heathcote wrote:
Think the licensees will be paying for this out of the license fees not the Council taxpayers,cannot understand why the trade agreed to for go grandfather rights when agreeing to the knowledge test.
More information in a BBC report which is relevant. Seems that there was strong opposition.
And it's also a bit more than a 'knowledge test' - see the link to the sample test paper below.
Anyway, here's the relevant part of the BBC report:
Allerdale taxi drivers must pass test or have licence suspendedhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-50331947Of 303 drivers in Allerdale in Cumbria 238 have so far passed[...]
A consultation on the new scheme received 97 responses from members of the trade, of which 83 opposed it.
Many drivers objected on grounds of cost, having already paid to be licensed. Others argued for the test to apply to new drivers only.
Some said satellite navigation made the test unnecessary, although the council said it covered more than geographical knowledge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the link to the sample test paper is at the bottom of this post.
Have to say a lot of it is pretty straightforward, but I'd not be 100% certain on the roadsigns
The geographical stuff and the likes of Question 10 about the age rule/testing frequency would depend on local knowledge and rules.
Also the likes of that safeguarding question:
Quote:
Question 7
A young person/child enters your vehicle and appears to be upset, they express that they are fearful
of going to the journey destination, what should you:
A) Do nothing, only act when the young person/child asks you to
B) On dropping off the child/young person call the Police on 101 or 999 if you consider this
situation to be an emergency
C) Refuse to take them to the requested destination
I mean, obviously not A.
B might be putting the child in danger unnecessarily.
C might do likewise if you're not acting on what the child says, although by refusing them you might avert any *immediate* danger. But chances are the child would simply get another cab.
So both B and C might be exposing them to danger?
Maybe the safeguarding training they've (presumably) had would make the answer obvious, but from a common sense perspective it doesn't seem clear cut to me.
Anyway, here's the link to the sample paper. And it's an 80% pass mark, by the looks of it
https://democracy.allerdale.gov.uk/docu ... 050218.pdf