Taxi Driver Online

We had a thing going on a couple of yrs back where a private use to rank up at the pick up point, at the supermarket and the drivers of PH and the la thought it was ok for them to just take people in the cars without then pre booking. It took us a while to get that sorted and made the la relised that the PH are picking up illegally

_________________
christine

I am not against PH having mini buses or anything else that doesn't resemble a hackney, and like I said 2/3 of the hackneys are e7

_________________
christine

what are the other 1/3rd?

and why keep saying "resemble a hackney"? even an E7 doesnt resemble a hackney!




thats got nothing to do with what vehicle they have though

and looking at St Helen's R&R's they are quite aware of the touting regs

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

If you back many years one of the most cited cases is Wirral BC vs. Wirral Taxi Owners Association, the following was recently stated in a case from Lancaster;

http://www.trinitychambers.co.uk/News/1 ... ccess.aspx

The objectives of taxi licensing are not limited to passenger safety but include ensuring that there is some way in which those who wish to use either hackney carriages or private hire vehicles can readily distinguish one type of vehicle from another (R. v. Wirrall Metropolitan Borough Council, ex parte the Wirral Licensed Hackney Carriage Owners Association). The Defendant’s conditions were not under challenge. They ensured that vehicles presented a blank canvas on which the distinguishing signage could be seen.

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

from R. v. Wirrall Metropolitan Borough Council, ex parte the Wirral Licensed Hackney Carriage Owners Association

[16] When that recommendation came before the full Council, that part of it was not adopted by the full Council, who referred it back to the General Purposes Committee, and it got back there at the meeting on 1 June 1978, when there was yet another report from Mr. Mills. That repeated the paragraph I have just read of his report on March 1978, and then went on to say:

'The arguments for Metropolitan FX4 cabs can be summarised as follows:

(1) they are purpose built vehicles designed for hackney carriage work;

(2) they are clearly recognisable by the general public as hackney carriages and there is, therefore, no risk of confusion with private hire vehicles;

(3) they have a longer life than saloon vehicles.

The arguments against are:

(1) they are more expensive to buy than saloon vehicles;

(2) maintenance is more difficult and more expensive;

(3) there is a more restricted second-hand market;

(4) they are less suitable for long-distance work and journeys on The Wirral tend to be of longer distance than in say, Liverpool;

(5) there are other ways of differentiating between hackney carriages and private hire vehicles, e.g. by the use of signs or special colours and different licence plates.'

He makes the point, which the Committee no doubt were well aware of, that the Taxi Owners were generally against such a provision and the taxi hirers were generally in favour, and he said: 'The following points may assist the Committee in reaching a decision'. First of all he sets out the relative cost of an FX4 as against a Cortina, a Marina and a Granada 2 litre motor car and then he says: 'The Council is bound by law to ensure that a licence is not issued for any private hire vehicle which is of such design or appearance as to lead any person to believe that it is a hackney carriage.

There is a need therefore to ensure that the two types of "taxi" cannot be confused by the public. Insisting on FX4's is obviously the best way of achieving this but there are others, e.g. requiring a distinctive roof sign and/or colour identification coupled with a prohibition against any signs on private hire cars'.

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

and why keep saying "resemble a hackney"? even an E7 doesnt resemble a hackney!


The council as recognised e7 as hackneys, as like I said 2/3 are e7, the other 1/3 are lti

_________________
christine

Thats easy

make all HC "London cabs" only (LTi/Geely would love that)

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

Your getting confused

The council ALLOW you to plate an E7 as an acceptable hackney carriage vehicle type, but they can also allow them as PH, and have done (according to you) so a precedence has been set, but less the light and signage, they can hardly ban a vehicle that doesnt actually exist! (E7 is not a make/brand or even an official factory conversion)

That apart, the PUBLIC only see a rooflight and/or TAXI signs, I doubt any would know what an E7 is

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

stop being petulant, the case clearly demonstrates the taxi trades original wish in some areas to remain saloon, yet courts and councils were sold the idea of a differing vehicle type.....incidentally only bought by the HC trade.....that this would solve the illegal plying for hire issue, after all the public were so thick back then they couldnt tell the difference between a taxi and a PHV.

We have subsequently been sold on the idea of wheelchair accessibility.......again, this is something forced upon the HC trade, the PH trade can still carry on in their saloon cars.

If you are so stupid you cannot see that the HC trade are carrying the burden of illegal plying, then your stupider than your ramblings make you out to be.

I could carry on and cite the colour policies, more often than not shoved down the throats of the HC trade - again these are sold on the premise of making a distinguishable barrier between HC & PH.

Of course all of these weird ideas have taken place in differing areas, some areas change their policies every 10 years or so, which makes this trade as viable as running a cab on malt whiskey - because we run on the whims of licensing officers and feckwitted councillors.

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

I thought that it has been stated many times that the passengers are insured. It is the driver and the vehicle that are not covered.

_________________
Grandad,

Not for one minute suggesting that the information on this link is correct but it doesn't show 2/3rds are E7's.


http://www.sthelens.gov.uk/media/51696/hackney_register_21_aug.pdf

yeah, its been stated many times.....doesn't mean its true though, it means the motor insurers bureau will cover the loss in much the same way they will do for any uninsured motorists accident?

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

A person that I know invalidated his insurance by driving whilst drunk. All the injured people from the ensuing accident were paid out from HIS insurance, not the motor insurers bureau.

_________________
Grandad,

Not for one minute suggesting that the information on this link is correct but it doesn't show 2/3rds are E7's.


http://www.sthelens.gov.uk/media/51696/ ... 21_aug.pdf


No this is not up to date. X40 CFT, that is showing as a hackney is one of the vehicles, that they want plating as a PH

_________________
christine

So was this drunk person driving a private hire car at the time?

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