Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - DRC advice on cabs failing to stop.

DRC legal advice on cabs failing to stop, is it right or wrong?

http://www.drc.org.uk/askdrc/category/show.asp?id=108

Best wishes

JD

I think it would be very hard to defend if a driver pulled onto a rank, saw a WAV customer and drove off. However I think it would be very hard to prove discrimination if the custosmer tried to flag a cab down, and was refused.

I think the problem would arise if the driver ignored the WAV customer, yet picked up a non-WAV customer.

So if a driver did blank a WAV customer, then unless he goes home straight after, he is always going to be deemed to be discriminatory.

Sussex wrote:

lol Sussex how about this?

The terms of reference for accepting a hire was defined in a legal case, which I think took place back in the 60's. I think it was a London Cabby who was taken to court for not stopping when flagged down even though he had his hire light on. For those who don't already know the Terms of reference are as follows.

The Judge stated, it matters not whether a hire sign is lit, A hiring only becomes an accepted hire when the driver of the vehicle makes a conscious effort to stop for the person who is actually flagging down the Taxi.

The customer, by indicating in some way that he wishes to hire the vehicle in question makes the initial offer of a contract. The Taxi seals that contract when he stops to pick up the person offering the contract.

So, in effect the Judge was talking about a contract between two parties. First comes the offer and second comes the acceptance. The punter makes the offer by sticking out his hand and the Cabby accepts the offer when he stops.

That is the only legal definition of a hire, when plying for hire on a public highway. Plying for hire on a public Taxi rank, is of course a different kettle of fish.

The moral is that you can drive past anyone you like with your light on or off and unless you make a conscious effort to stop, they can't do a thing about it.

Best wishes.

JD

Sussex wrote:

lol Sussex how about this?

The terms of reference for accepting a hire was defined in a <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=legal&v=56">legal</a> case, which I think took place back in the 60's. I think it was a <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=London&v=56">London</a> Cabby who was taken to court for not stopping when flagged down even though he had his hire light on. For those who don't already know the Terms of reference are as follows.

The Judge stated, it matters not whether a hire sign is lit, A hiring only becomes an accepted hire when the driver of the vehicle makes a conscious effort to stop for the person who is actually flagging down the Taxi.

The customer, by indicating in some way that he wishes to hire the vehicle in question makes the initial offer of a contract. The Taxi seals that contract when he stops to pick up the person offering the contract.

So, in effect the Judge was talking about a contract between two parties. First comes the offer and second comes the acceptance. The punter makes the offer by sticking out his hand and the Cabby accepts the offer when he stops.

That is the only <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=legal&v=56">legal</a> definition of a hire, when plying for hire on a public highway. Plying for hire on a public Taxi rank, is of course a different kettle of fish.

The moral is that you can drive past anyone you like with your light on or off and unless you make a conscious effort to stop, they can't do a thing about it.

Best wishes.

JD

If someone want's a WAV then I tell em to contact the hackney brigade.

This is covered by 'Rex v Hunt' (1954) were a driver was cleared for 'failing to respond to a hail'.
If a taxi is stationary in traffic with the hire sign lit, he does not have to respond to a person approaching him, however, if he asks the person their destination or asks if they need a taxi, he is deemed to have 'parlied' and therefore has to accept the hiring.

villager wrote:

I would not bet on it.

frankly a lot has gone on since 1954, including the disabilty discrimination act

carry on villager.

Author:	JD [ Thu Nov 25, 2004 3:11 pm ]
Post subject:	DRC advice on cabs failing to stop.
DRC legal advice on cabs failing to stop, is it right or wrong? http://www.drc.org.uk/askdrc/category/show.asp?id=108 Best wishes JD

Author:	steveo [ Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: DRC advice on cabs failing to stop.
JD wrote: DRC legal advice on cabs failing to stop, is it right or wrong? http://www.drc.org.uk/askdrc/category/show.asp?id=108 Best wishes JD so it is now a criminal offence not to stop for a wheelchair customer?!! but within your rights not to stop for anyone else? something not right there i think.......?

Author:	Sussex [ Thu Nov 25, 2004 7:23 pm ]
Post subject:
I think it would be very hard to defend if a driver pulled onto a rank, saw a WAV customer and drove off. However I think it would be very hard to prove discrimination if the custosmer tried to flag a cab down, and was refused.

Author:	JD [ Thu Nov 25, 2004 8:00 pm ]
Post subject:
Sussex wrote: I think it would be very hard to defend if a driver pulled onto a rank, saw a WAV customer and drove off. However I think it would be very hard to prove discrimination if the custosmer tried to flag a cab down, and was refused. lol Sussex how about this? The terms of reference for accepting a hire was defined in a legal case, which I think took place back in the 60's. I think it was a London Cabby who was taken to court for not stopping when flagged down even though he had his hire light on. For those who don't already know the Terms of reference are as follows. The Judge stated, it matters not whether a hire sign is lit, A hiring only becomes an accepted hire when the driver of the vehicle makes a conscious effort to stop for the person who is actually flagging down the Taxi. The customer, by indicating in some way that he wishes to hire the vehicle in question makes the initial offer of a contract. The Taxi seals that contract when he stops to pick up the person offering the contract. So, in effect the Judge was talking about a contract between two parties. First comes the offer and second comes the acceptance. The punter makes the offer by sticking out his hand and the Cabby accepts the offer when he stops. That is the only legal definition of a hire, when plying for hire on a public highway. Plying for hire on a public Taxi rank, is of course a different kettle of fish. The moral is that you can drive past anyone you like with your light on or off and unless you make a conscious effort to stop, they can't do a thing about it. Best wishes. JD

Author:	Sussex [ Thu Nov 25, 2004 8:16 pm ]
Post subject:
I think the problem would arise if the driver ignored the WAV customer, yet picked up a non-WAV customer. So if a driver did blank a WAV customer, then unless he goes home straight after, he is always going to be deemed to be discriminatory.

Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

DRC advice on cabs failing to stop. http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1185	Page 1 of 2

Author:	JD [ Thu Nov 25, 2004 8:21 pm ]
Post subject:
Sussex wrote: I think the problem would arise if the driver ignored the WAV customer, yet picked up a non-WAV customer. So if a driver did blank a WAV customer, then unless he goes home straight after, he is always going to be deemed to be discriminatory. That would be an interesting court case would it not? lol My money would be on the Cab driver. Best wishes JD

Author:	Yorkie [ Fri Nov 26, 2004 3:59 am ]
Post subject:
JD wrote: Sussex wrote: I think it would be very hard to defend if a driver pulled onto a rank, saw a WAV customer and drove off. However I think it would be very hard to prove discrimination if the custosmer tried to flag a cab down, and was refused. lol Sussex how about this? The terms of reference for accepting a hire was defined in a legal case, which I think took place back in the 60's. I think it was a London Cabby who was taken to court for not stopping when flagged down even though he had his hire light on. For those who don't already know the Terms of reference are as follows. The Judge stated, it matters not whether a hire sign is lit, A hiring only becomes an accepted hire when the driver of the vehicle makes a conscious effort to stop for the person who is actually flagging down the Taxi. The customer, by indicating in some way that he wishes to hire the vehicle in question makes the initial offer of a contract. The Taxi seals that contract when he stops to pick up the person offering the contract. So, in effect the Judge was talking about a contract between two parties. First comes the offer and second comes the acceptance. The punter makes the offer by sticking out his hand and the Cabby accepts the offer when he stops. That is the only legal definition of a hire, when plying for hire on a public highway. Plying for hire on a public Taxi rank, is of course a different kettle of fish. The moral is that you can drive past anyone you like with your light on or off and unless you make a conscious effort to stop, they can't do a thing about it. Best wishes. JD of course that was only fouty years ago new acts since then including disability discrimination act. would he have stopped if I had 2 hands and two legs? john watch a 60s film attitudes and times have changed I would not like you to defend me on this one, and if you came before me you would be hanged, as you could be in the 60s muppet

Author:	Claude [ Fri Nov 26, 2004 11:40 am ]
Post subject:	Stationary = moving
JD wrote: Sussex wrote: I think it would be very hard to defend if a driver pulled onto a rank, saw a WAV customer and drove off. However I think it would be very hard to prove discrimination if the custosmer tried to <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=flag&v=56">flag</a> a cab down, and was refused. lol Sussex how about this? The terms of reference for accepting a hire was defined in a <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=legal&v=56">legal</a> case, which I think took place back in the 60's. I think it was a <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=London&v=56">London</a> Cabby who was taken to court for not stopping when flagged down even though he had his hire light on. For those who don't already know the Terms of reference are as follows. The Judge stated, it matters not whether a hire sign is lit, A hiring only becomes an accepted hire when the driver of the vehicle makes a conscious effort to stop for the person who is actually flagging down the Taxi. The customer, by indicating in some way that he wishes to hire the vehicle in question makes the initial offer of a contract. The Taxi seals that contract when he stops to pick up the person offering the contract. So, in effect the Judge was talking about a contract between two parties. First comes the offer and second comes the acceptance. The punter makes the offer by sticking out his hand and the Cabby accepts the offer when he stops. That is the only <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=legal&v=56">legal</a> definition of a hire, when plying for hire on a public highway. Plying for hire on a public Taxi rank, is of course a different kettle of fish. The moral is that you can drive past anyone you like with your light on or off and unless you make a conscious effort to stop, they can't do a thing about it. Best wishes. JD Another London case deemed a cab that is actually stationary due to traffic flow, at traffic lights, is deemed to be moving and an attempted hiring under these conditions can be refused. Regards Claude

Author:	Guest [ Fri Nov 26, 2004 7:26 pm ]
Post subject:
If one of our cabs failed to stop then the coumcil would go bloody mad. It happeneed a while back where one blanked a MP in a wheel chair. Not good for the toursit trade that.

Author:	Eric the viking [ Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:34 pm ]
Post subject:
I stop for no man pal, unless its booked and that is the way I like it If someone want's a WAV then I tell em to contact the hackney brigade. No discrimination there Regards Eric

Author:	Guest [ Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:53 pm ]
Post subject:
Eric the viking wrote: If someone want's a WAV then I tell em to contact the hackney brigade. And i tell them to ring one of the offices.

Author:	villager [ Fri Dec 03, 2004 3:31 pm ]
Post subject:	failing to respond to hail
This is covered by 'Rex v Hunt' (1954) were a driver was cleared for 'failing to respond to a hail'. If a taxi is stationary in traffic with the hire sign lit, he does not have to respond to a person approaching him, however, if he asks the person their destination or asks if they need a taxi, he is deemed to have 'parlied' and therefore has to accept the hiring.

Author:	Yorkie [ Fri Dec 03, 2004 3:52 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: failing to respond to hail
villager wrote: This is covered by 'Rex v Hunt' (1954) were a driver was cleared for 'failing to respond to a hail'. If a taxi is stationary in traffic with the hire sign lit, he does not have to respond to a person approaching him, however, if he asks the person their destination or asks if they need a taxi, he is deemed to have 'parlied' and therefore has to accept the hiring. I would not bet on it. frankly a lot has gone on since 1954, including the disabilty discrimination act carry on villager.

Author:	Claude [ Sat Dec 04, 2004 1:19 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: failing to respond to hail
Yorkie wrote: villager wrote: This is covered by 'Rex v Hunt' (1954) were a driver was cleared for 'failing to respond to a hail'. If a taxi is stationary in traffic with the hire sign lit, he does not have to respond to a person approaching him, however, if he asks the person their destination or asks if they need a taxi, he is deemed to have 'parlied' and therefore has to accept the hiring. I would not bet on it. frankly a lot has gone on since 1954, including the disabilty discrimination act carry on villager. I would take a bet on it. Any case would be, at first, held in a magistrates court. A Magistarte could not counter a precedent set by the higher court. Also disability discrimination would not enter into it. There would be no discrimination as the refusal, under the aforesaid, would apply to all. Regards Claude

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Yorkie [ Sat Dec 04, 2004 1:35 pm ]
Post subject:
Am I right in saying the principles in this case are under the Metropolitain cab act? am I right in thinking magistrates can change from higher court but must refer it to higher court? you cannot judge a case until you have seen it and there are streems of new law since 54 think you have a long way to go on this one Claude, a very long way to go.