Taxi Driver Online

So there is a cap on plates, but not on drivers.

So what's the difference, in respect to earnings for drivers, between 1000 cars and 1000 drivers and 500 cars double-shifted by 1000 drivers?

_________________
IDFIMH

For what it's worth, anyone interested in the quasi-judicial and regulatory decisions stuff should have a look at this Advice Note issued by the Scottish Standards Commission last month. It's essentially an extended version of the blogpost above, but maybe worth a read if anyone's interested in the fine detail of that kind of stuff

Not sure if there's an English equivalent, but I'd imagine the principles involved would be pretty similar, if not identical


https://www.standardscommissionscotland ... 2025v1.pdf

Take three - complete the sentence above.

Oh, we're at the misquoting stage now, eh?

Seriously, though, wondered why I didn't recognise that...

Actually, you're right, Mr XH558, as regards what I think you're alluding to. Quite a lot would change in terms of earnings.

Cash would go into the pockets of working drivers rather than other people

On second thoughts, after a wee while everyone would be better off, because there would eventually be less cars - what's not to like

Sarcasm, false dilemma and emojis – nothing else to add?

Ok then.

Difficult not to be sarcastic at some of the nonsense relating to all this - would you prefer it if people got angry about it?

And I agree that the emojis can be annoying a lot of the time, at least when other people are using them. Not when it's me using them

Oh, gosh, I forgot we're supposed to be serious about it all. But didn't you know sarcasm was my middle name

OK, I'll try to be serious for a while. And no emojis, although they're a bit like a full stop for me - I tend to put them at the end of each sentence without even thinking about it

Oops, see what I did there

Anyway, not really sure what you want me to say - do you want me to specify a precise number of extra drivers if the cap was lifted?

Well, of course, I don't know, and you don't know, because nobody knows.

But what I can tell you is that a quick look at Glasgow's biggest HC circuit suggests that they'll take on any new drivers who want to come on board, ditto Glasgo Cabs, which I'd guess is easily the city's biggest (legacy) private hire platform.

And which is just stating the obvious, because as we all know, that's the way the trade works. And always has, and always will, in terms of the past, current and future few decades at least. And which is why, despite all the 'expert' comment and PR bull to the contrary, Uber is no different to what's gone before.

So what I can tell you is that in terms of ball park figures, and with regard to historical figures for the utilisation of HCs, the black cab trade in Glasgow could accommodate an additional 1,000 drivers or so.

And, extrapolating that to the PH sector, that side of the industry could take on an additional 2,000 drivers at least.

And that's just assuming the current vehicle cap numbers.

Of course, that won't happen, because stuff like that doens't happen overnight, and it's more about long-term trends. And I couldn't really see that happening anytime in the future, particularly as regards the HC side, because I'd guess that the trend towards pre-booking rather than public hire will continue, as will labour market/supply-side factors like immigration, thus tending towards private hire/pre-booking to the detriment of public hire and the black cab side.

But the essential point is that driver numbers are always at what could be called saturation level, because there's never a limit on driver numbers in practical terms, whether HC or PH.

To that extent, what difference would removing the cap make? At a very superficial level, none at all in terms of driver numbers. All it would do is rearrange the furniture in terms of vehicles, and allow drivers to drive their own vehicles, assuming they want to. (And, on the HC side in particular, would removing the cap really increase the number of vehicles anyway? - I doubt it would, in any significant sense, although I'm still not sure if at the current time anyone presenting a compliant vehicle would get an HC plate because numbers are below the cap level, or if they're simply not issuing them at the moment...)

So vehicle numbers might increase, in particular on the PH side, but what of it? Whose business should it be whether or not a driver should run their own vehicle, or drive someone else's? Well, I think we all know the answer to that, depending on which side of the fence we're on. So you either agree or disagree about that, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Anyway, I think the point you're alluding to is whether removing the cap would increase the number of drivers overall. Well, I suspect it would, but not substantially. In fact, I'd guess it would be insignificant, but if you think it's possible to quantify it, then I'm all ears.

But the bottom line is that neither the HC nor PH bigwigs think driver numbers should be capped, so why cap the vehicles?

Ditto the unmet demand/overprovision survey. For both codes, the surveys recommend that vehicle numbers stay capped, but that driver numbers are increased.

So why should the trade be protected on the one level, but on another it's open season, saturation and all that?

Finally something to work with. And I actually agree with most of it – I’d just counsel some healthy ‘be careful what you wish for’ caution.

Removing the HC cap will do nothing in the short term – numbers are already far below the existing cap. So neither owner-drivers nor fleet owners (or even drivers) are queuing up.

PHCs are different and I can absolutely see an initial pile-on if the cap goes. At least 680 plate applications were refused on overprovision last time I looked, so it’s reasonable to expect they’d reapply along with some others. And most seem to be prospective owner-drivers although nothing would stop fleet owners taking more plates too.

I accept some drivers prefer to rent, but I’d far rather see more owner-drivers. I’ve no sympathy for those PHC fleet owners who want the cap to protect their rentals. As I see it, they’ve had a good run and would just need to adapt. 100% agree that PHC plate-to-badge numbers are likely to stay around 1:1 as it’s stuck at that level for a few years.

IMO removing the PHC plate cap probably means +700 (20%) more PHCs at least. The whole fleet then needs +20% revenue to break even. Might be doable but with no cap it needn’t stop there and I don’t see that revenue can expand infinitely.

Uber’s a useful comparison. More drivers = more Uber revenue; they don’t care if any individual drivers see earnings fall as time goes on. Uber being keen to remove the Glasgow cap makes me even more wary. Their track record suggests they’d sign up as many PHCs as they can get. They don’t need to pay for them – that’s the drivers problem.

The cap system isn’t perfect and I get the argument that the council should step back and let the free market find its own level. But binning the PHC cap won't create some owner-driver paradise – it could actually be pretty tough. PHC owner-drivers (particularly newer ones) could take on vehicle costs and find it’s not viable when it’s too late. Even as a taxi owner I’d never want to see the PHC trade in a race to the bottom.

I don’t think either some protectionist cartel or a free-for-all is right for the HC/PHC trade. It’s not just a cap/no cap binary thing - there’s unintended consequences from what Glasgow might do.

Saying nothing much would change and/or no cap is a total win for owner-drivers is what I'm not seeing.

That’s where I’m coming from.

One must assume those 680 applicants are already in the trade, more than likely driving someone else's motor. Be they owner drivers or large fleet owners.

So yes a relaxation in the PH cap will lead to more vehicles being licensed, but I'm not convinced that in the short term it will lead to a mass influx of extra drivers, and as we all know, vehicles don't drive themselves.

Longer term, if the cap is removed, Uber will recruit massively, which will have a significant effect on the local PH firms directly and the hackney trade indirectly.

All that said, is it really right in 2025 to restrict drivers access to the tools of their trade?

_________________
IDFIMH

Yes I’d mostly agree with that too. I’m still curious why the overprovision numbers ended up so high. It got media coverage along with the chamber of commerce statement. I’m guessing the council went to public consultation to relieve the pressure and prepare its next move – they can say the people have spoken etc.

Ideally, I’d like more owner-drivers without making a different minefield for them by doing it. But licensing regs don’t work that way. If the cap goes, anyone eligible can get plates and they all just have to hope there’s enough work. Uber will definitely be ready to pounce.

I'm pretty certain I've asked this before, and no doubt have forgotten the answer, but given the section below, what's stopping a Wolverhampton PH, or heaven forbid, a B&H one, working the streets of Glasgow for Uber?

(3)Subsection (1)(b) above does not apply to the operation of a vehicle within an area in respect of which its operation or its driver is not licensed if there are in force—

(i)in respect of the vehicle, a licence under section 37 of the M5Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (licensing of hackney carriages) or section 48 of the M6Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (licensing of private hire vehicles); and

(ii)in respect of its driver, a licence under section 46 of the said Act of 1847 (licensing of hackney carriage drivers) or, as the case may be, section 51 of the said Act of 1976 (licensing of drivers of private hire vehicles).

_________________
IDFIMH

Stuart's more in the know about these things, but I think Scottish councils take a stricter line on PHCs operating excessively outside their 'home' licensed area. And on any PHC company despatching work in that way.

This case for example -

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/ ... or-finding

Uber does have a physical booking office in Glasgow, which is another requirement of the 1982 Civic Government Act. I could see them maybe stretch the rules with PHCs from a nearby council like Renfrewshire but they'd probably not want to risk their Glasgow operating licence muchly.

Glasgow council roadside enforcement don't have powers over non-Glasgow PHCs but I've heard they'll report loitering out-of-towners to the relevant council. I could also see Glasgow PHC drivers maybe having a frank exchange of views.

I would imagine a frank exchange of words happened in some rather tasty areas of London, Birmingham, Newcastle and Liverpool, but that didn’t stop Uber.

It also didn’t stop significant numbers of drivers moving from the traditional PH operators to Uber. So in effect it was only the PH firms that got the hump.

That said given what one hears about them your point might in fact be an accurate one.

_________________
IDFIMH

Of course, the Scottish rules against cross-border working no doubt have some rough edges, and enforcement difficulties, particularly in the larger urban areas encompassing several different local authorities, but by and large it seems to work. Which is why Uber haven't made much headway in Aberdeen, because of the HC/PH knowledge test - they wanted to use Aberdeenshire for badging, I think, but they couldn't, for obvious reasons. And, as I said few months ago with regard to the cross-border stuff and the grooming/rape gang issue, chances of the cross-border rules being relaxed here are effectively nil. Which is probably why the likes of this week's article from Aberdeen is majoring on getting rid of the knowledge test for PHDs

(And I suspect if anything that Uber pretty scrupulous about adhering to the rules in Scotland - I recall the Uber chap in one video saying that the reason they had difficulties with pick-ups from Glasgow Airport was because of the cross-border rules, and that to that extent they had to drive back to Glasgow sharpish rather than waiting on a run back, because the airport is in Renfrewshire. Of course, maybe they're not as scrupulous as they made it sound, but it certainly means they can't just completely ignore the borders, effectively, like they can do down south.)

However, I think what Sussex is getting at (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the Scottish legislation effectively exempts English-plated vehicles from the Scottish rules, presumably so that they can drop and pick up in Scotland.

So, to simplify things, pre-internet there would be nothing to stop Sefton-plated cars working all the time in Brighton, if folks in Brighton were willing to phone a call centre in Bootle, say

To that extent, they could do the same in Scotland, and the cross-border rules in Scotland wouldn't apply to cars plated in England because of the rules above cited by Sussex?