Taxi Driver Online
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Birmingham say tuk tuks, not for us
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8805		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  JD [ Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Birmingham say tuk tuks, not for us
Birmingham Evening Mail

June 20, 2008, Friday

Tuk-tuk no-no;

Far Eastern taxis are too far out

AN ENTREPRENEUR'S ambitious scheme to bring tuk-tuk taxis to the streets of Birmingham is dead on its feet.

City licensing chiefs have run out of patience after considering airline pilot Monil Narang's proposal to use the three-wheelers as private hire cars.

In April, they delayed a final decision until a vehicle had been put through its paces at the city council's Montague Street testing station.

But now, with Mr Narang having failed to supply a tuk-tuk for test, the licensing committee has decided that the vehicles will not be seen plying for passengers on the streets of Birmingham.

Committee chairman David Osborn (Lib Dem, Acocks Green) said: "Mr Narang said it would cost pounds 6,000 to buy a vehicle for us to inspect and he would not do it unless he could have the licence.

"It would be irresponsible of us to licence a vehicle without inspecting it thoroughly first."

He added that a council working party set up to consider the proposal also heard evidence from a specialist police adviser that there were 42 reasons why he did not believe the vehicles to be suitable taxis.

Licensing officers also discovered that no other local authority had allowed the vehicles to operate at private hire cars, although some have been allowed to operate for limited commercial, tourism and promotional activities.

Coun Sue Barton (Con, Longbridge) said: "I have travelled on them India and I wouldn't want to see them on the streets of Birmingham."
_______________________________
Author:  Sussex [ Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Birmingham say tuk tuks, not for us
JD wrote:
He added that a council working party set up to consider the proposal also heard evidence from a specialist police adviser that there were 42 reasons why he did not believe the vehicles to be suitable taxis.

Be nice to read those 42. :-$
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Sat Jun 28, 2008 12:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Birmingham say tuk tuks, not for us
Sussex wrote:
JD wrote:
He added that a council working party set up to consider the proposal also heard evidence from a specialist police adviser that there were 42 reasons why he did not believe the vehicles to be suitable taxis.

Be nice to read those 42. :-$


I'll see if I can get the 42 reasons for you. I think I know the specialist police adviser & he returns from holiday on Monday. Failing that they may be listed in the council minutes of the meeting, which might be on the web. I'd like to know too.
Author:  Sussex [ Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Birmingham say tuk tuks, not for us
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
I'll see if I can get the 42 reasons for you.

That would be nice, and once up on TDO they can be sent to, or read by, any council that has an application to license these death-traps.
Author:  jimbo [ Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm surprised there were only 42 reasons.
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
A few days ago, I thought I saw a post on this site that implied that Tuk Tuks, IF licensed can only be licensed as Hackney Carriages & not PHVs.

Can anyone assist please or was I dreaming?
Author:  captain cab [ Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
A few days ago, I thought I saw a post on this site that implied that Tuk Tuks, IF licensed can only be licensed as Hackney Carriages & not PHVs.

Can anyone assist please or was I dreaming?


Nope you weren't dreaming, I think JD has posted the Oddy vs. Bug Bugs case on a thread recently, or made reference to it, I think its covered there.

CC
Author:  captain cab [ Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/1202.html

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/2865.html
Author:  Sussex [ Thu Jul 03, 2008 5:43 am ]
Post subject: 
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
A few days ago, I thought I saw a post on this site that implied that Tuk Tuks, IF licensed can only be licensed as Hackney Carriages & not PHVs.

Can anyone assist please or was I dreaming?

They can be licensed as HC/PH/PSV. :sad:

Thankfully most of the very few being used are licensed as PSV, as that mob will take any old sh**. :sad:
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
They can be licensed as HC/PH/PSV. :sad:


That's what I wanted to know.

Thanks.
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Birmingham say tuk tuks, not for us
Sussex wrote:
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
I'll see if I can get the 42 reasons for you.

That would be nice, and once up on TDO they can be sent to, or read by, any council that has an application to license these death-traps.


I cannot get the 42 reasons, but I am assured there were not that many.

Newspaper talk again. (Some Rags are better than others)

What I have been able to get is as follows;

'' There were a number of issues, but I do not recall them being 42.

A general version of the report has been sent out to all licensing offices in the greater midlands, and will have been forwarded to NALEO.

The contents of the report are known to councils from as far afield as North Cornwall to the lake district.

.... but I don't want the document in the public or trade domain, as if it is misquoted, then it could reflect on the ............... Police. ''

I can entirely understand that last sentence.
Author:  JD [ Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
captain cab wrote:
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
A few days ago, I thought I saw a post on this site that implied that Tuk Tuks, IF licensed can only be licensed as Hackney Carriages & not PHVs.

Can anyone assist please or was I dreaming?


Nope you weren't dreaming, I think JD has posted the Oddy vs. Bug Bugs case on a thread recently, or made reference to it, I think its covered there.


I'm glad you said that because I did indeed post a summary of that case in Transcript corner but the reason I'm glad is because on checking it again I noticed I had posted it twice. It just goes to show how easy it is to make mistakes when you're in a hurry. lol

Naturally one will have to go.

Regards

JD
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 1:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Birmingham say tuk tuks, not for us
Sussex wrote:
JD wrote:
He added that a council working party set up to consider the proposal also heard evidence from a specialist police adviser that there were 42 reasons why he did not believe the vehicles to be suitable taxis.

Be nice to read those 42. :-$


I don't know if there are 42 reasons, but there is now available an eleven page report compiled by this specialist police advisor, which is part of the next Birmingham Licensing Committee Agenda.

The link is;

http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/democracy/ ... ID%3d38326

Once on this page, click onto the PDF labelled, '2217 appendix 3 PC Hart'

Again there may be a problem with this link as it does not open on my computer.

If it does not open for you, then save the file to your computer & open it from there.
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Sat Sep 20, 2008 6:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
The last 'nail in the coffin' of this proposal was finally driven in at the Licensing Committee meeting on 17th September 2008.

The Licensing Committee unanimously decided against licensing Tuk-Tuks in Birmingham, spurred on by the chairman's recital of paragraph 15 of the Police Liaison Officer's report which read;

15. In his blog entry, Mr. Higgs who has experience of building these vehicles states that they are not designed to be in competition with high speed, high sided vehicles. If the vehicles were to be used as some form of shuttle service between Broad Street and Hurst Street, one obvious route would be out of Broad Street, turn right at Paradise Circus onto Suffolk Street Queensway, under Holloway Head, and turn left onto Bromsgrove Street. If the trike which has a maximum design speed of 45Kph or 27 MPH is travelling around the left hand bend in Holloway Head Southbound, it is likely to be competing with a tractor unit, probably left hand drive, towing a 40 foot trailer with a combined weight of 45 tonne travelling at 40mph or 66Kph. As the lead vehicle exited the tunnel, it would no doubt decelerate, whilst the artic would sustain its speed. The combination driver would have little chance of decelerating in time to avoid a collision.

Birmingham is a NO TUK-TUK ZONE!
Author:  grandad [ Sat Sep 20, 2008 9:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
Brummie Cabbie wrote:

15. In his blog entry, Mr. Higgs who has experience of building these vehicles states that they are not designed to be in competition with high speed, high sided vehicles. If the vehicles were to be used as some form of shuttle service between Broad Street and Hurst Street, one obvious route would be out of Broad Street, turn right at Paradise Circus onto Suffolk Street Queensway, under Holloway Head, and turn left onto Bromsgrove Street. If the trike which has a maximum design speed of 45Kph or 27 MPH is travelling around the left hand bend in Holloway Head Southbound, it is likely to be competing with a tractor unit, probably left hand drive, towing a 40 foot trailer with a combined weight of 45 tonne travelling at 40mph or 66Kph. As the lead vehicle exited the tunnel, it would no doubt decelerate, whilst the artic would sustain its speed. The combination driver would have little chance of decelerating in time to avoid a collision.

Birmingham is a NO TUK-TUK ZONE!


I can see his point on that route. I wouldn't want to be a passenger in one around there.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/