Andy7 wrote:
Sorry, can't let this debate slip. It's just too pertinent.
JD.
If you go back to the legislation of the 1840s, you will find some interesting debate along the lines you refer to. A phrase that entered the debate, was whether taxis were a "Common Carrier"
I suspect the legislation to which you refer is the 1830 Carriers act. It was subsequently amended in 1856 by the Carriers amendment act. The 1856 act has now been repealed in its entirety.
From my limited knowledge of this of act it would appear that it was brought in to impose the common law practice of the day on all service providers who carried out a service from a dominant position. In other words where an innkeeper was the sole dwelling house on a stagecoach route he could not refuse to house a customer unless he had good cause. The same applied to any other service provider whether in transport or not.
The Carrier was defined as two categories, public and Private carrier. For personal use the act did not apply to a service where there was open competition. The act with regard to transport mainly concentrates on the movement of goods and the liability of the service provider in transporting those goods. With regard to the carrying of goods by rail, certain provisions of this act were repealed in the early 1900's.
Whether or not Hackney carriages came under the act I haven't a clue but if you would like to debate this act I would be willing to accommodate you after I have read it.
I have never seen the word Taxi referred to in any legislation of that era or indeed the word public carrier with regard to Hackney Carriages. Perhaps the Hackney Carriage is referred to in the 1830 Carrier act. Then again perhaps it is not.
Was a Hackney carriage known as a Taxi back in 1830 or was it commonly known as a Cab or Hack? I suppose back in the 1840's, a hackney carriage may not have been thought about as being public transport, taking into account the way public transport is defined today. In fact the very first setting up of an official cab rank in London and I suspect any other place for that matter was in 1843.
It just goes to show that if a horse and cart was deemed public transport back in 1840 when they didn't have official licensed Cab ranks, then a horse and cart is public transport today. I suspect Blackpool is a case in point. Perhaps it also reinforces the point that any carriage that transports the public could be defined as public transport.
Quote:
One of the definitions of a common carrier, was that as such, a common carrier did not have the right to refuse to carry.
Carriers did have the right to refuse to carry under certain circumstances but their reason for not carrying had to be reasonable.
Seeing as a hackney cab has never been referred to as a common carrier in any legislation, what exactly is your point with regard to the term common carrier? Apart from reminding me that such an act was put on the statute in 1830, which imposed a requirement on the service industry to treat each person equally.
Quote:
Interesting (albeit totally pointless in context) is that the airlines have never been considered to be common carriers.
I agree pointless. However, seeing as how Airlines transport 180 million members of the public each year it seems rather odd that some people think they don't fit into the wider definition of the words Public Transport, how strange. It might have also escaped your attention that in 1830 this Country didn't have an Airline service. In fact the first Airline service was created in the 20th century so it is no wonder that Aeroplanes are not mentioned in the Carrier act of 1830.
Quote:
The railways lost their status as common carriers with Marples/Beeching/Barbara Castle in the 1960s.
I suspect your fixation with the words "common carrier" have some bearing on the words "Public Transport" The Railways have always been known as a public transport network ever since the fist Railway system was built. I never used the term common carrier in the sixties for public transport and neither did anyone else. The Carrier act of 1830 is acknowledged by me only because I know of its existence but if you ask any Joe Blogs in the street about the 1830 act he will no doubt give you a vacant look.
Quote:
And, although not specifically stated, the buses seemed to have lost common carrier status in 1985.
There are those words again, is there a relevance?
Quote:
But what of the Hackney Carriage? As far as I can see, still common carrier innit?
And again. lol.
Perhaps if you defined what a Common Carrier is? I could readily accept your belief that a Hackney Carriage is one. Considering you are quoting from the act of 1830 it may be appropriate if you tell me what the act defines as being a Common Carrier. If you had done this in the first place you could have saved us both a great deal of typing.
Would I be correct in saying that you believe a Common Carrier is another word for Public Transport? You state that a Hackney Carriage is a Common Carrier, therefore do I understand you to mean that it is also public transport? Under your definition I suspect any other form of Public Transport could be referred to as a common Carrier, would that be correct?
There is only one problem with your reasoning and that is you have already excluded Trains, Planes and buses from being Common Carriers. Therefore they can't be Public transport under your definition.
Quote:
Subsidy, is a different issue.
Subsidy, is a sum of money that Governmental organisations dole out to win votes. Whatever possessed you to think otherwise?
Perhaps Buses and Trains should be made to run their services without subsidy that would make life interesting. The fact remains that no matter what is in the mind of the Government of the day when they dole out subsidies, Buses and Trains sit right at the top of the queue and the poor old Taxi Drivers are not even in the queue.
Quote:
And, we do get subsidy.
Eg: 1984 £32 billion spent on roads.
You're scrapping the bottom of the barrel to try and make a point, the points that have been raised are about direct subsidy, not some deviation that shows how much the Government spend on roads.
According to BOPCRIS In 1984-85 total expenditure was an estimated £2,300 million: the DTP spending £800 million on motorways and trunk roads; local authorities spending the remaining £1,500 million on all other roads. There seems to be a large discrepancy of some 29.7 billion pounds between your figures and those of the Government of the day. How do you explain that?
"Last year £44bn was raised for the Treasury through road user taxes, yet only £5.8bn was spent on the road network" I suspect you see why your road expenditure figure of 32 billion for 1984 seems a little exaggerated. No doubt you will provide me with some data that confirms the fact that road expenditure for 1984 was indeed 32 billion. Failing to supply the fact will confirm to me that you plucked the figure out of thin air. How will that effect your credibility?
The Government 10-year plan. The government has pledged £180bn in its Transport 2010 - The 10-Year Plan, which aims to modernise Britain's public transport infrastructure with spending on rail and roads. If they keep to their promise it works out at 18 billion a year on both road and rail, now isn't that a far cry from the 34 billion you stated in 1984.
I might add that a large amount of that 180 billion is by way of public private funding so some of it is not even coming out of the public purse.
Quote:
£11 billion re-couped through taxation of vehicles and fuel.
If the 11 billion you refer to is with regard to vehicle taxes, then you are way off the mark. In 2003 the revenue was 44 billion. I get the feeling that you haven't got a clue about Government revenue and expenditure and that you are plucking figures out of thin air to support a rather obscure point about public subsidy.
Quote:
Taxis CAN get BSOG if they operate a bus service, and in many places, it's up to you what service you operate. You just tell the TAN/VOSA or whatever they call themselves on Tuesdays, that you fancy doing it.
PH, cannot do this. And that, is a significant difference.
I think we should get one thing straight when a Taxi runs under section 12 of the 1985 act it is a "Bus not a Taxi" So therefore it can get the bus service operators grant or BSOG for short. I have already said this but perhaps it has slipped your attention.
For those who don't know I'll say it again, When a Taxi is running as a Bus under section 12 it is not a Taxi, is that clear enough? When a Taxi is running as a Taxi, it is not a Bus, therefore it is not eligible for any grant whatsoever and that includes BSOG. I have never ran my Taxi as a bus and probably never will and I suspect that goes for 99.9 percent of the Taxi trade.
I like your choice of words, which say "if a Taxi operates as a Bus"
Do you believe that the practice of hackney Carriages operating as buses is common place throughout England and Wales? How many of the 28,846 licensed Cabbies in London do you think get the BSOG subsidy? How many of the 20,816 cabs in London run as buses? How many of the 8,545 Hackneys in the Southeast, run as Buses? How many of the 7,379 Hackneys in the Northwest run as Buses? How many of the 3,620 Hackneys in Wales run as Buses? How many of South Yorkshires 767 Taxis run as a Bus? In Fact how many of the 66,764 Hackneys throughout England and Wales are used as a bus? I'll tell you, very few. It would be interesting to see Vosa's figures appertaining to vehicles running a bus service under section 12 wouldn't it?
You said in your opening statement that you had something pertinent to say. I'm sorry I can't share your enthusiasm. I find everything you have said to be either totally inaccurate or pointless.
The debate is about defining public transport. Perhaps you might care to offer your definition as to what you think constitutes "public transport" both in the "narrow and wider" context of the word "public".
Best wishes
JD
Login
Register
FAQ
