Comments on: Labour calls on Mayor to reconsider cab safety check plans

By: thomasthetaxi

thomasthetaxi — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 01:54:10 +0000

Tawkinon Senz,
You have to stop interpreting my words to fit your own argument.
£500.00 ( two days off work and Pre-inspection at garage plus valet), my words,
2 days work + valet = £500? your words. You missed out the Pre inspection. Do you think these are free?
Try, the best part of three hundred pounds, including passing fee and valet. Now look at it again.
You say the system is not perfect, your right. It is completely flawed. It was introduced by the last administration as a way of increasing the profit of SGS. That is why this administration is going to scrap the mid term inspection, because it is an unnecessary expense.
It was Boris’s campaign pledge to the cab trade and he is to be applauded for being one of the only politicians to honour his pre election promises. Unlike the previous Mayor.
There has never been a safety issue affecting the Taxis in London through lack of maintenance.
If you personally wish to campaign on our behalf, I suggest you start with LTI and get them to make sure the vehicles they sell are safe in the first place. Having six monthly tests did nothing to stop the recent spate of engine fires.

By: TawkinSenz

TawkinSenz — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:34:46 +0000

Thomas,

Let me just get this straight….

2 days work + valet = £500?

Unless you’re drastically overpaying for your valet, that means you are earning over £200 a day which makes the £36 seem insignificant.

Maybe a better solution would be so that the inspection didn’t require 2 days off work – rather than dropping the inspection alltogether?

Unfortunately that would have required something called ‘clever thinking’ – which this administration has shown it’s not it’s strong point.
Rash moves to appease small sections of the voters is what this administration excels at.

I’m not saying the system was perfect, and it seems there are real issues – if it does take 2 days for the inspection. The solution should be to improve it, not simply drop it, but again, this would require some thought.

With regard to the rickshaw’s and private hire cab safety – well we all know rickshaws are dangerous and the private hire is not much better – but then that is reflected in the price of the ride (black cabs being far more expensive). You pay your money, you takes your choice.

…and just to clarify – Ken isn’t dead, he’s merely not mayor anymore – describing him as ‘late’ is a little premature.

By: Thomas thetaxi

Thomas thetaxi — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 04:20:31 +0000

Tawkin
What’s your middle name is it Non.
The price of an inspection is not the true coast to the driver. London cabs are maintained to the highest standard and our safety record is unequalled by any other vehicle on the road, with less than 8 passenger fatalities since the Second World War.
As I said before, this mid term inspection was not introduced to give the public a higher standard of taxi.
It was introduced to give SGS more income, they had complained to the late Mayor Ken, that their profit was not enough.
In order to give SGS an extra £36 the true cost to the driver is somewhere in the region of £500.00 ( two days of work and Pre-inspection at garage plus valet)
But money doesn’t come into it. Just this week a Ford Galaxy in Basildon crashed into the side of a house just days after a midterm safety inspection.
Every cab involved in the TX4 fires with 56 plates have had their midterm safety check and it has made no difference.
The trouble seems to be with people like yourself who have little or no knowledge of our trade sticking their nose in and coming out with stupid statements.
If passenger safety is of so much importance to the London Assembly, TFL and the PCO why do they let Rickshaw bikes ply for hire in London at night with no lights, with vehicles that are no more than death traps. Why are you not complaining about them?
BTW my vehicle is on the road for less than 8 hours a night not all the time as you suggest and we have no problem with our image, safety wise, with the public. I notice it’s only you complaining. Haven’t seen any other to back up your argument.

By: TawkinSenz

TawkinSenz — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:33:07 +0000

Thomas,
It seems that saving money is more important to you than the safety of your passengers. I just looked up the cost of this additional test – £36 a year.
Seriously – do you think it’s worth it? I wonder if your passengers would feel the same if they knew that was the price being put on their safety – especially with the cost of a black cab these days – it’s certainly a relatively small amount.
I’m afraid I don’t work in politics at all – I have a real job which is why I can see this is simply a cynical way of Boris getting the cabbies onside – which seems to be working a treat.
Which do you think will damage your living most – the £36 for the safety check – or the loss of business because the pubic perception is that taxi’s are not safe enough?
Black cabs are on the road nearly all the time – they carry members of the public and should be subject to the highest saftey levels, as should all forms of transport the public use on a regular basis.

By: THOMAS THETAXI

THOMAS THETAXI — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:48:02 +0000

Tawkin
Boris doesn’t pay for the safety checks, the drivers do, SGS/TFL will lose money by scrapping the mid term inspection.
Stop commenting on something you know nothing about and concentrate on being a London assembly member for the Labour party.
Nice anagram by the way, but fools no one.

By: TawkinSenz

TawkinSenz — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:09:58 +0000

BoBlue,
I don’t claim to be an expert with the safety of taxis. However there must be a need for regular checks if there is a possibility of them catching fire.
I know that if there was a chance of my car catching fire then I would definitely be getting it checked more than once a year – no matter what the cost.

I would also point out that the reason for withdrawing the 6 monthly check was a purely financial one too – by Boris. Even if I believed that Ken introduced it to increase the income of SGS then at least the ’side effect’ would be safer cabs. I don’t see what great benefit cutting an existing check has produced other than to improve Boris’s popularity with the cabbies.

With regard to the routemaster – you’re right I haven’t seen the new design and I’m afraid I never will because it simply won’t happen. The whole point of the RM was the ‘hop on – hop off’ ability. Something which cannot retained whilst still appeasing those passengers who aren’t as mobile. It’s a costly joke and I expect it to fizzle out once Boris sees how much it will cost to design an entire fleet of buses and phase out the bendy buses.

As for political bias – I’m afraid not. I don’t care which party runs the capital as long as it’s done well. I actually disagreed with Ken’s affiliation with the Labour party – but as a mayor he had Londoners concerns at heart.
That’s possibly because he was born and bred here – like I was – and like Boris wasn’t.

Clearly you feel that Boris’s has done a good job so far because London hasn’t burnt down yet!

By: bo blue

bo blue — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 22:38:36 +0000

Tawkin you know absolutely nothing about the safety of the cab trade that has faired very well on one safety check a year for over a hundred years. Ken did not introduce these midterm checks for safety reasons but to give SGS more income. It was purely a financial decision.
As for the new route master how can you make the comment without seeing the design?
I think your particular comment was made with a political bias against Boris and should be ignored.

By: TawkinSenz

TawkinSenz — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:38:21 +0000

To be fair…..it doesn’t look good for the public when there were no incidents during Ken’s reign, and then as soon as Boris gets in the first thing he did was drop the safety checks (to save money – or rather raise it for the routemaster idea).
Now we’re having taxi’s catching fire??
I know it’s not as bad and as widespread as the media is leading us to believe, but there must be merit in doing regular safety checks on vehicles used by the public – rather than spending the money on creating a new routemaster – which will be dropped once they discover it doesn’t conform to new disabled access legislation.

By: Roger Evans

Roger Evans — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 08:45:05 +0000

All the taxis that have caught fire are from one particular production run, and these are being overhauled. The rest of the fleet are not affected.

How typical of Labour to want to penalise everybody for the problems of the few – an approach which has characterised their 11 years in power. And how irresponsible to scaremonger in this way…

By: RICH

RICH — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 01:21:38 +0000

the black cab industry should be put back in control of the police, TFL and NU labour no nothing about this trade leave the london cabbies alone ……..