Re: Cars make more economic sense than transit: fact

[craig@ina.com.au (Craig Read)]

<snip> 
>> yes it is called operating a public conveyance without proper licensing and
>> insurance for public liability. change the law to allow that and you destroy
>> the taxi, bus and hire car industrys and put public lives at risk due to
>> improperly trained drivers operating what is basically a unregulated taxi
>> service in cars that are not subject to the same regular safety inspections
>> normal taxis are.
>> 
>> <snip stuff not relevant to this reply>
>> 
>> ant
>
>Would the risk really be greater than having eight people
>zooming around individually?

But what's to stop them at 8 people?

What's to stop them from carrying people in an old bus that is unsafe
by current standards.

Who do the people sue if there is an accident and people are injured
or killed?  Are you going to pay for public liability insurance?  I'm
sure your insurance company will find a way to get out of a claim as
soon as they find out somebody had to pay for travel.

>If you want to have a serious discussion, I would support
>licensing - just not _restrictive_ licensing. Clear-cut
>criteria, including insurance, training, vehicle and health
>checks.

What do you call restrictive licensing?

There are reasons why bus companies are licensed to carry a certain
number of passengers!  If you purchased an old Bedford bus with all of
the seats in it and had 50 people in a 40 seater bus (allowable on PT)
then you could be sued if there is a crash.

The bus companies who carry the public must have public liability
insurance to cater for this.

>Anyone who applies and meets the criteria gets a license,
>without regard to what rice bowls might get broken.

But the criteria would probably have to include some very expensive
insurance coverage.  The price of that insurance coverage would
probably increase the price enough to not make it impractical.

Cheers...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1986 Lotus Excel S.E.