Rumbero

Mine must have been delayed at Peckham Sorting Office.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The one near the hairdresser was a taxi firm. It was a minicab firm to be more accurate (or pedantic depending on your point of view!) https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/taxis-and-minicabs/what-to-expect-from-your-journey

Don't want to put a damper on this thread but ... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/12/mattress-landfill-crisis-recycling-nightmare

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What is being used to break the > window's, brick's or some other object/method? I heard the 'No Waiting' cones have been used on Hindmans Road (the ones Conway put out while the pavement works are ongoing), which suggests mindless vandalism. The 'pros' generally use something like a centre punch to create a hole through which they can access the inside door handle.

One on Hindmans Road. Early hours of Saturday morning (1st Feb).

Pretty sure Mel had some sort of deli on Peckham Rye near the old Austin's building (late 80s/early 90s?) Probably ten years ahead of its time though!

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I liked it best in its original incarnation, with > several separate quirky little rooms. I agree, Sue. Complete with exposed lath and plaster! Became a bit too 'clean and shiny' after the first refurb.

Anyone old enough to remember the East Dulwich deli? They did good bread I seem to recall.

None would be my guess.

Licensed taxis and private vehicles (including 'de-commissioned' black cabs) have been allowed to take advertising for many years now ('wrapping' seems to be the expression used). If the owner and advertiser are both happy with the arrangement then I don't see how the practice is 'devious' (Soylent Green) or anyone is being 'scammed' (Stradello). Without speaking to both parties then anything else is pure speculation. Now whether vehicle advertising is desirable or not is another question. Can't bear it personally. It cheapens the public realm (just like those ads plastered all over football shirts!)

That's two then. Any more?

How do you know they're 'abandoned' and not being used as private vehicles?

Posh pie and mash then (seeing as we're in East Dulwich). Something like Piebury Corner? (Unless fishbiscuits manages to locate a branch in Peckham of course). https://pieburycorner.com/

Pie and mash

You can usually pick up a copy in Sainsbury's.

Why have all that late-night hassle? Just jump in a taxi and relax. Traffic shouldn't be too bad at that time.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am sure many > can tell their own stories / experiences of black > cabbies. Well let's hear them then! Much more entertaining (if not particularly helpful). And as for The Knowledge, perhaps it might help to think of it not so much in terms of 'knowing all the streets' (a bit of an urban myth really) but more as an extended job interview undertaken by a variety of potential employers (in this case KoL examiners). I doubt even the mighty Fred Housego (is he still going?) would, even in his prime, know off the top of his head, I don't know, Crebor Street (since we're on the East Dulwich Forum) for instance. Yes, minicab drivers are now 'licensed' (in the loosest possible way) but I would question how much value to place on said licence.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Apps such as Uber are in effect 'hailing' service. > The idea of having thousands of diesel cars > driving around the streets waiting to be waved > down is again, an anachronism. A smart phone is a > much more efficient way of hailing a cab, which > will usually arrive in a few minutes. > > A business model based on cab drivers memorising > every possible route and driving around waiting to > be flagged down, is just crazy in this age of > smart phones. No one is disputing the efficiency of 'hailing' a minicab via a smartphone, just the legality (to repeat, black cabs can be hailed in this way too, of course, if anyone so desires). There's a clear case for the reform of taxi and private hire legislation to properly define 'plying for hire' and the nature of a 'meter', for example, in the digital age (don't hold your breath). Again, though, you haven't addressed the question of the suitability of individuals wishing to provide this sort of 'on-demand' service. I'm still waiting for a better alternative to The Knowledge. As for 'thousands of diesel cars driving round the streets', most black cabs tend to operate (legally) from ranks. Some might operate exclusively from the streets, I suppose, but I would have thought the operating costs (fuel consumption, wear and tear etc) would naturally mitigate against this. And does anyone not think that ride-hailing minicabs don't drive around aimlessly waiting for their 'pings' or homing-in on the 'surge' areas ('dynamic pricing' in Uberspeak) looking for their quadruple fares? According to the TfL website there are currently in excess of 90,000 Private Hire vehicle licences and about 19,000 taxi vehicle licences, by the way.

Adam West and Burt Ward?

Taxi easiest if you've got luggage I would have thought. Other than that 197 bus to East Croydon then train to Gatwick? Or 185 to Victoria then Gatwick Express?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the use of cab hailing apps such as Uber > are the better alternative - I thought I had been > clear. I'm still not entirely clear, I'm afraid. Are you saying you'd be happy for someone who's simply coughed up ?300 to TfL and been 'licensed' in a matter of weeks to respond to any immediate hail (app, street or rank) in a one-tier system? Regarding micromacromonkeys comment; there doesn't seem to be one organisation that speaks for the whole cab trade. The LTDA aren't militant enough for some of them (eg the London Cab Drivers Club) although I believe the United Trade Action Group (UTAG) has recently formed (I know, we're straying into People's Front of Judea and Judean People's Front territory here). The bike lanes seem to serve a purpose for an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening but others might say that the unintended consequence (or intended, maybe) of near total gridlock for the rest of the day is too high a price.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The black cabs have had a monopoly for ages. Uber > should not be allowed to replace it with another > one, but that?s not a defence of black cabs. A 'monopoly' on what exactly? The exclusive right to 'ply for hire' (ie respond to an immediate hail from a member of the public')? There is no bar to this 'monopoly' (other than certain types of criminal conviction). Anyone with the desire and dedication to complete The Knowledge of London exam is free to do so (even Uber drivers!) What would you have instead? Any old Tom, Dick or Harry roaming the streets offering rides for a bit of beer money? You need to think it through and come up with a better alternative - one that both protects the public (including the disabled) and offers a decent living to those providing the service (without having to compromise safety by working all the hours God sends). I can't immediately think of a better way of achieving this but am willing to be persuaded.

> > DulwichFox Wrote: > > > > Close down Public Toilets and Fine people > when > > > they Pee in the street. The binmen don't bother with the street. One of them went in my drive. You'd have thought he might at least have re-cycled one of those plastic milk cartons.

snowy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It does, but it's based on killing the existing > market of private hire and black cabs and then > increasing their fares once that's done and they > have a monopoly. Indeed. Monopolies, of course, being something that rahrahrah ("not a fan of black cabs generally") argued against earlier.