Taxi Driver Online

I notice that the revised Impact Assessment is now on the Law Commission's website :

http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/doc ... ssment.pdf

Version 2 stated that there are 300,000 taxi and PH badgeholders, but that industry employment is 250,000, because "industry evidence suggests this to be a reasonable estimate of those actively engaged".

The revised figure is the same, but it's been refined to the extent that it now refers to 250,000 full-time equivalent active drivers:



"Full-time equivalent active drivers" is an interesting idea. For a start I wonder what their assumption is regarding full-time hours, which presumably provides the basis for the full-time equivalent number of drivers?

For example, if three drivers worked 20 hours each per week, then if a full-time driver was assumed to do 40 hours then the three drivers would be treated as one and a half full-time equivalents. But if the full-time hours were assumed to be 60 per week, then the three part-timers would only be regarded as one full-time equivalent driver

And could one driver doing eighty hours (say) be regarded as two-full time equivalents? In which case it's possible that the LC could have come up with a figure stating there are more 'full-time equivalent' drivers than there are badges

And I wonder how they quantifed the amount of hours drivers were doing and how many of them there were doing however many hours per week.

Anyway, again they used the Office of National Statistics for UK consumer spending on taxis and PH and have used the population figures to quantify a pro rata figure for England and Wales only.

Then they've used various hugely convoluted techniques to come to a total revenue figure (ie including business and tourist spending), and it seems that they've used four different methods, using the driver number figure above and also a quantification based on average taxi fares which also contains numerous assumptions.

Anyway, the whole thing looks very complicated, and a full critique would clearly take some time, assuming anyone has the time and inclination to have a look.

But even glancing through it it looks like it wouldn't be difficult to pick holes in the various figures and assumptions, but the language the LC uses clearly indicates that they know the figures will never be much better than rough estimates, and there's caveats all over the place, but most importantly:



So anyone attempting any kind of reasoned critique should have great fun, but I suspect a bit of abuse is the more likely response in this thread

They they have been asked as to how many drivers across the country are receiving benefit .... they don't know.....

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

Are they saying private hire isn't competitive?

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

They go into it in more detail here:



Not really sure what they mean apart from perhaps increasing efficiency if there's no cross-border impediments.

As for the rest of it the only think I can really think of offhand is removing knowledge tests from PH drivers and thus taking advantage of GPS to do the job. In which case "greater expansion and competitiveness" to them would mean a greater number of more poorly paid serfs to us.

But I never got round to reading the full report, so I'm not sure what else is in there.

The LC dont seam that bright
Why dont they write to every licencing authority and get the correct numbers that way

The LAs don't really know any more than the LC about the data involved.

So if each was asked to supply data they'd probably all use different methods of estimating the figures, so the whole thing would be even messier.

Was just having a quick look at some of the figures and to be honest there's so many largely unexplained assumptions, estimates and averages used I don't really know why they've bothered.

Strange how the LC seem to believe the testing process of councils in respect of drivers is all about topographical knowledge - many include various questions about conditions of license.......I dont suppose a sat nav would answer those

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Because they cant do that from google

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Every LA will have the numbers of vehicles and more importantly the numbers of drivers, on there books.
So if the LC asks any council, all the council has to do is supply them in a like format Drivers 200, hacks 50 PH 100, then the LC can get the abacus out and get the correct figures

Description and scale of key monetised benefits by ‘main affected groups’
On-going benefit: Taxi users - Reduced waiting time, £1,987,960 (best estimate) ;Taxi trade - Reduced
regulatory burden, £25,000,000 per year (best estimate); Removal of unmet demand survey, £620,000 per
year (best estimate); Reduced assaults on taxi drivers.
Licensing bodies – Reduced enforcement expenditure and legal costs.

I have come to the conclusion...That the LC's train of thought must be that taxi and private hire drivers will be earning that little.... that nobody will bother to attack them.... I can't believe these people have any type of education at all.....

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

Isn't this met by the drivers anyway, in fact isn't most of the costs met by the drivers so apart from saving the drivers income what benefit is this?

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

It wont be after the new Cab Act comes in, and following the precedents set by the Guildford District Auditor (agreed with by gov).

SUD surveys will be funded by council tax money, there is no enforcement get out in SUD surveys.

In short, if a council wants to restrict, then they will have to pay for SUD surveys out of central council taxi funds.

That said, I doubt SUD surveys as we know them will survive in the new Act, whether or not restrictions stay.

_________________
IDFIMH

More caveats than I have ever seen in any document, but I still think they have erred very much on the low side in respect of the trade's actual revenue.

Exactly what that adds to the party I no not, but it is IMO about 20% out.

_________________
IDFIMH

be nice to know how many drivers and owners are claiming income support......because round here theres a good few.

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

There are lies, damn lies and statistics (Duke of Wellington I think).
With your way of slanting things Dusty, you would appear to have missed a great career as a statistician - the world just does not know what it missed.

Of course that does not mean I don't agree with you.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related