|
Close call?
Look, I’ve
never doubted that I have a suspicious
mind. Quite often I have found that my
suspicions were totally wrong, but
reasonably often they turn out to be
correct.
On this occasion, as the PCO sent a press release to the trade
press (which includes all the PH mags
and organisations) on the new signage
regulations for private hire, I had a
sudden feeling that we’d had a close
call.
Those regulations now mean that private hire can have roof
markings, such as Brunel have had for
some time, although signs that protrude
from the roof as in our For Hire
signs are not permitted. PH companies
can also now have signs and logos on the
rear of the vehicle that identify
licensed operators, but with a
stipulation I feel is often abused by
some operators – those vehicles that the
new regs apply to must not increase the
tinting over and above vehicle
manufacturer’s original specification …
"for the purpose of enhancing any rear
signage." Would they do that? Well the
tint on some PH vehicles is so dark that
you wonder if they’re hiding something
inside! Perhaps PCO/TfL officers who
roam the streets looking for defects
could check the level of tinting in PH
vehicles?
On the same subject, I’m somewhat concerned in an age where
paedophilia seems to be more prolific
that at any time before, that PCO / TfL
will approve signs relating to
specialised transport. So PH vehicles
that carry out a regular school run,
with prior approval of the Licensing
Authority, can display a relevant sign.
I do not approve of that idea one iota.
Can you imagine a car with a sign saying
something like Children’s School
Vehicle and a driver with
paedophilic leanings seeing some kids
waiting at a bus stop? I don’t even want
to think about it let alone write.
The bottom line is that licensed private hire vehicles can now
display the company telephone number and
/ or website address on rear
windscreens, on a single area of rear
bodywork or adjacent to the vehicle
registration number plate. They are not
allowed to display any signage along the
side of the vehicle.
Incidentally – as I’m sure any sensible person would realise – a
vehicle that is sold must remove all
signs and licenses etc. Perhaps the PCO
should include second hand car dealers
in its press releases, because many of
them either don’t know or don’t care.
Ok, so back to the beginning; why the close call? Well, as many of
you may have read here in the past, my
belief was that former Mayor of London
Ken Livingstone was considering allowing
private hire vehicles into bus lanes and
that all he was waiting for was the
formality of allowing the vehicles to
have advertising on the rear so that
CCTV would recognise them.
|
Mayor
Boris has promised Call Sign
that he will not allow that. Can you
imagine PH in bus lanes? No one will
convince me that the recent Mayoral
election allowed this trade to achieve a
close call…
Private hire vehicles and Royal Parks…
Bearing in mind the above piece, as no
vehicles other than licensed taxis are
allowed to advertise in the Royal Parks,
can we now assume that minicabs with
advertising are banned?
A Call Sign file from 2002 reported on Addison Lee MD
John Griffin appealing against a ban on
minicabs using the Royal Parks. He
claimed in court that minicabs should be
treated in the same way as the capital's
licensed taxis, which are allowed to use
the parks. However, law lords agreed
with a ruling given earlier by two High
Court judges that the ban was not
discriminatory.
This followed a £10 fine on minicab driver Harvey Phillips, who had
been given an on-the-spot fine for
driving in St James Park in January
2000. Approaching a checkpoint manned by
the Royal Parks police, he did a swift
u-turn but was stopped by a police
motorcyclist and given a £10 fine. He
refused to pay and that led to the
unsuccessful court case.
After the case, John Griffin said: "It seems that London and its
judges are in love with the black cabs,
but that is not a good reason for
discrimination. There is no good reason
whatsoever why minicabs cannot travel
through the Royal Parks in exactly the
same way as black cabs."
Then in January of this year, the PCO published a press release
confirming that nothing had changed and
that PH still cannot use the Royal
Parks. I do not think I have heard
anything since which suggests that not
to still be the case, so the PCO notice
must still stand. The message from 7
months ago (Jan 2008 Call
Sign) said:
The Regulations governing Royal Parks prohibit any vehicle
"constructed, adapted or in use for the
purpose of a trade or business" from
using roads in the Parks. There is a
specific exemption for London licensed
taxis, but this does not cover private
hire vehicles (PHVs). This means that
PHVs cannot drive in the Parks if they
are on business, for example taking
customers to or from Park venues (such
as the Zoo or the Serpentine), unless
the passenger resides in the parks.
The press release added:
|
Enforcement of this
regulation
has been variable due to the difficulty
of identifying PHVs. The licence discs
and the forthcoming red route exemption
signage makes these vehicles more
readily identifiable, thus increasing
the possible risk of a fine. We have
made clear that private hire vehicles
provide a similar public service to
taxis in many respects and urged Royal
Parks to extend the exemption to include
PHVs among the vehicles allowed to use
the Parks. In response to these
requests, Royal Parks has agreed to
review the restrictions and will be
consulting on whether to allow PHVs to
drive in the Parks in the coming months.
In the meantime the existing prohibition
remains in force.
With the new advertising regulations, I assume that PH are even
more identifiable and that the
regulations will be enforced – always
assuming that they haven’t rescinded
them without telling me! Why am I so
vindictive to our private hire friends?
Because I can be and until I can
honestly say that they are all behaving
in a correct, honest and decent manner,
then my view is that they don’t deserve
any favours - even if the PCO disagree
with that assessment.
Incidentally, the Royal Parks consist of Bushy Park, Green Park,
Greenwich Park, Hyde Park, Kensington
Gardens, Regent's Park (with Primrose
Hill), Richmond Park and St James's
Park...
And speaking of Mayor
Boris…
Gotta say I am delighted that the Mayor
has – at least for now – put the block
on his predecessor’s idea of
pedestrianising Parliament Square and
creating another traffic monster like
Trafalgar Square. I’ll happily admit
that tourists love Trafalgar Square as
it is now and even Linda and I enjoyed a
traffic-free afternoon there some time
ago. But so far as I am aware, motor
vehicles are not yet illegal and still a
necessity in order to keep London
moving. Had Parliament Square become the
latest no go area, Westminster would
have been a place for taxis to avoid
altogether.
Mercedes cab
I have written elsewhere in this issue
my views on the new Mercedes cab. My
only comment on this page is to wonder
now just how long it will be before
London becomes inundated with similar
looking "taxis" to the Vito? Mike
Holland’s TW200 looks just as nice to me
- both inside and out - except for the
lack of the turning circle and like the
Merc, it bears little resemblance to a
London taxi on the outside. But it does
carry a price tag of £15,000 less that
the Merc. A can of worms? You betcha…
Alan Fisher
callsignmag@aol.com |
