06t9es8u96phe9ngt2nceprcmf1los(a)4ax.com>, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: > >The Home Office regulations demand that a taxi MUST be able to turn > >inside kerbs no more than 24' apart. If a vehicle can't manage that, > >it can't be licensed as a taxi. > > > >Why is that, do you suppose? > That may be true of the licensed taxis in London (aka black cabs) but > it is certainly not true elsewhere. > I've driven many taxis which would not meet that "requirement" yet > which were properly licensed after full inspections by the local > authority. London cabs come under special regs. -- *Xerox and Wurlitzer will merge to market reproductive organs. Dave Plowman dave(a)davesound.co.uk London SW 12
From: JNugent on 9 Jun 2010 19:02
Dave Plowman wrote: > In article <879lovFpkrU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > JNugent <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote: >> Dave Plowman wrote: >>> In article <8782mgF56iU2(a)mid.individual.net>, >>> JNugent <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote: >>>>> However, the more I think about it, I'd have no real trouble parking >>>>> up legally to go to the loo anywhere I can think of. Would likely >>>>> cost, though. What cab drivers appear to want is to park free outside >>>>> any loo regardless of any congestion it might cause. >>>> Would the payment of a couple of quid reduce the congestion? >>> Would you care to explain that comment? >>> If the couple of quid involves paying for a car park or other parking >>> area, yes. > >> Would you care to explain that comment? > >> What difference can the payment of two pounds possibly make to how much >> congestion a parked car or cab causes? > > If it is for use of a car park or other parking area, yes. > >> If you insist that the congestion would be reduced (or increased) by the >> payment, please show your working-out. Assuming you have some to show. > Sigh. You apparently think parking just anywhere can't cause congestion. Wrong. 100% Wrong. Beck of the class, please, Mr Plowman. Stopping or parking in the wrong place at the wrong time obviously *can* cause delays and even congestion. What is not at all obvious is how the payment of (say) two pounds (for the right to stop) prevents the congestion. Please explain how sticking a parking fee receipt on the stopped vehicle prevents congestion. Please be specific in your answer and don't try to answer a different question in order to avoid answering this one. |