Taxi Driver Online

What difference should it make if a point is made by a Sussex, as opposed to a Mr Fred Sussex?

_________________
IDFIMH

Indeed PH does exist, even in York.

But what sort of logic says that restricting taxi numbers is good as long as it is supported by a un-restricted PH market?

Restrictions are good (not IMO), or they are not.

_________________
IDFIMH

But didn't you support the gov view that councils know best?

_________________
IDFIMH

Ahhh this is the two days last December.

You may find that realistic, but I can tell you for nothing the courts wont.

That said, could you please tell me how many plates York has issued in the last 10 years, to the nearest 10, and how much plate premiums have jumped at the same time?

_________________
IDFIMH

Can't quite work out what your on about here.

Exactly who is asking for less taxis? And why do you keep mentioning PH in your equation. PH can work anywhere, so your manor could have 1 PH but 1000s could still work there.

The issue is about taxi numbers.

_________________
IDFIMH

The quotation you show states clearly, I believe, that I am saying more vehicles and more drivers (Hackney + PH) in areas with ‘Quantity Control’. The OFT Report only classified an area as ‘Restricted’ or ‘Derestricted’ so I do not differentiate between ‘Unrestricted’ and ‘Derestricted’. If you believe that there is a material difference I would interested to know what it is.




My ‘before/after’ comment was related to the ‘Unmet Demand Surveys’ done by Halcrow in Cambridge and Sheffield for the OFT. I have not referred to ‘before/after’ information with regard to Driver numbers. However, Table A.5 (Annex B on Page 3) does show the ‘Average Number of Taxi Drivers per Taxi Vehicle’ in restricted areas is 2 and in derestricted areas 1.5.




The OFT Report did not show an overall (Hackney + PH) increase in Derestricted’ areas, it showed exactly the opposite. See Table 4.2 on page 27 of the OFT Report.

I would be happy to publish the Tables/Charts shown in the OFT Report but I do not know how to do it on this site. I would be grateful if you, as one of the site administrators, would tell me how it could be done



I don’t know how you derived this statement from what I said. Furthermore, I do not believe that it is correct.



I believe you are making an irrational implication. What I actually said, with reference to Cambridge and Sheffield, was that the Halcrow Survey Methodology was seriously flawed. I cannot comment on all the Halcrow Surveys because I have not seen all of them. The York Survey Methodology is not flawed, which is perhaps the reason why it is never challenged.

Well according to Mr Jimbo, cabs in restricted Lincoln are all single tracked and the statistics would lead us to believe that many of them are are, so how do you account for that?

Lincoln 31 cabs 44 drivers = 1.4
Preston 187 cabs 250 drivers = 1.3
Wigan 136 cabs 219 drivers = 1.6
Chester 73 cabs 112 drivers = 1.5
Scarborough 97 cabs 145 drivers = 1.5
York 158 cabs 268 drivers = 1.7
Kingston upon Hull 180 cabs 196 drivers = 1.08
Bradford 224 cabs 300 drivers = 1.3

I could go on and on but I think you get the point.

JD

So are you saying more drivers is a good thing in general, or just to fill a limited supply of taxis.

On that point exactly what is wrong with licensed cab drivers owning their own vehicles? Or is it only ok if they pay 10s of 1000s for something someone got for nothing?

_________________
IDFIMH

I've always assumed that some areas have never been restricted, thus the term derestricted would not be appropriate, since that implies that it's moved from a policy of quanity control to none. However, if my recollection is correct then the OFT didn't differentiate the two scenarios.

But your post quite clearly stated your thesis that derestriction would lead to a reduction in overall numbers, yet I don't think there was sufficient information in the OFT to conclude that? And, indeed it's a tad counter-intuitive, and I've never heard the dynamics of what you posit rationalised in any credible manner.

Also, I can't recall any before and after comparison as regards driver numbers in the OFT report, which is why I asked you for a more specific reference.






So how did you reach the following conclusion (emphasis added)?

It therefore follows, does it not, that the anonymous subscribers on this site who advocate Derestriction want a policy that REDUCES the number of drivers per population.....





So how does this prove your thesis? What it does provide evidence for is that restricted numbers forces more drivers into each vehicle since they can't readily operate their own, but these figures do not show whether or not there are more drivers with or without restricted numbers.

For example, if derestriction doubled the number of taxis, using the figures you quote above, there would be 50% more drivers even if each taxi was now driven by 1.5 rather than 2 drivers.

And these figures also ignore the PH aspect.




It actually refers to unrestricted areas, not derestricted, so it's essentially a static comparison, and doesn't tell us much about the derestriction dynamic.

But the report did say that in Bristol, Cambridge and Sheffield after derestriction overall vehicle numbers increased slightly or barely changed.




Presumaby you got the PM I sent you early in the evening?




Correct me if I'm wrong, but your basic thesis seems to be that the public will find it more difficult to get either a taxi or PH vehicle after derestriction of taxi numbers as compared to before, ie a contraction in supply as compared to static demand? Thus it's surely reasonable to assume that the smaller number of drivers will be earning more, on average?




So how are the Cambridge and Sheffield surveys flawed in a way that York isn't?

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

Which York survey might that be?

JD

The policy of this site is that anyone can choose their status and no matter what status posters choose to use the administrators of TDO respect that choice. If the administrators were guilty of defamation and abuse towards posters then your claim might have some validity but that is not the case so what do you find unacceptable?



So in what way do you wish to stand up and be counted? When I spoke to Dick Haswell he said he had never heard of you? Maybe you are the silent type who gets things done without stepping into the limelight?

Quote:

Having said this I would like to inform subscribers of the following. Quantity Control (Restriction) delivers the best service for the consumer.

Ok so we have been informed, now what?



So what point are you trying to make?

Didn't the OFT state "Areas with quantity controls generally have "significantly" fewer taxis than those without".

Did they also not state that, "LAs without quantity controls have on average 30 per cent more taxis per head of population? This is true both for urban and rural LAs. In LAs with quantity controls the shortfall in taxi services gives rise to increased provision of PHVs".



The anonymous subscribers as you put it do not advocate anything, except that they disagree with the practice of restricting hackney carriage licenses for no other reason than maintaining quantity controls. No doubt the same people you refer to also take exception to vested interests in restricted authorities such as yours who have placed themselves in prominent positions in order to try and persuade councils and Government that they should exclude others from entering the Taxi Trade. It is no secret that the people to whom you refer would prefer various forms of Quality controls to Quantity controls.



I see you have a propensity to disregard facts. There are 246 authorities in England and Wales who have no limit on numbers, that is a massive 71% of authorities. It also means that anyone can work in the Taxi Trade, as is the case in the private hire trade. So if no one is excluded from obtaining a license in the 71% of councils who do not restrict entry, how can the number of people who earn a living be reduced?

The fact is 28% of restricted councils are the ones reducing the number of people who can make a living because by maintaining a waiting list of applicants they are fostering exclusion. Under your definition those on a waiting list are being excluded and the only place you will find a waiting list is in those authorities that restrict numbers.

After consulting their crystall ball some people might think all those on a waiting list are somehow connected to the Taxi Trade. That might be an appealing thought, but it doesn't substitute itself for fact?



Well, 71% of licensing authorities disagree with you and from what I can see, most people seem to be of the opinion that councils know best?



All unmet demand survey methodology is flawed because all it measures is peaks and troughs at certain places at certain times of day and night? Taxi use in the working environment might not even be measured, some authorities rely on questionnaires to measure demand as did Stockport and initially Carrick. Some authorities that restrict numbers have never had survey and probably never will. Other authorities undertake in-house surveys in order to save money in hope that they never get legally challenged?

The Scottish courts got it right when they said councils who restrict numbers had to continually keep themselves informed of demand and that there is no reason why that excercise should not be carried out every time the committee meets? Thats how reliable surveys are?



Most of the data contained in the OFT report is now out of date, it would be wise to submit your own findings rather than rely on outdated information. I assume you have your own supply of up to date data?

JD

Gerald, as regards your stance more generally, surely it's a bit rich to make categorical statements like that while at the same time criticising others for stating opinion rather than facts.

Since even if your thesis is correct your idea of the 'best service for consumers' seems a pretty narrow one. Your stance seems about as useful as claiming that sending children up chimneys provides the best service for people with coal fires, which seems an unduly narrow perspective.

What about service quality and fares, for example, and that many people prefer the choice of securing a taxi in the street rather than phoning for a taxi or PH? And, of course, what about the trade perspective, and the need for a level playing field?

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

I have never stated that I know Dick Haswell

When I state; “Quantity Control (Restriction) delivers the best service for the consumer” I am basing this on the premise that the more Drivers there are per population the better the service in terms of availability. My assertion is based solely, I repeat solely, on the information supplied by the OFT in Table 4.2 (Page 27 of the OFT Report) and Table A.5 (Annex B - Page 3), both of which are shown below

The following was stated in the Transport Select Committee’s Conclusion with regard to ‘Quantity Control’: -

13. The OFT claims that taxi numbers increase when restrictions are lifted. We see no reason to doubt this. But taxis do not constitute the whole of the hire vehicle market, and the report does not adequately discuss the fact that, although taxi numbers increase, the number of private hire vehicles decreases, and that the number of vehicles for hire per head of population is in fact lower in derestricted areas than in restricted ones.

TABLE 4.2
AVERAGE NUMBER OF TAXIS AND PHVS PER 1,000 OF THE POPULATION.

Type of LA....................Derestricted LA..........Restricted LA

All
.....Taxis...............................1.22.........................0.94
.....PHVs...............................1.01.........................2.01
.....All vehicles......................2.21.........................2.93
.....Ratio PHVs to Taxis.........0.83.........................2.14

Urban
.....Taxis..............................1.51.........................1.14
.....PHVs..............................1.43.........................2.42
.....All vehicles.....................2.94.........................3.52
.....Ratio PHVs to Taxis........0.95.........................2.12

Rural
.....Taxis.............................1.09..........................1.00
.....PHVs.............................0.66..........................0.93
.....All vehicles....................1.75..........................1.93
.....Ratio PHVs to Taxis.......0.61..........................0.93

Mixed
.....Taxis.............................1.25..........................0.75
.....PHVs.............................1.22..........................1.90
.....All vehicles....................2.47..........................2.65
.....Ratio PHVs to Taxis.......0.98..........................2.53




Table A.5 - Annex B Page 3.
Average Number of Taxi Drivers per Taxi Vehicle

Type of LA.........Derestricted..........Restricted
Urban.....................1.5......................2.0
Rural......................1.6......................1.6
Mixed.....................1.5......................2.2
London...................1.2
Total......................1.5......................2.1

The Transport Select Committee, having studied and analysed the OFT Report, state quite categorically that “the number of vehicles for hire per head of population is in fact lower in derestricted areas than in restricted ones.”

I simply submit, solely on the basis of the above evidence, that this means that the overall service (Hackney + PH) is, in terms of availability, better in restricted (Quantity Controlled) areas than in derestricted ones.

I also submit, solely on the basis of the above evidence, that what I am saying is indeed a fact.

In view of this evidence how is it possible for the Government, the OFT, Local Councils or any member of this discussion group to argue that ‘Derestriction’ benefits the consumer ?

So what about the points made in response to your original claim, since no one has ever refuted the figures you have posted above?

And what about the OFT's response to the TransComm's point that you are now repeating?

And let's not forget that the TransComm's main achievement was to demonstrate their ignorance of the trade and also that they were beholden to their union paymasters.

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