Taxi Driver Online

Copied below are some of Liverpools licensing authoritys views of the law commissions proposals and is up for discussion on monday 23rd july at Collingwood Room, Millennium House, Victoria Street, Liverpool L1.


Provisional proposal 2
London should be included, with appropriate modifications, within the scope of
reform. (Page 162)
Provisional proposal 2 Comment
This authority has no comment to make in respect of this proposal.


Question 23
Should private hire vehicles be able to use terms such as “taxi” or “cab” in
advertising provided they are only used in combination with terms like “prebooked”
and did not otherwise lead to customer confusion? (Page 186)
Answer Question 23


The Authority strongly disagrees with this proposal because it would inevitably
blur the distinction between the two types of vehicle even with the qualifying
word “pre-booked”. It would not therefore achieve clarity in the minds of
consumers but have just the reverse effect. The two terms “taxi” and “private
hire vehicle” should be retained.


Provisional proposal 27
Private hire services would not be subject to standards except those related to
safety. Requirements such as topographical knowledge would no-longer apply
to private hire drivers. (Page 190)
Provisional proposal 27

This authority does not agree with this proposal – it is surely the case that
members of the public have the reasonable right to expect that drivers which
have been licensed by the local regulatory authority have passed at least
some, even rudimentary, scrutiny to check their knowledge of the local area.
This expectation must surely apply to both taxi and private hire drivers.
Moreover, this authority considers that the retention of a topographical test for
private hire drivers does in fact have a safety benefit to it – a driver who is lost
and trying to work out where he needs to go means that he is a distracted
driver who is unable to give full attention to road conditions and potential
hazards and may make unexpected and dangerous manoeuvres to get himself
back on track.

Peak time licenses a no no in liverpool !

Question 40
Would it be useful for licensing authorities to have the power to issue peak time
licences which may only be used at certain times of day as prescribed by the
licensing authority? (Page 197)
Answer Question 40.
No, not if it is suggested that such licences could be used by vehicles which
would be “private hire vehicles” otherwise. This would only serve to confuse
the public as to the two distinct types of vehicle.

Watch out Delta cars sefton , Liverpools view on cross border hiring is a no no , and private hire should return to base !

Provisional proposal 41
Private hire operators should no longer be restricted to accepting or inviting
bookings only within a particular locality; nor to only using drivers or vehicles
licensed by a particular licensing authority. (Page 198)
Provisional proposal 41.
This authority strongly disagrees with this proposal. As stated previously, this
authority does not agree with the proposal that local authorities should no
longer be able to set standards locally for the private hire trade according to
the particular needs and priorities of their area. Therefore, this authority
considers that there should continue to be a requirement for “triple licensing”.
If however, Parliament takes the view that local authorities should no longer be
able to set local standards for the private hire trade then there would appear to
be little purpose in retaining the “triple licensing” approach because local
authorities regulatory

Provisional proposal 42
We do not propose to introduce a “return to area” requirement in respect of out-ofarea
drop offs. (Page 199)
Provisional proposal 42
This authority strongly disagrees with this proposal not to introduce a “return to
area” requirement. As stated previously, this authority is of the view that local
authorities are best-placed to decide the conditions and standards necessary
to regulate both private hire and taxi trades in their particular areas. As such,
this authority considers that the power to set conditions for private hire
licences in its area should be retained. If the Law Commission does not
consider this proposal should be applied nationally then at least individual
local authorities should have the power to choose to adopt such a provision
locally if they consider it is necessary in their particular circumstances.
This authority is firmly of the view that the presence in its area of private hire
vehicles licensed by neighbouring authorities “sitting off”, often in large
numbers in high profile areas at times of peak demand, undoubtedly
contributes to the commission of illegal plying for hire by such drivers which is
a serious matter particularly when one considers that passengers would not be
insured in such cases.

Liverpool want regulation of hackney numbers to remain !

CHAPTER 17 – REFORMING QUANTITY CONTROLS
Provisional proposal 54
Licensing authorities should no longer have the power to restrict taxi numbers.
(Page 213)
Provisional proposal 54
This authority strongly disagrees with this proposal. It seems to have been
suggested without any evidential basis that it would, as a matter of fact, benefit the
consumer. Indeed it seems to based on the vague assertion that it would be “a step
in the right direction”.
This authority has at all times complied with the Government’s requirements
concerning the need for unmet demand surveys. These are carried out by
consultants who are experts in their field and are detailed, analytical reports which
clearly set out to identify unmet demand by the best means possible.

This authority considers its key role to be the regulation and administration of a wellrun,
efficient taxi and private hire service for the people of Liverpool and that it is
best-placed to decide locally what is in the best interests of the travelling public in
Liverpool on such a key issue. At the present time, this authority does not consider
the current limit on taxi numbers should be lifted. This authority respectfully
considers that it should continue to have the right to make that decision subject
always to general public law principles and judicial review. The fact that many
authorities which have removed the limit on numbers have subsequently chosen to
re-impose a limit serves to emphasise that it is very much a decision which is best
determined locally taking all relevant considerations into account.
Liverpool’s 1426 taxicabs provide a day and night provision for users and the
delivery of taxicab services are sustainable. Liverpool has a large number of taxicabs
working at night due to double shifting of drivers who work nights as there is a limit
on taxicab numbers.

This authority does not consider there is a need currently for the removal of the limit
on taxi licences. Any such decision as proposed would be arbitrary and would
impose a detrimental effect on the City of Liverpool as it is highly likely that the
demand for taxi licences would increase placing unachievable demands on the need
for additional rank space and result in taxis either ranking up illegally causing road
safety issues or circulating around waiting for rank space to become available which
would be detrimental to the environment. Furthermore, the proposal that there should
be an unlimited number of taxis will, in the professional view of the City Council’s
Highways and Transportation Manager, cause additional congestion at peak periods
and therefore flies in the face of the Council’s statutory duty under Section 16 of the
Traffic Management Act 2004. This statutory duty requires the City Council to
manage its road network so as to secure and facilitate the expeditious movement of
traffic. In performing that duty the City Council is expected to take action to secure
the more efficient use of their road network and eliminate, reduce or avoid road
congestion. It is not apparent that the Law Commission when developing their
provisional proposals have considered the impact which they will have on the
“network management duty” placed upon local traffic authorities.
Finally, as the Law Commission report itself says, “having more taxis does
not guarantee more taxis when and where they are needed”. To recognise this and
yet still make the proposal does not appear to indicate a clear-minded and logical
approach to the issue.

Its all in full here. http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/documents/s103009/Appendix%20C%20Law%20commission%20questions%20and%20answers%202012%20rt%20v2.pdf

......and it all read so well to start with

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

Ground breaking stuff.

_________________
IDFIMH

It has clearly been missed by this council that the Law Commission hope that most vehicles will be driven by licensed taxi drivers who have done a knowledge test. The only licensed vehicles being driven by folks without a knowledge will be the top end and novelty PH.

_________________
IDFIMH

Rightly or wrongly Delta can sleep soundly, as the one thing that will happen via the LC report is the ending of the cross-border issue. It will be made legal.

Thanks Unite.

_________________
IDFIMH

It's got to be a spoof.... it looks like something Derek Cummings would have written

_________________
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 dont see the issue, at least this council has responded.

If folks think thats bad, they really need to take a deep breath, because far more critical ones are coming.

The LC have proved themselves to be either completely stupid or completely naive, they are seemingly in awe of PH operators who they seem to think serve the public.

Yes, I suppose they would, but when you listen to what has been said; through radio interviews and media reporting; the last thing on an operators mind is either the serfs that work for them or the public.

Precious little in respect of driver safety....HC or PH......or was I the only one that noticed?

Feck all about ranking.....plently about LTP's.....but actually zero when you think about it.

The LC have been given a mission.....deregulation and cross border, thats it period.

They dont give a sh*t about volunteer drivers taking work off you.....at a fraction of the cost and actually tendering for work.....they'll be given exemption.....whilst you, pay your insane insurance premiums and live to rules decided by whitehall....which will be based around what whitehall experiences....not you.

They are going to completely f*CK this job.....for what its worth....and for what it brings....we deserve everything we get.

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

Pity they missed Delta. But then again these "detailed, analytical" reports by "experts in their field" do tend to conveniently ignore growth in PH numbers while HC numbers are effectively set in stone.




Or "serves to emphasise" that the drawbridge has been raised again once there's no one left outside. Or recaptured, as the LC might put it.




Like there's no PH service available at night, or in unrestricted HC areas.




Must be why they continue to recruit drivers then.

Welcome to my world

ahh you mean regularly surveyed then



why would they need to survey a company licensed elsewhere? They dont do HC's. But these reports you refer to, naturally presume those buying in to the PH culture are actually making money.....this is obviously why the turnover in London....as an example is a loss of 10,000 licensees per year?

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

But they are just saying leave things as they are, everything is ticker-tee-boo.

Well things aren't.

What we all need is justified coherent alternatives to those proposals that individuals oppose.

And councils need to stop listening to the chaps with the biggest gobs, and think what best for punters a bit more.

_________________
IDFIMH

so suggestions of serial killings, the need for the BAU, and starvation may be a tad dramatic?



Oh dear

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

ffs I seriously need a helicopter and a love scene

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

They already know that free for all is bad for punters mate, they already know that too many cabs is bad for everyone ...

Not really sure what your point it - unless it's about the Higgs bosun and I'm missing something - but here's how the surveys work. Or don't.

In a place like Brighton, say, there would be effectively no PH (other than chauffer, executive, or whatever) but for HC numerical controls and/or a WAV requirement for an HC licence.

So say there were 100 saloon HCs thirty years ago, and no PH. The market grows significantly over the years, so today there's 300 saloon HCs and still no PH.

But if the 100 saloon HCs had been restricted thirty years ago, then the likelihood is that now there'd be something like 200 PH.

So unrestricted you've got 300 HC but zero PH.

Restricted you've got 100 HC and 200 PH.

And the surveys conducted during the 30 years would have found effectively no unmet demand, because the growth in demand has been supplied by another sector - ie PH - so effectively the HC numbers are set in stone.

So HC numbers are only a third of what they would be if the market had been unrestricted, but according to the surveys that's all fine and dandy. And of course it's all fine and dandy for the HC cartel and their monopoly, plate premiums etc.

The surveys only cover one limited aspect of the market, which allows the market as a whole to become grossly distorted.

But all this suits both the HC and PH barons (and keeps their serfs where they want them), not to mention the surveyors and the relevant LAs.

Regulatory capture, innit?