Taxi Driver Online

One hit wonder?

Money cant buy you friends, but you get a better class of enemy
Spike Milligan

I don’t know if any of you have sky television, being poor taxi drivers you probably haven’t. On sky there are a few music channels that play music videos 24/7. This past weekend they dedicated the entire weekend to one hit wonders. This of course refers to a bands ability to get a single to number one in the charts, but to have no follow up and they then disappear into obscurity.

During the 1980’s a favourite one hit wonder of mine was that timeless track by Toni Basil called “Mickey”. Anyway, watching the TV in the bored manner I normally do, got me to thinking about the one hit wonder of our trade that is SCATA and their article in last months issue.

SCATA’s rise to fame has been somewhat of a trial, at least for those of us who like to read the magazine from cover to cover anyway. Whilst I admit I am not that intelligent, I’m not thick either, yet reading through a SCATA article is a bit like a journey through the land that time forgot, while it may make decent reading for those of you who have degrees in English Literature, it is very often confusing, repetitive and like a quest for the holy grail.

Therefore, I prepared to leave the warmth of the living room, the musical harmony of Toni Basil fading in the distance, my tearful wife holding my children saying “don’t do it honey”, armed with a dictionary in one hand, a flask of coffee in the other and my cigarettes in my breast pocket. I set off on the trek that is a SCATA article. I like to be prepared for these things.

In 1995 the DDA came out with all party support, SCATA have never agreed with all taxis becoming wheelchair accessible, unfortunately they seemed to realise a little too late, 7 years too late to be precise and some 10 years too late from the initial date of the DDA. They have subsequently failed to realise that no government in its right mind is going to mess about with a piece of legislation that promotes equality to those less fortunate, after all the dear old British public like legislation that make them feel better.

A little late in the day, seems to be the modus operandi of SCATA, with last months article coming just under a year after the government response through the DFT. Indeed, given the level of being a little late in the day it can be hardly surprising that the SCATA article was urging local authorities to wait and see. With this level of waiting, seeing and missing dates, we can be perhaps thankful that SCATA were not left in charge of making the wheel all those years ago.

The article effectively stated the policy of the T&G, whilst I am sure the T&G like their policies being agreed to, it is perhaps a little disconcerting that SCATA couldn’t seem to find the time or perhaps be bothered (delete as applicable) to come up with their own or something new, after all they did have a year, instead they borrowed the T&G’s.

I will again go back and mention what SCATA advocates from the article, local authorities should wait and see what the government do if they decide to not justify their policy. It then states that the government may use a Regulatory Reform Order (RRO) to implement delimitation should local authorities not do anything. At this point in my trek I was becoming a little nauseated, perhaps the large words were getting the better of me, I do not know, however I think I missed the point, and decided to re-read that bit. Were SCATA advocating calling the governments bluff? Were they saying that during the forthcoming two years an angel would appear and fix the delimitation issue once and for all?

Then like a beacon of light I read a section of the SCATA application form, perhaps my head was starting to nod as it does when I fall asleep. “SCATA stands for the unity of all Representative Organisations of the Taxi Industry in confronting the intransigent activities of “this Government”, obviously SCATA believe it is a political matter. “this government” is Labour, the previous government was Conservative, it was the Conservatives that brought about deregulation in virtually all industries and they brought it to the taxi trade via the 1985 transport act. Indeed if it wasn’t for a certain little section of the act being altered by the NFTA’s Lord Renton, we would have all been delimited 20 years ago.

If you cannot grasp what I am actually saying here, it’s that politicians of both political parties are equally culpable, they are also responsible to a nation and not just taxi drivers. It is not a political issue and never has been, the DDA stands for the less well off in our community being able to obtain the same as the able bodied. Do you not understand this? It passed with all party support, it passed with a conservative government and the timetable for implementation was announced last year by a Labour administration, the timetable will be upon you very soon indeed.

One word keeps appearing in SCATA articles, the word “intransigent”, this word means uncompromising in politics. Since when have those in power been willing to give up that power, although could you call an act of parliament that passed with all party support, such as the 1995 DDA, uncompromising in politics? No you certainly could not.

With regards to the government bringing in a RRO if local authorities fail to justify their policies, then SCATA urging them to ignore the government will surely be counterproductive, at the moment a local authority can justify a policy of limitation, they would be probably unable to do so if an RRO were to be incurred. Bearing in mind that only one third of local authorities restrict numbers, and bearing in mind the level of importance to which taxis are dealt with by local authorities, these calls should hopefully fall on deaf ears anyway.

It is very difficult for me to understand SCATA’s objectives. In the instance of the DDA, a local authority may appeal for exemption due to its circumstances, even then a local authority could put in place a policy that will ensure saloons are retained, but new licenses must go to WAV’s. The SCATA insistence on the DDA being changed is therefore unnecessary in many people’s eyes, including my own. Indeed the failure to recognise the multitude of new types of WAV’s coming onto the market, with prices to suit all pockets and as advertised in this magazine every issue, is perhaps even more surprising.

If delimitation is an abyss, then 2/3rds of the country are in that abyss, which means by SCATA’s way of thinking, 1/3rd of the country is fine and dandy, sorry to urinate on your vision, but that isnt the case. Are people really trying to tell us that they fear a lack of trade upon delimitation? Or has this become a convenient argument in protection of the value of a plate or permit?

It would appear that the article was basically an address aimed at Chelmsford Borough Council by the local Taxi Association, it gives one part of the story, as obviously it would. While local councillors may well be interested in the effects of delimitation in Atlanta, USA, it may come in handy for future use in a pub quiz, what is its true relevance to a town in Essex? Indeed, the “cut price” taxi wars to which the article refers may well be to the ultimate advantage of the customer. It certainly has not been the case in this country that after delimitation taxi fares create taxi wars. Unfortunately, while you can also criticise the 1976 act until your little heart is content, the fact is that the act is there and there is sweet FA the local authority can do about it and it must operate with what it has.

Their seems to be some confusion about what the OFT was about, it was about competition, I would honestly believe that when a department is called the Office of Fair Trading it would give a little clue to their aims. Restrictions are obviously not conducive to an open and free market. With reference to the earnings of taxi drivers, again this is of little consequence, if you can’t make a living, leave the trade, it is raw, it is brutal, but it is also the truth of business and like any truth, when you leave, someone else will take over.

The question gas been asked before, if I am suitably qualified and want to purchase a brand spanking new purpose built TX2, why can I not operate a taxi business in a limited area? This is the one thing that the public cannot understand, why should I have to spend extra or additional money for an inflated price of a license, when a local authority, could at any time, start issuing more licenses. I am not effectively buying any trade for the vehicle, as the customer is walking to a taxi rank or hailing me, I could have been any one, and they are not specifically my customers, I was merely there at the time. If I am not buying custom, then am I buying into a monopoly? A monopoly that may be ripped to shreds if the local authority delimit.

The points in the SCATA article concerning fares are of very little credibility, the fares charged in the provinces are usually a maximum fare, it has always been the case that a driver can offer a discount on the metered rate, so long as that rate is not more than the one laid down by the local authority.

Surely, and I am trying to be constructive, the best way to persuade a local authority to justify their policy is basically to ask them to. Tell them you want the system to work, tell them you want to be a part of a solution and not the hindrance. You must recognise that undersupply is as bad as oversupply, and persuade the local authority to this. Going on about the injustices of the OFT, the Labour government and the number of private hire cars is not a solution it is indicative of the problem.

While stating this, if the local authority in Chelmsford actually think that issuing hackney licenses to all and sundry will assist them at peak-times in getting the streets clear, they are sadly mistaken and should perhaps look at delimited areas elsewhere in the country at throwing out time. The suggestion that more taxis will lead to less traffic on the road made by advocates of delimitation is additionally a false argument with no proof. The inference made by one private hire operator in Chelmsford that delimitation will lead to more competition and therefore a better service is not quite correct either, delimited areas find that drivers tend to work when they know work is there, leaving some shifts virtually uncovered. The local authority, not the private hire firm, further jeopardising the argument, sets fares.

The Reiver

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

Delimitation is the aspiration of those of us who expect everything without having to give anything back.

Those who argue for derlimitation have no intention to offer greater services to the consumer, that is not what their argument is about but they ride upon the back of such promises in order to reach their goals, when they have their plate they won't give a toss about any demand other than their own.

B. Lucky

Ahh, youve been to Carlisle then

Captain cab

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

What utter tosh.

De-limitation doesn't just give you and me equal treatment, it gives everyone equal treatment. Is that such a bad thing?

That aside, what do those that buy plates on the black market give back? Do you mean the £50,000 to someone who got their plate for nothing? Does that make vehicle standards better? Or does it make people scrimp and scrape, because all their money has gone on the plastic number at the back.

_________________
IDFIMH

rather polite for you

Captain cab

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

I've had a warning.

_________________
IDFIMH

Keep on misleading Sussex old boy, you have been told many times that the figures you use are inflated to suit your argument.

What I'm saying here is that you consider things to be unfair, yet you are not stopped from joining the industry if you wished to do so.

You claim that you shouldn't pay a premium to someone who got the plate for nothing, I have already stated that the vast majority of current plateholders actually paid for their plates and did not as you suggest get them for nothing, your comments are therefore inaccurate and misleading.

Vehicle standards are dictated by the local authority Sussex not by the plateholders so again your comments are misleading and inaccurate.

Delimitation actually leads to lower vehicle standards as the potential takings do not warrant, in many cases, the purchase of a newer or replacement vehicle.

There is an argument for more vehicles Sussex, in many areas, but to just allow an unlimited number of vehicles, although much easier, does nothing to improve standards. There should be balance and proper investigation into what is required, only then can we possibly come up with local policies which are unquestionably fair.

B. Lucky

So you think it's fair that some have to pay to become taxi vehicle owners, and some don't.

Makes bundles of sense that.

_________________
IDFIMH

I claim that no-one should pay a premium for a plate, and yes that includes me.

When you say that the vast majority paid a premium for their plates, I take it you mean locally, because the vast majority of the UK didn't pay a bean?

If you mean locally, then you should know more than me, but aren't you the one that has been saying that your manor has been flooded by free plates?

_________________
IDFIMH

So you think that someone who has paid £50,000 for a plate, is going to be able to maintain it to the same level as someone who paid nothing for one?

As for your view that de-limitation mean a lesser standard of vehicle, well that's also tosh. Don't take my word for it, just read why nearly 50 councils have de-limited in the last two years, and apart from one, have done it on the basis of improved vehicle standards.

Just because your manor will license s***, doesn't mean that anyone else has too. And thank goodness for that.

_________________
IDFIMH

LOL Sussex, you just don't get it do you.

Firstly you are not stopped from becoming a plateholder, you've already said that you have the money so its your own principles thats stopping you not what anyone else is doing.

Secondly everyone entering the trade has got to pay, plate premiums have been paid by the vast majority of current plateholders all of whom would, I'm sure, have rather paid less if not anything at all.

Thirdly could you please explain how some people can get a plate for free but others can't, unless of course your refering to areas which still impose a restriction on the number of saloon vehicles, or drivers who cannot afford a WAV.

Maybe you should ask your specialist "taxi" solicitor mate.

B. Lucky

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/vie ... ght=#22414

_________________
IDFIMH

Please provide a sourse for your statement, or some evidence that it is at all accurate. I know taxidrivers from all over the country ALL OF WHOM who own a plate paid for it.

Locally I have already stated that of the 85 saloon plates currently issued only 4 actually were "granted" by the council of which 2 are now shared between the person who obtained the plate and their own son. The number of plateholders who do not hold a HC drivers badge has INCREASED since derestriction and now account for a quarter of issued licenses.



That is a downright lie Sussex.

What I said was that plateholders do not dictate standards, licensing authorities do.

I notice that you "thank goodness" that not all councils who derestrict grant licenses to "[edited by admin]", is that just to protect your own investment that as a professional you would make in a quality vehicle, and allow you to rent it out, at a rate you decide, to someone not fortunate to be in your financial position.

Fairness my arse.

B. Lucky

That statement is unfair

I know lots of drivers who would love to give a service at cheaper costs
its been calculated that fares in Halifax are 25% higher than they could be if premiums did not exist,

stop guessing and making outragiously untrue statements please

I don't need a statement, pure common sense is all that's required.

Only 36% of council's restrict, thus even if everyone of those paid for their plates, then that will never constitute a vast majority.

London with a third of the countries cabs dosen't restrict, so even if every other council in the country did restrict, 66% is not a vast majority.

Then you have Birmingham that don't restrict, Liverpool that does restrict but issued huge numbers for nothing a few years ago, then add all those out there that got their plates for nothing from a council issue, and you will find that your assumption that the vast majority of cabbies paid for their plates is pure stupidity.

_________________
IDFIMH