Taxi Driver Online

I never attempt to 'prove' anything, I leave that for you and Dusty, and anyone else who seems to get all hot and bothered whenever the subject of Unions and associations come up.

Then what was your motive for posting it? And why couldn't the person who wrote it post it? Are they banned from TDO?

Regards

JD

I was'nt aware you needed a motive to post articles on a taxi forum?
Is that not the purpose of this site, to post views, whether your own, or of others and encourage debate?

Clearly the post has ruffled a few feathers.

The author is not banned as far as I'm aware, but, like your good self, the person concerned does'nt visit this site anymore, as you don't theirs.

There's a motive for every posting action whether it be to ask for information, impart information raise a topic of interest, reply to a debate or just post something that might or might not be of general interest. You posted something which wasn't of your own making and what's more you failed to give a reason or relevance for posting it or offered an explanation where it came from? So in that respect before you took that text from another website you must have first thought up reason why it should be posted on here? So what was your motive? Was it to guage our reaction or did you think it was an item of information that you considered relevant in some way?

If the author of the text doesn't want to post on here then why are you acting as a conduit for his views? Far from the text ruffling a few feathers I would think that most sensible people would view it as pathetic. I don't mind giving credit where credit is due but in this particular case I think it might have served the author better if you had left it where you found it instead of exposing this nonsense to the wider audience he craves?



Debate is the defining word and that is why I asked you your motive for posting it? The text is clearly a statement, it is not yours but you don't say where you took it from or who the author is? Perhaps you can do us the courtesy of telling us where it came from and why you posted it and what relevance it has to this thread?



On the contrary, as I said previously, most people will view the text as pathetic. Perhaps the reason you posted it is because the half-hearted attempt at humour which runs through the text failed to get a reaction from the place it was first posted?



If the author has anything to debate on this site surely he shouldn't need you to act as his go between. I also understand there is a long distance debate being conducted between Mr Skull and Mr Jones? I don't know why Mr Skull was banned from expressing his views on the site Mr Jones frequents but I find it rather odd and childish that having been banned Mr Jones still wishes to carry on debating with Mr Skull. It makes one wonder why he was banned in the first place?

Was there a reason for banning Mr Skull, or did he present a few home truths that were unpalatable to some of the members on that site?

Regards

JD

Sometimes you witter on.

It appears to have provoked a reaction from you, so I guess it was worth posting after all.

Perhaps you could drop a line into Taxi talk by way of a reply?

Anyway, here's another one for everbody.

The situation in Carlisle is a strange one, as perhaps befits.

There are approximately 220 hackney carriages with under 30 ranking spaces. I'd say thats swamped!

Certain drivers will aquire a school run and do nothing all week, then work a Saturday evening on a purely cash only basis. I am old fashioned and tend to believe licenses when granted are granted to serve the public not the licensee.

The market is swamped. And in the majority of cases the customer is less well served than prior to derestriction.

All companies charge the same price, which is the Hackney Carriage rate as set by the local authority, although you can get fares slightly cheaper if you haggle (on a cash basis) for longer fares.

Prior to derestriction private hire companies competed via price, whereas now the number of owner driven vehicles in almost all being hackney carriage, do not give the private hire company that option.

Therefore if you were going from point a to point b in Carlisle, whichever company you telephone the price will be the same.

The very nature of private hire means that a private hire driver has no other option than to work the radio circuit, this usually means that all areas are well served. When private hire turns to hackney carriage the private hire operators command of the circuit drastically diminishes.

Drivers will only move from ranks when the radio fare is decent. Indeed, the instances of cherrypicking on Carlisle's ranks has increased quite dramatically since delimitation.

Obviously with significantly less PHV's on radio circuits when ranks become busy the number of vehicles available to dispatchers reduces more than usual, through drivers switching off radios. Although this has always been the case, prior to delimitation there were more PHV's.

The flow of drivers has additionally been reduced by improved standards of entry, knowledge & DSA testing for example. However, whilst anyone entering the trade now is 'qualified', by the time they have paid for driving lessons, CRB's, DSA tests, Medicals etc, they are a mere £50 per week away from being a hackney owner, and the cycle begins again. Not that I am against standards improving although its more a case of the new influx adding to the anarchy than improving the service to the customer.

The advent of the mobile phone and the Gladen ruling hasnt particularly helped, although I wouldnt blame anyone for this, not even my friends on the dark side. The mobile phone, with drivers giving out their number, as opposed to the radio circuit, is ruining taxi and PH companies across the country, not just in Carlisle. As everyone knows, drivers will give their numbers to the better fares as opposed to the shorter ones. This leaves radio circuits paralysed.

From a business point of view delimitation has effects on both the Hackney and PH trades, in my experience it leads to anarchy and a worse service for the public. It suits those who couldnt give a toss.

So you don't give a toss GBC - shame on you

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

In your experiance?

Regards

JD

I'd say there was a lack of rank space rather than saying the market is 'swamped', since that seems to allude to the demand/supply equation rather than vehicle/rank space.



So things can't be that bad in Carlisle, even if only some drivers have school runs?

And the market is swamped and there's a lack of ranks space, but Wayne wants more cars out because he's old fashioned? Antedeluvian, more like



Well there's certainly greater availability if the market is swamped, so there must be some benefit to the customer. But as a leading light in the NTA, the more important issue for Wayne is presumably that plate holders are less well served?



So if Wanye operates both PH and taxis, then presumably his firm can't be discounting PH fares, or if they do then it must be very confusing both for him and the customer.

But as regards fares generally, if fares are higher in general than before, then the public are probably gaining in some way, and this would appear to be through better availability (and perhaps things like wheelchair accessability, which is another issue entirely?) Setting the correct fare is all about getting the level correct in relation to a reasonable level of availability. If the fares are too high in Carlise leading to over-supply then presumably something somewhere down the line has gone wrong, and you'd think that with the NTA's clout behind Wayne then this shouldn't have happened in Carlisle.



As I've always been a fan of a one-tier system than to that extent Carlisle benefits the customer, and transparent pricing like this is clearly such a benefit.



My experience is primarily taxi-only, and I would say that the vast majority belong to circuits and/or use mobile phones, and to that extent all areas are well served. This may not suit PH operators, but it certainly allows drivers to choose and I can't see any detriment to consumers.



In my area the number of taxis has increased fairly significantly in recent years (not because of derestriction) and I've not noticed this phenomenon. Indeed, quite the reverse, because as the ranks have become more clogged up drivers have been keener to do phone work.



If drivers switch off their radios then why do the offices allow them to retain them? If the offices can't or won't control their drivers then that's a management problem, not down to derestriction.

But in general, if there are more taxis and thus the streets are better served, then this is positive because people secure a taxi in the street rather than phone for one, and this is more efficient and seems to be preferred by drivers and customers, otherwise they wouldn't do it, would they?

And to that extent this is detrimental to circuits , but sadly the trade should be run in the wider interest (ie thousands of customers and drivers) rather than a handful of circuits).



So the flow of drives has been reduced, but the market is swamped - spoken like a true circuit owner Perhaps these more stringent entry conditions have driven up earnings, which will never do - clearly if drivers have to work less hours some don't like this because they're a bit old fashioned about these things, you see



I don't think the Gladen ruling was of much significance, since it was only relevant to a few abberant councils and in any case gaining an operator's license would not have curtailed the use of mobile phones, or at least it would only have stemmed it slightly.

However, I'm inclined to agree with Wayne here, even though as an owner/driver this flexibility benefits me and a more stringent approach to this issue would benefit circuits. The same scenario in my manor has encouraged discounting and also cherry picking to an extent, and also has road safety implications, particularly as many of the drivers use hands-held mobiles.



Well, yes, from Wayne's PH/taxi multi-plate circuit viewpoint things clearly haven't went his way, but once again I think the wider perspective has to be considered, and many of the points being made are clearly beneficial to drivers more generally, and to me that's more important than Wayne and his family firm.

And I'm not so sure if any of the perceived problems that he outlined can be directly attributed to derestriction of numbers (unless you can attribute lack of rank space to that) and instead are due to a number of other factors, and we at least agree on the mobile phone scenario.

But perhaps the most important point is that these things have no doubt happened over a number of years (and indeed Carlisle was derestricted a good while before Wayne was making reasonably anti-quota noises), while Wayne's Damascene conversion to the pro-quota camp seemed to happen overnight, which lends support to the view that this was due to a personal spat rather than any analysis based on principle.

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

Of course, that all depends what you're giving a toss about.

And even from the perspective of those deeming a position on an issue to be giving a toss or not, it surely also depends whether you move from the perspective of giving a toss to not giving a toss, or vice versa.

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