Taxi Driver Online
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

List of councils with no WAV taxis.
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1479		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Sussex [ Mon Feb 07, 2005 7:55 pm ]
Post subject:  List of councils with no WAV taxis.
Taken from Hansard

Charlotte Atkins MP (My friend) :D

The following list is based on the latest statistical data on wheelchair accessible taxis, compiled by the Department for Transport and based on returns provided by local licensing authorities in England and Wales, as at 31 March 2004. This showed that the authorities listed did not license accessible vehicles as taxis at that time.

We recognise that the current generation of accessible taxis do not meet the needs of all disabled people although they do provide a good level of access for many wheelchair users. The Department for Transport is therefore currently looking into the ergonomic requirements of taxi design that would enable as many disabled people as possible to use taxis.

The results of that research will form the basis of the technical specifications to support the Government's proposals to introduce Taxi Accessibility Regulations under part 5 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA). The proposals, which were announced in the House on 26 October 2003, would see the phasing in of regulations in specified licensing areas from 2010 (for all new vehicles), with full compliance by 2020. The 2010 date has been proposed to accommodate a full public consultation process, to give sufficient time for vehicle manufacturers and converters to produce new models that meet the regulations, and to give the trade sufficient time to adapt to the change. In the period before regulations are introduced, local licensing authorities remain free to introduce their own accessibility policies and we encourage them to do so in consultation with disabled people locally.

Licensing Authorities in England and Wales not licensing accessible taxis at 31 March 2004

Alnwick

Babergh

Barrow-in-Furness

Blaby

Bolsover

Broadland

Copeland

Cotswold

East Northants

Eastleigh

Elmbridge

Gedling

Hambleton

Havant

Malvern Hills

Mendip

Mid Bedfordshire

Mid Suffolk

Monmouthshire

Rutland UA

South Bucks

South Cambridge

South Norfolk

Tewkesbury

Uttlesford

Waverley

West Lindsey
Author:  Nidge2 [ Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
Your a bit wide of the mark there Suspect old boy.
Author:  Sussex [ Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
Nidge wrote:
Your a bit wide of the mark there Suspect old boy.

Really, well in that case I shall repeat what she said to NATPHLEO.

"is it really right to bar those who meet the application criteria and want to run their own taxi service?".
Author:  Sussex [ Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
Back to the thread.

Six of those councils currently restrict taxi numbers.

Babergh
Barrow-in-Furness
Copeland
Eastleigh
Havant
Waverley

They should hang their heads in shame. [-X
Author:  captain cab [ Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
hehe,

2 good ole Cumbrian LA's

Captain cab
Author:  Sussex [ Mon Feb 07, 2005 10:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
captain cab wrote:
2 good ole Cumbrian LA's

Live in caves you lot, live in caves. [-(
Author:  captain cab [ Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
do we get access grants for caves? :wink:

Captain cab
Author:  Gateshead Angel [ Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:00 am ]
Post subject: 
I think that every licensing authority should have WAVs.

I don't think however that they should necessarily be HC.

If the purpose of licensing WAVs is to provide accessible transport to the disabled community then a proportion of such vehicles should be licensed PH.

Gateshead for example has over 200 WAVs yet disabled groups claim there is still a shortage as the majority are not contactable.

WAV licenses are taken by people to allow them access to the ranks, not to allow the disabled community access to service.

A good list to publish Sussex, but the experiences of the disabled communities accross the country have seen only a small increase in service in areas that have derestricted HC numbers providing a WAV is presented, indeed complaints have grown as drivers of such vehicles have been reported to drive away from the rank when a wheelchair passenger has approached.

I think your philosophy of throwing as much [edited by admin] as possible hoping some of it will stick has now been exposed, maybe you should stop it now.

B. Lucky :twisted:
Author:  Yorkie [ Tue Feb 08, 2005 6:59 am ]
Post subject: 
Mick you are wide of the mark and bang out of order

of course they should be hackneys kin ell have you learned nothing from these forums?
Author:  Sussex [ Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:21 am ]
Post subject: 
Gateshead Angel wrote:
If the purpose of licensing WAVs is to provide accessible transport to the disabled community then a proportion of such vehicles should be licensed PH.

Have you not worked out yet that it's the ability to work the ranks and streets, that helps finance the costs of WAVs. :-s
Author:  Guest [ Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
there is no way i would have bought a wav without the council giving me a taxi plate to put on the back of it.
Shame i had to wait 15 years for the offer. :sad:
Author:  Gateshead Angel [ Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:32 am ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
Gateshead Angel wrote:
If the purpose of licensing WAVs is to provide accessible transport to the disabled community then a proportion of such vehicles should be licensed PH.

Have you not worked out yet that it's the ability to work the ranks and streets, that helps finance the costs of WAVs. :-s


Yorkie wrote:
Mick you are wide of the mark and bang out of order

of course they should be hackneys kin ell have you learned nothing from these forums?


The ability to work the ranks and the streets DOES NOT help finance the WAV you stupid boy, do you not [edited by admin] listen. If you enter the trade relying on rank and street work then you will be bust inside your first year. Your posts are based on myths and dreams Sussex, the reality is much different.

Yorkie, how am I "bang out of order", you claim to seek to be a service provider but the real reason you want WAVs licensed as HC is because you, like every other PH operator, can charge the driver more.

Providing a service, not providing a licence to ignore the demands of the disabled community is what we should be doing as a trade. You are not a driver you are an operator and therefore your ideals are in your own best interest, for [edited by admin] sake.

Licence WAVs as PH and the disabled community can have PROPER access to the services they should be getting as a right, just as the abled body community do.
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Feb 09, 2005 12:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
Gateshead Angel wrote:
The ability to work the ranks and the streets DOES NOT help finance the WAV you stupid boy, do you not [edited by admin] listen. If you enter the trade relying on rank and street work then you will be bust inside your first year. Your posts are based on myths and dreams Sussex, the reality is much different.

I must admit you are right, I never listen to you.

As for the issue at hand, the fact that a vehicle is able to do rank and street work (as well as radio work if they choose), makes running a WAV a far more sensible business decision, than not.

Your assumption that WAVs can only work with a firm is also a false one. I would leave it to others to say what % of WAV cabs in their manors are independant, but in mine it's about half.
Author:  Yorkie [ Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
Gateshead Angel wrote:
Sussex wrote:
Gateshead Angel wrote:
If the purpose of licensing WAVs is to provide accessible transport to the disabled community then a proportion of such vehicles should be licensed PH.

Have you not worked out yet that it's the ability to work the ranks and streets, that helps finance the costs of WAVs. :-s


Yorkie wrote:
Mick you are wide of the mark and bang out of order

of course they should be hackneys kin ell have you learned nothing from these forums?


The ability to work the ranks and the streets DOES NOT help finance the WAV you stupid boy, do you not [edited by admin] listen. If you enter the trade relying on rank and street work then you will be bust inside your first year. Your posts are based on myths and dreams Sussex, the reality is much different.

Yorkie, how am I "bang out of order", you claim to seek to be a service provider but the real reason you want WAVs licensed as HC is because you, like every other PH operator, can charge the driver more.

Providing a service, not providing a licence to ignore the demands of the disabled community is what we should be doing as a trade. You are not a driver you are an operator and therefore your ideals are in your own best interest, for [edited by admin] sake.

Licence WAVs as PH and the disabled community can have PROPER access to the services they should be getting as a right, just as the abled body community do.




First of all I AM A DRIVER, I DRIVE IN OUR FIRM MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE.

SECONDALY THE DRIVER DOES NOT PAY ME RENTAL ON THE VEHICLE i PAY HIM

THIRDLY YOU ARE GETTING MASSIVELY OFFENSIVE, WHICH MEANS NOT ONLY ARE YOU LOSING THE DEBATE AGAIN YOU KNOW IT
Author:  TDO [ Wed Feb 09, 2005 7:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
Gateshead Angel wrote:
Sussex wrote:
Gateshead Angel wrote:
If the purpose of licensing WAVs is to provide accessible transport to the disabled community then a proportion of such vehicles should be licensed PH.

Have you not worked out yet that it's the ability to work the ranks and streets, that helps finance the costs of WAVs. :-s


Yorkie wrote:
Mick you are wide of the mark and bang out of order

of course they should be hackneys kin ell have you learned nothing from these forums?


The ability to work the ranks and the streets DOES NOT help finance the WAV you stupid boy, do you not [edited by admin] listen. If you enter the trade relying on rank and street work then you will be bust inside your first year. Your posts are based on myths and dreams Sussex, the reality is much different.

Yorkie, how am I "bang out of order", you claim to seek to be a service provider but the real reason you want WAVs licensed as HC is because you, like every other PH operator, can charge the driver more.

Providing a service, not providing a licence to ignore the demands of the disabled community is what we should be doing as a trade. You are not a driver you are an operator and therefore your ideals are in your own best interest, for [edited by admin] sake.

Licence WAVs as PH and the disabled community can have PROPER access to the services they should be getting as a right, just as the abled body community do.


So a few days ago you said:

Again we see the double standards.

Someone posts under their username and the administration replies using a persons real name.

Surely if anonimity were being respected only the username would be used.

That was in relation to someone who was telling us that he didn't hide behind identities, but now you've changed the quotes to change a poster's username to his full christian name and surname, and also used it in your reply clearly for no other purpose than to let readers know his full name.

That's the double standards, indeed double double standards :lol:
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/