Taxi Driver Online

Seventh Saint, I have to agree with the others here. Careful you don't end up slating fellow drivers with allegations you cannot possibly back up.

However, the article did incorrectly state that there was not a level playing field. There is. In some ways Lewes District drivers have more restrictions/testing than Brighton, but then it also works the other way round too. Brighton drivers can fail their annual test for having a dirty boot carpet, Lewes drivers won't. Yet Brighton only have to go through it once a year, so maybe the standard should be slightly more demanding to make up for the lack of twice yearly tests.

The article in question failed to make clear that it was attacking one firm, indeed the wrath being demonstrated shows just how wrong it was accusing a great number of drivers of not holding the correct checks, when in fact they have. It makes anyone surrounding Brighton to look like incompetent numpties, when that is not the case.

Indeed, those outside Brighton tend to have to work harder and with more customer focussed attitude, but that is a different matter altogether.

Point is, don't let your apparent distaste for the GMB discolour your obvious ability to argue a point. I am not a lover of unions, but I do believe in being fair.

Having had no chance to counter this yesterday...

Why is this operator even being given the opportunity of competing? If he is, why are other companies outside the area not allowed to? Seems fishy to me. If everything you say is correct, then he is putting all of us at a disadvantage, so why upset those who could actually be allies?

If you are saying that the council in question is still licensing 17 year old vehicles as PH, then something does need to be done, but it clearly has decided (without the knowledge of any other firms in the area) to change the terms of the issue of PH plates. Otherwise we would all be buying/running a few older vehicles to stick part time drivers in on Friday and Saturday nights. This is a very serious allegation, has the GMB or Brighton council (to your knowledge), taken this up with the LO in question? If not, why not? I know I will be.



Almost an admittance of wrong doing in the first half of that sentence.......... then a finishing statement that is so clearly incorrect.
If the facts are as you say they are, I ask yet again, why drag every driver into this, from all the surrounding districts and tar them with the same brush? Why?

Allegation??
To point out an error in someone's logic is not to make an allegation - it is - merely to point out an error in someone's logic. To present one premise without a conclusion is one thing, but to present - premise + false result is to mislead by deception and this is fools logic.

Unless of course the B&H LO does a mechanical safety check while checking the cleanliness of the vehicle and the wellbeing of the driver therein, but no-one has stated this is so, yet. So far, B&H has been referred to as having just “one” mechanical safety check per year.

If you are not referring to this post then............. oops!

_________________
The Seventh Saint

Brighton may only have one council check a year, but there have been a number of random police/vosa/immigration/inland revue/council checks.

Also if a cars has bald tyres then even a LO can work that one out.

_________________
IDFIMH

I note that the gmb still carry on telling the lies in the taxi mags.
Its about time the gmb decided if they want new taxi members or want the minicab clown from London.

Does, anyone know why there are no comments from these drivers or employees? Lewes District was but one authority maligned. The two other authorities were tarred by the same brush. Lewes Drivers seem to be represented by cold fact and people such as Flyer but, it just may be I am too old that I can't spot anyone speaking up for the other authorities.
However, even in a dream this lack of representation would be odd.

Are they members of the Generically Myopic Bunch for example? Is this why there is no input from them?

Has anyone let any of the companies or drivers know of the contents of this forum? Are they just loathe to post their views?

It just feels strangely silent... _ ...from these quarters... _ ...like to know why... _ ...is all...

Join life, leave the GMB.

_________________
The Seventh Saint

And that is all I have been saying, one mechanical safety check per year, thank you.

_________________
The Seventh Saint

You wouldn't believe the pictures dancing around in my head right now, pleasant and humourous I might add.

But I have to ask, remember myself and many others are new to this forum, just who is the minicab clown?

_________________
The Seventh Saint

minicab clown = T.F.

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

"I know a number of drivers that had two sets of wheels..."
A law abiding citizen would report these miscreants to the appropriate authorities. What you aver declares culpability and makes you an accessory before and after the facts. This seems to be a prevalent tactic of the GMB, namely to modify, distort, create and withhold in order to mislead, misinform and create or perpetuate dangers to the world at large by this dismal dogma. Totally wrong.
Put your hands up and go quietly.

The Value of Tests.
More frequent tests equals greater assurance of mechanical safety.
Less frequent tests equals greater uncertainty.

In your made up world, you state:
"If there had been 4 tests a year that vehicle would have passed every time ......................... standards are nothing without enforcement ........................ and more enforcement than a test a couple of times a year."
The word “If .. “ refers to some sort of speculative reality conjured up to prove something is wrong or right. The "IF" world is not real, therefore can’t be factually correct no matter how you tinker with it. Not ever.
Look to your statement, the basic premise:
A vehicle that has legal tyres, because of substitution, 4 time a year will pass a ("something" every time. You don't exactly allude to what it will pass), so GMB'ish isn't it?
Yet we, me and others that follow the thread, are talking about the M.O.T. test and the licensing authorities own mechanical safety tests. No-one on the planet could possibly believe these tests consist of just a ""TYRE"" check!
Ludicrous is what your logic is.

The reality that I present is “real”, more tests equal greater assurance.
It is also a reality that you have allowed these people to "cheat" the system and allow for potential disaster by failing to notify the authorities of their deception. Or perhaps you don't want the travelling public to be safe?

Perhaps you have just been affected by the lawlessness and antisocial degenerative behaviour of the Generically Myopic Bunch for too long.

Join life, leave the GMB.

_________________
The Seventh Saint

Ah, or arrrg, its himself then so it is, good 'ole Ernesto (Che) Guevara, thank you.

_________________
The Seventh Saint

I did Mr Seventh Saint ................. the problem was that when they were called to the council they had put their test wheels on .................... they needed to be caught on the road ...................... and they never were.
Insufficient enforcement



I'm talking about roadside tests conducted by a VOSA representative .......... Not a TYRE check.
Regular Inspections allow a person to plan maintenance .................. frequency of spot checks or "stings" assure mechanical safety as the driver/owner is not aware of when they might occur and so, if they knew their council conducted multiple stings per year they would need to ensure their vehicles were always right.
Gateshead has 2 tests a year ............. and are looking at introducing at least three "stings" .............. so it is possible that our vehicles would checked 5 times a year.
Last sting saw 50%+ of vehicles with defects .................... pass rate at test is in excess of 90%.



Don't be stupid .....................people will always look to cheat the system ............... that is why I believe there is more value to "stings" than there is in regular testing ..................... maybe it is you that doesn't want the public to be safe .................... maybe its you that wants your vehicle to be maintained twice a year prior to a test.

You just assumed that I hadn't notified the authorities of the breaches of regulations ....................... you were wrong.

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.

One word 'apathy'.

It's the bane of this trade, and untill such times things improve, then the trade deserves most of the crap it receives.

_________________
IDFIMH

But what's your point?

_________________
IDFIMH

"I know" means you know of them currently and that they are still doing it. Report them. Then, report them.





You did what? Go quietly with hands held high?
Report them then? But you're not quite saying this are you? Report them now and have your LO declare his findings to, say, the Chronicle! A warning to others, yeah? This should get your name and your firm some publicity, now that's a plus you hadn't thought of.


"test wheels on.."
Tickles me that does. I can just picture these drivers carting four lovely wheels, with tyres on, into their sitting rooms and saying to Maud, Gladys and Ivy et al, "Divint touch thim. Tha me Sunda best wheels man. Just keep off thim!"
Anyway, you reported them, conscience salved, bliss at last. You must have felt that you belonged to the Human Race and not shackled to those GMB types.
But!!!
How, exactly, did you report them? Anonymous phone call, written communication with letters cut from a newspaper and/or magazine? Someone else's voice leaving a message on an answer phone?? “Oh, hello, ah just thought ah’d let yih no…”
There is so much not right here that I'm just going to stop and ask a simple question; If you had sent a written, evidenced, signed complaint to your LO and the Head of your Dep't of Environment what do you think would have been done? Remember you allege that "They stoop to subterfuge to pass tests” (Change wheels!)
Can any real credulity be given to your synopsis that the LO or other body called them in? “Oh hello cabby “B” we have been notified that you change your wheels in order to pass a test. Come and visit us some time today so that we can check out your tyres. Yes, that’s right, any time today.”
What power the document you have in hand (had you gone this route) should Cabby “B” be found negligent after an enquiry into an accident found him/her to have unsuitable/banned tyres?
I meekly suggest that no such power would be afforded to you. I also suggest that no matter how overloaded with work your LO is, had a communication such as this reached his/her supervisor the most appropriate checks would have been undertaken and that means no time allowed to put the “Sunday Best Wheels On”.
Produce your communiqué and the drivers names and I will have this check done on your behalf! However, you must remember to sign your name to it again. Witness signatures and statements would help too.



I can’t, not even for a second, believe that they would not have been caught if you had reported it right. Ah, perhaps I’ve got it, you put it on a GMB website? Is that it? Ernesto (Che) Guevara style?


“…were.” (??) Don’t you mean, “are”? These people are real, right? They exist, right? They are not just pigments of your imagination are they? That would be just too - GMBish! Remember you “know them” and have reported their delinquency to your LO by stating names, car models and plate numbers.






Yees! This is true. This is a direct product of their imposition.
Planned maintenace. Cool, it's just unfortunate that this enables planning a budget isn't it. Huh! Planned maintenance, whatever next? Absolutely disgusting!

"".................. frequency of spot checks or "stings" assure mechanical safety as the driver/owner is not aware of when they might occur and so, if they knew their council conducted multiple stings per year they would need to ensure their vehicles were always right."
Oh just one moment, if, in the real world, more mechanical safety checks were conducted what sort of leeway would a driver have to allow for "less than adequate mechanical safety?"
The best that "Stings" can do is to provide local authorities with evidence that mechanical safety standards are low and induce them to impose more such tests in the interests of public safety!
It seems your folly begets folly.

""Gateshead has 2 tests a year "
Oh yes, but they are not real tests are they because the drivers cheat and the LO doesn't check up on them even after someone such as yourself reports them. This must make you feel so out of it.

""............. and are looking at introducing at least three "stings" .............. so it is possible that our vehicles would checked 5 times a year."
Would this really be five tests if they are allowed to cheat in two of them and have an X percent chance of avoiding the others that you refer to as stings? The word, "would" just shouldn't be used here, it's fools logic, deliberately designed to mislead, "could" is the appropriate word, "if the proposals are adopted..." Remember what I have said about the "if" word.





"Don't be stupid"
Thank you for your advice, I shall endeavour not to be so.
"people will always look to cheat the system". This may well be the GMB way but it does not reflect the way of reality. See below for an obvious fact much overlooked by your cursory observations.

"that is why I believe there is more value to "stings" than there is in regular testing" Okay, put your beliefs to the test and have the MoT give up testing on taxis and stick to stings. My shilling will go on you losing. I think that you will find that the MoT will find your arguments fallacious and fundamentally flawed in that your suggestion will fail to ensure appropriate safety standards, especially for the vehicles that avoid testing.

"maybe it is you that doesn't want the public to be safe" Implicit within this statement lies the assertion that I don't want to earn money and live to spend it. And it fails to acknowledge that It was not me that had knowledge of drivers operating illegally and not reporting them. It is so atrociously ludicrous I can't believe it has been committed to print.
Sussex, has a knowledge of the South East, I don't know how much, but... Some company owners, probably a lot more than I am aware of, would not give a driver a job if they were not satisfied with the safety of the vehicle.
Fact:
Normal drivers want their vehicles to be as safe as possible because they don't want to die in an accident. But you seem to suggest something different. Is this the GMB way? Join, ignore safety and die. Cool, paves the way for de-restriction doesn't it?


I didn't assume any such thing.
I knew it, and I knew it to be true.
You didn't state that you had informed the authorities of the wrongdoings of these drivers.
Nor did you say more than one authority was involved other than in your reference to "authorities" as stated above.
Nor did you state which authority(s) you notified about which driver and which vehicle and which plate number that was noted in your dossier.

I was right then, and I am right now, you nor anyone else can convince me that information from reliable sources will be overlooked or ignored by licensing authorities. In the real world it just doesn't happen like that.

To one and all, join life, leave the GMB

_________________
The Seventh Saint