London Banter - View Single Post

JNugent[_5_] · April 26th 16, 06:28 PM posted to uk.transport.london

On 26/04/2016 18:19, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 25/04/2016 14:18, David Cantrell wrote:

On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 06:13:47PM +0100, JNugent wrote:

There's always been a good case for the advance booking period for a
so-called "private hire car" to be at least twenty-four hours.

No there hasn't.
Imagine, for example, that you are in an industrial estate in Peckham.
There are no black cabs cruising the industrial estate looking for
passengers.
How do you get home?

The whole reason why unlicensed* "private hire cars" (so-called) can
operate with their unlicensed* drivers is a loophole in the law which
distinguishes immediate hirings from advance bookings.

Immediate hirings - taxis.

Advance bookings - taxis (of course) *or* "private hire cars".

But unless a significant minimum period for that advance booking is
established and enforced, in practice, the law prohibiting unlicensed
plying-for-hire cannot be operated properly.

[* "licensed" here means licensed as a taxi or as a taxi-driver.]

Isn't the number of taxis limited a certain number while there are no such
limits to the number of hire cars because the law doesn't allow it?

No.

That was
certainly the situation in Cambridge until 2001, with the number of taxi
licences clearly far too few for the business on offer. I'm surprised you
would support such monopolistic practice if there is a limit.

The Transport Act of either 1995 or 2005 (I forget which, though 1995
rings the louder bell) forbade such limitation of the number of taxi
vehicles licences.

Limitation - if used (it isn't used everywhere) - now has to be
determined by quasi-scientific means. The usual method is to survey the
trade at "busy" times, whereas the correct method would be to survey the
trade at non-busy times, eg: a fine dry Tuesday mid-morning in April.