Motorcycle Taxis and Transport for London

Remember a thread a little while ago about Transport for London
banning motorcycle taxis? Well, I went to their web site and
complained, and I've just received a response.

I'm pleased that I've got such a detailed response, and also that the
door still appears to be open. I'm less pleased that someone
somewhere has equated "motorcycle" with "unsafe" without question.


--------------------------
Thank you for your email. I am sorry for the delay in responding.

Each phase of private hire licensing (operator, driver and vehicle)
has been introduced only after two extensive rounds of public
consultation in respect of the proposed regulations for each phase.
With regard to private hire vehicle licensing, the first public
consultation document was published in August 2001 and this was
followed up with the second consultation document published in April
2003. On both occasions, the document was circulated to around 4,000
consultees who included all licensed or temporary permit private hire
operators (including motorcycle taxi operators), private hire trade
associations, London local authorities and MPs and a variety of groups
with an interest in the provision and use of private hire services in
London.

The primary purpose of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 was
to improve the safety of passengers who use private hire vehicles.
Section 7(2) of the 1998 Act requires the Licensing Authority, amongst
other things, to be satisfied that a vehicle is safe, comfortable and
in a suitable mechanical condition, before issuing a licence. It was
our view that vehicles constructed with fewer than four road wheels
were not suitable for licensing on the basis that the Public Carriage
Office (PCO), on behalf of TfL as the Licensing Authority, could not
regard such vehicles as a 'safe' form of 'hire and reward' transport.
Both consultation documents included the proposal that, in order to be
considered for licensing as a private hire vehicle in London, all
vehicles must be constructed and 'type approved' to category M1. The
documents further stated, explicitly, that Category M1 included a
requirement for a minimum of 4 road wheels.

It should be noted that the public consultation exercises did not
generate any appreciable support for the inclusion of motorcycles or
three-wheeled vehicles within the licensing regime. On this basis, the
regulation requiring vehicles to satisfy category M1 was adopted.

However, given that this is clearly a very specialist market, we are
currently reviewing this position and we are arranging to meet with
all four motorcycle taxi operators and, hopefully, establish a
consensus around the criteria and standards the Licensing Authority
might reasonably expect from the operators, the bikes and the riders.
We can then make some informed decisions as to whether exemptions to
the M1 vehicle category (ie minimum of 4 road wheels) should be
granted.

This issue is still very much ongoing but I hope this helps explain
some of the background behind the situation. Thank you again for
letting us know your views.

Regards,

Matthew Bland
Transport for London
--------------------------

--
Please add "imo" to above post.
Champ
GSX-R 1000, GPz 750 turbo, ZX7RR Endurance Racer x 2
GYASB#0 BotToS#2 BOTAFO(T|F)#35 WG*#1 DFV#8
Team UKRM Racing : www.team-ukrm.com

 

You may not; however, others may chose differently, so who is TfL to
decide that no one gets the choice?

Given that crossing the road has an inherent danger, I hope TfL aren't
going to ban all dangerous transportation.

--
Please add "imo" to above post.
Champ
GSX-R 1000, GPz 750 turbo, ZX7RR Endurance Racer x 2
GYASB#0 BotToS#2 BOTAFO(T|F)#35 WG*#1 DFV#8
Team UKRM Racing : www.team-ukrm.com

 

I think that bikes are unsafe. It's the degree of acceptable risk which
informs my decision to ride them. though.

 

so they're going to ban the rickshaws around Covent Garden/Leicester
Square too then?

If not, I'd like to know why the **** not.

 

Bikes aren't unsafe per se (note: owners of old Kawasaki H1s and the
like are permitted to disagree at this point).

They don't suddenly decide: "Oh, **** it, I think I'll crash today...."
They're as safe, or as dangerous, as the rider.

However, they are very unforgiving of any error and they do require a
higher degree of operator skill than a car if you want to avoid (a)
collision and (b) injury resulting from same.

 

Gettin on the back of a Taxibike by Virgin is a different kettle of fish
to getting in the back of Amal's Bluebird so he can take you to the
nearest off-licence.

Did you read it? It said they're looking at it again.

 

*Ding*

 

What I think we are demonstrating is that is no obvious divide between
safe and unsafe transport, but a continuum ranging from naked
unicycling while juggling chainsaws to being driven around in a
Chieftan tank.

The point at which any one person decides to draw the line is quite
personal to them, and not the job of TfL to decide on everyone's
behalf.
--
Please add "imo" to above post.
Champ
GSX-R 1000, GPz 750 turbo, ZX7RR Endurance Racer x 2
GYASB#0 BotToS#2 BOTAFO(T|F)#35 WG*#1 DFV#8
Team UKRM Racing : www.team-ukrm.com

 

I agree with that point entirely. I don't think that bikes are
particularly dangerous either - but even minor prangs can result in
serious injuries. I don't think I'd ever describe bieks a safe, though.

 

Haven't they already tried that, and lost the battle in the courts?

 

As you are one of the founding members of BHaL camp I do find it odd
that you have any issue whatsoever with the bunch of BHaLs that is Ken's
coterie taking decisions like this on your behalf. Surely you want a
society that is better for everyone and much safer and not controlled by
a bunch of Tory loving pro choice people which would be the alternative
to Super Ken?

Welcome to the world of TfL.

 

My point is that there aren't just any old taxibikes, but I'm bound to
be proved wrong. The only ones I know of are professionals that are part
of a larger courier / taxi / limo company.

 

*ding*

Everything you do, have done or might do in the future is bad for you
*and* for society and you need our help to protect yourself / society.

 

**** nose. All I know is they're a bloody liability.

 

I suspect that in this day of litigation they probably feel that they have a
responsibility to ensure that vehicles that they are licensing are as safe
as possible (for certain values of safe as possible, obviously)

I can just see the ambulance chasers queuing up to act on behalf of idiots
that can't make their own risk asessments.
--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
Alfa 116 Giulietta 3.0l (Really) Sprint 1.7 75 2.0 TS
Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

IIRC, some of the Taxibike services employ ex-coppers or those that
have passed their advanced test.

 

says...

When my mum and I went looking round bike shops prior to my 17th
birthday, my Mum expressed her concerns about bikes being dangerous with
Bob King at his dealership. Bob straight-faced said, "Mrs Birkett, I've
never heard of a motorcyclist having to be cut from the wreckage of his
machine, nor have I ever seen a motorcycle have an acident all on its
own, there was always an idiot on board"

I miss Bob, RIP.

 

darsy says...

Cos anyone who gets in a fucking rickshaw is some kind of 'up
themselves' **** and deserves to have an accident.

 

So why are you all, to the best of my knowledge, Labour party voters?
Labour seems to be spending a disproportionate amount of its time
creating more rules and regulations and fines / penalties where they are
not needed and yet pandering to the appalling temptations of business to
deregulate things that actually need appropriate regulations and
safeguards?

Are you all saying you should really be libertarian Tories on the basis
of your rebuttal above?

Yours confused of Walthamstow

 

Prolly Addy Lee.

Pretentious twats.