Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 11:37 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2021 4:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 53921
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
But Ian Hall, chairman of Southampton hackney and private hire association, said: “We want the private hire vehicles to have the door sign with the name of the operator. It is for the safety of the public.”

Numpty personified. #-o

All app work shows the vehicle make and colour, and a picture of the driver. Many include the plate number and reg.

Mobile bookings can show the same via text, nearly all do already.

So the issue can only be landline bookings, which is mainly people's residences, and the chances of someone going to someone's home on the off chance they want a taxi/PH are rather slim in my opinion. :roll: :roll:

But let's just say the worst happens, according to my numpty mate, a customer doesn't get into the correct booked car by mistake, instead they get into a 'fit and proper' vehicle driven by a 'fit and proper' driver.

Where's the public safety issue?

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2021 4:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 53921
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
He said he would be "reluctant" to employ drivers who use magnetic door signs.

I wonder how many drivers he employs? [-(

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 13823
Taxi door signs plan scrapped in Southampton over one major reason

https://www.hampshirelive.news/news/ham ... ed-6165160

The current system has been in place for nearly 20 years

Controversial proposals to remove operator names from some taxis’ door signs in Southampton have been scrapped.

Civic chiefs have decided private hire vehicles in the city will have to continue to display door signs showing both the name of the operator and of the licensing authority.

Licensing bosses said both requirements – which have been in place for years – help to protect passengers.

The decision comes as councillors were asked to consider plans to remove operators’ names from private hire vehicles’ door signs to allow drivers to work for more than one company at a time.

Speaking at the meeting of the licensing committee, Southampton taxi driver Emma Campbell told members removing the name of the operator would benefit operators and customers.

She said: “The current system isn’t working.

"Customers are being let down but by removing the operators’ details on door signs we will enable more drivers to be registered with more companies meaning there’s a larger pool of drivers available and this would lead to less waiting time, less cancellation.”

But Clive Johnson, Radio Taxi honorary chairman, said the requirement for the name of the operator to be displayed on door signs was introduced almost 20 years ago.

“The reason for that was the safety of our members of the public, as simple as that,” Mr Johnson said.

He added: “I just find it sad that we are talking to remove something that was put there for the safety of the public.”

Phil Bates, licensing manager at Southampton City Council, asked members not to change the current policy and therefore confirm plans requiring both the name of the operator and of the licensing authority to be displayed on door signs.

He said: “I am satisfied that the current policy provides a measure of protection to particularly the vulnerable in our society and that should not be undermined by the desire to be more selective for the work that drivers accept.”

The committee backed Mr Bates’ suggestion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2021 10:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 53921
Location: 1066 Country
As I said above.

Numpty LO, numpty councillors, numpty council.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2021 3:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 13823
Didn't think you'd be on the side of anything that will help the app-only operators? [-(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2021 7:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 53921
Location: 1066 Country
StuartW wrote:
Didn't think you'd be on the side of anything that will help the app-only operators? [-(

I couldn't give a flying fig about them, but the current policy sort of stops drivers working for more than one firm, or more than one app, or more than one firm/app.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2021 1:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 13823
Sussex wrote:
I couldn't give a flying fig about them, but the current policy sort of stops drivers working for more than one firm, or more than one app, or more than one firm/app.

But would you have said that ten years ago, or even five? :wink:

Anyway, it's that Uber doorsign again that has the U-word blurred out, but they forgot to blur the word in smaller type :-s


Southampton City Council slammed for taxi signage policy

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/197109 ... ge-policy/

Image
Image: Daily Echo

A PRIVATE hire representative has hit out at Southampton City Council’s decision to reject a change to signage policy, which would have allowed drivers to work for multiple operators.

Currently, private hire drivers must have one sign with the operator’s name on it.

The rejected proposal would have allowed private hire drivers to have a choice of two signs – one with the operators’ name on it and one with the private hire licence details.

Operators’ names would not have been removed completely but instead a second sign would have been added, giving private hire drivers the right to carry out work for multiple operators in practice.

Officially, the council allows private hire drivers to work for multiple operators but according to private hire driver Ali Haydor, the current signage system means working for multiple operators is practically impossible.

Mr Haydor has said he and other drivers are prepared to protest and take union action if the council does not reconsider, as he feels their working rights have been infringed.

Image
The proposals submitted to the Council. The above picture is the current signage and the bottom picture was the proposed signage. (Image: Daily Echo)

“When we asked the council for confirmation can we work for multiple companies they said yes we can, but just make sure that when you turn up to these jobs you have the correct signage. As you realise the current signage is a sticker and has the name of the company. The difficulty that we have, to put this in practice is that we have to take the sticker off and then put the one for the other company on.

“Trying to take these stickers off is not a two-minute job, how many stickers can we keep in the boot and how much money does that cost? The council says we can work for multiple operators but trying to put it into practice is basically impossible.”

Discussing the council’s consultation prior to their decision, 34 per cent of the trade wanted to keep the current sign policy, whilst 64 per cent disagreed with it.

“This matter was debated at a recent Licensing Committee meeting, where we welcomed a number of speakers to share their views," said a spokesperson for Southampton City Council.

"After reviewing all the representations, members decided that vehicles should continue to display Southampton City Council livery – something that’s been in place for 20 years – so that taxi drivers and users can have confidence in the licensing and safety of this mode of public transport.”

Mr Haydor said the rejected proposal would still have protected public safety due to visible licensing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2021 1:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 13823
Quote:
The rejected proposal would have allowed private hire drivers to have a choice of two signs – one with the operators’ name on it and one with the private hire licence details.

Operators’ names would not have been removed completely but instead a second sign would have been added, giving private hire drivers the right to carry out work for multiple operators in practice.

Can't work out what that would have meant, and can't square that explanation with the sign in the graphic. Was it proposed to have both operator's names on the car at the same time? If not, then what would be the purpose of the extra sign?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2021 10:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 53921
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
But would you have said that ten years ago, or even five? :wink:

Maybe not.

But now more and more drivers are multi apping or working with an established circuit whilst taking work from an app firm.

Years ago that wasn't the case.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2021 10:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 53921
Location: 1066 Country
StuartW wrote:
Quote:
The rejected proposal would have allowed private hire drivers to have a choice of two signs – one with the operators’ name on it and one with the private hire licence details.

Operators’ names would not have been removed completely but instead a second sign would have been added, giving private hire drivers the right to carry out work for multiple operators in practice.

Can't work out what that would have meant, and can't square that explanation with the sign in the graphic. Was it proposed to have both operator's names on the car at the same time? If not, then what would be the purpose of the extra sign?

Looks like the proposal was to have a sign with an operator's name on or a sign with just the license number on.

Makes sense to me, but not to those councillors.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2021 1:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 13823
Still wouldn't have thought that many traditional circuits would allow drivers to work with apps at the same time, though. Or am I a bit behind the times?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2021 7:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 53921
Location: 1066 Country
StuartW wrote:
Still wouldn't have thought that many traditional circuits would allow drivers to work with apps at the same time, though. Or am I a bit behind the times?

Defo behind the times.

Down here it's becoming the norm.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 27, 2021 2:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 13823
](*,)


Taxi drivers protest Southampton City Council’s door signage policy

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/197458 ... ge-policy/

Image
Image: Ali Haydor/Daily Echo

Private hire drivers have gathered to protest outside Southampton City Council’s headquarters to protest the Council’s decision regarding door signage policy.

Southampton City Council decided that it would keep its current door signage policy, forcing drivers to keep the names of operators on their doors. However, several private hire drivers object to this as they say it prevents them from working for multiple operators.

The Council had rejected a proposal from private hire drivers to have a choice from two signs: one with the operators’ name on it and one with the private hire license details. Operators’ names would not have been removed completely but instead a second sign would have been added, giving private hire drivers the right to carry out work for multiple operators in practice.

Prior to this decision, a Council consultation found that only 34% of the trade wanted to keep the current sign policy, whilst 64% disagreed with it.

Private hire driver Ali Haydor said regarding the protest that “Our demand is simple, remove the restraint on how we trade or give us workers status”.

Responding to Mr Haydor, the Council said: A Southampton City Council spokesperson said: “This matter was consulted on, researched, presented and a democratic decision made. It was debated at a recent Licensing Committee meeting, where we welcomed a number of speakers to share their views. After reviewing all the representations, members decided that vehicles should continue to display Southampton City Council livery – something that’s been in place for 20 years – so that taxi drivers and users can have confidence in the licensing and safety of this mode of public transport.

If individuals feel they have further concerns, there is a method of appeal for licence conditions.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 27, 2021 2:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 13823
Still don't understand what the drivers had proposed, unless they wanted to display just one operator of several, and display an additional sticker with the vehicle's details on it, which seems to miss the point a bit.

Quote:
Responding to Mr Haydor, the Council said: A Southampton City Council spokesperson said: “This matter was consulted on, researched, presented and a democratic decision made. It was debated at a recent Licensing Committee meeting, where we welcomed a number of speakers to share their views. After reviewing all the representations, members decided that vehicles should continue to display Southampton City Council livery – something that’s been in place for 20 years – so that taxi drivers and users can have confidence in the licensing and safety of this mode of public transport.

If individuals feel they have further concerns, there is a method of appeal for licence conditions.”

Don't like to overquote, but the bit about displaying the council livery misses the point completely, and is just PR waffle, and the rest of the waffle does little more than detract attention from the fact that it's all just, er, waffle that misses the point about displaying operators' names.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 28, 2021 6:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 53921
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
Still don't understand what the drivers had proposed, unless they wanted to display just one operator of several, and display an additional sticker with the vehicle's details on it, which seems to miss the point a bit.

What an increasing number of B&H licensed Uber drivers do down here is have the signage without an operator's number or name on.

Nothing complicated whatsoever. Which is why I'm struggling with the time and effort Southampton is having with this issue.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 103 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