STaN WEEK...The STaN Agenda and Why We Have to Fight....Part 1

So Peter Hendy doesn't recognise TfL's own figures, given to them by the Metropolitan Police.
In a recent radio interview he has said "They are the work of a militant Taxi driver".


One of the many reasons Ken Livingstone agreed to license minicabs was the unbelievably high instances of sexual assaults including rapes carried out by minicab drivers. As an unsavoury minicab trade transformed into a new licensed service, the numbers of drivers seemed to be reducing as forecast by Livingstone. This was in fact an optical illusion, as many were still operating unlawfully. New facilities were put in place to reward drivers for paying the new license fee. 

The one that has done the most damage to the Licensed Taxi trade is the satellite operating centre. Private Hire has been allowed to operate from inside any premises they like and the need for planning permission has been removed. This agenda was clearly laid out in a 2002 presentation called Safer Travel at Night (STaN). Unbelievably the STaN report suggested that enforcement against touting should be dropped so resources could be deployed elsewhere.   


The new concept of unenforced satellite offices operated undetected for the first few years, as Taxi drivers were already used to seeing lines of the old style touts outside virtually all clubs and bars. As PH operators became more greedy, they invented, "The Clipboard Johnny". A man in a high visibility jacket with Taxi Service or Mini Cab emblazoned on it. These touts allocated jobs to waiting drivers, who would pay him a flat fee. The only enforcement would be a quick check to see if they had paid for a satellite license.


Licensed Taxi drivers complained to TfL, local councils and the Police but to their amazement found their complaints were being completely ignored.
Drivers started to send mass emails, in campaigns run by the Anderson Shelter, the LTCPR and the LTDF Taxi Forum.

Replies came back from the likes of Luke Howard, who would then point out, in his interpretation of the Hackney Carriage law (which bore no resemblance to the abstract of law given to all new drivers) PHV drivers could openly tout as long as the premises had a satellite operating license. 


With quite a few PH Vehicles having darkened glass in their rear screens, tickets were being issued by TfL for contraventions like, Parking in 24 hour Bus Lanes and Parking on Double Red Lines. So TfL issued new blue badges which would allow TfL and local council CCTV camera operators to pick out the touts and allow them to contravene any parking restrictions.


In 2007/8 it was decided by TfL, the satellite operating centres program would be escalated as the figures for assaults and rapes had dropped.
As these centres suddenly grew, along with a massive surge in PHV driver numbers, so did the attacks on females and males, as sexual predators found a safe haven, hiding in plain sight within the lines of touts outside London's nightspots.

The next victim could be your Daughter/Wife

By the end of 2009 the statistics for rapes and assaults had gone through the roof with a staggering rise of 54%.


The rise in sexual attacks is a direct result of the extra licenses granted to shady operations. Sometimes just a flashing light, erected on a wall in an alleyway, would have lines of PHV's openly touting. 24 hour mini marts, kiosks, and in one case an old telephone box have also been used as satellite offices.


TfL and local councils have bent over backwards to facilitate operators and a blind eye has been turned to enforcement, in order to clear the streets of potential troublemakers at weekends.


TfL have been widely embarrassed by  the release of these figures by the Metropolitan Police

Unfortunately the Statistics for 2010 have recently been compromised by three Met Police officers who were removed from their jobs, when they were found to be changing statements and entering rape cases as non crimes...
It is our belief at the Anderson Shelter that this was a  deliberate conspiracy to disguise the fact that attacks are still rising. 


At the moment, there is a complete stop on the issue of new operating centre licenses, but this situation may revert soon.


For TfL boss Peter Hendy to say he didn't recognise the figures that showed a 54% increase in attacks is an insult to every victim and their families, who have had their lives completely shattered by these attacks.


But the biggest scandal of all, is the fact that the so called United Trade Group leaders of the LTDA, LCDC and Unite, knew about the STaN agenda and have agreed to bury it under a wall of silence.

Guess who's Got Your Back?....By Thomas the Taxi.

No one in their right minds wants to see a fleet of festering old bangers driving round London.
It would be fantastic to have a fleet of high-spec, up to the minute, low emission Taxis in time for the Olympic and Para-Olympic Games, for the whole world to see.

With more forethought and better planning (a scrappage scheme with subsidised road fund and fuel) we could have come close to achieving this goal. But instead of TfL looking after our interests, they have sought to "harmonise" and in some areas replace the "Best Taxi Service in the World" with an inferior private hire service that has shown time and time again, it can't be trusted or relied upon.


Every Bus is subsidised to the tune of £20,000 a year, even the ones that are being run by private companies. Massive profits for bus companies result in unbelievably high salaries to managers, with enormous bonuses paid out to shareholders. We will see in a couple of months, the Managing Director of TfL David Brown, leave his position for a post at a bus company for a staggering new salary of £1.4m a year.


Where is our subsidy?
If every Taxi received a comparable subsidy, our fleet would reflect the grant and would be made up of newer vehicles.


Back to reality!  
We have just been told that the rise in VAT, although known about by TfL,was not factored in to our next meter adjustment due in April. No subsidy on fuel, no subsidy on the price of a new vehicle and we have been whacked by an unfair road fund license fee that is not consistent across the whole London Taxi fleet.


We now find that an age limit is to be introduced, in the Mayors words, "to clean up the dirty old cabs from the street". 
And yet no scientific proof is available to back up his demand. His office has released colourful charts that purport to show how dirty Taxis are, but fails to explain how getting rid of older models will change this situation as new and old Taxis pass the same smoke test before being licensed.
His figures are also questionable as they are no more than guesstimates.

This is plainly a cosmetic exercise brought in to get rid of older models in time for the Olympics.


If you think this doesn't affect you then think again.
Being discussed on your behalf by the United Trade Group that includes only one fully working Taxi driver, is the possibility of prestige ranks for newer vehicles only and extra inspections for not so new Taxis.
Plus it has been discussed that older vehicles may lose their Congestion Charge exemption status!


This group of financially interested representatives (proprietors association, radio circuit entrepreneurs and manufacturers) have signed you up to a 15 year age limit with 2 MOT's (with SGS visits) and a full overhaul inspection. They are also discussing the possibility of older cabs having 2 MOT's and 2 major overhauls every year.


With the amount of Taxis taken off the road in the first three years, rented vehicles will become harder to find and there is much talk of a return of double teams working on the clock. Some proprietors have spoken of vehicles being rented in eight hour shifts!


What will happen to the old Taxis?
As there is no scrappage scheme in place, these vehicles will find their way into private ownership, so will still be out there adding to pollution levels. Without the regular servicing of Taxis, pollution levels of these vehicles will deteriorate. We may even see some working as unlicensed cabs as enforcement against touts from Joe Royles boys is at an all time low.


So, fewer vehicles to service a growing market of visitors. 
Who will pick up this extra business?


You guessed it... TfL have recently been talking to the United Trade Group, about marshalled Private Hire Ranks with the introduction of a Gold, silver and bronze system for minicab's. This issue has been on the cards since the inception of the STaN agenda back in 2002 and has been discussed many times at Service Transport Committee meetings, in the presence of our man on the board of TfL.


Phase1. set up a bait to get empty cabs to drive past street hails. (Golden Fares rank reinstated last night)
Public outcry "Not enough Taxis". Taxis refuse to work from marshalled rank at Tiger Tiger as Golden rank more profitable, so blind eye turned to PHV touts.


Phase 2. Permission granted to implement new "Marshalled Private Hire Ranks". 


Phase 3. Only newer Taxis to use prestige ranks, in prime positions. 


Lets not forget the man waiting in the wings to take over from Boris who wants...
Phase 4. Private hire to have the right to ply for hire after 10 pm.


This is why it is imperative that we put in a legal bid to stop this expensive madness thrust upon the trade by people who show a bias towards our competition and have no knowledge of how our trade functions.
Alan Fleming's appeal is up and running and if you care about the future of your trade, then I suggest you contribute to the fund.Details of payment can be found at the top of the right hand column.


When you think about the group that has been set up to represent you at meetings with TfL, like me you would believe this group to be made up from elected members of Trade Unions and Trade Associations!
Well, you would be wrong.
John Mason has put up hurdles to stop representative groups, that don't support his views from attending workshops and meetings. He has actively invited members from private business with their own agenda to negotiate on your behalf.


Attending the last Trade workshop in May 2010 were;
Mike Hedges, Unite
Steve MacNamara, LTDA
Grant Davis, LCDC
Eddie Crossley, LMCPA
Peter DaCosta, KPM Taxis
Malcom Paice, Com Cab


John Mason, TfL
Helen Chapman, TfL
Luke Howard, TfL


Invited absentees, 
John Russell, LTI
Brian Rice, Dial-a-Cab
Ivan Kovler, LMPCA.


Spot the full time working Taxi driver?


Rapes increase by 54%.
Earlier this month in a radio interview, Peter Hendy was asked what he intends to do about the 54% increase in assaults including rapes in private hire vehicles?


He replied, "I do not recognise these figures. They have come from a militant cabby with a blog"
No Peter the figures came from the Metropolitan police and the TfL website.

We need a better way to make complaints.
What we need most of all peter is a quick and easy way to report PHV's that are breaking the law!
Then we need you to enforce the law.
How about a website, accessible by smart phone for drivers to report incidents, that would have immediate response? 
I would pay double the current license fee for that Peter.

John Mason Responds to David Clegg and Les Hoath

Sent: 28 January 2011 08:46

Subject: Private Hire Consultation

Dear Respondent,  

I would like to personally thank you for your response to the Private Hire Consultation which closed on Friday 14th January 2010. We are grateful for the time you have spent on providing your response and have been overwhelmed by the constructive views, suggestions, ideas and supporting information that you and many others have provided.

The proposal and suggestions outlined in our consultation were exactly that. We are now faced with a significant challenge of reviewing all responses and analysing the supporting information. Given the level of input we have received this will take a significant amount of work and effort at a time of significant other workloads and challenges that we face.

However, progressing the outcome of the consultation is a priority for us and we will be working very hard to do this as quickly as possible.

Once we have undertaken this significant task we will prepare a report for consideration at the Transport for London (TfL) Surface Board followed by the TfL Surface Panel and concluding at the TfL Board.

This will take time and will be subject to the normal governance rules that we are required to abide by.

Again, thank you for you input. We will provide updates as and when they are available.

Regards

John Mason

Transport for London 

London Taxi and Private Hire

More than three hundred PH operators gathered at Heathrow to discuss issues which could potentially change the shape of the Private Hire industry.

To the Anderson Shelter:

I received this response from John Mason today following TfL receiving the 32 page response myself and Les Hoath submitted in respect of the LPH Consultation.

I sincerely hope it’s true that TfL are overwhelmed by the responses and truly feel they are constructive.

I am in no doubt that they will have their work cut out analyzing all the various views, and possibly contradictory suggestions and ideas and hoping to amend the ill-considered LPH legislation and operating procedures as they were originally drafted.

I think many of us recognise that the LPH system is seriously flawed and I feel sure TfL feel much the same way in light of the serious problems created by the system since it was first adopted. I don’t think anyone doubts that there is room for major changes and improvements to make the system run smoother, more cost-effectively and in a more self-policing way.

We can only hope that the TfL Board will make the necessary changes to bring the LPH system into a much better form than it currently is. I’m sure many people feel that much of the legislation and the policing of it to-date has been a bit of a ‘dog’s breakfast’ and brought despair to many in the London taxi trade.

It really does need a major overhaul as surely no serious administrator would allow this 3^rd world system to continue but work towards finally eradicating the presence of illegal minicabs (and licensed minicabs that operate illegally) that plague our streets and put the general public at risk.

Given the figures of sexual assaults, muggings and rapes, the current system is a national disgrace and it is little wonder that so many taxi drivers have been voicing their concerns for so long now, as in some respects they are being tarred with the same brush.

Major changes are sorely needed and we can only hope the TfL Board can see the wisdom of this and make the required and very necessary changes. They will need time, and I believe we must accept that if they are to get things right – once and for all.

In spite of all the often severe criticisms we’ve aimed at them in recent times I’m sure we wish them well in what will be a major undertaking on their part. Good (better considered) legislation and proper enforcement could benefit everyone in the passenger transport business in London - and the people that use it.

Let’s hope it is a major step in the right direction so that the tension can be taken out of the serious situations that have developed out on the street where taxi drivers and the general public have been put at risk.

Let’s also hope TfL can come up ‘trumps’ as a result of this Consultation process and we can praise them in equal measure to the various and numerous criticisms they have received from us, even though this may be some way off as the bureaucratic wheels turn very slowly.

Regards,

David

What Cant Speak Cant Lie! ....by Thomas the Taxi..

There is an old cockney saying, that my father always referred to, if ever I came home from school with a strongly worded letter. 
I'd say "Dad it didn't happen like that" or "the teacher is not telling the whole story". 
He would answer, "What Cant Speak Cant lie".
Unfortunately, we find nowadays these words of wisdom no longer apply.

So it was no surprised to see Dicky the Snail, claiming full responsibility for clearing up the confusion at the junction of Lower James Street and Brewer Street. The article in the Taxi magazine, is an affront to certain groups (such as the NoToMoB and the RMT Ranks and Highways) who worked extremely hard on this issue. 


Dicky also tries to imply,  Martin Low was very cordial about this problem and quick to act to for his friends at W9. But the truth's already been posted on numerous blogs, forums and other  interested media outlets, portraying the councils tooth and nail fight to hang on to its ill gotten gains. 


Many drivers received fines, many appealed and almost all appeals were automatically refused.
Now, after the Bikers have pointed out that the Traffic Management Order (TMO) is wrong, there seems to be a sudden change of heart from Martin Low.  


Surrounded by damning PR from his victimisation of Taxi drivers, Martin Low has now acknowledged the road signs at this location were not clear. (He should have also acknowledged they were unlawful and unenforceable) So, while we wait for Westminster to get the TMO revised by the secretary of state, he has agreed to stop the antics of the "Not so smart car"  honey trap crews at this location. 
     

Beware!
All will be resumed if a new TMO is applied for and approved and the signage is revised. However this can be a lengthy process.
It is unclear from the article whether Low has agreed to refund the Tickets that have been paid even though the article is entitled "Westminster to Repay Drivers Fines!".


Also found on Dickies page is a box article exclaiming that the left turn from Coventry Street into Rupert Street, when approached from Oxendon Street will for the time being not be enforced, due to the circumstances surrounding the situation at Lower James Street. ( Again no TMO in place).
Driver who have previously paid after losing appeals, are now entitled to a refund, according to Mr Masset's article.




There seems to be only one sensible voice at Westminster and that is the Councils order making officer Amanda Jones, who has always shown enthusiasm to help with any enquiry.
She wrote;
"The signing at this location has been causing much confusion. Although there are legitimate orders in force for the one way working in Lower James Street, Brewer Street and Sherwood Street, there is no order in place to compel vehicles to turn left from Lower James Street in to Brewer Street thereby preventing vehicles from preceding into Sherwood.
This afternoon, my colleagues have erected "Temporary"  no right turn signs, which reflect the movements prescribed by the order. 
Permanent signs will be erected as soon as possible."  

Bad Day at the Office for TfL... By Jason Byrne.

TfL bosses are said to be furious at the bad publicity attracted by their Bus and Bike stories that have hit the media this week.

Boris's fleet of forty vans, lorries and cars, that distribute bikes to ensure users of the hire scheme do not find empty docking stations, have come under the spotlight to reveal they themselves have been involved in dozens of minor accidents. Four of these accidents actually involved cyclists.

Try as they may to keep these shocking figures private, the details were finally revealed under a Freedom of Information request by journalism student Laura Cox, who is studying at City University in London. 

Contained within the FOI request are statistics which show just how environmentally unfriendly Boris's Bike scheme actually is.

See Tom Edwards report on the BBC website

Also a bus driver has been jailed for eight years for raping a female passenger who had taken his night bus in west London.

Kalash Vijay, 42, from Evergreen Way, Hayes, was found guilty last month of two counts of rape.

The female victim, in her 20s, boarded the N207 night bus in Acton last February, Isleworth Crown Court heard. This comes just months after the damning figures from the Metropolitan Police that showed a shocking 54% rise in sexual assaults including rape by licensed Private Hire Drivers touting outside London's night venues.  Another example of TfL failing to protect women making their way home at night.

Teenager Run over and killed by double decker.

This morning came the terrible news that, last night a young man of 17 was run over and killed by a bus in Walthamstow. It has been said by police, the teenager was a potential victim of street robbery and was trying to escape when unfortunately, he was hit by the no123 double decker bus.

Idling and Emissions...By Thomas the Taxi.

HIGHWAY CODE:

Control of the vehicle (117-126)

Rule 123;

The Driver and the Environment. 

You MUST NOT leave a parked vehicle unattended with the engine running or leave a vehicle engine running unnecessarily while that vehicle is stationary on a public road. Generally, if the vehicle is stationary and is likely to remain so for more than a couple of minutes, you should apply the parking brake and switch off the engine to reduce emissions and noise pollution. However it is permissible to leave the engine running if the vehicle is stationary in traffic or for diagnosing faults.

Coming shortly to a rank near you. 
Wrapped up in the Mayor's cleaner air initiative, will be the prospect of a PCN for leaving the engine running while stationary.
"Likely to remain so for more than a couple of minutes"
Are warden going to stand behind us while we are being paid off, with a stop watch?
Will we receive both a parking ticket and an emissions violation ticket in the same envelope?


We are told that when we are using a rank we will be expected to switch off our engine to help with emissions and noise pollution. (How much noise does a Taxi make, when starting the engine?)


Every time you start an engine the exhaust emissions are equal to that of an engine left to idle for 20 minutes (the reason drivers like to keep engines running when presenting at SGS, to help pass the smoke test. Engines that have been left to cool down normally fail). 
If say, you are on the rank at Paddington and have to shunt up and switch off just 8 times, it would be the equivalent of leaving your engine idling for 160 minutes.


Plus expect trouble with Batteries and starter motors. Every time you use the starter it takes on average 7 miles to replace the charge lost to your battery.
So, if you are on the Paddington Rank and have to move up and stop engine say a dozen times (with lights on and radio playing, you could find yourself needing a jump start.


However it is permissible to leave the engine running if the vehicle is stationary in traffic or for diagnosing faults.
Could we not be considered to be in traffic if waiting on a rank?
I wouldn't hold your breath on that one.


Plus no mention of buses at bus stops (One rule for them and another rule for us?). It can take a lot longer than two minutes for a bus to board passengers on some of the more popular routes. Will Mr Hendy be ordering his beloved buses to switch off?


This blog has in the past been accused of not researching its posts! 
Well, now its our turn to accuse TfL and the Mayor of not researching the issue thoroughly.


Human Rights Act;
My Taxi is my place of work. I have been told that under said act, I have the right to expect my place of work to be smoke free. I surely have the right to expect my place of work to be kept at a constant temperature, impossible if you have to keep turning the engine off.

Legal Challenge to Mayors 15 Year Age Limit....Posted by Thomas the Taxi.

I have recently been advised by Alan Fleming (ex LCDC Chairman) that he is to front a legal challenge, regarding the recent clean air ruling made by Mayor Boris Johnson. Eventually every driver will be affected by this ruling that restricts London Taxis to an age limit of 15 years.

Iconic, The FX4.

It has been stated by TfL that there are no exceptions in place at the moment. Taxis will not be eligible for retro fitting of systems designed to bring older vehicles up to Euro 5 levels (unlike buses). There are currently no plans for exemptions of Taxis that have been converted at the drivers expense, running on LPG.


The trade has till the 14 of March to mount a challenge, so time is at a premium.


In Alan's own words;
"I am currently trying to raise funds for a legal challenge to this ruling.
If all those drivers affected by this were to donate £25, we would have more than enough to cover the cost".


Mr Fleming, who currently runs a legal protection scheme for drivers and owners, has informed me that Taxi Cab news and the Taxi Globe have published details of his action.


DETAILS FOR CONTRIBUTIONS;

If you would like to contribute or find out more information please contact;


Alan Fleming on 07831 092 123, or 
Dave Cohen on 07956 894 701.


Also for those who wish to make a donation by cheque, made payable to......

Taxi Drivers and Owners Legal Protection

and send to.....

TOPS
PO BOX 439
Stanmore
HA7 9EY

Also, please enclose your name and address so that in the event we cannot get into court we know who to refund the money to.


Earlier this month as an invited guest, Mr Fleming gave a rousing speech to a packed meeting of the RMT London Taxi branch. After he left,  members voted to put this action to their legal department, with a view on making a legal challenge.


There are currently two companies which have viable retro-fit systems (Exhaust and electronics)
They are, Vortex  performance exhausts and Cricklewood Carriers. Prices range from £500 to £1200.
Both companies are willing to front the cost for testing their systems.


Please see Taxi Leaks article by Mike Robinson Click here

The Mystery of the Disappearing Ranks....By Thomas the Taxi.

Over the past few years the Taxi trade in London have been witnessing a marked decline in the number of Taxi rank spaces available for vehicles in slack periods such as "recession".

With the Mayor bleating on about the high level of pollution in central London, specifically caused by Licensed Taxis, you would have thought that TfL/LT&PH would be making it a priority to accommodate working Taxis that are forced to drive around aimlessly looking for a rank they can join.

You would also think that the Joint Ranks Committee would be on the case, tirelessly working for their members interests

You may think that, but you would be wrong.

Just before Christmas an email was sent to the Chairman of the Joint Ranks Committee by one of the trades most respected drivers.

Here is an excerpt of the reply he received.

"With regard to your earlier email I don't agree that the regulations in relation to Clipboard Johnnies are unenforceable. The PCO has shown that they are, by having taken some action against operators who then had to curtail their clipboard activities. But I do agree that a lot more needs to be done.

As for your other points I don't know why you are saying that Taxi ranks are disappearing and I have recently asked the PCO to take up with RBK&C the issue of obstruction of the Derry St rank which they have agreed to do.

Richard Massett"

 

Richard Masset, someone who hasn't driven a working Taxi for many years, doesn't know why this driver was saying that Taxi ranks are disappearing.

 

We take from this statement that Mr Massett would have applied to the PCO/LT&PH for proof to back up the statement made.

 

A second email was then sent to TfL asking the question;

 

How many new Taxi ranks have been rolled out in the last 6 years and also how many have been lost in the same period?

 

Transport for London was happy to supply the following answers;

 

Between December 2004 and December 2010,  

289 ranks have been revoked, covering a total of 1432 spaces. 

In the same period, 91 ranks have been appointed with a total of 460 spaces.

Many of these changes are the result of reviews with the boroughs, identifying under-used ranks and revoking them to accommodate other pressures on kerbside space. New ranks, on the other hand, have generally been at sites with high demand.

 

1432 (places lost) take away, 460 (places gained) = 972 rank spaces lost during this recession.

289 (ranks) suspended, 91(ranks) gained = 198 ranks lost

Other pressures on the kerb space, I suppose that means Boris's Bikes (IMO)

Plus how many extra drivers during this period?

 

Again the drivers have been lied to by the very people that purport to be looking after their best interests

This week it has been anounced that the Taxi ranks in the middle of Lower Regent Street are to be revoked. Followed shortly by the ranks in the middle of St James Street. We have as yet seen no plans to relocate these ranks.

Our Most Serious Threat Ever....By Thomas the Taxi.

On the 14th of December the Mayor issued a statement that from January 1st 2012, TfL will no longer be issuing licenses for Hackney Carriages over the age of 15 years.


When the Mayor showed interest in setting an age limit on Taxis of 15 years from 2012 and 10 from 2015, instead of fighting the issue in court, the UTG decided to form a select group of interested parties (including manufacturers such as LTC and KPM) and made an offer of 15 years across the board, without consulting their membership.
(The Law is on our side and there has been case law against age limits as recent as 2010), 

This is the group who signed away your right to plate a cab over 15 years old

Left to Right Steve Mcnamara, LTDA, Ivan Kovler LMCPA, Rob Laidler LTI, Geoffrey Riesel RTL, Malcolm Paice Com Cab, Mike Hedges UNITE, Brian Rice DaC, Eddie Crossley LMCPA, Peter Da Costa KPM.



The LTDA who profess to speak for a third of the trade, Green/Yellow badged taxi drivers and inclusive of most Knowledge students, never held a democratic vote on this serious matter. Neither were the LCDC or Unite membership consulted on the issue.


"Was this blanket 15 year age limit offer accepted by the Mayor, as a trade-off by the UTG to bury the STaN agenda report?"

(STaN is report from 2002 that set up Satellite offices and will bring marshaled Private Hire ranks to the West End very shortly).


But the truth remains, our trade as a whole has not been fully consulted on this issue.


The Mayor consulted the residents on the Western Extension Zone (WEZ).


Every council tax payer in the West London area got to have a say. Why have we not been afforded a consultation on our most serious threat ever?


How has a select group, in fact a closed shop, who have not consulted with there subscription paying members, along with interested parties such as LMCPA Taxi Proprietors and manufacturers, been allowed to set this agenda for our trade?


Why should we be so bothered about the age limit being introduced in 2012.
Simply because, TPH, TfL and the UTG haven't thought this through properly.
Or have they?


By the end of 2012,  3,592 Taxis will have been removed from service. Are TfL and the Mayor expecting 3,592 drivers to suddenly come up with the money to purchase new vehicles?
LTC (LTI) and Mercedes will not be able to produce that many vehicles in one year anyway...


1783 of the cabs removed will belong to garages that hire out older Taxis to senior drivers who work a few days a week. This facility will disappear. The income from this will disappear and in this austere economy so will many of the smaller garages.
Taxis held as spare cabs for break downs and replacement overhaul vehicles will disappear.
Remember in September 2008, how hard it was to find spare cabs for drivers grounded over the engine fires, well treble that.

• 2013 another 1674 will be removed, 
• 2014 will see 1724 come off and 
• 2015another 1636. 

We will be plunged back forty years to a situation where garages had the upper hand. Rents will rise dramatically, full flat cabs virtually impossible to rent and drivers could be forced to revert to working as doubled teams, on the clock where garages charged 60% of the takings. Is it any wonder that the manufacturers and the LMCPA were happy to see an age limit imposed.


Also coming up in 2013 is the introduction of 2 MOT's and 1 TPH compliant examination, no more yearly overhaul. Even less revenue for the garages, only the large ones will survive. The prices of servicing and running repairs will have to rise and drivers will be forced to meet these inflated costs.


When the Government bans affected our fishing fleets and abattoirs, they were paid huge sums to compensate for the lost of their businesses. Boris, the man who has spent 143 million pounds on bicycles, has offered the trade One Million Pounds in compensation for the loss to some drivers of their business (17861 vehicles will be affected).
Thats £56.00 (Less administration)per vehicle in compensation in some cases for the complete loss of a day to day business.


Driver shortfall...
There are currently only 2000 students on the knowledge, 1200 of which will not complete.
Boris is of the opinion that most of the older Taxis are driven by senior drivers in their late sixties and seventies. He is expecting a vast majority to retire (Again no research done). I thought the local councils and Police authorities were complaining, not enough drivers to handle the work at week ends.
Is the Mayor going to fill this short come with private hire marshaled ranks as in the original STaN report from 2007?

TIME IS NOW RUNNING OUT

There is just 3 months to legally lodge an objection to this undemocratic ban of Taxis over 15 years old, and 1 month has already ticked by.

There is only one representative body that vigorously opposed the introduction of an age limit.

There is only one representative body that is actively seeking legal advice on behalf of the drivers to take TfL and TPH to court over this issue and that is the RMT.

The others have sold the trade out.

Boris remember these

Well how about we use these, this time round

We have been informed that buses (Some fifty years old) will be allowed to be retro fitted (with new engine emission kits) but this will not be an option for the cab trade. Even Taxis that have been converted to LPG (zero emissions) at the drivers own expense will be taken off the road on their fifteenth birthday.

Appeal, Appeal, Appeal, You Can Only Win.

In the weeks leading up to Christmas and with a complete lack of interest from the UTG joint ranks committee, divers have taken it upon their selves to investigate the legality of the signage at the junction of Lower James Street and Brewer Street, where Westminster's Parking agents have set up a cash cow honey trap.


Our attention has been drawn to this apparent revenue raising scam by the @NoToMob, who have given their time to follower these $camcars from their depot in Orchardson Street. They then act quite within the law as a visual deterrent to stop drivers from committing an offence.


Eagle eyed bikers noticed that the actual signs at this junction appeared to be wrong. 
Now I am no legal expert but a quick look at the Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual  shows clearly Westminster have used the wrong signs (see diagram no1).
Just as we as motorists have to abide by parking and moving traffic regulations, the Councils have a duty of care to make sure their signage is correct and conforms to the Traffic Signs Manual.

No deviation can be made from the Traffic Signs Manual

In the same theme, Bikers and Drivers alike have applied to the council for copies of the Traffic Management Orders (TMO's) for this junction. This legal document gives councils the right to change the lay out of traffic flow, parking restriction and signage in an area. 
The council has since sent out a TMO dated 1938 which shows that the legal direction to leave Lower James Street is in fact straight over in to Sherwood Street. But the TMO had been amended by hand, not normal practice as a new updated order is necessary. The amendment omit the wording relating to Air Street and Sherwood Street by the diagram still shows a forward direction when leaving Lower James Street.


So letters were sent to Westminster  City Council asking them to explain what the legality of this document actually showed  


Thank you for the TMO/TRO’s received today. Click Here and Here.

Can you confirm that the document (Statutory Rules & Orders, 1938 No 684) relating to Golden Sq, dated 16 July 1938, is the most up-to-date covering the prescribed routes/banned turns and their signs for the exit via Lower James St into the connecting roads? The signs have certainly changed more recently than 1938, so I was wonder by what authority? Can you explain the hand-written notes, e.g. “Omitted by 2009/83” and “1973/20”? Are these orders modifying the original? May I have copies of the documents to which they refer?


Many thanks for your speedy response. I only asked as a recent reply regarding the correct direction to proceed the junction of Lwr James St/Brewer St/Sherwood St elicited the response from WCC’s Highways Support Advisor that “the road layout and traffic direction is a decision made by an unknown body or department”, which I found rather puzzling. There appears to be massive confusion over this junction, not only amongst motorists but also amongst cabbies, the police, and even WCC’s enforcers and Highways Management Dept. I quote the Highways Support Advisor’s letter:

“Looking at the road layout, signs and vehicles in the immediately vicinity I would say that once you reach the bottom of Lower James Street you can either head straight forward onto Sherwood Street or take a left onto Brewer Street. If you were not allowed down Sherwood Street there would be 'No Entry Signs' on either side of the road informing drivers.”

It seems that the document that you supplied provides the definitive answer, i.e. straight ahead into Sherwood St is the only legal route, unless it has been superseded, and this is at odds with the Highways Support Advisor’s view and that of the mobile enforcement crews. I think this misunderstanding needs to be cleared up as it appears that the mobile CCTV enforcers believe all traffic must turn left, whilst the TRO/TMO appears to show the only legal route to be ahead. Meanwhile, the junction has straight arrows pointing left to indicate God knows what; it is certainly not appropriate according to Ch3 of the TSM. The result appears to be scamera cars fining drivers for making the only legal manoeuvre and ignoring illegal ones, then issuing an unenforceable fine for doing the right thing!! Could we all have some clarity on this madness?


Westminsters Reply...


As requested, I attach copies of Orders which amended the 1938 Order. 1973/20 omits the wording relating to Air Street, and 2009/83 omits the wording for Sherwood Street. Unusually, parts of the 1938 Order remain in force and I confirm that this is the case for the item relating to Lower James Street.

As your later e-mail suggests, the current situation at this junction is causing a lot of confusion – and my colleagues and I are trying to ascertain the reasons behind what appears to be a recent change to traffic measures at this location. (I think we know the answer to that one! Loadsamoney for NSL and the Parking Dept)

Please be assured that I will get back to you as soon as I can explain the current situation.

Regards


Amanda


Amanda Jones
West One | Westminster City Hall, 64 Victoria Street


 NOTOMOB  REPLY

Thank you for your assistance. I think it might be wise to alert NSL and the Parking Services Department to the problem and advise them that, in view of the uncertainty, that mobile CCTV enforcement be suspended at this location until the issue is resolved.


END


So now we have a honey trap shown to be legally uncertain, just before Christmas we had a Minicab take Westminster to the High court over Boarding time. Hundreds of Taxi drivers have been penalized under these two issues, but what have the joint Ranks committee done about it...NOTHING


And still no sign of STaN in either the Taxi or the Bage, why have they buried it ?
If you belong to the LTDA, LCDC or Unite why not email, write or phone and find out just what they do for the money you pay them.


With kind permission of Brucea and the @NoToMob.