Taxi Driver Online

Taxi driver who injured pedestrian and lied to ‘cover up the incident’ can go back to work after 12-week suspension

A taxi driver involved in a road collision which injured a pedestrian will be free to resume his job after a 12-week suspension.

A Bolton Council licensing panel heard that following the incident the driver gave false information while being interviewed and failed to inform the council within the specified period. The panel expressed ‘concern’ at ‘the level he had gone to to cover up the incident’ during which a pedestrian sustained a bone fracture.

The driver has 20 years experience and the meeting heard he ‘had never had a previous incident’. Details of the hearing held on October 29 have been published by the council in the past week.

The panel of councillors looked into alleged ‘misconduct’ by a private hire driver.

Published minutes of the hearing, said: “The committee believe that the driver did collide with a pedestrian in his vehicle based on the information from the passenger witness, the injured party and the police. “The injured party sustained a fracture which the committee felt was consistent with a vehicle collision and the committee was most concerned with the driver’s honesty and the level he had gone to to cover up the incident.

“The driver provided false information when interviewed and failed to comply with the conditions of his licence. “The driver failed to inform the council of the incident within the initial 72 hours.”

The driver and two representatives attended the meeting. The panel were told of the driver’s incident free 20 years of driving.

A motion to revoke the taxi driver’s licence completely was defeated by a majority of six to three councillors. The report, added: “The committee therefore did not wish to revoke the driver’s licences entirely but rather sanction for the collision, dishonesty and failure to notify.

“There is therefore reasonable cause to suspend the drivers private hire drivers licence and the private hire vehicle for a period of 12 weeks.”

_________________
IDFIMH

fit and proper ?

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

A good example of why I just don't trust the system. Nothing in the article to suggest that the driver was to blame for the collision, but it's made to sound like he was.

But which, on the other hand, is maybe why he got off pretty lightly, and presumably mainly for failing to disclose the incident, etc.

Many years ago a similar but more serious incident happened locally which involved the death of the pedestrian and a driver,friends family working together to try and cover it up. In my mind the attempted "cover up" suggests this driver isn't totally honest hence my querying fit and proper.

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

On the other hand, each case should be judged on its merits, and there's nothing in the article to suggest that the driver was any way at fault for the collision. And it certainly reads like there was no police action in that regard.

By the same token, maybe the reason he was dishonest about it is because he didn't think he'd get a fair hearing. To the extent of the above I think he's vindicated

But all of which in turn is maybe he got off with what in the grand scheme of things is little more than a slapped wrist.

I mean, if it genuinely was the driver's fault, and he lied about it, then I'm sure plenty of councils would have revoked...