search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
REFLECTIONS OF AN AN INTERESTING YEAR AHEAD


Article by Dr Michael S. Galvin Mobility Services Limited mobilityserviceslimited.com


The summer has been filled with the sound of people responding to the plethora of consultations issued before the summer break. The August Parliamentary Transport Committee’s inquiry into licensing, which is gathering views on safety and regulation, will no doubt spend the autumn taking evidence and devel- oping their report/policy proposals.


The joint UK government unit from the Department for Business and Trade and the DfT, the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CCAV), which will no doubt become very familiar to us, as it promotes the safe development and use of connected and autonomous vehicles is looking to the near future, 2026, when live trials of AVs will begin.


And let’s not forget the Pedicab licensing in London consultation.


After a considerable gap between now and the last tranche of consultations and evidence taking, policy makers seem fired up into trying to be seen to do something. In the case of licensing the Casey Report may have been the catalyst, but in any event, I guess we should welcome interest in our industry.


The CCAV is driven by the DfT’s target of live trials of autonomous vehicles providing ‘automated passen- ger services’ next spring. In all next year is looking increasingly interesting in our world.


Is a consensus forming?


Even some basic analysis of the responses to the Transport Committee consultation suggests that there is the basis of a consensus forming in the industry. Yes, there are still variances, but it does appear from re- spondents that we need:


l A national licensing system, minimum standards or mandatory maximum standards are still not agreed


l A solution to the cross-border hiring ‘problem’ - 6


the ‘problem’ remains vaguer than the solutions that are being offered up from ABBA to a percen- tage-based approach


l An improved system of conviction tracking. The NR3 appears to be pretty much agreed as a solution subject to becoming mandatory


l Enhanced powers for enforcement officers to stop any licensed vehicle regardless of where they are licensed.


There are of course a whole wish list of individual wants and desires that sit below the substantive points listed above. There are also serious, and I would suggest existential challenges that haven’t made the list e.g. multi-apping and worker status issues to name but two which are severely impacting the relia- bility of the service and will affect its long-term future and viability.


To be realistic any change to legislation is going to need a strong consensus across the industry to have any chance of becoming reality. How to achieve that with such a splintered and fragmented industry is difficult to see. The alternative is that policy makers cherry pick through the responses and whatever evi- dence is provided, draw their own conclusions and make a change that satisfies the ‘we must do some- thing’ response to the Casey Report without any real consideration of the industry’s needs.


Alternatively, and probably most likely, nothing happens and the latest inquiry into licensing report just joins the shelf which already contains numerous reports gradually moving from relevance to obsol- escence, including the oft quoted Law Commission Draft Act, Start and Finish Group etc.


Looking back is one approach


Apart from the ‘how will any changes be affected by autonomous vehicles’ the questions in the consulta- tion concerning licensing, and from what I could discern the answers, all focus on the past. What’s wrong, how can we fix it? But is that enough? The two most recent acts in England and Wales are 50 years and 25 years old respectively. If we are in a 50-year legislative cycle maybe we should be looking forward


NOVEMBER 2025 PHTM


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