Taxi Driver Online

I know there's a previous thread, but three great quotes in this one

A couple of huge graphics, so links only, and although they've generally got the terminology right here, in the graphic they've added numbers from both codes together to give the total number of 'taxis'

I quite like the description 'app-based service Uber', though

None of that 'ride-hailing' pish for a change


Should there be a cap on the number of taxis operating in Glasgow?

https://news.stv.tv/west-central/counci ... in-glasgow

Taxi firms, including Glasgow Taxis and the private hire trade, have urged councillors to retain the cap to protect the trade from overprovision.

The public is being urged to give their thoughts on the number of taxis on the streets of Glasgow.

The city is currently the only in the UK to operate a license cap on the number of black hackney taxis and private hire cabs allowed to operate.

Now an open consultation is asking for thoughts on the current limits to be submitted.

Taxi firms, including Glasgow Taxis and the private hire trade, have urged councillors to retain the cap to protect the trade from overprovision.

However, app-based service Uber say the cap is preventing many drivers from entering the trade.

There are currently 4,677 black hack taxis and private hires in Glasgow that’s down from 5,179 in 2019.

https://news.stv.tv/wp-content/uploads/ ... 176246.jpg

Under council rules taxi numbers can reach a limit of 1,420. For private hires that number is 3,450.

The private hire numbers are currently at the limit meaning over 680 bids for new licenses have been rejected over the past year. But the number of black hacks is currently below the limit at 1,227.

“I think it’s important that we get feedback from the public regarding the availability of taxis out there and private hire cabs,” said councillor Alex Wilson, chair of Glasgow City Council’s Licensing and Regulatory Committee.

“Probably about 90% of those in the trade would like the current cap to remain. Whether that is still valid at the moment, we don’t know we’ll have to check that with the results of this consultation.”

He added: “For me, I think it would be dangerous to maybe just reopen it up completely and allow the likes of app-based companies to flood the market.”

Those in the nighttime economy have urged for reform of the current limits to help boost footfall to the city centre.

Mike Grieve, managing director of the famous Glasgow nightclub Sub Club, said he recognised the need for greater public transport options as well as taxis.

On the consultation he told STV News: “I think it’s really important that anything that can be done to increase access to the city and, in particular, to increase egress out of the city after dark is vital.”

Dougie McPherson, chairman of Glasgow Taxis, said the reasons for a drop in city centre footfall at night for due more to changing behaviours than a lack of taxis.

https://news.stv.tv/wp-content/uploads/ ... 180258.jpg

He said: “We think that listing the cap would be entirely the wrong move.

“There is a cost of living crisis there’s no doubt about that and since the pandemic what people do and how they socialise and how the spend their money has very much changed.

“So the lack of footfall is down to a whole load of other reasons which come way before a lack of transport.”

He added: “If the cap was lifted completely, in a year or two it will become more difficult to get a taxi because people will leave the trade because it will be impossible for them to support their families.”

However, Uber have advocated for the cap to be lifted.

Matt Frecklenton, Uber’s Head of Cities told STV News: “We don’t see this flooding the market at all.

“We be believe by allowing drivers to get their own vehicles licensed that will provide them with increased job security and to increase their income as well.”

He added: “We’ve got to remember that the city is bringing back to Commonwealth Games in 2026 and we’ve got to make sure when there’s a huge influx of people coming into the city that their first impression of Glasgow is one that is that Glasgow is going places and is on the move.”

An Uber spokesperson said: “Enabling more private hire vehicles provide new earning opportunities for local drivers, give passengers greater transport options and support local businesses, in particular in the night time economy.

“All drivers will have access to industry leading worker rights such as holiday pay and a pension, as well as formal representation through GMB Union. More passengers will be able to count on a safe trip through a range of industry-leading safety features.”

The Glasgow City Council consultation can be viewed here.

Obviously it was the right people flooding the market previously

But anything to pander to the fleet owners with a couple of hundred cars, and to stop those 680 applicants running their own car. Taxi Serfs R Us


Oh, that old chestnut. More cars actually means less cars

Haven't heard that since, er, I was shafted by Dundee's equivalent cartel back in the mid-1990s


For once on here I'm utterly speechless. Something from an Uber spokesman I can wholeheartedly agree with

(And if you think I've misspelt his name, can't be bothered looking it up, but just copied and pasted it from the article, and pretty sure it's wrong...the 'n' is rogue?

And I'd guess that the 'chair' will be miffed with that description in the article, particularly since he's SNP...convener in Scotland, innit?

And on a similarly pedantic note, I've used the term PHV in the thread title, as opposed to the Scottish legislation's PHC. I'd guess the average reader on here might wonder what PHC stands for, precisely )

Blog: Quasi-Judicial and Regulatory Decision-Making

https://www.standardscommissionscotland ... ion-making

Why the Councillors’ Code has a Separate Section on Quasi-Judicial and Regulatory Decision-Making

Section 7 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct outlines what councillors should do when making decisions on quasi-judicial or regulatory matters. These types of decisions typically involve planning or licensing applications, such as ones concerning planning, alcohol licensing, applications for betting and gaming premises, and taxi licences.

Why is there a whole section in the Code on this subject?

Decisions on quasi-judicial or regulatory matters, such as the types outlined above, can often have a significant impact on the applicant and other members of the public and can often be controversial. There are formal legal routes beyond the Council’s own appeal process to challenge a decision made on a quasi-judicial or regulatory matter. This means that the decisions, and the conduct of those who make them, may be subject to intense scrutiny by the Court, applicants, objectors and the press.

A failure to observe the terms of the Code, or any perception that decisions have not been made fairly and on the application’s own individual merits, could result in a challenge against the Council’s decision. Such a challenge could have significant cost implications, as well as having an adverse effect on public confidence in the Council and on the reputations of the individual councillors involved in the decision-making. It should be noted that even if any such a challenge is ultimately unsuccessful, it is likely that the Council will still incur costs.

What does the Code require?

In order to reduce the risk of the decision being challenged, councillors are obliged to make quasi-judicial or regulatory decisions objectively and with an open mind. Decisions must be based solely on the merits of the individual case and in accordance with the law and the Council’s policies and procedures. Importantly, councillors must not make decisions based on their own private interests or the interests of any friends, family or associates.

The Code lists what councillors must and must not do when making quasi-judicial and regulatory decisions. Councillors should always bear in mind, and adhere to, the Key Principles set out at Section 2 of the Code and, in particular the principles of Integrity, Objectivity, and Openness, when taking decisions on quasi-judicial or regulatory matters.

Councillors must:

• Act fairly and be seen to act fairly throughout the entire application process. This includes when interacting with any parties involved.

• Declare any financial or non-financial interest (including the interests of any friends, family and close associates). If a councillor has declared an interest, they are not allowed to take part in the discussion or decision-making and must leave the meeting until the matter has been determined.

• Take account of all the material and relevant facts, evidence, opinions and policies and any professional advice given by council employees, before making a decision on the merits of the application at the meeting where it is to be determined.

• Be able to give clear and adequate reasons for their decisions.

Councillors must not:

• Pre-judge or demonstrate bias or be seen to pre-judge or demonstrate bias. They should not reach a conclusion on an application until all available information is to hand and has been considered properly by them at the meeting where the application is to be considered.

• Indicate or imply support for, or opposition to an application, or indicate their voting intention before the meeting at which the application is to be considered. This includes not attempting to influence council employees to make a particular recommendation, or trying to persuade other councillors to take a certain decision.

• Consider irrelevant and inappropriate matters, such as what may be reported by the press, or what might be popular with voters.

It is perfectly legitimate for councillors to engage with applicants, objectors and other interested parties before making decisions. They must, however, make it clear to those who may be seeking to influence them that they will not make any decision on any particular application until all information is available and has been duly considered at the relevant meeting.

While councillors are entitled to hold a preliminary view on a matter in advance of the meeting at which the decision will be taken, they must keep an open mind. They must be prepared to consider, at the meeting, the merits of all views and representations made about the application to be considered before making their decision.

There may be times where a councillor either has been involved in organising support for or opposition to an application, or wishes to do so. In those circumstances the councillor must declare an interest and they cannot take part in the decision-making. Section 7 of the Code also outlines what councillors should and should not do when they are representing individuals or groups who are parties to, or oppose, an application.

You might, not sure Uber drivers would -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9jdyzzdgvo



In fairness, Dougie McPherson could probably have come up with a better argument. Like why HCs are lagging 200-odd under the current limit.

In what way would it be dangerous? Maybe the councillor could expand on that view?

I get it could be concerning to some in the trade who don't like competition, but dangerous?

_________________
IDFIMH

Haven't read this little nugget for a few years.

So more cabs means fewer cabs.

_________________
IDFIMH

Clearly, certain councillors in Glasgow give that a bit of a swerve.

_________________
IDFIMH

Agree that line doesn’t really persuade.

My take would be: there’s 100% of 3450 PHCs and 86% (1227) of 1420 HCs with the present limits. Then say they +1000 both limits on the back of this survey - everyone wants more PHCs and taxis after all.

But the likely outcome would be 100% of 4450 PHCs and 50% (1227) of 2420 HCs. All the PHC applicants who were previously refused get plates and hit the road. PHC takings get diluted and they squeeze the remaining HC takings more. So even less incentive to buy a taxi than now and ... HC numbers stick or fall again.

While I remember, the survey asks -

Do you think that the Licensing Authority should continue to operate the current policy limiting the number of taxi vehicles in the city of Glasgow to 1,227?

You'd think the council would know their own limit is 1420 - or maybe they don't

The reality is that nothing much would change in terms of supply and earnings even if both caps were removed. The HC point is self-evident, but as regards PH, it would largely be about drivers getting their own plate, less rental cars and no plate rentals or sales etc.

So it would just be a case of rearranging the furniture rather than really 'diluting' earnings. Unless you mean diluting earnings from plate sales and rentals etc

I mean, there's been an HC cap here in NE Fife for twenty years now, yet even the council are still moaning that there's not enough drivers

And even the Glasgow survey advocating recruiting more drivers, while retaining the vehicle cap, so it's obvious what it's all about

+ 1000 PHCs wouldn’t change supply and earnings? You need to walk me through that one.

When did I say that, Mr XH558? I didn't mention your extra 1,000 PHC figure because my point was a bit more nuanced

OK, so more to the point, if both caps were lifted, how many more drivers would there be (please state both additional HC and PH drivers)? And how do you quantify those figures, and what is your methodology?

(Obviously only ball park numbers required, because no one can know precisely.)

Take two – walk me through this one without sea-lioning or moving the goalposts around

OK, simple question - what difference does it make to supply if a driver is in his own car or someone else's?

I think this is just a rehash of a previous statement from the SPHA.

Except for the Uber angle


Private hire drivers urge council to keep the limit on cars

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/250 ... imit-cars/

Private hire drivers in Glasgow have warned against a ‘race to the bottom’ if the council lifts the cars in the city.

The overprovision cap limits the number of private hire cars in the city to 2450 and taxis at 1420.

Following concerns from city centre hospitality businesses, the cap is being reviewed and could be scrapped altogether.

Last week, the Glasgow Times reported Uber calling for it to be removed altogether, stating there was enough work for hundreds more.

The call has sparked anger among private hire drivers who fear earnings will be driven down as the market is saturated with cars and drivers.

The Scottish Private Hire Association (SPHA) has challenged Uber's claims.

Eddie Grice of the SPHA, said: “Uber's primary metric is extreme efficiency at any cost.

"However, the cost of such radical efficiency is an oversaturated fleet of drivers, spread across the city, sitting idle for prolonged periods. That causes a dramatic reduction in driver earnings.

“Experience in other cities proves this. There needs to be a balance between efficient pickup times and forcing drivers to work longer hours to make a living. The plate cap has been the best tool in helping achieve that balance."

The association said drivers will be forced to work longer hours to make a profit with serious implications.

He added: “Deregulation of the plate cap will lead us to a race to the bottom. Drivers are dealing with rising insurance premiums, high vehicle purchase costs, a cost-of-doing-business crisis and a cost-of-living crisis.

“Abolishing the cap will worsen the financial strain, leading to increased hours on the road.

“This compromises vehicle and passenger safety. A less reliable service overall and compromised public safety are direct consequences of an oversaturated fleet."

The hospitality businesses want more cars available in the city centre at weekends later at night.

But the drivers' representatives have said allowing more cars to ensure reduced waiting times at peak times ignores the reality of trying to earn a living as a driver.

They said it will simply mean even more drivers sitting idle during the quieter weekdays.

Mr Grice said: “We should not be trying to serve peak demand at any and all costs, but trying to balance supply and demand in a way that maintains a sustainable livelihood for drivers across the entire week and ensuring public safety is not being put at risk."

Councillors will meet in the coming months to consider the results of the consultation.

Mr Grice added: "We urge Glasgow City Council to keep the plate cap. We urge them to look after the drivers and passengers of this city and to pay little attention to arguments that only aim to serve the multinational shareholders of a private firm."

Don't want to be accused of sealioning , but I wonder how many plates Uber has? And how many certain Glasgow-based fleet owners have?

I'd guess the answer to the first question is zero...

Anyone know the answer to the second?

(And anyone unaware of what sealioning is, this is a link to the classic cartoon I think it's based on:

https://wondermark.com/wp-content/uploa ... 062sea.png

I wonder what the term is for those accusing people of sealioning to avoid answering awkward questions )