Dusty Bin wrote:
I don't normally subscribe to the dumb-taxi-driving-brunette-who-can't-Google
Dusty Bin wrote:
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
There you go again implying I'm dumb
Of course I realise what I said there's no support for either side of the argument, but, why would I care cos neither side are my cronies. The report in this thread refers to both taxis and ph and as you know ph has never been restricted so if we follow your theory all the ph should be in mint condition cos all the drivers in Sefton have a knowledge test and have VRQs and NVQs to boot. I would suggest also that the majority of them own their vehicles like they do here. It's not about restriction or derestriction there simply isn't enough work for the drivers to earn the money to maintain the vehicles. Perhaps it would be better if the companies had to prove there was enough work for drivers they take money from and that authorities set a quota of taxis per persons residing in their authority and also made enquiry as to how many of them required WAVs for transport, they could then allow a set % for visitors. Having a free for all does not work
Dusty Bin wrote:
As for subsidies, that would just mean more drivers/vehicles in the trade, so back to square one.
Why does it, that's like suggesting if you derestrict there will be more drivers, which has always been a favorite argument of mine only to be told I'm talking rubbish
Dusty Bin wrote:
Restricted numbers is an indirect subsidy, but you're making the argument that there's no evidence to suggest it increases standards
Is it? The only thing that will increase standards is ability to pay for such increased standards or tougher enforcement if it's vehicles you're referring to.
Dusty Bin wrote:
Next you'll be arguing for free taxis for customers
I don't need to there are authorities looking into providing transport cards instead of free bus passes so the customer gets to choose how they spend their allowance of transport funds as they like, so it's as good as free taxis
Dusty Bin wrote:
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.
I think you'll find that most bus services are on subsidies and I think you'll also find that if there is no profit in the service for the company even with the subsidy they won't run it. I never made an argument in this thread about overflowing taxi ranks although I have seen lots of them and I don't see the relevance of them re subsidies
Login
Register
FAQ
