Taxi Driver Online

Dear, oh, dear. Where to start with this. Thought I'd agree with a lot of this, and in a way I do. But loads of easy clangers for the London trade, I'd guess.


The London taxi trade is dying, and it only has itself to blame

https://www.cityam.com/the-london-taxi- ... ers-fault/

A new report has predicted the demise of the iconic London taxi but it is the cab trade itself – not Uber – that is to blame, writes James Ford

London’s black cab industry is dying. That is the stark warning from a recent report by the Centre for London, which predicts that the traditional London taxi trade could be dead within two decades. The think tank report cites a fall in the number of taxis licensed by Transport for London (TfL) from 22,810 to just 14,525 in the decade between 2013-14 and 2023-24.

It may be almost sacrilegious of me to ask, but should London care?

Being ‘iconic’ is not enough

London’s black taxis (or, more properly, Hackney carriages) are iconic. We know this, in part, because the Centre for London’s report tells us so three times in its introductory page. I doubt anyone would challenge the London taxi’s status as a design icon. However, being iconic is not the same as being competitively priced. Or customer-focused. And it’s a long way from being modern, efficient, technology-enabled or data-driven.

Indeed, the London taxi trade has long struggled with the modern world. In 1831 Section 51 of the Hackney Carriage Act enshrined in law a requirement that London’s cabs had to carry a bale of hay in order to feed the horses that drew them. An eminently sensible regulation, I am sure we would all agree, in the age of horse-powered transport. However, this legal regulation was not changed until 1976, which means that for some 50 years after the internal combustion engine became commonplace, London’s black cabs still had to carry a bale of hay in their boot.

Whilst the English legal code includes many archaic, antediluvian anomalies – for example, it is illegal to shake or beat a carpet (or a rug or a mat) in the streets of London before 8am thanks to the Metropolitan Police Act of 1839 (you have been warned) – the example of petrol-powered taxis carrying a bale of hay in their boot less than 50 years ago is an instructive prism through which to view cabbies’ continued insistence that memorising every street in London is a better system of navigation than just buying a satnav.

London taxis have long ignored the customer

It is tempting to view the decline of the London taxi trade purely as a question of technology versus tradition. But it is perhaps too easy to depict cabbies as the dinosaurs and Uber as the asteroid whose arrival proves to be an extinction-level event. The triumph of the raid-hailing app is merely a symptom. The cause of the cab trade’s demise is actually what the app represents: customer power. And, in many ways, the Centre for London’s report repeats the same mistake that the cab trade has been making for years: it ignores the customer.

The report’s acknowledgements thank all the ‘usual suspects’ that feature in policy discussions about the cab trade: City Hall, TfL, the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association (LTDA) which represents cab drivers, the London Electric Vehicle Company (which makes black taxis), and taxi app services (in this case Sherbet and Freenow, the latter of which funded the report). No passenger groups or non-cab trade business groups (some 15 per cent of taxi and private hire journeys nationwide are made by people commuting to work) were involved.

Where opinion surveys are cited in this latest report, they invariably gauge the views of current ‘taxi users’ when it would probably be more illuminating to seek the views of the thousands of ‘former taxi users’ that are now customers of Uber (or any of the other private hire ride-hailing apps operating in London). Why a significant number of Londoners no longer patronise black cabs (and what needs to be done to lure them back) is precisely the question the cab trade should be asking, and it speaks volumes that no one thought to use this report to get an answer. Little surprise, then, that the report’s findings focus on supply-side reforms and ignore the vital issue of dwindling customer demand.

If London taxis want to beat Uber, they need to tell us why they’re better

For far too long the cab trade has remained an industry run for the benefit of cabbies rather than their passengers. The trade in London has opted to rely on regulation and protectionism to preserve its privileged position on the capital’s streets. This is not the fault of rank-and-file drivers but a failure of leadership by those who claim to speak for the industry. Unfortunately, scrappage subsidies, tinkering with The Knowledge, a tight turning circle and more taxi ranks are unlikely to save the black cab in a world where it is not only easier, cheaper and more reliable to hail a ride on an app but you can also give the driver a star rating. And lobbying for even higher fares is certainly the wrong approach.

The capital’s cab trade has been far too happy to ask what London can do for cabbies rather than what the taxi trade can do for London. Rather than taking Uber to court, the trade would have been better served to come forward with its own proposals for a radical, customer-focused shakeup of its practices. When trade is slow, drivers should be encouraged to advertise generous discounts on the usual metered fares – effectively inverting Uber’s ‘surge pricing’ model. If declining driving numbers are an issue, why then has the industry done nothing to widen access to its ranks?

According to TfL figures in 2017, just 2.3 per cent of licensed cabbies in the capital were women, 13 per cent were non-white and, for every working cabbie aged under 30, there were three aged over 70. (Indeed, there were a rather impressive 119 cab drivers aged over 80). Every black cab in London is wheelchair accessible (compared to just one per cent of minicabs) but you will hear little of this from the industry’s marketing.

If the death of the black cab is now inevitable, the taxi trade has no one to blame but itself. And any Londoners tempted to mourn will, I imagine, take an Uber to the wake.

James Ford is a public affairs consultant and former advisor on transport policy to then mayor of London Boris Johnson

Unlike the Glasgow demand survey, where they asked absolutely everyone in the city except for the actual drivers

(I mean, likes of Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, University of Glasgow, Kelvingrove Art Gallery & Museum and Celtic Football Club. Wot, no Rangers FC? )

The article is maybe a bit more compelling than I thought at first glance, but although the above rule was maybe in place, and constrained the design, he makes it sound like the bale of hay actually had to be carried up to 1976, which I don't think is correct.

And he witters on about 'petrol' power. I mean, London cabs?

And never mind the ride-hailing stuff, he can't even spell it

And, of course, almost zero mention of the legacy PH trade, although he does mention other 'private hire ride-hailing apps'. Or does that just mean Bolt and the like?

Lots of other potential talking points, but I'm sure the London trade would do a lot better job with the fine detail, so no point sweating it on here.

But I wonder how much traction this will have - reminds me of a certain article involving a certain journalist (who then became an MP) and a certain incident

Must be over 20 years ago now

let me guess someone who thinks high tech is the only future and traditions,craftsmen etc. are a thing of the past

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

IMO there is an element of truth in the comment above.

_________________
IDFIMH

I get the feeling he’s laid it on thick for effect and entertainment value. The historical stuff about bales of hay is just rhetoric - the London taxi trade didn’t really decide to stop time in the 1970s. It could fairly be described as resistant to change but I’m not sure it deserves all the blame for that.

For example, the trade didn’t invent the conditions of fitness which enabled Carbodies/Mann and Overton to hold a near-monopoly and still means a £70k+ LEVC is the only new cab available now. TfL brought in emission/age-limits rules which compel owners to replace older cabs at their expense.

I’ve heard many London cabs already offer fixed fares or to discount the metered fare. The KoL is gold-standard but I’d never rely on a sat-nav to work as a taxi driver, even in Glasgow.

Can’t dispute his basic point however – a taxi has to provide the service passengers want and will pay for. If passengers are going to other options, it’s not them that’s wrong.

modern business philosophy is never mind the quality feel the price. The ability of the Black cab trade to compete on price is limited at best

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

black cabs cannot ever compete on price
80k vehicles ensure that

_________________
i started out with nothing and ive still got most of it left

Yes – and cheaper isn’t always better.

It’s a bit like M&S v Aldi or BA v Easyjet. People will usually stick with/go back to what they see as best value, even if it’s not the cheapest. Taxis can’t compete on price but they still can on quality (or value).

The article’s kind of saying that but in a cutting way.

Some excellent points here; on the other hand, a lot of it could have been said decades ago about the minicab/private hire trade. And indeed it was, but all that's effectively ignored here

And you could just as easily argue that if a level playing field is required in terms of regulation, then let's abolish the Knowledge of London

But at least he's got the terminology right - no 'ride-hailing', but instead 'app-based operators' and 'private hire platforms'


Black cabs stand ready to compete with Uber, but not in a race to the bottom

https://www.cityam.com/black-cabs-stand ... he-bottom/

The London tax trade is a rigged market where app-based operators have enjoyed years of political indulgence while black cabs are subjected to an ever-tougher regulatory environment, says Mark White

James Ford’s recent City AM column – ‘The London taxi trade is dying – and it’s not Uber’s fault’ – is less a diagnosis than a eulogy dressed in Silicon Valley spin. It dismisses licensed taxi drivers as inflexible, romantic relics, refusing to adapt. But the reality is more serious – and more structural.

The London taxi trade is not dying of natural causes. It is being killed by deliberate political and regulatory choices – choices that have created a system of regulatory arbitrage, where one set of operators face exacting standards, while others exploit loopholes and scale on the back of avoidance.

This is not a level playing field. It’s a rigged market. The black cab trade has been subjected to ever-tougher environmental, safety and accessibility standards. Our vehicles must be wheelchair accessible, meet the latest emissions standards and our drivers are required to pass the Knowledge – the world’s most demanding navigational test. Every one of these requirements is supported by public interest goals: social inclusion, passenger safety, air quality.

By contrast, app-based operators have enjoyed years of political indulgence. Their business models rely on the negative externalisation of costs – offloading financial, social, and environmental consequences onto drivers, cities and taxpayers. They treat regulation not as a duty but as a barrier to be sidestepped.

And when regulation disappears, so do the safeguards. Cutting corners in the taxi trade isn’t just bad practice — it’s a public safety risk. When margins are squeezed and oversight is weak, drivers cut costs on essentials: worn tyres, missed servicing, even operating without proper insurance. The race to the bottom doesn’t end with cheaper fares — it ends with compromised safety and rising risk on our roads.

A two-tier system

Transport for London, rather than enforcing consistency, has presided over a two-tier system. A licensed taxi faces up to £70,000 in vehicle costs to meet emissions and accessibility rules. Meanwhile, private hire vehicles (PHVs) can operate in London with fewer restrictions, often for a fraction of the cost, and with none of the same obligations to training or service standards.

This is not innovation. It is regulatory evasion, passed off as progress.

James Ford claims consumer preference is killing the trade. But this is a shallow reading of how public transport demand works. You cannot call it “choice” when one side of the market is systematically undercut by another that operates without equivalent constraints. Nor is it “competition” when global tech firms burn billions in predatory pricing wars, subsidising fares below cost until they gain market share.

This behaviour isn’t new. It mirrors historical patterns in utilities and transport — exploit loopholes, dump standards, undercut incumbents, and then raise prices once alternatives are gone. This is Silicon Valley’s playbook. London should not be its next casualty.

The black cab is not just a transport option. It’s a vital piece of London’s social and physical infrastructure. We provide safe, accessible transport for disabled Londoners; reliable mobility for women travelling at night and consistent standards for all passengers — not dependent on algorithms, surge pricing, or digital literacy.

There is a broader social cost to dismantling a profession in favour of casualised app labour. Private hire platforms do not offer careers — only gigs. They shift the risk onto individual drivers while reaping the data and profits. They extract wealth from London without investing in its people, places or long-term resilience.

The decline of the taxi trade is not about outdated business models. It’s about policy failure. TfL has allowed itself to be outmanoeuvred by global firms, with local consequences.

A fair market would mean fair regulation — for all. That means the same rules on emissions, insurance, licensing, training, and accessibility for any vehicle offering the same service. That’s not protectionism. It’s basic governance.

The future of London’s transport cannot be dictated by who can spend the most to distort it. If we want a truly inclusive, clean and accountable system, we must rebuild it on principles of equity, safety, and public value.

The black cab trade stands ready to compete — but not in a race to the bottom.

Mark White, London Cab Drivers Club

A good example of something that's really decades-old. And could just as easily be applied to much of the HC trade outside London, never mind legacy private hire

The term 'declined' is being bandied about willy-nilly, but it's not an accurate term in my view.

I much prefer 'reduced'.

If anything, with a £70-100,000 motor, the term could also be 'improved'.

_________________
IDFIMH

He's at it again

This is quite interesting; on the other hand, there's more than a hint of triumphalism and sneering at the probable demise of what he calls the 'moribund and defunct'

I mean, it's a bit like right-wingers sneering at the demise of the miners at the hands of Mrs Thatcher 40-odd years ago, which many on the left are still blaming for current issues...

There's a shedload of links in the original piece to sources of information, but can't be bothered including them all here, so if anyone feels the need...

That includes a link to the TaxiPoint survey in relation to the sickie stuff...let's be thankful it wasn't anything more technical

But, I mean, one reason the left likes open borders immigration is to get people doing jobs like 'taxi' driving, which is bad enough in itself, but what happens to all those people when they and the Deliveroo riders etc are 'moribund and defunct'? Not to mention us 'gammons'


Driverless taxis will make black cabs extinct – and that’s no bad thing

https://www.cityam.com/driverless-taxis ... bad-thing/

The imminent advent of ‘robo taxis’ may well be the final nail in the coffin of the London cab trade, suggests James Ford

By all accounts, a London cabbie’s lot is not a happy one. You may get to drive around the capital in one of the great transport icons (the black cab is up there with the red bus) but your efforts are sorely unappreciated. Popular public opinion is that you are either a racist, militantly anti-cyclist, or excessively curmudgeonly (and, often, all of the above). And if public hostility was not enough to deal with, there is ample evidence that being a cabbie is not just thankless but pretty unpleasant. In 2020 and 2021 alone the Met recorded 168 crime incidents against taxi and private hire drivers. According to a major industry survey, almost half (43 per cent) of London cab drivers report that they have had to deal with a passenger vomiting in their taxi at some point. Little wonder then more than a quarter of cabbies report that their job is bad for their mental health or that the number of cabbies plying their trade in London is in freefall.

But there might be a light at the end of the tunnel. Our brow-beaten taxi tribunes may soon be able to turn off their yellow light and put their feet up. Permanently. Because Uber, always eager to play the saviour to the capital’s beleaguered licensed cabbies, is ready to start trialling driverless taxis in London.

It may be premature to write the obituary for the London cab trade just yet (though I arguably had a good try a few weeks ago in these hallowed pages). The public remains sceptical about driverless cabs, although the numbers are shifting with the latest figures showing that 10 per cent of Londoners would feel “very safe” in a driverless car compared to just two per cent in 2020. Unsurprisingly, support for autonomous vehicles is strongest amongst the young.

London has an impressive track record as an early adopter of transport technologies. Not only was the capital the first city to put trains underground (in 1863 no less) but five years later it introduced the first traffic light. The first electric trams (1901), battery-electric buses (1907), electric ticket-issuing machines (1908) escalators (1911) and CCTV onboard buses (1986) would all follow. Though groundbreaking at first, all of the above have subsequently become not just mainstream but run-of-the-mill.

London has already gone driverless

There is ample evidence that Londoners are more accepting of driverless transport than some surveys suggest. The DLR has been driverless since it opened in 1987 yet in 2023/24 almost 100m Londoners still felt happy enough to take a journey on it. Most tube lines (including the Northern, Jubilee, Victoria, Central, Metropolitan, Circle, Hammersmith & City, Elizabeth and District lines) are semi-autonomous already, which means that whilst there is an operator in the cab, they are there to work the doors and don’t actually drive the train. The majority of Londoners are either blissfully unaware of this or are entirely unphased by it.

Opposition to new technologies usually centres on two factors: public perceptions of safety and concern about the economic impacts of new innovations on those workers and artisans being disrupted and replaced. As the public get over their safety concerns through experience (and begin to feel the benefits of quicker, easier and cheaper journeys), they soon forget about their past fears and quickly lose interest in the fate of those rendered redundant. (Though it is worth noting that the Department for Transport projects that the shift to autonomous vehicles could create 38,000 jobs by 2035).

Past censuses of the capital listed many professions – such as dripping men (who dealt in meat fat), toshers (who scavenged for valuables in the sewers), knocker-uppers (who roused sleeping workers before the invention of the alarm clock) or lamplighters (who lit gas-powered street lamps) – that have been rendered obsolete. The London taxi driver may well be the next idiosyncratic trade to join the ranks of the moribund and defunct.

James Ford is a public affairs consultant and former advisor on transport, environment and technology policy to then mayor of London Boris Johnson

Talking of Thatcher and the taxi trade, sharp-eyed readers on here may have come across this councillor in relation to more relevant and recent issues. This is from 2013


Labour councillor celebrates death of Margaret Thatcher with prized bottle of whisky

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scot ... th-1826528

FORMER miner Tom Adams won single malt 20 years ago – and kept it so he could toast the former Tory leader's demise.

There is no way driverless taxis will take off in London until we are all long gone.

Central London is a horrible mess and a nightmare for every mode of transport, including walkers.

I also just can't see how driverless taxis will react to the 10s of 1000s of nutty bike riders dodging in and out all the time, to name just one thing.

_________________
IDFIMH