Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - Chelmsford, limited or delimited?

my mistake!

deregulated on 1st February pending discussions with the police and siting of taxi ranks.

and this review :wink:

http://www.chelmsfordbc.gov.uk/democrac ... 70205a.pdf

Reading through what i've seen of it so far, it appears that the LA has been leading the TOA on during the previous few months, I think the deregulation would have taken place regardless of what anyone said.

A preconcieved solution, with lipservice being made the the TOA.

I have only just found this forum.and this thead being of interest to me as I work chelmsford,since the delimit the trade has gone t-ts up

I would have thought the harder it is to gain a driver's license the better it is for punters and drivers.

Having drivers pass the DSA taxi test should mean less idiots driving cabs. Having drivers take a stiffer knowledge should mean punters getting from a to b cheaper and quicker.

At least some of the time. :roll:

Author:	captain cab [ Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:34 pm ]
Post subject:	Chelmsford, limited or delimited?
http://www.chelmsfordbc.gov.uk/democrac ... eb2005.pdf the list says quality control, but the minutes here says the applications have been refused. regards Captain cab

Author:	captain cab [ Wed Mar 09, 2005 10:24 pm ]
Post subject:
my mistake! deregulated on 1st February pending discussions with the police and siting of taxi ranks. and this review http://www.chelmsfordbc.gov.uk/democrac ... 70205a.pdf Captain cab

Author:	Sussex [ Wed Mar 09, 2005 10:30 pm ]
Post subject:
captain cab wrote: my mistake! deregulated on 1st February pending discussions with the police and siting of taxi ranks. and this review http://www.chelmsfordbc.gov.uk/democrac ... 70205a.pdf Cor, poor old JD was just about to give us all chapter and verse. That was close.

Author:	captain cab [ Wed Mar 09, 2005 10:59 pm ]
Post subject:
hehe, yeah, glad I apologised when I did The funny thing is I'm here going through the council agendas and minutes of the meetings pertaining to chelmsford, and i cannot find a reference to SCATA. personally it looks like chelsform were issuing a set number of licenses per year, and for some reason decided to delimit, even though a survey took place a couple of years ago. Now if SCATA had bothered explaining all this, instead of going on about a load of bollox, they may have actually got somewhere! Captain cab

Author:	captain cab [ Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:25 pm ]
Post subject:
Reading through what i've seen of it so far, it appears that the LA has been leading the TOA on during the previous few months, I think the deregulation would have taken place regardless of what anyone said. A preconcieved solution, with lipservice being made the the TOA. Captain cab

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

Chelmsford, limited or delimited? http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1608	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Sussex [ Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:31 pm ]
Post subject:
captain cab wrote: Reading through what i've seen of it so far, it appears that the LA has been leading the TOA on during the previous few months, I think the deregulation would have taken place regardless of what anyone said. A preconcieved solution, with lipservice being made the the TOA. I think the council realised that any decision to stay restricted would have been challenged by the big boys. Thus they decided that to de-limit would make life a lot easier, and save the council loads of money. As for the folly of the local trade taking any advice from SCATA, well they got what they deserved.

Author:	JD [ Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:33 pm ]
Post subject:
captain cab wrote: Reading through what i've seen of it so far, it appears that the LA has been leading the TOA on during the previous few months, I think the deregulation would have taken place regardless of what anyone said. A preconcieved solution, with lipservice being made the the TOA. Captain cab You are right Cap, it was a forgone conclusion from a very early stage but it was a council decision, so in theory we can only assume that is what they wanted. Scata are signed up members to the "councils know best" syndrome, so they can't really complain when a council decides to change its policy. Regards JD

Author:	captain cab [ Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:51 pm ]
Post subject:
thanks sussex and JD, although, I dont think it makes the LA right, on that we must agree to differ. regards Captain cab

Author:	square2024 [ Tue May 29, 2007 9:35 am ]
Post subject:
I have only just found this forum.and this thead being of interest to me as I work chelmsford,since the delimit the trade has gone t-ts up,cabs that become for sale are most being taken up by the "taliban",and the new plates as well, and most seem to be working from 20/24 hour day ! [what about 4.30pm-7.30am for a shift ?]it is putting the customer at risk,in addition to not knowing their way around the town and local area,you see them tapping into the Tom-Tom as they pull away from the rank !,As for the ranks it is a joke 40+ new taxis but no where to rank up even the entrance road to the rank has now been double yellow lined you fight for a space with cars being parked up while they are waiting for people to come of the train they are parked on the double yellows but they are never moved on!, Chelmsford council has a lot to answer for as for the Taxi licence office it is a rule unto its self. The council have now decided that we all have to have NVQ in road transport this is over a 12 period,the only upside of this is that we are not having to pay from somewhere funding has been found,future courses are circa £1800.00. Apologise for the lenght of my first post but I got it of my chest as they say Be Lucky drivers

Author:	Sussex [ Tue May 29, 2007 10:42 am ]
Post subject:
I would have thought the harder it is to gain a driver's license the better it is for punters and drivers. Having drivers pass the DSA taxi test should mean less idiots driving cabs. Having drivers take a stiffer knowledge should mean punters getting from a to b cheaper and quicker. At least some of the time.

Author:	JD [ Tue May 29, 2007 12:41 pm ]
Post subject:
square2024 wrote: I have only just found this forum.and this thead being of interest to me as I work chelmsford,since the delimit the trade has gone t-ts up I think you have to appreciate that a councils priorities vary from place to place. One authority might consider removing the limit on taxi numbers in order to give the public a better service another authority might do the same only to add the ingredient of driver quality control. A council can do a Dublin or a Liverpool and regret it for the rest of its life or it can plan deregulation on the basis of quality control. I might add that Dublin came about through the courts but it was the failure of system of not having in place quality controls that brought about the free for all. The level of control is still within the remit of the council because they have the power to raise the bar as high or as low as they wish. If you want to set the bar at the lowest level then you remove quantity controls without having in place any stringent quality controls whatsoever. If you want to have really high quality driver controls then you set the standard accordingly. London is considered to have the hardest knowledge test in the United Kingdom and no one would argue with that and those who take the test will no doubt tell you that they are the cream of the crop. It is up to those who represent the local trade to impress on councillors the need for driver quality controls regardless of whether they remove numbers or not. The problem you have in restricted areas is that in 99% of cases those who represent the taxi trade are owners including multiple owners and in most cases they have a conflict of interest because it is not to their advantage to restrict driver access to the trade by way of quality controls because they would have no one to drive their vehicles. The evidence for this is in the publicised cries for more drivers from those owners in Liverpool and other areas. Therefore the problem you now have in Chelmsford might not have come about if your local taxi organisation had had the foresight to impress on the council the need for a quality driver entry system. Regards JD

Author:	TDO [ Tue May 29, 2007 1:32 pm ]
Post subject:
The irony is that derestriction can actually lead to calls for quality control to be watered down because owners who are used to having their cars double-shifted find it more difficult. It looks like Chelmsford got the cart before the horse, but of course councils know best.

Author:	badger [ Wed Jun 06, 2007 5:49 am ]
Post subject:
Sussex wrote: I would have thought the harder it is to gain a driver's license the better it is for punters and drivers. Having drivers pass the DSA taxi test should mean less idiots driving cabs. Having drivers take a stiffer knowledge should mean punters getting from a to b cheaper and quicker. At least some of the time. I failed my first locality test and past it second time around,which was about 20 years ago But i still get new drivers asking me where is a well named road which is just around the corner from where they are which is part of the test. It makes you wonder

Author:	square2024 [ Wed Jun 06, 2007 7:39 am ]
Post subject:
The council are to blame for not being tight enough on the "knowledge test",the Local taxi assoc have requested a higher level entry..as stated before "the council knows best".the Taxi licence office is a rule unto its self here. I have heard drivers asking the very basics before now ie golf club,resturant pub locations ,as we all know these are the basis of the trade,as i stated before we have a new influxof drivers [mainly asian] who cannot move of the rank without tapping into thier Tom -Tom first it has put the whole quality down.

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