IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Why do taxis have special privileges?
JeffG
post Aug 10 2009, 02:35 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



Rather than take the "Buses in high street" thread in the other forum off at a tangent, I've started a new one.

I've long been puzzled as to why taxis have the same privileges as buses, i.e use bus lanes, operate bollards etc. While buses (if full!) are pretty fuel efficient in terms of passenger-miles, and we should encourage their use by providing bus lanes etc., taxis take one or two people who can afford them and who don't wish to mingle with the hoi polloi.

In my opinion, taxis should be treated the same as private cars, though I'll grant they should be allowed to park free on designated taxi ranks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Aug 10 2009, 04:39 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



Don't get me started!

See "Dangerous Taxi Driver" thread on "NWN".

You could be in for a tussle with Iommi. tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Aug 10 2009, 05:26 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



Taxis are bad enough without making them even worse. Taxis provide a public service and need to be able to get about the town as efficiently as possible. The only losers if they are hindered in getting to their fare in a timely manner, is... the fare.

As for the bus argument, few buses I see are full.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Aug 10 2009, 07:26 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



QUOTE (Iommi @ Aug 10 2009, 06:26 PM) *
Taxis provide a public service and need to be able to get about the town as efficiently as possible.

What's the logic behind that? I don't see why hiring a car and a driver to take you somewhere should be any different to driving your own car.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Aug 10 2009, 08:17 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,933
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



QUOTE (JeffG @ Aug 10 2009, 08:26 PM) *
What's the logic behind that? I don't see why hiring a car and a driver to take you somewhere should be any different to driving your own car.

I agree. I've always wondered why they were treated like public transport.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Aug 10 2009, 08:20 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



If they were treated no differently to the rest of us then it would solve 50% of the bollards problem in Newbury!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Aug 10 2009, 08:28 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (JeffG @ Aug 10 2009, 08:26 PM) *
What's the logic behind that? I don't see why hiring a car and a driver to take you somewhere should be any different to driving your own car.
QUOTE (Strafin @ Aug 10 2009, 09:17 PM) *
I agree. I've always wondered why they were treated like public transport.

It's a transport system available to the public. A useful feature is it helps to provide an alternative to drink driving and provide safer carriage for people, especially the vulnerable members of society.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Aug 10 2009, 08:33 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,933
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



QUOTE (Iommi @ Aug 10 2009, 09:28 PM) *
It's a transport system available to the public. A useful feature is it helps to provide an alternative to drink driving and provide safer carriage for people, especially the vulnerable members of society.

So do chauffers, they don't get to use special lanes. What about friends who pick you up? They don't get to use them either.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Aug 10 2009, 08:34 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (Strafin @ Aug 10 2009, 09:33 PM) *
So do chauffers, they don't get to use special lanes. What about friends who pick you up? They don't get to use them either.



And they have to wear seat belts!! laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Aug 10 2009, 08:37 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (Strafin @ Aug 10 2009, 09:33 PM) *
So do chauffers, they don't get to use special lanes. What about friends who pick you up? They don't get to use them either.

Do you seriously not know the operational difference between a taxi and the above?

In any case, as an occasional user of taxis, I wouldn't want anything that made them more expensive or more unreliable. So I don't give a rats a*s that they have privileges that I as a car driver do not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Aug 10 2009, 08:50 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,933
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



QUOTE (Iommi @ Aug 10 2009, 09:37 PM) *
Do you seriously not know the operational difference between a taxi and the above?

Of course I just don't see why it's relevant. I think "pool lanes" would be better where you get to use lanes if you have at least for example 3 people in your vehicle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Aug 10 2009, 08:54 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (Strafin @ Aug 10 2009, 09:50 PM) *
Of course I just don't see why it's relevant. I think "pool lanes" would be better where you get to use lanes if you have at least for example 3 people in your vehicle.

In principle, I agree. The more in cars the better, but I would imagine it would make 'bus' or 'pool' lanes less effective, i.e. a lot more busy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
part time
post Aug 11 2009, 06:39 AM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 1-July 09
Member No.: 171



So I get a Taxi from town to home (perish the thought) making use of the Taxi special priveliges through the traffic, then once the Taxi has relieved me of several hundred pounds (is that the going rate these days?) it gets to make it's way unhindered back into town.....empty apart from the non seatbelt wearing driver....doesn't stack up in my eyes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Aug 11 2009, 07:19 AM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (part time @ Aug 11 2009, 07:39 AM) *
So I get a Taxi from town to home (perish the thought) making use of the Taxi special privileges through the traffic, then once the Taxi has relieved me of several hundred pounds (is that the going rate these days?)

You don't use taxis then! tongue.gif

QUOTE (part time @ Aug 11 2009, 07:39 AM) *
it gets to make it's way unhindered back into town.....empty apart from the non seatbelt wearing driver....doesn't stack up in my eyes.

Well you can join the group of people that get the hump over the daftest things gang! laugh.gif For me, I am very unlikely to be or want to be a taxi driver. Also, I would wear a seatbelt whether I was required to do so by law or not. So for me, this is a no problem issue.


For the record...

Exemption to wearing a seatbelt

The following exemption to wearing a seatbelt applies by virtue of the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seatbelts) Regulations 1993:

* a person holding a medical certificate;

* the driver of or a passenger in a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for carrying goods, while on a journey which does not exceed 50 metres and which is undertaken for the purpose of delivering or collecting any thing;

* a person driving a vehicle while performing a manoeuvre which includes reversing; a qualified driver (within the meaning given by regulation 17 of the. Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999) who is supervising the holder of a provisional licence (within the meaning of Part 111 of the Act) while that holder is performing a manoeuvre which includes reversing;

* a person by whom, as provided in the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999, a test of competence to drive is being conducted and his wearing a seat belt would endanger himself or any other person;

* a person driving or riding in a vehicle while it is being used for fire brigade or, in England, fire and rescue authority or police purposes or for carrying a person in lawful custody (a person who is being so carried being included in this exemption);



* the driver of—

(i) a licensed taxi while it is being used for seeking hire, or answering a call for hire, or carrying a passenger for hire, or

(ii) a private hire vehicle while it is being used to carry a passenger for Hire;

* a person riding in a vehicle, being used under a trade licence, for the purpose of investigating or remedying a mechanical fault in the vehicle;

* a disabled person who is wearing a disabled-person's belt; or

* a person riding in a vehicle while it is taking part in a procession organised by or on behalf of the Crown.


Source: Exemption to wearing a seatbelt
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Aug 11 2009, 07:52 AM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (Iommi @ Aug 11 2009, 08:19 AM) *
* the driver of—

(i) a licensed taxi while it is being used for seeking hire, or answering a call for hire,


That shoots your argument in the foot then doesn't it?
You said it was so they could escape quickly from being attacked by a passenger.

My point still stands -
What is to stop a taxi driver, like me if I don't wear a belt by law, from going through the windscreen or being impaled by the steering column, subsequently needing treatment by the NHS, which is partly paid for by me?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Aug 11 2009, 07:59 AM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 11 2009, 08:52 AM) *
That shoots your argument in the foot then doesn't it? You said it was so they could escape quickly from being attacked by a passenger.

I don't think it does.

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 11 2009, 08:52 AM) *
My point still stands - What is to stop a taxi driver, like me if I don't wear a belt by law, from going through the windscreen or being impaled by the steering column, subsequently needing treatment by the NHS, which is partly paid for by me?

Grow up. I am the messenger, I didn't draft the bl**dy law, I merely reported it. If you think my rational is flawed, perhaps you have a better knowledge as to why they are exempt (under certain circumstances)?

Petition your MP if it is that important to you. rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Aug 11 2009, 08:15 AM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (Iommi @ Aug 11 2009, 08:59 AM) *
perhaps you have a better knowledge as to why they are exempt (under certain circumstances)?


No I don't which is why I asked the question for debate.
(That is the point of this forum isn't it?)
(Or perhaps it is to air personal comments when vexed mellow.gif )

Don't say you weren't or you wouldn't use comments like "Grow up"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Aug 11 2009, 08:27 AM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 11 2009, 09:15 AM) *
No I don't which is why I asked the question for debate.

Yes, and I originally answered in a modest and factually coherent manner.

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 11 2009, 09:15 AM) *
(That is the point of this forum isn't it?)

Yes, but perhaps one shouldn't ask the question, if they are not prepared for the answer!

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 11 2009, 09:15 AM) *
(Or perhaps it is to air personal comments when vexed mellow.gif ) Don't say you weren't or you wouldn't use comments like "Grow up"

I am vexed, hence the 'grow up' comment. I don't want to quarrel - hence, from me, nuff said on the topic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 09:31 AM