Brummie Cabbie wrote:
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.
So, a reasonable adjustment would be fitting in the wheelchairs you can and not carrying the ones you can't? You already said you do this. What changes?
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
Tell that to Mr Justice Blake... That’s how powerful the DDA is!
The DDA is only powerful if it appears you haven't taken any regard of it. Most of it is a box-ticking exercise. Again, reasonable adjustments. As long as you prove you've given due regard to it then it can't be used a stick to beat you with.
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
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.
Again, more bunkum and bluster to cover up the fact you don't like the PH trade. You don't want PHV's to have any discernible advantage over you so you're whining about them not being under the auspices of the DDA. You couldn't give a monkeys about public safety, comfort or any of that. You just want the PH trade to suffer under the same burden you do.
As for easily providing, I'd suggest it maybe isn't so easy to just go out and purchase a WAV but it's just another example of that bias you have. You spent two paragraphs whining about how YOU in your purpose built shed with all it's bells and whistles can't provide a service to some wheelchair passengers. What makes you think it would be so easy for the PH trade? Wouldn't it just be quicker to say you don't like PH because they're competition and you don't like that?
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
It may well have in the next few years!!
But not at present which is what's really boiling your [edited by admin].
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
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.
And there it is; the truth. It's not about conditions of licence at all and you know it. It's about them competing for the same work as you and you just don't like it so you use any excuse you can to bash them over the head. By the way, have you got any nationwide stats to back those numbers up?
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
You have lost the bet!!! I am actually sh*t scared of the DDA...
Yes you are but my original point stands. You don't care about the content of the DDA. You care about how it could disadvantage you, not the aims and objectives of the Act. You want the PH trade to share those disadvantages not because you're some kind of altruist who dreams of increased accessibility but simply because you don't like the PH trade.
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
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?
Pirating? Don't make me laugh. You ever spent any time on Blackpool Prom at the height of the season? Ever seen the Hackneys touting for trade by openly petitioning prospective customers at tram stops and then setting off with more than their allowed occupancy (and the meter turned off)? I have. I'm not saying there aren't unscrupulous folks within the PH trade but to suggest it's only them doing it is just plain crap.
I'm all for licenced drivers whatever their trade sticking to the terms of their licences but don't pretend it's only one side doing it. If there's one thing I can't stand it's self-righteousness. Ever driven at 31 in a 30? Plan on turning yourself in and copping for the three points?
Didn't think so.
Login
Register
FAQ
