Taxi Driver Online
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

It's all ended in tiers
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2949		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  TDO [ Tue Dec 13, 2005 8:06 pm ]
Post subject:  It's all ended in tiers
It’s all ended in tiers (13/12/2005)

While we’re all familiar with the two-tier licensing system of taxis and private hire cars, the idea of a single-tier regime is occasionally mentioned, and there seems little doubt that such a system would have avoided many of the problems that have beset the trade over the years.

Of course, everyone in the trade knows about the divisive nature of the taxi/PH split, and this is usually more evident from the taxi side of the trade, which often views PH as illegitimately encroaching onto work that by rights should be the sole province of the taxi trade. While this view is wholly understandable as regards PH illegally plying for hire, the standpoint is often seen with regard to the existence of PH per se – one southern trade mandarin referred to PH as the ‘cuckoo in the nest’, for example. More radical views are often heard, of course, particularly in more informal settings – one contributor on a defunct taxi bulletin board said: “All PH drivers should be burnt alive.”

Others on the taxi side are more accommodating, but dig a little deeper and the reason often becomes obvious: taxi proprietors who also run PH vehicles is perhaps the most obvious example.

But if all the trade was the same then clearly these problems could have been avoided. Of course, a single-tier system may seem radical, but in days gone by it seems that the trade was in fact effectively one tier only, and the size of the current PH sector was never really envisaged. While historical problems with communication that kept PH numbers in check were overcome with the advent of the two-way radio, this shift was underlined more recently with the mobile telephony revolution. This, combined with stringent barriers to entering the taxi sector (such as the Knowledge of London in the capital and numerical controls on taxis in the provinces), has fuelled PH growth as the taxi side has failed to keep up with hugely increased demand – just like standing on one end of a balloon, which merely means that the other end of the balloon gets bigger – but this flaw in the licensing regimes was probably never really envisaged by the legislators.

Of course, many on the taxi side advocate a single-tier system merely as a way of evicting the cuckoo from the nest: the ‘ban, don’t license’ perspective regarding London PH, say. However, while this would help London black cab drivers and taxi proprietors in restricted areas, from a wider perspective this would not be feasible, since it would put thousands out of work and deny much of the public a service.

Instead, a single-tier system would aim to assimilate the two trades together, perhaps based on stiffened quality control. Many in the trade would obviously regard this as unworkable and would argue that areas served primarily by PH at present would not have a service, while the single-tier vehicles would all congregate in the city centre. However, this is the kind of argument used to justify zoning, but as the amalgamation of Brighton and Hove indicates, this point simply does not hold water. And B&H demonstrates that quality and fare wise a single-tier system would work, since the system there is effectively single-tier except for the numerical controls on taxis.

Indeed, many smaller towns more or less operate single-tier systems at present, and a couple of Scotland’s larger cities (Aberdeen and Dundee) manage without many PH cars at all.

That said, in practical terms the chances of a single-tier system actually being implemented are remote. For example, the passing of legislation to license London minicabs as PH cars (still not fully implemented) clearly envisaged the continuation of the current regime largely in its existing form. And the future implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act regarding taxi vehicles also makes the continuation of two tiers more likely – a single-tier system based on wheelchair accessible vehicles seems unlikely.

Of course, part of the problem in this regard seems to be that the authorities often seem to lack an understanding of how the trade works. For example, in 2003 the Office of Fair Trading’s report considered the single-tier idea, but said that there was a clear difference between the telephone and rank and hail markets. This may be correct as regards the demand side, but the single-tier concept is a supply side issue, and surely the supply side is merely split by regulation. Or, to put it another way, if it was equally difficult to become a taxi or PH driver, would anyone choose to become a PH driver, irrespective of the fact that most of their work might in any case be pre-booked?
Author:  JD [ Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: It's all ended in tiers
TDO wrote:
It’s all ended in tiers (13/12/2005)

While we’re all familiar with the two-tier licensing system of taxis and private hire cars, the idea of a single-tier regime is occasionally mentioned, and there seems little doubt that such a system would have avoided many of the problems that have beset the trade over the years.


Spot on. Many valid points.

Regards

JD
Author:  GBC [ Wed Dec 14, 2005 3:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: It's all ended in tiers
TDO wrote:
the ‘ban, don’t license’ perspective regarding London PH, say.



The 'Ban don't license' campaign as I have said before, refers to Rickshaws / Pedicabs, not the London Minicab trade.

http://www.ltda.co.uk/bandontlicense.htm
Author:  GBC [ Wed Dec 14, 2005 3:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: It's all ended in tiers
TDO wrote:

But if all the trade was the same then clearly these problems could have been avoided.



Yes, the London Taxi trade could employ the non English speaking, geographicaly clueless, uncheckable background people that currently make up 70% of the Minicab trade.

Thanks, just what our reputation needs.
Author:  TDO [ Wed Dec 14, 2005 4:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: It's all ended in tiers
greenbadgecabby wrote:
TDO wrote:
the ‘ban, don’t license’ perspective regarding London PH, say.



The 'Ban don't license' campaign as I have said before, refers to Rickshaws / Pedicabs, not the London Minicab trade.



Yes, but the reference obviously wasn't to that particular campaign, instead it referred to the ethos often expressed regarding PH, with your colleague Mr xyz (or whatever) being but one exponent.
Author:  TDO [ Wed Dec 14, 2005 4:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: It's all ended in tiers
greenbadgecabby wrote:
Yes, the London Taxi trade could employ the non English speaking, geographicaly clueless, uncheckable background people that currently make up 70% of the Minicab trade.

Thanks, just what our reputation needs.


But your point is about quality control, and not a one-tier system per se.

Anyway, are you saying that someone with an uncheckable background can qualify as a green badge driver?
Author:  JD [ Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: It's all ended in tiers
greenbadgecabby wrote:
TDO wrote:
the ‘ban, don’t license’ perspective regarding London PH, say.



The 'Ban don't license' campaign as I have said before, refers to Rickshaws / Pedicabs, not the London Minicab trade.

http://www.ltda.co.uk/bandontlicense.htm


At the 1994 Transport select committee the London Cab Drivers Club (LCDC) said That if a two tier Taxi licensing system were extended to London "the licensed London Taxi will go into terminal decline since it is the nature of things that standards will fall to the lowest common denominator".

The London Taxi board believed that in a two tier system private hire vehicles would provide unfair competition since the second tier would have less rigorous standards and therefore lower costs, reducing quality and safety standards for passengers. Moreover, people would question the point of becoming a Taxi driver when it would be much simpler to work in private hire vehicles. This would lead to a decline in the number of London Taxis.

The LCDC also said, it wanted the public to have a choice of services but would not tolerate a solution which says that part of that choice may be the option to engage the services of an individual who is licensed to a differing standard than the provider of the alternative service, despite the fact that the service the individual is providing is to all and intents and purposes the same as his competitor.

In the long term the TGWU believed passengers would find that the benefits of a one-tier system greatly outweighed any perceived loss of choice.

In its overall evidence The PCO Said that in London a one-tier system would be simpler to enforce, would have less complex bureaucracy, and would be more easily understood by the public by virtue of having one universal fare structure.

The TGWU believed the two tier system outside London enshrined in the 1976 act was unenforceable.

While the London Taxi board said the introduction of such a scheme in the capitol, because nothing we have seen anywhere else in the country gives us peace of mind that it will be enforced and that private hire will not ply for hire on the streets.

NTPHLEO said members of the public were confused by the supposed difference in status between the two types of vehicle both of whose drivers were willing to transport passengers for money.

Some Members of the (AMA) Association of Metropolitan Authorities, felt that in particular as regards enforcement the two system created more problems than it solved.

I suppose it begs the question which of these prophecies was correct?

Regards

JD
Author:  TDO [ Thu Dec 15, 2005 1:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: It's all ended in tiers
Quote:
At the 1994 Transport select committee the London Cab Drivers Club (LCDC) said That if a two tier Taxi licensing system were extended to London "the licensed London Taxi will go into terminal decline since it is the nature of things that standards will fall to the lowest common denominator".


Again this seems to be conflating the shape of the licensing regime with quality control, and is therefore a red herring. Why would the licensed London taxi go into terminal decline if the second tier was licensed? #-o

Quote:
The London Taxi board believed that in a two tier system private hire vehicles would provide unfair competition since the second tier would have less rigorous standards and therefore lower costs, reducing quality and safety standards for passengers. Moreover, people would question the point of becoming a Taxi driver when it would be much simpler to work in private hire vehicles. This would lead to a decline in the number of London Taxis.


Like the quote above, this seems to be based on a false premise - the system was already two-tier, but the caveat was of course that the second tier was unregulated (but not illegal, as some often suggested).

But to that extent the second tier was already providing unfair competition, and the licensing of that tier would surely provide fairer competition, and increase stanadards and safety, thus the opposite of what the LTB claimed. And why would people question becoming a taxi driver if a second tier was licensed if they could already join the unlicensed second tier? Of course, the number of taxis has not decreased since the second tier has begun licensing, thus the LTB were wrong.

The points being made seem more about not wanting to provide minicabs with greater legitimacy rather than tiers of licensing.

However, these extracts do lend weight to my point about many in the London taxi trade not wanting minicabs licensed, a point that GBC has consistently denied

Quote:
The LCDC also said, it wanted the public to have a choice of services but would not tolerate a solution which says that part of that choice may be the option to engage the services of an individual who is licensed to a differing standard than the provider of the alternative service, despite the fact that the service the individual is providing is to all and intents and purposes the same as his competitor.


So they want the public to have a choice of services but at the same time they don't? #-o

Again, this seems to be based on the premise that minicabs didn't exist, but surely there were plenty of them in the early 90s?

Quote:
In the long term the TGWU believed passengers would find that the benefits of a one-tier system greatly outweighed any perceived loss of choice.


This is presumably assuming a one-tier system based on the current black cab tier - ie ban, don't license minicabs.

But a degree of realism might have helped the T&G in this regard.

Quote:
In its overall evidence The PCO Said that in London a one-tier system would be simpler to enforce, would have less complex bureaucracy, and would be more easily understood by the public by virtue of having one universal fare structure.


Eminently sensible, but of course a one-tier system could only realistically be based on watered down quality control, but it's not clear whether the PCO had this in mind.

Quote:
The TGWU believed the two tier system outside London enshrined in the 1976 act was unenforceable.


Pure hyperbole - there may be a lack of enforcement in some regards, but 'unenforceable' is probably putting it a bit strongly.

Quote:
While the London Taxi board said the introduction of such a scheme in the capitol, because nothing we have seen anywhere else in the country gives us peace of mind that it will be enforced and that private hire will not ply for hire on the streets.


Again this seems to ignore the existene of a huge mincab sector. Surely licensing would alleviate these problems, if not quite eradicating them?

But in fact it was probably these negative and self-serving attitudes that made the plying for hire problem worse, because the mincabs continued to be unregulated, whereas if regulation had been introduced earlier then the problem might not have reached the magnitude it has.

Quote:
NTPHLEO said members of the public were confused by the supposed difference in status between the two types of vehicle both of whose drivers were willing to transport passengers for money.


Well said.

Quote:
Some Members of the (AMA) Association of Metropolitan Authorities, felt that in particular as regards enforcement the two system created more problems than it solved.


Well said again, but of course some of the enforcement problems were caused by a lack of...err...enforcement by AMA members.
Author:  JD [ Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
The London taxi trade has never wanted legitimacy for the minicab trade, I thought that was common knowledge. In 1994 here is what the LCDC and the London Taxi board wanted. Taken from the 19994 Transport select committee hearing.

The LCDC proposed one system of licensing for all drivers of vehicles for hire and reward. PHV drivers would be allowed to continue to perform hire work for up to three years while they trained to pass the knowledge examination to become Taxi drivers. "But if they had not passed by this time they should be forbidden from continuing as private hire drivers".

They proposed all minicab drivers take the knowledge and tough luck if they failed lol. It might seem preposterous to most people but it just shows how much they wanted rid of the minicab sector.

Regards

JD
Author:  xsczc [ Fri Dec 16, 2005 8:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: It's all ended in tiers
greenbadgecabby wrote:
TDO wrote:
the ‘ban, don’t license’ perspective regarding London PH, say.



The 'Ban don't license' campaign as I have said before, refers to Rickshaws / Pedicabs, not the London Minicab trade.

http://www.ltda.co.uk/bandontlicense.htm
no ban the lot as they are all rubbish theifing little [edited by admin]
Author:  TDO [ Fri Dec 16, 2005 1:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
JD wrote:
The LCDC proposed one system of licensing for all drivers of vehicles for hire and reward. PHV drivers would be allowed to continue to perform hire work for up to three years while they trained to pass the knowledge examination to become Taxi drivers. "But if they had not passed by this time they should be forbidden from continuing as private hire drivers".


Yes, that certainly demonstrates the 'ban, don't license' ethos, although I suppose it's on the charitable side since it gives them a reasonable chance to get a taxi badge before they are put out of work.

I suppose that has to be distinguished from leaving them unlicensed lest that conferred legitimacy - ie 'don't ban but don't license', which is obviously another school of thought.
Author:  spanner134 [ Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Single tier system
How many of these PH cowboys are prepared to put there hand in their pocket a spent £25k upwards on an versatile wheel chair accesable vehicle, If you want a single tier system make it a "LEVEL" playingfield
Author:  Sussex [ Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Single tier system
spanner134 wrote:
How many of these PH cowboys are prepared to put there hand in their pocket a spent £25k upwards on an versatile wheel chair accesable vehicle, If you want a single tier system make it a "LEVEL" playingfield

I doubt many, but why should they?

If a PH works in an area with 100s of WAV taxis, then I doubt there will be much WAV work going spare to justify buying a PH WAV.

But why have a pop at the PH trade?

It wasn't them that wrote the 1995 Act. It wasn't them that recently published the 1st Phase Councils. It was the gov. :wink:
Author:  TDO [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Single tier system
spanner134 wrote:
How many of these PH cowboys are prepared to put there hand in their pocket a spent £25k upwards on an versatile wheel chair accesable vehicle, If you want a single tier system make it a "LEVEL" playingfield


Well how many taxi drivers, unless they have to?

But I thought a single tier system was all about a level playing field, so I don't reall see your point :?
Author:  JD [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Single tier system
spanner134 wrote:
How many of these PH cowboys are prepared to put there hand in their pocket a spent £25k upwards on an versatile wheel chair accesable vehicle, If you want a single tier system make it a "LEVEL" playingfield


There are 244 Authorities that practice a level playing field for hackney carriage proprietor licenses. I think when you refer to a level playing field you mean do away with private hire and just have one Taxi system all driving vehicles with a 25ft turning circle.

Most people realise that Private Vehicles work under a different licensing system, which only allows them to undertake pre booked hires.

I think you have to look at the present legislation and distinguish Hackney Carriages from Private hire vehicles. You may or may not be aware but there are more Saloon type hackney carriages licensed in England and Wales than there are any other types of vehicle, including those with a 25ft turning circle.

Regards

JD
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/