Taxi Driver Online

The simple facxt of the matter is that we are all percieved to be taxi drivers, even by the government, and PH operators who advertise themselves as a "taxi service" should be included in the dissection of government statements concerning lack of TAXI provision.

Nice to see all the "heavyweights" out banding together to perpetuate their misleading lies.

Go and get your phonebook ........... phone ANY company listed within the Taxis section ............. ask for a taxi .............. but don't be surprised when a PH vehicle turns up.

When the PH car picks you up notice how he can drive within the bus lanes simply marked with the bus symbol, cycle symbol and the word taxi ......... and do so quite legally.

Surely I'm not the only member to have this opinion ............. maybe I'm the only member who isn't intimidated by the "heavyweights" when it comes to writing what I think.

Charlie the taxi driver.

Well if you don't unerstand it by now you never will

Well that's where you're going wrong Chas, no wonder you're confused.

When the Govt refer to a taxi it's clear that they don't mean PH as well.

Have a look at this from the OFT's report, which clearly explains the use of the terminology:

Broadly, this means that taxis can pick up passengers from the
street or at a taxi rank and make a contract there and then to carry
a passenger, as well as taking passengers who have pre-booked,
whereas PHVs can only pick up passengers who have pre-arranged
a journey by making a booking, usually by telephone.

We use the term ‘licensed taxi’ to indicate a vehicle with these
distinguishing features, rather than the older expression ‘hackney
carriage’.

[Please understand ................... you keep explaining what a taxi is ............. I'm not a taxi.

Look Chas, the root of your argument seemed to depend on the fact that the DfT use the term taxi to mean HC and PH.

Umpteen posts ago it was explained to you that you were wrong - it uses taxi to mean HC only

But umpteen posts later you still insist that it does mean HC and PH.

If you can offer any proof that it does then fair play.

But if not then you're just wasting everyone's time.

Have a read of the OFT report, the Govt's response, the Trans Comm report and any other DfT document and you'll probably get the message.

So, to be short and to the point, put up or shut up

You see, by not answering questions and chosing instead to pose more you add to the confusion.

ALL of the points you raise bear no relation to what we are talking about either.


this may surprise you ............... but I'm not a vehicle.



I have no roof and would under no circumstances allow a Yellow plate to be displayed on my ar$e.



I've heard of spray tanning on here, but where exactly am I to be painted what colour and I have no intention to turn into a London type taxi.



Oh I'm sure we were all aware of what constitutes a taxi, however in none of your response did you actually define what is a taxi driver. Nor did you define how a PH operator can advertise as a taxi service and then send a PH vehicle to carry the passengers. Surely if a customer phones for a taxi they should get a taxi, and if your definition is completely correct they are not recieving a specific service they are requesting.

Shouldn't such PH operators be investigated under the trade descriptions act, after all you seem to be suggesting that we are two completely different trades .................... I'm sure you'd be upset if you were to order a cooker from Curry's and they sent you a microwave instead then said "well they both cook things".

The simple facxt of the matter is that we are all percieved to be taxi drivers, even by the government, and PH operators who advertise themselves as a "taxi service" should be included in the dissection of government statements concerning lack of TAXI provision.

After all, if you don't your not really being fair.

Fake tans, fake identities, fake arguments.

Get a life Mick!

You see JD ........ this is to some extent where my argument turns full circle and remains constant.

I do understand that a HC is the only vehicle defined by law as being a taxi, and that only a driver of said vehicle can be properly defined as a taxi driver ............. my point was though (as you well know) that we are all perceived by the public as taxi drivers, and even in some cases perceive ourselves to be such.

Would a fair minded person then not conclude that when discussions are undertaken with referance to "taxi services" at least one person involved would rely on experiences of a PH operation, on the grounds that the business name contains the word TAXI's.

If that were to be the case then any resultant annoucement following such discussion would have to be considered to involve the PH operation refered to.

[The minister claimed that it would be unfair to stop any fit and proper person who meets the criteria from providing a taxi service....

My name is Charlie ............ whats yours ................ cause I doubt very much that its TDO ............ whats good for the goose is good for the gander.