In message , at 21:44:35 on Wed, 18
Jun 2014, JNugent remarked:
[in response to:]
I don't think the same vehicle can be licensed as both a hackney
carriage and hire car.

What need would there be for it?

so they can "pick up" from a rank at the new science park station

Why would the vehicle need to be licensed for private hire for that?

It doesn't, but it needs a hackney licence for the station area
(currently SC).

If the vehicle is licensed as a taxi, it creates no further advantage
for it to be additionally licensed as a PH car.

Very likely, but the "both" was concerned with a PH later getting a
hackney licence.

Hackney carriages can lawfully be used [for private] hirings, whether
within their licensed area or outside it.
There are no circumstances in which a taxi being additionally licensed
for (so-called) private hire conveys advantage to anyone.

Agreed. (Assuming of course that a hackney licence allows you to pick up
outside your area, without a private hire licence for that area).

Only on private hirings.

That's what I meant. These hackney licences seem quite powerful - being
hailed in your home territory plus being able to act as a PH anywhere in
the country without apply for or complying with the local PH licence
criteria.

What (when it's at home) is (the chimera) a "cab not licensed to ply
for hire"?

A minicab. (aka private hire).

A cab is a cab. A private hire car is something else.

The term "minicab" is in popular use. You have to live with that.

isn't it a bit of an imposition for
drivers to have to get themselves licenced so they can pick up from just
one two-hundred yard street in an entire half-a-county?

No.

The law demands more of taxi-drivers than it does of private hire drivers.

They have already complied with those demands to the satisfaction of the
Cambridge City hackney office, it seems churlish to deny them the
ability to be hailed at one specific place 200yds inside South Cambs on
the off-chance that South Cambs has something more stringent in its
hackney rules. If the corresponding rules for PH are anything to go by,
then SC would be *less* demanding than the city.

So people are suggesting solutions to this problem.

Be sure that there is one first. And be sure that the answer ("licence
some cabs under the 1847 Act" isn't quite so obvious.

There are cumbersome solution. We are looking for a simple, common-sense
one. For example, a way to allow the hundreds of City Hackneys to be
able to operate at this new place, which just happens to be a landlocked
island of South Cambs just outside the City (and only accessible by a
road to the City).

If that is the solution, it can only be achieved by a local government
boundary change.

Or put the taxi rank 200yds up the road, and make all the passengers
walk (and take that exact same cab with all its compliance with City
rules). That'll encourage them to travel by train. Not.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 18:40:27
on Wed, 18 Jun 2014, remarked:
South Cambs is a collection of what we call "necklace villages" and
their stations. I'm quite prepared to believe none [village High Streets
or stations] are big enough to warrant a taxi.

Arguably Whittlesford station would most likely merit a taxi rank. There
might be one of the station forecourt of course. That would be non-statutory.

NRES says: "Details of nearest taxis are shown on station information
poster".
--
Roland Perry

On 2014\06\19 07:53, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:40:27
on Wed, 18 Jun 2014, remarked:
South Cambs is a collection of what we call "necklace villages" and
their stations. I'm quite prepared to believe none [village High
Streets
or stations] are big enough to warrant a taxi.

Arguably Whittlesford station would most likely merit a taxi rank. There
might be one of the station forecourt of course. That would be
non-statutory.

NRES says: "Details of nearest taxis are shown on station information
poster".

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...e2ddce18?hl=en

In article ,
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2014\06\19 07:53, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:40:27
on Wed, 18 Jun 2014, remarked:
South Cambs is a collection of what we call "necklace villages" and
their stations. I'm quite prepared to believe none [village High
Streets
or stations] are big enough to warrant a taxi.

Arguably Whittlesford station would most likely merit a taxi rank. There
might be one of the station forecourt of course. That would be
non-statutory.

NRES says: "Details of nearest taxis are shown on station information
poster".

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...e2ddce18?hl=en

Quite. And we don't know if the driver was using that as a private
car at the time. I could just about believe that, if a taxi driver
were in the vicinity during rush hour, he might drop by to see if
anyone wanted one, but Whittlesford is near-deserted at other times.
Almost all regular users are commuters, who almost never use taxis
(in the sense of looking out for one plying for hire).


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 2014\06\19 11:48, Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
Basil Jet wrote:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...e2ddce18?hl=en

Quite. And we don't know if the driver was using that as a private
car at the time. I could just about believe that, if a taxi driver
were in the vicinity during rush hour, he might drop by to see if
anyone wanted one, but Whittlesford is near-deserted at other times.
Almost all regular users are commuters, who almost never use taxis
(in the sense of looking out for one plying for hire).

Although if there were no taxis licensed for South Cambs when the
picture was taken, he must have been licensed for a different area and
shouldn't have been plying for hire there, if he was plying for hire.

In article ,
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2014\06\19 11:48, Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
Basil Jet wrote:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...e2ddce18?hl=en

Quite. And we don't know if the driver was using that as a private
car at the time. I could just about believe that, if a taxi driver
were in the vicinity during rush hour, he might drop by to see if
anyone wanted one, but Whittlesford is near-deserted at other times.
Almost all regular users are commuters, who almost never use taxis
(in the sense of looking out for one plying for hire).

Although if there were no taxis licensed for South Cambs when the
picture was taken, he must have been licensed for a different area and
shouldn't have been plying for hire there, if he was plying for hire.

One can't tell. A very large number of people in South Cambridgeshire
use Cambridge taxis as private hire cars, and Roland says that there
are a few taxis licensed by South Cambridgeshire.

Whatever. There is essentially no plying for hire in South
Cambridgeshire, and won't be any in the forseeable future, despite
what some non-residents may think. The solution to the northern
station remains a simple agreement by which the two councils
agree that a taxi licensed by either are licensed by the other
for that location. No boundary changes needed, and well within
the scope of "acting reasonably and fairly".


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 2014\06\19 12:21, Nick Maclaren wrote:

Whatever. There is essentially no plying for hire in South
Cambridgeshire, and won't be any in the forseeable future, despite
what some non-residents may think. The solution to the northern
station remains a simple agreement by which the two councils
agree that a taxi licensed by either are licensed by the other
for that location. No boundary changes needed, and well within
the scope of "acting reasonably and fairly".

I believe this would also require that taxis in both areas have meters
which run at the same rate, which would require the two councils to bind
their rates together indefinitely, and hold joint meetings to set the rate.

In article ,
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2014\06\19 12:21, Nick Maclaren wrote:

Whatever. There is essentially no plying for hire in South
Cambridgeshire, and won't be any in the forseeable future, despite
what some non-residents may think. The solution to the northern
station remains a simple agreement by which the two councils
agree that a taxi licensed by either are licensed by the other
for that location. No boundary changes needed, and well within
the scope of "acting reasonably and fairly".

I believe this would also require that taxis in both areas have meters
which run at the same rate, which would require the two councils to bind
their rates together indefinitely, and hold joint meetings to set the rate.

I agree that would be an obstacle if it were true, but I rather
doubt that it is. It wouldn't be insoluble even if it were true,
as the solution would remain a simple (but binding) arrangement
between the two councils.

Of course, that's unthinkable ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In message , at 12:30:14 on
Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Basil Jet remarked:
Whatever. There is essentially no plying for hire in South
Cambridgeshire, and won't be any in the forseeable future, despite
what some non-residents may think. The solution to the northern
station remains a simple agreement by which the two councils
agree that a taxi licensed by either are licensed by the other
for that location. No boundary changes needed, and well within
the scope of "acting reasonably and fairly".

I believe this would also require that taxis in both areas have meters
which run at the same rate, which would require the two councils to
bind their rates together indefinitely, and hold joint meetings to set
the rate.

To avoid that, would it be OK if the Cambridge Hackneys didn't start
their meters until 200yds from the station and safely within the City?

In any event, 99.9% of customers would expect to be paying City rates
for a cab from that station, given its particular access arrangements.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:27:27 on
Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Basil Jet remarked:
NRES says: "Details of nearest taxis are shown on station information
poster".

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...Q!2e0!4m2 !3m
1!1s0x47d87b7c5681cfff:0xe4a7bc96e2ddce18?hl=en

Is that a taxi-rank? Looks more like general car parking.
--
Roland Perry