| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Lies, Lies and Demand Statistics http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4931 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | captain cab [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Lies, Lies and Demand Statistics |
Lies, Lies and Demand Statistics The Kennedy assassination has led to various conspiracy theories, perhaps the biggest question that remains to this day is the magic bullet theory. Those who wanted the case closed readily grasped this theory. The magic bullet, went through Kennedy, turned right, then decided to turn left, it was later found in near perfect condition beside the dead president on the operating table. This is about as plausible explanation as the bullet going through Kennedy, turning right, turning left and then opening a bed and breakfast in Ryhll. The people wanting to put an end to any rumours of a conspiracy employed the services of various scientists to prove that it was scientifically and statistically possible for the bullet to behave in the erratic manner. Changing the subject slightly, every Christmas I watch the Great Escape in the vain hope that one year Steve McQueen will make it over that fence on the motorbike, statistically it is bound to happen one year, so I always watch it every year. Why am I pointing this out in a taxi magazine? Simple really, because this is an example of how theories and statistics can work if there granted credibility. The recent surveys from and interpretation of statistics from both the OFT and at least one trade group have come up with very differing conclusions. Why is this so? If I were to ask a class of schoolchildren what 2 and 2 was, I wouldn’t end up with two differing theories, conclusions and set of results. Neither would I end up with a schoolchild telling me the answer is six, and then using nuclear physics and theories to prove that their correct. So why can a firm that has charged in excess of £15k and the OFT that has spent £250k be so wide apart in their conclusions? The answer is of course the fact that both parties have attacked the statistics from opposite directions with their interpretations being opposite. It is fair to presume that if the OFT had been told to prove there is no significant unmet demand they would have came to the same conclusion as the survey company, indeed vice verse would also apply. They are merely relying upon potentially faulty information to draw conclusions. Whist it is reasonably fair to presume that the OFT got a bit lost within their study, after all with £250k to spend I think I would have been checking unmet demand in Tahiti. There is perhaps good reason to be dubious about the motives coming from the company who have been financed for their work by elements of the trade. A case of he who pays the piper, the lack of independence of such will of course lead to it being ignored. The first question that should be asked is how relevant are the survey methods currently used for today’s hackney carriage, I worked last weekend and did over 60 hires, all came via the radio. If a survey had been taking place at the time I would have not contributed to a single rank based hiring, yet I did perform a service to the public, street hails are also not taken into account in the current survey methods. The conclusion must presumably be that the survey system itself is faulty. The survey company state that although more taxis in an area suggest a better service, that this is not necessarily true, it goes on to suggest that in areas that have restrictions and cabs being double shifted that these areas are better served. A massive conclusion, however with no evidence it is of course an assumption. Equally as assumtious as the OFT were, again please forgive me, but I don’t want my wages based on assumptions. The survey company then report figures, 39% of authorities have always limited there hackney carriages, it then states that 50% of local authorities don’t limit taxi numbers with the remaining 11% operating either a survey or periodical survey system. The conclusion it draws from this, presumably plucked from thin air, is that basically, 89% of local authorities are wrong and the enlightened 11% are correct. It is equally amazing to consider that the 11% that currently benefit wish to see the current system that seems to suit them so well, emphatically changed. As stated currently 50% of licensing authorities don’t limit numbers, but the option is there for them to do so, 39% of local authorities limit numbers, but the current system could allow managed growth, should the local authority wish to drip feed new licenses. Finally, 11% of local authorities already drip feed licenses. One question really, what is the problem? Do we need every local authority carrying out mandatory surveys every so often, or should the trade on a local level be able to discuss their problems locally and find a local solution with the people they vote in. Should places that have no real problem with new entrants (50%) be forced to have surveys that would not change the existing policy of free entry? It would certainly appear that some within the trade see the whole issue as black and white, when the reality is that we are more a shade of grey, there is no single solution that will please everybody and that is the beauty of the current legislation, for you can interpret it as you see fit for your location. Of course the main beneficiary would be the survey company; there are 89% of local authorities that have potentially a first year income of £4,575,000.00 million (that is four million, five hundred and seventy five thousand pounds) from the countries taxi trade. Referring back to the conclusion that regular surveys are the best option for everyone, this conclusion was obviously drawn by a company that carries out and works from surveys, what other conclusion would they have came back with? Yes, surveys as a method are useless so we should not be in business? The survey company report says that the initial survey in an area should cost between £10k and £20k depending upon the area, of course the prices given could be 100% inaccurate using there own figures, hardly a sound base from a company that wishes to utilise there own estimations to judge taxi usage. Any further surveys after the initial one would cost the trade in areas between £2k and £6k, again an extremely open quotation to say the least, and it could be upto 300% inaccurate, a bit like the survey method really. It would certainly appear that some people within the trade are attempting to ensure that a system they find suits them, should be spread nationwide. This I find quite amazing as each licensing area is different and it is a contradiction in basically all that the trade has put before the government in view of the OFT and the past. There is no ideal single scheme that can be accepted nationwide, by attempting to find it you will waste a lot of money and still not find the alleged holy-grail. Presuming methodology is found that correctly judges taxi usage levels and one year the survey company find supply of taxis completely out of synchronisation with the demand of passengers, i.e. too many taxis not enough punters, will the survey company tell the licensing authority which licenses to revoke? I very much doubt it, so basically the survey method will guarantee the increase of licenses and not the decrease. Please don’t tell me I am being negative, but certain towns have a transient population, for example if you have a student population, would it be correct to measure demand when the students are in town or during half term or the summer break? In an area like Blackpool, can taxi supply be judged best during the summer months or January? The current system allows locals to decide, a broad brush that may suit a large city cannot be used across the country, and it is ludicrous to presume so. The additional problem with this, as previously stated, contemporary survey methods are vague to say the least. Any new survey requirement must surely include all elements of the licensed trade. One would naturally suspect that this will of course be looked into, changing current survey techniques quite dramatically; the system may be overhauled to encompass the differing hiring’s of hackney carriages. This would of course change the figures and presumably increase the number of hackney carriages by more than what currently occurs. A hornets nest well and truly kicked but never mind its only peoples livelihoods, what do you care? Indeed if the survey company’s conclusions are followed the local authority will not be the people who would decide on limits, it could be someone from another location who may have differing ideas. It should be pointed out that the current system, for all of its faults, is not a bad system. It keeps locals in control. Taxis are a localised form of transport, always have been and always will be, why should a system that apparently works reasonably well in the majority of areas be changed. If the survey company report is undertaken and made the law of the land, how will it effect other areas, well basically every area will have to take a study every so often, this will depend upon the size and demographics of the area, the cost of the study will naturally cost you the driver through your licence fees. Before are taken, discussions will take place between the study company, you, your local authority, the police and presumably your county council. This is to make sure that the individual characteristics of your area are taken into account in the survey, you will of course be charged for this service. Of course to enable this, the survey company must ensure that section 16 of the 1985 transport act is removed, which funnily enough is what the OFT want as well, and the T&G for that matter. It is however interesting to note that the NTA is the only body that feel section 16 is worth retaining. Section 16 of the transport act allows the local authority to control numbers of hackney carriages within their district, the 1985 transport act states that local authorities can only restrict the issue of licenses if they feel there is no significant unmet demand. It is extremely strange that people want this bit of the 85 act revoked, as the revocation would surely mean extra licenses, at the least section 16 is a barrier from delimitation. On the other hand, is that me getting the wrong end of the stick again? The way I see it is that the survey company want a piece of the taxi market, collusion is a word that may well be apt, although it would be beneath me to suggest such a thing. The fact of the matter is that if the law is currently followed there is everything there to ensure that places are able to correctly regulate entry into the trade. Perhaps guidelines should be issued, as floods of licenses are obviously not of benefit to the taxi trade. The company involved has been requesting audiences with all would listen for the past few years, the danger is imminent but the haste to discredit the OFT has been such that little thinking and forethought has gone into who people ally themselves with. A deal with the devil indeed. The suggestion of regional taxi boards along the lines of regional assemblies is of course quite unworkable, quite how a single body could hope to understand the complexities of such a diverse trade from say Greater Manchester to South Lakeland is quite incomprehensible. The current system where matters are dealt with locally, permits locals to decide, why change local democracy? Of course, the problem here is that some people within the trade are not able to speak with their councils in words other than the four-letter variety. There is an apparent contradiction, the survey company report states that surveys must be done on a local level as places vastly differ, yet it then tells us that regional boards are an option. The elements mentioning local transport planning, obviously another area the survey company which to diversify into, these are not relevant to the taxi trade as we are already encompassed into the LTP guidelines and shortly through legislation. The points raised that unmet demand studies take no account of drivers wanting to work their own shifts, this of course irrelevant, unless the government, survey company and trade bodies wish to tell self employed people when they will work. It should perhaps be pointed out that graduated growth would not tell people when to work either. I would suggest that if people are working during daytimes instead of peak periods they must be making enough money and perhaps graduated growth is not the policy to follow. Since this article was written the government have responded to the OFT, it would appear from the government response that I have been correct in assuming that the survey methods will be examined and will encompass all forms of local transport as part of local transport planning. It is fair to presume that this will include private hire, as they also play a role in local transport. One of the key words of the government response was latent, latent in the context of surveys means demand that is there but hidden. It is my understanding that how this will affect the taxi trade is as follows. Very often current survey techniques will involve the observation of key ranks in cities, as these ranks are heavily serviced by hackney carriages there is no true unmet demand, even if waiting times are deemed excessive during peaktime periods. The latent part of this comes to bear when you consider that even though a rank in one part of the city may be well serviced, there is very often a demand, serviced by illegal private hire in another part of the city, i.e. a nightclub. This is construed as latent, unexploited, in plain expression, the work currently illegally got by private hire is the latent demand or hidden market unexploited by the hackney trade, the practice of turning a blind eye to a situation may no longer be an option. The most ironic and damaging fact about the survey companies report is that like the OFT it was based on figures that were rightly judged to be incorrect by the select committee, NTA and T&G, the words waste of other peoples money does tend to spring to mind. copyright taxitalk magazine |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The alternative best practice guidance The best practice guidance seems to have ruffled a few feathers throughout the land. I believe what is more surprising is what is actually omitted from the consultation. The following proposals are for the consideration of my colleague Count Bartelli and his ever so obliging good lady. Personally, I don’t think people called Gerald should be allowed to drive taxis, there seems little reason for this, so my addition should fit right in there. It should also be frowned upon wearing football tops if you don’t come from within 40 miles of the team your wearing on your back, although I suppose this is technically within the realms of the zoning section. I understand shares at Manchester United dropped quite significantly after this suggestion. A startling miss from the best practice was the lack of guidance for when a driver passes wind whilst driving passengers. In various areas, the practice is to look at the passenger with disgust, whilst in others, it’s one of quietly lowering the drivers window in a casual manner. I personally support the banning of the English greeting to Scots of “och aye tha noo Jimmy”, with perhaps recommendation that Mr. Russ Abbot becomes a minister for English / Scots relations. It is rather difficult to see where this would fit into best practice for licensing though. The lack of planning in the best practice guidance is quite startling. The prospect of a meteor hitting the earth and leading to devastation is a very real prospect and personally I have nightmares about it. The best practice guidance shows a complete lack of regard and responsibility to this scenario. Surely there can be some-kind of guidance that will include a councils licensing preparedness towards this eventuality. A meteor may hit the earth causing devastation, but people will still need taxis. The best practice guidance consultation has also missed one of the largest concerns of the professionals of this industry (that’s me, the Bartelli’s and Mr. Cummin’s). This is the largest single threat to our industry, it’s those companies that spell cabs with a ‘K’. I try my level best to tell everyone how great you all are, how professional, and you go and spell cab with a ‘K’. It should be considered best practice for all taxi drivers to play golf. Although I understand a number of cab drivers are quite proficient at ‘pocket billiards’, it is not best practice to play this in view of the passenger as it may lead to proceedings. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|