9 Year Rule Of Taxis Brought Foreward

Carstuck

I agree with you but to a point. In all fairness how many of taxis crash? OK I know it can happen to anyone, but it doesn't matter what type of car it is a lot of crashes depend on the driver, not how many stars for safety it has. Isn't the 96 taxi safer than an 09 toyota with a drunk driver?

Owen

Carstuck wrote: »

I agree with you but to a point. In all fairness how many of taxis crash? OK I know it can happen to anyone, but it doesn't matter what type of car it is a lot of crashes depend on the driver, not how many stars for safety it has.

It only takes one crash to kill someone. As for crashes depending on the driver, have you seen taxi drivers? Okay, some are alert, and know the art of car control, but most are doddery retirees who don't indicate, pull out at will, and generally ignore speed limits too.

Proof? Come to Cork on a Saturday night, and stand on a 30mph twisting road linking suburbs to the city. You'll see 20 year old cars being driven at double the speed limit at 1am through these wet roads trying to get back into town for the next fare. Throw some drunken pedestrians into the mix, and soon you'll see why it makes sense to have a car which has pedestrian safety engineered into it's crash test rating, new larger brakes with better ABS systems, and newer headlights to illuminate more of the road so pedestrians can be seen stumbling around.

What the regulator is doing is for the good of the consumer, and there can be no logical argument against it. What's in this thread instead of logical debate is a big bag of excuses.

BrianD3

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Now watch the same test with a newer toyota with a 5 star test. The cabin isn't impacted at all. In fact, when you watch the slow motion video, you'll see that the impact actually only makes it half way through the engine bay.

Should be pointed out that the new Corolla was subjected to a more severe test than the old one. Yet the new car still performed much better.

But it should also be said that some cars that do well in NCAP will be 9 or more years old in 2011 and may have similar ratings to some newer cars.
Eg a 1998 Camry has the same scores in the front and side impact (no pole test though) as a 2003-2008 Accord. Both are 4 star cars.
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/honda_accord_2003/169.aspx
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/toyota_camry_1998/52.aspx

daveharnett

Carstuck wrote: »

Isn't the 96 taxi safer than an 09 toyota with a drunk driver?

Yes, but this discussion isn't about take a taxi vs drive home yourself.

Carstuck wrote: »

OK I know it can happen to anyone, but it doesn't matter what type of car it is a lot of crashes depend on the driver, not how many stars for safety it has.

Two points:
1 - active safety features fitted to newer cars can also help prevent crashes (abs, traction control, esp etc).
2 - yes, a huge amount depends on the driver, but what use is that to us punters? We can't really assess how safe a taxi driver is based on looking at them sitting in the rank. We can make a pretty guess at how safe their car is though.

daveharnett

BrianD3 wrote: »

But it should also be said that some cars that do well in NCAP will be 9 or more years old in 2011 and may have similar ratings to some newer cars.
Eg a 1998 Camry has the same scores in the front and side impact (no pole test though) as a 2003-2008 Accord. Both are 4 star cars.
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/honda_accord_2003/169.aspx
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/toyota_camry_1998/52.aspx

It's not an apples to apples comparison. The Euro NCAP testing standards get more demanding all the time. A 1997 four star car is not as good as a 2009 four star car.

BrianD3

daveharnett wrote: »

It's not an apples to apples comparison. The Euro NCAP testing standards get more demanding all the time. A 1997 four star car is not as good as a 2009 four star car.

I didn't say anything about 2009 did I, the rating system did change signficantly for 2009.

If you can show me evidence that a 4 star 2003 (to 2008) Honda Accord was tested to a more demanding standard in the front and side impact tests than a 4 star 1998 Camry, then I'd like to see it.

Volvoboy

Another night of working in my 1996 Carina, and nobody complained, moaned, refuesed to get into my car, proof if anything that my car is still serviceable as a taxi, and should not be put off the road. Now i'll do the same i do most days, wash hoover, polish the car before i set out to work.

Owen

BrianD3 wrote: »

If you can show me evidence that a 4 star 2003 (to 2008) Honda Accord was tested to a more demanding standard in the front and side impact tests than a 4 star 1998 Camry, then I'd like to see it.

Actually, this is interesting. The R56 MINI released in 2006 was specifically built to meet the new NCAP guidelines for Pedestrian Safety which were only introduced that year. So the NCAP test does indeed evolve as we learn more about accident safety.

Carstuck

PaintDoctor wrote: »

It only takes one crash to kill someone. As for crashes depending on the driver, have you seen taxi drivers? Okay, some are alert, and know the art of car control, but most are doddery retirees who don't indicate, pull out at will, and generally ignore speed limits too.

Proof? Come to Cork on a Saturday night, and stand on a 30mph twisting road linking suburbs to the city. You'll see 20 year old cars being driven at double the speed limit at 1am through these wet roads trying to get back into town for the next fare. Throw some drunken pedestrians into the mix, and soon you'll see why it makes sense to have a car which has pedestrian safety engineered into it's crash test rating, new larger brakes with better ABS systems, and newer headlights to illuminate more of the road so pedestrians can be seen stumbling around.

What the regulator is doing is for the good of the consumer, and there can be no logical argument against it. What's in this thread instead of logical debate is a big bag of excuses.

20 year old cars driven at speed? That doesn't mean that 1-2 year old car are being driven nicely around the town, in fact drivers are more likely to drive newer cars faster as they have better performance etc. than older models. Fine they have better braking systems and all the rest but that isn't going to stop a new passat killing a person at 30-40mph. What I think should be done by the regulator is get stricker on giving licence plates to drivers as well as doing spot checks on their driving skills as you said some are poor drivers. Maybe have a standard colour, make and model car so customers won't feel ripped of getting into a merc rather than a fiat for example.

Owen

Carstuck wrote: »

Fine they have better braking systems and all the rest but that isn't going to stop a new passat killing a person at 30-40mph

Yes they will, depending on how the car is crashed. The new NCAP regulations have actual tests where a pedestrian crash test dummy is driven into. Newer car = more chance of pedestrian living if they're run into.

Carstuck

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Yes they will, depending on how the car is crashed. The new NCAP regulations have actual tests where a pedestrian crash test dummy is driven into. Newer car = more chance of pedestrian living if they're run into.

A dummy is hardly a good enough metaphor for a human. Don't say they could test to see how the dummy recovered in a few days. A 40mph impact on a human is going to give a slim chance of living no matter what. It still isn't a guarantee.

Owen

Carstuck wrote: »

A dummy is hardly a good enough metaphor for a human. Don't say they could test to see how the dummy recovered in a few days. A 40mph impact on a human is going to give a slim chance of living no matter what. It still isn't a guarantee.

All this time the NCAP people were hiring engineers, and scientists, and all they needed was to ask you? Seriously, these people know what they're at. And trying to bludgeon your point into our heads with your own homebrew ideas is no substitute for actual crash data, and people who actually do this for a living.

Carstuck

PaintDoctor wrote: »

All this time the NCAP people were hiring engineers, and scientists, and all they needed was to ask you? Seriously, these people know what they're at. And trying to bludgeon your point into our heads with your own homebrew ideas is no substitute for actual crash data, and people who actually do this for a living.

I never mentioned scientist or engineers conduct of work at all. In fact I highly respect their research (including that of my wife who is an engineer!) and the work they do in improving cars. You appear to believe that the day will come that 100mph impact won't kill a person, you're 'ideas' appear to be way out of porportion.

Owen

Show me to where I said 100mph, and you win one Internet. Seriously. When I mentioned Pedestrian Safety, we were discussing 30-40mph crashes, were we not?

Carstuck wrote: »

but that isn't going to stop a new passat killing a person at 30-40mph.

I'm not quite sure why you want to keep debating in favour of old taxis, are you a taxi driver?

Carstuck

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Show me to where I said 100mph, and you win one Internet. Seriously. When I mentioned Pedestrian Safety, we were discussing 30-40mph crashes, were we not?

Where did I say scientist & engineers should ask me instead? No, I'm not a taxi driver. Me keep debating? Doesn't it take two? Are we not even by now or near enough?

daveharnett

Carstuck wrote: »

Are we not even by now or near enough?

No tbh.

To summarise your arguments so far:
Nobody cares whether a taxi is nice or not.
Safety standards don't matter, because not many taxis crash.
Safety standards don't matter, because a car with a sober driver is safer than one with a drunk driver.
Pedestrian safety tests don't matter, because pedestrians will probably still be killed at 40mph.

Actually, I want to put inverted commas on the word 'arguments'.

daveharnett

BrianD3 wrote: »

I didn't say anything about 2009 did I, the rating system did change signficantly for 2009.

If you can show me evidence that a 4 star 2003 (to 2008) Honda Accord was tested to a more demanding standard in the front and side impact tests than a 4 star 1998 Camry, then I'd like to see it.

Sorry Brian, based on a five minute search, I can't find any evidence that the scoring criteria for the front or side impact tests changed. I'm still not convinced that they haven't shifted a little based on reading a good few test results, but in the absence of real evidence, i'll concede the point - up to 2009, they added tests, but did not alter the original ones.

I'll stand by my the underlying argument, that I'd be safer in a newer car, that has had the pole test, whiplash test than an older car that doesn't.

Blut

Werent taxi drivers demanding some method of reducing cars on the road and a creation of barriers to entry in their protest a week or two ago? Seems like this is doing exactly that and improving service quality for the consumer.

Carstuck

daveharnett wrote: »

No tbh.

To summarise your arguments so far:
Nobody cares whether a taxi is nice or not.
Safety standards don't matter, because not many taxis crash.
Safety standards don't matter, because a car with a sober driver is safer than one with a drunk driver.
Pedestrian safety tests don't matter, because pedestrians will probably still be killed at 40mph.

Actually, I want to put inverted commas on the word 'arguments'.

You seem to have misinterpretated my point. People actually do care what the taxi look like (star reading the thread again). Safety does matter, & the 'NCT' it is suppose to ensure this on older vehicles.
btw a car with a sober driver is safer than a drunk one :D

Thanks for summarizing my points, it's so efficient

Owen

The NCT is a mechanical worthiness test, not a safety test by any means.

Carstuck

PaintDoctor wrote: »

The NCT is a mechanical worthiness test, not a safety test by any means.

How about their slogan 'for cleaner, safer motoring'? If you read the introduction in their website it says 'The Directive is aimed primarily at improving road safety...' (http://www.ncts.ie/) :D

Marlow

Carstuck wrote: »

How about their sogan 'for cleaner, safer motoring'? If you read the introduction in their website it says 'The Directive is aimed primarily at improving road safety...' (http://www.ncts.ie/) :D

Correct. Road safety, in the sense that you're not driving around in an unsafe car.

They can however do nothing to the structure and engineering of your car to make it as safe as newer models/cars.

/M

Owen

2qk4u

What I dont understand is why the Taxi Regulator contradicts its self and will allow wheelchair Taxis to to stay in service after 9 years ? Where is the safety in allowing a converted van to run up half a million miles in ware and tare ? In some cases there are no airbags or abs in these vans.
A lot of Taxi users do not want to get into a wheelchair taxi unless its a night out with 7 of their mates but this is what the regulator wants more of ?
Older people and people with injuries or medical conditions cant get up the step into a wheelchair Taxi so how does this help the customer ?
I think the regulator needs to wake up.

Marlow

2qk4u wrote: »

What I dont understand is why the Taxi Regulator contradicts its self and will allow wheelchair Taxis to to stay in service after 9 years ? Where is the safety in allowing a converted van to run up half a million miles in ware and tare ? In some cases there are no airbags or abs in these vans.

Now, as far as I understand no taxi's whatsoever can be over 9 year old. No matter if wheelchair or not. However new licenses will only be granted on wheelchair taxis, as this is required and mind you .. they need to be newer than 9 years old, too.

2qk4u wrote: »

A lot of Taxi users do not want to get into a wheelchair taxi unless its a night out with 7 of their mates but this is what the regulator wants more of ?
Older people and people with injuries or medical conditions cant get up the step into a wheelchair Taxi so how does this help the customer ?

If a person can't get into a wheelchair-taxi, they probably have a problem with any car. The taxi-driver will happily help them to take that step. It's part of the service, or not ?

I can't see where your two comments have anything to do with anything ?

/M

2qk4u

Marlow wrote: »

Now, as far as I understand no taxi's whatsoever can be over 9 year old. No matter if wheelchair or not. However new licenses will only be granted on wheelchair taxis, as this is required and mind you .. they need to be newer than 9 years old, too.



If a person can't get into a wheelchair-taxi, they probably have a problem with any car. The taxi-driver will happily help them to take that step. It's part of the service, or not ?

I can't see where your two comments have anything to do with anything ?

/M

Wheelchair Taxis are exempt from the 9 year rule.

If someone cant get in they cant get in weather a driver helps them or not.

My comments are obviosly related to quality of service and safety.

Marlow

2qk4u wrote: »

Wheelchair Taxis are exempt from the 9 year rule.

If someone cant get in they cant get in weather a driver helps them or not.

My comments are obviosly related to quality of service and safety.

Well, I would have to read up on that and sure, that wouldn't be the best decision, but they might have had some thought behind it.

However it doesn't change the fact, that the overall deal is a serious improvement on the carpark used for Taxis + safety and quality for the passengers.

Why is it just, that people think a 9 year old Taxi is acceptible at all ? If you are carrying passengers, you have a responsibility. And matter of fact, there is also the factor of material tiredness. A 9 year rule is better than no rule. Overall this deal is a huge improvement to a scenario that is ridiculous enough already.

Oh .. and wheelchair Taxi's don't have to be big vans. A Fiat Scudo or similar is as easy to get into as a Ford Mondeo and a Merc. They exist as wheelchair taxis

/M

meathstevie

Volvoboy wrote: »

http://www.taxiregulator.ie/files/Model_Report_Database_02-09-09_PDF.pdf

This is a list of what is acceptable for use as a taxi.

There's some nonsense in that list as well and a hint of brand discrimination as well. Why would for example a basic petrol merc A-class be suitable as a taxi and an Opel Meriva not suitable ?

A Volvo S40 not suitable because of not enough luggage space and an Audi A4 suitable ? The difference between the luggage capacity of the two is probably a bag of sugar in the advantage of the Audi. Which has a non-existant luggage capacity compared to it's first cousin the Skoda Octavia anyway.

meathstevie

PaintDoctor wrote: »

The NCT is a mechanical worthiness test, not a safety test by any means.

And what is the prime contributor to a car's safity....drumroll....it's overall mechanical condition.

Let's see; the NCT checks : tyres, brakes, suspension, seatbelts, dashboard indicator lights ( as in airbags and break sensors etc ), exterior lighting, windscreens and wipers....do I need to continue or has all of the above no safety implications ?

Marlow

meathstevie wrote: »

And what is the prime contributor to a car's safity....drumroll....it's overall mechanical condition.

Let's see; the NCT checks : tyres, brakes, suspension, seatbelts, dashboard indicator lights ( as in airbags and break sensors etc ), exterior lighting, windscreens and wipers....do I need to continue or has all of the above no safety implications ?

It ensures that the safety, the car original had is maintained. It does not upgrade or improve the safety of the car. Still don't get it ?

In some countries there's a limit on the milage you are allowed to stick on a taxi. And after you've exceeded that milage you have to sell it and it can never be used as a Taxi again. This is supported by tax incentives.

/M

Carstuck

Marlow wrote: »

It ensures that the safety, the car original had is maintained. It does not upgrade or improve the safety of the car. Still don't get it ?

In some countries there's a limit on the milage you are allowed to stick on a taxi. And after you've exceeded that milage you have to sell it and it can never be used as a Taxi again. This is supported by tax incentives.

/M

Yes & that means that the cars are safe to drive on the roads. i.e.National Road Test (NCT)

Marlow

Carstuck wrote: »

Yes & that means that the cars are safe to drive on the roads. i.e.National Road Test (NCT)

Correct. But as a Taxi you are commercially carrying people, thus making money from transporting people and have to deliver the highest standard in safety available today.

When you buy your car as a private and that's 10-15 years, that's your choice. As a Taxi customer, you only can make that choice, by not getting into an old Taxi. The Taxi regulator now has improved the situation for that choice.

Where's your problem ?

/M

meathstevie

Marlow, I don't agree with your point that a car built let's say 5 years ago has to be by any means any safer or unsafe than one built yesterday.

Take a 1998 E300 TD Mercedes; it has airbags, traction control and ABS. Now put 150k miles on it and maintain it the way it should be maintained.

In what sense is that car going to be any more unsafe than let's say a 1.6 top of the range Lada built yesterday.

You have to compare like with like an E320 cdi of a couple of months old is going to be loaded with a lot more safety devices than the 1998 E300 TD but the bottom line is that the E300 was lightyears ahead of a lot of it's contempories and when well maintained is still going to be a safe car today.

Where I do agree with you is on the point you make about a maximum mileage cap. An upper limit of in and around 300k km would be about right for most taxi suitable cars. The likes of an Avensis, Camry, Passat, Sharan, Transporter, Superb, Octavia, C and E-class Merc etc etc with a diesel engine shouldn't throw up any significant issues when properly maintained. But the scenario becomes unstuck where the state refuses to look at taxis as commercial vehicles for fiscal purposes.

Marlow

meathstevie wrote: »

Marlow, I don't agree with your point that a car built let's say 5 years ago has to be by any means any safer or unsafe than one built yesterday.

Take a 1998 E300 TD Mercedes; it has airbags, traction control and ABS. Now put 150k miles on it and maintain it the way it should be maintained.

1998 isn't precisely 5 years ago.

The Taxi regulator did not limit you to 5 years old, but 9 years old.

If a Taxi is over 10 years old and used as intended as full time Taxi, it should have a hell of a lot more than 150k miles on there by then.

And you can't throw the Lada in the mix there, it's not on the list. You can only compare what's on the list and acceptable as a taxi !! As there is a list, the Taxi Regulator can take cars that even as new aren't considered safe enough of the list. Issue dealt with.

This legislation contains more than just a 9 year max.

/M

Owen

Completely missing the point. The NCT makes sure that the car is safe, where safe means that it still has functioning seat belts, airbags, suspension, and an engine that's not about to fail.

It was argued here, that if a car passes the NCT, it should be therefore safe for use as a taxi. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. If I bring my Aunt's 92 Starlet into the NCT, and it passes (It probably would), that means that that is still as safe as the day it was manufactured. But when it was manufactured, crash tests didn't really exist, it didn't have airbags, it didn't have ABS, crumple zones, seat belt pretensiones, or a fuel cut off switch.

So, if this passed the NCT, would you deem it an acceptable car to ferry passengers around in - passenger space obviously excluded as this car isn't a good example of a large vehicle?

I'd guess no, and *that's* why we're saying that it's important, and *responsible* to upgrade all taxis to ones which have recent NCAP ratings, and all the new and recent safety paraphenalia.

If you still think that it's okay to drive an old car as a Taxi, I just hope that when you do choose the older, less safe car on the line, that nothing happens to you in an accident, as if it does, you will definitely come off the worst.

Carstuck

Marlow wrote: »

Correct. But as a Taxi you are commercially carrying people, thus making money from transporting people and have to deliver the highest standard in safety available today.

When you buy your car as a private and that's 10-15 years, that's your choice. As a Taxi customer, you only can make that choice, by not getting into an old Taxi. The Taxi regulator now has improved the situation for that choice.

Where's your problem ?

/M

From what I gather you seem to believe an 05 car for example is unsafe to be in. In what way? It still had loads of safety features and is every bith as safe as a new car.

BrianD3

daveharnett wrote: »

Sorry Brian, based on a five minute search, I can't find any evidence that the scoring criteria for the front or side impact tests changed. I'm still not convinced that they haven't shifted a little based on reading a good few test results, but in the absence of real evidence, i'll concede the point - up to 2009, they added tests, but did not alter the original ones.

I'll stand by my the underlying argument, that I'd be safer in a newer car, that has had the pole test, whiplash test than an older car that doesn't.

Fair enough. I also don't know what incremental changes have been made, I know that the post 2002 pedestrian ratings are different than pre 2002 and that there were big changes in 2009.

BTW I very much agree with buying new cars for safety and have made numerous posts in this forum on how much safer most new cars are than 15+ year cars.

However - much of the progress in passive safety was achieved between about 1998 and 2005. Progress has slowed down signficantly since then. Eg a 2008 Renault Laguna III has virtually the same performance in EuroNCAP as a 2001 Laguna II so I don't think the old one should be ruled out for being a taxi purely because "older cars are less safe".

Also I know this car is not eligible to be a taxi but based on the obvious deformation of the passenger compartment, I'd much rather crash a 01 Laguna than a brand new one of these
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/chevrolet_aveo_2006/250.aspx

Owen

Carstuck wrote: »

From what I gather you seem to believe an 05 car for example is unsafe to be in.

Earlier in the thread, you and I discussed crashes at 30-40mph, and you accused me of discussing crashes at 100mph. Now you're doing the same thing here, putting words into Marlow's mouth - he was discussing 10-15 year old cars, and you're accusing him of saying 05 cars are unsafe.

TBH, that type of posting around here isn't welcome.

Marlow

Carstuck wrote: »

From what I gather you seem to believe an 05 car for example is unsafe to be in. In what way? It still had loads of safety features and is every bith as safe as a new car.

Would you please point out to me, where I said a 05 car was unsafe ?
Would you also please point out to me, where you can't use an 05 car as a Taxi ?

I said a 10 year car is not as safe as a new car.

Stay with the facts.

/M

steph1

A lot of good points made. However as a taxi driver your car and how you look after it also has to be taken into account.
I see a lot of taxis where the drivers just dont seem to bother looking after them. A lot of drivers put off servicing and replacing parts until they cannot do it any longer which leads to more problems and expenses. The roads in the West of Ireland are absolutely dire in parts so this also contributes to more wear and tear than say a taxi that would be used in major towns and cities where roads are generally of a very good standard.
I get my car serviced at least twice a year and if I see any warning lights I just bring it to my local mechanic to fix. I work in a rural area and the last thing I need is to be stuck some night out in the middle of nowhere.
Basically I would not put on a brand new car for use as a taxi. Thats ok for those drivers that are working in big cities and are providing 'corporate' services.
As a night driver and if you saw the state of some of the people that I bring home at night you would see my reason. They dont give a damn about my car if its a 99 or an 09 they just want to get home and of course they want to swig from a bottle of beer or eat a kebab or a dish of fried rice or curry chips and they are not too bothered if it spills all over my seats or carpet at 3am in the morning! Not that I let them :mad:
Some of the newer cars out there personally I feel are not built for the wear and tear that a taxi takes. The EClass Merc is a solid car on the road. Its comfortable for both driver and passengers and has one very important criteria - loads of legroom in the back. I had a passat before I got the merc now that was also a nice car to drive but the legroom in the back I did not think was great plus lots of problems with cv joints and links constantly having to be replaced. So when it ended up starting to cost me a small fortune I replaced it with the Merc in the knowledge that I would have until 2012 to use it. Now someone has decided that thats now to be 2011.
We are great in this country of making rules and regulations and then changing them willy nilly when it suits. Except that it does not suit me or an awful lot of other drivers out there who have seen their incomes absolutely plummet especially in the last year and a half.

meathstevie

Right, a suitable car that has passed it's NCT if that makes you happy and we have to fall back on pedantic semantics.

And in the meantime state owned transport companies haven't seen fit to supply seatbelts for their passengers yet and even allow passengers to stand up while travelling at over 50km/h in it's vehicles.

My proposal for taxis would be to remove year of registration licence plates from the vehicles and fit it's taxi licence number as licence plate for example TX22222 as it's licence plate.

That would take away from all the year of first registration foolishness altogether. In the meantime subject the vehicles to a strict mechanical and overall condition inspection annually while treating them as commercial vehicles for fiscal purposes and job done. The added advantage is that a clear distinction has been created between private vehicles and vehicles operated as PSV vehicles which makes enforcement easier.

Carstuck

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Earlier in the thread, you and I discussed crashes at 30-40mph, and you accused me of discussing crashes at 100mph. Now you're doing the same thing here, putting words into Marlow's mouth - he was discussing 10-15 year old cars, and you're accusing him of saying 05 cars are unsafe.

TBH, that type of posting around here isn't welcome.

:eek: Go back a step, I'm not 'accusing' you or Marlow of saying an 05 car is unsafe. Maslow didn't say that. I'm just giving this as an example. If thats the case you accused me of saying that engineers and scientists should ask me for advise. Where is the fact there?

Marlow

steph1 wrote: »

I see a lot of taxis where the drivers just dont seem to bother looking after them.

The deal that the taxi regulator put out there isn't covering any scenario nor is it perfect. However it improves the current situation drastically and that's what I say should count. If they see more problems afterwards, I'm sure they'll tackle them, too.

steph1 wrote: »

Basically I would not put on a brand new car for use as a taxi. Thats ok for those drivers that are working in big cities and are providing 'corporate' services.

Fair enough. But exactly for the scenario that you are describing, there are purposely build taxi's, like for example the London taxi's and others. There were other examples in the this thread earlier of taxi's, that can be hosed down in no time, if you've got somebody puking all over the place.

meathstevie wrote: »

Right, a suitable car that has passed it's NCT if that makes you happy and we have to fall back on pedantic semantics.

And in the meantime state owned transport companies haven't seen fit to supply seatbelts for their passengers yet and even allow passengers to stand up while travelling at over 50km/h in it's vehicles.

What does this have to do with the Taxi's. Stay on topic, please. We're discussing the Taxi rules here. Good or bad. Not the bus rules.

meathstevie wrote: »

My proposal for taxis would be to remove year of registration licence plates from the vehicles and fit it's taxi licence number as licence plate for example TX22222 as it's licence plate.

The year on the reg- or not doesn't mean a think to the whole safety discussion. Now you're bending the whole thing in another way again.

A taxi that is 10 or 15 years old doesn't get safer by you not having the registration year on the plate.

meathstevie wrote: »

In the meantime subject the vehicles to a strict mechanical and overall condition inspection annually while treating them as commercial vehicles for fiscal purposes and job done. The added advantage is that a clear distinction has been created between private vehicles and vehicles operated as PSV vehicles which makes enforcement easier.

Surely, that would improve the current deal and you can suggest that to the Taxi regular. Doesn't change the discussion though again. A 10-15 year car rated suitable as Taxi is not as safe as a car that's under 9 years old.

/M

Marlow

Carstuck wrote:

From what I gather you seem to believe an 05 car for example is unsafe to be in.

Carstuck wrote: »

:eek: Go back a step, I'm not 'accusing' you or Marlow of saying an 05 car is unsafe.

Hmm .. looks pretty damn close to me.

/M

Volvoboy

meathstevie

Marlow wrote: »

The deal that the taxi regulator put out there isn't covering any scenario nor is it perfect. However it improves the current situation drastically and that's what I say should count. If they see more problems afterwards, I'm sure they'll tackle them, too.



Fair enough. But exactly for the scenario that you are describing, there are purposely build taxi's, like for example the London taxi's and others. There were other examples in the this thread earlier of taxi's, that can be hosed down in no time, if you've got somebody puking all over the place.



What does this have to do with the Taxi's. Stay on topic, please. We're discussing the Taxi rules here. Good or bad. Not the bus rules.



The year on the reg- or not doesn't mean a think to the whole safety discussion. Now you're bending the whole thing in another way again.

A taxi that is 10 or 15 years old doesn't get safer by you not having the registration year on the plate.



Surely, that would improve the current deal and you can suggest that to the Taxi regular. Doesn't change the discussion though again. A 10-15 year car rated suitable as Taxi is not as safe as a car that's under 9 years old.

/M

Ok, that's your opinion. Personally I can't be convinced that a car that's 8 years and 364 days old is any better or safer than a similar car that's 8 years and 366 days old.

The only way to remove unsafe cars from the road, taxi's or otherwise, is to subject them to an inspection. In Irelands' case that's the NCT or the DOE. And if it's really blatantly unsafe like bald tyres or crap brakes notify the Gardai, driving a car in an unsafe condition is an offence called dangerous driving and has nothing to do with the Taxi Regulator.

Marlow

meathstevie wrote: »

Ok, that's your opinion. Personally I can't be convinced that a car that's 8 years and 364 days old is any better or safer than a similar car that's 8 years and 366 days old.

Absolutely. But you have to stick the limit somewhere. Be it in miles, years, whatever and they stuck it there. 9 years is a better limit, than no limit.

meathstevie wrote: »

The only way to remove unsafe cars from the road, taxi's or otherwise, is to subject them to an inspection. In Irelands' case that's the NCT or the DOE. And if it's really blatantly unsafe like bald tyres or crap brakes notify the Gardai, driving a car in an unsafe condition is an offence called dangerous driving and has nothing to do with the Taxi Regulator.

Correct. And the Taxi Regulator has upped the bar for Taxi drivers even more than the standard DOE/NCT, which improves the service to the consumer. Stricter NCT rules for Taxi's could be the next step after these changes and would be welcomed.

/M

steph1

Just to point out that taxis, hackneys and limos are already subjected to an ANNUAL Nct. And to be fair those guys at the nct really do a thorough job on taxis. I know. Every year since I started taxi driving and despite the fact that I have my car serviced and checked by my mechanic the week prior to the test I have yet to pass the Nct. I have always had to have a retest done. So I personally feel that the nct is stricter on taxis than on private cars. And I have absolutely no problem with that at all. I rather know that my car has been tested and passed out as fit for purpose.

Marlow

Ok, lets just give you an idea on how good you taxi drivers actually have it.

Denmark has a VRT of 200% on cars.

If you are a Taxi driver, this means you can buy your Taxi (only as new) on a VRT rate of 20%. The Taxi can only be sold for the use as a Taxi until it hits 250000 km on the clock. Should you sell it for a non-Taxi use before that, you need to pay the full VRT.

After the Taxi has done 250000 km, the taxi is free to be sold to anybody without any additional VRT requirement. Often the Taxi driver takes over on the car and uses them for a private car for a while.

Now .. there's a catch. You can not use the Taxi for private trips and customs require sensors in all seats installed that are connected to your taxi-meter. So once you have passengers in the car, the meter has to be running or you'll be prosecuted for tax fraud.

So even the rules, that the Taxi regulator just imposed on Taxi drivers in Ireland are nothing compared to other countries.

/M

DonJose

steph1 wrote: »

I have always had to have a retest done. So I personally feel that the nct is stricter on taxis than on private cars.

What type/mileage/year is this vehicle?