Taxi Driver Online

Think someone from the newspaper is having a bit of a giggle with this headline - would certainly cut numbers down though

Anyway, this piece is a bit all over the place, but suspect there's an obvious explanation (see my comments below), or at least obvious in view of yesterday's piece about fare amalgamation across the different Cornwall zones


Taxi drivers call for 8-inch rule to be axed

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornw ... ch-2741158

They say passengers have plenty of room

Taxi drivers have called for Cornwall Council to relax rules around the minimum legroom provided in cabs saying the current 8-inch rule "could end drivers' careers".

Cornwall Council's miscellaneous licensing committee is set to consider a report on specifications for Hackney carriages and private hire vehicles when it meets on Friday.

Under current rules the council says that the minimum legroom available to any passenger must be eight inches (200mm). The measurement is taken from the edge of the seat cushion to the rear of the seat or object in front.

However some taxi drivers say that this rule means that some modern vehicles do not meet the requirements due to centre consoles and air conditioning units.

There are also concerns that the council is set to consult on plans to implement a 10-year age limit for licensed vehicles and cabbies say that many modern vehicles do not offer the 8-inch gap required.

One suggestion is that the council should alter the guidelines so that the gap has to be a minimum of six inches.

A taxi driver from Bodmin said that their vehicle had been licensed for three years with no concerns and thought that the limit was already six inches.

They wrote: "I believe the gap only needs to be six inches so that you can pass your foot through said gap and into the footwell, ie the person in the middle has a foot each side of the propshaft tunnel.

"As an experiment I took a tape measure to Tregonings Garage, I measured the gap in a BMW 5 Series saloon, BMW 5 Series estate, Jaguar XF saloon and a Volvo V70 estate, the biggest cars they have for sale - all failed the eight inch rule."

They added: "In troubled economic times the cost of expensive vehicle changes could be the end of some drivers' careers."

In a submission to the committee Mike Brown, from Parnells Taxis, said that the rule "is a major problem for us as a business".

He wrote: "There is a large percentage of saloon cars that are already plated as taxis that will no longer plated for three passengers in the rear which will become a major problem for the whole taxi trade.

"You now have a situation where some of the biggest saloon cars available are no longer fit for purpose yet you have smaller cars...with no centre console and they are passed okay that is fine.

"The centre console does not affect the customer's comfort as when you are sat in the back of a car you sit with your feet either side of the tunnel, you do not sit with your feet on the tunnel."

Mr Brown made the suggestion of changing the gap to six-inches or to allow licensing officers to make their own judgement on whether a car is suitable for two or three rear passengers.

In a report to the committee licensing officers have suggested that the requirement could be removed and officers could make a judgement themselves on whether vehicles are comfortable.

It states: "Part of the consideration when licensing vehicles is to ensure that vehicles are comfortable.

"Officers have seen vehicles that don’t meet the leg room specification but consider the vehicle to be comfortable. In contrast, there could be cases where the leg room requirement is met yet the vehicle is not comfortable for the number of passengers requested. In this regard officers feel it could be appropriate to remove the requirement but allowing delegated authority to determine if they feel each passenger has sufficient leg room to be comfortable when the vehicle is full to the capacity applied for."

They suggest that an example would be if an officer's knees are touching the seat or nearest object in front.

Cornwall Council's miscellaneous licensing committee will consider the report when it meets on Friday April 12.

So is it or isn't it?



At the start the article makes it sound like it's an existing rule, but this make it sound like it's a new rule that's due to be implemented

But in view of yesterday's piece about different fares across different zones in Cornwall due to the amalgamation of the old district councils, then the obvious explanation here is that it's about different rules in different zones, and they're trying to implement a uniform specification across Cornwall, hence similar difficulties as arising when trying to implement a uniform tariff across every zone.

Which would have made the article a whole lot easier to understand if that had been stated from the outset, and it's particularly strange in view of yesterday's article being pretty clear about the amalgamation issue

He obviously hasn't transported many *female* *students* around St Andrews then - even with two in the back (or even one) it's quite common for them to have a foot on the tunnel

But to include the tunnel in the rule seems nonsense, though, as the man says - plenty room if people sitting in the middle put their feet either side of the transmission tunnel/centre console.

Having said that, a bit more room in mine might have meant that the air vents on the centre console would have lasted a bit longer without getting kicked and broken

How many cars are rear wheel drive nowadays?

_________________
Grandad,

Not many, but I think they build in a transmission tunnel on many standard front wheel drive models to accommodate 4-wheel drive variants.

So many cars have a transmission tunnel built in to the floorpan although it's not actually used. At least that's the most obvious explanation and the one I've read most - others include to make the floor stiffer, or to route bits and pieces.

Utter madness having such strict rules on back seat dimensions.

If it's too small for punters, they can get out and get into another car.

I get not licensing a mini, but flexibility/common sense is something the council should be promoting, not restricting.

_________________
IDFIMH

They're at it hammer and tongs on seat *width* now, and no progress on the legroom issue

Cornwall Council to consult on taxi seat size

https://www.falmouthpacket.co.uk/news/1 ... seat-size/

CORNWALL Council is set to consult with vehicle manufacturers over the size of seats in vehicles in order to set new licensing guidelines.

The council is also set to have further talks with cabbies over the minimum amount of legroom needed for back seat passengers.

At an extraordinary meeting of the council’s miscellaneous licensing committee on Friday officers, councillors and taxi drivers spent more than hour discussing measurements of seats and legroom.

Licensing officers said that seats in taxis should be a minimum of 16 inches (406mm) wide at the widest point.

However they said that there had been some concerns about what that could mean for vehicles with bench seats which might not meet the guidelines.

One taxi operator told the committee that one of his current vehicles has two seats in the front which are 32 inches wide. But he said he was looking at buying a new model which would only be 31 and a half inches wide and asked whether it would not be eligible for two passengers.

Senior licensing officer Sarah Kent said she was not aware that manufacturers were making vehicles with seats under the required width.

She said that the minimum width was to protect against smaller vehicles which sometimes have smaller seats in the middle at the back then on the sides.

Committee member Jim Flashman suggested that it was the taxi drivers’ responsibility to ensure their vehicles meet the guidelines.

He said: “How many of you have gone to manufacturers and then come to the officers to find out what would be acceptable? Why are you wasting money buying vehicles that are the wrong specifications?”

Cllr Flashman suggested that they were “putting the cart before the horse”.

Mike Brown from Parnell’s Taxis in Bodmin took exception to Mr Flashman’s comments and said that the guidelines had been brought in since he had first had his vehicles licensed in 2013.

He said: “They (licensing officers) thought it was a minor problem but this is a major problem. Don’t talk to me about carts and horses, this is a joke.”

Committee member Bert Biscoe suggested that it might be better for the council to have a set guideline but then offer some leeway on whether the seats are considered to be acceptable for the comfort of passengers.

He suggested that the council consult with the taxi trade and with vehicle manufacturers about the best way forward with a report coming back to the committee before it makes any decision. That was agreed unanimously by the committee.

The committee then considered the issue of legroom – the council wanted to set a minimum guideline of eight inches of legroom for each passenger – this would be measured from the edge of the seat to seat or object in front.

However taxi drivers had said that this would not be possible in modern cars where the middle seat often has a central console or air conditioning unit which would mean there is not eight inches in front of the middle seat.

They argued that passengers sitting in the middle would have their feet either side of the central tunnel and so it would not be an issue.

Mr Brown had suggested that the council keep the limit of eight inches for the rear side passengers but six inches in the middle.

He said: “I have no problem with keeping the measurement. It is all about the centre console. If you change it to six inches most cars, not all, will pass.

“But 40% of my vehicles will not pass eight inches and they have all been plated with no problems since 2013.”

He said that would mean that a large number of his vehicles would no long be fit for purpose.

“We have a major problem, not just for us but for the industry as a whole.”

Again councillors suggested that there was a need for manufacturers to be involved in the discussion about what is acceptable.

But Mr Brown said that councillors were missing the point.

“Manufacturers spend millions and millions of pounds on this. If they put three seatbelts in the back of a vehicle then it is suitable for three people in the back.

“If you change the legroom for six inches it should be just for the centre console.”

He added: “You are all missing the point. I have had to sit here and listen to such rubbish.”

Licensing officers had suggested that any decision on legroom should be made by officers when they inspect a vehicle and they could decide whether it would be comfortable for passengers.

If they were not happy then they would refer the application to the licensing committee to decide or they could be given delegated authority to grant a licence for just two rear passengers if necessary.

But councillors were not entirely agreed on that so they asked for officers to instead carry out three weeks of consultation with the taxi trade and other authorities and bring back a report to the committee to make a decision. That was agreed unanimously.

The committee also agreed not to pursue a single set of tariffs for taxi fares across Cornwall after taxi drivers said they would prefer for them to remain as they are.

Cornwall currently has taxi rates which are set by the former district and borough council areas. The council has been looking to create one set of charges across the county.

But taxi drivers said that “if it isn’t broke why fix it” and the committee agreed to continue with six different tariffs.

Wonder where they assume the front seats to be? Plenty of space behind me, but I'm on the short side, so if the driver was tall...

Likewise, passengers sometimes want front seat adjusted depending on who's in back/front.

As for consulting with manufacturers, if it's standard saloons then doubt if they'll receive any kind of constructive response, even assuming they get one. But if consultation is lasting just three weeks then maybe they're not really expecting a response

Never has so much time been wasted, by so many, on such a trivial matter.

No wonder it's taken them 10 years to work out they have so many different tariffs.

_________________
IDFIMH