Taxi Driver Online

A very very sad and bad day for taxi drivers.

Still on a positive note if we all went and bought our fuel, cigarettes and booze from overseas pretty soon this sad and sorry government will be bankrupt and out of power

_________________
kevin
http://www.monmouthtaxis.co.uk

For iffy ones yes, not for the pukka version.

_________________
IDFIMH

I was more thinking of iffy local authority officers banning innocent taxi drivers from earning a living because they are having a bad hair day.

sad very very sad

_________________
kevin
http://www.monmouthtaxis.co.uk

And how do you know that some are not already involved in bringing forth sense on that issue?

CC

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

I don't know CC.

however I do know that Pink Ladies are trying to discuss ways around the 7 day excemption rule. And if they're successful in getting special exemptions then everyone can do the same.

they can't use the only women excuse because that breaks british and european sex discrimination rules i the government does not allow men drivers to run clubs.

after all, as a man utd fan (I'm not really) I wouldn't feel safe in a man city fan's taxi.... would I?

_________________
kevin
http://www.monmouthtaxis.co.uk

I believe a certain union in London has started a idiots only club

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

I can tell you the government are aware of the trades views on people circumventing licensing laws, particular reference was made at the NTA conference to the firm in question.

Section 75 (1) (b) has been repealed, so presumably it will need new law to enable the firm in question to operate outside the licensing regime?

CC

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

Maybe they will be given a royal charter, you know how these women stick Together

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

I don't think that Her Maj is as desperate for money as this government. no cash for honours in this instance me thinks

_________________
kevin
http://www.monmouthtaxis.co.uk

It was because those pinkies got a way around the act, that the section was repealed.

They can talk as much as they like, but they and their motors will have to be licensed.

What conditions come with those licenses is another issue.

_________________
IDFIMH

Our question, on which I seek clarification, is this; the Government currently have powers under the 1976 Act to revoke a licence for “any other reasonable cause” and for a “specific conviction.” The proposed public safety grounds represent a power that is additional to the Act and it is unclear how this will work in practice.

I assume that a conviction for a serious driving offence would be covered under the specific conviction provision. I assume that a conviction for an assault such as actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm against another road user, a pedestrian or a passenger would again be covered under the specific conviction provision. I assume that driving a vehicle without a valid MOT or in an unroadworthy condition as designated by the police or by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency would be covered under the reasonable cause provision. I assume that a deterioration in a given medical condition would be covered by that provision as well.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

The licensee has certain rights by virtue of the relevant acts, some of these have gone by the wayside courtesy of the road transport bill.

You will be aware that representations are being made to clarify the situation in the hope that guidance will be issued.

CC

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

Did you mean Council, instead of Government?

JD

I did not mean to say anything, I was only pointing out that something else had been changed, and that could very well have a serious impact on drivers, I know you like puzzles, I thought you would have recognised the words.. I apologies



9 Oct 2006 : Column 54

Our question, on which I seek clarification, is this; the Government currently have powers under the 1976 Act to revoke a licence for “any other reasonable cause” and for a “specific conviction.” The proposed public safety grounds represent a power that is additional to the Act and it is unclear how this will work in practice.

I assume that a conviction for a serious driving offence would be covered under the specific conviction provision. I assume that a conviction for an assault such as actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm against another road user, a pedestrian or a passenger would again be covered under the specific conviction provision. I assume that driving a vehicle without a valid MOT or in an unroadworthy condition as designated by the police or by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency would be covered under the reasonable cause provision. I assume that a deterioration in a given medical condition would be covered by that provision as well.

If the Minister is willing to tell me that my assumptions are incorrect, I will see the need for the new clause. If so, perhaps he will give me three specific examples where public safety needs arise beyond those already dealt with by the 1976 Act. The Minister made much in Committee about powers that were not being enforced at present and that we should not introduce more new powers that were unlikely to be enforced. We need clarity from the Government as to exactly how the new clause will work.

There was substantial discussion in Committee of new clause 7 and the Minister has done what he warned us he would do; he has closed what he described as the can of worms. However, as new clause 7 puts into effect for the rest of the country what clause 53 does for London, is it necessary? The 1988 Act is working perfectly well within London. There are vast numbers of contractors supplying private hire services to councils on a contract basis. They are Criminal Records Bureau-checked and their vehicles are checked and comply with safety provisions but they are not available to the public. There seems to be no reason for the Government to intervene in an Act that is working well. This seems to be another piece of unnecessary legislation.

Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman is being slightly disingenuous. Were we here today debating an abuse of a vulnerable person by someone driving a private hire vehicle who had not been appropriately checked and who had been allowed to drive because of the contract exemption, I suspect that his argument would be that I should resign my position because I had not taken the opportunity of the Road Safety Bill to close that loophole.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

I do recognise the words because as you probably know I have read them. I only read the first line or two of your post and I assumed you were talking about the 1976 act and councils, I just wanted clarification if you meant to write Government or council? I'll have to go back and read the whole post.

JD