passenger to identify the collection and drop-off points, this will enable the driver to check the details of a route before starting a journey and plan or enter it in a navigation system. Given the availability, reliability and ease of use of sat nav systems, licensing authorities should not require any topographical knowledge or navigational tests for PHV drivers.”
It’s very clear to me that the DfT does not live in the real world and possibly there has been some ‘Uberesque’ influence on this. Even as a hackney carriage, when I’m undertaking office bookings with a destination, a customer can change their mind, or add a pick-up. To give reliance on a satnav is, in my mind, worrying indeed. As I’ve stated many times, if I call an engineer to service my boiler, I don’t expect them to have to consult a book on how to carry out the job. Also, is it expected that customers should put their lives in the hands of someone who is glancing at a satnav, or in the case of most Uber drivers, plugged into earphones listening for which turning to take? Does the DfT actually think it’s 100% safe to promote the use of navigation systems instead of the driver having the knowledge to know where they are going? Perhaps I’m too old school.
Intended Use Policy
One point that has interested me is the mention of an ‘Intended Use Policy’ as I have been a strong advocate of this, although unfortunately this only applies to hackney carriages. It is however good to note that it stated:
“Licensing authorities should require an applicant for a taxi driver licence to declare that they intend to work predominately within the licensing authority’s area.”
Again, I refer the DfT to Section 46 LGMPA 1976.
We have had an ‘Intended Use Policy’ in Brighton & Hove for a number of years and I was able to persuade other neighbouring LAs to do the same, as we found that ‘Out-of-Town’ hackneys were predominantly working here under Uber and not servicing the ranks and streets of their respective areas.
However, it’s quite interesting that it went further, stating:
“The residential address provided by the application should be considered in assessing the likelihood of this declaration being adhered to when assessing an application for a taxi driver licence.”
This brings to mind where I think at one time there was a local byelaw (long rescinded) that stated a driver/ proprietor of a hackney carriage must live within five
PHTM JANUARY 2024
miles of the local post office. This was probably to prevent the over working of the horse.
There are other sections which I don’t have room to go into here, but the BPG contains a point on having to fill in a form for a vehicle safety check for each driver when they use the car. Sanctions would be enforced if this form could not be produced. Yeah right… I can just see Wolverhampton adopting this for their 30,000+ plus cars.
Age Limits References to age limits state:
“The setting of an arbitrary age limit may be inappropriate, counterproductive and result in higher costs to the trade and ultimately passengers”
“Licensing authorities should not impose age limits for the licensing of vehicles, instead they should consider more targeted requirements to meet their policy objectives on emissions, safety rating and increasing wheelchair accessible provision where this is low”
Yet again this issue of predominant cross-border hiring comes up where one LA has an age limit and another doesn’t, so once more the report is very vague and not at all helpful. Also, I have never been a fan of an age limit, within reason; as long as the vehicle carries a current MOT, can pass a compliance test and is presentable, then why allow councils to impose restricting age limits?
Fire extinguishers
Lastly, we recently got the council to review the condition of where a fire extinguisher must be carried, although this was only possible for private hire vehicles so the condition was dropped for those. But, as it was a byelaw for hackney carriages, we were told the byelaw would need to be changed, so could be changed, but this would be a slow process. We added that if the condition remained then the council must provide adequate vehicle fire training, which of course was never going to happen.
However, the DfT’s BPG has come to the rescue as it has eliminated having to carry them, which is quite sensible.
Mind you, I was set to battle with the council about being trained to put out a vehicle fire as I would have insisted, they demonstrated with an EV outside the town hall … and we all know how those can go up!
Have a great New Year! 71
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
