Taxi Driver Online

Physical limitations.
You can't have that amount of lock on a front wheel drive. The CV joints just will not turn that much.
That only leaves rear wheel drive as an option.
Even on a rear wheel drive motor you can't get the required amount of lock with a normal steering rack. What LTI (and the metrocabs) have is a complicated system of steering box idlers kingpins rods and about eight (if I remember correctly) balljoints. These need to be greased very regularly and as they wear the steering, which isn't exactly great to start with, gets more and more play in it.
It can feel more like sailing a boat than driving a car.
The only other solution I could think of would be some sort of 4 wheel steering system. Wonder if anyone has thought of that?

Either way, what manufacturer would go to all the expense when the vast majority of buyers don't require it? It isn't that large a market.

_________________

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

The reason all but one small manufacture has a small turning circle is because the other all realize it's a pointless expensive product.

Only stupid drivers and stupid councils think the turning circle of a TX is crucial for the taxi game.

_________________
IDFIMH

Both the turning circle and rocketry are engineering problems, not science. And any motor manufacturer, including E7( ) could just copy LTI's design. Metrocab did.

_________________
Former taxi driver

No delay in adding this to the website was there?

http://www.lti.co.uk/news/index.php?p=143

I meant to come back to you earlier , in case you don't know all of Liverpool's Hackney's are wheelchair accessible.

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

Are they now, so they can take a full size one in the correct manner, IE in the revers position fully fastened down.
if you say yes, go and read what the boss of LTI stated, and that was they cannot, that is why the disabled groups want the E7 so they can

Skippy... councils have a duty of care.. not only to the public but also to the drivers... I think maybe the argument of whether it was safe for a driver to load a 20 stone person and the electric wheelchair outweighed whether or not you could put a seatbelt around them....... but to follow your argument to its logical conclusion it would mean that anyone who chose to drive aTaxi that did not take electric wheelchairs would be liable to be sued... personally I don't care what they use

ps..I always find it confusing when the disability groups claim they only want to have equal rights,
when I'm going to a car park that say has parking for 10 and three of those spaces are marked disabled only. it means I can only park in the remaining seven, but the disabled driver has the choice of 10 ..??

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

Only to some wheelchair users

_________________

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

MR T I did not mention electric chair-es, i was on about a normal large conventional wheelchair.
If none of the LTI type cabs can take one, and the E7 can that is discrimination

Here when we refer to a big wheelchair it generally means the electric version, as far as I know there is no problem with placing the ordinary wheelchairs into a T X one /2/4 and they have been checked by the council's transport safety officers.... the statement about placing wheelchairs in sideways is based upon the fact that the wheelchair users themselves have a tendency to prefer being sideways as to having their back to the driver( you should know you can't win in this job)

If I was to speculate on the real reason that they do not want to get rid of the turning circle it would be , lots of types of vehicles not only the E7 would then have to be licensed, Liverpool has many thousands of visitors and the Liverpool council like them To get into Liverpool licensed vehicles, and not vehicles from the surrounding areas .

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

This is the bit i was on about


Paul Woolley, Engineering Director, London Taxi International (LTI)

Challenges and opportunities of vehicle manufacturers in improving access to taxis

Ladies & gentlemen, good morning and thank you for allowing me the opportunity to share my view on the “Challenges and opportunities of Vehicle Manufacturers in Improving Access to Taxis”, the case of LTI

My name is Paul Woolley, I am the Technical Director for LTI Vehicles. I have been with LTI for six years after 20 years automotive experience with Rover Group and BMW. You are all well aware of the Iconic London Taxi and the fact that it is globally recognised as the worlds leading accessible Taxi.

You are also well aware of the numerous features we have designed into the cab over many years, all as a direct result of feedback from our customers and key stakeholders, especially the many associations representing those who are less able.

LTI has long been campaigning for appropriate regulation which will set the standard for accessibility across Europe. It is our common goal that taxis, as a part of an integrated transport system are made as accessible as possible. However, the pursuit of the perfect vehicle should not be at the expense of what is possible.

It is essential that the regulations when published will be unequivocal practical and realisable.

I would like to take a few minutes to expand upon these three key thoughts.

Firstly, Unequivocal Standards

Each and every attribute described in the regulation must be described in a manner where by there can be no debate over compliance or otherwise. The report to date identifies many essential attributes, much thought and debate has gone into the proposed dimensions for accessibility but there is still much more work required to ensure absolute definition of each dimension. Only when this work has been completed will vehicle manufacturers finally be able to fully understand the true implications of compliance. This process should be carried out with the manufacturers to ensure practical solutions are identified.

Any standards that have room for debate over compliance will guarantee debate. Debate and argument will add time and cost to the process of implementation with too much time spent in legal argument at each part of the implementation process. The consequences obviously being delay in the access to accessibility we all aspire to.

Secondly, Practical

When defining attributes we must always ensure that the raison d’etre of that attribute is to improve some element of accessibility. Establish clearly what makes that particular feature work, what is important about it? For example: Wheelchair Space could be described as requiring a 1200 mm x 700 mm flat floor this is not true, not necessary. Wheelchair space actually only requires an area free from obstruction to the easy manoeuvrability of the regulation wheelchair.

Thirdly, Realisable

Over many years now a very significant amount of research has been carried out to establish the ideal accessible taxi. An excellent understanding has been gained in what is important and what is less so let us all make sure that we regulate for that that is realisable let us not let the perfect get in the way of progress.

So I submit three key thoughts for implementation.

Unequivocal

Practical

Realisable.

If I may, I would now like to discuss the design recommendations captured in tables 6, 7 & 8 in more detail and being more specific to the implications to LTI vehicles.

1. Entry Into The Vehicle

You will see from the table that the TX4 already complies with all the minimum entry requirements. However, it does not currently comply with the proposed recommended door height and floor height dimensions. Given sufficient time the floor height challenge could be met with appropriate design changes. The door height challenge however would require major redesign and could not practically be incorporated into the current base London Taxi design.

2. Vehicle Interior

Again referring to the matrix you will see TX4 complies with the minimum requirements for Interior headroom and wheelchair space (width). The challenge for us is wheelchair space (length) where we currently just fail to meet by 25mm. The practical implications of this is that the large foot rests on the standard wheelchair can sometimes be obstructed when manoeuvring the chair. This practical problem needs to be addressed by LTI and we are already planning to incorporate modifications into our next facelift. This change will be challenging and costly but we recognise the practical requirement for change and hence it will be delivered. It is important to re-iterate however that the current dimensions are more than satisfactory to load and manoeuvre most wheelchairs.

3. Table 8, Type One and Two dimensions and other features offers some fundamental and inappropriate challenge to a Type One vehicle

In a valiant attempt to share Type Two attributes with the fully accessible Type One taxi some significant oversights have been recognised.

The Type One taxi will obviously fair well when looking at interior space, a pure function of having sufficient space for the wheelchair.

The fact that there is enough space for the wheelchair obviously means that exit radius and door closure reach are impossible to meet. I would suggest these requirements are also not beneficial in a Type One vehicle as the semi ambulant will, with the aid of grab handles be able to stand inside the cab and walk out, a fundamentally different situation to that of the saloon vehicle.

Door release effort is another area of potential concern it is important to understand precisely how this is to be defined. As it stands at the moment, most vehicles would not comply even with the maximum release loads. In many instances it is in direct opposition to the anti burst crash requirements required for ECWVTA.

Further engineering investigation is required to ascertain realist targets.

Finally, the levels of lighting described in the taxi may be described as too bright for many customers and hence must be carefully reconsidered.

So in summary:

The LTI TX4 will meet all of the specific Type One minimum requirements.

There should be no blurring of the edges when it comes to defining Type One and Type Two vehicles. Clear requirements should be defined for each and clear differential always maintained.

I strongly support the principles of the report; however, one critical area that has not been addressed is the totally inappropriate practice of rear loading of wheelchairs. If a growth in the number of accessible taxis leads to a growth in the number of vehicles in our cities that require wheelchairs to be loaded from the rear, the report will be promoting practices that are clearly dangerous in normal city environments. I strongly urge the commission to re look at this whole issue, if it is not then a very significant opportunity to improve safety will be missed.

In summary

LTI strongly support the implementation of appropriate regulation, and I stress regulation. Unfortunately, I fear without regulation many licensing authorities across Europe will take little or no notice of simple guidelines.

LTI currently produce the only purpose built accessibility recognised across the world as a global icon of safety, reliability and accessibility.

We at LTI recognise the need to make continual improvements to the TX4. Those changes have to be driven by customer demands and regulation. Regulation comes in many guises, covering everything from vehicle emission to vehicle safety. Product change costs are a major part of the LTI vehicle cost base and could become a burden LTI cannot cope with. It is therefore essential that regulation is unequivocal, practical and most of all realistic.

Please do not let idealism get in the way of progress. We all desire accessibility to be accessible to all.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address you today and to convey my congratulations to all involved in the report especially Philip Oxley for providing an excellent foundation on which we can build.

watch Paul Woolley's Powerpoint presentation

I am sure you just put that up to get me back for some of the long posts I have made you read, I don't think that alone would stand up in court, tomorrow somebody can make an even bigger foot rest .... but you also must remember that wheelchair manufacturers State that they are not made to be used in vehicles...... as I say we just can't win.
By the way two of the team that are trying to sell the E7 used to work for Lti.. if they still worked for Lti they would be arguing the case the other way.

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

Taxi Accessibility

I have received a number of enquiries about whether there is currently a Government target that all taxis in local authority areas should become wheelchair accessible over a 10 year period from 2010. This letter clarifies the position.

In 2003, the Government stated that it intended to set standards for wheelchair accessible taxis and to introduce regulations that would apply to mainly urban local authority areas (so-called 'Phase 1' authorities). As you may know, the regulation making powers relating to accessible vehicles are contained in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and do not apply to private hire vehicles.

Since then, however, the Department has received a number of representations making the case for a broader range of disabled people's needs to be met in any regulations, rather than restricting the requirements only to wheelchair users. We have been looking at how this could be achieved but it is a complex matter. As a result, regulations have not been made.

Ministers remain keen to make progress on taxi accessibility and therefore intend to develop a consultation package for summer 2008 to seek views on the way forward.

I hope that your authority will engage in this forthcoming consultation and I would welcome your comments at that time on the way that taxi accessibility might best be achieved. To help us develop the consultation package, we intend to set up a small informal stakeholder group, including representatives from the Institute of Licensing and the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers, as well from the taxi trade and disability groups.

I have also enclosed a copy of the report by the ECMT (European Conference of Ministers of Transport) Taxi Group, which contains information that you may find of interest. You will note that it advocates a mixed fleet of accessible taxis. This will certainly be one of the options on which we will be seeking your views during the consultation process.

In the meantime, accessible taxi policies remain a matter for individual local licensing authorities in line with previous guidance that has been issued by the Department.

I should be grateful if you would pass the second copy of this letter to the Council’s Taxi Licensing Officer.





NIGEL DOTCHIN

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

There are political decisions and commercial decisions.

Typically Liverpool makes political decisions for its hackneys whilst far better commercial decisions are made by private hire firms in surrounding areas.

Liverpool made a political decision to restrict the number of its cabs. Delta made a commercial decision to increase from 400 to 1400 cars over a ten year period.

Sefton made a political decision to ban private hire firms from displaying their lifeline telephone number on their vehicles. Sefton's private hire operators made a commericial decision to overturn this politically driven restriction through judicial review.

It is political thinking that approves Liverpool hackney fare increases in response to requests from the T& G. It is commercial thinking that leads to Delta maintaining lower fares through better efficiency, brought about by huge amounts of training and investment.

The turning circle is just the wrapper. Take that off and you will see a political decision to protect at all costs the icon that is the instantly recognisable London style cab.

Two weeks ago a businessman from London arrived at Lime Street and took an iconic cab to a meeting in Old Hall Street. By the time the driver had taken his 'vulnerable tourist' detour the businessman arrived at Old Hall Street with £8.50 on the meter. A Delta car (which cannot turn on a sixpence) would have charged him £2.00 for the same trip.

The fatal flaw in Liverpool's political thinking is that there's simply no point in protecting icons that remains so open to abuse by its own workers. The businessman only hailed the cab because of its iconic recognisabilitiy. New to the town he assumed the £8.50 was correct until he spoke to a local resident. He went back to Lime Street for a quarter of the price in a Delta Taxi and he knows better for next time.

Liverpool has two and a half times the population of St Helens but 27 times the number of Hackney Carriage Vehicles. This is because Liverpool has a hell of a lot more visitors that St Helens. Local Liverpool residents know better, they've heard the radio, seen the billboards, read the door to door literature, spotted the signs at Anfield and Goodison, tried Delta and stuck with them.

This year we are on target to increase our passengers by over 2 million so clearly our restrictive turning circle doesn't appear to be putting off our customers. One wonders if the chaps who build the old cab are in the same union as the drivers and owners who support its continuous monopoly...

_________________
Don't knock it, 'til you try it....

A fine speech.. and nobody can knock the person who is responsible for the growth in Delta. but I think you should finish up your post by displaying the tariff that is set for the Delta drivers.... don't you

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