Taxi Driver Online

It does not say that in the rule book that the police issued when seat belt law came in.
It quite clearly states taxi drivers are exempt, there is no mention of if working or not.
so if your roof sign is on the car they cannot do you

(g) the driver of—

(i) a licensed taxi while it is being used for seeking hire, or answering a call for hire, or carrying a passenger for hire, or

(ii) a private hire vehicle while it is being used to carry a passenger for hire;

The regulations that GBC cites are of national application, however your local police or council may interpret them.

Gus is correct - if you're protesting you can't be working in terms of the definition set out by GBC.

The roof sign is irrelvant - lots of drivers use their taxi for their personal use and leave the roofer on - I don't think there's anything to stop them doing so.

The bottom line with Newcastle and everywhere else is that illegal plying for hire is not going to go away no matter how many resources are thrown at it. Even if Newcastle had the resources (which they don't), they could never eradicate illegal plying for hire.

Now you know the bottom line what do you expect Newcastle council to do, apart from up their profile and start obtaining a few convictions?

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

Would be a good start.

_________________
IDFIMH

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

In answer to the question,what do we want from Newcastle City Council,quite simply,the enforcement of their own bylaws,they know as we drivers know,there is a lot the council could do,if they had the will too,not to mention the safety of the public. We are not nieve enough to belive we can stop`flimping`,illegal plying for hire...god knows I did it many moons ago when I was private hire..BUT NOT under the noses of the hacks,as is happening now.
Thw council only needs to start making an example of a few drivers/office proprietors,as they already have the power to do.
After all,if the same state of affairs existed with the police and shop keepers,everyone would shop at ASDA/Safeway etc,walk out and not pay.It`s only because people know they WILL BE prosecuted for theft that they obey the law.
If some of these drivers were prosecuted for driving without the required insurance,it would slowely get round.
Its teh deterrent effect we need,if you get caught,you WILL be done that will eventually sort this mess out.
To say no body breaks the law is stupid...99% of us do at some point or other...I dont think many councils issue hack or hire badges to angels....never seen any driving cabs our way...in 25 yrs as a hack.
If so..who does St Peters` CRB for him....or has He got a Berwick plate too....LOL

Aren't your council mounting a large action against Berwick re: non-local taxis?

I would imagine there are very few councils that would consider such an action for more than a second.

_________________
IDFIMH

So Sheera doesnt count this time

Illegal plying for hire is not a bylaw its statutory law. I think its quite obvious by now that Newcastle like every other local authority in the country do not have the capacity and perhaps the will to mount operations that will perhaps net private hire drivers committing an offence. I've got press clippings dating back two decades of Newcastle hacks complaining about private hire allegedly acting illegal by ranking up at night clubs and taking un-booked fares. If you think a few prosecutions is likely to deter those drivers who blatantly indulge in this practice then you are sadly mistaken. There is only one way to do it and that is do it yourself, which means you guys putting your hand in your pocket.

A note about the Newcastle v Berwick case, if by chance the judge in the judicial review says operators in one authority can't use hackney carriage vehicles from another authority "and" that hackney carriages operating in any authority other than their own for which they are not licensed are operating unlawfully and that for the purpose of the 1976 act he turns the meaning of section 46 1 A on its head then as I said. "if by chance" that occurs then it is not going to make one iota of difference to those people who are bent on illegally plying for hire.



Such as?



Public safety in what way?



Realism is a fine attribute.



If you did it many moons ago some might say your stance on this matter is rather hypocritical? You break the law and then condemn others for doing the same as you? That's rather an odd position to be in. I suppose if a person flagged you down in an isolated part of Gateshead far away from the prying eyes of Gateshead hackney carriage drivers and asked you to take them back to Newcastle, then you would take them?

I don't see any difference in that scenario than the one you present except for the fact that many drivers illegally plying for hire in Newcastle do it openly.



That's where you are wrong, Those intent on illegally plying for hire are not going to be deterred by a few prosecutions but what it will do is eventually make them more aware of middle aged to elderly people asking them to break the law. Teenagers and young adults will become the focus which is probably the case now.



All I can say is this, If you really believe a few prosecutions in Newcastle will turn the tide of illegal plying for hire then you are not living in the real world.



Don't you realise that those plying for hire illegally already know the consequences and choose ignore them because the power to refuse or accept lies in their own hands.



I'm afraid in the case of illegal plying for hire by unlicensed drivers the prospect of getting caught by council officials on shopping expeditions has never been a deterrent and it never will. It didn't deter you and it wont deter anyone else. History tells us that.



I suppose that quote says it all.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

Perhaps we should be looking a little closer into why some members see illegally plying for hire as a unsolvable problem that the local authorities couldn't control even with unlimited resourses.

Looks like some people like pushing buttons.

B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.

I think the issue regarding HC working under PH contracts is a contributing factor to the illegally plying for hire in Newcastle, but is no more than any other local authority has to endure regarding illegal plying for hire.

I think the bigger picture is that some people are getting a HC plate from Berwick (or elsewhere) and not working under a PH contract ............ some are, in fact, using the HC from Berwick to continually illegally ply for hire in Newcastle City Centre without bothering to fit a radio from a PH operator.

The problem is that you cannot stop the latter without stopping the former and the former is allowed in law.

The stand that the Newcastle drivers are taking should be applauded ................ the councils do have an obligation in which they are lacking ................. and they cannot use lack of funds for an excuse because the fees have got to be amongst the highest in the country.

I hope there was and will be support from the trade south of the river Chris ..................... I know there would have been in my day.

B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.

Perhaps we should look a little closer and examine why you think it can be solved and how you intend to go about solving it?

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

So you are of the opinion that all local authorities are in the "same boat", which translates to Newcastle not being an exception, or are they an exception as some would have us believe?



Radios in hacks are not mandatory and neither are they in private hire vehicles. Policing of illegal plying hire is down to the local authority therefore they operate on their own terms, whatever they may be?



So in order to stop illegal plying for hire in Newcastle you first have to stop hackney carriages from Berwick and probably elsewhere including Gateshead from parking on a Newcastle street? How do you propose to do that? How do you propose to stop private hire drivers from Newcastle and surrounding areas from illegally plying for hire when Newcastle hasn't been able to stop it for 30 years.



Is this similar to the same stand they took twenty years ago when they were screaming about private hire illegally plying for hire in Newcastle? That was long before Berwick came on the scene so how does your formula for eradication stack up with historical fact? If they couldn't do it twenty years ago what magic formula are you going to produce that will eradicate it now?



The reason why they are lacking is because it is impossible to eradicate, regardless of the amount of resources available to them.



That's fine, if you say they can't use lack of funds as an excuse then tell them how to go about eradicating the problem, I'm sure they will welcome your ideas for an instant solution.



Well it wasn't there twenty years ago, or if it was it obviously didn't do any good and that was just about your day wasn't it? Or was it just before your day?

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

If it was solvable then you would have thought it would have happened since 1847.

_________________
IDFIMH