Taxi Driver Online

So you are more concerned about the inns and outs of the poster/member than the content of the post?

Interesting.

_________________
IDFIMH

So restricting the number of something is good for customers?

It must be me, but I have never had a customer say they wish there were less cabs.

_________________
IDFIMH

The Oldman of York worte




Well Gerald if what you say is factually correct then Edinburgh should restrict Taxi numbers to actually increase service to the public. Any increase in demand should be met by the Ph, as it is in every other major city with the exception of London who has quality not quantity control.

This makes perfect sense to me. Why increase your own market share with licensed qualified taxi drivers, when you can give it all away to unqualified and in some cases unlicensed min-cabs.

Here’s the bad new Gerald as long as you have an unrestricted fleet i.e. the Ph you have no restriction of numbers only different business types competing for the same market one restricted and one not.

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

both you me and many of the prople on here know its all about plate values and nothing less.

I don't know of a forum anywhere on the net which has a 100% fully ID'd membership, so why pick on TDO?

Alex

_________________
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ

Simply the best taxi forum in the whole wide world. www.taxi-driver.co.uk

What on earth has your opinion of the service provided by London Cabbies got to do with anything that I have said ?




I seem to have hit a nerve.




Yes it is when restricting the number of Hackneys provides a better overall (Hackney + PH) service for the consumer. Hackneys are 'Public Transport' and licensed for the prime purpose of servicing ranks and responding to being flagged in the district and PHVs are licensed to provide a 'private'service. If Hackneys cannot earn a living working the streets then there are too many Hackneys

It is noteworthy that you have no knowledge that can be used to challenge the FACT that Quantity Control (Restriction) delivers, overall, the best service for the consumer. You not only demonstrate a lack of knowledge on the subject, you also demonstrate what I mean by 'childish anonymous comment



What I say is factually correct and therefore if a Council wants to, as it should, provide the best overall service for the electorate then it will adopt a policy of ‘Managed Growth' (Quantity Control) of Hackney numbers based on realistic surveys

You said that customers are best served in restricted areas.

As London hasn't been restricted for over a 100 years, then surely you must be saying that London's taxis are offering a substandard service.

Or doesn't that quite fit into your logic?

_________________
IDFIMH

Not at all, but did you answer the question?

_________________
IDFIMH

Ahhh, so your restriction logic is based on support from the un-restricted PH side of the trade.

Maybe your manor would be best served by taxis doing both, as happens in more than 70% of the country.

_________________
IDFIMH

Well as I've never seen a realistic survey, only p*** poor ones, on that point you could be correct.

That said you didn't quote the bit about customers wanting less taxis. I wonder why.

_________________
IDFIMH

Just for my record, what do you class as managed growth? And how many plates have been issued by your manor on such a policy?

_________________
IDFIMH

Gerald Wrote:
What I say is factually correct and therefore if a Council wants to, as it should, provide the best overall service for the electorate then it will adopt a policy of ‘Managed Growth' (Quantity Control) of Hackney numbers based on realistic surveys[/quote]


Gerald in the real world the Ph and Hacks do the same job. We compete against each other. The hacks might provide a public service under the public transport banner but the drivers and owner are self-employed not employees of some despotic council run public transport system. The restrictive, vehicle choice and quantity controls stifle growth within the taxi market rendering the hacks uncompetitive and unable to respond to customer and competitor demands.

The PHV who provide a “Private Service” market should be renamed the “Hacks Cannot Compete Market” any Tom Dick or Harry can lay his hand on a private car do the same job with half the running costs on the same tariff.

As for flagging taxis in the street, the call and hail market you allude to is merging into one. The advent of the mobile phone and other modern technologies such as PDA’s computer laptops and satellite navigation finds the public pushing buttons instead of waiting in ranks or hailing taxis.

For all the reasons above the council couldn’t “manage growth” (Quantity Controls) if their life depended on it. Their idea of being in touch is consulting with vested interest groups who want to protect artificial plate premiums. Rationing licence plates through “realistic surveys”, the only problem, reality has nothing to do with it.

Times change Gerald and now faster than ever. Why don’t you look up “Moors Law” just to see how fast?

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

For your information; For the past 100 years London has not had a Licensed PH sector so any comparison is illogical. My logic is sound and based on facts. I consider that you are constantly trying to avoid addressing what I stated in my original posting because, for reasons best known to you, you favour Deregulation. I totally accept that you have a right to favour Deregulation but you have to be able to rationally argue why you hold this view. At the moment you are not doing this.




As far as I am concerned you did not ask me a question. You simply made a statement that was not related to what I said and then put a question mark on the end. There was nothing in my posting to suggest that your statement was applicable.




My restriction logic is simply based on the facts, which I can support with factual evidence and that the PH sector exists. Your statement is irrational.




If what you say is true then 70% of the country, as demonstrated by the facts related to availability, have got it wrong.
‘Derestriction’ forces Hackneys to do both Public and PH work because there is not enough street work to go round when the number of Hackneys increase. This means that Hackneys have to pay Radio Circuits and compete unfairly with PH companies in order to make a living. I say ‘unfairly’ because Hackney fares are controlled but PH fares are not. Furthermore, paying a radio circuit increases Hackney-operating costs. The facts show that Hackney ‘Quantity Control’ benefits the consumer. Do you really believe, in spite of the facts, that Derestriction is in the best interests of the consumer, the Hackney Trade or the PH sector ?

The vast majority of York Hackneys are not on a Radio Circuit because, especially at night time, there is enough ‘Street Work’ to satisfy the fleet. This is because York Council conduct realistic ‘Surveys’ to establish whether or not there is any ‘Significant Unmet Demand’ at Hackney Carriage Ranks only. If the Council consider that there is ‘Significant Unmet Demand’ at Hackney Carriage Ranks then it would, as is it’s right, increase the number of Hackneys and this is what is called ‘Managed Growth’.




If you want to see “a realistic survey” you only have to see the York ‘Survey Methodology’



If, unlike you, the public realised that less Hackneys results in there being more Vehicles (Hackney + PH) and more Drivers (Hackney + PH) per population in their area then they would want less Hackneys.




I was a York Hackney Carriage Owner/Driver, working in an area that has a policy of ‘Quantity Control’ (Managed Growth), for about 10 years and I, and the vast majority of other York Drivers, never worked on a Radio Circuit. What I believe happens in other quantity controlled areas is that Hackneys, understandably, join Radio Circuits to increase their income when the problem is actually that there are too many Hackneys working the streets. As you know Radio work has priority and when surveys are done at busy times rank work comes second. This results in a high ‘passenger delay factor’ on the ranks because Hackneys are doing and giving priority to PH work. The Council then increase Hackney numbers because the Hackneys are not satisfying the prime function that they are licensed to satisfy, which is to provide an adequate service at Hackney Carriage Ranks

So are you talking drivers or vehicles or both, and is it unrestricted or derestricted areas or don't you differentiate.

The reason I ask is that I can't really recall any driver number before/after comparison in the OFT report (although since I never read it all, I may have missed it ), so could you quote the specific source?

The OFT did provide numbers from derestricted areas showing a slight overall increase in vehicle numbers, which sort of contradicts your argument?

And since you're effectively saying that the average driver earns more after derestriction, then in any case that's a positive thing for the trade?





[/quote]

So you're saying that all the Halcrow surveys are flawed, and, by implication all the other unmet demand surveys? At least we agree on something

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Just because minicabs weren't licensed doesn't mean they didn't exist. But let's take London out of the equation.

Now please tell me where in the other 246 quota-free districts, customers are getting a sub-standard service due to having no taxi number restrictions?

_________________
IDFIMH