From: Brimstone on

"Dave Plowman" <dave(a)davesound.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5124e3c63cdave(a)davenoise.co.uk...
> 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?

You introduced the notion of journeys.

>> >> >> > 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.

But it will help to confirm that there is a No Right Turn in force.

>> >> 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.
>
What I'm doing includes watching the other traffic that needs to be watched.


From: Dave Plowman on
In article <87akruFrgtU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
JNugent <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote:
> > 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.

How does parking in a car park cause congestion?
But it's no fun trying to discuss things with an idiot so I'll leave it
there.

--
*Being healthy is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.

Dave Plowman dave(a)davesound.co.uk London SW 12

From: JNugent on
Phil W Lee wrote:
> JNugent <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> considered Wed, 09 Jun 2010
> 20:20:21 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>> 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.
>
> I'm surprised you've never come across the concept of "commission".
> It is particularly easy to apply to the taxi trade, owing to the
> presence of a meter.

Indeed, I have come across it. It is one of the two common ways for the
driver to pay the owner for the use of the owner's cab.

It is NOT a relationship of employer/employee for any purpose, whether tax,
national insurance or anything else. Prior to April 1974, it was. Now, it's not.

The driver is self-employed. He does not get wages. And he is properly
incentivised to seek work.

I hope that you have found this informative.
From: JNugent on
Phil W Lee wrote:
> JNugent <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> considered Thu, 10 Jun 2010
> 00:02:22 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>> 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.
>
> You've already had it answered at least twice.
> I'm afraid your inability to read the words CAR PARK can't really be
> blamed on anyone but yourself.

When did you ever mention a car-park in this thread?

And does every public toilet have a car-park adjacent to it anyway?

Or are the ones in Central London without car-parks (pretty much all of them,
I'd think) simply not available for the use of taxi-drivers as far as you are
concerned?

When are you going to stop making it up as you go along?
From: Dave Plowman on
In article <87cfopFp6cU2(a)mid.individual.net>,
JNugent <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote:
> > You've already had it answered at least twice.
> > I'm afraid your inability to read the words CAR PARK can't really be
> > blamed on anyone but yourself.

> When did you ever mention a car-park in this thread?

So we can add not being able to read to your other numerous faults?

> And does every public toilet have a car-park adjacent to it anyway?

Given the depth of Knowledge a London cabbie keeps on claiming to have, it
would be reasonable to expect him to know which car parks have a toilet
nearby. Or indeed where there are public loos where he can park legally.

> Or are the ones in Central London without car-parks (pretty much all of
> them, I'd think) simply not available for the use of taxi-drivers as
> far as you are concerned?

They're not available for use by any motorist either, then.
You've never explained - or at least with any logic - just why a cab
driver deserves special treatment over other road users when it comes to
requiring a toilet?

--
*Out of my mind. Back in five minutes.

Dave Plowman dave(a)davesound.co.uk London SW 12