Taxi Driver Online

Better check again swanee.
He didn't say that - I did.
He corrected my mistake.

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

Correct it does recommend mandatory testing of drivers but makes NO recommendation as to best practice for restricted numbers. Local councils are best placed to judge whether restricted numbers benefits the public by allowing for a better all-round service with high standards or whether these can be achieved without restriction. Any benefit to licence holders is incidental to this, contrary to what is often stated.

The average barrier to entry for the Edinburgh trade is no more than the cost of achieving a taxi drivers licence. Holding a taxi operator's licence is not necessary in order to work in the trade.

It is a guidance document to clarify many points which some seemed to cloud unnecessarily. No more, no less.

Is there an echo in here

Yes, that's what I said, but that's hardly the end of the matter, either in relation to the BPG or policy-making generally.



What standards do you mean? Topographical knowledge? Wheelchair accessability? The dress code?

What on earth do they have to do with restricted numbers?



You mean it's an unintended consequence? Indeed, since many councillors don't have the slightest clue about what's going on then I'm inclined to agree with you, but just because it's an unintended consequence doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered. Indeed, all the more reason that the facts should be made known, don't you think?



But if you don't buy then you rent, and the inflated rentals still represent a barrier to entry.

Take this from the relevant Wikipedia page:






Indeed, and I've said as much several times. However, it's still relevant to the decision-making process, not to mention numerous other factors.

_________________
Caledonian Cabbie

You really are becoming boring now.

Your basic problem is that you seem to put more emphasis on the few paras outlining the purpose of the BPG than you do on the specifics which detail basically what is either considered best practice or what is required to justify a policy or requirement.

Just because some see the taxi trade as an easy source of income does not mean that it is. The high standards in Edinburgh are achieved at a cost. A cost to owners who, in many cases, rely on rental income from a driver to help with running costs. Is it best practice that more money leaves the trade to line the pockets of garages, taxi sellers, insurance companies, the council et al or is it best practice to retain that money within the trade in the form of rental payments?

It is only the opinion of a few vociferous fools that rentals are inflated; most drivers pay a reasonable amount and certainly a figure less than it would cost them to run their own taxi.

Too many taxis means longer hours for less money. Earnings rates drop. Think of the reduction in safety standards as everyone skimps on maintenance or how about all the drivers still out looking for that extra tenner they desperately need to put food on the table, when they are dog tired from working long hours constantly.

As for plate premiums being incidental or an unintended consequence, they are just that. Surely any business has a "goodwill" element? Why should taxis not?

Feel free to disagree but please stop misquoting from the said BPG and read every section and perhaps you might realise restriction is necessary for some areas and perhaps not for others. The trade, the licensing authority and those groups with whom they discuss matters are best placed to make that decision on an informed basis rather than on a speculative one as is too often the case.

Nice to hear from you again as well.



But since the BPG doesn't specifically mention the downside of plate premiums it's necessary to use the more general stuff in the BPG relating to onerous licensing requirements and the like.



Problem with your analysis is that if the benefit of restricted numbers merely went towards higher standards then plates wouldn't attract a premium.



So why would someone pay £50k to run a taxi that they won't even drive?



And the chap from York put the other side yesterday thus:





Who's saying taxis should not have a goodwill element? Problem is, derestriction wouldn't affect goodwill, so I don't know what your problem is. Of course, the plate premium would disappear with deresriction, ergo it isn't goodwill.



Which part am I misquoting?

Why is restriction necessary in some areas but not others?



Councillors, deciding on an informed basis?

_________________
Caledonian Cabbie