JD wrote:
The case put forward for retention in Manchester was that of safety? It never went to court so we won't know what the final outcome would have been but if the judge in Durham case said an illuminated sign is all that is needed to distinguish the vehicle as a Taxi, it might be prudent to suggest that he may have entertained the thought that any other similar type vehicles running around Durham displaying illuminated roof signs might also be confused as Taxis so it leads me to think that all other such vehicles would be excluded from displaying any type of illuminated sign in Durham.
I don't doubt you on that, but on the other hand there are plenty of people associated with the trade in the country who seem to think that a roofsign is permissible as long as it's displayed with words like 'prior booking only', so it wouldn't be entirely surprising if a judge was to come to the same conclusion.
But irrespecitive of the Durham case, I think the roofsign question is symptomatic of the blurring of the edges between the two trades, and the presence or otherwise of a roofsign is only one facet of several issues that need to be considered.
For example, recently we've seen on here the PH 'ranks' in Kingston administered by the PCO and the setting of PH fares by the Scottish LA.
I mean, in Brighton if you phone for a taxi you can have the white car with the tellytubby green bonnet appearing one day, and a PH vehicle with roofsign, door advertising and taxi meter the next - even removing the roofsing leaves a distinct overlap between the two trades.
It's not so much the rules in Brighton per se, but that there's so much variation throughout the country - residents might know the difference, but a visitor there could be excused for thinking that the PH cars were taxis.
Login
Register
FAQ
