Bit harsh for taxi drivers?

Please note this sub-forum does not provide professional finance advice. You should seek advice from a licensed financial advisor.

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification.

If investing please consider our affiliate link for new accounts: Sharesies.

Forums › Finance and wealth management › Bit harsh for taxi drivers?

1 | 2 | 3

1731 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 450

ID Verified

Trusted

#462645 26-Apr-2011 17:46

rscole86:
kingjj:
bnapi: I'm surprised the police didn't get the passengers out of the taxi as it was not their vehicle and the penalty is a fine.

The Police wouldn't remove the people if they are lawful customers with intent to pay. A taxi driver refusing a fare is a civil issue not a criminal issue. The Police would only be there to keep the peace and/or broker an agreement.

IIRC Police do have the power to issue an infringement against a Taxi driver/operator for failing to take passengers. Also there are other NZTA enforcement officers (which police are part of) who can also issue infringements or start proceedings against, through the courts if required.

I will check up on that tomorrow, happy to be corrected. I was focusing more on the customer getting removed, not the fine to taxi driver.

rscole86

4999 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 462

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#462657 26-Apr-2011 18:01

Land Transport Rule: Operator Licensing 2007 [700kb pdf]

3.3(2) A driver may refuse to accept a hire if:
(a) the hirer has failed to pay the fare due for a previous hire and that fare is not paid before the commencement of the
new hire; or
(b) the driver has sought prepayment of the fare but has been refused; or
(c) the vehicle is being used in a registered service, and the prospective hire is not consistent with that service.

4.4(2) A taxi driver must, subject to 3.3(1), 3.3(2), 4.4(4), and 4.4(5), accept:
(a) any hiring offered while the vehicle is available for hire; and
(b) the hirer as a passenger and any other person that the hirer may require the driver to accept, up to the maximum
number prescribed by the certificate of loading or the number of seats provided (whichever is the lesser).

A breach of 4.4(2) above can result in,

4.4(2) Taxi driver, while available for hire, must, with certain exceptions, accept any offered hire and passenger up to the prescribed maximum [source]

Body Corporate conviction $1,000
Individal conviction $5,000
Individual Infringement $200
Body Corporate Infringement $1,000http://nzta.thomsonreuters.co.nz/DLEG-NZL-LTSA-T.LTR-81001.pdf

kingjj

1731 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 450

ID Verified

Trusted

#462659 26-Apr-2011 18:04

rscole86: Land Transport Rule: Operator Licensing 2007

3.3(2) A driver may refuse to accept a hire if:
(a) the hirer has failed to pay the fare due for a previous hire and that fare is not paid before the commencement of the
new hire; or
(b) the driver has sought prepayment of the fare but has been refused; or
(c) the vehicle is being used in a registered service, and the prospective hire is not consistent with that service.

4.4(2) A taxi driver must, subject to 3.3(1), 3.3(2), 4.4(4), and 4.4(5), accept:
(a) any hiring offered while the vehicle is available for hire; and
(b) the hirer as a passenger and any other person that the hirer may require the driver to accept, up to the maximum
number prescribed by the certificate of loading or the number of seats provided (whichever is the lesser).

A breach of 4.4(2) above can result in,

4.4(2) Taxi driver, while available for hire, must, with certain exceptions, accept any offered hire and passenger up to the prescribed maximum

Body Corporate conviction $1,000
Individal conviction $5,000
Individual Infringement $200
Body Corporate Infringement $1,000

Choice, makes it nice and clear.

rscole86

4999 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 462

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#462663 26-Apr-2011 18:07

I have omitted the fact that Taxi drivers can refuse people based on them being intoxicated, eating, disturbing the peace, or prepayment has been refused by hirer. (plus others)

billgates

4706 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 672

Trusted

#462672 26-Apr-2011 18:16

valtam:
billgates: If you want short trips and every passenger served then maybe the taxi association should make minimum bill to be $10 no matter what the distance covered is.

wtf...clearly you're ignorant of the disabled and elderly that frequently are in need of short trips to essential services. Good luck with your fascist state.

It's not so hard or difficult to have exceptions in your business. I guess you would be more that happy to pay for the elderly's min payment to the taxi drivers. What's that you are saying that 'why should I pay?' but you expect the taxi drivers to absord the costs. It's a business in the end. It's up to them to decide what's best for their business. If one company will not offer discounts to elderly's or disabled then another will.

Do whatever you want to do man.

valtam

396 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2

#462694 26-Apr-2011 18:51

billgates: I guess you would be more that happy to pay for the elderly's min payment to the taxi drivers. What's that you are saying that 'why should I pay?'

Pulling assumptions out of thin air does not help to strengthen your argument. If you're in a service related business, you cannot discriminate based on the grounds of 'whats best for your business' unless as previously mentioned the customer has in some way breached the law in which case the taxi has every right to refuse a passengers business. If you refuse service, be prepared to defend your 'whats best for your business' position in a court of law. I doubt any Judge will back you on those grounds.

Support a locally made Linux based Operating System, try Linux Lite.
Download Linux Lite

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 138

#462696 26-Apr-2011 18:52

The simple solution would be to go to the Cab at the back of the queue... He has the least to loose (in terms of his place) and gets a fare.

Surely the hirer has the right to choose which Taxi they want, for whatever reason.

kobiak

1615 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 551

Trusted

#462712 26-Apr-2011 19:36

I love my $3-4 rides from supermarket with full bags in Auckland central :) never had an issuee with drivers in fact most supermarkets have free taxi call service :)

helping others at evgenyk.nz

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#462742 26-Apr-2011 20:53

This is not new regulations for the industry. All taxi owners know it when they enter the business. Quite simple if they feel they cannot comply with the rules governing the business don't enter it or don't stay in it.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

billgates

4706 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 672

Trusted

#462750 26-Apr-2011 21:20

valtam:
billgates: I guess you would be more that happy to pay for the elderly's min payment to the taxi drivers. What's that you are saying that 'why should I pay?'

Pulling assumptions out of thin air does not help to strengthen your argument. If you're in a service related business, you cannot discriminate based on the grounds of 'whats best for your business' unless as previously mentioned the customer has in some way breached the law in which case the taxi has every right to refuse a passengers business. If you refuse service, be prepared to defend your 'whats best for your business' position in a court of law. I doubt any Judge will back you on those grounds.

what assumptions? I am not contesting the law. I am saying that Taxi federation need to sort out something for the taxi drivers.

Do whatever you want to do man.

BlakJak

1330 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 735

Trusted

#462760 26-Apr-2011 21:29

billgates, did you notice the law?

Seems cut and dried if you ask me.

No signature to see here, move along...

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

valtam

396 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2

#462768 26-Apr-2011 21:48

bill thinks that, and I quote 'the taxi association should make minimum bill to be $10 no matter what the distance covered is' that ladies and gentlemen, reeks of fail on a number of levels. Now he is trying to back pedal by saying in more general terms what should happen.

Support a locally made Linux based Operating System, try Linux Lite.
Download Linux Lite

billgates

4706 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 672

Trusted

#462769 26-Apr-2011 21:48

BlakJak: billgates, did you notice the law?

Seems cut and dried if you ask me.

Yes I did and I am not contesting it. I am saying that perhaps taxi drivers will stop refusing short runs if the min flag fall rate went up or if a min charge to the customer is setup.

Do whatever you want to do man.

billgates

4706 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 672

Trusted

#462774 26-Apr-2011 21:50

valtam: bill thinks that, and I quote 'the taxi association should make minimum bill to be $10 no matter what the distance covered is' that ladies and gentlemen, reeks of fail on a number of levels. Now he is trying to back pedal by saying in more general terms what should happen.

You obviously have no sense of arguing with someone using manners. Not going to bother with you anymore.

Do whatever you want to do man.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152
Inactive user

#462855 27-Apr-2011 08:23

I feel for the cab drivers on this one. Putting yourself in their shoes, I can see many here would be pissed at being forced to make short trips for peanuts just in the same way you don't want to do the hard yards for a small reward in your respective industries.

I really do think that the minimum fare should be set at $10 and subtract that $10 fee if the total fare passes $10, for example.

This really is a good solution. The taxi driver is guaranteed a reasonable fare and I doubt customers will have any issues with drivers refusing to play ball.

The fact that this service has been legislated is garbage. I am sure shopkeepers would not be happy if the law said they had to accept any sized payment via credit card, for example. I believe any service provider should have the right to refuse service. Those that do not are guaranteed to get more business.

1 | 2 | 3