Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sun Apr 26, 2026 12:17 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57333
Location: 1066 Country
jimbo wrote:
I think it a reasoned argument that a vehicle is produced to fit the existing COF, and not for the COF to be changed to fit a produced vehicle.

That's all well and good if the turning circle was a must have product, and it was deemed reasonable to insist on it.

I happen to believe that it's not. But more importantly the safety people believe it's not. :shock:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:23 pm
Posts: 5003
Location: Lincoln
Sussex wrote:
jimbo wrote:
I think it a reasoned argument that a vehicle is produced to fit the existing COF, and not for the COF to be changed to fit a produced vehicle.

That's all well and good if the turning circle was a must have product, and it was deemed reasonable to insist on it.

I happen to believe that it's not. But more importantly the safety people believe it's not. :shock:


For the seventy third time of stating on this site, Sussex the turning circle is not just about u-turns, it makes for a highly manouverable vehicle.
In Lincoln, in the past twenty years, there has I believe, been one fatal accident involving a TAXI. The driver was negotiating a u-turn, when he was in collision with a motorcyclist who was unfortunatlely killed. The TAXI was a Converted Bread Van, the accident investigators and the Coroner put the vehicle BLIND SPOTS down as a major contributory factor to the accident.
The turning circle of twenty five feet in the COF is, in any case, not the only criteria that the bread van fails to meet.

Did you have red herring for tea?

And boy, do those bread vans have blind spots.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
jimbo wrote:
JD wrote:
Sussex wrote:
JD wrote:
On what grounds would they sue?

Maybe to re-coup slush funds. :shock:

But we all know that's not true. :roll:


It will be most interesting to read Jimbos grounds for LTI suing TFL?

Regards

JD


On the grounds that they invested millions, (well a few bob then), designing and developing a vehicle that meets the required COF, only to be usurped by a company that has the goalposts shifted, that is the COF changed to fit the vehicle.
Any change in the COF would be the likely end of LTI. They would have no choice but to sue TfL if they changed the rules to fit.

I think it a reasoned argument that a vehicle is produced to fit the existing COF, and not for the COF to be changed to fit a produced vehicle.

But, as ever, time will tell.

I am, as ever, stating a personal opinion, I hardly own any shares at all in RTZ.


So lets get this straight, If TFL decide to alter the conditions of fitness and remove the present turning circle requirement, you have come to the conclusion that TFL can be sued by LTI for altering that condition? Is that what you would like us to believe?

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:23 pm
Posts: 5003
Location: Lincoln
JD wrote:
jimbo wrote:
JD wrote:
Sussex wrote:
JD wrote:
On what grounds would they sue?

Maybe to re-coup slush funds. :shock:

But we all know that's not true. :roll:


It will be most interesting to read Jimbos grounds for LTI suing TFL?

Regards

JD


On the grounds that they invested millions, (well a few bob then), designing and developing a vehicle that meets the required COF, only to be usurped by a company that has the goalposts shifted, that is the COF changed to fit the vehicle.
Any change in the COF would be the likely end of LTI. They would have no choice but to sue TfL if they changed the rules to fit.

I think it a reasoned argument that a vehicle is produced to fit the existing COF, and not for the COF to be changed to fit a produced vehicle.

But, as ever, time will tell.

I am, as ever, stating a personal opinion, I hardly own any shares at all in RTZ.


So lets get this straight, If TFL decide to alter the conditions of fitness and remove the present turning circle requirement, you have come to the conclusion that TFL can be sued by LTI for altering that condition? Is that what you would like us to believe?

JD


Well, get down off your high horse!

If they altered that condition to suit a supplier whose cab did not meet that condition, then yes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
jimbo wrote:


Well, get down off your high horse!

If they altered that condition to suit a supplier whose cab did not meet that condition, then yes.


The laymen amongst us would no doubt assume that LTI would first have challenge the legality of the decision of TFL to alter the COF, would that be correct? If so on what grounds could LTI challenge such a decision?

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:23 pm
Posts: 5003
Location: Lincoln
JD wrote:
jimbo wrote:


Well, get down off your high horse!

If they altered that condition to suit a supplier whose cab did not meet that condition, then yes.


The laymen amongst us would no doubt assume that LTI would first have challenge the legality of the decision of TFL to alter the COF, would that be correct? If so on what grounds could LTI challenge such a decision?

JD


On the grounds already stated.

It is for LTI to decide, not me though. I just think it highly likely they would at least seek a judicial review. I do not have insider information.

I'll take bets that if they attempt to change COF, there will be a court case.

Any takers?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
jimbo wrote:
Sussex wrote:
It must be months since they said a decision was imminent, but not a dickie bird. :shock:

Do the PCO think that everyone will forget about it and carry on as before? :-k


I think it highly likely the PCO wishes this one would go away.

The PCO many years ago, laid down a specification for the minimum requirement for a vehicle that any vehicle manufacturer could build, to be deemed fit for the purpose, for use as a Hackney Carriage (TAXI).


I must call on your superior knowledge of the Taxi trade here Jimbo and ask you just how many years ago did the PCO lay down these vehicle specifications?

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:23 pm
Posts: 5003
Location: Lincoln
JD wrote:
jimbo wrote:
Sussex wrote:
It must be months since they said a decision was imminent, but not a dickie bird. :shock:

Do the PCO think that everyone will forget about it and carry on as before? :-k


I think it highly likely the PCO wishes this one would go away.

The PCO many years ago, laid down a specification for the minimum requirement for a vehicle that any vehicle manufacturer could build, to be deemed fit for the purpose, for use as a Hackney Carriage (TAXI).


I must call on your superior knowledge of the Taxi trade here Jimbo and ask you just how many years ago did the PCO lay down these vehicle specifications?

JD


Stop toying with me, you beast. So who is responsible for the COF? LTI?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 1:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
jimbo wrote:


Stop toying with me, you beast. So who is responsible for the COF? LTI?


The PCO by virtue of the Metropolitan police has been responsible for the CoF since at least 1850. TFL became responsible for licensing London Taxis in 2000 and now the PCO is under the umbrella of the TFL.

Over the years the CoF has been amended by the PCO on many occasions and conditions have not only been imposed they have also been removed. Therefore if an administrative body has the legal right to impose conditions it also has the legal right to remove them?

Now we turn to what came first, the CoF or the turning circle? If you know your history of the FX3 and FX4 you will know that when the FX4 came into service there was no requirement for a turning circle. Therefore it was BMC who took it upon themselves to introduce the innovative turning circle and at the time it wasn't a condition laid down in the CoF.

Therefore it was BMC who convinced the PCO that the turning circle should be incorporated into the CoF and not the other way around.

So that leads us to the commercial decision taken in the 1950's by BMC to build a vehicle with a 25ft turning circle? Did the PCO inform BMC that they had to have such a turning circle in order for the vehicle to comply with PCO conditions at the time? The answer to that is no.

Therefore if the PCO had placed no conditions on BMC to implement such a turning circle how could the PCO be liable for any financial loss which LTI may or may not accrue in the future if the turning circle requirement is removed?

For the record BMC made the commercial decision to build a vehicle with such a turning circle and it was BMC who convinced the PCO to alter their conditions of fitness to suit BMC.

In respect of administrative law I would have thought you might have realised by now that if a body is empowered to make decisions it can more or less do so with basic impunity as long as their decision is made within the confines of their powers and not outside their powers. Perhaps a brief excursion into the Royden case might give you an insight into the legalities concerning decision making by administrative bodies.

You might wish to reflect on some of the reasons that you would be able to challenge such a decision.

Acted unlawfully.

Ultra vires

Lack of jurisdiction – that the decision was void as it was made although the person or authority making it had no power to do so, or acted outside their powers.

Unreasonableness – that the decision or act is voidable as it was unreasonable in the circumstances.

Discrimination.

I'm afraid there isn't any accommodation in law for the potential commercial loss of a car manufacturer. That is why I was asking you on what grounds LTI would sue because first they have to prove that the decision to ammend or remove the condition was beyond the powers of the PCO.

I hope that settles your opinion that LTI could, would or will sue the PCO for a decision made in the 1950's by BMC to build a vehicle with an innovative turning circle.

If you want my honest opinion on the CoF I firmly believe that if they were ever scrutinised in a court of law the majority of the conditions would be found wanting and probably be done away with.

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 8998
Location: London
I suspect we may be hearing more of your post in the coming months JD.

This time it will be from Mr Facena's legal team facing 'the wimp' known as Roy Ellis in the Court room.

I believe by the time my current Cab is due for retirement, I'll be having a look around Cab Directs London showroom.

I will see you in there Jimbo . . . :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:23 pm
Posts: 5003
Location: Lincoln
JD wrote:
jimbo wrote:


Stop toying with me, you beast. So who is responsible for the COF? LTI?


The PCO by virtue of the Metropolitan police has been responsible for the CoF since at least 1850. TFL became responsible for licensing London Taxis in 2000 and now the PCO is under the umbrella of the TFL.

Over the years the CoF has been amended by the PCO on many occasions and conditions have not only been imposed they have also been removed. Therefore if an administrative body has the legal right to impose conditions it also has the legal right to remove them?

Now we turn to what came first, the CoF or the turning circle? If you know your history of the FX3 and FX4 you will know that when the FX4 came into service there was no requirement for a turning circle. Therefore it was BMC who took it upon themselves to introduce the innovative turning circle and at the time it wasn't a condition laid down in the CoF.

Therefore it was BMC who convinced the PCO that the turning circle should be incorporated into the CoF and not the other way around.

So that leads us to the commercial decision taken in the 1950's by BMC to build a vehicle with a 25ft turning circle? Did the PCO inform BMC that they had to have such a turning circle in order for the vehicle to comply with PCO conditions at the time? The answer to that is no.

Therefore if the PCO had placed no conditions on BMC to implement such a turning circle how could the PCO be liable for any financial loss which LTI may or may not accrue in the future if the turning circle requirement is removed?

For the record BMC made the commercial decision to build a vehicle with such a turning circle and it was BMC who convinced the PCO to alter their conditions of fitness to suit BMC.

In respect of administrative law I would have thought you might have realised by now that if a body is empowered to make decisions it can more or less do so with basic impunity as long as their decision is made within the confines of their powers and not outside their powers. Perhaps a brief excursion into the Royden case might give you an insight into the legalities concerning decision making by administrative bodies.

You might wish to reflect on some of the reasons that you would be able to challenge such a decision.

Acted unlawfully.

Ultra vires

Lack of jurisdiction – that the decision was void as it was made although the person or authority making it had no power to do so, or acted outside their powers.

Unreasonableness – that the decision or act is voidable as it was unreasonable in the circumstances.

Discrimination.

I'm afraid there isn't any accommodation in law for the potential commercial loss of a car manufacturer. That is why I was asking you on what grounds LTI would sue because first they have to prove that the decision to ammend or remove the condition was beyond the powers of the PCO.

I hope that settles your opinion that LTI could, would or will sue the PCO for a decision made in the 1950's by BMC to build a vehicle with an innovative turning circle.

If you want my honest opinion on the CoF I firmly believe that if they were ever scrutinised in a court of law the majority of the conditions would be found wanting and probably be done away with.

JD


A little research, JD.

"during 1906 the public carriage office at Scotland Yard decided that they should issue construction and licensing regulations for motor cabs, as they had done for horse (drawn) cabs since 1869...These laid down strict rules about the dimensions of chassis and body... a maximum turning circle of (get this) 25 feet was laid down... This led to a host of manufacturers submitting cabs to the PCO hoping to share in the lucrative market... Between 1905 and 1914at least 45 British and foriegn manufacturers had cab designs licensed...

Soon..other manufactures followed Beardmore's lead... these include FIAT (heard that name before,) ...but was mounted in a cabchassis with the neccessary (25ft) turning circle."

This information courtesy of "The London Taxi" by Nick Georgano

So in fact, the 25Ft. turning circle is almost 100 years old, and , was set as a specification that dozens of builders were able to meet then.

On the PCO website, it states that Allied vehicles have made a legal challenge to the turning circle, and also electrically operated sliding doors, and a single piece rear window. In other words, again, they want the COF changed to meet a vehicle they produce. Again, if they can make a legal challenge to the COF as they stand, I see no reason why LTI could not challenge any attempt to Change them.

But, please do not mistake me for one who really cares, I will never gain a license to work in London, and would in any case have no desire to do so. I made entirely objective and subjective observations.

Of course, the specifications need to be updated from time to time, for instance,"...in 1927, a committee set up to investigate the high cost of taxicabs found that lack of competition between manufacturers was the main reason. It's main reccommendation? to increase the turning circle, which was opposed by a Superintendant Claro.
Before 1929, Four wheel brakes on taxicabs had been forbidden, "on the grounds that sudden braking may cause accidents..."

There are, on the PCO website hundreds of pages of relevant documents for the anorak to download on the "Allied" question, which show why it is taking so long.

Kind regards, Jimbo.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 8:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
jimbo wrote:

A little research, JD.

"during 1906 the public carriage office at Scotland Yard decided that they should issue construction and licensing regulations for motor cabs, as they had done for horse (drawn) cabs since 1869...These laid down strict rules about the dimensions of chassis and body... a maximum turning circle of (get this) 25 feet was laid down... This led to a host of manufacturers submitting cabs to the PCO hoping to share in the lucrative market... Between 1905 and 1914at least 45 British and foriegn manufacturers had cab designs licensed...


I'm glad you found the details that the "turning circle condition for motorised vehicles" was established when the first Conditions of Fitness for "motorised vehicles" were introduced in 1906 because it makes your inference that LTI can sue the PCO/TFL even more fanciful.

I suppose a turning circle of 25ft was not uncommon in those days considering the size of the vehicles. However it doesn't alter the fact I was 34 years out in my estimation of the 25ft condition of fitness. Before I posted that response I did actually phone the PCO to try and confirm the actual date of when the condition was first applied but surprisingly no one there could give me a firm answer? I have posted some relevant facts below appertaining to the London history of the Taxicab trade, this information is freely available on the Internet and copyright is property of the individual copyright holders.

The fact I was 34 years out does not in any way make your original statement any more credible in fact it detracts from it. It confirms that LTI as it is now made a conscious decision to enter a market knowing full well the conditions it had to abide by. They were also aware that those administering the conditions could also change those conditions at any time in the future. The question is not one of when the turning circle was introduced, the question is do the PCO have the right to alter the conditions of fitness? Your inference is that they don't. I doubt you will find anyone of sound mind who will agree with you.

JD

Vehicle Registration and Licensing Records

Hackney carriages


Hackney coaches plying for hire in London, Westminster and the surrounding areas were first required to be licensed in 1662. A licence cost £5 a year. From 1662, the minimum size of horse was specified, and from 1679, “conditions of fitness” were laid down by the Hackney Coach Commissioners regulating the size and construction of the coaches.

In 1694 an Act of Parliament made the Hackney Coach Commissioners permanent and established the Hackney Coach Office. This and the Commissioners were abolished by the London Hackney Carriage Act of 1831. Previous limitations on the numbers of hackney carriages in London were removed. Licences for hackney carriages operating within a five mile radius of the General Post Office were in future to be issued by the Board of Stamps, which did not, however, inherit the regulatory powers enjoyed by the Hackney Coach Commissioners. In 1838 the Home Secretary was empowered to appoint a Registrar of Metropolitan Public Carriages who licensed hackney carriage drivers and conductors.

{b]The office of Registrar was abolished in 1850 and his responsibilities transferred to the Metropolitan Police. Jurisdiction over hackney carriage proprietors had remained with the Board of Stamps, then from 1849 with the
Board of Inland Revenue, who issued hackney carriage licences. From 1853 proprietors had to produce certificates to show that their carriages had been inspected and approved by the Metropolitan Police.

The Metropolitan Public Carriages Act of 1869 transferred responsibility for licensing hackney carriages to the Home Secretary who delegated it to the Commissioner of Police. The Public Carriage Office was established to deal with this work. From 1843 the area of jurisdiction over hackney carriages had been extended to the Metropolitan Police District and the City of London. The first petrol driven cab was licensed in 1903 and by 1914 the horsedrawn hansom cab was rapidly disappearing. In 1906 the Public Carriage Office drew up “Conditions of Fitness for Motor Hackney Carriages” which required amongst other regulations that vehicles should be capable of being turned within a 25 feet circle. [/b]

In London, unlike other cities, a dual jurisdiction existed over motor cabs, as while the Public Carriage Office licensed the driver and the vehicle for use as a hackney carriage, the driver of any motor vehicle had also to be licensed by the London County Council and the cab had to be registered by the London County Council as a motor car. See below for further information.

Vehicle registration and driver licensing Under the terms of the 1903 Motor Car Act all motor vehicles and motorcycles had to be licensed by their local county or county borough council for use on public roads and were assigned individual registration numbers. All drivers were likewise to be licensed by their local authorities. The former London and Middlesex County Councils were the licensing and registration authorities for their respective areas. Local authority powers were consolidated by the 1920 Roads Act. The 1933 Road and Rail Traffic Act laid down that public service and goods vehicles were to be licensed by Traffic Commissioners who were appointed by the Ministry of Transport. The 1934 Road Traffic Act introduced driving tests from April 1934. London and Middlesex County Councils continued to be registration and licensing authorities until their abolition. The Greater London Council assumed the role on 1 April 1965. On 1 November 1976 the Department of Transport’s Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea took over the issue of drivers’ licences. On 18 March 1978 the Department took responsibility for vehicle registration and licensing.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………

London Taxi History

HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGES


The first record of public vehicles plying for hire in London was in 1588, when the first horse drawn ‘coaches’ were available for hire. By 1768, there were over a thousand thronging the streets of London, causing considerable congestion. They became known as Hackney Coaches from the French ‘Hacquenee’ meaning a strong horse hired out for journeys.

Some horse-drawn carriages continued to ply for hire into the 1930’s but most had gone by 1914, the outbreak of the First World War. The very last horse drawn cab license was surrendered on the 3rd April 1947.

MOTORISED CABS

The first motorised taxicabs were surprisingly, electrically powered. 25 were introduced in August 1897 and by 1898 there a further fifty of them were at work. These were called Bersey cabs named after their inventor but were nicknamed ‘Hummingbirds’ from the sound that they made. Unfortunately due to poor design and unreliable batteries the business failed as custom remained loyal to the horse drawn cabs and by 1900, a life of only two years, they had all disappeared.

The first petrol driven cab was a French-built Prunel, introduced in 1903. These cabs copied much from the design of the horse drawn Hansom cab and were for two people with the driver perched high up behind the two brave passengers. French influence continued and Renault soon dominated the Edwardian market with over a thousand vehicles in service on the streets of London. Also making big strides at this time were the Unic, Fiat, Sorex, Belize and Darracq with their taxicabs. Smaller taxi builders of the day included Ford with their Model B taxi, of which only twenty-five were made before they withdrew from the market. Other small volume builders included; Herald, Rational and Thames. The Dawfield-Phillips Company made the front wheel driven ‘Pullcar’ and the Adams-Hewlett Company made a single cylinder taxi.

At the turn of the Twentieth Century the British makers offering purpose built taxicabs were Napier, Rover, Humber, Wolseley-Siddeley, Vauxhall and Argyll.

The First World War devastated the taxi trade. The majority of the drivers were called up to fight and only old drivers were available, driving run down and worn out cabs. Production of new cabs ceased for the duration and so by 1918, any new cabs that were available were beyond the pockets of the returning servicemen and the trade went into decline.

BETWEEN THE WARS

The Scottish company William Beardmore & Co Ltd who were a major engineering concern making engines and private cars based in Paisley started to produce the Beardmore Mark 1 Taxicab in 1919. The Beardmore Mk 2 and 3 taxi followed in 1923 and 1928 respectively. The Mark 3 taxi was called the Hyper cab and became a very popular taxi of its day. Beardmore did not have all it’s own way as Citröen entered the fray with their cab that took a fair share of the market.

Austin introduced the High Lot Taxi in 1930 followed in 1934 by the 12/4 Low Loader. Morris produced the Commercial cab in 1928 followed by the G2 cab in 1932. These two names quickly dominated the market, as they were more reliable than the French imports and cheaper than the Beardmore Hyper.

The outbreak of the Second World War again put paid to the taxi trade as the majority of the drivers disappeared into the forces and production of new cabs ceased for the duration. The taxi trade was one area during the war where women did not take over the male driver’s role, as there was no time for the women to undergo the extensive geographical training that the men had completed. The situation at the end of the Second World War was much the same as at the end of the First World War. There was a shortage of drivers leaving only old drivers still working; driving run down and worn out cabs and the trade again went into decline.

AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR

A new post war taxi was urgently needed. Morris/Nuffield produced the Wolseley/Oxford taxi in 1946. This was a three-door cab with an exposed drivers compartment but by 1949 a crude partition had been added it became a totally enclosed three-door cab. In 1948 Austin produced a new cab with the FX3 taxicab and again Austin was out in front from the very beginning, with the FX3 almost dominating the market at that time. The FX3 was at first produced with a petrol engine but in 1953 a diesel-powered version with a Ferguson engine was made available. In late 1954 Austin produced a diesel version of the 2.2 engine and this was designated the FX3D. In 1949 Austin adapted the FX3 for Private Hire use and produced the FL1, which was basically a FX3 but fitted with four doors, a bench front seat and without the ‘For Hire’ roof sign.

Austin produced the next generation taxi in 1959 with the FX4 and this famous shape that you will all be familiar with, remained in continuous production with various modifications, including Eight different types of engine! Right up until 1998. Carbodies Ltd of Coventry who bought the production rights to the FX4 from BMC finally laid the FX4 ‘Fairway’ to rest in 1998 and by this time over 75,000 FX4s had been built. The Morris Commercial cab had fallen by the wayside many years previously and the last Beardmore; the Mark 7 (produced from 1955) was discontinued in 1967.

The next production taxi, from Winchester Automobiles (West End) Ltd, was made from glass-fibre. Launched in 1964, the first three variants were quite rounded but the Series 4 looked more like the contemporary FX4. Production was small and ceased in 1972.

TODAY

Following a brief trial with just two cabs in 1969/70, Metro-Cammell launched the Metrocab in 1986. The fibre-glass panelled vehicle has been produced under four ownerships, each in turn going into receivership. A fifth incarnation is imminent

Meanwhile, London Taxis International, who now own Carbodies, replaced the famous FX4/Fairway shape with the TX1 in 1998. An updated version with a Ford engine, known as the TX11, is now in production.

If you are toying with buying an older FX4 as a plaything there are plenty of cheap and reasonable examples around as many are de-commissioned every year.

MISCELLANEA

The laws regulating the present day taxi trade go back a very long way. In 1654 Oliver Cromwell set up ‘The Fellowship of Master Hackney Coachmen’. This fellowship was discontinued in 1657. Between 1654 and 1714 Hackney Coaches displayed on the carriage doors the Hackney Registration Number. After 1714 a metal plate showing the Hackney Registration Number was displayed on the rear of the Hackney Coach and although the Hackney Licence Plates of today are computer generated in forgery proof plastic, today’s Licensed Taxicabs still display a Licence Plate on the rear of the vehicle.

In 1843 it became compulsory for licensed drivers to wear a metal badge showing their licence number, which they still do to this day.

The taximeter was introduced in 1906 and was made compulsory in London from July 1907. The taximeter was a German invention, first used in Berlin but soon adopted worldwide.

http://www.lvta.co.uk/pictures/unic.jpg

http://www.lvta.co.uk/pictures/BLM942.jpg

......................................................


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 10:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:23 pm
Posts: 5003
Location: Lincoln
Well done, JD! A little research goes along way!

You were 50 years out, but let's not get picky.

Out of all the vehicle builders you name above, can you tell me how many had the COF altered to meet the produced vehicle, rather than those that produced a vehicle to meet the laid down relevant COF?

Because I do not believe it has ever happened.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 12:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:23 pm
Posts: 5003
Location: Lincoln
Transport for London

Public Carriage Office

Construction and Licensing of Motor Taxicabs in London

Conditions of Fitness 2000

Turning Circle

7 (1) The vehicle must be capable of being turned on either lock so asto proceed in the opposite direction without reversing between two vertical parrallel planes not more apart than 8.535 metres apart.

(2) The wheel turning circle kerb to kerb on either lock must be not less than 7.62 metres in diameter.

N.B. These requirements are essential to ensure manoeverability neccessary for a cab in London,e.g.,where ranks may be sited in the middle of the road, at hotels, and other restricted sites, and where passengers hail the cab from the opposite side of the roadway.

ESSENTIAL.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:23 pm
Posts: 5003
Location: Lincoln
jimbo wrote:
Transport for London

Public Carriage Office

Construction and Licensing of Motor Taxicabs in London

Conditions of Fitness 2000

Turning Circle

7 (1) The vehicle must be capable of being turned on either lock so asto proceed in the opposite direction without reversing between two vertical parrallel planes not more apart than 8.535 metres apart.

(2) The wheel turning circle kerb to kerb on either lock must be not less than 7.62 metres in diameter.

N.B. These requirements are essential to ensure manoeverability neccessary for a cab in London,e.g.,where ranks may be sited in the middle of the road, at hotels, and other restricted sites, and where passengers hail the cab from the opposite side of the roadway.

ESSENTIAL.


So. From "Essential" to "Unneccessary" Quite a u-turn, don't you think?

Me, I remain convinced it'll end in a court case. could take years.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 151 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group