Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sat May 30, 2020 10:09 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 154 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 45416
Location: 1066 Country
jimbo wrote:
Lincoln Hackneys are 100% wheelchair accessible (since 1994).

Some PH firms operate accessible vehicles (doblo) and charge DOUBLE fare to wheelchair users. rip off the vulnerable eh? So what will they do when they get their hack plate, and have to stick to "fair" fares?

Well isn't that a reason for making more owner/drivers, drive the taxi version.? :?

And if you are saying that taxi restrictions lead to the disabled detriment, then welcome to my gang. :wink:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 10:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 6:17 pm
Posts: 189
Location: liverpool
The hackneys are all wheelchair friendly, does not mention the ph mercs you mention, but I cant comment on somewhere else and the policy they adopt, in my opinion thats up to the people who live there and the council they elected to manage their City, they will know what works best for them.


sirius i am say ing every body is getting ripped of, all passengers are paying extra for system that has loads of people owning taxis who dont drive them . I am saying it is discriminating against the wheel chair passenger because they have no choice . but to use a hackney . I think that a wheel chair passenger could have a case against liverpool council as this policy discriminates against them . street car.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 11:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:23 pm
Posts: 4099
Location: Lincoln
Sussex wrote:
jimbo wrote:
Lincoln Hackneys are 100% wheelchair accessible (since 1994).

Some PH firms operate accessible vehicles (doblo) and charge DOUBLE fare to wheelchair users. rip off the vulnerable eh? So what will they do when they get their hack plate, and have to stick to "fair" fares?

Well isn't that a reason for making more owner/drivers, drive the taxi version.? :?

And if you are saying that taxi restrictions lead to the disabled detriment, then welcome to my gang. :wink:


SINGLE TIER LICENSING? Maybe that's the answer.

I cannot recall the last time I took a wheelchair user in my TAXI, but I assure you they were treated the same as any other passenger.

Where did I state that taxi restrictions lead to disabled detrement? They all appear to use the heavily subsidised, and totally useless, Dial-a-ride.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 4:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:03 pm
Posts: 280
streetcar wrote:
The hackneys are all wheelchair friendly, does not mention the ph mercs you mention, but I cant comment on somewhere else and the policy they adopt, in my opinion thats up to the people who live there and the council they elected to manage their City, they will know what works best for them.


sirius i am say ing every body is getting ripped of, all passengers are paying extra for system that has loads of people owning taxis who dont drive them . I am saying it is discriminating against the wheel chair passenger because they have no choice . but to use a hackney . I think that a wheel chair passenger could have a case against liverpool council as this policy discriminates against them . street car.



Well how you arrived at that conclusion is beyond me, surely it's the PH that are limiting their choice by not having to be wheelchair friendly, they do not have to be wheelchair accessible, the hackneys do.

Why does it always end up that it is the hackney side of the trade that must align itself with the PH model, why not do it the other way round for once.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 8:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 6:17 pm
Posts: 189
Location: liverpool
Very good point . streetcar


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 11:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 7:33 pm
Posts: 1117
Location: City of dreaming spires
Heres my Councils response:

http://www.oxford.gov.uk/files/seealsod ... Letter.pdf

enjoy reading.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 8:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 45416
Location: 1066 Country
187ums wrote:
Heres my Councils response:

http://www.oxford.gov.uk/files/seealsod ... Letter.pdf

enjoy reading.

So your manor restricts because it has narrow roads? :lol:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 8:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 6:09 pm
Posts: 1180
Location: Miles away from paradise, not far from hell.
187ums wrote:

Glad you got your response. :sad:

Alex

_________________
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ

Simply the best taxi forum in the whole wide world. www.taxi-driver.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 9:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
187ums wrote:
Heres my Councils response:

http://www.oxford.gov.uk/files/seealsod ... Letter.pdf

enjoy reading.


Now you have shown us the committee minutes and what they proposed to send to Rupert Cope, how about you show us the public justification which they stated would be put on their website.

Regards

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 10:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
187ums wrote:
Heres my Councils response:

http://www.oxford.gov.uk/files/seealsod ... Letter.pdf

enjoy reading.


Inadequete, meandering and evasive. In other words just a load of Waffle.

Here is what the DfT said in June 2004.

"The Action Plan makes clear that the Government believes restrictions should only be retained where there is shown to be a clear benefit for the consumer, and that councils should publicly justify their reasons for the retention of restrictions and how decisions on numbers have been reached. Thus, the Government considers that, unless a specific case can be made, it is not in the interests of consumers for market entry to be refused to those who meet the application criteria".

Section 4 Government action plan says.

4 The Government agrees that consumers should enjoy the benefits of competition in the taxi market and considers that it is detrimental to those seeking entry to a market if it is restricted. The Government is therefore strongly encouraging all those local authorities who still maintain quantity restrictions to remove restrictions as soon as possible. Restrictions should only be retained if there is a strong justification that removal of the restrictions would lead to significant consumer detriment as a result of local conditions

Below Oxford makes out its "Special case" of consumer detriment in Justifying numbers control.

Abandonment of quantity control of hackney carriages would, in the Council’s view, exacerbate Oxford’s traffic problems to no apparent benefit (given that the regular surveys into unmet demand do not indicate a need for there to be a marked increase in hackney carriage licences to meet demand).

The Council, and the County Council, is concerned about air pollution in the City centre. The County Council is concerned about the effect on air pollution if there was a large additional number of hackney carriages. The City Council’s Environmental Health Officers feel that derestriction would have a negative impact on local air quality. It is perhaps worth mentioning in this context that we are looking to introduce a low emission zone in the City centre as a means to address poor air quality.

Regards

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 3:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:51 pm
Posts: 5795
Location: The Internet
I like the way the letter goes on about carrots and sticks. Obviously a stick for those not allowed to run their own vehicle.

Unless, of course, they pay someone a big fat premium. Wasn't it £70k in Oxford #-o

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 4:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 7:33 pm
Posts: 1117
Location: City of dreaming spires
well i am sorry that the response from my council does not satisfy you guys. I believe that the council has got it right with the possible affects to the customer, you see in order to make it a free for all, something has to give, and in my mind it will be the buses. This in turn will affect bus users (more people use them than taxi's) placing them at a significant disadvantage.

Anyway we are having a survey soon enough, dont worry I have learnt enough from TDO to make sure it will be a balanced approach.

70K for a plate in Oxford, you must be joking, not worth the plastic its printed on.

And Sussex you are right, how many more Taxis can fit in to the town centres narrow roads?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 6:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 45416
Location: 1066 Country
187ums wrote:
And Sussex you are right, how many more Taxis can fit in to the town centres narrow roads?

I can't quite fathom the point of limiting taxis when you can't limit PH. :?

If someone can't license a cab to drive in the city centre, they will license a PH. Or is your council saying that they will de-limit on the basis of LPG? :wink:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 6:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 45416
Location: 1066 Country
187ums wrote:
well i am sorry that the response from my council does not satisfy you guys.

Well it's the DfT that asked the justification question, and only time will tell if that answer fits their bill.

But if it was me that asked the question then I wouldn't be best pleased with such a waffle of an answer.

However the more councils that give silly or pointless replies, the more likely the gov will allow OFT to finish the job second time around. :D

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 6:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 6:09 pm
Posts: 1180
Location: Miles away from paradise, not far from hell.
Had a very nice (and speedy) reply from Lancaster. =D>

The reply was quite long but can be best paraphrased by saying that their justification is supported by a SUD survey, and their members believe that issuing more plates than the SUD survey suggested would block up the ranks, and that would be detrimental to customers.

Alex

_________________
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ

Simply the best taxi forum in the whole wide world. www.taxi-driver.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 154 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group