Taxi Driver Online

Lucky man, not getting caught and all that....

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

Will your license tell me you have never gone over the speed limit?

Your word is good enough for me Jimbo. If you say you have never gone over the speed limit then I'm sure we all believe you.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

So if you're a convicted murderer or rapist then you can just waltz into a taxi driving job?

Take this "double jeopardy" argument to its logical conclusion and there would be no point in vetting drivers at all, and since this didn't quite work in the London minicab trade I can't see the position being reversed in the provinces.

And the point with comparing a taxi driving job with an every day job is that the vulnerability of passengers in the former?

And in an every day job if you have a record of some kind then I'm quite sure the boss will take it into account, although the extent to which it's relevant depends on the record in question and the nature of the job.

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

Jimbo hasn't even done 31 in a 30 zone

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

I agree with Jimbo.

For a change.




Surely it's 30 in a 20 zone, and 90 in a 60?






But human reaction times haven't improved since 1965?

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

Now now Dusty we dont want to start splitting hairs over this! I did state that I was not defending it nor condoning speeding,merely trying to draw a comparison between the speeds in different limits if you were to break them.
So if you are driving and the limit is set at the 30th percentile and you are caught at the 40th percentile that is ten percentiles over the 30th percentile which is ten percentiles,or as you lot would say IMHO 33.3% over the limit.
So applying the same figure to the 20th percentile would give you,if you were speeding by 33.3% a speed of 26.6mph in the 20mph zone, would 30mph in a 20mph zone not be speeding by 50% of the original speed limit?
Eh! now I'm confused,if you are going to use percentages,per centum,A proportion multiplied by 100 surely the 20mph,30mph,70mph or whatever must be taken as the 20th,30th or 70th percentile of the 100 portions.

Let's not go there

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

Yes,lets not

TDO we need to keep this in perspective, a taxi driver gets done for speeding and you and Skippy start relating to Porn,Murder, and Rapists, WHAT!

My first thoughts was that you have both got a problem that is only now starting to emerge

For myself I was I thinking with a normal mind - now try to keep up!

For example a Steelworker or an Office worker both shall we say have commitments I.E. family, mortgage etc, and need a car to get back and for to work. Now do you think that they will have to face the boss, in our case the (L.A), and possibly get the sack or suspension - no, not in a million years.

I am not condoning the stupidity of the driver concerned, but I am saying that you should punish someone once only. If the driver concerned carries on like that, then they will in effect take themselves off the road - and CRB checks do not come into it, as the person concerned is none of the extreme examples used.

_________________
if you cannot be yourself, then who can you be.

I've said nothing about the case in question; what I did do was question the general principle that you stated - ie a person shouldn't be punished twice.




As I said, it depends what parcticular offence you're talking about.



Well you can't make statements espousing a general principle then come back to the particular when you don't like your general principle being questioned.

The reason I mentioned rapists and murders is that these are clear cut cases, whereas a speeding offence is not.

Thus you can either stand by your general principle in which case rapists and murderers should be able to drive a taxi, or you can qualify this by saying that it only applies to more serious offences.

So, assuming that you don't want rapists and murderers driving taxis, where does the dividing line lie?

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

The problem I see is that the court has decided the driver is still fit to drive.

So when the council then decide he isn't, the driver then appeal to the same court that said he is still fit to drive. Albeit under a different hearing.

As mags court can't prosecute for the same offence twice, then it could become a mess.

Yes I know it's slightly different in the way the case has reached the court, but I suspect out there are many smart human right's lawyers who would love a go at a case like this.

_________________
IDFIMH

But presumably the point is that different rules may be applicable to cab drivers as compared to private car drivers?

As I said, take your argument to its logical conclusion and there would be no point in vetting drivers at all.

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

I think we need to separate the consideration of what constitutes a fit and proper person and that of secondary punishment.

Everything needs to be in proportion and considering whether a person is fit and proper on the basis of a recent offence might question the conduct of that person to hold a license. Therefore depending on the gravity of the case it would be right in many circumstances to revisit the question of fit and proper. Having said that I don't believe a secondary punishment should be given by councillors just so they can make a public statement. Such things as suspending a drivers license for a week or two after the courts have already dealt with the matter is not going to make the person any more fit and proper as they would be without the suspension. It might create some hardship for the defendant but that is all it will do. If an offence warranted a hearing before the committee then a warning to future conduct would no doubt have the same effect as a two week suspension.

Therefore in my opinion the line between consideration of "fit and proper" should be distinct from that of a "secondary punishment".

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

Surely the council have to consider his fitness to drive members of the public in safety, not just his ability to drive?

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

[quote="TDO"][quote="cabby john"]The punishment has been metered out once, you would not expect to go into another every day job and for the boss to have another go.



So if you're a convicted murderer or rapist then you can just waltz into a taxi driving job?

We were not at the time talking about anyone walzing into the taxi trade, murderers,rapists or anyone else. A speeding offence as such would not prevent you becoming a taxi driver.

Take this "double jeopardy" argument to its logical conclusion and there would be no point in vetting drivers at all, and since this didn't quite work in the London minicab trade I can't see the position being reversed in the provinces.

CRB checks basically, are there to show that a person is a good guy/girl up until a given point in time, i.e. if someone goes off the rails afterwards it does not mean that the system has failed.


And the point with comparing a taxi driving job with an every day job is that the vulnerability of passengers in the former?

There was nothing to suggest that any passenger had been endangered, so nobody except the driver had possibly been in a vulnerable position.

And in an every day job if you have a record of some kind then I'm quite sure the boss will take it into account, although the extent to which it's relevant depends on the record in question and the nature of the job

As you say practically every job/company will keep a record, But! even the police do not go around sacking/suspending their officers unless some serious accident has resulted.

_________________
if you cannot be yourself, then who can you be.