Saltmarket wrote:
The DDA is about 'reasonable adjustments'. You're citing it incorrectly because you want to have a pop at the PH trade.
I thought it was about ‘reasonable adjustments’ too, until I read & re-read the Liverpool E7 judgment, where the judge clearly distinguishes between different types of wheelchair users & splits them into at least two groups. And he goes on to say that a one vehicle fits all solution is not the correct solution. I personally don’t think that to be a ‘reasonable adjustment’ in my book, because the inference of that judgment would ultimately mean that we all have to have bigger & longer vehicles. The lengths of 1356 wheelchairs with occupants tested in a 2005 survey, as reported in the judgment ranged between 775mm (2 feet 6 ½ inches) to a whopping 1534mm (5 feet ¼ inch). I don’t know where the Hackney trade goes from here, because the accommodation of such long wheelchairs & their user is, in my book, the other end of ‘reasonable adjustment’. So I don’t think I am citing it incorrectly at all; on the contrary, I now believe I am not citing it strongly enough.
Saltmarket wrote:
As far as I know the DDA and a Council making a licensing decision are unrelated.
Absolute & total hog-wash!!!Tell that to Mr Justice Blake; he quashed the decision of Liverpool City Council, told them to reconsider that decision & re-determine it on the merits in accordance with the law set out in his judgment. Not only will this decision affect Liverpool but Manchester & London too, as the judge wrote in paragraph 70 ….. ‘I accept that Liverpool is one of the great cities of the United Kingdom and the market for public hire vehicles there is a significant one. Further, I am conscious that the policy applied by Liverpool is also applied by London and Manchester, and the consequences of this judgment are that there will be broader implications than merely the local ones.’
I appreciate that the European Competition law also played a part in the judge’s judgment & decision to quashing the Liverpool City Council decision on not licensing the Peugeot E7, but the greatest weight attributed to the decision was due to misinterpretation by Liverpool City Council of the DDA.
Also, since the DDA 1995 became law, EVERY report that goes to ANY council committee for determination of ANY matter, be it planning, highways, licensing, park & recreation or whatever, has to have an impact report on the Implications for Equality and Diversity.
That’s how powerful the DDA is!Saltmarket wrote:
They might formulate conditions based on disability access or with reference to the DDA but there's nothing in the DDA that effects PHVs but, like I said, comments on it are frequently skewed to reflect bias.
As I wrote in my previous post, ‘This was a grave omission from the DDA!!’
It is very probable that at the time the DDA was drafted, civil servants that were entrusted with drafting it, probably though, quite rights so in the early 1990’s, that PH were an insignificant part of the public transport system to warrant inclusion in the fullness of the DDA legislation. In 2009, that is no longer the case!!! Private Hire now out-number Hackney Carriage in the whole of the country, probably by about three or four to one. It’s high time that the largest personal passenger transport service in the country was brought into the realms of the DDA & not be allowed to continue to avoid giving the service that they could so easily provide for the wheelchair disabled. To that end several PH operators in Brum already do so.
Saltmarket wrote:
The 'reasonable adjustments' bit could be that a driver assists a disabled person into his car and then folds the wheelchair down into the boot. All things being equal that's all a PH driver has to do not to fall foul of the DDA. Individual LA's might well build extra conditions into their licences or take steps to increase the numbers of WAV's in the licenced PH fleet. That has nothing to do with the DDA.
It may well have in the next few years!!
Saltmarket wrote:
You just don't like PH cars.
The problem with PH cars is that the vast majority do not abide by their licensing conditions & constantly illegally ply for hire. That in it’s self is transgression of the law. If they want to ply for hire do it legally; become a HC driver. But no, you want your cake & eat it. That’s why I don’t like PH cars. Those that do the job totally legally, & there’s a good 4 or 5% that do, I take my hat off to them & good luck to them.
Saltmarket wrote:
The only reason I got involved in this thread is because I'm willing to bet that Brummie Cabbie couldn't give two f*cks about the DDA or it's constituent parts.
You have lost the bet!!! I am actually sh*t scared of the DDA & the increasing impact it is having on the Hackney trade. In Brum we have had two incidents of wheelchair passengers having accidents whilst being transported in a cab. One was in February this year, resulted in a fatality. With the agreement of the wheelchair bound child’s father, who was also travelling with his daughter, the wheelchair was not positioned nor secured in the correct manner & neither was the wheelchair bound passenger & how the driver was not prosecuted, we will never know. In the previous accident a driver again did not position the wheelchair correctly nor restraint the wheelchair & its occupant. As the cab went round an island the passenger fell out of the wheelchair resulting in an injuries claim of £4,000. The result of all this is that I am quite angry at cab drivers that cut corners & that erroneously believe that every wheelchair passenger must be carried, irrespective of the impracticalities of doing so, because they cannot be carried in a safe manner in the prescribed, safe way, with wheelchair chassis restraints fitted & wheelchair passenger seatbelt fitted. The motto has to be, ‘if a wheelchair passenger cannot be carried in the correct, safe manner, then the hiring MUST be declined.’ Even the old Disability Rights Commission produced a document that said, ‘under no circumstances should a wheelchair passenger be carried sideways in a taxi’. The result of all this is that I now, ‘work to rule’ on this subject & I rigorously assess all wheelchair jobs before they are even loaded in my cab. Which is a shame really, but that is how events, accidents & legislation has now made the job of carrying wheelchair passengers.
Saltmarket wrote:
It's merely something he can cite because those pesky PH drivers get away with not having to fork out stupid money for over-priced under-reliable crap. If PH fleets across the UK go 100% WAV I'm willing to bet he would find something else the PH trade was 'getting away with' and find some other Act he could quote in tenuous support.
You’d win this bet all hands down, because PH will never stop flying the ‘Skull & Crossbones’ & that is a legitimate reason for me to complain that the PH trade are ‘getting away with’ pirating nationally & as it is contrary to the LG(MP) Act 1976, I have a most valid reason to continue to complain & try to get these hoodlums to comply with the law of the land. Any law abiding citizen would, wouldn’t they? …..
wouldn’t you Mr Saltmarket?
Login
Register
FAQ
