Taxi licensing and complaints

On Feb 3, 8:13*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
Mark Goodge considered Thu, 03 Feb
2011 18:42:09 +0000 the perfect time to write:



On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 08:12:54 -0600, put
finger to keyboard and typed:

In article
,
(Richard Thrippleton) wrote:

My long memory of this group informs me that a few people here have
madecomplaintsabouttaxidriver conduct to the city council'staxi
licensingdepartment in the past. I'm wondering if their experiences
tally with mine. At the start of the year I tried writing to complain
about some poor driving I'd witnessed by an identifiabletaxi, and got
the response that as I wasn't a ``fare-paying passenger'' my complaint
could not be taken.

What I recollect from older threads on here is that they used to
happily takecomplaintsfrom members of the public and use patterns of
complaints(not single allegations) to decide on formal action. Do I
remember wrong, or has there been some bemusing change of policy?

I've already advised the Cambridge Cycling Campaign about this, as
their ``problems'' webpage refers people to thelicensingdepartment
forcomplaintsabout bad driving.

The Council tends only to act on convictions orcomplaintsfrom
passengers. So if you weren't a passenger and the driving was criminal,
you'll have to complain to the police, I fear.

That's not entirely unreasonable, really. It's consistent with how any
other professional driver is regulated. If, for example, the driver of a
courier firm drives so badly that my package is damaged in transit, then I
can take it up with his employer and get redress. Equally, if the driver of
a courier firm drives so badly that he breaks the law then the police can
take action. But if I merely happen to see a van being driven badly, but
not quite criminally, and it isn't carrying any of my goods, then there
isn't necessarily anything I can do about it. Some trucks and vans, of
course, have contact numbers on to report instances of bad driving, but
that's equivalent to reporting ataxidriver to the firm he works for. The
council isn't the employer oftaxidrivers, and therefore it doesn't have
any reason to intervene unless ataxidriver is either driving illegally or
is generatingcomplaintsfrom his customers.

Bull****.

The council is the REGULATOR, and has a duty and an obligation to
REGULATE.

If the *******s won't do anything about thetaxidriver risking
people's lives by dangerous driving, book him to take your kids on a
trip, then report him for kiddy-fiddling. *He'll never drive ataxi
again.

Incitement to comit illegal act reported.

On Feb 6, 1:24*pm, Paul Clarke wrote:
On Feb 3, 8:13*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:





Mark Goodge considered Thu, 03 Feb
2011 18:42:09 +0000 the perfect time to write:

On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 08:12:54 -0600, put
finger to keyboard and typed:

In article
,
(Richard Thrippleton) wrote:

My long memory of this group informs me that a few people here have
madecomplaintsabouttaxidriver conduct to the city council'staxi
licensingdepartment in the past. I'm wondering if their experiences
tally with mine. At the start of the year I tried writing to complain
about some poor driving I'd witnessed by an identifiabletaxi, and got
the response that as I wasn't a ``fare-paying passenger'' my complaint
could not be taken.

What I recollect from older threads on here is that they used to
happily takecomplaintsfrom members of the public and use patterns of
complaints(not single allegations) to decide on formal action. Do I
remember wrong, or has there been some bemusing change of policy?

I've already advised the Cambridge Cycling Campaign about this, as
their ``problems'' webpage refers people to thelicensingdepartment
forcomplaintsabout bad driving.

The Council tends only to act on convictions orcomplaintsfrom
passengers. So if you weren't a passenger and the driving was criminal,
you'll have to complain to the police, I fear.

That's not entirely unreasonable, really. It's consistent with how any
other professional driver is regulated. If, for example, the driver of a
courier firm drives so badly that my package is damaged in transit, then I
can take it up with his employer and get redress. Equally, if the driver of
a courier firm drives so badly that he breaks the law then the police can
take action. But if I merely happen to see a van being driven badly, but
not quite criminally, and it isn't carrying any of my goods, then there
isn't necessarily anything I can do about it. Some trucks and vans, of
course, have contact numbers on to report instances of bad driving, but
that's equivalent to reporting ataxidriver to the firm he works for. The
council isn't the employer oftaxidrivers, and therefore it doesn't have
any reason to intervene unless ataxidriver is either driving illegally or
is generatingcomplaintsfrom his customers.

Bull****.

The council is the REGULATOR, and has a duty and an obligation to
REGULATE.

If the *******s won't do anything about thetaxidriver risking
people's lives by dangerous driving, book him to take your kids on a
trip, then report him for kiddy-fiddling. *He'll never drive ataxi
again.

Incitement to comit illegal act reported.

Who to? The police or his ISP? Just curious.

I see that Ian Jackson hasn't yet commented...I wonder whether he
condones Lee's suggestion? I suppose that if he does, he might not
want to say so in public...probably wise :-)

I still can't find the words to properly express how disgusted and
appalled I am at what Lee has said. Just when you think you've seen
it all from the car-haters. This surely shows that for some of them,
*anything* goes when it comes to punishing those awful awful drivers.

On Feb 7, 5:55*am, Nuxx Bar wrote:
On Feb 6, 1:24*pm, Paul Clarke wrote:





On Feb 3, 8:13*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:

Mark Goodge considered Thu, 03 Feb
2011 18:42:09 +0000 the perfect time to write:

On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 08:12:54 -0600, put
finger to keyboard and typed:

In article
,
(Richard Thrippleton) wrote:

My long memory of this group informs me that a few people here have
madecomplaintsabouttaxidriver conduct to the city council'staxi
licensingdepartment in the past. I'm wondering if their experiences
tally with mine. At the start of the year I tried writing to complain
about some poor driving I'd witnessed by an identifiabletaxi, and got
the response that as I wasn't a ``fare-paying passenger'' my complaint
could not be taken.

What I recollect from older threads on here is that they used to
happily takecomplaintsfrom members of the public and use patterns of
complaints(not single allegations) to decide on formal action. Do I
remember wrong, or has there been some bemusing change of policy?

I've already advised the Cambridge Cycling Campaign about this, as
their ``problems'' webpage refers people to thelicensingdepartment
forcomplaintsabout bad driving.

The Council tends only to act on convictions orcomplaintsfrom
passengers. So if you weren't a passenger and the driving was criminal,
you'll have to complain to the police, I fear.

That's not entirely unreasonable, really. It's consistent with how any
other professional driver is regulated. If, for example, the driver of a
courier firm drives so badly that my package is damaged in transit, then I
can take it up with his employer and get redress. Equally, if the driver of
a courier firm drives so badly that he breaks the law then the police can
take action. But if I merely happen to see a van being driven badly, but
not quite criminally, and it isn't carrying any of my goods, then there
isn't necessarily anything I can do about it. Some trucks and vans, of
course, have contact numbers on to report instances of bad driving, but
that's equivalent to reporting ataxidriver to the firm he works for. The
council isn't the employer oftaxidrivers, and therefore it doesn't have
any reason to intervene unless ataxidriver is either driving illegally or
is generatingcomplaintsfrom his customers.

Bull****.

The council is the REGULATOR, and has a duty and an obligation to
REGULATE.

If the *******s won't do anything about thetaxidriver risking
people's lives by dangerous driving, book him to take your kids on a
trip, then report him for kiddy-fiddling. *He'll never drive ataxi
again.

Incitement to comit illegal act reported.

Who to? *The police or his ISP? *Just curious.

I see that Ian Jackson hasn't yet commented...I wonder whether he
condones Lee's suggestion? *I suppose that if he does, he might not
want to say so in public...probably wise :-)

I still can't find the words to properly express how disgusted and
appalled I am at what Lee has said. *Just when you think you've seen
it all from the car-haters. *This surely shows that for some of them,
*anything* goes when it comes to punishing those awful awful drivers.

Humourless gang of idiots. Get a life!

On Feb 7, 8:56*am, TimB wrote:
Humourless gang of idiots. Get a life!

Oh, it was a joke was it? I'm sure Lee will be along shortly to
confirm that. Or not.

On Feb 7, 9:06*am, Nuxx Bar wrote:
On Feb 7, 8:56*am, TimB wrote:

Humourless gang of idiots. Get a life!

Oh, it was a joke was it? *I'm sure Lee will be along shortly to
confirm that. *Or not.

Lee is a joke

On Feb 7, 9:06*am, Nuxx Bar wrote:
On Feb 7, 8:56*am, TimB wrote:

Humourless gang of idiots. Get a life!

Oh, it was a joke was it? *I'm sure Lee will be along shortly to
confirm that. *Or not.

Looks like "or not" since he's been posting elsewhere. Good to be
sure that the condemnation was warranted. Ian Jackson has also posted
elsewhere but has not objected to Lee's advice.