Taxi Driver Online

The last two paragraphs are interesting, well at least to me.

It appears that the government is looking to expand licensing areas significantly, to be governed by a local Transport Authority, hopefully not as large as the ones that govern buses.

_________________
IDFIMH

A consultation on making all local transport authorities responsible for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing, which would increase consistency in licensing and make better use of enforcement powers, will be launched shortly.

This would presumably be part of the English Devolution white paper?

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

I'd pretty much forgotten about all this (and still haven't viewed the whole committee session), but there seem to be oral transcripts of the meeting online now, plus one or two late submissions - they're presumably all online now...

But seems that the NPHTA have been allowed a late supplementary submission

Just had a very brief look, but looks like it's a response to some of the committee stuff. The bit about capping PHV numbers caught my eye, though - I wonder if that would be their response to HC caps

Wasn't sure what their stance would be on PH caps, but I'm pretty sure a lot of their members would take an opposite approach

But, as per usual with the NPHTA, what they say at any particular time depend on which cap they're wearing. Pardon the pun

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/9 ... lications/

This late submission seems to be from bods in the Blackpool trade, and it doesn't read like they're too impressed by licensing and enforcement in the town

https://committees.parliament.uk/writte ... 44468/pdf/

And, of course, wasn't Mr Petrak the one who supported PHV quotas?

Anyway, I'm surprised the NPHTA have come out so strongly against PHV caps. Or, at least, Mr Lawrie has

By some strange coincidence, when I was reading some of the TransComm transcripts a few days ago this appeared on TaxiPoint at almost exactly the same time (and the best part of a month after the meeting itself), just when I was reading this particular stuff from the Wolverhampton top bod.

But after reading about it all for around a decade now, this certainly isn't how I'd view it all. Mr Pattison either doesn't know the history of it all, or he was spinning an at least slightly dishonest line to the TransComm members


’WE NEVER ASKED FOR THIS’: Wolverhampton Council defends its controversial role in England’s taxi and private hire licensing sector

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/we-ne ... -s-taxi-an

[...]David Pattison, Chief Operating Officer at Wolverhampton Council, admitted that 96% of the drivers licensed by his authority live outside the city. This has sparked concerns that Wolverhampton has become a “licence factory”, issuing tens of thousands of licences to drivers who then work in other regions with little or no connection to Wolverhampton itself.

“We never asked for this,” Pattison told the committee.

“We are legally obliged to process an application if the driver is fit and proper. We cannot lawfully refuse someone just because they don’t live in Wolverhampton.”[...]

Your officials were never legally obliged to roam the country undertaking driver entry courses, but you did.

Shame on you.

_________________
IDFIMH

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

The participants for the next committee meeting on 19 November (next Wednesday) have been listed, and included big cheeses from Uber, Bolt and Veezu. And, on the non-producer side, James Button and Saskia Garner from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, and another four participants over the two sessions

https://committees.parliament.uk/event/ ... e-session/


There's a piece on TaxiPoint which provides some outline of what some of the participants will be saying etc. Not sure where this specific info comes from. But read the piece closely and most of it is speculative ('expected to...' and 'likely to...', and stuff like that) and perhaps based simply on the inquiry's remit, and maybe also on the submissions made by next week's participants


DATE REVEALED: MPs to question Uber, Bolt and Veezu as taxi and private hire licensing inquiry moves into key phase

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/date- ... uiry-moves

The Transport Committee will take fresh evidence from major private hire firms, licensing specialists and safety campaigners on Wednesday 19 November as MPs continue their examination of how taxis and private hire vehicles are regulated across the UK.

Like the other oral hearing, I will be logged on and eager to learn.

What will it add to the final committee report and any subsequent legislation?

In my view, very little.

_________________
IDFIMH

they're going regional whether we like it or not

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

Realised that was the case when the Trans Committee requested views on it, when no one in the trade has ever really promoted it.

I have mixed views; as a PH, it's not really the end of the world, but as a hackney, especially one in a restricted area, it's not going to be popular.

The thing is, 99% of them won't know about it until it's too late, i.e., right now.

_________________
IDFIMH

likewise - but powers will be granted to elected mayors taking it away from local councils - can't see how locals will be best placed to decide anymore - but given locals weren't consulted on regional mayors either it is a solution built upon apathy

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

The Sussex mayor issue has confused me because the various local Labour councils are heavily promoting it.

There is no chance, not now, not in the past, and most certainly not in the future, that a Labour candidate will be voted in as a Sussex mayor, with all the powers that job will have.

_________________
IDFIMH

This is more on point from TaxiPoint (geddit? ) as regards where the article's information is coming from - it says: "Their written submissions to the inquiry offer a preview of the positions and proposals each company is likely to highlight."

And the 'likely to say' in the headline confirms it's largely speculative, but the piece obviously built on the good foundations of the submissions to the inquiry.

But maybe worth a read as a good summary if you haven't read the individual submissions. Or, at least, I'm assuming it's a good summary because I haven't gotten round to reading them all yet. And probably never will. So kudos to those who actually read these things...or however else they actually produce stuff like this


CROSS-BORDER AND NATIONAL STANDARDS: What Uber, Bolt, Veezu & Vokes will likely say to Transport Committee during inquiry examination

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/cross ... nsport-com



But in a way it's all the stuff we're pretty familiar with by now...and interesting that here Uber and Bolt are 'ride-hailing platforms', but Veezu is a 'large fleet operator'

Weren't we told in another source last week that Veezu is also a ride-hailer?

Maybe the whole deployment of tech and automation thing is better seen as more of a spectrum, as opposed to a strict binary between the legacy trade and 'ride-hailing'...

So to that extent Veezu is probably closer to being a ride-hailer than the average legacy firm, but if you want to look at it all as a binary, it's not really there, because Veezu still uses the good old 'telling bone' (yes, I was transfixed by Catweazle as a nipper )

But 'ride-hailing' will always be a BS term to my mind