Has the Law Changed -- illegal taxi ranks etc

AlekSmart

Has the law relating to Taxi Rank use changed ?

I specifically refer to the situation at the bottom of Grafton St/Suffolk St.

It now appears that a Taxi Rank now exists across the Pedestrian Crossing and further along Suffolk St itself.

Allied to this is the requirement for TaxiDrivers to pull sharp (and mostly sloppy) Turnabouts on the very narrow stretch between Grafton and Dawson Streets.

This is not so much about Taxi Drivers themselves,as the carry-on being so fully displayed here has largely become par-for-the-course in the Taxi "Industry" now.

However,it does have a significant amount to do with that equally appropriate topic Law Enforcement,and specifically the suggestion by Garda Representatives that they are stretched to the limits.

The numbers of Gardai who pass the Junction on foot,motorcycle,horseback,bicycle,segway or in cars and vans is quite staggering,in addition to the baleful presence of a Garda Specific CCTV Camera monitoring the junction 27/7.

Yet,despite the very obvious and dangerous nature of the situation it is rare to see any action being taken.

This lack of interest has emboldened the Taxi Driving fraternity to push the boundaries in an ever increasing manner.

Personally I have no problem with this,or any location,simply being given over totally to the Taxi Trade,BUT,I want it made clear to every other road user and pedestrian that the Law has been changed or suspended to facilitate the Taxi Trade.

UDP

I have seen taxis done for trying to squeeze in to the taxi rank outside specsavers when there was not enough room to fully fit in a number of times.

Actually I think you might be talking about the loading bay to the front of the Porterhouse? But going beyond that space all the way up to the pedestrian crossing?

Poochie05

Also seems to be accepted practice to REVERSE over the pedestrian crossing outside the Shelbourne Hotel at Merrion Row to join the queue from the other end. Several times I've seen people nearly get a surprise as they are looking in the direction of the oncoming traffic :eek:

Losty Dublin

AlekSmart wrote: »

Has the law relating to Taxi Rank use changed ?

I specifically refer to the situation at the bottom of Grafton St/Suffolk St.

It now appears that a Taxi Rank now exists across the Pedestrian Crossing and further along Suffolk St itself.

Allied to this is the requirement for TaxiDrivers to pull sharp (and mostly sloppy) Turnabouts on the very narrow stretch between Grafton and Dawson Streets.

This is not so much about Taxi Drivers themselves,as the carry-on being so fully displayed here has largely become par-for-the-course in the Taxi "Industry" now.

However,it does have a significant amount to do with that equally appropriate topic Law Enforcement,and specifically the suggestion by Garda Representatives that they are stretched to the limits.

The numbers of Gardai who pass the Junction on foot,motorcycle,horseback,bicycle,segway or in cars and vans is quite staggering,in addition to the baleful presence of a Garda Specific CCTV Camera monitoring the junction 27/7.

Yet,despite the very obvious and dangerous nature of the situation it is rare to see any action being taken.

This lack of interest has emboldened the Taxi Driving fraternity to push the boundaries in an ever increasing manner.

Personally I have no problem with this,or any location,simply being given over totally to the Taxi Trade,BUT,I want it made clear to every other road user and pedestrian that the Law has been changed or suspended to facilitate the Taxi Trade.

Alek, there isn't any law differential at play here and yes, there is some road law breaking aplenty within this section of motorists.

Mind you, I see lots and lots of law breaking from white vans, Micra's, Puntos, BMW's, push bikes, black vans, mopeds, blue cars, yellow cars, rickshaws, trucks, buses etc etc so it's not only PSV drivers who are let off the hook here

CreepingDeath

AlekSmart wrote: »

Has the law relating to Taxi Rank use changed ?

I specifically refer to the situation at the bottom of Grafton St/Suffolk St.

No, the law hasn't changed and neither has the taxi drivers attitude to it.

I always laugh when the traffic corp pull up and catch them or move them on.
But usually, they're all on the look out, and pull off sharpish as soon as they see the guards coming.

stop

CreepingDeath wrote: »

No, the law hasn't changed and neither has the taxi drivers attitude to it.

I always laugh when the traffic corp pull up and catch them or move them on.
But usually, they're all on the look out, and pull off sharpish as soon as they see the guards coming.

Perhaps a penalty point or two might ram the message home?
Alas no desire on the Gardai to do more than wave one or two away it seems

mikemac1

It seems to be accepted practice on Aston quay to double park beside the rank and throw the hazards on.
Lights turn green, cars come thundering down the quays and they quickly find a lane blocked.


It was also accepted practice for a taxi to stop at the end of the rank and reverse up onto the footpath.
A bit mad to be standing on the footpath waiting to cross the road and a taxi inching up towards you. Hey, I'm not moving, tap me if you want.
Doesn't happen so much anymore as the council have put a speed limit sign on the footpath

aphex™

I rang up to complain about the unofficial regular nightly taxi rank outside Doheny and Nesbit on Merrion row during the week. I pointed out that they block a whole lane and park on double yellows.

I was a bit surprised at the response. Essentially, they go up and issue a few tickets and leave and in 5 mins the place will be jammed with taxis again.

Basically, the taxis have won the battle for the streets

corkonion

there are simply too many taxis on our streets. In most countries taxis help with ease of traffic flow and environmental issues, but here its the opposite. Simply because of the huge number of taxis we get traffic jams, less parking places and it is just ugly to see line after line of taxis decorating every part of our cities. I do have sympathy for the drivers, but something needs to be done to lessen the numbers, and when that is achieved more strenuous enforcement can be applied.

LXFlyer

I genuinely think there is a need for penalty points for this - it's getting beyond a joke.

Losty Dublin

lxflyer wrote: »

I genuinely think there is a need for penalty points for this - it's getting beyond a joke.

Penalty points for illegal parking is not going to go down well with motorists, period.

lost marbles

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Penalty points for illegal parking is not going to go down well with motorists, period.

penalty points for taxi drivers are on the way [demerits ] in the new taxi bill currently before the dail . illegal ranking is covered with a fine of €40 plus one "demerit " eight demerit points and a driver loses his spsv licence for three months .

LXFlyer

I am not talking about ordinary motorists - I am talking about taxis.

It is frankly getting out of hand in the city centre and something needs to be done about it.

monument

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Penalty points for illegal parking is not going to go down well with motorists, period.

Is that a reason for not doing it?

I would see the points only applied when illegal parking is causing an obstruction -- the likes of parking on footpaths, at crossing, too close to junctions and in bus and cycle lanes -- not just parking in a parking space without paying.

Losty Dublin

lost marbles wrote: »

penalty points for taxi drivers are on the way [demerits ] in the new taxi bill currently before the dail . illegal ranking is covered with a fine of €40 plus one "demerit " eight demerit points and a driver loses his spsv licence for three months .

Wasn't aware of this coming in; interesting to hear of it.

LXflyer wrote:

I am not talking about ordinary motorists - I am talking about taxis.

It is frankly getting out of hand in the city centre and something needs to be done about it.

I am acutely aware that it is out of hand. My point remains ignored here; taxi's are not the only vehicles who are illegally parking in the city, not by a long shot. It's proper, regular and consistent motor law enforcement that is needed, not selective and additional laws.

Spook_ie

Just playing Devils Advocate....

How many people that are complaining about the parking etc. Just a year or so ago were complaining about taxi drivers wanting a cessation on the issue of plates?

markpb

Spook_ie wrote: »

Just playing Devils Advocate....

How many people that are complaining about the parking etc. Just a year or so ago were complaining about taxi drivers wanting a cessation on the issue of plates?

Is it too much to ask that taxi drivers obey the law, even if they're in dispute with the regulator about the number of plates issued?

LXFlyer

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Wasn't aware of this coming in; interesting to hear of it.


I am acutely aware that it is out of hand. My point remains ignored here; taxi's are not the only vehicles who are illegally parking in the city, not by a long shot. It's proper, regular and consistent motor law enforcement that is needed, not selective and additional laws.

They aren't the only ones, of course they aren't, but something needs to be done that will put an end to it. Frankly I don't think the existing laws are sufficient - they patently are not due to the flagrant way in which taxis are parking in bus stops, across pedestrian crossings, etc. etc.

oisindoyle

aphex™ wrote: »

I rang up to complain about the unofficial regular nightly taxi rank outside Doheny and Nesbit on Merrion row during the week. I pointed out that they block a whole lane and park on double yellows.

I was a bit surprised at the response. Essentially, they go up and issue a few tickets and leave and in 5 mins the place will be jammed with taxis again.

Basically, the taxis have won the battle for the streets

Who exactly did you complain to and what was their response that "surprised "you so much?

Spook_ie

markpb wrote: »

Is it too much to ask that taxi drivers obey the law, even if they're in dispute with the regulator about the number of plates issued?

Just still playing Devil's Advocate.......

Why? People decided that they wanted more taxis competing for less business, therefore they are going to break whatever laws they can get away with, be that speeding, parking, plying for hire outside of your local chip shops, refusing short fares after Qing for an hour, after all they still need to make a living or would you prefer they didn't make a living?

People asked for more taxis, people got more taxis, people are still complaining

the groutch

Spook_ie wrote: »

People asked for more taxis, people got more taxis, people are still complaining

who are these "people" of which you speak?

vandriver

the groutch wrote: »

who are these "people" of which you speak?

Everyone who tried to get taxis on a regular basis before deregulation.

Richard Logue

Spook_ie wrote: »

Just still playing Devil's Advocate.......

Why? People decided that they wanted more taxis competing for less business, therefore they are going to break whatever laws they can get away with, be that speeding, parking, plying for hire outside of your local chip shops, refusing short fares after Qing for an hour, after all they still need to make a living or would you prefer they didn't make a living?

People asked for more taxis, people got more taxis, people are still complaining

First off, how can you play Devil's Advocate when you're a Taximan?

Taxi drivers are not above the law and if any taximan thinks that they are, then they should be stripped of their licence.

devnull

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Penalty points for illegal parking is not going to go down well with motorists, period.

Good. The huge problem at the moment is that people will do the illegal parking as the Guard will just come over and say don't do it again, and then they'll do it five minutes later around the corner etc, or the next day, and be told exactly the same thing. People know this and use that to their advantage.

If we adopted a far less accepting approach with proper sanctions and punishments people would soon stop doing it when they know they'll get some points or a fine as they'd want to avoid that. Whether motorists like it or not is irrelevant at the end of the day, if they don't like it, there is a very easy way to avoid it. By complying with the rules.

Therefore they are going to break whatever laws they can get away with, be that speeding, parking, plying for hire outside of your local chip shops, refusing short fares after Qing for an hour, after all they still need to make a living or would you prefer they didn't make a living?

Do I really see a post encouraging someone to break the law. Nobody is forced to drive a taxi, although in Ireland you'd swear they were the way some of them went on. The fact is there isn't enough enforcement in this country of such rules and in any other European country I've been to there would be much less tolerance than the authorities have here and the taximen wouldn't dare do some of the things they did here as they would be punished, and not told "don't do it again bud"

Spook_ie

Richard Logue wrote: »

First off, how can you play Devil's Advocate when you're a Taximan?

Taxi drivers are not above the law and if any taximan thinks that they are, then they should be stripped of their licence.

I can play Devil's Advocate if I like.....

In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with

lucernarian

Spook_ie wrote: »

I can play Devil's Advocate if I like.....

Of course you can to your heart's content, he's just remarking on how stupid it sounds for a taxi driver to play devil's advocate in this situation. Are you seriously telling us that you're taking a position you do not necessarily agree with? Please.

Spook_ie

devnull wrote: »

Good. The huge problem at the moment is that people will do the illegal parking as the Guard will just come over and say don't do it again, and then they'll do it five minutes later around the corner etc, or the next day, and be told exactly the same thing. People know this and use that to their advantage.

If we adopted a far less accepting approach with proper sanctions and punishments people would soon stop doing it when they know they'll get some points or a fine as they'd want to avoid that. Whether motorists like it or not is irrelevant at the end of the day, if they don't like it, there is a very easy way to avoid it. By complying with the rules.



Do I really see a post encouraging someone to break the law. Nobody is forced to drive a taxi, although in Ireland you'd swear they were the way some of them went on. The fact is there isn't enough enforcement in this country of such rules and in any other European country I've been to there would be much less tolerance than the authorities have here and the taximen wouldn't dare do some of the things they did here as they would be punished, and not told "don't do it again bud"

Hmmmm, no you are reading into it something which isn't there.

There is a rhetorical question at the end though of should people break the law to feed, clothe and house their families given that to make a living with the amount of taxis some breaking of the law goes on.

Similar argument to should you punish someone for stealing a loaf of bread

Spook_ie

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Of course you can to your heart's content, he's just remarking on how stupid it sounds for a taxi driver to play devil's advocate in this situation. Are you seriously telling us that you're taking a position you do not necessarily agree with? Please.

Seeing as I don't work Dublin city centre I have no need to park across from Nesbits or across the bottom of Grafton Street so Yeah I can play Devil's Advocate

Mr Simpson

The taxi regulator are a mess.

I'll give you one example, I made a complaint using their eform last week. Do you think I've even got an automated response acknowledging my complaint? Of course not

runawaybishop

Spook_ie wrote: »

There is a rhetorical question at the end though of should people break the law to feed, clothe and house their families given that to make a living with the amount of taxis some breaking of the law goes on.

If your business isn't sustainable/viable why are you still in it? A non-viable business is not entitled to break the law to stay afloat.

Uriel.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Hmmmm, no you are reading into it something which isn't there.

There is a rhetorical question at the end though of should people break the law to feed, clothe and house their families given that to make a living with the amount of taxis some breaking of the law goes on.

Similar argument to should you punish someone for stealing a loaf of bread

Perhaps.... in a country that has no social supports.

Ireland is a country arguably overburdened with such supports. So no there should be no absolution for breaking the law in this regard.

Spook_ie

runawaybishop wrote: »

If your business isn't sustainable/viable why are you still in it? A non-viable business is not entitled to break the law to stay afloat.

I'm still in it because I'm still allowed to be in it

Spook_ie

Uriel. wrote: »

Perhaps.... in a country that has no social supports.

Ireland is a country arguably overburdened with such supports. So no there should be no absolution for breaking the law in this regard.

Not in reality is there support for self employed business's, no JSA to leave the industry, no FAS to allow retraining etc. etc.

I know of a taxi driver in Swords who didn't renew his license in late December 2012, he surrendered his SPSV drivers license and allowed the license on his vehicle to lapse, he's still waiting on SW to pay something ( anything! )

runawaybishop

Spook_ie wrote: »

I'm still in it because I'm still allowed to be in it

You can stay in a non-viable business if you wish, though i do not know why you would choose to do so. Doesn't mean you can break the law though.

Spook_ie

runawaybishop wrote: »

You can stay in a non-viable business if you wish, though i do not know why you would choose to do so. Doesn't mean you can break the law though.

Being a Devil's Advocate doesn't necessarily involve breaking the law

Uriel.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not in reality is there support for self employed business's, no JSA to leave the industry, no FAS to allow retraining etc. etc.

I know of a taxi driver in Swords who didn't renew his license in late December 2012, he surrendered his SPSV drivers license and allowed the license on his vehicle to lapse, he's still waiting on SW to pay something ( anything! )

I think self-employed are often treated appallingly but...
Jobseekers Allowance, Supplementary Welfare Allowance, Potential for Medical Card and social housing depending on circumstances...

lucernarian

Spook_ie wrote: »

Seeing as I don't work Dublin city centre I have no need to park across from Nesbits or across the bottom of Grafton Street so Yeah I can play Devil's Advocate

Yeah, a terrible one. Go read my post again as you haven't understood it, nor the general concept of a "devil's advocate". You're not taking a stand on something you don't necessarily agree with... In fact you seem to entirely agree with the points you've made so far!! And you're biased too, being a taxi driver in Dublin.

So try not to shove this nonsense of "people wanting more taxis" down our throats, it was a govt. decision and mainly motivated by the PDs and sympathetic FFers like Noel Dempsey. There was relatively quiet public lobbying for complete and sudden deregulation as being the solution to the lack of taxis. The public at the time didn't care that much about the issue and hindsight is 20/20 etc.

In reality there should have been a substantially increased number of licences given out in phases, with a removal of the cap maybe 8 years after the decision was announced. Or something along these lines. But then if the rules for owning and running a taxi were up to the standards seen in other countries (e.g. actually passing an exam on street and city knowledge) then perhaps there wouldn't be so many taxis now either...

Uriel.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Yeah, a terrible one. Go read my post again as you haven't understood it, nor the general concept of a "devil's advocate". You're not taking a stand on something you don't necessarily agree with... In fact you seem to entirely agree with the points you've made so far!! And you're biased too, being a taxi driver in Dublin.

So try not to shove this nonsense of "people wanting more taxis" down our throats, it was a govt. decision and mainly motivated by the PDs and sympathetic FFers like Noel Dempsey. There was relatively quiet public lobbying for complete and sudden deregulation as being the solution to the lack of taxis. The public at the time didn't care that much about the issue and hindsight is 20/20 etc.

In reality there should have been a substantially increased number of licences given out in phases, with a removal of the cap maybe 8 years after the decision was announced. Or something along these lines. But then if the rules for owning and running a taxi were up to the standards seen in other countries (e.g. actually passing an exam on street and city knowledge) then perhaps there wouldn't be so many taxis now either...

That's all fine, but whether the industry is open to anyone, a small(er) group of individuals, whether there's 1,000 taxis nationally or 100,000, it doesn't mean the law can be broken.

Going way off topic now, but like you allude to, I would much rather see a stricter regime for gaining a licence (exam etc...) and a much stricter regime regulating those with a licence.

Spook_ie

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Of course you can to your heart's content, he's just remarking on how stupid it sounds for a taxi driver to play devil's advocate in this situation. Are you seriously telling us that you're taking a position you do not necessarily agree with? Please.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Yeah, a terrible one. Go read my post again as you haven't understood it, nor the general concept of a "devil's advocate". You're not taking a stand on something you don't necessarily agree with... In fact you seem to entirely agree with the points you've made so far!! And you're biased too, being a taxi driver in Dublin.

So try not to shove this nonsense of "people wanting more taxis" down our throats, it was a govt. decision and mainly motivated by the PDs and sympathetic FFers like Noel Dempsey. There was relatively quiet public lobbying for complete and sudden deregulation as being the solution to the lack of taxis. The public at the time didn't care that much about the issue and hindsight is 20/20 etc.

In reality there should have been a substantially increased number of licences given out in phases, with a removal of the cap maybe 8 years after the decision was announced. Or something along these lines. But then if the rules for owning and running a taxi were up to the standards seen in other countries (e.g. actually passing an exam on street and city knowledge) then perhaps there wouldn't be so many taxis now either...

You seem to have a very restrictive view of a Devil's Advocate, for your perusal I give you the Free Dictionary definition, I don't believe being a taxi driver precludes me from being a Devil's Advocate, however much you may not like it!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/devil's+advocate

Now the Advocates argument is that the people of Ireland got what they wanted, a deregulated taxi industry with access to as many taxis as they liked with no queuing so therefore they are now reaping the results of the seeds they planted

28064212

Spook_ie wrote: »

Now the Advocates argument is that the people of Ireland got what they wanted, a deregulated taxi industry with access to as many taxis as they liked with no queuing so therefore they are now reaping the results of the seeds they planted

Maybe the Irish People™ thought that the laws in place about illegal parking were sufficient and expected that, regardless of whether there's 100 taxis or 100,000, such laws would be enforced? Deregulation does not give taxis free reign to break whatever laws they want. If you can't make a living without breaking laws, then you're in the wrong business

runawaybishop

Spook_ie wrote: »

Being a Devil's Advocate doesn't necessarily involve breaking the law

Except you stated that they would break the law, if i misread you feel free to correct me.

Spook_ie

runawaybishop wrote: »

Except you stated that they would break the law, if i misread you feel free to correct me.

They would doesn't necessarily mean that I would, you have no concept of what a Devil's Advocate actually is

runawaybishop

Spook_ie wrote: »

They would doesn't necessarily mean that I would, you have no concept of what a Devil's Advocate actually is

Feel free to correct me. Or continue to make obtuse comments, its all the same to me at the end of the day.

lucernarian

Spook_ie wrote: »

They would doesn't necessarily mean that I would, you have no concept of what a Devil's Advocate actually is

This devil's advocate stuff is pompous waffle. If you've something to add to the argument, why not drop the pretense and admit that you're making points which are your own and that you agree with them entirely. It's not really good enough to wave "devil's advocate" around as you're basically calling for the law to be ignored.

Spook_ie

runawaybishop wrote: »

Feel free to correct me. Or continue to make obtuse comments, its all the same to me at the end of the day.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

This devil's advocate stuff is pompous waffle. If you've something to add to the argument, why not drop the pretense and admit that you're making points which are your own and that you agree with them entirely. It's not really good enough to wave "devil's advocate" around as you're basically calling for the law to be ignored.

What is it with you two, you have no real concept of the term Devil's Advocate or what?

lucernarian

Spook_ie wrote: »

What is it with you two, you have no real concept of the term Devil's Advocate or what?

Why don't you state your opinion instead of claiming it's just devil's advocate or whatever?? Or at least defend why you advocate ignoring the law?

runawaybishop

Spook_ie wrote: »

What is it with you two, you have no real concept of the term Devil's Advocate or what?

Couldn't care less about it.

Is this your correction?. Do you have anything to add to the discussion?

Eponymous

Looks to me like a taxi driver has taken this thread wildly off course. Much like taxi drivers are known to do...

Congrats on derailling the thread.

oisindoyle

Eponymous wrote: »

Looks to me like a taxi driver has taken this thread wildly off course. Much like taxi drivers are known to do...

Congrats on derailling the thread.

Well if you look back at any previous threads on taxi issues ,you will find that it is those who are not drivers that take the thread widley off course.

Spook_ie

Why have I taken it wildly off course?

I agree that there is a problem with illegal parking/ranking etc. but I can categorically say the problem is caused by the users of the taxis. If people didn't take the taxis parked across the bottom of Grafton St or parked on the opposite side of any of the legal ranks then there wouldn't be any illegal ranks. However, like most people the users of the taxis are far too lazy to actually put up their hands and hail a taxi down or God forbid actually walk to an official rank

28064212

Spook_ie wrote: »

I can categorically say the problem is caused by the users of the taxis

Most people get the taxi at the front of the rank. Most illegal parking happens at the back of the rank. So I can categorically say that's just utter nonsense.

Not to mention the fact that even if it was true, the users are not doing anything illegal. The taxi drivers that park illegally are. So once again, it's an utter sham of an argument.