TBH I think the idea of having better emissions is a very good thing.
But why has Ken decided that the way to do it is through an untested bloody dear system?
| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Court says LCDC emmisions protest is 'doomed' http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7034 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | Sussex [ Mon Oct 01, 2007 6:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Court says LCDC emmisions protest is 'doomed' |
Cabs must fit £2,300 filters A High Court judge has rejected calls by a 900-strong group of taxi drivers for a judicial review of a decision by London Mayor Ken Livingstone to force them to fit exhaust filters that they claim do not work for city driving. The London Cab Drivers' Club was last night considering an appeal against a ruling by His Honour Judge Mole that its request for a review was "doomed to failure". "We are looking at an appeal because we feel the judge came to entirely the wrong decision," said Alan Fleming, chairman of the club. The cabbies sought permission for a review against the Public Carriage Office, which is controlled by the mayor of London's office, claiming that, having paid £2,300 each to fit the filters, the equipment became clogged, causing cabs to belch out black smoke. This, the cabbies claimed, was because the filters failed to reach high enough temperatures at city driving speeds to burn off harmful diesel deposits. They made their claim after testing four cabs. However, the judge found Mr Livingstone's strategy was reasonable and awarded costs to the PCO. Mr Livingstone said: "This is a great victory in the effort to clean up London's environment by tackling pollution. "The London Cab Drivers' Club are a small, unrepresentative group of taxi drivers who have long been opposed to my strategy to improve London's air quality." |
|
| Author: | skippy41 [ Mon Oct 01, 2007 6:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I wonder what would happen if London's cabby's went on strike because of this, That arse wipe Livingston needs a filter stuck to his gob as he talks a load of bull, and the PCO are a bunch of sheits as well. They would not have this problem if they could buy other vehicles instead of the LTI sheit |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
TBH I think the idea of having better emissions is a very good thing. But why has Ken decided that the way to do it is through an untested bloody dear system?
|
|
| Author: | JD [ Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Another fact to consider is that London cabbies were given a fare increase of 20p to pay for the devices. These devices might not fulfill the expected requirements but at least there was an attempt to nullify the cost of implementation. I don't know what the LTDA asked for but if it revolved around driver compensation then they might find themselves batting on a sticky wicket? Regards JD |
|
| Author: | GBC [ Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The LTDA hasn’t asked for anything. 
The LCDC, who incidentally have about 2000 members, were brave in challenging the Euro3 requirements. They were on a bit of a loser however, as the vast majority of Taxi's that they've been fitted to have had a lower emissions reading. I still believe there were far cheaper and less cumbersome ways of going about this (powerpill for instance), but as usual the half-wit in charge just does his own thing. Livingstone hates all things combustion engine unless it's one of his precious empty buses, who are driven by equally 'empty' drivers. Boris Johnson may give the impression of being a buffoon, and not for a minute do I think he will be any better, but anything to stick two fingers up at the socialist car hating fool would get my vote. Of course that’s another story altogether . . . . 
|
|
| Author: | GBC [ Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
JD wrote: London cabbies were given a fare increase of 20p to pay for the devices.
Your probably better at maths than me, how many trips, at 20p, would I need to claim back the £2350 I spent on the Van Arken System? Bare in mind this 20p per trip is only for 3 years, then the flag fall reverts back to £2. That's a lot of fares. 
|
|
| Author: | grandad [ Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
11,750 or 75 per week or 10.76 per day so you should be quids in.
|
|
| Author: | JD [ Tue Oct 02, 2007 3:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
GBC wrote: JD wrote: London cabbies were given a fare increase of 20p to pay for the devices. Your probably better at maths than me, how many trips, at 20p, would I need to claim back the £2350 I spent on the Van Arken System? Bare in mind this 20p per trip is only for 3 years, then the flag fall reverts back to £2. That's a lot of fares. I understand what your saying but my point wasn't a criticism or about whether or not each individual driver earned enough 20p's to pay for the equipment. My point was how a judge might see it? You couldn't really go into court and say we payed two thousand pound out of our own pocket without having it thrown at you that you got a 20p per journey subsidy. I don't know what the LTDA where asking for so I can't comment on the judges reasoning, perhaps you could tell us? Regards JD |
|
| Author: | mikey [ Tue Oct 02, 2007 12:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Wouldn,t be half as bad if the thing actually worked. Ken livingstone is a horses c**k!!!!! |
|
| Author: | gusmac [ Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Assuming you have 4 weeks off per annum and work a 5 day week you need an average of 16.3 hires per day. The cost will also be reduced by offsetting it against your tax. Still seems like a pointless piece of stupidity if it doesn't work. |
|
| Author: | GBC [ Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
JD wrote: I understand what your saying but my point wasn't a criticism or about whether or not each individual driver earned enough 20p's to pay for the equipment. My point was how a judge might see it? You couldn't really go into court and say we payed two thousand pound out of our own pocket without having it thrown at you that you got a 20p per journey subsidy.
I don't know what the LTDA where asking for so I can't comment on the judges reasoning, perhaps you could tell us? Regards JD The LTDA were'nt involved with this action, it was the LCDC. The basis of their legal challenge was on more than cost alone. The main point being the systems did'nt work, which it would appear on some Taxi's that's the case. It's been an ill thought out plan, and just to cap it all, on LBC 97.3 last week, the claim from Friends of the Earth (  ) was that pollution levels in London are worse than ever.
|
|
| Author: | GBC [ Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
gusmac wrote: Assuming you have 4 weeks off per annum and work a 5 day week
Thanks, but no thanks. |
|
| Author: | grandad [ Tue Oct 02, 2007 10:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
gusmac wrote: Assuming you have 4 weeks off per annum and work a 5 day week you need an average of 16.3 hires per day. The cost will also be reduced by offsetting it against your tax.
Still seems like a pointless piece of stupidity if it doesn't work. don't forget the extra 1/2 mile on the tourist jobs, paid for in no time.
|
|
| Author: | edders23 [ Wed Oct 03, 2007 6:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
According to the bumpf I got from ken livingstone (and yes he has sent it to everyone who has ever paid congestion charge) the charge only applies to minibuses over 8 passengers plus larger vans and lorries so why is he insisting on cabs meeting the standard ? |
|
| Author: | MR T [ Wed Oct 03, 2007 6:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Anyone remember when London used to be called the smoke...... and why
|
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|