Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sun May 03, 2026 11:21 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:11 pm
Posts: 36
Smoked Glass wrote:
This maybe true! but I know from experience that its been happening for years. I do conceed that they may have introduced this system recently and are therefor mostly legal.
The car with say smith on the data head doesnt automaticaly mean you have smith in the car when you pick-up from there. Does the same thing happen on city road as well?


The system has been in place for some years now, depends on your interpretation of "recently". We are told that, although we may have a "Smith" on our datahead, we have to take the first person in the queue. When it is busy, although the office has taken the booking information required, the datahead info is just "office door", with the destination being "Nat". So again, the marshalls make sure we take the first person or party in the queue. There is no rank on City Road any longer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:25 pm
Posts: 10
toots wrote:
I don't agree with PH picking up fares that are not pre booked but it irks me that they keep using the word 'safety' when discussing this problem. It's more to do with compensation if you have an accident

Quote:
in response to complaints about safety from the public


I find this hard to believe. If the public were that concerned about safety they wouldn't try and flag the PH down in the first place. More like HC's quite rightly complaining to the LO


The question of whether a PH vehicle or a taxi off its area taking a job invalidates his insurance has been done to death and the general concensus is that it doesn't. The police and licensing authorities seem to like this arguement because it makes their stance look more noble. However the insurance companies don't seem to care less and in reality wouldn't know whether a job picked up in "Market Street" was on or off a particular vehicles area or whether the job was prebooked or not. As far as I know there is nothing in my insurance small print about having to be on my area to keep my insurance valid.

What should be of more concern to the police is whether a vehicle is licensed at all and whether it has any insurance of any kind. Instead, it often appears that the police are just out to hit the soft targets instead of dealing with the more difficult touts.

Don't get me wrong about this, I am a London Taxi driver and we are fighting a war at the moment (like a lot of other places) but the truth is being distorted in this matter.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:44 pm
Posts: 10591
Location: Scotland
There is only going to be one way to stop this in its tracks, get rid of PH altogether
If it does not happen soon things will only get worse


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
Musher wrote:
toots wrote:
I don't agree with PH picking up fares that are not pre booked but it irks me that they keep using the word 'safety' when discussing this problem. It's more to do with compensation if you have an accident

Quote:
in response to complaints about safety from the public


I find this hard to believe. If the public were that concerned about safety they wouldn't try and flag the PH down in the first place. More like HC's quite rightly complaining to the LO


The question of whether a PH vehicle or a taxi off its area taking a job invalidates his insurance has been done to death and the general concensus is that it doesn't. The police and licensing authorities seem to like this arguement because it makes their stance look more noble. However the insurance companies don't seem to care less and in reality wouldn't know whether a job picked up in "Market Street" was on or off a particular vehicles area or whether the job was prebooked or not. As far as I know there is nothing in my insurance small print about having to be on my area to keep my insurance valid.

What should be of more concern to the police is whether a vehicle is licensed at all and whether it has any insurance of any kind. Instead, it often appears that the police are just out to hit the soft targets instead of dealing with the more difficult touts.

Don't get me wrong about this, I am a London Taxi driver and we are fighting a war at the moment (like a lot of other places) but the truth is being distorted in this matter.


As a London cab driver you should be aware of the DPP vs. ComCab?

Any PH driver knows his insurance is invalid if he illegally accepts a hire.

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/vie ... ht=telford

Applying settled principles, an offence was committed where the policy in question did not cover the relevant risk, even if an insurer might be willing to accept that it was at risk at the material time. The footnote in the policies did not affect the extent of the cover afforded by the policy, but demonstrated the arrangements that had been put in place between insurers and the Motorists' Insurance Bureau.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:25 pm
Posts: 10
captain cab wrote:

As a London cab driver you should be aware of the DPP vs. ComCab?



That case should never have come to court and only did so because of the unholy meddling of the LTDA who wanted to make a political point.

There are many London Taxi Drivers who despise the LTDA. Me being one of them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
Musher wrote:

That case should never have come to court and only did so because of the unholy meddling of the LTDA who wanted to make a political point.

There are many London Taxi Drivers who despise the LTDA. Me being one of them.


Yes but the case proved a point.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 817 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group