Taxi Driver Online

_________________
IDFIMH

...apart, of course, from locals who know the Sussex area. Like, for example, people who call themselves 'Sussex' online

Anyway, going back to the original topic a the top of the thread, and Wolverhampton's claim that the number of refusals, revocations and suspensions was somehow a measure of safety, or whatever

In fact, if you count entries on the NR3S database as a proportion of total drivers then Wolverhampton is entirely unremarkable.

It's quite a big spreadsheet, but the grabs below show the top, bottom, and that part in the middle where Wolverhampton lies. The numbers on the left are a tad misleading, because some of the lines in the spreadsheet are aggregates for areas rather than individual councils, and several lines at the top of the spreadsheet are the headings etc. So although Wolves appears on line 86, I'd guess that it's actual ranking is somewhere between 70 or 80. So with 280 councils in total, or thereabouts, Wolves just makes it into the top 25% or so.

Note also that the ones at the very top, and those at the very bottom, are probably a tad misleading. Obviously those at the bottom have no database entries at all, which seems unlikely, particularly for a big authority like Calderdale.

Right at the top, and as pointed out previously, the figure for Rushmoor is distorted by a huge number of database entries for refusals.

And I'd guess that those right at the top and bottom demonstrate that there's a lot of inconsistency with the way the database entries are selected. So although those in the middle look more plausible, that's not to say they aren't compiled on an inconsistent basis either.

(Note that the grabs above are not from the DfT's version of the spreadsheet - I added extra columns etc to add a bit more information, rearranged the whole thing in order of magnitude rather than by region, and have presented the data in a percentage format rather than the entries per licensed driver that the DfT used )

(Although my column heading is a bit misleading - maybe something like 'NR3S entries as percentage of total drivers' )

Given they have 10s of 1000s of drivers working well out of sight, I would say their reporting is a vast underestimate of wrong doings by drivers they license.

_________________
IDFIMH

Indeed, Sussex, and that brings things back to the point I made at the top of the thread - Wolverhampton's basic point seems to be that the more they refuse, suspend and revoke, the safer they are

Not sure their logic there is watertight...

Not sure why TaxiPoint has picked up on this now, which is a couple of months old, but certainly some interesting information. Or for anyone particularly interested, the source document is linked below


Wolverhampton Council conducted nearly 500 taxi and private hire compliance operations in 12 month period with 985 notices dished out

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/wolve ... 12-month-p


https://wolverhampton.moderngov.co.uk/d ... 202026.pdf

...tons of potential talking points, but there's the likes of this at para 6.2, which underlines the basics of what I was saying in this thread - the point Wolves made in the PHTM piece was that the high number of refusals, suspensions and revocations was an indicator of how safe they were (while in fact as a proportion of total badges Wolves isn't particularly strict at all in terms of refusals, suspensions and revocations).

But here they're trying to say that the drop in the number of driver hearings is because of stricter enforcement stuff - some contradiction there, surely, but of course it's all about the spin, comms and framing etc

Certainly quite a high proportion of vehicles checked, though - if it's just over 7,000 then that's about 1 in 5

But about 1,000 issued either with a rectification notice or a s.68 notice, which I think is a suspension.

So that's about 1 in 7 cars checked found to be problematic, thus that's a tad inconsistent with their usual 'nothing to see here' PR schtick, on Twitter at least

And, I mean, a whole 14 cars caught plying for hire

And I note that this thread has been viewed 161,000 times in just a few weeks

More misleading stats

I suspect that council spends more on spin and PR than most councils spend on their entire licensing function.

_________________
IDFIMH