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

Is it only me?
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2426		 Page 1 of 5
Author:  cabbydave [ Sat Aug 20, 2005 2:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Is it only me?
I am new to this forum and will be interested to hear other's views on alternative vehicles being made available as Licensed London Taxis.
I am forever arguing with Bob Oddie of the LTDA who seems hell bent on forcing the Euro Taxi down our throats.
The Euro Taxi is nothing more or less than a windowed version of what Addison Lee use to deliver parcels and my own view is that to have too many different vehicle styles plying for hire would be confusing for passengers particularly because they are so similar to those used by the minicab trade.
Also the PHV act quite specifically forbids the use of any vehicle which could be confused as a Taxi as a minicab:

The Secretary of State shall grant a London PHV licence for a vehicle if he is satisfied-

(a) that the vehicle-
(i) is suitable in type, size and design for use as a private hire vehicle;
(ii) is safe, comfortable and in a suitable mechanical condition for that use; and
(iii) is not of such design and appearance as would lead any person to believe that the vehicle is a London cab
Author:  Stinky Pete [ Sat Aug 20, 2005 3:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it only me?
cabbydave wrote:
Also the PHV act quite specifically forbids the use of any vehicle which could be confused as a Taxi as a minicab:

The Secretary of State shall grant a London PHV licence for a vehicle if he is satisfied-

(iii) is not of such design and appearance as would lead any person to believe that the vehicle is a London cab


so this one is a deffo no no then
http://www.chrysler.co.uk/chrysler/vers ... ?ID=245,6,,
Author:  Sussex [ Sat Aug 20, 2005 8:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it only me?
cabbydave wrote:
I am forever arguing with Bob Oddie of the LTDA who seems hell bent on forcing the Euro Taxi down our throats.
The Euro Taxi is nothing more or less than a windowed version of what Addison Lee use to deliver parcels and my own view is that to have too many different vehicle styles plying for hire would be confusing for passengers particularly because they are so similar to those used by the minicab trade.

I agree with Mr Oddie that it should be the driver that chooses (from a range of approved vehicles), not a civil servant who knows precious little about anything.

Does anyone really think that the TX2 will still be £30,000+ once the alternatives are approved? :-k
Author:  cabbydave [ Sun Aug 21, 2005 2:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it only me?
Quote:
I agree with Mr Oddie that it should be the driver that chooses (from a range of approved vehicles), not a civil servant who knows precious little about anything.

Does anyone really think that the TX2 will still be £30,000+ once the alternatives are approved? :-k


I couldn't disagree more.
The conditions of fitness are clear for any manufacturer not just LTI and Metro. If another company wants to compete then it should do so within those COFs As to the drivers, no one forces them to join the trade and just like any other profession they should be prepared to follow the regulations. It should be remembered that the tarrif is set annually taking into account a wholw range of costs INCLUDING the cost of the replacement vehicle. It would not therefore be too surprising to find the PCO relating the (in any event unlikely) reduced cost to a pro rata reduced tarrif. On the continent there are such a confusing array of taxis that in some cities such as Prague they have to be painted bright orange in order for passengers to be able to identify them.
And BTW, the estimated cost of a London spec Euro 7 is also around the 30 grand mark and will certainly be more expensive to maintain in the long run.
Author:  jeff daggers [ Sun Aug 21, 2005 12:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
I would have thought that an MOT would have been sufficient to determine the condition of fitness of a vehicle to be used on the public road. The construction not being an issue here, as the vehicle would have already been classed for Vehicle Excise Duty purposes and consequently upon satisfactory application and payment of the prescribed fee for a vehicle licence, can then legitimately use the public road irrespective of its subsequent usage.
Author:  cabbydave [ Sun Aug 21, 2005 1:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
jeff daggers wrote:
I would have thought that an MOT would have been sufficient to determine the condition of fitness of a vehicle to be used on the public road. The construction not being an issue here, as the vehicle would have already been classed for Vehicle Excise Duty purposes and consequently upon satisfactory application and payment of the prescribed fee for a vehicle licence, can then legitimately use the public road irrespective of its subsequent usage.


Depends whether you want to operate as a minicab, tout or as a licensed Hackney Carriage which in London as well as some other cities requires a specification different to that of an 'ordinary' vehicle.
To pass an MOT a vehicle does not have to be suitable or even safe to carry fare paying passengers. In London as well as in other areas the problem is not so much with PH but with unlicensenced touts and permitting random vehicles to ply for hire would make it difficult for potential passengers to differentiate between legitimate and illigitimate operators. There is already enough of a problem without NEEDLESSLY complicating the issue by leaving passengers to decide whether the approaching vehicle is licensed, insured and in short legitimate before lifting their hand to hail it. That is why the PCO whether you like it or not differentiates between different license levels. If you want to join the club you know what is required :wink:
Author:  Sussex [ Sun Aug 21, 2005 5:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it only me?
cabbydave wrote:
I couldn't disagree more.
The conditions of fitness are clear for any manufacturer not just LTI and Metro. If another company wants to compete then it should do so within those COFs As to the drivers, no one forces them to join the trade and just like any other profession they should be prepared to follow the regulations.

So if the PCO said that all cabs must be gold plated you wouldn't have a problem, because no-one is forced into the cab trade?

As for the COF, the only issue that is at issue is the turning circle, now tell me how safe the transport research folk found U-turns to be? :-k
Author:  Sussex [ Sun Aug 21, 2005 5:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it only me?
cabbydave wrote:
And BTW, the estimated cost of a London spec Euro 7 is also around the 30 grand mark and will certainly be more expensive to maintain in the long run.

So doubling your mph will cost you more? :?
Author:  jimbo [ Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it only me?
Sussex wrote:
cabbydave wrote:
I couldn't disagree more.
The conditions of fitness are clear for any manufacturer not just LTI and Metro. If another company wants to compete then it should do so within those COFs As to the drivers, no one forces them to join the trade and just like any other profession they should be prepared to follow the regulations.

So if the PCO said that all cabs must be gold plated you wouldn't have a problem, because no-one is forced into the cab trade?

As for the COF, the only issue that is at issue is the turning circle, now tell me how safe the transport research folk found U-turns to be? :-k


How many times do you need to be told that the turning circle of a London Cab is not just about U-turns? Of course being PH you have never driven a REAL purpose built TAXI, have you?
Bread vans don't do it, and never will. If a London Hackney Carriage TAXI driver took an E7 or Pug van of any description for a test drive in LONDON he would probably die laughing when he got out. If he survived the experience :roll: :lol: :lol:
Author:  JD [ Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
jeff daggers wrote:
I would have thought that an MOT would have been sufficient to determine the condition of fitness of a vehicle to be used on the public road.



It has been remarked upon in the past that a great many of the smaller licening authorities do indeed accept a normal MOT certificate. Every licensing authority could go down the same route if they wished. However some licensing authorities think their MOT is of a higher standard, that is why they have the vehicles tested by their own registered MOT officers.

Regards

JD
Author:  jeff daggers [ Mon Aug 22, 2005 12:27 am ]
Post subject: 
The MOT cetficate is issued by the Vehicle Inspectorate which is an executiive agency of the DfT, and certifies that the vehicle meets the standards that are required by law for the keeper of the vehicle to be able to obtain the mandatory licence and use that vehicle on the public road - these roads are not the private property of the LA's, they are public! - so the question arises how is it possible that the LA's can legitimately usurp the authority of the Sec of State for Transport, by now imposing their own set of arbitrary rules?
Author:  TDO [ Mon Aug 22, 2005 6:15 am ]
Post subject: 
Well I don't think there's any legal problem, but in principle I think the reasoning is that taxis are different from private cars and other vehicles, for example

- they cover a huge mileage, perhaps as much as 100,000 a year;
- the kind of work the do (stop start, urban, heavy braking, speed humps etc) is very onerous;
- there are some items relevant to the trade that are not covered by an MOT, such as the opening and closing of doors, the condition of the interior and exterior.
- there are some taxi-specifc items that can't be tested by MOT garages, such as the taxi meter.
Author:  TDO [ Mon Aug 22, 2005 6:17 am ]
Post subject: 
I don't really think that addresses the point you were making jeff, but it's worth saying anyway :lol:
Author:  cabbydave [ Mon Aug 22, 2005 8:49 am ]
Post subject: 
jeff daggers wrote:
The MOT cetficate is issued by the Vehicle Inspectorate which is an executiive agency of the DfT, and certifies that the vehicle meets the standards that are required by law for the keeper of the vehicle to be able to obtain the mandatory licence and use that vehicle on the public road - these roads are not the private property of the LA's, they are public! - so the question arises how is it possible that the LA's can legitimately usurp the authority of the Sec of State for Transport, by now imposing their own set of arbitrary rules?


Well Jeff. You are missing or on the other hand perhaps making the point for me that precisely because a Taxi cab is more than just a car it needs to fulfill different criteria. HGVs, coaches and buses also have different test procedures and have limitations applied to their design which are specific to their purpose; they are purpose built too. I say again that if Ford, Mercedes or whoever wish to challenge the market of LTI and Metrocab ALL they need do is come up with a vehicle which satifies the requirements. Not such a difficult job surely? The E7 is a nice vehicle and I might like one myself by the way but it doesn't comply, sorry it just doesn't.
Author:  jeff daggers [ Mon Aug 22, 2005 8:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
Dave,
Taxis are just cars, they are for the purpose of registration and excise duty all members of the group of vehicles classed as Group B (PLG) - and I would also remind you there are many members on this forum who do use standard saloon cars in the course of their legitimate trading as either taxis or P/H. There is no construction criteria within the law appertaining to vehicle licencing that cites there is a difference between any vehicle being used as a private vehicle or one being used for trading - all such rules are only the internal rules conceived by LA's.
Page 1 of 5 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/