Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Thu Dec 12, 2019 4:15 pm

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 26, 2003 9:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 44164
Location: 1066 Country
Anonymous wrote:
Still browns me off where CabForce cannot see the difference between de limitation and de regulation.


Mr Guest, to be honest sometimes I even get the wording wrong. :roll:

The problem arises with the term 'de-regulation', when it used by some to confuse and scare people.

When it's used between members of the trade, hopefully it's assumed that it doesn't mean the ending of all standards.

Just the ending of number restrictions. :wink:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 26, 2003 9:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 44164
Location: 1066 Country
Wharfie wrote:
I dont want us to do anything particularly I was commenting on your playing with London numbers and your conclusions which I thought was very flawed, over simplistic you added 2 and 2 and got 5.

since this was pointed out you have made eroneous statements, like am I refering to cof, no I wasnt, now its do you want 3 year knowledge, no there wont be a trade left, this will be followed by anither wild suggestion no doubt.

but London asd has been pointed b4 is different you want to adopt our norms to thier trade, so of course does licensing departments.

its a mistake they have rules relevant to thier area, I d like rules relevant to mine.


It was you who mentioned London. All I asked is what they do or have that is so bad for the rest of us.

Most say the KOL equivalent we could do without , some say the COF, but apart from that I can't see the difference.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 26, 2003 10:33 pm 
[quote="Taxi Driver Online"]Read CABforce's OFT response here:

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/cabforce.htm

It seems to me that the official response given to this report by Cabforce is totally inaccurate and extremely bias.

Just to remedy the inaccuracies I would like to point out that the department of trade on behalf of the Government commissioned the report. The report is not about what is best for Taxi drivers; it is about what is best for the public. I think anyone with an open mind would welcome this report as being in the public interest. It seems that those cab drivers who work in the regulated Authorities are the only ones against this report.

The report also explains that the limitation of Hackney carriages was brought about because of the congestion caused by horse drawn carriages in the eighteen hundreds. The OFT went on to say they see no reason why that practice should apply in this day and age. The OFT report also went into the waiting list structure for hackney Carriage proprietor licences. The OFT made the correct correlation that restricting licences nurtured a highly lucrative black market in hackney licences which benefited a minority of people. They also concluded that restricting such licences was in effect against the law. Hence the directive from the OFT for local Authorities to deregulate Taxi numbers immediately.

It may have escaped some peoples memory that the three lines in the 1985 transport act only allows councils to restrict taxi numbers if they can prove there is no demand which is unmet. This small paragraph was only added at the latter stages of the bill being enacted. Those three lines were added because of pressure brought to bear from certain Peers in the House of Lords lobbying on behalf the Taxi Trade. It was inevitable that sooner or later those three lines would go. The OFT report blows a big hole in the survey approach councils use to restrict numbers.

Restriction of Taxi numbers has always been a contentious issue and probably always will be but the people who seem to always bark the loudest when it is mentioned are those with a vested interested. The person who wrote this Cabforce article certainly has a vested interest, in effect he’s saying you can’t have a licence off the council you have to come and buy one off me or my associates.

Watch this space, the decision by councils to restrict Taxi numbers may be taken out of their hands within the next ten weeks.

John Davies. Manchester. Taxi Proprietor for 25 years.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 27, 2003 12:24 am 
Anonymous wrote:
Still browns me off where CabForce cannot see the difference between de limitation and de regulation.


Oh, CABforce can most definitely see the difference between de-restriction and de-regulation.

What is being proposed is the former, not the latter.

We support the status quo. But one where the licensing authority is prepared to work WITH the trade for the benefit of its customers and those who work in it.

Should numbers be derestricted, then we would propose that the FULL extent of the OFT report should be adopted. This includes de-restricting vehicle types etc.

We will also be resisting attempts to restict the trade by putting in place stricter meausres for those wishing to enter it eg. a stiffer driver skills training course.

If market forces are the order of the day, then those market forces should hold true for ALL aspects of the trade.

Final thought. Can you honestly believe that a council will willingly give up power to regulate, when it doesn't have to?

In Scotland it doesn't have to.

Not sure about England though?

Ladies and Gentlemen, my Labour supporting father and grandfather are surely turning in their graves!!!


8)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 27, 2003 3:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 11:04 pm
Posts: 725
Location: Essex, England
Anonymous wrote:

Oh, CABforce can most definitely see the difference between de-restriction and de-regulation.

We will also be resisting attempts to restict the trade by putting in place stricter meausres for those wishing to enter it eg. a stiffer driver skills training course.

8)


So, you agree with quantitative controls, but disagree with qualitative controls?

_________________
There is Significant Unmet Demand for my Opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 27, 2003 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 44164
Location: 1066 Country
Anonymous wrote:
It may have escaped some peoples memory that the three lines in the 1985 transport act only allows councils to restrict taxi numbers if they can prove there is no demand which is unmet. This small paragraph was only added at the latter stages of the bill being enacted. Those three lines were added because of pressure brought to bear from certain Peers in the House of Lords lobbying on behalf the Taxi Trade. It was inevitable that sooner or later those three lines would go. The OFT report blows a big hole in the survey approach councils use to restrict numbers.


An extremely valid point John.

Some in our trade believe that a phased de-limitation could help out those who have bought plates in the last few years.

To be honest I don't think that such a view is that un-reasonable, even though I disagree with it.

However my view is that the 1985 Act was the start of what we are approaching soon, and it could be said that the phased de-limitation started in 1985.

And will end soon. :D :D :D

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 27, 2003 4:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 44164
Location: 1066 Country
Anonymous wrote:
Restriction of Taxi numbers has always been a contentious issue and probably always will be but the people who seem to always bark the loudest when it is mentioned are those with a vested interested. The person who wrote this Cabforce article certainly has a vested interest, in effect he’s saying you can’t have a licence off the council you have to come and buy one off me or my associates.


Or come and drive my car for a pittance. :(

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 27, 2003 5:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 44164
Location: 1066 Country
Anonymous wrote:
Should numbers be de-restricted, then we would propose that the FULL extent of the OFT report should be adopted. This includes de-restricting vehicle types etc.

We will also be resisting attempts to restrict the trade by putting in place stricter measures for those wishing to enter it eg. a stiffer driver skills training course.

If market forces are the order of the day, then those market forces should hold true for ALL aspects of the trade.

Final thought. Can you honestly believe that a council will willingly give up power to regulate, when it doesn't have to?

In Scotland it doesn't have to.

Not sure about England though?

Ladies and Gentlemen, my Labour supporting father and grandfather are surely turning in their graves!!!



As the government gave out a long list of councils (in England and Wales) that must go WAV by 2010/2020, just before the OFT report, one has to assume that the chances of the big cities having mixed saloon/WAV fleets are nil.

I would have hoped (but know different) that we already have the highest standards of drivers. Perhaps we need to ask why we don't already.

The common reason in restricted areas, is the 'too many cabs, not enough drivers' mentality. Where the greedy plate holders want more drivers for themselves, but no more plates for those drivers.

I thought the findings of the OFT study said that vehicle and drivers standards are best set locally, within certain parameters from Gov i.e. WAVs or not, CRBs, min age and driving experience.

If your Labour father and forefathers are turning in their graves, then it truly will be a good start to the year.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 10:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 2:20 pm
Posts: 3272
Anonymous wrote:
We will also be resisting attempts to restict the trade by putting in place stricter meausres for those wishing to enter it eg. a stiffer driver skills training course.

If market forces are the order of the day, then those market forces should hold true for ALL aspects of the trade.



So you want another Dublin or a London minicab trade everywhere?

All that's required is reasonable standards for cars and drivers, and you'll have a good service with reasonably remunerated drivers.

All restricted numbers do is allow the minority in the trade to milk the majority, well that's certainly the case in many areas.

Dusty


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 10:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 2:20 pm
Posts: 3272
Anonymous wrote:

Final thought. Can you honestly believe that a council will willingly give up power to regulate, when it doesn't have to?

In Scotland it doesn't have to.

Not sure about England though?



As I've being saying since before CABforce even seemed to be aware of the OFT study, the legal position is the same in England as in Scotland.

Even the Scottish Taxi Federation will get it - eventually!

Dusty


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 4:35 pm 
Dusty

You're simply wrong. We have in our possession a letter from Edinburgh Council which clearly states that the decision whether to adopt the OFT proposals is entirely down to Scottish Ministers. The position is therefore not the same as England.

While we're about it. I admit to having a vested interest in the trade. I had hoped to work in it for the next 15-20 years. No, I am not a taxi vehicle licence holder - just a jockey.

We do know the difference between de-restriction and de-regulation. What we are discussing here is de-restriction of the numbers of taxis.

We believe that it is bad for the consumer. More taxis chasing the same work will assuredly lead to lower incomes and lower quality. The alternative would be to hike tariffs to maintain earnings at levels which will provide the incentive for full time working. The report points to the largest part of the customer base belonging to lower income groups who are not car owners. How is it in their interests to have fares hiked dramatically, just so they only have to wait 5 mins instead of 10 mins at the few peak times? Did anyone ask them?

And I'm quite happy to sit on a rank waiting for fewer fares to earn the same money.


What about wheelchair compatibility? Wouldn't the first casualty of reduced revenues be the expensive purpose built hackney taxi vehicle? Saloons or people carriers? Not ideal. Could it herald the end of the hackney taxi as we know it? Do we really care? Does the consumer?

Notwithstanding our dogmatic dictatorial council, the basic structure of our taxi service in Edinburgh is substantially sound. There has been NO clamour from our travelling public. This whole exercise is entirely due to the pursuit of free market dogma. Dogma that has already failed dramatically elsewhere in public transport ie bus and train services. The evidence is there for all to see. Do we really need this nonsense in the taxi trade?

Or should we all just embrace the OFT reprt and end up working for foreign money launderers and criminal elements who would gain control of our trade over a shorter timescale than you would imagine?

Jasbar

:lol:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 11:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 2:20 pm
Posts: 3272
Anonymous wrote:

You're simply wrong. We have in our possession a letter from Edinburgh Council which clearly states that the decision whether to adopt the OFT proposals is entirely down to Scottish Ministers. The position is therefore not the same as England.



That's the point Mr Jasbar, I can't see how the postition in England and Wales differers from that in Scotland - the OFT makes recommendations, but whether or not to implement them is up to the politicians, both north and south of the border.

As for your other points, I don't see what they have to do with restricted numbers. For example, if you want accessible vehicles, you have to regulate for them. There are plenty of restricted areas with few WAVs (and even those are normally subsidised or the result of discriminatory licensing polcies) and unrestricted areas with WAVs (or purpose built at least).

Your point about reduced revenues influencing standards as well - I think the fact that plates are worth £25k in Edinburgh means that such arguments totally lack credibility.

Likewise your point about being a jockey - you presumably don't enjoy paying excessive rentals?

Dusty


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 2:40 am 
Quote:
We do know the difference between de-restriction and de-regulation. What we are discussing here is de-restriction of the numbers of taxis.

We believe that it is bad for the consumer. More taxis chasing the same work will assuredly lead to lower incomes and lower quality. The alternative would be to hike tariffs to maintain earnings at levels which will provide the incentive for full time working.


b****CKS


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 6:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 11:04 pm
Posts: 725
Location: Essex, England
Both your policies are simple protectionism. Protecting existing plate holders from reasonable competition. Thus, not fair trading.

How many other businesses enjoy protection from their competition?

ALL regulation SHOULD be of "quality" not "quantity"

Any regulation by quantity, is implicit of the fact that it is not properly regulated by quality.

_________________
There is Significant Unmet Demand for my Opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 1:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 7:45 pm
Posts: 62
Location: Perth Scotland
As I've being saying since before CABforce even seemed to be aware of the OFT study, the legal position is the same in England as in Scotland.

Even the Scottish Taxi Federation will get it - eventually!

Wrong again we in Scotland have our own legal system and our Parliament can totally ignore the OfT if it so wishes and since the studies it refers to in the Scottish context are years (if not light years) out of date they justifiably and probably will.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 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