2012of I INDEX
BUREAUCRACY BOWL . . . . . . . . . 56-57 ALTERNATIVE TAXIS . . . . . . . . . . . 58-59 CREATIVE CABBIES . . . . . . . . . . . . 60-61 SAD B*****D OF THE YEAR . . . . . 62-63 HERO OF THE YEAR. . . . . . . . . . . . 64-65 ‘N’ APART FROM THAT . . . . . . . . . 66-67
CARTOONS BY ROY GRANVILLE
COUNCIL West Fife
Wakefield Bury
Bradford Pendle
Cheshire East Dudley
Coventry
Weston-super-Mare Glasgow
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Oldham
South Kesteven Swansea
Harborough Derby
Malvern
North Somerset Derby
Bradford
Birmingham Exeter Torbay
Northampton Derby
Pontefract (Wakefield)
St Austell (Cornwall Council) WINNER Blackburn with Darwen Bristol
Denbighshire
South Norfolk WINNER Ribble Valley Bradford
Featherstone (Wakefield) Swansea/Neath Port Talbot Solihull Derby Wigan
Keighley (Bradford) Bury
Northampton Pendle Bristol
JANUARY 2013 PHTM RUST BUCKET
Oadby and Wigston Bristol
SWOOP CENTRAL
Well folks, it’s that time of year again... when we bring you our usual New Year review of the previous year’s activities in PHTM-land. For this year’s Swoop summary, we will highlight several salient points derived from a perusal of the year’s roadside enforcement exercises. (Thought we’d use some fancy words to raise the tone a bit...)
So – firstly, we have to comment that so many of the press reports throughout the year banged the usual drum from councils and police, about how “our council takes very seri- ously these roadside exercises... we are mega-keen to rid the roads of dangerous vehicles... public safety is our top priority...” and so on. Pity so many areas have suffered deregulation, and the streets are inundated with too many taxis, the drivers of which can- not earn a living; thus their vehicle maintenance budget goes down and down. Interestingly, last year’s tally of swoops was 48 compared to 43 in the previous year. And that 48 doesn’t include those areas below where figures weren’t available. So there is vis- ible evidence that vehicle enforcement is becoming more prominent around the country. Which brings us to point number two: unfortunately a lot of the local press reports are couched in such general terms, and there are no figures as to how many taxis/PHVs were pulled over, taken off, faulted for bald tyres etc. So whilst there were reports of major swoops having taken place last year
in Manchester, Bradford, Col-
NO. VEHICLES NO. FAULTS NO. TAKEN % FOUND TESTED
FOUND
WINNER WINNER
OFF ROAD FAULTY
92 00 0% 14 42 29% 32 00 0% 33 99 27% 23 55 22% 45 55 11% 93
43
129 146 24
23
1 8
18 14
20 31 15% 28
24 41 17% 42
16 77 44% 30 26 27 36
16 28 13
“more than” 30 “more than” 20
10 11 27 10
N/A 6 8 3
8 4
N/A N/A
7
20 33 15% 58
36 “faults” 5? 14
56 55 9% 20 74 35% 16 70 44%
Powys (no mechanical failures)WINNER 46 00 0% Aylesbury Vale
14 17
11 17
44 83 18% 18 00 0% 22 91
15 64 40% 17 00 0% 22 52 23% 53
17
N/A 7
163
12 42
12
72 51 7% 40 29 17
11 12
N/A 5
18 93 50% 30 49 21 72
11 6
N/A N/A N/A
7 5
13
64% 19%
32% 30%
24% 71% 26%
40% 14% 24% 18%
19 93 47% N/A 24 9
33% 53%
N/A 16% 38%
57% 67% 43%
38% 41% 75% 33%
24%
chester, Cardiff, Hyndburn, North Herts and Stock- port, we couldn’t include them in the table as it was not stated how many taxis/PHVs were included in the wider group of vehicles
pulled
over. Anyway, despite all
the negative
figures in the table, it is good to see that
there
were five areas that belong in the Winners’ Circle this time, with no vehicles
faulty: West Fife, Bury (first
found time
around, not sec- ond!), Powys, St Austell and South Norfolk. Feather- stone (Wakefield) ran a close sec- ond, with only seven per cent of vehicles
with
faults. The Rust Bucket award this time goes to Birm- ingham, whose swoop of only 36 of their vehicles found 27 with faults – that’s 75 per cent. That’s a miniscule sample of vehicles for B i r m i n g h a m , which begs the question:
how
would the entire fleet stack up?
PAGE 55
W R
E
V
E
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80
