Taxi Driver Online

In the latest edition of the free comic Cab Trade News, a commentator, who is no-doubt a London cabbie, comes out with a quote to end quotes.

He says that,
Over the years the reason for the limit (on taxis) has become misunderstood. It is quite surprising to find licensing officials and councillors who now think these limits were manoeuvred into position by taxi drivers trying to feather their own nests.

I don't think there is anyone with a brain, who believes that there is any other reason to restrict taxi numbers, other than to feather their own nests.

_________________
IDFIMH

Now that is daft How can a driver feather his own nest whilst a dregulation is in force?

I think the hatred has overtaken the real issue raised here though Sussex.

The implimentation of the original number of restricted licenses was decided by whom?

In Gateshead taxi licenses were originally offered to only a limited number 87 to be exact. This number was decided by the council NOT the trade.

What this bloke is saying is that the trade didn't come up with the number restrictions the councils did and therefore couldn't be accused, at that time of "feathering their own nests".

B. Lucky

What a load of rubbish.

Of course restricted numbers were implemented by councils, because only they had the powers to do so.

But to suggest that the trade had no input into it is ludicrous.

The 'unmet demand' qualification in the 1985 Act was inserted at the behest of the trade, it wasn't done unilaterally by Parliament, and local implementation of restricted numbers was done in a similar manner, whether before or after the Act.

To try to claim that restricted numbers were not implemented to serve the interests of the trade is pure spin a la Mandhelson and Campbell et al.

But at least they made a good job of it!

Listen SPOON, the councils implimented restrictions prior to the 85 Act, so any requests the trade made leading up to the 85 Act could be judged to "feather the nest" HOWEVER the decision had been made by COUNCIL BEFORE THE 85 ACT.


BURKE

I don't think you realise it, but you seem to be saying that decisions made before the 85 Act were made to feather the nests of the trade, so you seem to be agreeing with me.

So it's feathered nests before the Act, and feathered nests after the Act, as the recent pleas from Gateshead (say) make amply clear - it's self-interest, pure and simple.

But the way, are you signing off as a BURKE, calling me a BURKE, or comparing me with that great man of letters EDMUND BURKE?

Why, thanks!!!

Well I'm not so sure about that.

But I find it very funny, well actually I don't because it's the norm, for those speaking on behalf of the T&G to talk bo*****s.
Apart from when Mr Lambert said:
“Very short-sighted hackney plate owners have usually supported limitation of plates in the past. In the short term it suits them to restrict plate numbers so they can have a queue of drivers wanting to use their vehicles”.

Which contradicts everything that 'pratt of the year' mentions.

_________________
IDFIMH

By stupid councillors defending stupid regulations.

But did anyone complain? Apart from the disabled who couldn't get from A to B that is.

Well now there are two people in the UK that believe what the T&G man said.

But on another matter, what is 'managed growth' if it isn't a case of "feathering ones own nests"?

_________________
IDFIMH

Hang on just a second here Sussex.

You quote only a small section of what could be a much longer statement.

The statement made was that ORIGINALLY WHEN THE PLATES WERE ISSUED ONLY A CERTAIN AMOUNT WERE MADE AVAILABLE.

Maintaining those restrictions have been done mainly at the request of the trade, no-one would deny that, but I doubt much consultation with the trade was held when the policy was originally formed.

In Gateshead for example when the plates were originally offered less than half of the licenses available were taken on, it took more than 6 months to fill all of the places. That was in 1974 when Gateshead Council, in its current form, was formed and taxi licenses were issued by the central authority. The number of HC licenses wasn't even questioned until 1999, 25 years later, when WAV's were required following an unmet demand survey. Different areas have different histories but the one thing they all have in common is that modern licensed hackney carriage drivers didn't instigate the restrictions, even though whenever the restrictions have been challenged they have tried to protect the restriction to ensure a prosperous future.

You see someone defending HC drivers and attack Sussex, something you have done for as long as I have known of you.

B. Lucky

Managed growth enables new nests to be feathered before cuckoo's like you try to move in and take over the nest without doing any work to help build it.

B. Lucky

I'm sat here wondering where does the General public fit into this equation of managed growth. Why don't we call it by its proper name of "Restricted Growth" restricted growth is the last desperate act of men and women who see their monopoly of picking up passengers off the street threatened.

The brain washing exercise from certain elements of the trade has been very successful. They have managed to convince some councils around the country that a "managed restriction" of new licenses is far better for the public than complete de-restriction.

What amazes me, is how some people come on here and try to convince the likes of me and others like me that managed growth is better for all concerned. When in reality it only benefits Cab drivers like me who are kept insulated from street competition.

The word restricted may not fit well with some of my colleagues but I've never been afraid to tell it like it is. I think those that hide behind the sound bite "Managed growth" are deluding themselves into thinking that others are as thick as them.

In restricted areas when people can't get a cab in the cold winter months or at times of emergencies, it should be pointed out that councillors are managing their Taxi needs and it is they who are dictating the managed growth policy which they believe the general public is entitled.

Therefore it is no good Mr Joe public blaming Cab drivers when they can't get a Cab, because as I have just said "the Taxi service is being managed to a degree that your local council thinks you are entitled".


Best wishes

John Davies

You are quite right; it was only a small section of his small article. So perhaps I will share with others more of his stupidity.

By his account the length of the knowledge is the only reason why London doesn't restrict numbers. I wonder how long the knowledge was in the 1850's when restrictions were lifted?

By his account all cab drivers in the provincial trade agree that licensing limitations is a good thing. He must have forgotten about the majority of drivers in the provincial trade that earn in a non-quota area, and the many thousands of plate-less journeymen in quot'ed areas. Or those put off coming into the trade by out-dated and flawed Victorian legislation.

By his account gangmasters will take over in newly de-limited areas. Giving someone the freedom to work the ranks, if they so wish, instead of having to work for licensed operators, is only a bad thing, in a bad persons mind.

By his account once the provincial trade has been de-limited, then London will be the next on the list. Open your eyes Mr P, London was the first.

_________________
IDFIMH

An interesting quote.

The only way someone can gain by not putting in, is the way that's supported by the T&G i.e. non-drivers queue jumping the waiting lists.

_________________
IDFIMH

Well perhaps those of you who have benefited from Gateshead de-limiting, should offer to hand their plates back.

_________________
IDFIMH

the people who have been on here a while have had an explanation on the history of limit by numbers.

it was introduced in the eighteeth century, to help enforcement, basicly the limit by numbers was based on the number of free stable places a council had if unnatended horses had to be impounded.

thats all it is, and thats the history behind zoning to and a drivers right to refuse long journeys.

as we reach the year 2005 the reasons for limit by numbers and indeed refusing long journeys are gone.


the transport act 85 was a sop to get the bill through, permenent change was always envisaged.

taxi drivers complain bitterly that they have no money but can afford days off in Watford or even go on jaunts to Sowerby Bridge bullying,

when a council takes on board the full costs of running a taxi and offers decent fares drivers raise thier arms in disgust, as we have heard this week.

chaps you destroy your own arguments.