Taxi Driver Online

Suspect there's some important detail missing from this article, but looks like it's simply a new eight-years on rule, and more frequent testing for cars older than 10 years

So Stowmarket must either be a taxi junkyard, or there's something missing from the article.

And some other slight oddities and phrases here, such as 'fossil-fuelled' taxis


Threat of taxi strike action over new vehicle age rules

https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/local-counc ... lk-9203742

Taxi drivers in Stowmarket have warned that new vehicle age requirements will "tear the industry to shreds".

Mid Suffolk District Council has introduced requirements for drivers who first apply to have a safe vehicle less than eight years old.

They are also increasing the frequency of checks for fossil-fuelled taxis that are more than 10 years old.

Co-director of Arrow Taxi Services in Stowmarket Darren Riseborough worries that this will put many taxi operators out of business, saying: "The industry has suffered massively during the pandemic and this is the latest blow."

He added: "We feel as if we've been pushed aside for a number of years, so this latest development is incredibly frustrating."

A Mid Suffolk District Council spokesman said: "We believe the requirements are a reasonable balance between protecting the public and the needs of the trade."

The possibility of strike action was discussed at a meeting of 30 taxi company directors on Wednesday, August 10.

Mr Riseborough attended the meeting and said of the 109 plates left in Stowmarket, 55 have agreed that these requirements will have a negative impact on their industry."

He added: "One of my colleagues has bought vehicles which are now being denied a taxi license, meaning he has lost a lot of money.

"There should at least be a warning period where we have the chance to regroup and rethink our fleets."

On a personal level, Mr Riseborough also said he would seriously consider walking away from the taxi industry if this new legislation is upheld, saying "it will tear the industry to shreds".

The district council spokesman added: "We recognise the role that our taxi trade plays as a vital part of our local rural transport system and the challenges that the industry faces.

"Ultimately, however, we are responsible for ensuring our policies not only meet the required standards set by the Department for Transport, but also protects the taxi-travelling public and environment."

That makes it sound like it's just for new plates, but I'm guessing it's for replacement vehicles, or they wouldn't be threatening to strike, surely?

And even if it's just an eight-years-on rule, it's surely not worth striking over?

they are moaning at 8 years

must be one of the most lenient vehicle age policies in the country outside of Rutland

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Not the most onerous of age limits in my view.

_________________
IDFIMH

Remember that all this, as far as I can tell, is about an 8-years-old ON rule, with no upper age limit

And more frequent testing for cars over 10-years-old


'Breaking point' for taxis as councillor calls for repeal on local policy

https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/local-counc ... is-9277612

A councillor has called for action after taxi firms across mid-Suffolk say a controversial new policy is pushing them towards "breaking point".

Last month, Mid Suffolk District Council introduced a requirement for taxi drivers who first apply to have a safe vehicle less than eight years old.

However, operators claim they cannot afford to purchase newer vehicles and have warned a number of firms will have no choice but to close.

"We just can't afford it," said a Stowmarket-based transport company, who this newspaper has agreed to keep anonymous.

"It used to cost between £3,000 and £5,000 to put a new driver on the road.

"Now it's closer to eight, 10 or even £12,000.

"So in theory, we could put three cars on back then for the price of one now."

Earlier this year, between 50 and 60 representatives from the industry attended a council meeting to discuss the policy.

There, a temporary lifting of restrictions was agreed.

"I'm in favour of repealing this decision," said Councillor Jessica Fleming.

"At the meeting, I told those in attendance that would look to permanently revoke the ban in the future.

"Unfortunately it's not easy to do so and we hit some problems.

"However, I'm still determined to repeal the policy because I have seen no evidence that an older car, providing it is properly inspected, poses any safety problems to the public.

"It's very important for me to resolve this because the taxi trade is so important.

"It's still under negotiation and I won't be giving up easily."

Mid Suffolk District Council say the policy has been implemented as part of an effort to "protect the taxi-travelling public and environment".

Councillor Andy Mellen, leader of the Green Party at Mid Suffolk, said: "I do not think that Mid-Suffolk’s licencing policy, which is gently steering taxi firms away from older, polluting vehicles, is a significant factor, and in fact a more modern taxi fleet which included hybrid and electric vehicles would be significantly cheaper to run.

"What hard-pressed taxi operators need however, is a support package of grants or loans to enable them to transition towards these cleaner, more efficient vehicles.”

However, a number of firms argue there are better ways to gradually achieve this and that vehicles younger than eight years old are not necessarily more eco-friendly.

Despite the policy impacting what vehicles firms can purchase, under the act existing cars that are older than eight years can remain in use.

However, companies argue this is a problem for those who are looking to expand or see current cars written off.

"Because of this policy, we can't hire new drivers," said the Stowmarket taxi firm.

"If a vehicle goes off the road, we can't replace it because we can't afford it.

"So many drivers are giving up and leaving.

"Some companies are even just using the vehicles they've got until they can't be used anymore and then they're knocking it on the head.

"We're having to deal with this and a rise in fuel prices.

"We are in real danger of seeing a number of taxi operators going under."

A Mid Suffolk District Council spokesman said: “We recognise the role that our taxi trade plays as a vital part of our local rural transport system and the challenges that the industry faces.

“Ultimately, however, we are responsible for ensuring our policies not only meet the required standards set by the Department for Transport, but also protect the taxi-travelling public and environment.

“We believe the requirements for drivers who first apply to have a safe vehicle less than eight years old, and for existing drivers with fossil-fuelled taxis that are more than 10 years old to have their vehicles checked more frequently, is a reasonable balance between protecting the public and the needs of the trade.

“We are aware, however, that there has been some confusion since the introduction of this new policy earlier this year, and we will be writing to all local operators shortly to clarify the situation and offer further support if required.”

Not sure if all this is about owner-drivers or the firm's own cars, but reading between the lines it's more about drivers leaving or retiring and few new drivers coming through. I mean, it doesn't sound like drivers are leaving because they can't get a shift because there's a shortage of cars.

So I'd guess the bigger picture is about the post-lockdown environment and the more usual reasons rather than the vehicle age rule per se, but the firm here making it sound like it's all about the age-rule

Had a look around, and not that much evidence online, but this was posted a few days ago. That Passat at the front must be 05 at the very newest. Of course, it's very probably an old photo, but not sure what it says about using that today to recruit new drivers



This was also posted last year, although certainly looks good for an 05 motor twice round the clock



This was posted in 2017, it's an 02, so must have been about 15-years-old at that time



This below is another firm, and was posted last year. It's a post about a smashed window, but the Passat HC in the photo is defo an 05

Not much more than 100,000 miles recorded, though, but from the MoT history like it's a low mileage car for its age that was maybe first used in the trade when about 15-years-old

But if these vehicles are in any way representative of the trade as a whole then easy to see how they're jumping up and down over an 8-years-old ON rule:

And I wasn't just posting the older motors above - that's about all I could find

A quick look at the licensing register suggests that they're maybe not all that bad, though, and there's one or two newish vehicles:

https://license.baberghmidsuffolk.gov.uk/2/WcaHome

And, of course, it might well be a minority in the trade or a particular firm who are jumping up and down about the age rule, but making it sound like it's the whole trade who are up in arms about it