Taxi Driver Online

There are still way to many "ifs" following the OFT report.

A council operating restrictive policy should look to remove this restriction, a restriction of numbers can so easily be replaced with financial restrictions if a council were to derestrict for new WAVs only.

If we were to take Sussex's argument that the rich can queue jump then we should consider that a new WAV policy following derestriction only offers free plates to those who can afford a new WAV. The result is absolutely no change, Sussex hates queue jumpers but is looking to queue jump himself buy buying a WAV, where is the differance, his principles stop him from buying something that somebody at some time, however long ago got for free, even though the person he is dealing with would have paid for the plate.

I don't know how things would change in areas where they have a restriction on numbers as well as a restriction on vehicle type, is it not fair to assume that both restrictions should be removed to ensure provision.
Surely these things should be considered.

Maybe we should all have the same plate, maybe we should all have to work through a licensed operator, maybe we should all have the flexibility to do whatever we like, all I'm questioning is how this will benefit the consumer as the only people I can see benefiting are those who want a HC plate but don't see why they should pay for it when 20+ years ago they were given out free.

To TDO, you say there are no debates within trade publications, as they are all in newspaper/magazine format it is impossible to hold a debate along the same lines as a online forum, maybe if you submitted an article to one of the trade mags it would be published and then commented on by, with all due respect, a larger proportion of the trade than the 10 or so people who contribute to this site. You won't do that though cause your nicely wrapped up in cotton wool on here with a handful of people who share your opinions and so applaud everything you write, it must really [edited by admin] you off when people present an opposing argument on a site owned by your mate and biggest supporter.

To clarify, I don't believe in derestriction because I can't see any real benefit to the consumer, however I do believe that we need an urgent review of National policies and local Councils need to pay more attention to the way they are implimented locally.
The fight for equality will never end, when Sussex gets his plate he will start asking why he is restricted to one area, particularly if he identifies "unmet demand in a neighbouring area within the county of Sussex. Surely these are things that need to be sorted out prior to minimal changes locally, 1 county 1 plate will provide a better public service than more plates in a small local area.

Yes, we tried submitting an article, but they didn't even respond, which frankly didn't really surprise us.

With all due respect, there may only be a small number of people contributing to the site, but is that any more than in the trade mags? No, if you sat down and thought about it's the same old handful of people in each of the trade mags, with the odd letter from outsiders. How many people contribute to PHM, for example? It's approximately one, with the odd outside contribution throw in. As for its forum, despite the free advertising via its magazine, it's as dead as a dodo.

We've tried to question T&G people (for example) on other forums, but when they hear a contrary argument (for a change) they just seem to scurry off with their tail between their legs. And I think there are one or two T&G officials registered on here, but for whatever reason they don't seem to want to contribute. Mr Roland has been on here as well - no doubt he prefers to keep his opinions for his publication, but the chance is available if he wants it.

As for being wrapped up in cotton wool, ditto any other trade publication or forum, obviously these things tend to attract like-minded people - but then you are on here, aren't you?

But as usual, the complaints have nothing to do with the site or format per se, but just that you don't like the arguments.

Yes, this forum does lend itself better to debate, which is why we set it up - if others don't want to take part then that's their prerogative, but I suspect most of the big hitters from the trade mags are aware of this site.

As for your final comment, I don't understand it - please explain?

No change, well ask WAV customers if there is no change.

Your point on the cost of WAVs, is also flawed. A cheapo TX now costs £25,000, but we all know that WAVs are available for less than £20,000. Even less if you can license a Fiat thing.

So the costs to buy a WAV isn't that much more than a nice Mondeo.

As for the queue jumpers, if everyone is able to license a taxi, for the price of that taxi not the plate premium, then exactly who am I queue jumping?

_________________
IDFIMH

They have been considered, and the government has decided that in the vast majority of the country, all taxis are going to be WAVs.

But if you are saying that all taxis, both existing and prospective, should be treated the same, then that will do for me.

_________________
IDFIMH

Quite the opposite in my case. Bring them on.

_________________
IDFIMH

Well, that's the point isn't it?

Why should people have to pay for a plate when they have all been issued 'free'?

As for benefitting the consumer, as I said above, I've never met anyone who doesn't prefer dual-ability vehicles to giving preferential treatement to taxis.

The T&G at the Transport Comm made a big thing about the claim that areas only served by PH would be ill-served if many of these PH moved to the taxi side.

However, the argument should in fact be put the other way- restrictions at present deprive many of these areas of a taxi service, and they have to rely on PH only - taxis cherry pick which areas to serve.

Another thing is that you also allude to the financial barrier to operating a WAV - you are quite right to point this out, since eventually someone has to pay for this, but you fail to mention the often even greater financial barrier of plate premiums, which likewise has to be paid for.

At least with WAVs there is a benefit in that they are accessible, but the only beneficiary of the premium is the plate holder.

As mentioned earlier, if people have paid for a plate then that's their business, but it's a poor argument against those who only want a plate on the same terms as every other plate has been issued.

You say financial barriers to entry result in queue-jumping, so are you saying that anyone who runs a PH or taxi is a queue jumper? Presumably you think that LAs should provide a free vehicle to anyone who wants one?

Perhaps not, but your point isn't really valid, and the difference from quotas and premiums can be summed up in four words: a level playing field.

But you are correct that the financial barrier of WAVs can have detrimental effects, but that's a different argument from the restricted numbers one.

The question is whether the financial detriment of WAVs is outweighed by the benefit of accessibility - a difficult question, which is probably why the Govt is taking so long to work it out.

plate premiums have nothing to do with local authorities, and should play no part in decision making its ultra vires

so lets stick to the facts.

You call for a level playing field, you call for fairness but it is only what you consider to be level or fair, you make no consideration for the majority of plateholders who bought their plate, right or wrong.
Current plateholders bought their plate of someone who bought the plate off someone else who bought the plate off someone else who bought the plate off someone else who got it free from the council. Recently Brighton released plates to people on their waiting lists, most I believe were PH drivers, the majority of whom sold their plates without even using them, was that fair, I think not.

You also say that my opinion is invalid, yet you claim to promote debate, if we are debating now then my opinion should be considered if not agreed to.

I understand your arguments and I understand that the ONLY reason you want derestriction is to get what you want without paying for it. You want the rules changed to suit yourself, you want what you want for yourself.

To refer to an individual poster as we

is outrageous, are you by using the initials of the site passing yourself off as being representative of the total membership, its a very strange state of affairs when there is a facility to remain nameless, as I do.

There are two sides to any argument and both should be considered, if only one point of view is acceptable on this site then say so now and I will not offer my opinions on this issue, however as that is blatant censorship I doubt that you would take such action.

Just bear in mind, the people you are fighting against now will be sitting behind you on the rank when your getting attacked, verbally or physically, by a punter or will pass you when you break down, would you be looking for help from your fellow drivers then, as sure as eggs are eggs.

Well if you can't work out the difference between the views of the site and that of individual members, then it's not surprising you seem so confused over issues like free speech and the trade press etc.

Do you understand the difference between an editorial in Taxi Talk and someone writing a letter to the magazine?

I would imagine so, so why you can't apply a similar principle to this site I don't know.

That point has been made several times before, so I suspect you've been on here in the past?

The posts are denoted TDO to make it clear that these are the views of the site rather than anyone else, and also to facilitate debate - you might try it sometime!!

The site has a view, just like any other publication, contrary views are welcome on here, as you have presumably worked out since you are being allowed to post, as is demonstrated by thousand of other such posts.

I think you are just looking for an excuse to stop posting, since your posts are becoming increasingly bizarre!!!!

Just because you may not be used to people in the trade that do not adhere to your own views you seem to regard this as wrong in some way.

Welcome to the real world and free speech!!!

How sad.

Do as we say, not as we do, or we'll take the huff and let the punters beat you up.

And no doubt enjoy it as well!!

What's so fair about taking a risk and then crying foul when things don't go your way?

Your point about PH drivers in Brighton is a good one, precisely why resticted numbers are a bad thing.

In fact we dealt with that particular scenario months ago.

Thanks for helping our case.

I disagree with you, you disagree with me, what's the big deal?

Of course your opinion is considered, but that doesn't mean other people have to agree with it surely?

Once again, all this stuff is just a red herring - you just don't like views contrary to your own, and come up with all sorts of nonsense as a consequence.

There are many people come on here with opposing views, and the vast majority just get on with debating.

Why can't you?

I would say in my area less than a half of the plates have been traded. The rest are driven by those that were given them FOC from the council. As were the ones that were traded.

If someone pays £30/40/50,000 for something that's worthless, why should non plate-holders be held back?

As for Brighton, my man their says that of the 24 that have been issued since last year, all of them have been driven at one time by those that received the new plates.

However seven of them have since sold to the queue jumpers and gone back to driving PH.

When you have a [edited by admin] system, you get [edited by admin] people in it.

_________________
IDFIMH