Perhaps someone should challenge the previous survey, and ask how they assessed latent demand.
OFT rubbished the current SUD test, and Halcrow agreed with their findings.
Work that bugger out.
| Taxi Driver Online http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Money on a plate? http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=162 |
Page 3 of 6 |
| Author: | Sussex [ Thu Dec 04, 2003 8:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Perhaps someone should challenge the previous survey, and ask how they assessed latent demand. OFT rubbished the current SUD test, and Halcrow agreed with their findings. Work that bugger out.
|
|
| Author: | gedmay [ Thu Dec 04, 2003 8:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sussex, Just a small point, am I right in thinking that Fri/Sat nights should be precluded from demand surveys,for obvious reasons. Ged |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Thu Dec 04, 2003 8:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
gedmay wrote: Sussex,
Just a small point, am I right in thinking that Fri/Sat nights should be precluded from demand surveys,for obvious reasons. Ged Fri/Sat night stats are not precluded, but are used along with the rest of the week's stats to gain a 'broad' view of the situation. However when I ever hear anyone moan about surveys, they always say that the demand is only on Fri/Sat nights. If that was the case, then SUD would not be stated by the surveyors. |
|
| Author: | Alex [ Fri Dec 05, 2003 8:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I looked at a report about two years ago, and it had peaks and semi-peaks. Great big equations on this and that, which I'm sure Mr Einstein couldn't work out. I think because they make them so blinking hard for the likes of us to work out, they get away with saying anything. But usually what the council wants. 
Alex |
|
| Author: | gedmay [ Fri Dec 05, 2003 8:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
If any body is interested in the Liverpool/Manchester response check out; www.nodereg.com Ged |
|
| Author: | Guest [ Sat Dec 06, 2003 11:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
didnt see a member from the wirral there. 
|
|
| Author: | Dusty Bin [ Mon Dec 08, 2003 1:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Interesting document that
Some interesting points about the length of time we have to respond given that the study took over a year and utilised top consultants, as well as the economists and lawyers etc on the OFT's team. They then effectively rubbish aspects of Halcrow's work, as did the OFT. They then say that it's the taxi trade's intention to engage Halcrow to rubbish the OFT report. At least the report's authors and the OFT have something in common then! But professionaly, I somehow doubt if Halcrow will be able to do what they want for them, since if they rubbish the OFT and expose the OFT's bias and contradictions, then won't this be compromising their independence and exposing thier own bias and contradictions, anomalies etc? Dusty |
|
| Author: | Dusty Bin [ Mon Dec 08, 2003 2:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
As regards the substance, one hugely interesting point is that they claim that de-restriction will lead to lack of service at peak times. Funny that, the STF claimed that it would lead to lack of service at off-peak times! However, the OFT say that with de-restriction supply increases at all time, which accords with common sense. But the best bit is where they propose capping the number of plates in London to solve the problem of unmet demand late at night there! Dusty
|
|
| Author: | Dusty Bin [ Mon Dec 08, 2003 2:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Another interesting bit is where the issue of plate premiums is neatly side-stepped and it's claimed that homes have been used as collateral for investment in vehicles. It's usually the vehicle that's used as collateral for a vehicle loan, innit? Who on earth uses their home as collateral for a vehicle purchase?? This might well happen, but this seems more like a round about way of saying that homes have been used as collateral for plates without actually referring to them directly. Of course, this is quite common, have a look at CTN for example, do they ever mention premiums? Of course, the issue was highlighted in the Wirral case, but only because Mr Royden needed to underline the loss of the premium to argue that this breached the Human Rights Act. Fat lot of good that did him though. And, of course, he didn't pay a bean for his plate, never mind use his house as security. Dusty |
|
| Author: | John Davies [ Sat Jan 03, 2004 7:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Money on a plate? |
It never ceases to amaze me how some people cry wolf when they find themselves compromised by a decision of their own making. I am also at a loss as to why others add fuel to the fire by offering their own interpretation of the facts. These commentators sometimes draw conclusions that support the offending decision and occasionally give false hope to the injured party. The reality of the situation is that Hackney carriage licences are transferable by way of prior judgement as laid down in our own “common law” by virtue of the High Court. Although most local Authorities would like to see the sale of licences stopped, they are powerless to do so. A licensing body can only refuse the transfer of a licence “if they deem the applicant unsuitable” and even this decision is changeable in the Courts. The main reasons for buying an existing licence from a licence holder, is two-fold. First the purchaser sees an opportunity to gain access into a monopolised industry and second they have expectations that the licence will increase or retain its value should they decide to sell at a later date. It is not up to local Authorities to hold the hand of a prospective buyer and lead him through the pitfalls of what might or might not happen with future Government, Local Authority or European legislation. It is incumbent on anyone speculating large amounts of money to familiarise themselves with what they are getting into. Having owned a cab for some considerable time and work in a local Authority which does restrict numbers I do not believe that very many people prior to this OFT report and after the 1985 Transport act have gone into buying a licence blindly. What I do believe is that those people who have bought licences for large sums of money have gambled on the status quo remaining the same. All reasonable people understand that nothing stays the same forever. There comes a time when change might bring into question the sanity of a licence buyer who gambles a substantial amount of money on a non-tangible asset. They say a fool is soon parted from his money, However! Let me say this. If by chance deregulation does not come about and the status quo remains the same? More fools will gamble their life savings on a mythical asset, be warned, that so-called asset has a very short shelf life. Best wishes John Davies, Manchester. If you want to see the light? “Open your eyes” |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I couldn't agree more John, but how many drivers in your manor know a tenth of what you have just out-lined? Whilst the apathy, and to a degree ignorance, of both sides of our trade persists, then those fools will be seperated from their money. Then some sections of the trade will shout for compensation, at the expense of the tax payer. So in the end, perhaps the fools that lose their money, will be the mug tax payer yet again. 
|
|
| Author: | Guest [ Sat Jan 03, 2004 11:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
John, These days it aint buyer beware, if a purchase goes sour there is always someone to blame, the best example was the purchase from councils of terran houses, when it went tits up the council had to buy them back. when former nationalised industries goes tits up the government will buy back just like rail track, Sussex only aggrees beccause hed love to see houses repossesd from his enemies. way this trade is going there is less than 10years left, councils license drivers and so feel responsible so they will want graduates to be licensees, its more difficult to get a council drivers license than a bus drivers license. and there goes the problem. I found your contribution amusing, sort of full of envy, you cant be dusty without a suit? |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Sat Jan 03, 2004 7:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
gedmay wrote:
I find this site very interesting, but I'm surprised that no-one has done a site about the non HC/PH work, that is being siphoned from the trade at Manchester Airport. I think the phrase is 'fiddling while Rome burns'. |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Sat Jan 03, 2004 7:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Anonymous wrote: when former nationalised industries goes tits up the government will buy back just like rail track, Sussex only aggrees beccause hed love to see houses repossesd from his enemies.
Wrong yet again, Mr Guest. I don't think that someone 'council house' should be re-possessed, as your analogy purports too, but that more of the buggers should be built. |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Sat Jan 03, 2004 7:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Anonymous wrote: I found your contribution amusing, sort of full of envy, you cant be dusty without a suit?
No Mr Guest, that's Sussex, or is it Alex, or is it DLT, or is it .................. You have a very bleak view of our trade, if you think anyone with any sense, is the same person. |
|
| Page 3 of 6 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|