Taxi Driver Online

Working in an area where numbers are not limited I am well aware of some of the more negative impacts of this. The question i would ask is if this is implemented would the government be willing to finance the increased costs of policing this or to compensate owners of taxis who would lose a lot of money as a result because I cannot see drivers taking this on the chin without sueing for compensation

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

it'll be a big impact on drivers who are clearing say 500 after fuel expences weekly and after delimit they be clearing less than 300.
If there mortgage, bills, expences are based on 500 income then are the government going to help towards costs when driver earning less than 300?

It was answered in one of the deregulation court cases......either the Yarmouth or the Wirral one, basically the judge stated before 1985 buying a plate was more or less an investment.....but the 1985 transport act was deregulatory, so things changed and it was then a gamble.

So if you held a plate pre 1985 you may have a case for compo....after that.....no.

TBH I'm actually quite pleased nobody got around to mentioning the deregulation which is a trade splitting argument as we are all aware. I'm please TDO members are seemingly concentrating on the schoolgirl errors of the document.

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

Another schoolgirl error.

Quantity control has never been a barrier of entry for a would be taxi-driver.

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

This actually shows a complete ignorance of the useful purpose of surveys other then the one of assessing demand.

I believe we should have these surveys irrespective of taxi numbers being decided.

Perhaps the LC should investigate the cost benefits of local transport plans, because they cost a damn side more and in most instances are nothing more than a talking shop and expenses magnet for feckwitted councillors.

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

Why?

Do I have to explain that wee mistake to a chap with the experience of your good self?

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

OK, rather than go round the houses I'll assume you're alluding to the fact that driver numbers aren't limited?

However, non-plate-holding drivers either pay an inflated premium for a licence or an inflated rental for the same, thus a barrier to entry either way.

By the way, can't be bothered looking, but I take it then LC hasn't committed the schoolgirl error of using the misleading regulation/deregulation terminology

Well its reasonably obvious they failed to recognise the difference between a hackney carriage proprietors license, which in some areas are restricted in number, and hackney carriage drivers licenses, which arent restricted anywhere.

Of course, we'll allow that minor error, alongside the minor error with penalty points and driver sanctions from LO's who all have delegated powers, alongside the minor error of a missing £1 Billion, put that alongside the assumption based around tachnology acrtually changing the need for operator licensing, and of course their initial goal of reducing burdensome legislation....by suggesting those nasty wedding cars and funeral directors are licensed.

But apart from that....they're doing fine

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

But strictly speaking the part you highlighted above isn't incorrect, as per the point I made earlier.

More generally I would agree with you however. But perhaps this is because they've been reading your column and indeed just about every pro-restricted number piece ever written, which fail to make the distinction you're now trying to highlight.

Thus OK when it suits?

And you're also unwittingly highlighting a major deficiency in the SUD survey methodology, again demonstrating that highlighting the driver/proprietor distinction is OK when it suits?



Well I'm inclined to agree with you from what I've seen so far, but I can't be bothered reading it all on screen and printing it out would cost a fortune.

But I was half expecting an OFT 2, and that looks like what it's shaping up to be.

I dont follow what you mean tbh



a man of your money should be able to spend £38.50p on a shiny copy.....and again, the document isnt flawed because of its attitude to taxi numbers.....its flawed because its sh*te

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

Well I certainly wouldn't claim that, at least if you want to retain any credibility at all

Oh they sent me a nice shiny courtesy copy....presumably they want it demolished?

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

didn't you apply for one free as a stake holder

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

he's a vampire killer too? man of many talents

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