Taxi Driver Online

May I just point out that purpose built vehicles are vehicles built for the purpose, so what do you think the newer PBVs are?

They work very well wherever they have been introduced in increasing numbers around the country, don't they?

They are more economical on fuel than their so-called 'icon' counterparts aren't they?

They're more environmentally friendly than their so-called 'icon' counterparts, aren't they?

They're quieter than their so-called 'icon' counterparts aren't they?

They vibrate less than their so-called 'icon' counterparts, don't they?

They can earn the same kind of money as their so-called 'icon' counterparts, can't they?

What do you think the existing PBVs are? Take the cab body off and you are looking at something resembling a light truck. (1955 technology) Mercedes perhaps?

Peugeot perhaps, or even Fiat?

What is it about them being 'converted' that you object to?

Why do you not see like for like - not unwarranted prejudice I hope? The important thing is that the vehicle can do the job and satisfy the owner, the driver and the customer, and be cost-effective.

These newer vehicles are purpose built for the job and no amount of ill-informed opinion can change that. If you consider it a converted van, which in many cases I am reliably informed they actually aren't, what difference does it make?

It can be argued that some of the them are a bit boxish in design , but that will change in the future, I'm sure. What is wrong with the new Fiat Ulysse, it is very stylish and when put into a 'taxi' format would do the job very nicely, I'm sure.

In respect of these 'converted' vehicles if you don't want one - the answer is simple - don't buy one, so why would you not want anyone else to have one? It does seem an odd type of reasoning.

I agree with you entirely on the 25ft turning circle. It is outdated thinking and the recommendation of the Transport Research Laboratory in its Report on the Review of the Conditions of Fitness for London cabs, to scrap it, should be upheld and adopted by the PCO.

I believe you are also right when you say we need to look beyond what we've got now - but what, if you don't like what is now on offer, do you suggest the answer should be?

If, as you say, you are going to lie down, may I suggest you try it in a darkened room.

Cruisin' Cabby

Dear Cruisin,
A level playing field is a starter. I think you have misunderstood what I was trying to say. You say that we need to have a good look at what we have got and so did I. My point basically is, if we were really serious about starting with a clean slate then government money should be available to ANY manufacturer to design and develop a taxi built for the job.
I hope you did not think that I was trying to defend LTI, as I said the turning circle issue is a red herring. It is possible to build a vehicle that caters for the wheelchair and non wheelchair disabled.
Time for another lie down.
Ged

Could someone not try and develop the four wheel steering system such as Delphis Quadrasteer this would mean other vehicles could get round the 25ft thing, just a thought!!

It's a good point Stuart.

However I believe that the 25ft turning circle has been deemed by the transport report to be dangerous. So perhaps it needs to go.

we seem to have moved this article/thread so far from the subject we are seriously off on a double tangent.

Theres a lot of people on here who have a bash at LTI, and perhaps quite rightly, but how many have actually purchased the LTI product?

I have a problem with these people as I own a TX1 (not stupid enough to buy a TX2, but stupid is as stupid does!)

These people dont have the right to slag off the LTI product when they aint suffered (SUCH AS I!)

My main concern is that of these converted bread van people, because they are prepared to spend thousands in court to benefit ultimately themselves, in my humble opinion they should use their money to invest in their product, (dodgy door handles and engine that needs rebuilt evey 100,000 miles) or perhaps more to the point invest in making their product (the one that we as customers pay [edited by admin] for), meet the conditions of fitness.

I am not a great LTI supporter but the simple fact of the matter is that they are the only ones who produce a vehicle to meet the COF.

When the entire trade is crying out for a level playing field why do we want the manufactureres playing off another?.

Now I read that a 25 foot turning circle is dangerous, [edited by admin] is that the best they can come up with?, knives are dangerous, matches are dangerous, going our of the house is dangerous!

Were a professional occupation, why dont we tell these people that they dont know [edited by admin], because one thing is for certain, they are not at our thin end, they dont drive cabs.

If we want freedom of choice we want it from a level playing field, not something which suits a particular manufacturer.

Yes I know that they have deemed the 25ft t/c dangerous, but surely they cannot say it is dangerous as it is really the person driving who is dangerous, it's the same when they say killer road it's the people using it that are the killers? I would imagine that a larger turning circle would in the passage of time prove to be even more "dangerous" all those three (or where I drive 10) point turns in the middle of the night in a black vehicle.
Am I alone in finding this let's use health and safety as an excuse to achieve something else a pain in the butt.
I have observed the PHC boys trying to do a U turn, and in my opinion you are more likely to cause an accident when attemting it in something other than one of LTI's finest.
Still think the 25ft is a neccessity where I am.

I think the transport people said that all U-turns were more likely to cause an accident. My insurance company has been saying that for the last 10 years or so.

Down here when the HC boys have asked for certain ranks in busy roads, the police have objected because they don't want to see HCs doing U-turns in high streets. A bit strange, but the council have gone along with the police.

But I think the point about the turning circle requirement, is that it is being used to keep competitors out of London. This I believe to be wrong, give the London lads a choice, if they want a LTI, then all well and good. However if they wish to have a choice, is it really such a problem?

Dear Ged,

I write as an owner of a TX11. In my view NO vehicle manufacurer is likely to invest the huge amounts of money that are required to produce a suitable vehicle (crash tests etc) to meet the now unrealistic standards laid down by the PCO, especially in the area of the so-called 25ft turning circle. Particularly when nearly all modern vehicles are front wheel drive and tight turning circles extremely difficult to achieve with CVJs. It's simply unlikely. The market is too small to justify this kind of expenditure and I feel your optimistic view that they will, will never be realised.

The Government is the last place to look for funding of this kind. They won't spend money on buying books for children or providing life saving medicines for the dying (post code availability and all that), so a taxi manufacturing problem I suspect they will leave to the private sector and not interfere. It would be easier, quicker and cheaper to change the taxi specification for London with just a quiet word in the Mayor's or TfL's ear. Just one phone call would do it.

There were so many other points you left unanswered, such as what would you want if you don't want the existing alternatives introduced? (converted or not?)

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this (once you've had your lie down ) What is it about these alternative purpose built vehicles that you object to? This is quite important, don't you think? What is wrong with a Fiat Ulysse type vehicle with in a 'Taxi' format added? How can any alternative be considered if you can't state what sort of an alternative you would like. LTI will love you for your indecision, though I take the point that you say are not writing in defence of them.

It is the principle of change that has to be established. Once that has been achieved, as night follows day, owners/drivers will be lobbying the new vehicles suppliers to add in what they require, though this is already happening.

True, fair, open and honest competition is all that is being sought. LTI haven't had to listen very hard, they've had precious little competition. They seem to do this only when they are forced to - but the price never seems to come down and they appear to be doing their damnedest to ensure that NO competition exists.

Regards,

Cruisin' Cabby

Stuart,

You could also have used the gun analogy. Guns aren't dangerous - it's the people that use them that make them dangerous.

Though U turns can be dangerous when carried out in the wrong place, it is a judgement that any driver makes, whether he is a taxi driver or not. You implied that this, in the hands of HC drivers, would not change regardless of what circumference the turning circle is. Why would this be the case? If it were so then surely U turns should be banned for any one wishing to do them - even PH drivers?

One thing that often gets overlooked when discussing this subject and was not highlighted in the TfL/PCO CoF report; was the fact that it can, in many cases, be an offence to do a U turn, even if there is no sign indicating that U turns are not permitted. This is that it is an offence to carry out this manoevre, if by doing so, you may be creating an obstruction. You can be prosecuted for this, whether you have a 25ft turning circle or not. The PCO did not take this into account when they were declaring how imperative they believed the so-called 25ft turning circle to be. Surely they weren't encouraging drivers to do this sort of thing just because they have this 25ft turning facility and not to advise them to use it wisely.

Regards,

Cruisin' Cabby

Dear Cruisin,
I want vehicle manufacturer/s to go to the drawing board, listen to what we want and take it from there.I concede that to expect a government to come up with the money might be wishful thinking but lets look beyond these shores and think that other countries within the Union will also need wheelchair accessible vehicles. The market suddenly does not look very small. If they can find money for farmers not to grow things we might stand a chance. The market in this country might not look so small either after the OFT report and I will remain optomistic (it is the only thing that keeps me going).
Ged

Many years ago one of our lads rolled a brand new FX4 on the motorway. I can only quote what he stated had happened but he said he swerved to avoid something (cant remember exactly what at the moment) but it was suggested at the time that the unique turning ability contributed to the roll, and of course driver error as well I may add. No other vehilce was involved.

Oh yes... he had a passenger at the time and she came out of the back window although I undrstand that miraculously she had no injuires.

To be treated the same, and given the same opportunities, implies a single-tier system.

_________________
There is Significant Unmet Demand for my Opinion.

Dear Mick

If you think that the PH sector has all the potential for earning money, how come so many in the PH sector tout, illegally ply for hire and generally do everything to make themselves appear as taxis?

Regards

CC

Absolutely.

Lets face facts, when we talk of a single-tier system, what we are really talking about is not the Exec end of the market at all, but the so-called radio car, which performs almost the same duty as a hackney working off the radio. There is little argument on here that they should all have the same qualitative controls, so why call them something different?

_________________
There is Significant Unmet Demand for my Opinion.

I also think that pushing for an all WAV fleet is playing into the hands of those who would seek to keep the status quo. An all WAV hackney fleet would not be appreciated by customers, a partial WAV, all properly licensed single-tier system, would be appreciated.

If we force all WAV, we force the continued existance of the PH fleets.

If we force plate limitation of Hackneys, we force the continued existance of the PH fleets.

I am not saying PH is bad - but its where the distinction between the two lies, that needs sorting out.

If a vehicle does the same job irrespective of its licence, then why have two forms of licence?

_________________
There is Significant Unmet Demand for my Opinion.