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 10 Jun 2010 03:56 "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 9 Jun 2010 19:50 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 10 Jun 2010 11:45 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 10 Jun 2010 11:47 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 10 Jun 2010 12:22
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 |