Taxi Driver Online

No word here about which council's 'taxis' were checked, and which council's weren't 'compliant', unfortunately.

But, and correct me if I'm wrong, if 16 cars checked and eight compliant, that's not a *majority*, surely?

And my thread title is a classic example of glass half full/half empty framing. You could either say half passed, or half failed, which frames the whole article

But to say that the half passing is actually a majority is a more brazen way of spinning things, because it's factually incorrect, surely


Taxi enforcement operation carried out in Walsall

https://go.walsall.gov.uk/newsroom/taxi ... ut-walsall

A joint taxi enforcement operation was carried out on 28 November by Walsall Council, City of Wolverhampton Council and West Midlands Police traffic officers, as part of ongoing work to maintain high safety and licensing standards across the region.

During the operation in Walsall, officers inspected 16 vehicles in the town centre between 8pm and 1am. This forms part of routine compliance checks carried out across the borough.

The majority of vehicles inspected were found to be compliant, with eight passing all checks without issue. Where problems were identified, officers took proportionate and immediate action to protect public safety.

One vehicle was suspended for a bald tyre, with the suspension lifted later that evening after it was replaced and penalty points issued. A second was suspended for missing identification and safety equipment, with the suspension lifted once these were provided.

Another vehicle was suspended for illegal “ghost plates” and required to return with legal plates and other issues resolved. Police also issued penalty points to two drivers for illegal window tints. In a small number of other cases, missing safety equipment was identified and rectified without suspension.

Councillor Adam Hicken, Portfolio Holder for Enforcement and Safe Communities, said, “Passenger safety is our absolute priority. Operations like this are about making sure licensed vehicles meet the standards people expect when they get into a taxi in Walsall.

“Residents across Walsall get rightly fed up with dangerous vehicles being used on our roads and our teams work around the clock with the police and other agencies to conduct checks.

“Taxis are no exception. It’s encouraging to see that most vehicles were compliant, but where issues are found we will always take action. We’ll continue working closely with neighbouring councils and the police to keep standards high and protect the public.”

A City of Wolverhampton Council spokesperson said, "We take our licensing responsibilities seriously and our officers work proactively across the country, wherever our drivers work, carrying out regular operations with partners to protect the public and ensure they travel in safety.

"We will continue to support Walsall Council to carry out further compliance operations such as this to make sure vehicles meet the requirements to carry members of the public. This includes cracking down on taxis using 'ghost plates' which are illegal.”

Joint operations such as this help ensure passenger safety, support responsible drivers and operators, and maintain public confidence in licensed taxi services across Walsall and the wider region.

Usual Wolves nonsense about taking 'our licensing responsibilities seriously', 'proactive', blah, blah...

Which has always been at least a tad disingenuous, but even more so now the council and its apologists are portraying it as a victim of the legislation, and thus unable to properly enforce stuff

Given that it seems these checks were quite simply having a look around and ID checks, surely they could have checked more than 16 vehicles.

Or maybe it started to get a bit cold.

_________________
IDFIMH

Meant to drill this down a bit earlier:

- One bald tyre

- One missing ID and safety equipment (ID a badge, presumably)

- One with 'ghost plates' and other issues

- Two with illegal tints

- 'A small number of other cases' were 'missing safety equipment'.

So if 16 stopped and eight failed, then the 'small number of other cases' must have been three in number? Why not just say three, if we're given the precise numbers for everything else?

And that's a total of four with 'missing safety equipment'.

What could that be, precisely? Most obvious answer is maybe fire extinguishers and/or first aid kits.

Which I don't think are required in Wolves cars, suggesting that four of the above (ie a quarter of all cars stopped) are maybe Wallsall cars?

So, who knows, maybe the Wolverhampton cars were better than the Walsall cars, and maybe it's Walsall here spinning it by not providing a breakdown by council - in effect, they could be allowing Wolverhampton to take most of the blame.

And which would certainly be consistent with claiming that a majority got a clean bill of health, when in fact they didn't

(I suppose the missing safety equipment could be spare wheels or puncture repair kits, or whatever. But it's usually fire extinguishers and first aid kits, innit?)

Interesting to note that the PHTM version has corrected what the official version said about 'majority/most' being compliant

Which is good, but on the other hand the headline makes it sound worse than it was because it uses the plural 'bald tyres', while in reality only one bald tyre was found


'GHOST PLATES' AND BALD TYRES SEIZED IN LATE-NIGHT WALSALL TAXI CRACKDOWN

https://www.phtm.co.uk/news/8446/phtm-n ... -crackdown

A joint taxi/PHV enforcement operation in Walsall town centre uncovered a series of dangerous vehicle defects and illegal modifications, including the discovery of prohibited "ghost plates."

The late-night sweep, conducted between 8pm and 1am at the end of November, saw 16 vehicles inspected by officers from Walsall Council, City of Wolverhampton Council, and West Midlands Police.

While half of the taxis/PHVs passed all routine compliance checks, the remainder faced "immediate action" to address safety failures.

Among the most serious breaches was a vehicle found using "ghost plates" - reflective modifications designed to evade ANPR cameras - which resulted in an immediate suspension.

Another taxi was taken off the road for a bald tyre, while two drivers were issued penalty points for illegal window tints.

Further issues included missing identification, lack of safety equipment, and standard compliance failures.

Walsall councillor Adam Hicken, Portfolio Holder for Enforcement, emphasised that such checks are vital to maintaining public trust in the trade.

“Passenger safety is our absolute priority. Operations like this are about making sure licensed vehicles meet the standards people expect when they get into a taxi in Walsall.”

The operation highlighted the ongoing collaboration between neighboring councils to monitor drivers across district lines.

A spokesperson for the City of Wolverhampton Council reiterated their commitment to proactive nationwide enforcement: "We take our licensing responsibilities seriously... carrying out regular operations with partners to protect the public and ensure they travel in safety. This includes cracking down on taxis using 'ghost plates' which are illegal.”

Despite the violations, authorities noted it was "encouraging" that 50% of the fleet was fully compliant.

However, Councillor Hicken warned that there would be no leniency for those who bypass safety laws. “Residents across Walsall get rightly fed up with dangerous vehicles being used on our roads... where issues are found, we will always take action.”

So PHTM have effectively corrected the councillor there (although don't quote him directly, but there's only one use of the word 'encouraging' in the respective versions, so they're basically quoting him by attributing his words to the 'authorities'.)

Which is all very well to an extent, but in effect PHTM is misquoting and misrepresenting what the councillor said, and effectively helping him out rather than pointing out the element of official spin, misrepresentation or error. Or whatever. Maybe Walsall Council just can't do basic arithmetic

But like a lot of the Taxi Point stuff, they're basically doing the councils' PR job for them, rather than taking the likes of Wolverhampton's BS in particular to task

And PHTM also uses the generic TAXI in the headline, but then splits this by using the term 'taxi/PHV' and 'taxis/PHVs'.

But then states that the bald tyres and illegal tints were attributable simply to 'taxis'. How do they know that?

And in theory it's possible that ALL the cars checked were PHVs - there's certainly no way of knowing from the official press release. But if some were indeed 'taxis' in the strict HC sense, then that would confirm that some of the cars stopped were Walsall-plated, because they'd be unlikely to be Wolves-plated *HCs*. Then again, Walsall does neighbour Wolverhampton in terms of local authority boundaries, so a lot more likely for a Wolves-plated HC to be stopped there than during an operation in Blackpool, say.

Of course, we've all got our, er, terminological inconsistencies. But at least be consistent within the confines of a short article

(Luckily no sign of a Taxi Point version (yet), but think I'll avoid that particular potential rabbit hole... )