Taxi Driver Online

Okay Gusmac I'll try to answer with a little more explanation.

Where's the incentive to own more than one vehicle?

Wheres the incentive not to bend the rules and put one vehicle in your name and another in your wife's?

I appreciate where your coming from, and a mixed fleet scenario will possibly suit all of the countries minorities, but to achieve it isn't straight forward.

Well perhaps it is, perhaps all taxis should be WAV and if a certain proportion of people can't use them (although in my experience a lot of people who 'can't' use them actually can), then they call a PH. This seems to work in London, in Manchester, in Liverpool, in Birmingham.

Fair enough all the above named places are large cities, and I understand why a person in the stix might not want a WAV, especially in view of the chances of actually getting a WAV job, but even then, ask GBC how many WAV jobs he's done this year, I wager if he's not on a radio circuit he wont have done a dozen, even in London.

Invariably the problems initially stem from the taxi trade itself, a proportion of the trade have a 'world revolves around me' attitude, they see their saloon as a taxi when its at work and as their own private car when its not.

They see a WAV as being a taxi, with work they arguably 'cant be bothered with' or a vehicle that costs too much to buy and too much to operate.

But we know all of the above.

The point raised is how can we get a mixed fleet to work.

In my view it cant, because fares are regulated and both types of vehicles are so different in running costs which are actual and hidden.

We could go down the route of driver safety, that's fairly topical at the moment. It is a well known fact that the number of physical attacks and robberies on saloon drivers are massively more than those on drivers of vehicles with fixed partitions. Yet all the calls are for camera systems and surprisingly not fixed partitions which physically prevent any attack.

The partitions have been available for years, yet camera systems which presumably cost more are fitted.....arguably the reason is that a protective screen will hamper communication between the driver and his loved ones on their day out at the seaside.

So long as there is a mixed fleet, your going to have a proportion of the trade who will complain about them having to buy a more expensive vehicle, have to fund an additional family car, have to pay more in maintenance etc.

The current argument about all new entries into the trade having to buy WAV's is false, because being 'chuffed' about being a new cab owner soon disappears.

CC

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

I am PH....just in case i came out and went HC

Maybe thats the solution, most WAV work is off the phone anyway.....change all the regs to PH

CC

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

Feel free..if you can reach it you can have it

Unless you already did this before implementation, the second would have to be a WAV, assuming the aim was a 50% fleet.
If the target was 20% or 10% of the fleet, you could theoretically have several saloons before having to licence a WAV.



Discrimination against the disabled is straightforward.
An all WAV policy discriminates against many other disabled people.



A restraunt owner can't tell a disabled patron to go to McDonalds because he can't accomodate their needs. Why should a taxi company get away with the equivelant?



I don't need to ask anyone this question. I've been driving WAVs since 1996, so I talk from experience. I have probably used the wheelchair ramps about a dozen times in as many years. Most of those were when I first started as WAVs were very few then.
Demand for WAVs isn't just low here, it's practically non existant.
On that basis an all WAV policy is a joke.



Irrelevant. The DDA will come whether these guys like it or not.
They can either have a say in how it is implemented or bury their heads in the sand and hope they don't get their ar*es bitten.




It has been working here for well over a decade. Not in anything like a fair or reasonable way but it has been with us for 14 years.



This sounds like an advert for LTI and has nothing to do with the disabled.
Unless you feel the disabled are more likely to attack the driver.



Go all WAV and they will all be complaining about the same things.
Not fair but at least equally unfair.



This may be current to you but it's old news around here.
Half the "new" guys here have been renting for years from saloon owners who have forgotten where the ranks are - or their decendants.
Many more just go PH, in spite of having to sit the same knowledge test as the HC drivers. I doubt if more than 1 in 3 new guys since 1994 actually drives a WAV with his own plate on it.

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

No thanks.....its your Baby

I think your wrong gusmac.

All the DDA in relation to taxis and ph states that reasonable adjustments have to be made.

Code of Practice!



I don't think so, you'd have to define a fleet.

Do you mean a HC radio circuit, or person who owns more than one cab?



You're right, but all the guidance states is 'reasonable adjustment'.....a WAV fleet is a reasonable adjustment surely?



In the past places like restaurants have been granted special grants in order to make reasonable changes to their premises, there is separate guidance for restaurant owners, I don't see how that's the same as taxis?



I don't disagree and this is the point of the thread......how do we accommodate all the disabled? You suggest a mixed fleet, I suggest it simply isn't a matter of telling one person he has to spend £25K + and the next that he can provide a Skoda.



I suspect the DDA as you understand it will not come for a few years yet, unless the government are to announce something at the NTA conference on Wednesday morning.

Even the WAV's in current production cannot cater for all the differing types of wheelchair out there.

And saloon vehicles can only cater for a specific proportion themselves.



No it was a advert for fixed partitions, perhaps a solution to the attacks on drivers that seem to have been on the increase recently.

I wonder if saloon owners would still be as attached to their vehicles if they had to have fitted a fixed partition between them and rear of their vehicle?

Unless your suggesting a camera system will prevent a physical attack, presumably used to beat an assailant about the head?



No, I've been dealing with the argument since I became involved for many years, and that's before 1994

Ive seen a council policy change from mixed fleet to purpose built only and back to mixed fleet and now back to WAV only.

The arguments have been as diverse from having a visible distinction between PH and HC, to a police force advising a council if they deregulate with purpose built only not enough people would provide a 'more expensive vehicle' so deregulate with saloons.


The point remains the same, 'being chuffed' doesn't appear to be a legal term.

Perhaps an additional point to consider is that we allegedly operate in a free market, fair enough the market is completely manipulated, but the point is, if there is a demand for the WAV type vehicle, someone out there will start to provide a service for it?

CC

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

From the code of practice:
Reasonable adjustments
It is also unlawful for a transport provider to fail to make
reasonable adjustments to a service they provide, if that
failure makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for a
disabled person to access that service.

If an all WAV policy makes it harder or impossible for non wheelchair using disabled people to access a taxi, how can it be considered reasonable?



Both since both provide a service.
The qualifying fleet size could be larger than 2.
That could be defined by the LA according to their requirements.
Applying this to HC radio circuits could lead to WAV drivers being offered lower radio rents, since the circuit would need to attract a certain number of them to stay within the rules, again offsetting some of the increased cost of running one.



Reasonable if you are a wheelchair user wishing to travel in your wheelchair. Not if you are someone with other mobility problems. To them this would be unreasonable.
You cannot favour one group of disabled people at the expense of another larger group and seriously consider it to be reasonable.



From the code of practice:
As far as taxi and PHV/C operators are concerned, they are
under no obligation to alter the vehicles they provide in order
to comply with this part of the DDA.

Restaurants are required to make alterations.



It is also not a matter of telling everyone they must get a WAV and hoping they will be suitable for all disabled people.
Which taxi owners have to spend what amount of money makes no difference to the DDA.



No current vehicle meets the needs of all disabled people and none seems forthcoming in the forseeable future.
The Government will either continue procrastinating over this issue, hoping someone will design the perfect taxi, or they will implement some sort of mixed fleet approach.
If they do, the needs of the disabled will be considered long before the complaints of the taxi trade.



I don't disagree with what you say here but this is still a separate issue.
Do you think it is right to use a driver safety issue in this way?



Again I'm agreeing with you.
The point is, however, irrelevant since the Government has already chosen to legislate and many authorities are already regulating.

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

‘Cabbies exploiting access loohole'


Taxi drivers are being accused of exploiting a loophole in an agreement designed to increase the number of wheelchair-accessible vehicles in the district.

Last Monday a deal was struck between Bradford Council and hackney carriage owners to start swapping saloon cars for wheelchair-accessible vehicles from next year as licences were renewed.

This would mean 36 new vehicles for use by the disabled next year alone and further 150 in the following three years.

But since the agreement was reached 20 drivers have approached the Council’s hackney carriage unit about renewing their licences early – circumventing the January 1 cut-off point.

Jill Grant, of both Bradford Access Action and Bradford and District Disabled People’s Forum, said: “I feel cheated. We trusted their integrity and now feel cheated that they can go against the spirit of the agreement.”

A letter has been sent to all hackney carriage proprietors warning that their actions could lead to additional hackney carriage plates being issued to compensate – something the trade wishes to avoid.

It says that all vehicles due to be replaced after January 1 must be wheelchair-accessible, even if the owners choose to replace their vehicle early.

The Council’s hackney carriage unit spokesman said recommendations had been submitted to Wednesday’s regulatory and appeals committee.

“This will officially resolve and reinforce the agreement we have already made with the Hackney Carriage Association that all new licences from January, 2009, will only be awarded to wheelchair-accessible vehicles or additional wheelchair accessible vehicle licence plates will be issued,” he said.

Committee chairman, Councillor Mike Ellis (Con, Bingley Rural), said: “I am disappointed with these developments.”

C D Khalid, president of the Bradford Hackney Carriage Owners’ Association, said some drivers were testing the boundaries of the new agreement.

“If they are twisting the rules, we will never be able to fulfil the agreement. The Council should stop renewing vehicles before the date expires.”

At the same meeting, which is at City Hall at 10am, councillors are asked to increase the taxi licence fees by at least 35 per cent, as they have not risen at all for the past ten years.

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

Can they use any type of WAV there

Do you think that would make a difference?

CC

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

Going by the recent Knowsley case yes

Wouldnt be too sure about that.....how many new cabs have gone on?

CC

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

10 went on within the first week and others will follow when owners have either finished paying for the present cab or traded in

They have no PCO COF, so unless they change their policy in that respect most wavs will be elligable for licensing. Let's see if LTI can convince this new market to purchase a new TX4.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.