It's a shame the rest of the motorists don't get checked as often as Taxis do!
| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Sting in South Somerset http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6154 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | JD [ Thu May 17, 2007 2:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Sting in South Somerset |
14, 2007 Monday Taxi checks across district Yeovil Express FIVE out of 34 taxi drivers stopped during a series of spot checks across South Somerset did not meet the required standards. South Somerset District Council, Avon and Somerset Police, and the Vehicle and Operator Standards Agency (VOSA) carried out the spot checks in Yeovil, Chard and Crewkerne. Four taxis were given warnings due to having no first aid box or fire extinguisher on board, but were allowed to carry on trading provided that they attend the council offices within seven days to prove that the missing item has now been provided. One vehicle was found to have tyres that were below the legal limit and was served with an immediate Prohibition Notice and was taken off the road. The council's licensing enforcement officer, Nigel Marston, said: "When dealing with public safety we will continue to take a very strict line. "Taxi drivers perform a vital service to the community, but they have to meet minimum standards to keep their vehicles in a roadworthy condition. "I was pleased to see that only one vehicle had to be taken off the road this time compared to the last time when four vehicles were taken off the road immediately, however even having to take one vehicle off the road is one vehicle too many." PC Tony Foster, of the Avon and Somerset Constabulary Roads Policing Unit based at Yeovil, said: "The multi agency check allows us to examine vehicles in great detail and discover offences that may otherwise go undetected. "It was good to see that more Taxi's seem to be in a road worthy state and complying with the law than when we checked a few months previously. "The travelling public can be assured that we are doing our best to make this form of transport safe for them to use and similar multi-agency checks will follow in our drive to improve road safety for all." It is up to the driver to check their vehicle is in a roadworthy condition before they drive it, owners and operators must also check them on a regular basis to ensure that they are safe and fit for purpose. The driver who had his vehicle taken off the road must fix the problem, obtain a new MOT and have the vehicle checked by both VOSA and the council before it is allowed back on the road. ____________________________ |
|
| Author: | echo15 [ Thu May 17, 2007 3:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
It's a shame the rest of the motorists don't get checked as often as Taxis do!
|
|
| Author: | kermit2482 [ Thu May 17, 2007 11:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
echo15 wrote: It's a shame the rest of the motorists don't get checked as often as Taxis do!
Most other motorists are not carrying passengers for hire and reward!! |
|
| Author: | skippy41 [ Thu May 17, 2007 3:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
When we had checks done there was a cab put off the road for the same reason, the Police said that the tyres where below the legal limit for a taxi that limit being 2 mill, the owner driver contacted the pf and asked if the law regarding tread depth had been changed and was informed that it was still 1.6 mill, the driver had his tyres checked at a tyre company and had readings of between 1.9, and 1.8, and had documented proof, this was shown to the police the next day and the case was dropped. He still lost a nights take due to there ignorance |
|
| Author: | GA [ Thu May 17, 2007 4:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Last Sting in Gateshead found one in three HC to have a defect and one in two PH. Standards need to be improved and people need to be confident in getting a return on their investment (in vehicles not plates) before investing in newer vehicles. PH came out worse ................... but thats possibly because they have never been properly regulated. B. Lucky 
|
|
| Author: | badger [ Fri May 18, 2007 2:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
GA wrote: Last Sting in Gateshead found one in three HC to have a defect and one in two PH. In what way and why have the PH not been properly regulated when the vehicle testing requirements are governed by the same LA Standards need to be improved and people need to be confident in getting a return on their investment (in vehicles not plates) before investing in newer vehicles. PH came out worse ................... but thats possibly because they have never been properly regulated. B. Lucky
|
|
| Author: | Stinky Pete [ Fri May 18, 2007 3:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Sting in South Somerset |
JD wrote: [b] 14, 2007 Monday
Taxi checks across district Four taxis were given warnings due to having no first aid box or fire extinguisher on board, but were allowed to carry on trading provided that they attend the council offices within seven days to prove that the missing item has now been provided. Ok no big deal wots the point of carrying a first aid kit, firstly you must be trained in using it, and then again you could be left wide open to a claim .eg. The defendant put a plaster over the wound when clearly medical proffessionals say only a bandage should have been used and this caused more harm than good. fire extinguishers neither use or orniment, clear instructs from Fire Brigage, if a fire starts in your vehicle "get the hell out of it" let it burn, you can do more damage if you don't know what your doing with a fire extinguisher, your insured for Fire, let it burn |
|
| Author: | echo15 [ Fri May 18, 2007 6:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
It's a licence condition of some councils that you have both an extinquisher and a first aid box it's not that a condition that you use either 
|
|
| Author: | GA [ Fri May 18, 2007 2:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
badger wrote: GA wrote: Last Sting in Gateshead found one in three HC to have a defect and one in two PH. In what way and why have the PH not been properly regulated when the vehicle testing requirements are governed by the same LA Standards need to be improved and people need to be confident in getting a return on their investment (in vehicles not plates) before investing in newer vehicles. PH came out worse ................... but thats possibly because they have never been properly regulated. B. Lucky Ok Badger I'll tell you in what way and why ........................... vehicles are only tested twice a year .............. mostly vehicles are therefore only properly maintained twice a year ................. this obviously applies to both HC and PH and is the clear reason why these spot checks uncover the amount of defects as they do. The reason why I suggested a difference is because over the last 5 years the councils enforcement officers have only made regualr visits to the ranks and not to the offices .................. the reason for this is clearly because all of the offices have computer systems which allow vehicles to sit accross the borough and so checking vehicles is nigh on impossible ................. whereas the HC always go back and sit in great numbers around the few ranks within the borough. The enforcement is therefore signifigantly more efficiant on the ranks and so the regulations are more likely to be applied. When this was pointed out to the LO the response was that the PH operators view the vehicles on a more regular basis and should notice defects and insist that they are rectified. The other thing is that councils believe PH vehicles belong to the operator and the drivers are employees, so they believe they are more in control of the state of thier vehicles than they actually are. Councils need to be educated .................. we all agree on that .............. however I still maintain that councils are best placed to oversee the service ................... and the GMB is best placed to educate the councils. B. Lucky 
|
|
| Author: | badger [ Sat May 19, 2007 4:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
GA wrote: The reason why I suggested a difference is because over the last 5 years the councils enforcement officers have only made regualr visits to the ranks and not to the offices ..................  .By the way the same driver had to wait at the testing station for nearly two hours  .
|
|
| Author: | TDO [ Tue May 22, 2007 12:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
GA wrote: Ok Badger I'll tell you in what way and why ........................... vehicles are only tested twice a year .............. mostly vehicles are therefore only properly maintained twice a year ................. this obviously applies to both HC and PH and is the clear reason why these spot checks uncover the amount of defects as they do.
I'm inclined to agree, but saying that twice a year testing is inadequate seems a bit radical - a lot of people in the trade regard twice a year as excessive. |
|
| Author: | skippy41 [ Tue May 22, 2007 3:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Our LO sends us love letters, saying he would love to see us within a certain time slot, and if you do not attend he will find you. He does this every 3 months without fail, he does not call all of us in at once but a certain number so he will have checked everyone in the 3 month cycle and no one gets away. Its a good thing that he informs us when he wants to see us, as this gives us time to make sure every thing is OK and if it ain't your red carded until the problem is fixed and its your own fault. |
|
| Author: | JD [ Tue May 22, 2007 3:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
TDO wrote: GA wrote: Ok Badger I'll tell you in what way and why ........................... vehicles are only tested twice a year .............. mostly vehicles are therefore only properly maintained twice a year ................. this obviously applies to both HC and PH and is the clear reason why these spot checks uncover the amount of defects as they do. I'm inclined to agree, but saying that twice a year testing is inadequate seems a bit radical - a lot of people in the trade regard twice a year as excessive. Twice a year is becoming the norm, accept in London? lol I just wonder when London will play catch up? Regards JD |
|
| Author: | MR T [ Tue May 22, 2007 3:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
They are still trying to sort out the paperwork side of licensing, I am led to believe they have more dodgy insurance documents than real ones in London. |
|
| Author: | JD [ Tue May 22, 2007 3:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
MR T wrote: They are still trying to sort out the paperwork side of licensing, I am led to believe they have more dodgy insurance documents than real ones in London.
London has never been my strong point, but you and I both know that their inspection procedure is not on a par with the majority of councils outside of London. Although I'm sure GBC would disagree with that? Regards JD |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|