Review of Licensing Conditions for Taxis, Private Hire Cars, Taxi Drivers and Private Hire Car Drivers

(1)

Review of Licensing Conditions for

Taxis, Private Hire Cars,

Taxi

Drivers and Private Hire Car Drivers

Supplementary Report

-

Review of PCO Report

City of Edinburgh Council, Department of Corporate Services, Licensing Division

March 2006

(2)

City of Edinburgh Council Review of Licensing

Conditions for Taxis, Private Hire Cars, Taxi

Drivers and Private

Hire

Car Drivers

Supplementary Report

-

Review of PCO Report

Project No: 94281 Mar 2006 4 St Colme Street Edinburgh EH3 6AA Telephone: 0131 226 4693 Fax: 0131 220 0232

E mai I : Ed in bu rg h @c bucha nan . co

.

u k

Prepared by: Approved by:

Jonathan Campbell Appr By: Alan Howes

Status: Final Report Issue no: 1

Date: Mar 2006

Final

(C) Copyright Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited. All rights reserved.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited, no other party may copy, reproduce, distribute, make use of, or rely on the contents of the report. No liability is accepted by Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited for any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided.

Opinions and information provided in this report are on the basis of Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited using due skill, care and diligence in the preparation of the same and no explicit warranty is provided as to their accuracy. It should be noted and is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited has been made

(3)

City of Edinburgh Council Review of Licensing Conditions for Taxis etc; Report on PCO report

(4)

Page

-

1. INTRODUCTION

-

2. -

2.1 Background

-

2.2 -

2.3 Disabilitv issues

-

2.4 -

2.5 -

2.6

_I

2.7 Competitive issues

-

2.8 Safety

-

3. SLIDING DOORS

-

3.1 -

3.2 -

4.

VISIBILITY ISSUES

-

4.1 Good visibility

4.2 Disabled use

-

5.

CONCLUSIONS

THE TURNING CIRCLE REQUIREMENT

Issue of vehicle usabilitv and convenience

Environmental considerations: congestion and pollution.

Impact on taxi ranks

Comparison with other local authoritv areas

Sliding verses hinaed doors

Requirement for power assistance

1

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

(5)

City of Edinburgh Council Review of Licensing Conditions for Taxis etc; Report on

I.

1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.1.4

Introduction

Colin Buchanan have been asked to review their recommendations as laid out in their Final Report, “Review of Licensing Conditions for Taxis, Private Hire Cars, Taxi Drivers and Private Hire Car Drivers” in the light of the recent publication of the London Public Carriage Office (PCO) report, “Reconsideration of three aspects arising from the 2003 review of the Conditions of Fitness for London taxis”. These three aspects were the Turning Circle Requirement (TCR), sliding doors and visibility issues, particularly those associated with the rear window of the taxi.

The PCO report is based on 13 Terms of Reference (ToRs). These are reproduced below:

rn TOR 1 Does the turning circle requirement offer tangible, significant benefits

to the traveling public?

rn TOR 2 The practical significance of the tight turning circle; rn TOR 3 Whether London is different from other cities; rn TOR 4 Experience in other cities;

.

TOR 5 The significance of the tight turning circle to the disabled;

.

TOR 6 Advantages of alternative vehicles to the disabled;

TOR 7 Access to taxi ranks;

rn TOR 8 Traffic congestion, emissions;

TOR 9 Accidents;

.

TOR 10 Other advantages of alternative vehicles;

.

TOR 11 Competition;

TOR 12 Sliding doors, and

rn TOR 13 Visibility.

ToRs 1

-

10 address the TCR, and represents over 80% of the PCO report, reflecting the importance of this issue to the PCO. Consequently, the bulk of this report also focuses the TCR.

In addressing the ToRs, the PCO report covers each sequentially, but cross- references the issues in each TOR with the same issues cropping up in many of the other ToRs, which can make the report difficult to follow. For simplicity, although we have considered the same issues as those covered in the ToRs of the PCO report, we have not adopted the TOR approach, preferring to cover the issues on a case by case basis.

(6)

2.

2.1

2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3

2.2

2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4

The Turning Circle Requirement

Background

The Conditions of Fitness (CoF) are intended to ensure that all taxicabs in London are safe and fit for purpose. This is covered by Article 7 of the London Cab Order 1934, made under section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869. The CoF were last revised in 2003. The PCO have now completed their most recent revision of the CoF in December 2005. The PCO have stated that their starting position for this revision was that no condition operating as a barrier to

entry (of the taxi trade) should be imposed or retained, unless that condition confers benefits on customers, drivers and/or the general public, and that these outweigh the benefits of competition. They state that this approach is fully consistent with the guidance from the Office of Fair Trading.

The PCO have suggested that two elements to this review process balance against each other. The first is the benefits conferred by CoF 7 (turning circle requirement), and the second involves an analysis of the benefits which would be conferred by opening the market to alternative vehicles. The implication given here is that these are mutually exclusive scenarios. We do not agree that this is the case, the reasons for which are elaborated in this report.

Issue of vehicle usability and convenience

The PCO argues that the TCR should be retained in the licensing conditions because of its usability and convenience. The PCO's first argument is that the frequent use of the tight turning circle (TTC) signifies its convenience, where the TTC manoeuvre is used on average nine times per eight hour shift (according to

driver interviews). Vehicles without this property invariably require more road space when making a turn. This argument is elaborated in paragraph 1.3 and repeated in paragraph 1.6.

The PCO had commissioned engineering consultants, Human Engineering (HE), which concluded in their study of usability, that the London style taxi was preferred

by the majority of passengers and drivers, a point highlighted in paragraph 1.12. In addition to being more convenient and usable, the PCO considers that taxis provide a basic level of provision, and that taxis and PHVs (the London equivalent to private hire cars in Edinburgh) together provide a complementary service to meet all needs (paragraph 1.13).

To illustrate the usability (and usefulness) of taxis in terms of the frequency with which they undertook TTC manoeuvres, a Potentiometer was used in the HE study. This instrument suggested that taxis performed TTC manoeuvres

(7)

PCO report

approximately 6 times an hour, leading the PCO to conclude that the TTC manoeuvre is indeed heavily used.

2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 2.2.8 2.2.9 2.2.10 2.2.1 1

The PCO implied that the Potentiometer was unable to identify between a single sweep (U-turn) TTC manoeuvre and a 3 or more point turn (paragraph 2.17). In many cases it was noted that individual turns were recorded, several of which may be required for one manoeuvre.

The PCO admitted that it had to undertake repeated checks to remove what appeared to be multi-point turns form the data set (paragraph 2.17). This brings into serious question the integrity of the data provided, and suggests that this is far from “robust” as the PCO claims (paragraph 2.18). The reliability of the

Potentiometer in assessing the usefulness of the TTC manoeuvre is questionable, particularly in view of the significant difference in results compared with driver opinion (see para 2.2.1 above).

Criticism (by a consultee) that this study did not indicate whether the tight turn was actually necessary, whether anyone benefited, and that there was no comparison of driver behaviour was not refuted by the PCO.

In paragraph 1.13 the PCO suggests that taxis provide a basic level of service, and that PHVs provide a complementary service. The PCO appear to admit that the TTC property alone is an insufficient measure of usability and usefulness when examining suitable vehicles as taxis. Moreover, we believe that taxis and PHCs in Edinburgh provide an essentially different service from one another, and cannot be viewed as complementary in this way.

Stated preference for the London style taxi by drivers and passengers is not, we believe, a sound enough argument to retain the TCR, and by extension, the London style taxi as the sole vehicle for use as taxis in Edinburgh. The Conditions of Fitness (CoF) are intended to ensure that all taxicabs in Edinburgh (and London for that matter) are safe and fit for purpose. The focus of the licensing conditions must be on these elements and not on preferences, which may change over time. The paramount focus of the Taxi Licensing Conditions should be to ensure a safe working environment for taxi drivers, customers, and for other road users. We do

not believe that they should have any focus on the commercial interests of the taxi trade.

So, unlike the PCO, we do not consider the fact that TTC allows for a quicker turnover of passengers when picking up and dropping off passengers (paragraph 2.31), as a subject for taxi licensing. Interestingly, HE, commissioned by the PCO to look at the general usefulness of current taxi models, concluded in their study that no single vehicle provides a “best practice design” measured against all criteria for all user groups.

(8)

2.3 Disability issues

2.3.1 The enhanced manoeuvrability of the TTC is regarded by organisations

representing people with disabilities as a useful, but not vital, facility for disabled passengers (paragraph 1.15).

2.3.2 The HE study concluded most stakeholders supported the view that a vehicle with enhanced manoeuvrability is ‘probably’ useful for people with disabilities. The PCO suggests that the TTC was rarely ranked at the top of features for taxi use, and though a positive feature, it was not identified as high priority for disabled access. In fact other local authorities consider that it is more of a driver attitude and training issue than the TTC.

2.3.3 PCO states that ‘HE concluded that a vehicle or a range of vehicles that provides the greatest flexibility of choice to the user and different user groups would be the best solution’. The PCO considers that specific needs are best met by private hire vehicles. The PCO does not therefore consider that there would be overall

advantages for disabled passengers from removal of the turning circle requirement. 2.3.4 We do not recommend the approach that disabled needs should be met by the

PHC trade, as implied in the PCO report. As the TCR is not of over-riding importance for the disabled community, we do not consider disabled issues as sufficient reason for retaining the TCR.

2.4 Environmental considerations: congestion and pollution.

2.4.1 The PCO argues that removing the TTC capability from taxis will inevitably lead to additional vehicle road mileage, with proportional effects on congestion and accidents. We will address the issue of accidents under safety later in this document.

Congestion

2.4.2 When asked to identify the main benefits of the tight turning circle, only 4% of taxi drivers in London mentioned that the TTC helps avoid holding up other traffic. The London Road Safety Unit (LRSU) suggested that although there is a possibility that some U-turns would be replaced by longer journeys, this would have little effect on (road) capacity, so the impact on congestion was likely to be small.

2.4.3 The PCO accepts these results, but maintains that there will be an impact all the same in parts of Inner London, where the huge amount of tight manoeuvres are undertaken most frequently, in places where there is least slack in road capacity. We have no reason to doubt the LRSU assessment. Nor do we consider Edinburgh comparable to these parts of central London in terms of tightness in road capacity. We do not consider that removal of the TCR will have a significant effect on congestion in Edinburgh.

(9)

Pollution

2.4.4 The consultants commissioned by the PCO to study the environmental impacts of different vehicles, HE, concluded that no one vehicle was more environmentally friendly than another (paragraph 8.16). The PCO concluded that the relative emissions performance between licensed taxis and other potential taxi vehicle types was inconclusive (paragraph. 1.14).

2.4.5 In fact, the LTDA found that it was the two licensed taxis which produced the greatest quantity of NOx and particulate emissions. However, all new taxis in London must currently meet Euro 3 standards, and all taxis in London must meet this standard by July 2008.

2.4.6 Interestingly, the PCO agrees that innovation, including the adoption of new engines and other units is likely to take place more speedily in the taxi fleet if there is greater competition, and if new vehicles benefit from the investment and

resources of mass automobile production (paragraph 8.21).

2.4.7 We would suggest that Edinburgh adopt the London approach to emissions in ensuring that new taxis currently meet Euro 3 standards, and that all taxis in London must meet this standard by July 2008. We also note the PCO comment on the impact of greater competition on innovation and investment in terms of

benefiting the taxi trade, and suggest that this has a bigger effect than the retention of the TCR, especially in the long term.

2.5 Impact on taxi ranks

2.5.1 HE made a thorough study of over 500 taxi ranks in London, and the suitability of different vehicles in operating in and out of them. The study found that the overwhelming majority of ranks are operable by vehicles with a larger turning circle. Only 23 ranks require a TTC for a quick and safe operation.

2.5.2 The question is whether the difficulty experienced at this relatively small number of ranks would justify retaining the TCR. PCO concludes that difficulty for non-TTC compliant vehicles at these 23 ranks would not justify retaining the TCR.

2.5.3 However the PCO argues that moving these ranks to other locations would incur expense and possible passenger inconvenience. The TTC minimizes the need for spaces for ranks, especially in new developments where land values can be high. Moving ranks also can be problematic where ranks compete for kerb space with other uses or modes of transport.

2.5.4 The PCO concludes that these costs would not be sufficient to determine the outcome of the review, but is a contributing factor (paragraph 7.23).

2.5.5 There are approximately 80 ranks in Edinburgh. We are unable to identify any taxi rank in Edinburgh for which a TTC is essential, particularly where traffic conditions are rarely at a level experienced in parts of central London. In most cases the

(10)

prevailing road layout permits vehicles to turn around within a short distance from the rank, or the road is wide enough to allow a U-turn to be completed.

2.5.6 In Edinburgh new development in the city centre is not of the scale to require a dedicated taxi rank, and in the rare cases ranks need to be moved, we remain unconvinced that there is insufficient kerb space capacity to accommodate this where and when necessary. We do not believe that there is sufficient reason associated with rank provision to retain the TCR.

2.6 Comparison with other local authority areas

2.6.1 Of the ten UK authorities that were consulted by the PCO, the PCO found that nine did not consider the turning circle to be or still to be an issue in their circumstances, (paragraph 4.1 I).The tenth, Manchester, is maintaining its TCR but this will be up for review in due course.

2.6.2 It had been stressed to the PCO that none of the local authorities that have recently allowed alternative vehicles to the London style taxi into the taxi market has

mentioned any negative impacts on traffic flow, accidents or disabled passengers. The PCO agrees with these observations (paragraph 3.9).

2.6.3 The argument for retaining the TCR in London is based on the PCO assumption that the layout of London is essentially different from the other cities considered. A large proportion of streets are two way and relatively narrow, especially in parts of inner London. This results in a large amount of hail work taxis need to respond to (60% of taxi journeys), a large proportion of which occur from the opposite side of the street.

2.6.4 Although the PCO maintains that the proportion of hailing is higher in London than in the other nine cities, it admits that there is no survey data on street hailing outside London to support that assertion, (paragraph 3.7).

2.6.5 The PCO reports that two cities are enthusiastic about operating a range of vehicles, Leeds and Sheffield, but Leeds does not have significant hailing.

Glasgow has significant hailing, and although the city has no TCR in place, 10% of the taxi fleet has the TTC property. It is noted that compared with Edinburgh, the centre of Glasgow has a higher concentration of one-way streets where a TTC would be of limited use.

2.6.6 The PCO study found no evidence from authorities outside London that the

absence of relaxation of a turning circle requirement has given rise to an economic disbenefit. Nor do the other local authorities consulted consider that the lack of a TCR has created problems in terms of traffic flow or accessibility, including for disabled passengers. (Para. 4.18/para 4.19)

2.6.7 From our own surveys, we have found that hailing does occur relatively frequently in Edinburgh. It is unlikely that this occurs as frequently as in London, nor does Edinburgh have the density of relatively narrow two-way streets that London possesses, especially in the central part of London. We regard Edinburgh to have

(11)

more in common with the other nine cities where removal of the TCR has brought little or no problems.

2.7 Competitive issues

2.7.1 PCO supports the principles of competition, where, other things being equal, a market operating under competitive conditions should be assumed to be better than a market dominated by one or two suppliers.

2.7.2 However, the PCO contends that relaxation of the TCR could lead to the

loss

of choice (for taxi drivers) of a taxi with the TTC, (paragraph 1.15). If the purpose built taxi was no longer available because the business environment of the

manufacturers was no longer viable, then drivers would no longer have the choice of purchasing purpose built vehicles. Moreover, the PCO argues that larger vehicle producers, being geared to mass production, would not address the rather small, specialist taxi sector market (paragraph 1 .I 9).

2.7.3 The PCO also suggests that relaxation of the TCR would not be expected to

achieve a significant reduction in costs of taxi owners.

2.7.4 We find these curious arguments to make in favour of retaining the TCR. At present retention of the TCR offers no or very limited choice of vehicle type. Relaxation may well lead to loss of availability of a vehicle with the TTC, but only if this feature was not considered sufficiently important by the trade to halt the purchase of enough vehicles to ensure continued production.

2.7.5 So, in contrast to the PCO, we assert that competition will allow real choice for the vehicle that meets the needs of taxi drivers and passengers the most. Currently there is no such choice. The PCO also admits that the taxi market (currently) operates outside a competitive environment, (paragraph 1 .I 7)

2.7.6 There is no evidence that larger vehicle producers would be unable to meet the requirements of the taxi trade. We would argue that freeing up the market would permit innovation. Furthermore, there is apparent confusion in the PCO report, which admits that mass production of alternative vehicles provides the benefits derived from greater investment and faster product development, (paragraph 10.33). The implication being that this scenario is equally applicable to the taxi market.

2.7.7 With respect to the costs of each type of vehicle upon relaxation of the TCR, decision on vehicle purchase should be made by the taxi driver alone, unfettered by a highly distorted environment. Taxi licensing conditions should have no bearing on commercial decision making of taxi drivers.

2.7.8 As a regulator, the PCO admits that it is wholly unable to enquire into the rationale behind particular commercial decisions. If the TTC did not confer significant benefits, its retention would not be justified. Nor is the PCO able to take into account the commercial consequences that a supplier may face, (paragraph 11.29). Therefore, even if removal of the TCR resulted in the withdrawal from the

(12)

market of the vehicle with this property, this should be of no concern to the regulator.

2.8

2.8.1 2.8.2 2.8.3 2.8.4 2.8.5 2.8.6 2.8.7 2.8.8 2.8.9

Safety

We consider safety the critical issue for the retention or abolition of the TCR in the Taxi Licensing Conditions. One of the main reasons the PCO advances for retaining the TCR is that the removal of the TTC of taxis will lead to a proportional increase in accidents, (paragraph 8.10).

The PCO points out that drivers perceived the 3 point-turn to be more dangerous manoeuvre than a U-turn (paragraph 9.19), although the PCO admitted there was no statistical evidence to back this up.

The PCO also quotes a DtT study which suggested that it is safer to undertake U- turns by taxi drivers than for pedestrians to cross busy roads for pick-ups and drop- offs, (paragraph I .22).

This view is not universally held. TRL concluded in their August 2002 report that ”...the turning circle requirement was a false safety feature which encourages reckless and unsafe manoeuvres in increasingly congested and dangerous driving conditions in London”.

The PCO counters the TRL findings by pointing out that they are based on a comparison between taxi and car manoeuvres that were unweighted by the number of U-turns undertaken by each type of vehicle. In addition, in the TRL report, U-turns and 3 point-turns were undifferentiated.

HE, working on behalf of the PCO, gathered statistics from the STATS 19 database comparing taxi and car U-turn accidents in a number of cities. For each city, including those with no TCR, taxi U-turn accident rates were consistently higher than car U-turn accident rates. The PCO suggests that this trend may be entirely attributable to taxi drivers’ behaviour compared with car driver behaviour. There is no doubt that conducting a U-turn in busy streets, whether by car or in a taxi, cannot be considered a totally safe manoeuvre.

It was also noted in the PCO report that there had been no reported negative effects on road safety following the introduction in other major cities of alternative vehicles unable to conduct the TTC manoeuvre. Even the PCO concluded that there is no evidence either way regarding the safety risks of U-turns against 3 point turns (paragraph 11.12 j).

If it is was shown that the TRC was unequivocally unsafe, we would recommend a licensing condition that forbids the use of U-turn manoeuvres by taxis. However, we agree with the PCO conclusions that there is no over-riding evidence either way regarding the safety risks of U-turns against 3 point turns. Nevertheless, unlike the PCO, we do not consider this a reason to retain the TCR.

In any case, all vehicles used as taxis must meet the appropriate standards for European Whole Vehicle Type approval. This includes vehicles used as taxis that

(13)

do not have the TTC property. Although very useful, the results from our surveys, our consultation exercise and the details and arguments from the PCO report reviewed above have not persuaded us that the TCR is essential to the taxi trade in terms of providing a safe working environment. Given that its inclusion may be detrimental to the broader interests of the trade, especially in the longer term, we adhere to our original recommendation that Condition 181 should be removed from The City of Edinburgh Council's taxi licensing conditions.

2.8.10 We believe that mandatory retention of the TCR only serves to ossify the structure of the taxi trade to the detriment of taxi drivers, by reducing their choice of vehicle which they can potentially call upon to serve their trade, and of customers, by reducing their opportunity to benefit from this choice.

(14)

PCO report

3. Sliding doors

3.1 Sliding versus hinged doors

General use

3.1.1

3.1.2

3.1.3

The PCO draws attention to the D f f & LTI views which are that hinged doors are easier to operate, offer support for all passengers, and are closer to the

passengers in the vehicle, making them easier to use. The PCO also point out that two-thirds of taxi drivers state that they prefer hinged to sliding doors, bearing in mind that none had had professional experience of sliding doors.

Those taxi drivers stating preference for hinged doors cited problems of repair of sliding doors and ease of use. The third of taxi drivers citing a preference for sliding doors did so on the grounds of safety, ease and speed of use. One of the main advantages of sliding doors is that they do not intrude into road space when opened, so are likely to cause fewer problems to passing traffic, and they obviate the need to reach out and shut the doors.

In practice, sliding doors are accepted as a common feature of many current vehicles. Cities which have taxis with sliding doors have not mentioned problems with them. Safety concerns regarding exit of passenger from a vehicle with sliding doors are ameliorated in most cities where these types of vehicle have warning lights which light up on disembarkation of passengers.

Disabled Access

3.1.4 Comparing hinged and sliding doors, several stakeholders preferred the sliding doors because of improved aperture. As noted above, the principal concern rested on the maintenance of the sliding door mechanism.

3.2 Requirement for power assistance

General usability

3.2.1 The London Review of Conditions of Fitness in 2003 dictated that if taxis are fitted with sliding doors, then they should be power operated.

3.2.2 HE was commissioned to look at the powering of sliding doors. They concluded that the usability of sliding doors could be significantly improved through further ergonomic assessment and simple engineering design, even before considering power assistance. In fact, this may make power assistance unnecessary.

(15)

3.2.3 They also found that driver assistance may also reduce the requirement for powered doors.

Disability use

3.2.4

3.2.5

3.2.6

Disability groups gave mixed views as to the usefulness of power assistance. Some stakeholders considered that power operating makes them easier to use, but those representing the visually impaired thought power reduced the sensory feedback when opening and closing the door.

The PCO noted that the comparison between sliding doors and hinged ones in terms of usability is due to design factors rather than the sliding mechanism alone. Having considered the reports, the PCO does not intend to retain the condition requiring power assistance of passenger doors at this present time. (Apparently superseding the 2003 review of Conditions of Fitness.)

We stand by our recommendation in our previous report that we do not consider sliding doors should be the subject of a licensing condition. However, we acknowledge the point made by the PCO regarding the importance that design factors and driver behaviour may have on reducing the need for power assistance. On consideration, we therefore withdraw our ancillary recommendation made in our previous report that sliding doors should be powered.

(16)

I

4,

Visibility

Issues

4.1 Good visibility

General

4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.1.5

4.2

4.2.1 4.2.2

In order to meet safety concerns, the London Review of Conditions of Fitness in 2003 introduced a requirement for a single-piece rear window for London taxis. Two particular areas were addressed. Firstly, to ensure that there is adequate visibility for drivers through rear window, especially when reversing and, secondly, to ensure good visibility for passengers into and out of the passenger compartment,

(paragraph 13.26).

HE examined issues of visibility, and concluded that as the presence of passengers and passenger head rests would reduce the visible area to the driver, this renders the difference between taxis with one piece rear window and those with split rear windows as minimal. HE also pointed out that all vehicles operating as taxis in the

UK, were tested by and met the EC Whole Type Approval requirements. The

PCO

appears to reject HE’s findings and are requesting HE to frame a condition that reflects its own view that split rear windows are less safe than split rear windows. The PCO states that “where there is good reason, a licensing authority (LA) should not be deterred from imposing restriction over and above those imposed by national and international regulations”.

The PCO regards HE’s view that passengers block rear view visibility as of limited validity bearing in mind the fact that London taxis carry on average only 1.6

passengers. This is a rather odd argument made by the PCO as it could be used as the basis for a licensing condition prohibiting taxis from carrying more than two passengers at a time.

HE does acknowledge that most drivers and passengers preferred the visibility out of the LTI vehicle than some alternative vehicles, but this appears to refer to general visibility rather than the view out of the rear of the vehicle.

Disabled use

Visibility outwards for wheelchair users was poor for all vehicles tested owing to the high position that wheelchair users take within the vehicle. However, the RNlB commented that, for severely visually impaired people, many actually prefer restricted visibility into the vehicle which they regard as reducing their vulnerability to possible attack (paragraph 13.20).

As visibility for wheelchair bound passengers is poor out of all taxis regardless of make, this is a generic problem of taxis carrying this type of passenger, and not an issue that can readily be addressed by licensing conditions. Whether this is of

(17)

sufficient concern to be addressed by licensing conditions in the first place is also debatable. We therefore do not see disability as pertinent with regard to visibility issues in the context of reviewing Edinburgh’s taxi licensing conditions.

4.2.3

4.2.4

The PCO draws attention that none of the nine other local authorities consulted had safety concerns over split rear windows, (paragraph 13.1 5). Considering this argument, together with that presented above regarding the general lack

of

visibility due to passengers and head rests preventing an unobstructed rear view, we stand by our original recommendation that we see no reason for introducing a

licensing condition prohibiting split rear windows.

As we pointed out in our original report, split rear windows are common in many other vehicles, including those operating as PHCs, minibuses and small vans, and which do not face any particular safety issue in this regard. In addition, taxi drivers tend to rely on their wing mirrors when required to undertake manoeuvres that need good rear visibility.

5. Conclusions

5.1.1 Colin Buchanan were asked to review their recommendations as laid out in their Final Report, “Review of Licensing Conditions for Taxis, Private Hire Cars, Taxi Drivers and Private Hire Car Drivers” in the light of the recent publication of the Public Carriage Office (PCO) report, “Reconsideration of three aspects arising from the 2003 review of the Conditions of Fitness for London taxis”.

5.1.2 The results from our surveys, our consultation exercise, the details and arguments from the PCO report reviewed above have not persuaded us that the TCR is essential to the taxi trade in terms

of

providing a safe working environment. Given that its inclusion may be detrimental to the broader interests of the trade, especially in the longer term, we stand by our original recommendation that Condition 181 be removed from Edinburgh Council’s taxi licensing conditions.

5.1.3 We also stand by our original view that we do not consider sliding doors should be subject of a licensing condition. We acknowledge the importance that design factors and driver behaviour may have on reducing the need for power assistance. As a result we therefore withdraw our ancillary recommendation made in our previous report that sliding doors should be powered.

5.1.4 Split rear windows are common in many other vehicles in general use on public roads which do not face any particular safety issue in this regard. In addition, taxi drivers tend to rely on their wing mirrors when required to undertake manoeuvres that need good rear view visibility. This is because passengers themselves often

present obstacles themselves to good rear view visibility. These points, together with the fact that none of the nine other local authorities consulted by the PCO had safety concerns over split rear windows means we remain with the view that we do not see any reason for suggesting a licensing condition that prohibits split rear windows as a condition of fitness applicable to the taxi-driver trade.

Review of Licensing Conditions for Taxis, Private Hire Cars, Taxi Drivers and Private Hire Car Drivers