Taxi Driver Online

captain cab wrote:
My only real disagreement with this section is basically the lack of guaranteed coverage, while it could be argued that there isnt a guaranteed coverage at the moment. I have certainly found in my location that most vehicles become owner driven and are naturally worked when it suits the proprietor and not necessarily the passengers. This is not really conducive towards public service.

The problem I have with all this coverage issue, is why should one side of the trade decide they don't want to service a particular sector (outskirts), and then moan when others want to work the town centre.

Surely if customers want to go from A to B, it's them that should decide what way they wish to travel, not the trade. It also seems very strange that some members of the cab trade seem to belly-ache about lack of work, yet ignore a significant sector of the paying public.

Which is why the PH trade has thrived in the last 20 years.

Presuming I have been correct so far I will continiue where I left off

Captain cab

Given that you seem almost incapable of completing a post without using the 'wink' icon, can I take it that, as I suspected last night, you're just taking the pi$$ captain

There should be a little truth in the argument from the hackney carriage trade, the hackney trade cannot really state the above phrase when they know that most new HC licensees, after delimitation, will come from the private hire trade. Although the effects upon the PH service have already been pointed out by myself earlier on and not yet answered.

The major group that is effected by delimitation from the HC point of view are fleet owners, although if standards of vehicles are in place this may be counteracted.

My only real disagreement with this section is basically the lack of guaranteed coverage, while it could be argued that there isnt a guaranteed coverage at the moment. I have certainly found in my location that most vehicles become owner driven and are naturally worked when it suits the proprietor and not necessarily the passengers. This is not really conducive towards public service.

I disagree with the use of the word cartel and use of the word monopoly, as previously stated hackneys are licensed by the LA to carry out the tasks as stated, they are not responsible for numbers of licenses.

If there is an encroachment of private hire then surely it is the job of enforcement to cease the problem.

Im not disagreeing with the statement, however perhaps the resentment is more to do with illegal plying for hire by PHV's.

I disagree with some aspects here.

PHV's will pay dispatch fee's where-ever they go, and you know this ya laal tinker

With regards to people owning HC's and PHV's, I do, so whats the problem you have with me? These others are the same, they're trying to run a business and provide a service.

Dictionary out.....you really should consider SCATA membership



How is restricted numbers undemocratic, and why does it have to be democratic?

Going to your chemists and garages scenario, I want to by a chemist (I have a garage ) I cant afford one, now who's blighting my democracy?

Concerning the self employment, why does the document want to go there? Although Im sure the Inland Revenue would love to know too, self employment is a standard practice throughout the industry both HC and PH.

So its the HC trades fault that people havent got the gumption to start up their own booking offices, or is this more undemocratic stuff?

[So its the HC trades fault that people havent got the gumption to start up their own booking offices, or is this more undemocratic stuff?

Ahh, so were believeing the press now? And with one example the document comes to that conclusion?

Which firm was it? I could enlighten you, although I didnt make the phone call

It's about the powerlessness of plateless drivers. For example, they can be blackballed if they speak out. The point about self-employment is that they have no rights, like cockle pickers, say.

For example, they can be blackballed if they speak out.

like cockle pickers

Private hire owners and drivers who might move to the taxi sector with de-restriction also often depend on those with a vested interest in the status quo, such as private hire despatch offices who fear the greater independence and bargaining power that freedom to enter the taxi sector might give to drivers.

No, it's not the HC trade's fault, and I can't see where you get this claim from?

But if everyone had the gumption, there would be one helluva amount of PH booking offices.

captain cab wrote:
Quote:
The issue of criminality in the trade is considered later, but the comments above are perhaps symptomatic of the general attitude of many in the taxi sector to the private hire trade, which is partly born of the resentment engendered by competition from that sector. Indeed, this often leads to calls for a single-tier cab sector (ie no private hire), which is T&G policy, but this perhaps makes the union’s current concern for the private hire sector and its customers look somewhat opportunistic.



Im not disagreeing with the statement, however perhaps the resentment is more to do with illegal plying for hire by PHV's.




Partly that, but I think competition per se is the biggest issue for some.
_________________