Taxi Driver Online

Sorry to let the act get in the way Skip and to shatter you're illusions.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

47. Licensing of hackney carriages.—

(1) A district council may attach to the grant of a licence of a hackney carriage under the Act of 1847 such conditions as the district council may consider reasonably necessary.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection, a district council may require any hackney carriage licensed by them under the Act of 1847 to be of such design or appearance or bear such distinguishing marks as shall clearly identify it as a hackney carriage.

(3) Any person aggrieved by any conditions attached to such a licence may appeal to a magistrates’ court.

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

Agree with that

http://www.volkswagen-vans.co.uk/transp ... g-layouts/

he has bought one of the optional ones, the middle row can be reversed just like in a WAV

has he taken it to the LO with the seats in "conference" layout? (face to face)?

http://www.agenda.macclesfield.gov.uk/a ... tt8427.doc

This may help him, If anybody knows this owner ask him to come on here

I wouldn't have thought VOSA would have any say as to wether a vehicle is acceptable as taxi, only that it is suitably safe and roadworthy for hire and reward purposes, but I could be wrong.

IMO the the 1976 Act 47.1 is just a cop out by central government not to have to actually decide on anything. Giving LA's further authority than is actually necessary only makes for the little hitlers of the world. There should be as I have said before a blanket acceptance of what vehicles can do what jobs. The council should only have to decide on a colour scheme if they insist on one. They should leave the complicated stuff to professionals who actually know what they are doing.

For the record though I think something that sits 7/8 passengers is a mini bus and therefore not a taxi. It is possibly a private hire minibus service.

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

After reading the posts , I have come to the conclusion that most people replying have not given serious thought to their replies...... Skippy as usual is purely what is best for himself... But I should imagine that if any members of his family were trapped in a private hire or taxi vehicle that had been involved in an accident, would be the first person complaining dangerous vehicles should not have been licensed, obviously ending in court action... quoting the European law..

A large proportion of vehicles are made simply for the everyday consumer.. which vehicle they buy is their choice, the seating arrangements are their's to choose.... the risk factor to their family is their own choice.

A council has a duty of care... it must consider the safety aspect of seating arrangements. take for example the vehicle is involved in a accident. one person has a heart attack. his position stops other people from getting out of the vehicle.

After reading the posts.. it has become obvious that passenger safety is of no concern.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

The same argument could be used for seatbelts, crash helmets and baby/child seats. Yet the government brought in national regulations for these. What makes an unsafe seating arrangement any different?



This being the case, why does acceptance of such seating arrangements depend on which of the various councils is licensing the vehicle. Are you saying that some councils are failing in their duty of care? Why do some allow such arrangements for PH vehicles and not for taxis? Surely the safety aspect would be the same for either?

To whom?

_________________

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

How on earth is that going to help him?

CC

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

Seatbelt regulations are there to protect the driver (assault). In a partitioned vehicle the responsibility regarding seatbelts lies with the passenger.

Seating arrangements within the vehicle ................. is it your opinion that a council should have no regard as to whether passengers can exit a vehicle in a safe manner? Do you not think they should look into all forseeable circumstances, or do you think that nothing ever goes wrong?

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

Utter tosh.
Do the wife and kids have to wear a seat belt to stop them assaulting me? What is to stop Grandma taking hers off before she belts me round the ear?
Are motorcyclists forced to wear helmets in case they get assaulted?



True but not for the reason you just gave.



No this is not my opinion. I queried why it was that one council could allow a certain seating arrangement and the next could deem it unsafe.
Also why the same council could deem the arrangement safe in a PH but not in a HC.

Now either it is safe or it isn't? If this were being judged soley on safety grounds then surely the same answer would always apply regardless of PH or HC, this council or that one.

_________________

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

Utter Dribble.... Ive an eight passenger seat vehicle..its Classed as a Car. Ive had minibuses and they are Van derived vehicles with 9 or more Passengers seats, the Rules and regulations covering Minibuses such as requiring a D1 licence, Speed limiter fitted, Tachograph and the latest CPC Training makes running a 10+ seat Minibus Difficult to make a Profit from, If you had to adhere to all these Minibus regulations from say 6 seats to 8 seats it would make the Vehicle completely unviable.

so nope...Minibuses should only start at 10+ seats as its so damned Expensive to operate them.

So what reason d'you think a hack driver or private hire driver is given the exemption of not wearing a seat belt when he has passengers in

different councils have different rules licensing officers need to come to one standard

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

MR T perhaps you could enlighten us of how someone is going to be stuck in one of these vehicles, when both outer centre seats fold, the seats can be set in conference mode, so that only the forward facing passengers have to wear a belt.
OH please let us all know your explanation?????????????????????????????

Yes the driver is exempt for the reason of assault. Mind you I have to wonder why the exemption should be needed in a purpose built taxi where the driver is separated from his passengers.
That is not what we were talking about though. Let me refresh your memory.
You said:


I said


No mention of taxi or PH drivers' exemption from seatbelt laws. My point was that since you say a poor seating arrangement is at joe public's own risk in his own motor, why do you suppose the government found it necessary to make him and his passengers wear seat belts and use child seats, where appropriate? Why not leave that to his own risk also?


That is not an answer. It is part of the problem though.
If something is dangerous here, why does it become safe just because you are 10 miles down the road?
Why does it become safe in a PH if it is unsafe in a taxi?
Why is it safe in someone's private car and not in a taxi or PH?

_________________

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