Taxi Driver protests against legislation.

[onewheeldave]

SheffTF - My dear friend you are flogging a dead horse.

 

The days of your council shielding you from competition and protecting your local patch are now gone. The bouncer at the door has had their powers curtailed by the Deregulation Act 2015.

 

 

 

As a local user I much prefer local drivers with local knowledge. I also like to know what my fare will be, not based on some fluctuating 'surge charge' model.

 

I also don't want my taxis run by a corporation which furthers it's interests by buying politicians.

 

 

 

 

You can't turn back the clock. Deregulation is happening and there is strong empirical evidence to suggest the trade as a whole will benefit.

 

Well, you can turn back the clock by facing up to the fact that deregulation was a mistake, and adjusting accordingly.

 

City taxi drivers have been badly financially affected by deregulation and the accompanying influx of out of town drivers at an unfair advantage because their cars are subject to laxer (cheaper) maintenance regulations than those required by Sheffield drivers. Out of town drivers also escape the local 'knowledge' test requirement. This is unfair.

 

Uber are a corrupt corporation who use their vast financial resources to influence politicians, and whose business model is one of infiltrating new territories by subsidising the service to offer good rates to customers, then reverting to type once they've destroyed the local existing competition.

 

Best of luck to Sheffield City taxi drivers in holding Uber off.

 

As I've mentioned to many City drivers while discussing this, just 20 taxis strategically placed, could lock down this entire city in rush hour, as a very effective protest against the unfairness of deregulation.

[Puggie]

It's nonsense.

 

I beg to differ and I would encourage you to examine the issue from a wider national prospective. At the very heart of the argument is how technology and the so-called sharing economy is disrupting long established business practises and the way they are regulated. What we're starting to see now is the emergence of regulatory 'brands'. As you correctly point out I am free to subscribe to any of these licensing 'brands' and in due course these entities will start competing against one another driving up efficiency, driving down cost, and improving on service.

 

Have you ever wondered how technology might have already solved many of these trust issues that triggered the need for PHV regulation in the first place?

 

Take Uber for example, many would argue (including many on this forum) that their operation is completely unregulated. However delve a little deeper and might find something to the contrary.

 

For a transaction to happen on Uber, both parties (driver and rider) need to be qualified by the platform. The platform has it's own unique way of punishing and rewarding users at both ends based on behaviour, with feedback often being a compulsory part of the transaction. This builds trust between parties, and trust of the platform. This is regulation, but not as you know it because it doesn't live on the statute books.

 

As you can imagine deregulation of the private hire trade makes for an interesting case study.

 

I'll leave you all in peace to continue with the discussions.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Puggie

[*_ash_*]

I beg to differ and I would encourage you to examine the issue from a wider national prospective. At the very heart of the argument is how technology and the so-called sharing economy is disrupting long established business practises and the way they are regulated. What we're starting to see now is the emergence of regulatory 'brands'. As you correctly point out I am free to subscribe to any of these licensing 'brands' and in due course these entities will start competing against one another driving up efficiency, driving down cost, and improving on service.

 

Have you ever wondered how technology might have already solved many of these trust issues that triggered the need for PHV regulation in the first place?

 

Take Uber for example, many would argue (including many on this forum) that their operation is completely unregulated. However delve a little deeper and might find something to the contrary.

 

For a transaction to happen on Uber, both parties (driver and rider) need to be qualified by the platform. The platform has it's own unique way of punishing and rewarding users at both ends based on behaviour, with feedback often being a compulsory part of the transaction. This builds trust between parties, and trust of the platform. This is regulation, but not as you know it because it doesn't live on the statute books.

 

As you can imagine deregulation of the private hire trade makes for an interesting case study.

 

I'll leave you all in peace to continue with the discussions.

 

Student?

 

Yeah, nice try!

[actionman]

Theres no way i would taxi in another town even if it was more profitable. I wouldnt have local knowledge and sat navs are friggin useless anyway

[SheffTF]

Student?

 

Yeah, nice try!

 

The guy is a stooge pretending to be a student, his reasoning is one that has become a hallmark of uber line to portray anything that is not uber as antiquated out of date and irrelevant for the twenty first century. Same line is parroted by each and every one of these bought individuals who are tasked with spreading the uber good news to the great unwashed. This is Yorkshire and uber are finding this a harder market to crack despite the same polished rhetoric about being a technology company and not a taxi company type of bs. It worked in the early days but they have been found out and apart from Sheffield based Chinese students they haven't any loyal customer base. It's funny how this bloke claiming to be student only seems to have studied uber and seems to disregard all other concerns raised here about out of town drivers working here without any accountability to the public or the Council?

I commend OnewheelDave for understanding the problem and addressing it head on where as our Uber student seems to have ignored it completely.

[Puggie]

Student? Yeah, nice try!

 

The guy is a stooge pretending to be a student

 

Honestly I'm flattered! I quite liked the idea of being an undercover Uber operative but I'm stuck doing economics for the next year

 

Cheers guys

[SheffTF]

Honestly I'm flattered! I quite liked the idea of being an undercover Uber operative but I'm stuck doing economics for the next year

 

Cheers guys

Might believe you if you had anything other to say than the scripted answers we've heard hundreds of times before parroted by Uber faithful. Try addressing the real issues of regulation for thesafety of the travelling public and how it is better without any checks and balances and accountability as Uber wants as opposed to what the SCC and the local public wants?

[*_ash_*]

No I didn't know that, but it makes sense the same as someone living in a car crime area pays higher insurance than someone who lives in the middle of the countryside. However, the insurers should perhaps move to a more 'black box' type system where your insurance is directly linked to how you drive and where you drive. All of this tech is available now and used by non-taxis so there's no technical reason I can think of why it couldn't be done.

 

Technically it could be done, but insurance isn't yet much to do with the dereg, so not sure why they'd bother changing their entire system. It would be pretty good for me though probably.

 

 

Again, the shelf-lives should be removed and as long as your car passes the regs then it passes. I really can't understand why an older but less used car would be deemed less suitable than a newer one with more miles? You guys have far harsher MOTs than non-taxis do so if your car passes, it blooming passes. So remove age and mileage restrictions completely as surely things like is the car safe are a fairly key part of the MOT?

 

This would be popular amongst drivers. The guy who I bought my latest one off popped over last night, and though he doesn't like the internet we mentioned this rule, and he said there was no reason to sell his to me, and buy a new car if it wasn't for the rules, so that's several grand he's out of pocket*, when there are 02 plate cars picking up in town right in front of us. Another unfair advantage against us. And me too, my last car was absolutely fine, breezed through the last test. Now I have a loan to pay off for this one.

 

MOT standards for a taxi should be higher, similar to that of a bus (albeit with different criteria clearly!) and this should be applied UK wide not just down to council discretion.

 

Would villages and small towns have the facilities that Sheffield has though? They test all our vehicles (and every 6 months over 5 years old).

 

4.1 should windows be allowed to be tinted or blacked out? No.

 

Sheffield vehicles aren't allowed, all passenger must be seen from outside of vehicle. No ruling on this in other councils. A lot of drivers who buy new have to change the windows because many new cars have this as standard. Most expense that OOTs don't have.

 

4.2 should there be a boot space minimum? No, but must be made clear to passengers on booking that if they require boot space that must be added to booking and a car will be sent with no extra charge that meets that requirement. Anything above a standard saloon boot space like an estate can be charged extra. On most occasions I'd rather a Smart car arrived quickly and cost me less than enforcing something that few passengers are actually going to need, and if they do they can ask for it anyway.

 

Good in theory, but just doesn't work. Many are app bookings, many of foreign students, and in practice it just wastes customer and driver time when small vehicles go for bookings.

 

4.2 should there be a boot space minimum? ]No, but must be made clear to passengers on booking that if they require boot space that must be added to booking and a car will be sent with no extra charge that meets that requirement. Anything above a standard saloon boot space like an estate can be charged extra. On most occasions I'd rather a Smart car arrived quickly and cost me less than enforcing something that few passengers are actually going to need, and if they do they can ask for it anyway.

 

For single passengers this could be a good idea. But if we're standardising everything around the country this wouldn't be practical.

 

4.5 if picking up in the street, what are the minimum standards of vehicle? Same as private hire. Never understood the difference anyway!

 

Different cities and towns have different classifications for hackneys. All of the rossendale hackneys are just cars for example. In Sheffield they only allow purpose builds (which are far more expensive)

 

4.6 What signage should be shown on ALL vehicle PHVs?Company name, phone number, company number, licensed council plate with contact number on the outside. Inside, driver ID in both front and back with passport standard photo, name, driver number etc. Perhaps also a link to a website with full details of the driver and his company and licensing info. This would need to be run UK wide so hence why I think taxi licensing has to become centralised.

 

Sheffield meets all of these. Tfl meet none of them. Uber don't have a phone number either.

 

4.7 What percentage of a population should have enough vehicles (either PHV or Hack) that have wheelchair access? Oh heavens knows! I can't even give a figure, but I suppose fairness would be double the percentage of people who are wheelchair bound as I guess they would need taxis more than people who aren't in wheelchairs therefore having the same percentage wouldn't be enough but as I say that's a complete guess! What it is at present?

 

In Sheffield, 100% of them.

 

The economist earlier mentioned about 'council protecting livings', but in reality, the council have to impose limits on black cabs because there isn't enough space for the current ones, and if the limit was removed, most of us would buy a hackney.

 

The limit was removed a few years ago, but when number went from 330 (which admittedly was too low) it shot up, and current number is 867.

[Puggie]

The economist earlier mentioned about 'council protecting livings', but in reality, the council have to impose limits on black cabs

 

The restriction on numbers should never have happened in the first place. There is simply no economic justification. The restrictions owe themselves to successful lobbying efforts. Licencees monopolizing on the scarcity value of plates at the expense of other stakeholders.

[SheffTF]

The restriction on numbers should never have happened in the first place. There is simply no economic justification. The restrictions owe themselves to successful lobbying efforts. Licencees monopolizing on the scarcity value of plates at the expense of other stakeholders.

 

So you cherry pick which bits of the law you like and which are a hinderance to the Uber free for all model? Just like any other rule change or development, it is done after a consultation and after all the stakeholders are invited to have their say. The restriction on numbers came about as the law demands following a demand survey which didn't rely on an uber student to tell them but actually carried out an extensive survey of taxi supply and demand in Sheffield. They concluded that Sheffield was adequately supplied with taxis and no more were needed. Now we have 700 more operating outside of the local regulation system and are blessed with irresponsible uber students making excuses for them as to why the poor dodgy darlings choose to circumvent the local licensing regime. This affects earnings of the legit drivers and will inevitably lead to lowering of safety standards.

 

---------- Post added 01-04-2017 at 14:23 ----------