Re: Cars make more economic sense than transit: fact

[Iskandar Baharuddin <brengsek@highway1.com.au>]

Craig Read wrote:
> 
> <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?

Where the government doles out a limited number of licenses in
an effort to control supply, rather than to enforce standards.

> 
> 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.  

Absolutely.

> The price of that insurance coverage would
> probably increase the price enough to not make it impractical.
> 
> Cheers...
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 1986 Lotus Excel S.E.

Well, if it does, that's tough. Not feasible. Market forces and
all that.

If it is not feasible, there seems little reason for the
government to legislate against the practice. ;)

Methinks you are grasping at straws. Why are you 'agin it'?

-- 
Salaam & Shalom

Izzy

"So I cheered up, and sure enough, things got worse..."

	from "My Struggle", by Alfred E Neuman