Taxi Driver Online
https://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Equality Bill (Proposed 100% taxi WAVs)
https://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=12384		 Page 39 of 51
Author:  Sussex [ Mon Mar 29, 2010 7:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think it worth reminding folks that the amendment to section 16 of the 1985 act will only apply to those councils that restrict, which is at present 90.

Out of those 90 many are already 100% WAV taxi, so the actual number of councils is around 70, and many of them will have a significant number of taxi WAVs already.

So if the gov chose a 50% or 60% taxi WAV option, then it will only effect those councils that should have got their act in order many years ago.
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Mon Mar 29, 2010 7:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
I think it worth reminding folks that the amendment to section 16 of the 1985 act will only apply to those councils that restrict, which is at present 90.

Out of those 90 many are already 100% WAV taxi, so the actual number of councils is around 70, and many of them will have a significant number of taxi WAVs already.

So if the gov chose a 50% or 60% taxi WAV option, then it will only effect those councils that should have got their act in order many years ago.

If that analogy is correct, then what are we worried about?

Mr Skippy41 will just have to conform if his LA is one of the doomed ones.

But what you do forget is that no one is forced to continue with a HCVL if they don't wish to. And if those that don't wish to change to WAVs in saloon Hackney areas, then 'jump ship' to the PH fraternity, all the government's legislation will be a waste of time in those area.
Author:  Stationtone [ Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
Sussex wrote:
I think it worth reminding folks that the amendment to section 16 of the 1985 act will only apply to those councils that restrict, which is at present 90.

Out of those 90 many are already 100% WAV taxi, so the actual number of councils is around 70, and many of them will have a significant number of taxi WAVs already.

So if the gov chose a 50% or 60% taxi WAV option, then it will only effect those councils that should have got their act in order many years ago.

If that analogy is correct, then what are we worried about?

Mr Skippy41 will just have to conform if his LA is one of the doomed ones.

But what you do forget is that no one is forced to continue with a HCVL if they don't wish to. And if those that don't wish to change to WAVs in saloon Hackney areas, then 'jump ship' to the PH fraternity, all the government's legislation will be a waste of time in those area.




Thats why i was supprised that the private hire were removed from part of the Bill. At the DFT workshop they were concerned that hacks would just go private hire if made to put on wavs.
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
stationtone wrote:
Thats why i was supprised that the private hire were removed from part of the Bill. At the DFT workshop they were concerned that hacks would just go private hire if made to put on wavs.

From the TV programme 'Yes Minister;

"Being an MP is a vast subsidized ego-trip. It's a job that needs no qualifications, it has no compulsory hours of work, no performance standards, and provides a warm room, a telephone and subsidized meals to a bunch of self-important windbags and busybodies who suddenly find people taking them seriously because they've go the letters 'MP' after the their name."

How true!!
Author:  bloodnock [ Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
stationtone wrote:
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
Sussex wrote:
I think it worth reminding folks that the amendment to section 16 of the 1985 act will only apply to those councils that restrict, which is at present 90.

Out of those 90 many are already 100% WAV taxi, so the actual number of councils is around 70, and many of them will have a significant number of taxi WAVs already.

So if the gov chose a 50% or 60% taxi WAV option, then it will only effect those councils that should have got their act in order many years ago.

If that analogy is correct, then what are we worried about?

Mr Skippy41 will just have to conform if his LA is one of the doomed ones.

But what you do forget is that no one is forced to continue with a HCVL if they don't wish to. And if those that don't wish to change to WAVs in saloon Hackney areas, then 'jump ship' to the PH fraternity, all the government's legislation will be a waste of time in those area.




Thats why i was supprised that the private hire were removed from part of the Bill. At the DFT workshop they were concerned that hacks would just go private hire if made to put on wavs.


not as many will go PH as you probably think...Its harder for most small PH operators to fill their days than it is for HCVL,s...If it wasnt then no one would be a hack at present. I think a lot that jump ship will stand to lose out more money through lost work than they would lose out if they had to pay for a WAV...PH usually have built up a solid and regular customer base to fall back on where as hacks quite often dont have the same due to their method of operation....not an easy shift id say.. :?
Author:  Sussex [ Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
stationtone wrote:
Thats why i was supprised that the private hire were removed from part of the Bill. At the DFT workshop they were concerned that hacks would just go private hire if made to put on wavs.

I think many more folks are worried that more and more PH will go hackney carriage than the other way around.
Author:  gusmac [ Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:55 am ]
Post subject: 
bloodnock wrote:
stationtone wrote:
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
Sussex wrote:
I think it worth reminding folks that the amendment to section 16 of the 1985 act will only apply to those councils that restrict, which is at present 90.

Out of those 90 many are already 100% WAV taxi, so the actual number of councils is around 70, and many of them will have a significant number of taxi WAVs already.

So if the gov chose a 50% or 60% taxi WAV option, then it will only effect those councils that should have got their act in order many years ago.

If that analogy is correct, then what are we worried about?

Mr Skippy41 will just have to conform if his LA is one of the doomed ones.

But what you do forget is that no one is forced to continue with a HCVL if they don't wish to. And if those that don't wish to change to WAVs in saloon Hackney areas, then 'jump ship' to the PH fraternity, all the government's legislation will be a waste of time in those area.




Thats why i was supprised that the private hire were removed from part of the Bill. At the DFT workshop they were concerned that hacks would just go private hire if made to put on wavs.


not as many will go PH as you probably think...Its harder for most small PH operators to fill their days than it is for HCVL,s...If it wasnt then no one would be a hack at present. I think a lot that jump ship will stand to lose out more money through lost work than they would lose out if they had to pay for a WAV...PH usually have built up a solid and regular customer base to fall back on where as hacks quite often dont have the same due to their method of operation....not an easy shift id say.. :?


Plate the saloon you already have as PH or shell out £thousands for a WAV will seem like a no-brainer to most.
A little thing like not having any regular customers might seem like a minor issue to many.
They also have some time to build up a regular clientel.
Doubtless many will go to the wall, whichever way they jump. All those extra PH are going to make life tough for the existing PH as well.
Author:  tx_op [ Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:07 am ]
Post subject: 
In the immortal words o doris day...............k cera cera.......................
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Wed Mar 31, 2010 6:55 am ]
Post subject: 
tx_op wrote:
In the immortal words o doris day...............k cera cera.......................

Doris Day . . . . careful, you'll confuse Ms Toots!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Author:  toots [ Wed Mar 31, 2010 9:21 am ]
Post subject: 
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
tx_op wrote:
In the immortal words o doris day...............k cera cera.......................

Doris Day . . . . careful, you'll confuse Ms Toots!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Cheeky I know who she is, she is an animal rights activist :D
Author:  grumpy [ Tue Apr 06, 2010 7:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
Anyone for (table) tennis? It's ping pong day.

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/200 ... ality.html
Author:  Sussex [ Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
grumpy wrote:
Anyone for (table) tennis? It's ping pong day.

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/200 ... ality.html

It's gone past eight o'clock and they are still banging on about the digital bill. :sad:
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
toots wrote:
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
tx_op wrote:
In the immortal words o doris day...............k cera cera.......................

Doris Day . . . . careful, you'll confuse Ms Toots!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Cheeky I know who she is, she is an animal rights activist :D

See . . . I told you she'd be confused!!!!
Author:  Sussex [ Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
All Lords amendments passed by the commons 23.00pm 06/04/2010.

No ping pong. :wink:
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Apr 07, 2010 6:19 am ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
All Lords amendments passed by the commons 23.00pm 06/04/2010.

No ping pong. :wink:

When the transcripts are put up on Hansard today folks will see that our bits didn't even get a mention.

Just a load of eyes and no nays. :D
Page 39 of 51 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/