Barnsley MBC wrote:
“It could simply see a shift from private hire drivers to Hackney vehicles without increasing supply, or potentially lead to over-supply in general, reducing the income to existing drivers and potentially pushing out some of the drivers who do operate on Saturday nights."
Which I could have told them 20 years ago when I don't think the surveys bothered with that kind of thing?
But, to that extent, what's the point of it all? If SUD is just ignored because more HC plates would just mean a shift from PH to HC, then no new plates would
ever be issued. Don't know why they bothered with a survey at all, but I suppose they've to keep the LVSA consultants in a job, and also go through the motions and hope no-one will really notice what they're up to
TaxiPoint wrote:
This support comes from all hackney carriage drivers and nearly half of the private hire operators...
And where does the like of that come from? The document linked to in the TaxiPoint article doesn't say that. And why ask HC
drivers, but PH
operators? The document simply says:
Barnsley MBC wrote:
The split saw all hackney carriage agree with 47% of private hire also agreeing with its retention.
There's no differentiation there between drivers, plateholders and operators/circuits, so not clear where TaxiPoint's, er, point came from...
Oddly, the document also says:
Barnsley MBC wrote:
As part of the survey, key stakeholders were contacted and
questions regarding taxis and private hire vehicles were asked of the general public,
the Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Drivers, Disability groups and local
businesses.
Ah, so they just asked
drivers?
But I suspect the circle can be squared by simply assuming it's all just nonsense
