toots wrote:
If that's the case why bring it up as an example of scientific stats to support your claim. Btw I haven't just discovered it I just think it's sh*te so rarely read it.
So why did you say:
"...cos I'm bored looking for it and I haven't come across it before" In a couple of days you've gone from never having heard of it before to an expert who thinks it's shi-ite.
No, I didn't bring it up as a set of "scientific stats to support my claim". I merely cited it in support of my claim. I never claimed that it's the definitive word on the subject, but it's better evidence than what normally passes for evidence as regards these things.
Do you really think we should be dismissing every claim made on the basis that it isn't 'scientific'? No, that would just be nitpicking.
Quote:
You made out that subsidies were given to cover routes that wouldn't be covered otherwise I merely pointed out that if they weren't profitable they wouldn't run anyway. Why should taxis have to run a service if it's not going to be profitable for them because the area is flooded.
Yes, it's self-evident that a service wouldn't be provided if it's still unprofitable even with a subsidy, but I don't see the relevance to the point in question.
As regards your latter point, you make it sound like someone is asking taxis to provide a service that doesn't exist, whereas it's actually over-provided. But oh no, we're not allowed to mention overflowing taxi ranks, because you didn't actually mention overflowing taxi ranks.
My point is that if there's a queue of buses lining up to take passengers without a subsidy then the government is hardly likely to provide a subsidy, is it?
Quote:
Now you're just being childish. Others obviously have a sense of humour cos it's just a joke
Well for one the same joke repeated ad nauseum becomes a bit tiresome unless you're a member of the fanclub, and secondly it's not always too obvious when you're joking and when you're not.
Quote:
You know you're only right, you don't seem to have any theory. At least none that makes any sense to me
You suggested that my theory was that higher standards for drivers would mean higher standards for motors, which defies common sense, and it's not something I've ever claimed anyway.
So what doesn't make sense about that?
Quote:
Isn't that illegal
Probably, but in the vast majority of cases the plate is attached to a vehicle, and the driver is hiring both. The plate rental element only arises because of restricted numbers.
Quote:
You didn't read it properly if that's what you thought. I didn't suggest that you limit ph operators I suggested that they should only be able to take on drivers that they actually had work for
What I meant is that restricting PH op numbers would be like restricting taxi numbers. In the latter case there's still no limit on the number of drivers, so what's the point other than to force them into someone else's vehicle?
It's like limiting PH ops licences with the intention that this would stop people accessing the market. It wouldn't, because the ops would still take on drivers, as restricted HC props still take on as many drivers as will drive for them (except for Doom, obviously
)
Quote:
In theory again. We've got the same number of ph drivers more or less that we've had for 10 years but our taxi fleet has grown since derestriction. That to me says there are now more drivers competing for the same work, well it's less work now but that's due to the recession imo
But if the extra drivers weren't driving taxis they'd be driving PH, so what's the difference in the grand scheme of things?
Quote:
What point? I never made the first point so I'm not sure what point about taxi ranks overflowing you're referring to.
My point was that public money is unlikely to be spent to provide a taxi service if it's oversubscribed (as you keep on claiming).
Quote:
Another thing which is only my opinion, but, I think you'd find that if they derestricted Mr Ts area he'd make more money because he'd be able to rent out more vehicles.
Yes, all these barons are so dead against derestriction because they just couldn't cope with the extra money they'd be making if the plug was pulled.
Quote:
It's a strange concept I know, but, drivers like renting vehicles, especially in the uncertain market that is created by derestriction.
Yes, drivers rent vehicle even in a derestricted market, so what's your point?
Quote:
I mean why go to all the trouble of investing £30,000 approx in a market that may not generate a decent living and to add to that all the costs of upkeep for the vehicle and there's also the drivers that are only in it for the short term until something better comes along and all the part timers as well.
Yes, like part-time PH drivers who treat the trade as their third/fourth income.
Just think, if all these part-timers buggered off the full-timers might just be able to earn a decent living
Quote:
Derestriction without high driver standards (which we don't have and are unlikely to get) doesn't do anybody any favours not even the punters.
Well it's certainly not the whole solution, but it's part of the way there.
Quote:
Back to the reason for this thread, it shows the enforcement are doing their job and perhaps they should do it a bit more vigorously. There is never going to be an agreement re restriction and unless you speak to the drivers/owners concerend you'll never know why the vehicles were in the state they were. We can speculate as much as we like
Well that's not very scientific, so would you care to withdraw?
Oh, I forgot, it's all a joke with you Toots, ha ha, good one, I've just wasted ten minutes on this response when it's all just a wind up a la Captain Cab.
Nice one, you got me there!!
Login
Register
FAQ
