Taxi Driver Online

Contrast Scottie's meanderings in his PM to Skull with Stu's effort.

Interesting though that Ian Millership is on record as saying, and I quote from his speech:

"Recently this last year I have been able to do studies for Edinburgh and Liverpool , both those studies we recommended retention of the limit on the number of licences, we did put in there that the trade should be talking with the licencing authority continually to make sure that if they ever saw there was a need for more licences, which we envisaged there would be , particularly Liverpool with the city of culture,that they would have a mechanism by which they could get those new licences in quickly before the demand went elsewhere, and that was one thing that we believe is very important."

Funny thing is I quite agree with him, it is very important if we are going to have to work in a limited market that if there is any unmet demand for taxi services it should be ours, not Lothian buses, this at a time when they know there is a waiting list and ongoing legal cases for people who want their own licence, disgusting, and made even worse because it may be the taxpayer who is footing the bill for the new shuttle, I doubt they will stick with the Airport?

Having listened to the radio show I was astounded to hear Taxi drivers/owners welcoming this, I think it was at this point I decided to take action, after the year I think I am going to give it a go, I phoned the licencing for an application form the other day and the women said "you will just be wasting some of your cash" and I may be , although how she knows this is beyond me! but if it transpires that the course of action taken by the licencing authority has been illegal in some way? the fact I have applications in place may allow me to seek redress from them, I think it could be a win-win situation for everyone.if we cant take control and defend our trade from the external risks we may as well forget any ideas of sorting out the internal problems, the problem is we are all really just a minority of one when the chips are down, and dont they just know it.


It should be said that Stu was sceptical. But he clearly has the ability to reach beyond what Scottie and Alan Gladstone spout and recognise the truth. And he came to this conclusion himself.

Stu is a prime example of how application of reason and intellect can advance our trade in Edinburgh.

Never met the guy. But I would like to. I just hope he applies for his own licence so that he can be his own man. He deserves it.

And the trade, and the public it serves, will be all the better for it.

Stu

Whoever told you that you'd be wasting your money was acting beyond their responsibility. We're going to raise this matter with the the council. I want to know who issued this instruction.

However, if you apply for your own licence, and I hope you do, be aware of the following.

ITS, bow cab=ti-vate charges a huge percentage to buy and incorporate a licence.

If you make application directly to Companies House you can set up an incorporated limited liability partnership for £20 (£50 if you want it same day). You've just saved yourself over £600 at Greenhalgh and Neilson's rates.

You want help with the process, filling in forms etc. then contact me, I'm sure you know how, and I'll help you all I can.

Good luck Stu. You deserve to be in control of your own destiny. We'll support you.

Skull's post on fasties.

If you apply for your own licence, be aware of the following.

ITS, cab=ti-vate charges a huge percentage to buy and incorporate a licence.

If you make application directly to Companies House you can set up an incorporated limited liability partnership for £20 (£50 if you want it same day). You can get the forms online.

http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/forms/ ... ml#limited

Filling in forms etc. is simple. Even a cabbie desperate to shed off the shackles of an extortionate rental could do it.

Currently £700 with the application. This is about to change. Don't know when, how much.

You deserve to be in control of your own destiny. This is how to do it.

btw you could pay 50 grand for a plate , in the hope the council doesn't de-restrict.

Indeed.

_________________
IDFIMH

The end has come.

Mr Gladstone, the paragon of logic and reason, has finally spat the dummy out.

News is that he has completely banned the Skull, and me I understand, from posting on Fasties. Some nonsense about improper postings or something.

Isn't the reason more likely to be one of two things.

First, given that the end is nigh for the inequality that is the current 50 grand plate protecting system, isn't there absolutely no way he would allow us to make any victory post? Would kinda rub it in I suspect.

Second, isn't it likely that he has finally crumbled under the weight of the argument. Take this following post for instance?

Restricted v De-restricted

With driver and vehicle quality controls
(existing and proposed)

This scenario enables drivers who wish to control their own working environment, to reap the full rewards of their own endeavours.


Streetcar comparison – single shifted
Cost Outlay
per Week per Week

6 day rental (Central) £350.00

Less allowance for radio dues £45.00

Total £305.00

Peugeot E7 5 year Hire Purchase Agreement £120.00*

Add Repairs / rubber allowance £40.00

Add Insurance allowance £30.00

Total £190.00

Total weekly savings £115.00

Percentage weekly savings 37.70%

* £106.59 per week on a 5 year unsecured loan @ 6.7% apr. – extra £15 saving


Vehicle benefits

5 year unlimited mileage warranty

Fuel economy 11-13p per mile

Parts department open 7 days – guaranteed 24 hr delivery

National dealer network – over 300

Dedicated customer service centre with free technical advice (7 days)

Driver owner benefits

Cost effective, up to 40% saving – work less / earn more

Fully tax deductable
(including depreciation – see accountant for full details)

Less downtime

Work when you want / need / it’s best to

Considerable extra savings when doubled up for private vehicle use
(individual specific)

No refuelling hassles with other drivers

Drive / maintain / clean vehicle to your own standard
Looked after, enjoy no rental cost from year 6 onwards

Real control over working life

No £50,000 shackle to “wet the beak of an owner”
(Sussex – TDO)

Council / Customer benefits

Larger fleet of quality vehicles

Increased / improved service to the public
– better availability

Streets cleared of pedestrians quicker during peak periods
– increased public safety

Fasties has no response to this. Instead Gladstone meandered off onto a side issue of personal attack against me.

This is the final act of a dying man. Shown up to be the stupid man he is, he has chosen to pick up the ball and ban us from playing completely. Childish or what?

Anyway, we've all seen how his site hibernates without the cut and thrust of Skull's posting. It will happen again.

Meanwhile the campaign continues. Questions are being asked. The council stoically refuses to answer them. In short local democracy does not exist here in Edinburgh.

But we'll keep trying.

Fasties RIP

We won't miss you.

There's a number of anomalies in your above argument which seems to contradict what has previously been stated.

For example;

Streets cleared of pedestrians quicker during peak periods
– increased public safety

How are the streets going to get clearer any quicker?

Increased / improved service to the public
– better availability

How is the service going to improve?

Why will more cabs be available?

Larger fleet of quality vehicles

How does a large fleet dictate 'quality vehicles'?

and is the above not in sharp contradiction to when you wrote this;

Drive / maintain / clean vehicle to your own standard

How is your following statement in the best interests of the public?

Work when you want / need / it’s best to


The following are benefits to the owner, not to the passenger;

Vehicle benefits

5 year unlimited mileage warranty

Fuel economy 11-13p per mile

Parts department open 7 days – guaranteed 24 hr delivery

National dealer network – over 300

Dedicated customer service centre with free technical advice (7 days)

I fail to see the logic of the vehicle argument, as ultimately it is the local authority that issue the standards they consider best.

Indeed, the above is basically an advert for a particular vehicle manufacturer.

Regards

CC

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

I would say the streets are going to be cleared quicker because the fleet of taxis will adapt to the demands of customers.

When you have 200 taxis double shifted, the most cabs out at any time will be 200.

Whereas if you have 400 single shifted, then those extra cars will be available for when the demand is there, or at least a significant number of them will.

As for benefits for owners, well I don't really have much of a problem with that in an open market.

_________________
IDFIMH

I don't really disagree.

However (and guess you guessed there'd be an however), experience and indeed what has been stated on this site before, tells us that the overall increase in vehicles is as of result of a switch of drivers from PH to HC. Edinburgh is slightly different due to the knowledge test etc.

We have been told that the majority of drivers will be from existing HC drivers buying their own cabs, which seems to be an accepted analogy.

To me, this would mean no overall increase in vehicles and therefore make little impression on the alleged demand, this casts doubt on the theory the service to the public would not improve?

CC

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

I don't really disagree.

However (and guess you guessed there'd be an however), experience and indeed what has been stated on this site before, tells us that the overall increase in vehicles is as of result of a switch of drivers from PH to HC. Edinburgh is slightly different due to the knowledge test etc.

We have been told that the majority of drivers will be from existing HC drivers buying their own cabs, which seems to be an accepted analogy.

To me, this would mean no overall increase in vehicles and therefore make little impression on the alleged demand, this casts doubt on the theory the service to the public would not improve?

CC

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

How are the streets going to get clearer any quicker?

Sussex is right. But there is another aspect. Drivers may chose not to sit idle on ranks on quiet week nights, because they are not forced to pay the nightly rental for them in a bundle of a six night rental. They may chose to do other things and concentrate their work effort when the streets are busy, when customers really need them. Therefore less cabs when quiet, more when busy, better customer service. Streets cleared quicker, public safety enhanced, the police and council delighted.

How does a large fleet dictate 'quality vehicles'?

The crux here is a large fleet of quality vehicles. This economic price plan allows individual drivers to operate quality single shifted vehicles as never allowed under the expensive LTI monopoly. And when you own the vehicle you're driving, and paying for it directly, and with a view to maximising its working lifespan or securing the best possible trade-in, the likelihood is that you will look after and cherish your work tool. This means customers are being conveyed in much better vehicles.


How is your following statement in the best interests of the public? Drive / maintain / clean vehicle to your own standard

Ditto as above.

How is your following statement in the best interests of the public? Work when you want / need / it’s best to

Improve work regime, happier family life, better R & R, happier drivers. This must impact on a better service to the public. Also of course, the better availability when customers need/want it.


The following are benefits to the owner, not to the passenger;

Vehicle benefits

These vehicle benefits take the service away from dedicated taxi service garages into mainstream motor dealerships where, experience shows, the standards of customer care is vastly better.

With few exceptions taxi service agents treat the trade as if we existed only to give them a living. A recent experience of a minor warranty repair through the local LTI garage meant leaving the taxi first thing in the morning and having to turn up in th afternoon to fight with them to complete it before the end of their business day. The repair was scheduled to take less than an hour.

Imagine, losing a whole day shift for such a minor repair. This is patently arrogant nonsense.

LTI have had it their own monopolistic way in Edinburgh for too long. They don't really care about their customers, us.

The Peugeot dealership situation offers a difference, much better experience.

Plenty local dealers. Advice on the phone. Parts available 7 days a week. The prospects of repairs being shift enders is minimised, fewer days, and income, lost.

This is real customer service.

An E7 owner told me he went into the local dealer to arrange his free 6000 mile service. The customer service agent asked whether he wanted it done there and then. He did. It was. This is real customer service. get this from an LTI agent?

Less downtime, less loss of earnings, more vehicle availability for passengers, much better service.

Finally CC. There's been a lot of talk about how de-restriction will "destroy" the trade. I believe it will modernise it. here's an example.

It is currently a condition that all taxi licences must operate. None sit on a shelf, at least given the £50,000 each one now costs. This means that if you have an accident, or are off the road for a major repair, you don't earn.

Under de-restriction, it will be possible for an enterprising individual (perhaps the current multi-owners, to offer a short term rental service to allow drivers to at least earn while their vehicle is out of action. I believe this may well already happen in London, the model which we want CEC to adopt.

This means less loss of earnings, maintained active vehicle levels and maintain public service. Who could argue with this?

All it takes is the de-restricted London model. Quality, not quantity controls.

Thanks for your reply, I cant see me agreeing with you to be honest, but I will try to be incredibly polite whilst disagreeing.



I suppose the point I am trying to make is that whilst everyone appreciates drivers will go home / disappear during quiet periods, they are normally there anyway during the busier periods.

I wouldnt therefore imagine any true difference.

If you can delight a council then you would truly amaze me.





Are Edinburgh going to bring in an age limit on vehicles?

Experience tells me that drivers, even owner drivers tend to purchase what suits their pockets. And with the best will in the world, your dealing with taxi people, who do tend to be a breed apart.

That aside, I was always under the impression (perhaps falsely) that Edinburgh's fleet was one of the newest within the UK?

You use the term 'maximising lifespan' doesn't that mean keeping a vehicle till it drops?

Indeed, the purchase of vehicles is a personal choice for the driver, just because you keep a clean cab, doesn't actually mean the guy behind you does.



I hate to disagree, but my experience is the contrary, drivers work when it suits them, and the customer (nor the council) have much say over the working day of a self employed person.



I have to disagree (again, sorry to be awkward).

In my experience non specialist taxi dealers have little idea about the demands of the taxi trade, and to be honest, taxi people have no idea about the demands of dealer networks.

I understand there were problems with the LTI dealer in Edinburgh, but I personally see that as an LTI problem, they give their dealers territories and don't allow encroachment.



I would answer your example in terms of if there is a problem with a vehicle having an accident, then a replacements vehicle could or should be sought and available, and if it has already been through test as an approved spare cab, then all that would need done would be for a temporary transfer of plate.

regards

CC

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

Doesn't apply here. You'd have to depend on someone giving you a drive. Not always a possibility.

Then the rules need changed, accidents happen.

CC

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

I suppose the point I am trying to make is that whilst everyone appreciates drivers will go home / disappear during quiet periods, they are normally there anyway during the busier periods.

I wouldnt therefore imagine any true difference.

Self employed drivers will need to work the busier times, because the work is not there during the quiter times. In other words, their working time will be market driven.

If you can delight a council then you would truly amaze me.

I know what you mean. But I live in hope that logic and reason may prevail.

Experience tells me that drivers, even owner drivers tend to purchase what suits their pockets. And with the best will in the world, your dealing with taxi people, who do tend to be a breed apart. [/b

The key in this example is that it highlights how a driver can compete with purchase of a new vehicle against a rental of what may be an old vehicle. This affords driver owners the opportunity to start at the best possible position. Edinburgh's standards, and their own personal desires can maintain their vehicles to the standard they want to operate at.


[b]That aside, I was always under the impression (perhaps falsely) that Edinburgh's fleet was one of the newest within the UK?

Yes its true. But there is still room for improvement. As we all know the annual test is only as good as the day it is done. That leaves another 364 days of deterioration if the owner doesn't maintain the standard. The above model means that starting from the highest standard makes it easier to maintain it. The vehicle could be written down for accounting purposes within five years and still be economical. But, if properly maintained, its life could be extended with real benefit for the owner.

You use the term 'maximising lifespan' doesn't that mean keeping a vehicle till it drops?

No, just until the owner decides.

Indeed, the purchase of vehicles is a personal choice for the driver, just because you keep a clean cab, doesn't actually mean the guy behind you does.

Precisely why individuals should have a stake in their own vehicle. With that comes pride and higher standards. The same argument used by Thatcher when spreading house ownership through the sale of council houses.

I hate to disagree, but my experience is the contrary, drivers work when it suits them, and the customer (nor the council) have much say over the working day of a self employed person.

The market decides when a driver works. If its there, so is the driver. At least he is only "paying" for the profitable shifts, not sitting idle on ranks or burning up fuel cruising for work.

I have to disagree (again, sorry to be awkward).

In my experience non specialist taxi dealers have little idea about the demands of the taxi trade, and to be honest, taxi people have no idea about the demands of dealer networks.

Taxis are about excessive miles and the strains that puts on the vehicles. Not much more than that is it? Can't see why traditional motor dealers don't understand this. I suspect you're promulgating the urban myth of taxi dealers.


I understand there were problems with the LTI dealer in Edinburgh, but I personally see that as an LTI problem, they give their dealers territories and don't allow encroachment.

LTI only understand monopoly. I suspect they can't thrive in a competitive market. I understand that they have an alternative vehicle but they stated that they would only introduce it into Edinburgh if their monopoly of TXs was ended. What arrogance. This is not the action of a company interested in its customers. Rather it is that of one which wants to maximise its profits.

The TX range is a pile of junk. Every advance on it is extracted as a last resort. It uses components seen nowhere else in the motoring world. And they continually fail.

Tonight I lost time because the connector at the end of the transducer cable failed. To replace this requires purchase of a complete cable at considerable expense. We cobbled together a temporary repair to get me going. Then, an hour later my shift was ended when I pulled into the garage for a break and could start it again. AA called. They push started me, but couldn't trace the fault. More time lost.

TXs are a pile of merde. I've had 15 years of working for owners subjected to this crap. It has to end.

Can Peugeot and others make a difference? I don't really know. But I do know it can't be allowed to continue. LTI have to face real competition if their product is ever going to improve.

If you doubt this ask anyone about the TX2, which anyone who has a choice wouldn't touch with a bargepole. Crap cobbled together engine/transmissions which caused nothing but problems for components leading to failue.

I suppose the point I am trying to make is that whilst everyone appreciates drivers will go home / disappear during quiet periods, they are normally there anyway during the busier periods.

I wouldnt therefore imagine any true difference.

Self employed drivers will need to work the busier times, because the work is not there during the quiter times. In other words, their working time will be market driven.

That's not my experience, perhaps an earlier start and earlier finish, however, more emphasis is put towards the shifts they know they will earn good money.

Experience tells me that drivers, even owner drivers tend to purchase what suits their pockets. And with the best will in the world, your dealing with taxi people, who do tend to be a breed apart.

The key in this example is that it highlights how a driver can compete with purchase of a new vehicle against a rental of what may be an old vehicle. This affords driver owners the opportunity to start at the best possible position. Edinburgh's standards, and their own personal desires can maintain their vehicles to the standard they want to operate at.


That aside, I was always under the impression (perhaps falsely) that Edinburgh's fleet was one of the newest within the UK?

Yes its true. But there is still room for improvement. As we all know the annual test is only as good as the day it is done. That leaves another 364 days of deterioration if the owner doesn't maintain the standard. The above model means that starting from the highest standard makes it easier to maintain it. The vehicle could be written down for accounting purposes within five years and still be economical. But, if properly maintained, its life could be extended with real benefit for the owner.

If the local authority is concerned with the standard of vehicle maintenance the I am reasonable sure it can organise additional testing for vehicles when they reach a certain age.

Indeed, you will be aware that during this month, this website has produced numerous examples of vehicles being 'spot-checked' by various agencies.

You use the key word 'if' properly maintained. Surely the public deserve better that an 'if'?

You use the term 'maximising lifespan' doesn't that mean keeping a vehicle till it drops?

No, just until the owner decides.

You have more faith in your colleagues than myself.

Indeed, the purchase of vehicles is a personal choice for the driver, just because you keep a clean cab, doesn't actually mean the guy behind you does.

Precisely why individuals should have a stake in their own vehicle. With that comes pride and higher standards. The same argument used by Thatcher when spreading house ownership through the sale of council houses.

You better not let my man Terry see you used the T word

Again, you have more faith in your colleagues than myself, as you suggest (by bringing forth the argument) that drivers don't keep clean vehicles now, do leopards actually change their spots?

I hate to disagree, but my experience is the contrary, drivers work when it suits them, and the customer (nor the council) have much say over the working day of a self employed person.

The market decides when a driver works. If its there, so is the driver. At least he is only "paying" for the profitable shifts, not sitting idle on ranks or burning up fuel cruising for work.

You touch on the term market forces. Which is all well and good. But my experiences of taxis supplying the whims of the market is basically not too bad for people going out and getting drunk, but no supply for little old ladies going to church the next day.

I would contend that market forces and the ability to operate a service are incompatible.

I have to disagree (again, sorry to be awkward).

In my experience non specialist taxi dealers have little idea about the demands of the taxi trade, and to be honest, taxi people have no idea about the demands of dealer networks.

Taxis are about excessive miles and the strains that puts on the vehicles. Not much more than that is it? Can't see why traditional motor dealers don't understand this. I suspect you're promulgating the urban myth of taxi dealers.

I know that on a weekend my non specialist dealers are closed, which is all fine and dandy for them, but no use to me who See's the weekend as my own bread and butter. If I have a problem I need repaired, I go to my taxi specialist, that is open and who does understand the needs of the trade.

Further to this the dealer networks will take a car in for service and service the serviceable points on their checklist. If the car needs further repairs they will tell me when I return for the vehicle and book me in for another day, basically because they are busy. The cab garage will either try to contact me or do the repairs.

I understand there were problems with the LTI dealer in Edinburgh, but I personally see that as an LTI problem, they give their dealers territories and don't allow encroachment.

LTI only understand monopoly. I suspect they can't thrive in a competitive market. I understand that they have an alternative vehicle but they stated that they would only introduce it into Edinburgh if their monopoly of TXs was ended. What arrogance. This is not the action of a company interested in its customers. Rather it is that of one which wants to maximise its profits.

The TX range is a pile of junk. Every advance on it is extracted as a last resort. It uses components seen nowhere else in the motoring world. And they continually fail.

Tonight I lost time because the connector at the end of the transducer cable failed. To replace this requires purchase of a complete cable at considerable expense. We cobbled together a temporary repair to get me going. Then, an hour later my shift was ended when I pulled into the garage for a break and could start it again. AA called. They push started me, but couldn't trace the fault. More time lost.

TXs are a pile of merde. I've had 15 years of working for owners subjected to this crap. It has to end.

Can Peugeot and others make a difference? I don't really know. But I do know it can't be allowed to continue. LTI have to face real competition if their product is ever going to improve.

If you doubt this ask anyone about the TX2, which anyone who has a choice wouldn't touch with a bargepole. Crap cobbled together engine/transmissions which caused nothing but problems for components leading to failue.

I tend to disagree, LTI (like them or loathe them) build a vehicle to a predetermined set of standards (COF).

You cite problems with the vehicle you drive, but it would be of use if you told me the age an mileage of the vehicle.

Can Peugeot make a difference? I suspect they can, but their motives are profit driven just like everyone elses.

CC

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