captain cab wrote:
Chris the Fish wrote:
I'd like to see what you put forward back then, any current modifications, then, with a bullet proof vest on, if wasn't right behind you, I might be nearby.
Blimey CC, you love to test my reading/understanding faculties.
I have to agree with your "outline" ideas - but the debate with the late JD did show up the flaws. Though on your side, I appreciate that JD forgot more about the Taxi trade and legislation than I will ever know.
I noted that in different words you said "Evolution not Revolution" and on this I agree with you.
Revolution (a new Taxi and PH Act sweeping away all that went before) would be a hell of an undertaking. It may well be that this is the only way to resolve "everything" but no doubt it would immediately on reception cause a whole raft of problems in itself. The lawyers would cream off a whole pile of change in all new Court Cases.
Evolution on the otherhand is a possibility. Would it be impossible to get Hack drivers to "clock on for a set period" (electronically via Data head etc) so that if on duty the Operator who would be licensed in the scenario, is aware of what vehicles, be they Estate, Saloon or WAV are available. Additions to in vehicle CCTV could demonstrate individual driver unavailability due to "Hails or Rank pick ups" so the operator could on occasion be left in the lurch.
Mandatory CCTV with audio could also greatly reduce "Cherry Picking" - another area of concern in your historic debate. Knowing you are being recorded would ensure that all "negotiations over the fare" are above board. Negotiations undertaken outside the vehicle would then be banned and the evidence of the recordings could prove to either the passenger or driver benefit.
It is often said that the 1847 act was designed for the age of the horse, but the biggest changes are not the motive power. The Telephone, the Two Way Radio and the plethora of new technology is in truth a far bigger change than one horsepower for many horses under the bonnet.
In conclusion I support you 100% with the caveat that the changes you propose have to be clear enough and be worded in full to replace those parts of the 1847, 1976 (and here in Plymouth 1975) and other statutes. This was not achieved in your previous debate to which you pointed me. In fact your skilful ducking of the questions posed by JD made you look like the politician that you deny being (and that is not said with the derogatory slant that it seems to have).
Login
Register
FAQ
