Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Thu May 07, 2026 11:51 pm

Board index » General » News

All times are UTC [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
captain cab
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 9:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
Cheltenham draws up new rules for licensing rickshaws


NEW rules are being drawn up to cope with the impending introduction of rickshaws to the streets of Cheltenham.

The borough council has been forced to come up with the new regulations after concluding the cycle taxis could not be treated the same as private hire vehicles or hackney carriages.

It means the start of the transport scheme has been delayed.

The news comes as the company behind the new service prepares to demonstrate its service this weekend as part of the town's Diamond Jubilee celebrations.

James Meyer, director of Rickshaw Revolution, said: "The fact that the licensing authority is taking so long to decide on a small number of important restrictions and considerations doesn't seem to be in the spirit of getting a great idea going as quickly as possible."

Rickshaw taxis must be licenced as drivers will be collecting fares.

But hackney carriage rules would mean the passenger would be allowed to demand a ride to anywhere, rather than the intended short distances.

Cheltenham Borough Council licensing and business support team leader, Louis Krog, said: "There is a statutory duty on the council to licence 'every wheeled carriage, whatever may be its form or construction, used in standing or plying for hire in any street within the prescribed distance'."

Rickshaws have required a licence since a landmark court case involving Cambridge City Council in 1999.

The Cheltenham scheme, which licensing bosses have been wrangling with for about three months, will be a profit-making enterprise and has been backed by traders from the Montpellier Association.

Each of the rickshaws costs £3,000 and has to be shipped from China. The company has one, with two more on order.

When the scheme is up-and-running, which is likely to be in July, there could be a small fleet running, with a regular shuttle service from the town centre to Montpellier, the Suffolks and even as far as Bath Road.

Montpellier Association spokesman Mark Daniel said: "Apparently the council wanted to cram the rickshaws into the same rules as taxis, but that would not have worked. There will be a test service during the jubilee."

source: http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/ ... story.html

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin
Top
 Profile  
 
edders23
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 10:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:47 pm
Posts: 20868
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
Interesting development so this council is going to try and create another vehicle category specially for rickshaws is that legal ?

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector
Top
 Profile  
 
grandad
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 12:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 20130
edders23 wrote:
Interesting development so this council is going to try and create another vehicle category specially for rickshaws is that legal ?

Some councils created seperate categories for Limousines.

_________________
Grandad,
Top
 Profile  
 
gusmac
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 1:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
They could just refuse to licence them :idea:

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image
Top
 Profile  
 
bloodnock
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 5:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 8:15 pm
Posts: 9170
Best solution for rickshaws?...a Road Roller!
Top
 Profile  
 
captain cab
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 6:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
R v Cambridge City Council ex parte Lane [1999] RTR 182.

Mr Lane applied to the Cambridge City Council for licences to ply pedicabs for hire on the streets of Cambridge. He and the Council differed over the terms of the licences as a result of which he applied for judicial review of the Council's decisions.

A judge of the Administrative Court ruled that pedicabs came within the definition of "hackney carriages" contained in the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847, a statute which applies in Cambridge and other parts of the country, but not in London.

The definition of a "hackney carriage" contained within the 1847 Act is significantly different from that which appears in section 4 of the 1869 Act.

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin
Top
 Profile  
 
Sussex
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 7:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57375
Location: 1066 Country
captain cab wrote:
Cheltenham Borough Council licensing and business support team leader, Louis Krog, said: "There is a statutory duty on the council to licence 'every wheeled carriage, whatever may be its form or construction, used in standing or plying for hire in any street within the prescribed distance'."

Really? :?

_________________
IDFIMH
Top
 Profile  
 
captain cab
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 7:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
HELD: That a trishaw service operated for hire on restricted routes let for hire at separate fares fell within the "omnibus" legislation of the TPCA 1889.

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin
Top
 Profile  
 
Sussex
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 7:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57375
Location: 1066 Country
captain cab wrote:
HELD: That a trishaw service operated for hire on restricted routes let for hire at separate fares fell within the "omnibus" legislation of the TPCA 1889.

Which, according to Mr Button, was repealed via the 1985 Trans Act.

_________________
IDFIMH
Top
 Profile  
 
captain cab
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 8:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
Sussex wrote:
captain cab wrote:
HELD: That a trishaw service operated for hire on restricted routes let for hire at separate fares fell within the "omnibus" legislation of the TPCA 1889.

Which, according to Mr Button, was repealed via the 1985 Trans Act.



What was the date of the court case?

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin
Top
 Profile  
 
Sussex
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57375
Location: 1066 Country
captain cab wrote:
Sussex wrote:
captain cab wrote:
HELD: That a trishaw service operated for hire on restricted routes let for hire at separate fares fell within the "omnibus" legislation of the TPCA 1889.

Which, according to Mr Button, was repealed via the 1985 Trans Act.

What was the date of the court case?

I agree it was after 1985, but an omnibus is a bus, and in the 1985 act any bus must have an engine.

I'm guessing they missed that bit.

_________________
IDFIMH
Top
 Profile  
 
captain cab
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
http://www.sefton.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=5269

Omnibus Carriage Vehicle Licence

Any horse drawn or pedicab omnibus vehicles are required by law to be licensed by us to stand or ply for hire along permitted routes.

At the present time the only approved routes are within the tourist areas in Southport. These vehicles must charge at separate fares (per passenger).


http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Adm ... /2865.html

The Council granted Mr Lane preliminary licences for one vehicle and one driver, himself, for a 6-month trial period. Differences later arose between the Council and Mr Lane as to the operation of the service. The Council published its decision to grant preliminary licences subject to conditions which were objectionable to Mr Lane. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the city council had the power to licence the service and to impose the conditions it did. Resolution of the issue turned on the question of whether Mr Lane's vehicles were to be regarded as hackney carriages or as stagecoaches within the meaning of section 38 Town Police Clauses Act 1847 which reads as follows:

"Every wheeled carriage, whatever may be its form or construction, used in standing or plying for hire in any street within the prescribed distance, having thereon any numbered plate required by this or the special Act to be fixed upon a hackney carriage, or having thereon any plate resembling or intended to resemble any such plate as aforesaid, shall be deemed to be a hackney carriage within the meaning of this Act; and in all proceedings at law or otherwise the term 'hackney carriage' shall be sufficient to describe any such carriage: Provided always, that no stagecoach used for the purpose of standing or plying for passengers to be carried for hire at separate fares, and duly licensed for that purpose, and having thereon the proper numbered plates required by law to be placed on such stagecoaches, shall be deemed to be a hackney carriage within the meaning of this Act."

The decision reached by the court was that the trishaw was a hackney carriage for the purposes of the 1847 Act. Accordingly, it was subject to licence under section 37 of that Act and the City Council had power to impose the conditions it did under sections 47 and 59 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. However, the grounds upon which the court concluded that the trishaw was not a stagecoach are not readily ascertainable.

At page 7 of the transcript, page 145 of the appeal bundle, the Vice Chancellor said:

"The question arises in this appeal (in any event it may be the critical question) whether, within the meaning of the language used in the 1847 Act, Mr Lane's trishaws can be regarded as 'stagecoaches'. One only has to put that question to have an almost irresistible urge to start laughing. Whatever one may envisage as a stagecoach, it will be a long way removed from Mr Lane's trishaws. But Miss Baxendale has asked us to concentrate, not on the concept of the stagecoach, but rather on the part of the proviso that refers to passengers being carried 'for hire at separate fares'. She says that, if a wheeled vehicle is standing or plying for passengers to be carried for hire at separate fares, it is within the proviso, and therefore excluded from the regime of the 1847 Act, whether or not it is what one would have in mind as a stagecoach. I will come back to this question after I have described the other relevant statutory provisions".

Having reviewed successive and interrelated statutory provisions, the Vice Chancellor continued at page 13 of the transcript, page 151 of the appeal bundle:

"I am unable to accept that Mr Lane's trishaws are stagecoaches for the purpose of this proviso. I accept for present purposes that his trishaws may be vehicles 'standing or plying for passengers to be carried for hire at separate fares'. I would simply say of that that the evidence is not very satisfactory. That may be because attention was not paid to this point at the time that the evidence was originally being prepared. But accepting in Mr Lane's favour that his trishaws are vehicles standing or plying for passengers to be carried for hire at separate fares, they are not, in my judgment, stagecoaches. The approach which Miss Baxendale urged on us was that 'stagecoach' should be treated as covering every wheeled carriage, of whatever character, used for the specified purpose, namely, carriage for hire at separate fares. I am unable to accept that. If that was what Parliament meant, there was no reason why Parliament should in the proviso have singled out stagecoaches from other wheeled carriages referred to in the 'hackney carriage' definition. I remain of the view that I formed on a preliminary footing when I first read section 38, that, whatever a 'stagecoach' might include, it did not include a trishaw, the combination of rickshaw and tricycle, which is the vehicle by means of which Mr Lane desires to offer the service to the public in Cambridge. Nor, for that matter, would a rickshaw be a 'stagecoach'."
The court seems to proceed upon the basis that the very idea that a three-wheeled carriage propelled by foot-operated pedals should be a stagecoach was ludicrous. The question for me is whether the District Judge and this court are bound to apply that construction of section 38 to the terms of sections 4 and 7 of the Act of 1869.

The District Judge found that the Court of Appeal's judgment was confined to the operation of the proviso of section 38 of the 1847 Act. Unlike section 4 of the 1869 Act, section 38 did not attempt to define the term "stagecoach". It was open to the court in ex parte Lane to reach its own conclusion: what nature of vehicle was contemplated by the term "stagecoach". In section 4 of the 1869 Act, a stage carriage was defined to mean any carriage for the conveyance of passengers which, (1) plied for hire in London, (2) in which passengers were separately charged. In other words, in connection with section 4 of the 1869 Act, Parliament was doing what the Vice Chancellor would have required before he regarded section 38 as a definition section, as submitted by counsel in that appeal.

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin
Top
 Profile  
 
captain cab
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
Sussex wrote:

I'm guessing they missed that bit.



It would appear the NALEO book is wrong as the Bugbugs case appears to describe a pedicab as a Hackney Carriage;

The decision reached by the court was that the trishaw was a hackney carriage for the purposes of the 1847 Act. Accordingly, it was subject to licence under section 37 of that Act and the City Council had power to impose the conditions it did under sections 47 and 59 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. However, the grounds upon which the court concluded that the trishaw was not a stagecoach are not readily ascertainable.

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin
Top
 Profile  
 
gusmac
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 6:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
captain cab wrote:
Sussex wrote:

I'm guessing they missed that bit.



It would appear the NALEO book is wrong as the Bugbugs case appears to describe a pedicab as a Hackney Carriage;

The decision reached by the court was that the trishaw was a hackney carriage for the purposes of the 1847 Act. Accordingly, it was subject to licence under section 37 of that Act and the City Council had power to impose the conditions it did under sections 47 and 59 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. However, the grounds upon which the court concluded that the trishaw was not a stagecoach are not readily ascertainable.


Shame you guys don't have our 1982 act which defines Taxis and PH as

    23(1) In sections 10 to 22 of this Act:-
    “taxi” means a hire car which is engaged, by arrangements made in a public place between the person to be conveyed in it (or a person acting on his behalf) and its driver for a journey beginning there and then; and
    “private hire car” means a hire car other than a taxi within the meaning of this subsection.
    (2) In subsection (1) above, “hire car” means a motor vehicle with a driver (other than a vehicle being a public service vehicle within the meaning of section 1(1)(a) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981) which is, with a view to profit, available for hire by the public for personal conveyance.

So, if it doesn't have a motor, it can't be licensed as a taxi or private hire.

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image
Top
 Profile  
 
captain cab
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
gusmac wrote:

Shame you guys don't have our 1982 act which defines Taxis and PH as


So, if it doesn't have a motor, it can't be licensed as a taxi or private hire.



So you shot all the horses? :wink:

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Board index » General » News

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 948 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group