Taxi Driver Online

So as i have D1 and D1E on my licence and have done since 1991 does that mean i can drive a limo coach of up to 16 passengers, this is the way i read it on the sites that were given to look at. Please excuse my ignorance on this one i just want to make sure as i have no intention of driving anything illegally, Any advice would be gratefully received.

_________________
Legal and proud

Loads a love from BERTIE !!

Maybe you would be licensed to drive it if it were PSV licensed, but remind me how many of these things are?

But one thing I've learnt for nothing on this thread is that the 1981 act seems to have been drafted by the same fools that did the 1976 act.

_________________
IDFIMH

If we go by the way the tuk tuks are running in Brighton then,

a) They have full bus operating licenses.

b) They use drivers with bog standard driving licenses.

c) They have to run to a set route and time-table.

d) Any O-license can also do 'private hire' work.

So what's stopping any of us starting up a firm, with Skodas licensed as PSVs (taking 'private hire' work through their O-license), and using drivers with standard DVLA license and no police checks? In other words acting in the same way as most PH firms do.

As long as one Skoda does a route around the town, maybe once or twice a day.

_________________
IDFIMH

SUSSEX WROTE
Maybe you would be licensed to drive it if it were PSV licensed, but remind me how many of these things are?



Just to clarify this matter Sussex, the vehicle that im referring to does have a COIF certificate and yes its psv licenced through VOSA so i take it then that this is all legal and i can legally drive it. Well this is good news, however i can see why some people can be very duvious where limos and tuks are concerned. Its about time the government made some clear guidelines without any loopholes to which we could all work to and all know exactly what to do

_________________
Legal and proud

Loads a love from BERTIE !!

On your license you can drive the vehicles mentioned but you won't be able to drive any of them for hire or reward . Everyone needs to upgrade to the Passenger Carrying Vehicle entitlement PCV for short, (PCV D1 or D). This requires you to have a medical and take a further test. The E on the end of D1 means you can't drive for hire or reward.

1. Driving licences held before 1 January 1997

If you had entitlement to drive cars prior to 1 January 1997 - shown as group A (B for automatics) on an old style green or pink licence or as category B and D1 not for hire or reward on a pink and green or photocard licence - you can drive a minibus provided :

* You are 21 or over, the minibus has a maximum of 17 seats including the driver's seat and is not being used for hire or reward.

To drive a minibus which has 9 or more passenger seats for hire or reward you will normally need passenger carrying vehicle entitlement [PCV] (category D1 or D). To obtain this you must meet higher medical standards and take a further driving test.

Hire or reward encompasses any payment in cash or kind by (or on behalf of) passengers which gives them a right to be carried.

New rules from 1 January 1998

Your minibus entitlement will remain valid in the UK and on temporary visits abroad until your licence is next renewed. When your licence is renewed, your minibus entitlement (D1 and D1+E not for hire or reward) can only be issued if you make a special application which will involve meeting higher medical standards.

If your minibus entitlement is renewed you will normally be granted a D1 and D1+E licence for 3 years which will allow you to drive minibuses, not for hire or reward, in the UK and on temporary visits to other EC/EEA countries. See below for more details about driving abroad.

If your minibus entitlement is not renewed, categories D1 and D1+E will no longer appear on your licence. However if you are aged under 70 years, you may still be able to drive minibuses in certain circumstances. The rules explained in Section 2 will also apply to you.

Drivers whose licences are due for renewal will receive advice about these new procedures with their renewal reminder letter.

If any driver hasn't upgraded his license, he is acting outside the law.

The owner of the vehicle or vehicles is the one license by the Traffic commisioner and it is he who has to meet all the requirements of the license which apertain to routes, vehicle maintainence, financial status, etc, etc, etc.

Maybe we should have a thread just for the legalities of PSV licensing?

Regards

JD

To be honest if the driver is fully PSV licensed, and the vehicle is fully PSV licensed, then I don't really have a problem with it.

And even if I did have one, there's f*** all I can do about it. Rule number 1 is to only fight battles you can win.

_________________
IDFIMH

Are you saying that the tuk tuk drivers, if they haven't met any requirements other than having the normal DVLA driver license, cannot operate for hire and reward?

_________________
IDFIMH

Thanks for your replies fellas, your a real helping hand and its nice to know we have people on here that are prepared to give assistance in these matters

_________________
Legal and proud

Loads a love from BERTIE !!

The driver can drive as long as he has the required license update, everything else is down to the person who holds the vehicle operators license.

I have never taken one of these PCV tests but perhpas someone can advise us what it entails? It should be remembered that before the DSA test came along Taxi and P/H drivers didn't need a special driving test in order to obtain a badge. In some respects the PCV test may make these drivers more qualified than us?

Regards

JD

The the full text of the case below can be read at by clicking on the link at the end of the summary.

I came across this case while looking for information with regard to PCV license requirements which I assume these Tuck Tuck drivers will have to obtain, in order to carry passengers for hire and reward.

.................................................................

Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions v Snowdon

(QBD (Admin)) Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

4 November 2002

Where Reported

[2002] EWHC 2394
[2003] R.T.R. 15
(2002) 99(47) L.S.G. 29
Times, December 4, 2002
2002 WL 31442475

Subject: Licensing

Keywords: Disqualification; Driving licences; Passenger vehicles; Sex Offenders Register

Catchphrases: driving licences; passenger vehicles; registered sex offenders; no automatic disqualification; meaning of "conduct" in Road Traffic Act 1988 s. 121

Abstract: The Secretary of State appealed against a decision of the magistrates that S was a fit and proper person to hold a passenger carrying vehicle drivers licence, PCV, notwithstanding his conviction for two counts of indecent assault. The offences, committed in the course of S's employment, involved a 15 year old girl on a school trip abroad. The Secretary of State submitted that (1) when considering an applicant's conduct for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1988 s. 112 and s. 121, employment status was an irrelevant consideration in determining fitness to hold the licence. Furthermore, in the instant case, the fact that S's employers were willing to continue his employment was irrelevant to the issue of whether the convictions rendered him unfit to hold a PCV licence, and (2) S's presence on the Sex Offenders Register automatically disqualified him from being a fit person to hold a PCV licence.

Summary: Held, dismissing the appeal, that (1) the magistrates' conclusion that S was a fit person to hold a PVC licence, on the basis that he posed little risk of re offending, could not be criticised as irrational. The question of a person's fitness was one for determination by the magistrates and they were right to regard the current employment status of S as being a relevant and compelling consideration, and (2) notwithstanding that the existence of a conviction for a sex offence was a very powerful indicator that such a person may not be a fit person to hold a PCV licence, presence on the Sex Offenders Register did not automatically disqualify a person from holding such a licence; if that had been the intention of Parliament, it could, and should have provided for the same in the Sex Offenders Act 1997.

Judge: Nigel Pleming Q.C.

Counsel: For the Secretary of State: Shaheen Rahman For S: In person

Solicitor: For the Secretary of State: Treasury Solicitor

Legislation Cited

Police Act 1997 Part V
Police Act 1997 s. 112
Police Act 1997 s. 113
Police Act 1997 s. 115
Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 s. 19(2)(b)
Road Traffic Act 1988 s. 99
Road Traffic Act 1988 s. 112
Road Traffic Act 1988 s. 113
Road Traffic Act 1988 s. 114
Road Traffic Act 1988 s. 121
Road Traffic Act 1988 s. 121(1)(b)
Sex Offenders Act 1997 s. 1
Sex Offenders Act 1997 s. 1(4)
Sex Offenders Act 1997 s. 1, 8
Sex Offenders Act 1997 s. 2(1)
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exemptions) Order 1975 (SI 1975 ) s. 127

Case Comments

Buses; Driving licences; Employment; Sex Offenders Register. Licensing. J.L.G.L. 2003, 6(2), D28-29 Driving licences; Passenger vehicles; Sex Offenders Register; Sexual offences. Sexual offences and bus drivers. Emp. L. & L. 2003, 7(10), 39-40 Conduct; Driving licences; Employment status; Passenger vehicles; Sex Offenders Register. PCV driver's licence - conviction as sex offender - reapplication required by licence holder.. L.R. 2003, 52(Jan), 18-24 s
..............................................................................................


http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtop ... 1734#51734

The following is legislation appertaining to the provisions of hire or reward. Please note the amendments. The references to the 1985 Transport act relate mainly to Taxis.

Other cases centring on PCV licensing and hire or Reward are accessibly on TDO such as

Rout v Swallow Hotels, (1993
Crawley BC v Ovenden
DPP v Sikondar
Wurzal v Addison
And the big daddy case of Albert v Motor Insurers Bureau, [1972]. Which is not yet on TDO. I'll supply a link to this case shortly.

...............................................................................................

United Kingdom Statute 1981 c 14 Pt I s 1

Law in force. PUBLIC PASSENGER VEHICLES ACT 1981 CHAPTER 14

PART I PRELIMINARY

DEFINITION AND CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES

UK Statutes Crown Copyright. Reproduced by permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

In-force date: March 31, 1991 (see Analysis Tab for Commencement Information)

s 1 Definition of "public service vehicle".

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, in this Act "public service vehicle" means a motor vehicle (other than a tramcar) which--

(a) being a vehicle adapted to carry more than eight passengers, is used for carrying passengers for hire or reward; or

(b) being a vehicle not so adapted, is used for carrying passengers for hire or reward at separate fares in the course of a business of carrying passengers.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above a vehicle "is used" as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection if it is being so used or if it has been used as mentioned in that paragraph and that use has not been permanently discontinued.

(3) A vehicle carrying passengers at separate fares in the course of a business of carrying passengers, but doing so in circumstances in which the conditions set out in Part I, [...] [FN1] or III of Schedule 1 to this Act are fulfilled, shall be treated as not being a public service vehicle unless it is adapted to carry more than eight passengers.

(4) For the purposes of this section a journey made by a vehicle in the course of which one or more passengers are carried at separate fares shall not be treated as made in the course of a business of carrying passengers if--

(a) the fare or aggregate of the fares paid in respect of the journey does not exceed the amount of the running costs of the vehicle for the journey; and

(b) the arrangements for the payment of fares by the passenger or passengers so carried were made before the journey began; and for the purposes of paragraph (a) above the running costs of a vehicle for a journey shall be taken to include an appropriate amount in respect of depreciation and general wear.

(5) For the purposes of this section, [...] [FN2] and Schedule 1 to this Act--

(a) a vehicle is to be treated as carrying passengers for hire or reward if payment is made for, or for matters which include, the carrying of passengers, irrespective of the person to whom the payment is made and, in the case of a transaction effected by or on behalf of a member of any association of persons (whether incorporated or not) on the one hand and the association or another member thereof on the other hand, notwithstanding any rule of law as to such transactions;

(b) a payment made for the carrying of a passenger shall be treated as a fare notwithstanding that it is made in consideration of other matters in addition to the journey and irrespective of the person by or to whom it is made;

(c) a payment shall be treated as made for the carrying of a passenger if made in consideration of a person's being given a right to be carried, whether for one or more journeys and whether or not the right is exercised.

(6) Where a fare is paid for the carriage of a passenger on a journey by air, no part of that fare shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (5) above as paid in consideration of the carriage of the passenger by road by reason of the fact that, in case of mechanical failure, bad weather or other circumstances outside the operator's control, part of that journey may be made by road.

Notes:

Modified in part by virtue of S.I. 1980/1460, regs. 4-6 (as amended by S.I. 1981/462, regs. 2-4) and Interpretation Act 1978 (c.30) ss. 17(2)(a), 23(3)Act modified by S.I. 1984/748, regs. 4(2), 5(2), 6(2), 7(2), 9(2), 10(2), 11(2), 12(2), Sch. 2Excluded by London Regional Transport Act 1984 (c.32), s. 44(1)Excluded by Transport Act 1985 (c.67), s. 11(1)(a)Amended by S.I. 1986/1628, reg. 5(2)(3)
Pt. I amended by Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52), s. 187(3)

S. 1(2) excluded by Transport Act 1985 (c.67), s. 12, 8
S 1(5) applied by Transport Act 1985 (c.67) s. 137(3)

S. 1(6) applied by Transport Act 1985 (c.67), s. 2(5)
S. 1(5)(b) applied by Transport Act 1985 (c.67), s. 2(5)
S. 1(5)(c) applied by Transport Act 1985 (c.67), s. 2(5)

[FN1] Word repealed by Transport Act 1985 (c.67), s. 139(3), Sch. 8

[FN2] Words repealed by Transport Act 1985 (c.67), s. 139(3), Sch. 8

GENERAL MATERIALS
Royal Assent date - Long Title - Notes

UK-LIF ST 1981 c 14 Pt I s 1
UK ST 1981 c 14 Pt I s 1
.............................................................................................

United Kingdom Statute 1981 c 14 Pt II s 12

UNITED KINGDOM LAW IN FORCE PUBLIC PASSENGER VEHICLES ACT 1981 CHAPTER 14

PART II GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES

PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLE OPERATORS' LICENCES

UK Statutes Crown Copyright. Reproduced by permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

In-force date: March 31, 1991 (see Analysis Tab for Commencement Information)

s 12 PSV operators' licences.

(1) [A public service vehicle shall not be used on a road for carrying passengers for hire or reward except under a PSV operator's licence granted in accordance with the following provisions of this Part of this Act. ]

(2) The authority having power to grant a PSV operator's licence is the traffic [commissioner] [FN2] for any traffic area in which, if the licence is granted, there will be one or more operating centres of vehicles used under the licence; and, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, a PSV operator's licence authorises the holder to use anywhere in Great Britain vehicles which have their operating centre in the area of the traffic [commissioner] [FN3] by whom the licence was granted.

(3) A person may hold two or more PSV operators' licences each granted by the traffic commissioners for [a different area] [FN4], but shall not at the same time hold more than one such licence granted by the commissioners for the same area.

(4) An application for a PSV operator's licence shall be made in such a form as the traffic [commissioner] [FN5] may require, and an applicant shall give the [commissioner] [FN6] such information as [he] [FN7] may reasonably require for disposing of the application.

(5) Subject to section 68 (3) of this Act, if a vehicle is used in contravention of subsection (1) above, the operator of the vehicle shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [level 4 on the standard scale] [FN8].

Notes:

Modified in part by virtue of S.I. 1980/1460, regs. 4-6 (as amended by S.I. 1981/462, regs. 2-4) and Interpretation Act 1978 (c.30) ss. 17(2)(a), 23(3)Act modified by S.I. 1984/748, regs. 4(2), 5(2), 6(2), 7(2), 9(2), 10(2), 11(2), 12(2), Sch. 2Excluded by London Regional Transport Act 1984 (c.32), s. 44(1)Excluded by Transport Act 1985 (c.67), s. 11(1)(a)Amended by S.I. 1986/1628, reg. 5(2)(3)
S.12 amended by Transport Act 1985 (c.67), s. 12(13)
Excluded by Transport Act 1985 (c.67), s. 18
Amended by S.I. 1986/1628, reg. 5(1), Sch.

[FN1] Words substituted by Transport Act 1985 (c.67), s. 1 (3), Sch. 1 para. 4

[FN2] Word substituted by Transport Act 1985 (c.67), s. 3(5), Sch. 2 Pt. II para. 4(4)(a)

[FN3] Word substituted by Transport Act 1985 (c.67), s. 3(5), Sch. 2 Pt. II para. 4(4)(a)

[FN4] Words substituted by Transport Act 1985 (c. 67), s. 3(5), Sch. 2 Pt. II para. 4(4)(b)

[FN5] Word substituted by Transport Act 1985 (c.67), s. 3(5), Sch. 2 Pt. II para. 4(4)(a)

[FN6] Word substituted by Transport Act 1985 (c.67), s. 3(5), Sch. 2 Pt. II para. 4(4)(a)

[FN7] Word substituted by Transport Act 1985 (c.67), s. 3(5), Sch. 2 para. 4(4)(c)

[FN8] Words substituted by virtue of Criminal Justice Act 1982 c.48, s. 46 and by Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (c.21), s. 289G

GENERAL MATERIALS
Royal Assent date - Long Title - Notes

UK-LIF ST 1981 c 14 Pt II s 12
UK ST 1981 c 14 Pt II s 12
.........................................................................

United Kingdom Statute 1981 c 14 Pt II s 22

UNITED KINGDOM LAW IN FORCE PUBLIC PASSENGER VEHICLES ACT 1981 CHAPTER 14

PART II GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES
DRIVERS' LICENCES

UK Statutes Crown Copyright. Reproduced by permission of the
Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

In-force date: March 31, 1991 (see Analysis Tab for Commencement Information)

s 22

22.-- Drivers' licences.
[...] [FN1]

Notes:

Modified in part by virtue of S.I. 1980/1460, regs. 4-6 (as amended by S.I. 1981/462, regs. 2-4) and Interpretation Act 1978 (c.30) ss. 17(2)(a), 23(3)Act modified by S.I. 1984/748, regs. 4(2), 5(2), 6(2), 7(2), 9(2), 10(2), 11(2), 12(2), Sch. 2Excluded by London Regional Transport Act 1984 (c.32), s. 44(1)Excluded by Transport Act 1985 (c.67), s. 11(1)(a)Amended by S.I. 1986/1628, reg. 5(2)(3)
S. 23 ° in ° repealed by S.I. 1984/31, art. 5(c)(i)

[FN1] Repealed (1.4.1991) by Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Act 1989 (c.22), ss. 1(1)(2)(7), 16, Sch. 6

GENERAL MATERIALS
Royal Assent date - Long Title - Notes

UK-LIF ST 1981 c 14 Pt II s 22
UK ST 1981 c 14 Pt II s 22
...........................................

A Brief Summary of the Albert v Motor Insurers Bureau. Note all the references to various legislation and case law.

Albert v Motor Insurers Bureau

(HL) House of Lords

7 July 1971

Where Reported

[1972] A.C. 301
[1971] 3 W.L.R. 291
[1971] 2 All E.R. 1345
[1971] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 229
[1972] R.T.R. 230
(1971) 115 S.J. 588

Summary

Subject: Road traffic

Keywords: cars; hiring; Motor insurance; Motor Insurers Bureau; passengers; payments

Catchphrases: Insurance; passenger; hire or reward

Abstract: An employee who regularly carries fellow-employees to work in his car with the understood expectation of some compensation is carrying them "for hire or reward." Q regularly gave lifts to some of his fellow-employees. The judge found that Q expected to receive and his passengers expected to pay something for each lift, although the amount varied. The judge also found that no contractual relationship was intended by either party. A, a passenger, was killed through Q's negligence and A's widow obtained judgment against Q which remained unsatisfied because Q's insurance company failed. A's widow sued the Motor Insurers' Bureau which denied liability on the ground that the carriage concerned was not for "hire or reward."

Summary: Held, that a contract for payment was unnecessary and that the systematic carrying of passengers in the expectation of payment constituted the vehicle one used for carrying passengers for hire or reward. (Coward v. Motor Insurers' Bureau [1963] 1 Q.B. 259 considered and Connell v. Motor Insurers' Bureau [1969] 2 Q.B. 494 considered).

Cases Cited

Connell v Motor Insurers Bureau, [1969] 2 Q.B. 494; [1969] 3 W.L.R. 231; [1969] 3 All E.R. 572; [1969] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 1; (1969) 113 S.J. 489 (CA (Civ Div)) Coward v Motor Insurers Bureau, [1963] 1 Q.B. 259; [1962] 2 W.L.R. 663; [1962] 1 All E.R. 531; [1962] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1; (1962) 106 S.J. 34 (CA)

Legislation Cited

Administration of Justice Act 1969 s. 22
Administration of Justice Act 1969 sect.22
Companies Act 1948
Companies Act 1929
Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949 s. 1
Interpretation Act 1889 s. 8
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 s. 3
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 sect.3
Motor Vehicles (Passenger Insurance) Act 1971
Road and Rail Traffic Act 1933 s. 1
Road and Rail Traffic Act 1933 sect.1
Road Traffic Act 1960 Part VI
Road Traffic Act 1960 Part III
Road Traffic Act 1960 Parts
Road Traffic Act 1960 r. 3
Road Traffic Act 1960 s. 117
Road Traffic Act 1960 s. 118
Road Traffic Act 1960 s. 127
Road Traffic Act 1960 s. 151
Road Traffic Act 1960 s. 164
Road Traffic Act 1960 s. 201
Road Traffic Act 1960 s. 203
Road Traffic Act 1960 s. 257
Road Traffic Act 1960 sect.117
Road Traffic Act 1960 sect.118
Road Traffic Act 1960 sect.127
Road Traffic Act 1960 sect.201
Road Traffic Act 1960 sect.203
Road Traffic Act 1956 s. 39
Road Traffic Act 1937 s. 1
Road Traffic Act 1937 sect.1
Road Traffic Act 1930 Part II
Road Traffic Act 1930 Part IV
Road Traffic Act 1930 s. 19
Road Traffic Act 1930 s. 35
Road Traffic Act 1930 s. 36
Road Traffic Act 1930 s. 61
Road Traffic Act 1930 s. 67
Road Traffic Act 1930 s. 72
Road Traffic Act 1930 s. 77
Road Traffic Act 1930 s. 84
Road Traffic Act 1930 s. 97
Road Traffic Act 1930 s. 121
Road Traffic Act 1930 sect.35
Road Traffic Act 1930 sect.36
Road Traffic Act 1930 sect.61
Road Traffic Act 1930 sect.67
Road Traffic Act 1930 sect.121
Road Transport Lighting Act 1927 s. 15
Road Transport Lighting Act 1927 sect.15
Motor Vehicles (Passenger Insurance) Act, 1971 (Commencement) Order, 1971 (SI 1971 )

Direct History

Albert v Motor Insurers Bureau, [1969] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 243; (1969) 113 S.J. 528 (QBD)

Affirmed by
Albert v Motor Insurers Bureau, [1970] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 506 (CA (Civ Div))

Reversed by
-->Albert v Motor Insurers Bureau, [1972] A.C. 301; [1971] 3 W.L.R. 291; [1971] 2 All E.R. 1345; [1971] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 229; [1972] R.T.R. 230; (1971) 115 S.J. 588 (HL)

Citations to the Case

Applied by

DPP v Sikondar, (1993) 157 J.P. 659; [1993] R.T.R. 90; [1993] Crim. L.R. 76; (1993) 157 J.P.N. 283; Times, May 19, 1992; Independent, May 29, 1992; Guardian, May 27, 1992 (DC) Motor Insurers Bureau v Meanen, [1971] 2 All E.R. 1372 (Note); [1971] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 251; 1971 S.C. (H.L.) 148; 1971 S.L.T. 264 (HL) Rout v Swallow Hotels, (1993) 157 J.P. 771; [1993] R.T.R. 80; [1993] Crim. L.R. 77; [1993] C.O.D. 73; (1993) 157 J.P.N. 313; Times, September 9, 1992; Guardian, October 7, 1992 (DC)

Considered by

Corner v Clayton, [1976] 1 W.L.R. 800; [1976] 3 All E.R. 212; [1976] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 422; [1976] Crim. L.R. 437; (1976) 120 S.J. 541 (QBD)
St Albans City and District Council v Taylor, (1992) 156 J.P. 120; [1991] R.T.R. 400; [1991] Crim. L.R. 852; [1992] C.O.D. 61; (1991) 155 J.P.N. 588 (DC)
......................................................

Brighton runner gets more than he bargained for

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9IDEY082u8

Heres a letter about tuk tuks posted in the Argus, Brightons local rag.
..............................................

UK Newsquest Regional Press - This is Brighton and Hove

August 4, 2006 Friday

HEADLINE: Letter: Equal rights for tuk-tuks and taxis

DATELINE: The Argus

I have been a hackney carriage driver for 24 years and welcome the arrival of the tuk-tuks in Brighton. All I ask is the same rights as them.

Can I use a Reliant Robin as a taxi? After all, it has three wheels, too. Tuk-tuks take no hackney carriage vehicle test and their drivers take no criminal police check or medical test. They do not pay the council £158 for vehicle test and £42 for a driver's badge every year.

Taxis can be stopped in the street at any time by a police officer or a hackney carriage officer to check the vehicles are roadworthy and safe for public use. This does not apply to tuk-tuks.

My insurance covers hire and reward and has a liability in case a passenger is injured or killed.

This can cost several thousand pounds per year. Ask a tuk-tuk driver what cover he or she has.

Fuel has gone up 20 per cent this year and costs an average cabbie £150 per week.

In all, it costs every taxi and private hire car owner £10-15,000pa to put their vehicle on the road so the cost of running a cab is very high - but our fares are set by Brighton and Hove City Council, not the drivers.

-Colin Kennard, Hove

Another piece from the Argus.
....................................................

UK Newsquest Regional Press - This is Brighton and Hove

August 4, 2006 Friday

HEADLINE: Tuk-tuk service raises concerns over safety

BYLINE: Adrian Kwintner adrian.kwinter@theargus.co.uk

DATELINE: The Argus

Rickshaws operating as the latest form of public transport are putting passengers' safety at risk, according to a campaign group.

The Asian phenomenon of tuk-tuks was introduced to Brighton and Hove earlier this month.

TucTuc Ltd laid out £2,000 for each of the 12 vehicles imported from Bombay, India, before spending a further £2,500 on each rickshaw, installing seat belts, side impact protection, roll bars and head rests to meet strict safety requirements.

The company has added fire extinguishers and first aid kits and made improvements to the fuelling and braking systems.

But Taxiwise, the nationwide campaign for the safer use of taxis, said the tuk-tuks offered virtually no protection in the event of an accident.

Spokeswoman Celeste Clarke said: "It is of particular note that one of the main safety features on the imported vehicles highlighted at the launch was the inclusion of driver and passenger seat belts.

"Seat belts have been a legal requirement for more than 20 years. Every vehicle has to have them. If that is being highlighted as a main safety point, maybe questions should be asked about the appropriateness of these vehicles for English roads. We would like to see any vehicle licensed to carry passengers meeting a strict set of safety and accessibility standards."

TucTuc Ltd's executive director Dominic Ponniah, 26, came up with the idea for introducing the vehicles to Brighton and Hove when he travelled around Asia after his studies at the London School of Economics.

He is the first person to obtain an operator's licence for the vehicles in the UK.

He said: "We are a licensed bus service. Taxi drivers have their own vested interests and are not happy and like to moan. That's a shame when the rest of the population are using the service and are not bothered about these issues.

"These vehicles have been through the most stringent safety tests available. All the vehicles have also been tested for environmental quality, which the taxi companies fail on considerably."
..................................................................