toots wrote:
Thank you, the point I was trying to make was that there is no evidence statistically that supports either arguement. Whilst there may have been little or no difference between accidents in restricted or derestricted areas there is no data available regarding how many drivers take risks with vehicle maintenance. The small majority that are caught are just that, a small majority. I suggest that these drivers are the tip of the iceburg so to speak and 'there for the grace of God' not had any serious mishaps whilst carrying passengers. The fact that Oft have little or no regard to drivers ability to earn a living does not make them right. If like buses taxis where subsidised to ensure they could provide the service that everybody in authority wants them to I'd be all for a free for all.
Yes, but the point I was alluding to initially - which you're clearly about ten years behind on thus perhaps missed that point ever so slightly - was your cartel cronies' claim that restricted numbers mean higher standards, safer vehicles etc. The onus is on them to demonstrate that. You rightly say there's no definitive evidence to support the claim, thus you're undermining their claim rather than supporting it, but I don't think you realise that
And as usual the rest of your argument confuses plate holders with drivers, so no point in going over that for the zillionth time.
As for subsidies, that would just mean more drivers/vehicles in the trade, so back to square one.
Restricted numbers is an indirect subsidy, but you're making the argument that there's no evidence to suggest it increases standards
Quote:
Oft report wrote:
While we accept that potential rank overcrowding is an issue for LAs
without quantity controls, in our view it can be managed. For example
new ranks or temporary ranks to cover weekend and evening peaks may
be created. Marshals could also be used at peak times to help speed up
traffic flow.
How niave
Quote:
So taxis are to provide the service that other public transport can't but unlike other public transport they won't be subsidised and in many cases will be charged to sit on a rank at a train station
Next you'll be arguing for free taxis for customers
I think you'll find that subsidies are generally only used to provide a service which wouldn't otherwise be provided, which kind of conflicts with your argument about overflowing taxi ranks.
Quote:
For this priviledge they will have their market flooded and their income reduced and their working hours increased and their family time reduced. I'm sorry but I don't agree with this type of working practise. As I said before whilst I don't agree with restriction on vehicles until such time that the quality of drivers is increased to a level that only encourages professionals I see no reasonable alternative.
So how do inflated rentals and/or a loan of tens of thousands to buy a plate help matters along?
As for 'professionalising' the trade, unfortunately it's the PH circuits and taxi cartels who don't want this because it woud interfere with their supply of rental/settle fodder, so it's ironic that you prefer to pander to the taxi cartels and their policies which take money out of the pockets of drivers.
Quote:
If a driver has no money to repair or maintain their vehicle at regular intervals they will take chances with their own safety and that of the public until they are either caught and stopped or they eventually have the money spare to repair and maintain.
To end my rant lets make it clear that accidents are accidents, neglect of vehicles is not the same and there are no statistics to support your arguement, or mine for that matter. Imo the Oft report isn't worth the paper it's written on in much the same way as the NVQ isn't worth the paper that is printed on either.
Yes, it's all schecht, but what's the alternative? Blackpool's thesis? Mr T's?
Quote:
Btw I ain't dumb it's a means to an end and it worked :wink
I didn't say you were dumb, I said it was a 'routine'. Or that you can't be bothered doing a basic google search. Or both
Login
Register
FAQ
