Taxi Driver Online

have never argued over issuing plates when needed, only over oversupply, if the council determined a policy which is also agreed by all trade associations, representing all members of the trade, you would class that as being?????

.....bollocks, because I've never known an organisation to represent every member of the trade

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

join the GMB, we represent everything from republicans to loyalists, dont forget the fringe benefits, work agitate, illiterate.

PMSL

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

LMAO

_________________
Legal and proud

Loads a love from BERTIE !!

You could have as many associations as you wanted

Ok, here we go AGAIN.

In 1998 the council held a survey which concluded no unmet demand and recommended that further new licenses were issued to the first 10 (I think) people on the waiting list who could produce a wheelchair accessible vehicle.

At the same time a PH operator had made an application to licence 7 (I think) Fairways as PH vehicles. I believe he did this on the basis that no London Style Cabs were licensed as HC and therefore using the 1976 Act could not be confused as HC.

In 1999 the council introduced that policy (which the trade obviously agreed with) and a appeal to the court was made by the PH operator as those vehicles previously licensed as PH could no longer be used as PH as similar vehicles were now operating as HC.

Anyway the court ruled that he should be awarded plates for those vehicles and as he threatened to take further action if other licenses were not granted to future vehicles he purchased the council decided to remove the restriction all together.



So you see, the policy was FORCED onto the council and so in turn forced onto us.



I never claimed that any of the mentioned groups endorsed quality controls.

B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.

BTW I haven't yet heard you mention what your consistent argument against restriction has always been, as in "market forces should decide" ................. but that's because its not conducive to the current argument now is it.

B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.

Yeah join the GMB they represent everyone ........................ its called being a jack of all trades but master of none.



B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.

No, but you seem to be constantly alluding that some people take some sort of 'scorched earth'/'shock and awe' approach to these matters, whereas in fact it's totally the opposite, and I mentioned the two national organisations to underline the fact that it's they who don't seem to be making the case for QC. Indeed, as you well know in many areas the local trades are often advocating slacker controls if it means more drivers in their vehicles, and/or resisting any attempts to increase QC.

So the latter point below is nonsense, and should be directed towards self-serving people who support restricted numbers while at the same time supporting lax QC so that they can run clapped out old vehicles and/or ensure as large a supply of drivers as possible in order that their vehicles are on the road for as much of the week as possible, and this is without any regard whatsoever to the earnings of drivers:



And what's this flawed and innacurate information, by the way? Could you be more specific?

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

Well that's certainly one bit of 'flawed and inaccurate' information - you've surely not forgotten the TTFUK reps Mick - you were the North East rep, weren't you?

And don't I remember you telling the forum that you'd contacted councils on behalf of people, or did you never get that far before the whole thing fell apart?

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

Who are you directing this question to, because you've quoted two different posters in your previous message?

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

Local what? Taxi drivers? Members of the public? Pygmy's? Dwarfs? Cats and dogs? Lesbians? What locals do you refer? If it were local people then no doubt they would prefer deregulation because that increases the availability of cabs. If you refer to locals as meaning cab drivers then it goes without saying they will more than likely say less cabs are better for the public.

For some people a "councils know best" only when the occasion suits.

Regards

JD

By the way Mick, here are a couple of posts I made on TTFUK about 4 years ago, in response to Andy Clark (can't remember him) and Julian (I do remember him - he was another TTFUK rep).

I've highlighted some of the relevant parts. Also note what I said about immigration and the like in New York, an issue recently discussed on here - don't forget where you read it first

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

Very good question Andy. Let's put it another way - do quotas improve the quality of taxis/drivers?

Well in both areas I've worked in I would say that the cars were about the same - a cross section of ages, appearance etc. The point is one area had a quota, but the other didn't.

The bottom line is that although an operator who gets a free plate from the council but has the advantage of working under a quota, whether he spends the extra money on a better vehicle (say) is up to him, unlike in a normal business, where you might provide a better service to charge higher prices, on a taxi rank if you spend money on a better car and time cleaning it etc, you still get the same fare and the same amount of work, so any improvement in quality is money down the drain - ie market forces don't work. Perhaps someone operating under a quota will spend more time/money on his car - but this is by no means guaranteed.

On the other hand, it seems unlikely that anyone buying or renting a plate will by virtue of that fact run a better vehicle -quite the opposite in fact.

By the same token, there is nothing to suggest that quotas will improve driver quality - again some may benefit, but others resent having to buy or rent a plate.

Look at New York for example, ridiculous plate values, but a reputation for clapped out old cars, driven by people who don't speak the language and even get annoyed when the passsenger doesn't know the way(!) and has a reputation for reckess driving, and resent paying rental fees to greedy plate investors. Wouldn't a better idea have been to have a proper knowledge test and ensure applicants can speak English? This would have kept driver numbers down, and kept earnings up, in the process attracting better drivers into the trade - a virtuous circle. As for the driving, the New York Post recognises that this has a lot to do with driver desperation, for example, when they don't even make enough in a shift to cover the vehicle and plate rental.

The bottom line is that if authorities impose higher standards, the drivers are a happier bunch, the public get a better service and all is well. Instead many impose quotas, which just makes things worse - it doesn't necessarily improve standards and justs warps the economics of the trade, serving no useful purpose.

Dusty

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

Limitation might have some short term appeal, but what happens a few years down the line when people leave the trade and others come in?

The people leaving rent the plate to the people coming in - so any advantage stays with the person leaving the trade.

Alternatively, the new entrant "buys" the right to this advantage - ie pays a lump sum for the plate.

Neither method helps the new driver - personally I think this is unfair.

You mentioned de-limitation in Dublin in another thread, and how the trade was against this, but you failed to mention that the "cosies" (journeymen) could then have a plate for (next to) nothing instead of paying £50k for one or renting one - none of them seemed to raise any objections.

Of course those who paid for a plate will raise objections, but I would agree that this is a problem, and I would disagree with a couple of sources of I've quoted before - for example saying that it's basically like betting on a horse or a business decision that's gone wrong.

Unfortunately plates are often sold to people who don't really understand the possible implications (like in Dublin) - for example, I wonder how many people have bought plates in England in the past few months who don't know about clause 1.147 - I suspect most wouldn't have touched a plate with a bargepole, even assuming that the proposals are unlikely to go ahead.

Personally, I would tread carefully with delimitation where people have paid huge capital sums but if plates are just rented then there is no problem at all.

My own approach to protecting earnings would be a proper knowledge test, a driving test and a driver course of the type mentioned a few days ago in another thread.

Of course you could do the same just by limiting the number of drivers in the way they do with plates at the moment, but a better approach might be to raise quality barriers to keep the number of drivers down (it works in London - on the other hand, if the PCO just had a lottery for new drivers when numbers got below a certain level then earnings might be maintained at current levels, but the trade would be transformed from it's current state in other respects.

Of course this limits numbers at the driver level - by the same token, if it was considered that website designers weren't earning enough then the Govt could say that only those with an appropriate qualification could design websites.

On the other hand, what effect would using the method used in the taxi trade have - ie limiting the number of computers - perhaps you could answer this point Julian - when I've asked people to address this point in the past they've just ignored it.

By the way, the impetus for delimitation in Dublin was because the market was so tight that it was having a major effect on avaialability and became a big public and political issue - not just a few paragraphs hidden away in a huge document that most of the trade have never seen, never mind the public and which is then decided upon in secret meetings, which seems to be what is happening here. But in Dublin it was reported that after de-limitation the queues stayed the same - which shows the nonsense of the obsession with taxi numbers - all quotas do is pack more driver into the smaller number of cars, to the benefit of the plateholder.

Dusty

By the way, taxi driving is the most secure job I know!!

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