Foreign taxi drivers set to face language tests before gaining a licence after customers complained they couldn’t have a conversation with them

  • So-called ‘L test’ could be rolled out in Bradford to check driver’s language
  • They will have to understand common questions, including about weather
  • Council found many drivers are not able to have chit-chat with passengers
  • Many customers also request a ‘driver who speaks English’ when ordering

Taxi drivers will face language tests to ensure their English is up to scratch, after customers complained they couldn’t have a conversation with them.

The so-called ‘L-test’ could be rolled out in Bradford after council officials found many drivers could not chat to their passengers about common taxi subjects, such as the weather.

They found that customers’ attempts at routine chitchat – such as ‘Busy tonight mate?’ – were often met with a puzzled silence from the other side of the glass.

A language test is set to be rolled out across Bradford to ensure taxi drivers have good enough English to have a conversation with passengers (file picture)

A language test is set to be rolled out across Bradford to ensure taxi drivers have good enough English to have a conversation with passengers (file picture)

It comes as taxi and minicab bosses in the West Yorkshire city revealed that they are often asked by customers to have ‘a driver who speaks English’.

Until now, drivers have had little to do to convince licensing officers they have mastered English as a second tongue.

The rules say they must show a ‘basic understanding’ of written and spoken English, which could be demonstrated by reading a paragraph out of paperback or filling in a receipt for a trip.

But under proposals set to be approved by councillors this week, drivers will have to sit a ‘conversation test’ before being granted a licence.

They will have to show they understand a series of common questions asked by a council worker.

Licensing Manager Carol Stos said: ‘The current new driver process is that an applicant needs to read a paragraph from a book and complete a receipt for a perceived journey.

‘A new procedure is proposed which requires an applicant to answer normal conversational questions such as, “What do you think of the weather recently? Where did you take your last customer? How do get from A to B?”‘

UKIP Leader Nigel Farage said he hoped other councils around the UK, including London, would follow Bradford’s lead.

UKIP Leader Nigel Farage said he hoped other councils around the UK, including London, would follow Bradford's lead (file picture)

UKIP Leader Nigel Farage said he hoped other councils around the UK, including London, would follow Bradford’s lead (file picture)

He said: ‘Travelling by taxi is expensive and one of the compensations is a good chat and a good laugh.

‘I myself have travelled in many cabs in London with reputable companies who have Romanian drivers using sat-nav barely able to converse a word with me.

‘Speaking the language is a high requirement for an integrated society. So I would say Bradford is entirely within its rights to do this.’

 The public do often say, ‘We want a driver that can speak English’
 Khurram Shehzad

Wayne Casey, admin officer for the industry’s National Taxi Association, said licensing officers should be able to tell when someone has the required standard of English.

He said: ‘Being able to communicate with a passenger is important. It is common sense.

‘Reading one paragraph out of a book does not sound that clever. But a lot of it is down to the licensing officers themselves.

‘They should be able to tell when someone can’t speak good English and tell them to come back when they can. But council’s do not work like that – it is far too simple.’

Khurram Shehzad, chairman of the Bradford Private Hire Liaison Service, said: ‘It is in the interests of the public.

‘Some drivers may know how to drive but when they have a customer in the car they can’t have a conversation.

‘The public do often say, “We want a driver that can speak English”. So we do get requests like that.’

Source: Daily Mail

Thinking of buying an Electric Taxi, think again : Something for you to ponder on…by Jim Thomas.

Has anyone at TfL or the Mayors office, considered the detrimental affect on the drivers health, sitting on top of a massive battery power pack, as used in electric vehicles?

Has anyone bothered to measure the radiation levels given out by such a power pack

What research has been done to show the effects of sitting on a battery pack like the one above (Standardbatteryinc) for 8-10 hours a day.

Cover Up?

Like the effects on people’s health from smoking that was covered up for many years, they’ve known about certain health risk issues involved with the production and use of electric vehicles.

A report from the National Research Council shows that the energy required to produce electricity and batteries makes electric cars and hybrids more harmful to human health than oil based energy vehicles.

This report only recently came to light from Ucilia Wang, dated October 19, 2009.

Electric cars and plug-in hybrids pose more hazards to your health than gasoline vehicles.

That’s right. The energy needed to produce electricity and batteries – from harvesting raw materials to burning coal to produce power – renders these low or zero-emission cars more costly to human health, said a report by the National Research Council released on Monday. To a lesser extent, the damage also impacts areas such as grain crop and timber yields, as well as recreation.

The research council set out to paint a fuller picture of the impact of energy production and use in the United States by determining costs that are not typically reflected in the market pricing for energy and related goods. These costs, instead, generally come from the damage caused by things such as air and water pollutants.

Impact from corn ethanol production was similar or “slightly worse” than gasoline because turning corn into fuel takes more energy, the report said.

Electric and plug-in hybrid cars also aren’t as “green” as they appear. While these cars produce less or no emissions, they are run on power from fossil fuels, the report said. Manufacturing batteries and electric motors also takes up quite a lot of energy.

The report concluded that the non-climate damage caused by manufacturing and operating electric/hybrid cars was “somewhat higher” than other types of cars in 2005, and the same trend would continue towards 2030. However, for those seeking a more traditional, cost-effective option, exploring used cars in rancho cordova might offer reliable alternatives with a lower environmental footprint associated with manufacturing new vehicles.

Buying a used car can save you money, provide the same satisfaction as a new car, and provide quality transportation for many years. Choose Autozin for a seamless used car buying experience! Our extensive inventory and commitment to customer satisfaction set us apart.

This report from the BBC.

Electric cars ‘pose environmental threat’

Electric cars might pollute much more than petrol or diesel-powered cars, according to new research.

The Norwegian University of Science and Technology study found greenhouse gas emissions rose dramatically if coal was used to produce the electricity.

Electric car factories also emitted more toxic waste than conventional car factories, their report in the Journal of Industrial Ecology said.

Big impact

The team looked at the life-cycle impact of conventional and electric vehicles.

In essence, they considered how the production, the use and the end-of-life dismantling of a car affects the environment, explained co-author Prof Anders Hammer Stromman.

“The production phase of electric vehicles proved substantially more environmentally intensive,” the report said, comparing it to how petrol and diesel cars are made.

“The global warming potential from electric vehicle production is about twice that of conventional vehicles.”

And this latest report in the Blaze

Study: ‘Green’ Cars More Harmful to the Environment Than Gas-Powered Vehicles?

Electric cars may actually be more harmful to the environment than gas-powered vehicles, possibly invalidating the entire purpose of “green” cars, according to a recent study on the subject.

Researcher Ozzie Zehner says electric cars lead to hidden environmental and health damages and are likely more harmful than gasoline cars and other transportation options,” UPI reports, citing Zehner’s recent work in the journal IEEE Spectrum.

“Electric cars merely shift negative impacts from one place to another,” writes Zehner, who is a visiting scholar at the University of California, Berkeley.

“Most electric-car assessments analyze only the charging of the car. This is an important factor indeed,” he adds. “But a more rigorous analysis would consider the environmental impacts over the vehicle’s entire life cycle, from its construction through its operation and on to its eventual retirement at the junkyard.”

He goes on to argue that political and business interests have worked harder to give the appearance that “green” cars are better for the environment than actually making sure “green” cars are better for the environment.

“Upon closer consideration, moving from petroleum-fueled vehicles to electric cars starts to appear tantamount to shifting from one brand of cigarettes to another,” Zehner said.

The study’s author, was at one point a major supporter of “green” energy initiaves.

He “has since changed his position and become an activist looking at a number of so-called green initiatives,” the report concludes.

But Boris will probably ignore all these reports, much in the same way he has ignored the Defra and Kings reports which told him categorically, that the newer taxis he was pushing into service were giving out more harmful pollution in the form of NO2 and NOx than the older vehicles he was scrapping under his age limit policy.

I’m sure Frazer Nash have thoroughly tested all aspects of electro magnetic force fields and electro magnetic radiation (EMR), wink wink.

Prospective drivers for these vehicle have to take into account the amount of time they will be sitting on top of these battery packs. It has to be taken into account how long you will be sitting on top these time bombs. This isn’t like personal transport you use for half an hour a day. Some drivers will be sitting on top of these battery packs for 8 to 10 hours a day.

Constant exposure to EMR is dangerous to health. Would you buy a house under a nation grid high voltage pylon?

Of course you will be told “they’re perfectly safe”. There will be reports from so called environmental experts telling you it’s really quite safe. Probably the same experts who told the Mayor that scrapping older Taxis would cut pollution.

Before the war when we were told, smoking is good for you. Teachers and even doctors smoke. After the war we were told it’s perfectly safe for families to be housed in prefabs made mainly from asbestos sheeting.

The government knew about the health dangers associated with asbestos in 1912 but did and said nothing.

Now anyone dealing with this stuff has to dress in a spacemans suit to deal with it.

Will Taxi drivers in the future be forced to wear anti EMR uniforms to be safe at work?

Safe…my arse

And my arse won’t be sitting on one of these environmental time bombs.

Further reading

The Longterm Effects of ElectroMagnetic Radiation

www.globalhealingcenter.com › … › Health Hazards To Know About

Electromagnetic radiation causes tissue damage by releasing electrons in the … the fact that radiation from cellular devices is demonstrated to be dangerous.

 

Dangers of Electromagnetic Radiation — Juicing For Health

Dangers of Electromagnetic Radiation. You don’t see it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there. Don’t overlook the invisible killer. Avoid them where possible.

Source : TaxiLeaks

One in seven dodge Dartford Crossing charge.

dart charge fines
One month after toll booths were closed on the Dartford Crossing, the Highways Agency is chasing 300,000 motorists for failing to pay under the new system.

Around two million crossings have been made during the 6am-10pm chargeable period, since the new scheme – Dart Charge – was launched on Sunday, November 30.

But despite the majority of motorists successfully registering to pay, figures suggest that around 15% of crossings have not been paid for – the equivalent of 10,000 per day.

Fines are now being issued to offenders, but the Highways Agency said that the first penalty charge notice issued for each vehicle will include a warning letter giving the driver an extra 14 days in which to pay their original crossing charge without a penalty.

In addition, any further crossings made in that vehicle can also be paid at the standard rate as long as payment is received within the same 14-day period.

“We want to give all drivers the opportunity to pay and comply with the scheme,” said Dart Charge project director Nigel Gray. “This measured approach strikes the right balance between being clear to drivers they need to pay Dart Charge and giving them every opportunity to do so.”

One million vehicles are now registered to Dart Charge accounts with journey times showing improvement, according to new data released by the Highways Agency.

Early data suggests average journey times between 7am and 7pm have been cut by more than nine minutes southbound, and more than four minutes northbound, when comparing the first two weeks of December and the end of November.

Gray said: “The introduction of Dart Charge has been a big change so it is great that the vast majority of drivers have paid the charge.”

Under Dart Charge, drivers no longer pay the crossing charge in cash at a barrier. Instead, they pay online, by phone or at one of thousands of payzone retail outlets nationwide, either in advance or by midnight the day after they have used the Crossing. Payment can also be made in advance by post.

The quickest and easiest way to pay Dart Charge – including paying for outstanding crossings – is online, according to the Highways Agency.

Uber drivers say rideshare surge pricing backfired on New Year’s Eve

Many Lyft drivers that worked on New Year's Eve made slim profits, but none could agree on exactly why. - JEFF CHIU/2013 AP FILE PHOTO

  • Many Lyft drivers that worked on New Year’s Eve made slim profits, but none could agree on exactly why.

San Francisco New Year’s Eve party-goers danced, reveled, and drank while cheering in 2015. After a long night, they made their way home.

They walked, they bused, they took taxi cabs. But local New Year’s party-goers apparently did not ride in Uber or Lyft in large numbers.

Drivers say potential riders were scared off by looming surge prices from the app-friendly transportation network companies, and that streets were oversaturated with pink-mustachioed vehicles, the sign of a Lyft car, seeking big New Year’s Eve dollars.

The passengers who did take Uber or Lyft benefitted by avoiding anticipated price spikes. But too many cars and too few customers have drivers complaining of stunningly low profits, on what’s usually one of the most lucrative nights of the year.

“I made 60 bucks in five hours,” said Lyft driver Kelly Dessaint, known for his blog Behind the Wheel: A Rideshare Confessional.

“It was an incredible sight to see all the cabs full and the rideshare cars empty,” he said. “I was laughing and crying at the same time.”

Many drivers The San Francisco Examiner spoke to made slim profits on New Year’s Eve, but none could agree on why.

Leading up to New Year’s Eve, a passenger war erupted between Uber, Lyft and the taxi-hailing app Flywheel. Flywheel offered a flat rate of $10 for all cab rides on New Year’s Eve. By contrast, Uber sent a mass email warning riders that New Year’s Eve would see a spike in passenger demand, potentially skyrocketing prices to over $100 for a ride after midnight.

Neither Uber nor Lyft answered queries.

Paul Rose, a spokeman for the San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Agency, said Muni added 10 trains to accommodate higher-than-normal ridership.

As a result, people rode Muni in droves, but did they also hop into Uber and Lyft?

Though hard numbers on tech riders were not available, screen captures from drivers’ rideshare apps show The City experienced low price surges during peak times, even in neighborhoods historically favorable to Uber and Lyft rides. Prices only surge when high numbers of riders order Uber rides at the same time, so a lack of surge may point to a lack of Uber riders.

Other cities across the U.S. had mixed experiences. A driver in San Luis Obispo tweeted a screenshot of an Uber fare of more than $500, and an Uber passenger in Pennsylvania paid $117 for a 4-mile ride.

But Bay Area drivers made much less, and vented frustrations by the hundreds in social media forums.

“I worked ten hours for NYE in San Francisco. I could have made more last weekend during a normal Saturday night,” one commenter on Reddit’s UberDrivers forum wrote. “Uber has left me financially devastated trying to work with them.”

“There should be some regulation on the numbers of drivers you allow to Lyft,” another commenter wrote. “Otherwise it may seem that you are taking advantage of the fact that we are not paid salaries, and you reap the benefits regardless if it effects us.”

Regulations don’t limit the number of cars Uber or Lyft can allow on the road. They only limit the amount of traditional taxis.

“When there is oversupply, as we see with [Uber and Lyft], more and more drivers are competing for the same number of riders,” Trevor Johnson, a cab driver and former taxi official, told The Examiner.

Among other reasons, government regulates the number of cabs, he said, “to ensure living wages for all drivers.”

 

Source: The Examiner

Final chance for feedback on London’s proposed ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ)

Transport for London is making its final call for feedback on proposals to introduce the world’s first Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in the capital on 7 September 2020, as the public consultation enters its final weeks.

The Mayor and Transport for London (TfL) have been seeking the views of everyone who lives, works or travels in the capital on the proposed scheme which would significantly improve air quality and in turn the health of Londoners.

The ULEZ consultation runs until Friday 9 January 2015 and is available online atwww.tfl.gov.uk/ultra-low-emission-zone.

The groundbreaking proposals would require all vehicles travelling within the Congestion Charge zone to meet new emission standards and would be in operation 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Many vehicles would already meet these standards in 2020, however by introducing this requirement next year the Mayor and TfL aim to accelerate the take up of low emission vehicles and stimulate the low emission vehicle market. The ULEZ will also ensure London’s air quality improves more quickly, making the capital a more pleasant place to live and work, and encourage the use of more sustainable forms of transport.

The ULEZ is projected to halve emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate matter (PM10) from vehicle exhausts.  This means more than 80 per cent of central London is expected to meet the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) annual legal limits in 2020. The ULEZ would also lead to a significant reduction in the number of people living in areas of poor air quality (where levels of NO2 exceed legal limits) – by 74 per cent in central London, 51 per cent in inner London and 43 per cent in outer London.

Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, said: “Introducing the world’s first Ultra Low Emission Zone is an essential measure to improve London’s air quality and reduce NO2 . Safeguarding Londoners’ health and well-being is a top priority for my administration. I understand that people need adequate time to switch to greener vehicles and help is at hand for those who will be hardest hit, but let’s be clear, we need to make these important changes ASAP to continue to improve Londoners’ quality of life and give everyone who lives in or visits the city the cleanest possible air to breathe.”

The ULEZ proposals would require vehicles travelling in central London to meet the following emissions standards, or pay a daily charge:

·         Cars and small vans – Euro 6 for diesel engines (registered from 1 September 2015 so 5 years old or less in 2020) and Euro 4 for petrol engines (registered from 1 January 2006 so 14 years old or less in 2020).  Non-compliant vehicles could still drive in the zone but they would be required to pay a daily charge of £12.50;

·         Large vans and minibuses – Euro 6 for diesel engines (registered from 1 September 2016 so 4 years old or less in 2020) and Euro 4 for petrol engines (registered from 1 January 2007 so 13 years old or less in 2020). Non-compliant vehicles would be required to pay a daily charge of £12.50;

·         Heavy goods vehicles, buses and coaches – Euro VI (registered from 1 January 2014 so 6 years old or less in 2020).  Non- compliant vehicles would be required to pay a daily charge of £100;

·         Motorcycles and similar vehicles – Euro 3 (registered from 1 July 2007 so 13 years old or less in 2020).  Non-compliant vehicles would be required to pay a daily charge of £12.50.

As part of the ULEZ proposal, TfL is working to reduce emissions from its buses alongside taxis and private hire vehicles and to increase the number of zero emission capable vehicles. This will create demonstrator fleets in London, boost industry sales and lead the transition towards this technology.

rom 2018, it is proposed there will be a new requirement for all taxis and new private hire vehicles presented for licensing in the capital for the first time to be zero emission capable.  Private hire vehicles would also be subject to the ULEZ standards in central London just like other cars and vans (and therefore liable for the charge if they don’t meet the emissions standards).

Taxis will be the second largest contributor to NOx and the largest contributor to PM10 emissions from road transport in central London in 2020. The ULEZ proposes to reduce the London-wide age limit for non zero emission capable taxis from 15 years to 10 years. This would substantially reduce emissions from these vehicles across London (by 45 per cent for NOx and 71 per cent for PM10) and help accelerate the take up of new zero emission capable taxis.

In considering the impact of the reduced taxi age limit, the Mayor and TfL are proposing a specific fund to assist taxi drivers to replace their vehicles. In addition, TfL has been in regular dialogue with the Office for Low Emission Vehicles to ensure their new £500m funding allocation specifically supports taxi and PHV drivers to purchase zero emission capable vehicles, as well as supporting a fund for on-street rapid charging infrastructure.