Taxi Driver Online

TC Wrote:



Has it never occurred to you I might like being a criminal.



How can I destroy their “business” they don’t have a “business” they are taxi drivers with a public licence and a false “value” the rest is all in their heads and only because the council allows them their little illusion for the moment, soon to be gone.

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

Just in case you missed this post with TC's bollix appearing on the thread here it is again

edders23 wrote:


I take it you are speaking from an owner’s point of view having now lost his driver? A 30% increase in taxis would mean for the most part a 30% reduction in double shifted vehicles with new owners single shifting their own taxi.

Up here rentals are extortionate with fewer shifts and no work and that’s without an increase in plates.
_________________

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

But they do have a business, dickhead. They run their business using the public licence that they hold; any value (the one you have an obsession about) has nothing to do with the running of their BUSINESS. Most, if not all, taxi operators run a business, whether the number of licences is restricted by a third party or not.
Now be a good little chappy and run along to the jobby centre and leave taxi forums for those working in the taxi business.

RCF Wrote:




That’s pretty fair comment RCF you could claim it is a “business” but it’s really just a little illusion created to control little men through the fear of losing their 50K false plate “value”.



If what you say is in fact is true then you won’t mind drivers getting their own plate without paying 50K?

Seems fair enough to me

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

A pub NEEDS a public licence to trade.
A street trader NEEDS a public licence to trade.
A bookie NEEDS a public licence to trade.
A second hand car dealer NEEDS a public licence to trade.
And lots more. As I said a taxi operator NEEDS a public licence to trade. As does a taxi driver.
More licences being issued will affect any business that NEEDS a public licence to trade. Whether any increase in the number of licences issued improves the service to the public or destroys the business is a different argument altogether.

RCF worte:



So tell me if a driver is earning a living driving a taxi for someone else gets his own taxi, what’s the problem, same job different taxi?

Surely the choice should be his and not yours?

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

What, guys who couldn't run a menage, a urine up in a brewery, and who can't talk to each other in groups of more four, and who have no concept of marketing, meeting customers needs or competing in a free market, are businessmen?



Dear, oh dear.

The reality is RCF that most of the guys working in our trade are little more than casual labour. No holiday pay, no sickness pay, no pension provision, no statutory rights of notice etc. And the canon fodder who call themselves drivers would think they're businessmen, presumably because they are self-emoloyed.

You know, I would even respect them if they'd lifted one finger to help protect their livelihood. But they don't. They never will. Because sheep just fall in line behind the shepherd until they're led off to the slaughter.

And the slaughter ain't too far away, is it RCF?

Will you wait until it happens before you have your breakdown?

Or will you implode before the fateful day so you can use it as your excuse for being such a poor and myopic "businessman"?

Crash & burn.

As with the other quoted trades requiring a public licence to trade, the choice lies with the regulatory authority not with existing owners or drivers. But you know that, don't you?
Have you booked your trip to Utopia yet? or cloud cuckoo land?
Read ALL the research and based on previous derestriction scenarios in Dublin, the USA and elsewhere, the likely outcome should Edinburgh derestrict numbers, would be

1. Approx 600 more taxis.
2. Approx 420 extra cab shifts available.
3. A slight reduction in waiting time for pre-booked taxis.
4. No expected improvement in rank waiting time for passengers.
5. A reduction in driver/operator incomes.
6. The average age of vehicles would increase.

There would be no worthwhile improvement in service level to the public.
Vehicle quality would decline as would driver quality both because of the reduction in income.
Your idea that owning is cheaper than renting is false if applied to single shifted vehicles.

Aye, but Skull would get a free plate

( I am being ironic )

Captain Cab

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

RCF Wrote:



And there in lies the problem of the 50K plate “values” where does a driver get a plate or a job? Councils should be setting standards not influencing markets, let quality controls and the market decide.



Absolute Bollix the London model is based on quality not quantity controls and the only thing barring anyone from the trade is “The Knowledge” London Cabbies are revered all over the world and earn a hell of a lot more than you.

I think wee need to be clear on a couple of points RCF, you can have quality controls and de-restrictioon or de-restriction without quality controls, that’s your choice, Dublin or London?

Everything is changing after the year RCF. Our Labour council is facing the prospect of losing their overall majority and getting stuffed in the High Court with a Tory Lib Dem coalition pushing for de-restriction, you can bet your boots there will be some sort of increase oh and who do you think is arming the opposition with 50,000 reasons to pull the plug that's right, you.

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

No I wouldn't, what would be the point, the trade is going downhill fast I don't see any point in hanging around and that's without de-restriction.

I will finish the job though.

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

Firstly, the council is setting standards and enabling operators to afford those standards by limiting licences.

Secondly the one point conveniently overlooked by you and your pals here, is that London did not derestrict, it was never restricted.
And therein is where many comparisons and statistics fall down. There is a difference between taking the lid off numerical control and never having had any control in the first place.
Perhaps JD could tell us the real statistics of how many authorities lifted numerical controls and how many never had any in the first place. To claim that 246 authorities have removed controls then list only 54 which have indicates the possibility that 192 never had number control. So the fact that 79 voted to retain numerical control could effectively destroy the credibility of the statistics.
You mention the opposition being armed - do you really think you're that influential?
Watch, look and listen and see what happens next year. Not just Easter Bunnies out of the hat!!!

The DfT "eventually" wrote to 151 councils in England and Wales who they believed restricted numbers. There were a few discrepancies in the DfT data in respect of the status of some of these councils. For instance some of the Councils were already deregulated and should not have been written to. The original list of councils was 144 but there were several councils that had re regulated and who subsequently came under the same status as the original 144. All in all the number grew to 151.

There are 343 licesning authorities in England and Wales Excluding the Isle of wight. Of the 343 authorities 192 had an open licensing policy and the majority of the 151 written to by the DfT had a restrictive policy. I say majority because one or two of the 151 restricted councils were already unrestricted but for expediancy the figure shall remain at 151.

Of the 151 restricted authorities 84 equalling 24.5% have so far retained a policy of restriction. As of 24/7/06 the number of those 151 authorities who have voted to remove or have given a commitment to remove restrictions, is 53. As of 24/7/06 the number of authorities who had yet to make a decision was 14.

It is estimated by me that the eventual figure of councils retaining restrictions will be 95 to 96. Thats a re assesment in the last 48 hours down from 96 to 98.

I hope that clarifies the situation.

Regards

JD

RCF Wrote:



I said you are arming the opposition not I, plate values in excess of £50,000 shall be the rock you perish on.

The SNP are split on de-restriction the Tories and the Lib Dems are all for it and you my bonny lad are the meat on the sandwich.

Do you really think plate values will be allowed to rise out of all proportion to everything else?

Not in your dreams even the council want a solution to this and preferably before they lose in court, timing is everything as they say.

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

So RCF, how is it that every other business which requires a council trading licence, is not restricted in numbers by the issuing council?

Isn't the truth that restricting taxi licence numbers is little more than a scam perpetrated by taxi owners, with council acquiescence, in short graft.

restricted numbers mean higher plate values, a nice little pension earner.

It's bollocks.

RCF, you are in the business of bollocks.