Taxi Driver Online

Spent [far too much] time trying to work out this article at the weekend but, as per usual with fare rise pieces, it's either the usual banalities, or meaningless or misleading stats.

Not that there's the usual blizzard of numbers, it's just that, as far as I can make out, the cited numbers are grossly misleading

But not difficult to spot the iffy statements...


York council looks at increasing taxi fares in city

https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/235954 ... ares-city/

Taxi fares in York are set to increase due to soaring inflation.

City of York Council members have voted to advertise the proposed increases of Hackney carriage fares.

If implemented, the move will see the price of a ‘tariff one’ journey increase by around 60p per mile, from approximately £4.90 for the first mile (which includes a starting rate) to £5.50. Subsequent miles are charged at a lesser rate.

However, the new fares could see trips to and from the racecourse on race days increase to as much as £8.20 a mile for the first mile - and for Christmas and New Year trips up to around £10 a mile.

Cllr Rachel Melly said: “Hackney carriages are very important for public protection, for making sure people can get home safely.

“Disabled people are mentioned in the report as relying on Hackney carriages for having independence and getting about.

“I would also include women, anybody who is intoxicated or vulnerable at night and needs to get home safely so it’s important that we consider this carefully.”

Cllr Jason Rose said: “It’s definitely worth acknowledging that the inflation levels have been high for a couple of years and continue to be really high.

“I think it is absolutely something that needs to go through as a review like this.

“But it’s worth noting as well that there are people in the city who are vulnerable, particularly in the categories you [Cllr Melly] already named for whom if they are living on the edge of the city I think it’s a 16.5 per cent increase on a taxi fare each time they get a taxi.”

He added: “They’re already hit by large cost of living increases, particularly the more vulnerable people are impacted more by those cost of living increases, and on top of that the transport fees are going to be a lot higher than that as well.”

In fact, there was a blizzard of numbers on the original article, but these seem to have been removed since the weekend, probably because they were very confusing. In particular, there were yardages quoted for both the flagall and increments, but the listed numbers didn't say which was which, thus obviously a bit useless. I tried to work out which was the flagfall yardage and which was the increment yardage, by looking at the current card on the council's website, and eventually concluded it was out of date anyway

Then I found this in the committee minutes section, which are the current and proposed fare cards respectively...

https://democracy.york.gov.uk/documents ... ex%201.pdf

https://democracy.york.gov.uk/documents ... ex%202.pdf

Then there's this fares comparison chart - no, me neither

https://democracy.york.gov.uk/documents ... ex%203.pdf

But the funny thing about the current and proposed tariff cards is that although there are fairly modest flagfall fare increases, the flagfall distance also seems to have increased, so the whole thing looks inconsistent with the article.


And in fact the original problem with the initial article was that it read like every mile would cost the same as the initial mile, which is obviously nonsense. And I'm sure the first highlighted sentence above has been added since the first draft, probably to aid clarification. But if you read the second highlighted sentence, it certainly sounds like Christmas and New Year trips will clock at £10 for each and every mile.

But if you look at the links to the current and proposed tariff cards above, it's obvious that the running mile is fairly modest, and applies to both T1 and T2, and also to the race day tariff - it's just the flagfalls that change between tariffs.

Similarly, even without actually crunching the numbers, the Christmas/New Year running mile looks like it's £3-something, and certainly not the £10/mile stated in the article.

Also interesting is the 'fouling charge' on the past tariff cards, which reads:


Which reads like fouling that's NOT caused by alcohol isn't charged, expect when T2 applies

No wonder the proposed card seems to take a more conventional approach, and now it's proposed that the charge will apply to any fouling at any time

What a waste of time. But wish I'd copied the original article, because I'm sure it's all been toned down from a 'huge tariff hike' kind of approach to something slightly more sober, maybe following compaints. But, for the reasons stated, it's still a bit misleading

So if a smackhead spews up, or an old dear pi**es themselves, that's fine then.

_________________
IDFIMH

Talking of f***wits who should keep their big fat traps shut.

https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-n ... r-27150635

_________________
IDFIMH

The smackheads and medically incontinent just have to make sure they get a taxi before 10pm, and they're home and hosed

And the taxi needs hosed as well

Another one that's totally vague in terms of terminology, but as usual I suspect he's talking gross fares or takings, as opposed to profits.

And what figures does he cite? £50k to £100k

Yes, that really narrows it down. Not. Which suggests he's bullshitting.

And, anyway, what's £50k for an Uber driver? Commission rate 25%, so that's you down to £37.5k for a start.

You'd presumably be down to less than £30k after fuel, and obviously insurance, depreciation, and repairs and maintenance would could take you below £20k, or at least you wouldn't have much left over £20k. In London?

Actually, the article I read at the weekend and thought had since been amended to clarify matters is still there. It was in the Yorkshire Post, while the article above is a different one in the York Press

So my mistake, but this is the kind misleading stuff I was getting at, which makes it sound like every mile is charged at the same rate:


Which makes it sound like the figures apply to every mile, while of course the figures are just for the first mile, and subsequent miles are just a fraction of that.

The confusing figures are still there as well, about half way down the page. They'd be confusing even if they were accurate, but they don't state which yardage applies to the flagfall and which yardage applies to the increments, therefore...

Equally confusing is that the distances are included in yards and metres, and they're decimals (144.29 metres, for example) rather than whole numbers - I could see why decimals might be included if converting imperial to metric measures, or vice versa, but why both?

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/tr ... on-4185172

I thought the fare card on the council's website might help clarify things, and indeed they're in whole metres (and no imperial measures), and it all looks quite straightforward by tariff card standards.

Trouble is, I spent ages trying to work it all out, and wondering why the figures weren't the same as those in the council committee papers, until concluding that the fare card on the council's website isn't actually the current one

https://www.york.gov.uk/HackneyCarriageFares

And why did they go from neat and tidy distances in whole metres to both metres and yards on the updated cards, and neither using whole numbers

For example, for the T1 tariff a few years ago the flagfall applied: 'For the first 145 metres'

While on the current tariff card the flagfall applies: 'For the first 144.3mtrs/157.8yrds'