Taxi Driver Online

Well why don't you answer the question then?

Provide some examples of local rules and why they should vary from area to area.

It seems you already understand the answer otherwise you wouldn't ask me for examples. Seeing as you have I shall

Not all areas would require a knowledge test e.g clearly London does but perhaps Shap doesn't. Less affluent areas may consider age policy as over excessive. In some areas ph is a busy business requiring full time attention in others it could be one or two jobs a day or a school contract. Everywhere is different and the needs of the residents and visitors (if there are any) are different, so why should somebody who is not a local to the area decide what is best for that area?

For the record I wouldn't be particularly happy with a driver that relied on satnav to get me from A to B unless I was travelling outside the area, I expect them to know where they are going, it's their job to know. If they wish to introduce the same standards nationally as somewhere like Brighton then perhaps I would be happier with national standards, but, there again believing what I do I would think them a little unnecessary for some areas. One size does not fit all, it's that simple

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

Well I understand the point being made, it just that no-one ever seems to be able to substantiate it, indeed even attempt to do so.



So you're saying it depends on population, or what? Perhaps the LC could propose rules based on population then, to ensure consistency?



On the other hand, perhaps those in less affluent areas could run less affluent cars rather than saying there shouldn't be an age rule depending on the area's wealth? And again, why not draw up specific rules on this so as to avoid local inconsistencies?

Or perhaps you could provide evidence on things like age rules and knowledge test that shows some consistency based on some criteria or other?




Could you provide specific examples of areas you're alluding to, because I suspect the vast majority of areas encompass both of the types of business that you mention.




Because there's too much evidence of inconsistency based on grounds that show little rationality, not to mention the bureaucracy and duplication involved in having hundreds of different rule books.

For example, why different rules on things like vehicle testing, vehicle seating, vehicle advertising, CCTV, fares (particularly extras and suchlike) and significantly different standards for drivers in largely similar areas?

It's ironic that the LC is being criticised because of its lack of knowledge and the ephemeral nature of its interest in the trade, but it should be recalled that day-to-day these policies are being decided by councillors who in the main turn up at a meeting once a month and rubber stamp things decided by officials or choose between options on the most superficial of bases, and indeed whose knowledge of the trade is dwarfed by that now demonstrated by the LC, even if from our perspective from within the trade even the LC has significant shortcomings in its knowledge.

Unfortunately the lack of local knowledge critcism just seems - as per usual - like a convenient excuse to dismiss what is regarded as unpalatable suggestions from the likes of the LC. By the same token, how often have we heard councillors and local officials criticised for their lack of knowledge when what they do is considered unhelpful, yet when they do something that's considered positive then the lack of knowledge criticism is conveniently ignored.

One prominent example is Mr C's constant criticism of politicians and officials involved in licensing, yet that's now being replicated in relation to the LC.

Nothing to do with the fact that there's little in the LC's consultation that the NTA is likely to find to its liking, perchance?

The essential problem with many of these criticism is that they're based more on bias and vested interest rather than anything more objective and rational.

Explain to me Dusty why you would support a standard when you don't even know what it is. In your opinion so long as it's national and the same everywhere then that's ok, personally on this occasion I think you're just being bloody minded and you know you are. I'm not going down the road of breaking bits into pieces of evidence cos to be honest I don't care to, you know the arguments out there and you know the evidence out there you just want to know if I do

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

What I'm saying is that vehicle testing regimes and driver and operator appraisals should be to national standards, with safety the priority, with no exceptions.

Your LA may already have a robust vehicle testing standard and if it has then national testing standards will probably have little effect on proprietors in your LA.

Contrast that scenario with vehicle licences through the post ala Berwick-upon-Tweed as was.

The problem with vehicle testing standards is that they are vastly and in some cases grotesquely differing throughout England and Wales and as has already been pointed out, should a passenger in Shap be travelling in a licensed vehicle that has been tested to an inferior or superior standard than a licensed vehicle in Swaffham?

Is passengers’ safety in one LA less or more important than in a neighbouring LA? I think not!

Then we have the ludicrous and preposterous ‘Pol Potian’ decisions such as the Bristol Blue colours for all taxis in Bristol, which you have condemned and castigated in writing as only your scribbling nib can!

It is this type of crazy decision making that the new Act should legislate against.

Then we go onto national driver standards, where again the basics as far as passenger safety should be the same nationally. An Enhanced CRB check at grant of licence and every three years thereafter, A DSA taxi driving test as per http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/Dr ... /DG_182835, a Group 2 medical as per http://www.dft.gov.uk/dvla/medical/taxi.aspx, a knowledge test for all licensed drivers including the basics of licensing legislation, an English language test in speaking, reading and writing [to understand a passenger when they speak, to take written instructions from a passenger who may be mute, speech impaired or even a foreigner who cannot speak English but has his destination on paper and to know the alphabet, so that when a passenger gives the driver an address or post code, the driver can input that information into his satnav and then understand the verbal instructions from the satnav, instead of handing the satnav to the passenger for them to input the destination into the machine, something I have seen happen], a disability awareness course, a basic arithmetic appraisal [to make sure the applicant can calculate how much change to give when passengers tender banknotes for fares, again something that some have failed on in our area].

For operators an enhanced CRB check on grant of licence and every three years thereafter, unannounced six monthly or annual record checks, including multi-agency employment status checks of base/call centre ‘employees’, to name just a few of the national standards that should apply.

After those national standards the rest can be local.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

I haven't supported a standard that I don't know the details of. As I said in another post, at this stage the LC's process is more about broad principles, not precise details.

Broadly speaking I support stringent but proportionate national standards for the whole industry. The LC clearly differs on this, but we don't need to know the precise details to come to that conclusion.



Not if you're talking bog standards it's not.



I don't really get your point, Toots. What I've been saying is that people can never explain - at least objectively and rationally - the need for a mishmash of local rules and standards.

If I ask for specific examples and ask for specific arguments for different rules for things like CCTV and advertising then the question is either ignored or some soundbite-level rhetoric such as 'local circumstances' are cited, but when asked to outline precisely what these 'local circumstances' are then there's no substantive justification proffered.

Indeed, I suspect you're essentially doing the same here - avoiding awkward questions that you can provide no compelling answer to.

In your opinion

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

And in mine too!!

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

Fair point, but, I hope your opinions extend to taxis as well as to ph and I hope your opinions are that there really isn't any necessary difference when it comes to driver standards for either side of the trade, they are both transporting public therefore it stands to reason that they should both be the same

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

I suppose we could talk about pollution controls.

I'm not sure the national trade would be too happy to have to meet those conditions laid down by Boris in London.

But in general I think it's the ending of local adaptability to local circumstances. If area A had an issue, then the chances of getting the rest of the country to support your amendment is very slim.

A prime example is CCTV.

B&H had three convicted taxi driver rapists (on customers) in three years, and that was one of the main reasons they decided to make CCTV mandatory. In effect they have a duty to punters.

Now there is no way the rest of the country will do that.

_________________
IDFIMH

Of course an LA would have to declare an area a air quality action zone?

Cant see that being applicabvle in Shap tbh

So the standards set as a maximum will be taking care of Shap.....if nowhere else?

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Well of course not, but the London trade isn't too happy either, thus that doesn't necessarily make it a good or a bad thing.

So why not have councillors setting emissions standards for private cars, buses and goods vehicles, after all it would be another thing for them to do and help justify their existence?



So to that extent Oxford and Southampton shouldn't have mandatory CCTV then, while the likes of the London minicab trade should have it? And indeed Worboys would justify mandatory CCTV in the London taxi trade as well?



So presumably Manchester councillors are being grossly negligent in not having mandatory CCTV?

And even if other big cities aren't quite as bad as Manchester are they really that different that a different approach to the likes of CCTV is warranted?

After all, there must be few areas of the country where drivers and passengers haven't been attacked, and the kind of workaday disputes that you and others often use to justify CCTV must be universal.

And then there's the hundreds of councils who don't have mandatory CCTV.

Why hundreds of different rule books for those who choose to fit CCTV, assuming the council allows them to fit CCTV at all?

Or no doubt the dozens of councils who have never even thought about the subject, and as a corollary many drivers who have CCTV fitted without any form of effective regulation at all.

I'm not saying that local circumstances don't vary, but I don't see them as varying sufficiently to justify the current mish mash of standards and inconsistencies, not to mention the hundreds of different bureaucracies administering it all.

If there needs to be variation from area to area then perhaps it should be on the basis of things like urban/rural, high crime/low crime or whatever, rather than the current mess.

And as for things like advertising on/in vehicles, seating capacity (not to mention the related approach to fares) and things like tinted window then I can't see any need for national variations at all. Or driving standards - why should a taxi driver need a DSA pass while a PH driver doesn't (as the LC's approach would permit) or indeed taxi drivers in one area requiring it while taxi drivers in another area don't?

Indeed the current mess is why the LC have become involved in the first place, but I don't see their proposals doing enough to clear the mess up. It might get rid of some of the rougher edges, but in my opinion what's needed is something a bit more root and branch.

Of course, I think to a large extent the LC are hamstrung by the localism agenda, not to mention the vested interests of local bureaucracies and those in the trade who probably feel they will have more leverage with a continuation of local decision-making.

Yes.

_________________
IDFIMH

Maybe a high basic standard should be implemented, and councils can add if they can show proper justification for doing so.

At present they can basically do what they want when they want, hence your mish mash.

_________________
IDFIMH

The problem with that example is that it has little to do with what Boris would want and everything to do with Eurpoean legislation and the dreaded Air Quality Action Plans, Air Quality Assessment Programmes or whatever your council want to call them, which have been imposed on all of Europe.

They tried to do the same to us in Brum a few years ago and we were succesful in repelling age limits at that time. I doubt if we will be so successful in the future though as these air quality standards get more onerous with time.

I have no doubt that this European directive will come to bit us all in the bum sooner or later.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.