Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - Joint Legal Challenge to Liverpool's E7 Ban

This is most interesting because one of the defences Liverpool will rely on is the turning circle requirement. It will be interesting to read what the judge says about that?JD

I wonder how many people realise the significance of this case? 1995 DDA verses an act that dates back to 1847.

The need for a 25 foot turning circle will be measured against the needs and comfort of the disabled. I've always maintained that the best way to challenge these conditions of fitness was by way of the provinces, I'm glad the penny has finally dropped.

If however, the disabled group are saying that not ALL wheelchairs can fit into LTI vehicles & that by using the E7 & other Euro-cabs, more wheelchairs disabled people could use taxis, then they could well be on a winner.

Unless I have missed something, IMO the council are on a reasonable sound footing.

They already comply with the DDA in having a WAV policy i.e. LTI vehicles.

The fact that wheelchairs in Liverpool cabs travel sideways is an enforcement issue; they should NEVER be travelling sideways.

Who are you having your ten bob on JD :wink:

And if the disability group win would it have an effect on London :?:

Who are you having your ten bob on JD :wink:

And if the disability group win would it have an effect on London :?:

I'll take your bet skippy. Any wheelchair that will fit into a breadvan will fit into a metrocab.

jimbo wrote:

I'll take your bet skippy. Any wheelchair that will fit into a breadvan will fit into a metrocab.

Are Metrocabs still produced?

Regards

JD

jimbo wrote:

100 mpg hybrid.

So I take it Metrocabs are no longer manufactured.

Regards

JD

This is most interesting because one of the defences Liverpool will rely on is the turning circle requirement. It will be interesting to read what the judge says about that?

Author:	Brummie Cabbie [ Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:52 am ]
Post subject:	Joint Legal Challenge to Liverpool's E7 Ban
Disabled Groups Plan Fight Over Taxi Licence Ruling 18th July 2008 Liverpool City Council is being taken to the High Court over its taxi licensing policy that “discriminates” against the disabled. Cab manufacturer Allied Vehicles Group was refused a Hackney Carriage licence for its E7 Taxis by the council’s licensing committee in March this year. Liverpool Wheelchair User Group (LWUG) is backing a judicial review test case at the High Court being brought jointly by Alma Lunt, chair of the Merseyside Coalition of Inclusive Living, and Allied Vehicles. They will argue travelling sideways without wheelchair restraints or seatbelts in the city’s black cabs is dangerous. Now papers have been lodged with the High Court and barristers instructed. All other Merseyside authorities have granted licences to the E7 cab, except Knowsley, where Allied is going through the licence application process. The campaigners say the council’s decision flies in the face of its own Disability Equality Statement. They are also alleging the ruling is a breach of its duties under the Disability Discrimination Act to make “reasonable adjustments” to council policies and practices, so as to enable disabled people to lead a full life in the community on equal terms. Liverpool Wheelchair User Group chairman John Bruce is vigorously campaigning with others across the city for increased choice in taxi design. He said: “Most other cities can safely have this taxi, so why not us in Liverpool?” However, an irate John Bruce, chair of LWUG, who was at the meeting, said: “These vehicles are already being used very successfully and safely in most British cities. “At the licensing meeting, person after person stood up and painted a false picture of the Peugeot E7. They suggested it would be unleashing a juggernaut in the hands of maniacs who would career all over the pavements, with people diving out recklessly. Their justification is that it is slightly longer and has sliding doors “We are not saying that we no longer want the traditional black cabs on our streets. All we want is for people to have a choice.” A council spokesman said: “We are aware that an application has been made for leave to appeal against a decision made by the licensing committee. “It would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage because there is a legal case pending.”

Author:	JD [ Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:40 pm ]
Post subject:
This is most interesting because one of the defences Liverpool will rely on is the turning circle requirement. It will be interesting to read what the judge says about that? Regards JD

Author:	Brummie Cabbie [ Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:06 pm ]
Post subject:
JD wrote: This is most interesting because one of the defences Liverpool will rely on is the turning circle requirement. It will be interesting to read what the judge says about that?JD I know it is still a requirement in the CoF at the PCO, but what's the point? 99 times out of 100 if you do a U-turn using the 25ft turning circle, you have done an illegal U-turn according to the WM police. Our drivers get fine after fine for this, so what is the point of the 25ft turning circle, if generally it is illegal to use it.

Author:	JD [ Fri Jul 18, 2008 2:56 pm ]
Post subject:
I wonder how many people realise the significance of this case? 1995 DDA verses an act that dates back to 1847. The need for a 25 foot turning circle will be measured against the needs and comfort of the disabled. I've always maintained that the best way to challenge these conditions of fitness was by way of the provinces, I'm glad the penny has finally dropped. http://www.lwug.co.uk/page001.html Regards JD

Author:	Brummie Cabbie [ Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:20 pm ]
Post subject:
JD wrote: I wonder how many people realise the significance of this case? 1995 DDA verses an act that dates back to 1847. The need for a 25 foot turning circle will be measured against the needs and comfort of the disabled. I've always maintained that the best way to challenge these conditions of fitness was by way of the provinces, I'm glad the penny has finally dropped. Unless I have missed something, IMO the council are on a reasonable sound footing. They already comply with the DDA in having a WAV policy i.e. LTI vehicles. The fact that wheelchairs in Liverpool cabs travel sideways is an enforcement issue; they should NEVER be travelling sideways. If however, the disabled group are saying that not ALL wheelchairs can fit into LTI vehicles & that by using the E7 & other Euro-cabs, more wheelchairs disabled people could use taxis, then they could well be on a winner. And if they did win, is London next? I wonder if LTI have ordered incontinence pads for their executives yet?

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

Joint Legal Challenge to Liverpool's E7 Ban http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8949	Page 1 of 2

Author:	gusmac [ Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:32 pm ]
Post subject:
Brummie Cabbie wrote: If however, the disabled group are saying that not ALL wheelchairs can fit into LTI vehicles & that by using the E7 & other Euro-cabs, more wheelchairs disabled people could use taxis, then they could well be on a winner. It should also be remembered that the majority of disabled people are not wheelchair bound. Many of them find saloon type vehicles easier to use than black cabs. These people also have rights under the DDA. Why do so many councils think disabled automatically means a wheelchair?

Author:	JD [ Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:15 pm ]
Post subject:
Brummie Cabbie wrote: Unless I have missed something, IMO the council are on a reasonable sound footing. They already comply with the DDA in having a WAV policy i.e. LTI vehicles. Having a wav policy that restricts the disabled to one type of vehicle might not be enough to convince a high court judge that the policy does not discriminate against other types of disabilities and in particular restricts the disabled from using more adequate types of vehicles. I think this information might be of some use. http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=92279 Quote: The fact that wheelchairs in Liverpool cabs travel sideways is an enforcement issue; they should NEVER be travelling sideways. At the end of the day I doubt sideways travel will be a significant issue. The issue will inevitably come down to the reason why Liverpool restrict choice and that means consideration of the 25 foot turning circle. If I was a judge and a council said to me they can't give the disabled a choice of vehicle because they require all vehicles to be able to turn within a 25 foot circle, and there are only two vehicles that can do that, then I would find that reason ludicrous. Regards JD

Author:	skippy41 [ Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:55 pm ]
Post subject:
Who are you having your ten bob on JD And if the disability group win would it have an effect on London

Author:	jimbo [ Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:22 pm ]
Post subject:
skippy41 wrote: Who are you having your ten bob on JD And if the disability group win would it have an effect on London I'll take your bet skippy. Any wheelchair that will fit into a breadvan will fit into a metrocab. But any wheelchair that will fit into a metrocab will not neccessarily fit into a breadvan. Fact. Based on 16 years experience. The sideways travel issue is a lazy scouser thing, not a vehicle problem. And there are lazy Lincolnian cab drivers too, BTW.

Author:	JD [ Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:45 pm ]
Post subject:
skippy41 wrote: Who are you having your ten bob on JD And if the disability group win would it have an effect on London If they do it right then my money is on Allied. Its all about choice and whether the turning circle is a reasonable condition for restricting choice. I think after considering all the relevant information that is in the public domain a court of law will have no other option but to conclude it isn't. Regards JD

Author:	JD [ Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:55 pm ]
Post subject:
jimbo wrote: I'll take your bet skippy. Any wheelchair that will fit into a breadvan will fit into a metrocab. Are Metrocabs still produced? Regards JD

Author:	jimbo [ Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:06 pm ]
Post subject:
JD wrote: jimbo wrote: I'll take your bet skippy. Any wheelchair that will fit into a breadvan will fit into a metrocab. Are Metrocabs still produced? Regards JD Skippy will be trialling one any day now, so he tells us. 100 mpg hybrid. I speak from personal experience, not from biased unfounded opinion.

Author:	JD [ Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:40 pm ]
Post subject:
jimbo wrote: 100 mpg hybrid. So I take it Metrocabs are no longer manufactured. Regards JD

Author:	jimbo [ Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:17 pm ]
Post subject:
JD wrote: jimbo wrote: 100 mpg hybrid. So I take it Metrocabs are no longer manufactured. Regards JD Ask Skippy 41 who seems to have a hotline to the makers of the hybrid, should be road testing one in the borders any day now?

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Sussex [ Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:19 pm ]
Post subject:
JD wrote: This is most interesting because one of the defences Liverpool will rely on is the turning circle requirement. It will be interesting to read what the judge says about that? He will p*** himself laughing.