Taxi Driver Online

Do you mean 'put up or shut up'?

It's all there on the homepage, in the restricted numbers section

Hallelujah

Perhaps, but when the minister spoke she was clearly referring to the principle of arbitrarily excluding people from a market when they are otherwise qualified, which is a different matter to the one you refer to.

You seem unwilling to grasp the point the point that there are greater principles at stake than what some people think they should dictate to other people about how they should conduct their business.

Well at least you think I'm good at something!

Its not really a case of meeting people halfway JD, its a case of accepting each argument is as valid as another.

All of the people involved in this debate, on this website, offer an informed opinion, unfortunatly the people deciding which policy to impliment do not have our in depth knowledge of the tade or the laws and bylaws that govern it.

My asumption that the term "taxi service" applies to both PH & HC cannot be ignored, for the reasons I have set out in other posts, being that the public perception is that every vehicle for hire is a taxi and the term "hack"or "hackney carriage" is used to describe a London Style Taxi only.

This is why I've called for proper investigation ......... public perception needs to be changed .......... and I think that changing the outdated rule that a PH operator can advertise as a taxi company providing a single HC works through the company would go an awful long way to elleviate the confusion.

PH operators should therefore call their companies ********* Private Hire, this should be enforced not if the business engages the services of a single HC but if the company requires a PH operators licence, ie it has at least 1 PH vehicle.

We cannot allow people to pass themselves off as a taxi service then say that they are a PH service during this kind of debate ............ I don't have a problem being a PH driver but I want to be seen to be a PH driver working for a PH operator not a taxi driver working for a taxi operator.

I largely agree with much of what you say Chas

The point about meeting people halfway was in reference to the fact that we had to drag out of you the admission that a Taxi driver and Private hire driver were defined somewhat differently in law.

You knew this yet you kept up the pretence that a private hire driver is a Taxi driver. You gave public perception as being the overriding factor that cemented your argument. It took countless days and many thousands of words later before you relented and came up with this classic statement.



It is comforting to know that you can distinguish between law and public perception. The public perceives many private hire vehicles to be Taxis but in Law as you very well know they are defined as not being Taxis. It is not the fault of the public that they do not understand Hackney carriage Licensing laws but you of all people should know the difference.

With reference to valid arguments, it is no doubt up to each individual to make their point as valid as is humanely possible but validity can only be gauged on the basis of the facts. You knew the facts surrounding the legal definition of a Private hire driver yet you continued the facade of trying to convince knowledgeable members of this forum that your point was Valid and there's was not.

I think by now most people on here will know that you have a preference for every Authority maintaining a control on numbers, you may suggest otherwise which you have done occasions but your overall comments portray a different view. You have stated that you would prefer authorities to measure demand before blindly taking the option to de limit, you imply councils should only issue licenses to the amount of demand which is unmet. You state that any council "delimiting without examining customer need is tantamount to a neglect of their duties. I suspect you mean by examining customer need you mean all 343 councils throughout England and Wales should hold a survey.

You have also stated that Private hire operators suffer when numbers controls are lifted. Your past comments have shown a distinct bias towards the NorthEast so perhaps we can assume that this is the area in which you work? You state that your Authority lifted numbers control five years ago and that they license 300 Hackney carriage vehicles. There are not many Authorities in the Northeast that fit that description. Statistics show only two.

It has always puzzled me why a Private hire driver should concern himself about the migration of Private hire drivers over to Hackney carriage. I would have thought the more private hire drivers that go over to Hackney carriage the more work it would leave for the remaining private hire drivers. You seem to have developed a growing concern for the public which you nearly always use to support your conviction with regard to private hire demand or lack of it.

You also base your argument on restricting numbers around the fact that by doing so it lessons the competitiveness of the private hire sector. I would have thought private hire companies would welcome less competition.

Your diversion from the real issue reminds me of the stance the trade bodies have taken which can be highlighted in the recent Brighton T&G letter to Brighton and Hove licensing Authority.

If you want to know what the real issue is I suggest you read section 16 of the 1985 Transport act. You will see it makes no refference to "Private hire operators" it does however mention demand for "Taxis".

You may wish to concentrate your mind on the real issue and stop using private hire as an excuse to retaining numbers control. Private hire in the main is a by-product of Authorities limiting Taxi numbers, Statistics will tell you that where Taxi numbers have never been limited Private hire vehicles are practically extinct. Statistics will also tell you that where Taxi numbers have been controlled Private hire vehicles have proliferated.

Is it not about time you grasped the reality of what takes place when a council lifts numbers? The sting in the tail of that last comment is that from now on those councils who do take the democratic decision to lift numbers will make entry harder for some because of the quality control element.

I could go on and on but I won't. I would just like to say Charlie, that a great many of your arguments echo those of Gateshead Angel and there is a growing consensus that think you are one and the same,

I don't mind what name you post under but it must be self defeating when you frequently have to justify who you are and that your identity is the main topic of conversation as opposed to your point of view.

Best wishes

JD

All we now need is for Sussex to accept this and we are nearly there !

Yes, but he could be a ''Private Hire Operator'' who has lost a lot of drivers and therefore cannot cover the work or pay the bills !

Nonsense JD, What about London ? There are at least 40,000 PH there !

Could be his twin brother or two guys with very similar views ?

JD ............ I drive a PH car for a PH operator who calls his company ??????? TAXIS, because of this legal defininition is unknown to the public and they refer to us all as taxi drivers and the vehicles we use as taxis.

If someone was to phone the PH operator they would ask for a taxi ......... if we were unable to supply a vehicle at the time they wanted one they would claim that they couldn't get a taxi.

You then would use their complaint to show that more taxis should be available, however you would identify a taxi using the legal definition instead of using the definition used by the person making the complaint.

This is what I have a problem with ................ can you really say that this doesn't happen.

As far as your suggestion that more PH drivers leaving to work the ranks is good for those that remain PH is completely untrue, on a weekend shift I used to do in excess of 50 jobs and there were on average 25 cars working. Last Saturday I did 38 jobs and only 11 cars were working, the office were unable take in excess of 100 bookings and more than 50 walk ins walked off. The number of "no jobs" have gone up as well as we now run later than I have ever known.

To comment on your asumption that I want to maintain quotas ............. partially true, however in most cases not at current levels. In many areas numbers need to be increased, in some areas dramatically, but I don't think that complete continued derestriction is the way forward.

Partially, your argument for derestriction is headed by the appauling "premiums" that need to be paid to aquire such a licence ......... yet evidence shows that most authorities maintain the restriction on the licenses that demand a premium but allow WAV's to be licensed upon demand, in many areas such premiums have increased since derestriction.

The rest of your post is argumentative, and was clearly written to provoke a response or outburst .................................. I will no longer rise to such postings.

Kind Regards

Charlie

I have never argued for restriction or de restriction. I argue solely on the facts. If any organisation intentionally misrepresents the facts to further their own cause then they can guarantee that I'll be right behind them pointing out the error of their ways.

I don't need the T&G to tell me that public interests are best served by limiting Taxi numbers. I can work that one out for myself and I assume so can most of the public.

I can tell you this, from an owner's perspective in a restricted Authority, the only persons that benefit from restrictions are us owners. Now you have it from the horse's mouth. Perhaps you can see why I'm sick and tired of all the bullchit that is paraded in front of Councils wrapped up in the guise that limiting numbers is somehow beneficial to the public.

I have never publicly argued for change one way or the other but I will continue to correct facts where it can be proven that those facts are a blatant distortion of the truth.

I'm already on public record as saying equality should be the first consideration when framing a policy. Where the public is concerned it goes without saying that more Taxis equal greater provision. All this nonsense about more equals less is a smoke screen designed to bolster the cause of those that want to retain numbers.

We first heard it from Mr. Peter Parker who said that one Birmingham Taxi driver had told him that there are fewer Cabs out at night under Derestriction than was the case under restriction. He then said in other breath that there are that many cabs out at night that they have nowhere to park.

See what I mean about misrepresenting the truth?

Just ask Bolton and Mansfield drivers if more equals less? I needn't say anymore.

Best wishes

JD

Has it ever occurred to you Charlie that it is not the amount of Jobs you do but the amount of money you end up with at the end of a shift?

Tuesday night I did about 12 jobs and took 50 pounds more than I did Wednesday night, after doing about 18 jobs.

The least number of Jobs you undertake does not necessarily equate to being less busy.

Best wishes

JD

Well that all depends on whether you know what your average job pays, we have quite a low tariff and do mostly local work .................. my average job total is £4.80.

Applying this average fare to the busy weekend night I would have expected to take £240 ............ now am lucky if I do £180 for the same hours.

Through the week job values mean more than they do on a weekend, during the busy times I could expect to do 10 jobs in the time it took you to do one £50 fare however during the week, when its quieter I could maybe expect as little as 3.

This is why I used the busy shifts for comparison. Sorry if my experiences show in practice that your asumptions could be wrong. Maybe Captain Cab could furnish us with the position of PH drivers in Carlisle where large numbers have gone HC, as I wouldn't expect you to believe me.

I don't think your reduced earnings has jack poo to do with taxi quotas.

Many of my mates who drive taxis in this wonderful restricting manor of mine are also down on their takings. It called a downturn in trade.

_________________
IDFIMH

Aren't you one of the people who keep on telling us that one of the problems of de-restriction is that pre-booked work won't get served?

Seems that de-restriction in your manor hasn't been a problem in this regard.

Make sure you tell the T&G and the Trans Comm!

Can you not read TDO ............ in my posting I told you that in one night we were unable to undertake > 150 journeys.

Now if you consider this not to be a problem then the length of time people wait for a HC shouldn't be a problem either ........... I believe it is a problem and I think it needs sorting out properly.

Your continued attempts to discredit my opinion only add to its validity.

The office I work from used to have 25 - 30 PH cars working on the weekend nights ................ last weekend we had 11 ........... clearly a reduction in provision.

Now I didn't have to look all over Europe for that ............ I just looked at my own back yard.

Have a happy christmas