UKC

Why do taxis get to drive in bus lanes ? They aren't public transport !

In reply to afshapes:


But they do transport the public? Or am I being thick / missing something? Not trying to argue......

In reply to abseil:

So do all cars

In reply to afshapes:

Because the people who make the rules often ride in them?

In reply to afshapes:


Neither are bicycles.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


OK, I'll rephrase it - taxis are available for public hire.

In reply to afshapes:

I've always wondered the same. The whole idea of segregated lanes is to make environmentally/traffic friendly modes of transport quicker and more attractive.
Taxis are normally old battered cars with engines that have done 200+k miles, half the time they are empty other than the driver who's driving back to the centre of a town so they are worse for the environment that people driving private cars and the only thing they help is reducing the number of cars wanting to park in town.
I think the only reason why the taxi lanes remain is because they have some form of union that would cause havoc if they removed them.

In reply to gethin_allen:

Agreed. Apparently the number of minicab licenses in London have rocketed with some minicabs being high end Mercedes and BMWs. Minicab drivers must be doing really well to afford them... or perhaps it is people misusing the license to avoid the congestion charge?

In reply to ByEek:


There are a few high profile people and a few MPs IIRC that drive taxis to avoid paying the congestion charge; I know Stephen Fry does and I remember reading a story about someone famous who has a model of Cliff Richard in the back of his cab to make it look occupied and stop people trying to get in.

In Nottingham one of the cab firms has started using hybrids, which is a good start, but here in South Wales the minicabs are mostly ageing skoda octavias or Vauxhalls and the black cabs are death traps.

In reply to afshapes:

I like the idea of a bus lane. ..People get places quicker, be that on the bus or driving a car as there are no buses clogging the road up. It also encourages greener thinking.
Taxis are there to make money from people wanting to go somewhere.
Why should they benefit from something paid for by the public purse ?

In reply to afshapes:

I'm not going into what I do but I save my local government thousands through my job so perhaps I could use the lanes. ..I feel more justified than a taxi

In reply to afshapes:

Usually the vehicle has to be wheelchair friendly, so minicabs generally banned.

In reply to afshapes:


In what way is a bus different to a taxi. They are both privately owned vehicles operated by a paid driver to transport people for a fee. It's not like buses are state owned.

Also, a well maintained taxi might output less CO2 per person.mile than some of those dirty buses - left with their engine running to cool the driver.

In reply to Philip:

I may well be wrong but I was under the impression that public transport is heavily subsidised by public money ?

In reply to Philip:


Are you seriously asking this question?

>left with their engine running to cool the driver.

And how many taxi drivers sit around with the engine running and the AC on?

In reply to winhill:


This doesn't seem to be the case around here, or anywhere else I've lived as far as I can remember.

In reply to gethin_allen:


For the purpose of bus lanes yes.

Why do we have bus lanes? To ensure some vehicular traffic can get to the centre of cities/towns to drop off and collect people. It encourages use of public transportation. A lot of taxis carry passengers on the final leg of their public transport journey - to/from the station. For this purpose is makes sense not to distinguish between the two.

When it comes to driving tests, or use of public subsidy, then there is a large difference between a 3 passenger car and a 52 seat coach.

In reply to gethin_allen:


A lot. My AC will run from battery on a low energy setting, the battery is recharged during breaking. Not all AC is bad.
But my point is that the behaviour of cars/taxis is clear - buses are always the wonderfully clean and environmentally friendly option.

In reply to afshapes:


The term "public transport" does not by definition mean "subsidised by public money", although it is commonly the case.

"Public transport (North American English: public transportation or public transit) is a shared passenger transport service which is available for use by the general public, as distinct from modes such as taxicab, carpooling or hired buses which are not shared by strangers without private arrangement."

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport

"Buses, trains, and other forms of transport that are available to the public, charge set fares, and run on fixed routes"

From http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/public-transport

(Note that, under neither of those definitions is a taxi "public transport".)

In Edinburgh, Lothian Buses is publicly owned (91% owned by the city council, with Midlothian and East Lothian councils owning the rest). Although a few routes are subsidised for social reasons, overall the company returns a net profit each year (it pays the council a larger dividend than it receives in subsidy). In contrast, TfL receives over £400M a year to subsidise bus operations in London.

In reply to winhill:

Minicabs are generally banned because they're not taxis. For the purposes of a sign on a bus lane, "Taxi" means Hackney Carriage (as opposed to a "Licensed Private Hire Vehicle").

I think the rules vary from place to place, but proper taxis (as opposed to minicabs) generally have to be wheelchair friendly to be eligible for a licence.

In reply to Philip:

you answer your own question,

"there is a large difference between a 3 passenger car and a 52 seat coach. "

Taxis are no better for the environment or for the congestion problems that private vehicles so to allow them to use a facility conceived for these purposes is farcical.

To say that taxis encourage use of public transport is also a joke, taxi fares put me off from taking trains and long distance coaches because the £10 fare at either end can be as expensive as the journey in between and totally tips the balance in favour of taking the car.

In reply to afshapes:

It's usually only Hackney Carriages that can use bus lanes and not all bus lanes.

I suspect the justification is two fold, firstly a taxi can be an important element in an integrated public transport system, secondly they pay quite a lot of money for their operators licence.

In reply to gethin_allen:

No, I answered your two questions. That in one respect there is no difference, in the other a large one. Which applies depends on whether bus lanes are a reward for low polution (which I don't think as some buses are quite poluting) or to allow transportation of people. I also never said taxi's are all clean - I said that coaches aren't all low emissions.


I don't think I said they encourage, if I did it wasn't my intention, they are simply part of the process. You might not travel by taxi but many people do - as part of a journey that avoids needing a car.

Edit. Yes I did use the word encourage, perhaps enable is better.

In reply to afshapes:

As I'm sure most who have been in a taxi in the small hours of the morning will know, the Highway Code is not something 90% of taxi drivers are familiar with! :P