Has the Law Changed -- illegal taxi ranks etc

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.

Fattes

There is one right at the front door of Swords Garda station every night Thur - Sunday waiting for punters from the original wrights! Never any action taken so dont hold your breath.

markpb

Spook_ie wrote: »

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.

You could look at it the other way and say that if the taxis weren't there illegally in the first place, people wouldn't be able to get in them

You can spin this whatever way you want. You can blame the government, the customer or solar flares but it all boils down to one thing: those drivers are breaking the law. They're breaking the road traffic acts (as regular road users) and whatever legislation and regulations that cover them as PSVs.

cson

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

If ever I saw a strawman argument...

Anyway, on topic; I haven't been unduly affected by this practice, its been handy to walk out the door of say McDonalds on O'Connell St and straight into a cab. That being said, I would agree the Grafton St one is bordering on dangerous at this stage. Suffolk St is a mess as it is but thats a discussion for another day.

lucernarian

cson wrote: »

If ever I saw a strawman argument...

Anyway, on topic; I haven't been unduly affected by this practice, its been handy to walk out the door of say McDonalds on O'Connell St and straight into a cab. That being said, I would agree the Grafton St one is bordering on dangerous at this stage. Suffolk St is a mess as it is but thats a discussion for another day.

Christ we had better avoid mention of more shortcuts with logic lest we get more online dictionary articles!! :eek:

It's not that having an abundance of taxis leads to problems everywhere. Though in my experience of Dublin there's a strong correlation! Taxis pulled over in the middle of pedestrian crossings or in cycle lanes are some of my more harmless experiences with taxis in Dublin as a regular pedestrian and cyclist.

Meirleach

I have a lot of symptathy for taxis illegally parking, here in Athlone there's something like 16 taxi rank spaces, and 130taxis!

As long as they aren't obstructing anyone I don't have a huge problem with it.

Spook_ie

28064212 wrote: »

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.

Expected that argument, no real fault with it but still remains if people didn't get into the taxis that were parked then they wouldn't park there, it's kind of like if people didn't buy cheap goods in certain pubs etc. then there would be a decrease in burglaries because the market isn't there, however, have it your way

Spook_ie

cson wrote: »

If ever I saw a strawman argument...

Anyway, on topic; I haven't been unduly affected by this practice, its been handy to walk out the door of say McDonalds on O'Connell St and straight into a cab. That being said, I would agree the Grafton St one is bordering on dangerous at this stage. Suffolk St is a mess as it is but thats a discussion for another day.

So you'd take a taxi driver breaking the law Qing outside McDs and further encourage them, rather than walk 30 meters to your right to a legal rank on O'Connell Bridge or 30 meters across the road to a legal rank in Sackville Place or 50 meters to your left to a legal rank in Princes Street or even hailing a taxi down but of course it's the taxi drivers fault for pandering to your wishes....

Uriel.

Spook_ie wrote: »

So you'd take a taxi driver breaking the law Qing outside McDs and further encourage them, rather than walk 30 meters to your right to a legal rank on O'Connell Bridge or 30 meters across the road to a legal rank in Sackville Place or 50 meters to your left to a legal rank in Princes Street or even hailing a taxi down but of course it's the taxi drivers fault for pandering to your wishes....

No. It's the taxi driver who has parked illegally that is at fault.

The sooner the better this (de)merit system is introduced the better.

There is a high % of taxi drivers who think the rules of the road don't apply to them. Perhaps the issue of over licensing would be somewhat addressed if there was revocation of licenses for those drivers who don't abide the law

lucernarian

Spook_ie wrote: »

So you'd take a taxi driver breaking the law Qing outside McDs and further encourage them, rather than walk 30 meters to your right to a legal rank on O'Connell Bridge or 30 meters across the road to a legal rank in Sackville Place or 50 meters to your left to a legal rank in Princes Street or even hailing a taxi down but of course it's the taxi drivers fault for pandering to your wishes....

Yes of course it is! The taxi has to park illegally in the first place before the pedestrian can approach it, not the other way around.

28064212

Spook_ie wrote: »

Expected that argument, no real fault with it but still remains if people didn't get into the taxis that were parked then they wouldn't park there, it's kind of like if people didn't buy cheap goods in certain pubs etc. then there would be a decrease in burglaries because the market isn't there, however, have it your way

What are you talking about in your pubs example? Is the user in that case breaking the law? If they are, it has absolutely no relevance.

And of course you "expected that argument", it exposes the point you're trying to make for the utter nonsense that it is