Taxi Driver Online

I think esteemed was in inverted comma Nidge. Not a direct quote of course more facetious you see, more of an antonym.

>>"I can do one thing Maurice you can't and thats lie straight in bed at night. "<<

Is that on your front munching the mattress or are you a bit of a short arse then Nidge. Either way it doesn't make you a bad person.

BTW you forgot keeping your coal in the bath.

Claude

If I drive minicabs so do you Claude.

I may not be able to directly quote as I have not kept any records without the owner/writers permission. However I do know that the phrase minicab isn't used outside of London to describe a vehicle for hire and reward that is not a taxi, and to that end would appriciate if you would refrain from applying such comparisons nationally. You devalue the service the licenced private hire trade delivers to the vast majority of this countries population, if you lot don't start sorting yourselves out you will lose passengers to the licenced P/H lot and they will end up carrying more passengers than you.

Cor blimey guvnor

Still thankfully more drivers in London realise that by licensing these minicab drivers, vehicles and operations their numbers will decline dramatically as fewer are capable of reaching even the minimum standard requirement.

You stated previously that the un-licensable would just continue as would their touts, but that doesn't create more problems than licensing solves.

Still at least when the traditional London Cabby stops getting flagged down they could run "traditional London Cabby tours" and show all the tourists how arrogant taxi drivers used to be.



B. lucky

Mick,
as you accuse others re assumptions, how do you know that london private hire dont carry more passengers now?

Wharfie

The thing is though Warfie that only following operator licensing can those statistics be properly obtained.

Surely though removing licenses from those firms who continue to conduct their business illegally, particularly those using touts, will be beneficial to the H/C trade as well as the passengers.
Then we get to the most common problem we all experience and thats enforcement, thats where the problem's start but never generally end.

B. Lucky

well tfl have the figures,
AND SO HAVE INLAND REVENUE
and you might be suprised by them

Wharfie

>>"I may not be able to directly quote as I have not kept any records without the owner/writers permission."<<

Don’t worry Nigel will do it for you. He will be busy combing through the London list trying to find quotes. He might be able to find better than sarf of the river or gawd blimey guv. Pathetic.

Your knowledge of London colloquial speech seems to come from crappy Dick Van Dyke films.

You are just as ignorant on the licensing matters. Most London drivers think this and think that. Now that is arrogant. That is at the crux of all this. London drivers are not talking about licensing arrangements that apply around the country and make no comment. But here the likes of you are preoccupied to an unhealthy extent at what London is doing and how you can solve problems that you percieve exist. When you are put in your rightful place you then attack the Capitals drivers as a whole.

Concern yourself with wishy washy land mate you are on safer ground.

>>"You stated previously that the un-licensable would just continue as would their touts, but that doesn't create more problems than licensing solves."<<

Yes they would and they ARE doing precisely that. Licensing was brought in to stop touting so therefore in solves nothing. Tell me oh wise one, or ask the relatives who seem to be as ignorant as you, what will licensing solve?

Claude

I look to whats happening in London because thats who everyone else looks to for an example.

How, for example do you know for sure that I'm not from London, can you be sure that I haven't passed the KOL, you may have your suspicions Claude but you can't really be sure.

With regard your accusations that TTFUK was anti London, which were incidentaly directed at me, I would like you to furnish me with evidence of MY postings where I was in any way anti London.

Please substanciate your allegations or refrain from further comment, at least within posts directed at me.

B. Lucky

Cor blimey guvnor, jellied eels, and all that

taxiforums 1 was anti London, in fact it was expected to be so didnt the moderator say when the lads come, behave yourselves? yes he did, it was always anti london.

you Mick doing the kol? now thats the funniest thing I can imagine! of course you havnt done the kol, or else everyone would know you wouldnt be able to contain yourself.

now please Mick youve had your night of going well over the top, youve quoted law wrongly, youve accused, unfairly, youve gone well over the top with vulgar abuse and again youve brought the great Tand G into disrepute!

isnt your site back online yet? go and balls that up.

Wharfie

Where have I brought the T&G into disrepute Geoff?

What is the law I misquoted, point it out, show me my error and I will appologise.

Are H/C not obligated to return to the closest rank when not hired and still on duty.

You insist that I acted un-fairly, well thats not what the e-mails I have been getting say mind you. But you can carry on being the martyr mate cause it makes you happy.

You see Geoff I am a doer not a talker, I had minimal schooling, occasionally I am not able to properly convey what I want to say in words, I do not consider myself to be intellectual at all.

Your games of humiliation are the obsenity, these forums are best used for passing information, not for proving argument or belittling anyone. You conducted yourself in a manner not befitting the sort of people we wanted to communicate with, you were warned, you persisted, you were removed. There is no argument nor justification needed.

If you consider my actions to be inproper contact our regional office and express your concerns with them, and then I will respond likewise.

B. Lucky

NO mICK THEY ARE NOT OBLIGED TO RETURN TO RANK WHEN NOT hIRED!

Mick your schooling is not a point of issue and an irrelevance, whether you cannot read or write or have loads of diplomas you are what you are, and as I have said before you can do much better!

as for contacting Regional Office Mick thats stupid talk! they are not there for that and you know it, I know it! gods sake they have little staff alone without adjudicating on private differences.

Justice and fair play is the cornerstone, its your site have it! your property
but me own a London site ? Mick its a game a game played by Alan, London has a site already!

Then there is this site, why would I wish to compete with it? cos its a game you are playing!

Mick the same few players are on each site, all the sites are almost the same, but yours is different, it excludes on unfair grounds, fine I havnt reinvented and gone back in or tried to.

the london taxiforums will not get off the ground its to difficult to opperate.

as for the question you posted can I refer you to
Town police clauses Act 1849

51(LL) 53(LIIL) which talks about refusal to go to places within prescribed distance, something you ommitted 54 (liv) talks about fares and penalties not keeping to.
57 (LVII) Talks about picking people up by appointment, interestingly it does not refer to private hire at all.

in all cases no hiring is compelled to go further than the proscribed distance, in our case 5 miles radius of the general post office of the town or city.

anything else would be rhidiculous, how can horses be expected to walk or trot long distances?

Wharfie

And a fine example the London Taxi trade sets.

How can I be sure? Well I think things like:- "F-in cockney's I've $hit em." , "Cor blimey guvnor", "Cor blimey guvnor, jellied eels, and all that"

are a little bit of a give away. I was born in London and have never heard anyone say any such thing.

You could also say that these comments are some sort of an attempt at a put down. So you have "furnished" your own examples. Thanks.

Claude

>>"Mick the same few players are on each site, all the sites are almost the same, but yours is different, it excludes on unfair grounds, "<<

Absolutely right Wharfie. I was banned from the site for the following posts:-

Me
This suspended guy ought to have got an expert witness, to wit a psychologist who specializes in forensic witness work. It has been well documented in many psychological experiments that people who are very experienced in a certain field, such as driving, can multiple task with no deficit to his main task skill.

As I say there are countless examples. One I remember from my study days is that of expert typists. They can read and type the work at phenomenal speed, with accuracy, whilst holding a complex conversation with another whilst, seemingly, paying little attention to the typing.. I might rack my brain box to think of more examples. There are many.

Also the holding-the-phone thing does not cause a problem to an experienced driver, especially if the vehicle is an automatic. It all depends how experienced the driver is. Some would be deadly, (like some soppy old addled judge for example,) whilst using a phone, other would not.

Regards
Hot Wheels

Another
Except the typist is not doing it at 40 mph while going around a corner with other vehicles doing the same speed with the chance of a child running out into the road and other uncontrolled parameters. Perhaps the only damage the typist can do is spill the coffee over the nice new computer.

Me
Yea, I thought I would get these silly replies. I stated this as one example.
The experiments were not about relative dangers of any given operations. They are about information processing and how much attention is needed for a given task. BEAR IN MIND these laws are based on due care and ATTENTION.

Some would need to give 100% information processing (attention) to every movement and action whilsts driving a vehicle, just you try to hold a complex converstion with a learner driver, or a learner anything for that matter. Others do the task 'automatic' thier brains resources can attend to other tasks.

This is another example of a one size fits all. Well it doesn't and shouldn't. There are adequate laws already inplace to deal with mobile phones.

The brain keeps a 'third eye' unconcious look out for danger, such as the unexpected child running out etc, then attention can switch, at an instance, to the task for the moment ie avoidence. There are facinating experiments such as the Cocktail Party third 'ear' lookout for danger. Attention and reaction can switch at an instant.

Before any silly questions and replies of being unconcious comes up unconcious to a phsycologist means out of concious awareness.

Regards
Hot Wheels

Mick
Good God, again we attempt to condone outrageous behavior by comparison to unrelative trades or professions.

Using a mobile phone whilst driving is illegal, thats where the argument should surely end. We cannot condone the flounting of such laws, that is of course if we want to change peoples perception of our trade.

B. Lucky

Me
Good God, yourself Mr. Pompous.

Try and get your mind around this. I was not making comparisons with unrelative trades or professions. Or condone outrageous behavior. I was trying to illustrate that attention processes apply to all of us and all that we do whether we are a plumber, typist or cab driver therefore, my post was relevant. So to make it simple for you I have repeated part of the post without reference to a typist. Here it is;

It has been well documented in many psychological experiments that people who are very experienced in a certain field, such as driving, can multiple task with no deficit to his main task skill.

Now give me a rebuttal to that "outrageous" statement.

Regards
Hot Wheels

Mick
This argument could easily be extended, becuase of our expertise should we be able to drive at double the speed limit, relying on our "third eye" to foresee any possible danger.

B. Lucky

Me
Of course it couldn't No matter how quickly you react speed itself cuts down on reaction times. Even someone who is as slow thinking as you will stop in a shorter distance at 30 MPH than Michael Schumacker could stop in at 60MPH. Daft, plain Daft.

Now what would be an interesting experiment would be If a driver of 1 years experince and Schumacker were both travelling at 30mph every thing equall except Schumacker was holding and using a mobile phone and on a given signal effected an emergency stop.

I know who I would rather step in front of!

Regards
Hot Wheels


Mick
Hot Wheels has been removed from the Registered Members list because of his conduct within this thread.

Now this is more like what I see on the rank.
Taxi drivers moaning about other taxi drivers. I suppose we would moan about private hire drivers but we only have 2 or 3 of them and they drive
30 grand mercs.

We all love each other really

Dusty

On that evidence I'm as guilty as sin Claude mate.

I'm so glad you pointed it out for everyone to see.

Pity though that it not the full story, but I suppose that people will see that when they read your account properly.

I don't understand why points cannot be raised using normal language, or will that stop you from sounding or thinking your in some way superior. Which leads people to think that your intellectual use of language shows that you must be right as they don't properly understand what your saying.

I reitterate, you are a very knowlegable and intelligent man, I have no doubt about that. Its just a pity that its conveyed in the abbrasive manner it is.

Wharfie, the site doesn't have to be a London site mate, that page was just complied for illustration purposes. With regard you comment about our site and this one being in competition, I don't consider our site to be a threat to this one in any way shape or form, most regular visitors know who both nidge and myself are and what our site is called, I see no need to include the URL in any of my posts or within my signature. The web is a very big palce mate, and to be honest the more sites thereare the more information can become available and the more knowledge we can all obtain, and we all know what knowledge is.

B. Lucky