Taxi Driver Online

Taxi firm first to win damages over bollards

A TAXI boss whose cab was written off when it collided with a rising bollard in Cambridge is the first person to win damages over the controversial scheme.

George Sharman, director of AGS Cars in Bedford, took legal action against Cambridgeshire County Council after one of his firm's taxis was wrecked by a bollard in Emmanuel Road.

He argued the no entry warning sign, which read "Except pedal cycles and authorised buses and taxis" did not make it clear to his driver that only Cambridge cabs were permitted to enter the street.

At Cambridge County Court on Friday, the council was ordered to pay Mr Sharman £4,200 in compensation.


I'm sorry, but there is no way this cabbie didn't know he shouldn't have been there. He was trying it on, got caught out, but must have had a good brief.

Alex

No Alex, he was genuinely mis-guided by the bl**** great big signs.

Still his claim for loss of earnings, will no-doubt soften the blow.

Private Hire cars are not taxis and therefore shouldn't have access to bus lanes.


[Automated by GetSmile]


B. Lucky

I can't really see why one should be and not the other.

After all many PH charge the hack fares and work in mixed offices, so you could have the same journey at different prices if PH weren't allowed in the 'bus' lanes.

Dusty

Well that makes so much sense.

Many firms are now mixed fleets, so you will have the really clever situation where one car takes one route into town, and another has to take a different way.

Bloody good reason for a one tier system though, hope you mentioned it to OFT, cos I know someone who did.

Dusty,
Hackneys are public hire taxis and busses, private hire are not so coaches and cars out.

dont defend the undefendable

Wharfie

mixed fleets have nothing to do with the argument as you well know, ones public hire the other is private hire, to many confuse the issue, we should not.

Wharfie

Yes Wharfy, but the distinction has become blurred for reasons we all know well.

As things are now in many areas, it's impracticable not to keep PH out of bus lanes.

Dusty

Bollox, the blur doesnt go that far, there is a difference between public and private hire.

Wharfie

The problem is Wharfy that taxis do both public hire and private hire, and also operate with vehicles only allowed to do private hire.

So if the public go from A to B private hire in a taxi and go a shorter route than A to B private hire in a PH, then it doesn't make sense.

And if they flag Premier Taxis to go from C to D but phone Premier Taxis and a PH takes them a longer route C to D then it doesn't make sense.

I agree that the concepts of private and public hire are unblurred, but operationally they are.

Dusty

Dusty,
private hire in a public hire vehicle is very different from private hire in a ph vehicle, as you well know opperating under a very different law, public hire never reverts to private hire as in misc prov act, for instance we couldnt charge a higher than that fare approved.

the waters are muddy only because you are disturbing the silt when you jump in the puddle.

Wharfie

So what Act covers you when you pick up at say Leeds Airport?

Not the 1847, not the 1976?

PH and HC has become blurred, but that's the fault of the PH trade for allowing it, and the HC trade for thinking if we give them this, then no de-limination.

why not the 1847 Act? apart from the smart ass that it was not there?

ph trade for allowing what? ph trade was a trade built to deal with rapists for gods sake! there are in no position to dictate anything!

Andy, the two taxi acting as private hire and ph as phire are not the same thing! I said and I meant that the ph trade have nothing to do with delimitatin?

jesus Andy you do love yourself

Wharfie

A fine metaphor indeed Wharfy. However, I would prefer to say to say that it's not me that's disturbing the silt, just observing the fact that the silt has been disturbed.

I think the point is that as regards the divide between HC and PH the law is insufficiently watertight (to extend your metaphor) and in its application the two concepts have become blurred.

The effect perhaps, if not the intention.

Dusty

Wharfy, the 1847 act allows licensed HC vehicle to operate in a district. It doesn't allow licensed HC vehicles to operate outside of that district.

Thus you could say that HC muddle the PH trade.

The PH trade have allowed themselves to be made pseudo HC, by councils too lasy to enforce both trades. They (in my manor) have the same fit and proper criteria for drivers, and the same fit and proper criteria for vehicles, for both HC and PH.

PH trade built to do with rapists, is just plain daft.

The CRB trade (so to speak) is there to deal with that for both HC and PH.

As for the PH trade dictating this or in no position to dictate that, again is plain daft. People in whatever trade they be, have a right to a say. If that leads to people dictating, then so be it.

I wish I could dictate this trade, cos it would be 100% more fair, than it is at present.

As for the PH trade having nothing to do with de-limination, well they do. Where do you think most of the new plate holders come from, following de-limination? If there was no PH trade, and the 1976 act never was, then I would say that by now all councils would be de-limited. Because the existing HC trade couldn't cope.

Oh and your last sentence, is perhaps the only bit of that post that could be viewed as the truth.