|
Hope I'm not stating the obvious, but the reason LTI have a virtual monopoly in many cities is not because they are the preferred supplier, but because only they (and Metrocab) manufacture vehicles meeting the London Conditions of Fitness (CoF) and in particular the tight turning circle specified.
Thus any supplier that could manufacture a vehicle meeting the CoF could enter the market, but the limited market for such vehicles means that it's only economic for effectively one manufacturer to make them, and the effective monopoly is conducive neither to low prices or high quality.
Of course, the CoF are to a large extent a historical legacy, and whether the claims about them deriving from having to accomodate a top hat or a bale of stray are true or taxi rank myth, the turning circle is still one aspect that still has some resonance in modern times.
Thus the CoF in general, and the turning circle in particular, provide a reasonable rationale for LAs that wish to maintain LTI's monopoly, but of course the cynical view is that this is merely the ostensible reason for retaining the CoF, and their retention in fact has more to do with, for example, that the T&G is both influential at LTI's Coventry plant and in many of the LAs that might be affected by allowing 'alternative' vehicles to operate - the strong support for retaining the CoF in the T&G's Cab Trade News is perhaps symptomatic of this. The kind of 'buy British/Europhobic' argument provided in the opening post in this thread perhaps provides another rationale that may influence local policy makers, with the CoF providing a convenient smokescreen for this way of thinking.
As regards the law, it would probably be illegal under local government law if LTI were specified as the only manufacturer of taxis allowed to operate. In EU law this would also be prima facie discriminatory against foreign supplier, as more obviously would specifying only UK manufactured products.
But of course this is not what is specified - it's the CoF - and it just so happens that only LTI manufactures vehicles meeting them.
Therefore the probable questions under EU law is whether the CoF indirectly discriminate against other countries exports or impede the free movement of goods.
Of course, just because it may do this, this does not mean that it may not be done on unreasonable grounds, and thus the big test probably comes down to whether the CoF, and the turning circle in particular, is reasonable.
This debate has already taken place in London, of course, and TfL/PCO seemed to ignore some of the evidence, for example that the tight turning circle encouraged dangerous manoeuvres, thus being detrimental to road safety rather than conducive to it, in which case any ostensible rationale for the CoF would seem pretty thin indeed.
But it seems that all this has yet to be tested in a court of law, and if Allied has its way then it possibly never will.
As for the possibility of saloon cars in London and elsewhere, this seems unlikely - even if the turning cirlcle was abandoned, in seems unlikely that the WAV aspect would be, since it seems improbable that this would be considered unreasonable - indeed, didn't someone on here keep on saying that the impetus for the DDA came from Europe? I'm not sure about that, but it seems unlikely that the EU would strike the WAV criterion down, and also whether anyone would challenge it in the first place - probably not Allied, for a start!
So a more likely outcome is probably what we now see in some of the big cities - a mixture of LTIs, Metros and 'alternative' vehicles.
|
Login
Register
FAQ
