Manganese Bronze, better known as “The London Taxi Company” and maker of the iconic London’s black cab, has called in the administrators. By most accounts, the company has had problems for some time, with the market penetration and iconic status of its black cab proving both a blessing and a curse.
On the surface, it is something of a rapid fall from grace. The company had been profitable until 2007, with it signing a joint venture with Chinese car manufacturer Geely in that year. The profits, however, hid growing structural problems within the firm itself and with its flagship product. The basic design of the iconic black cab had not changed for many years, still featuring a ladder chassis for example. This, combined with customer service, pricing and after care grumbles from drivers, meant that the company’s position was arguably more fragile than it appeared on paper.
Mercedes’ entry into the London cab world with the Vito fired a warning shot across Manganese Bronze’s bows and proved to be one of the factors (alongside the new partnership with Geely) leading to the development of the TX4 in 2008, the first genuine shakeup of the black cab design for some time.
Unfortunately for the firm, the TX4 launch did not prove entirely successful. Representing the first vehicle produced in genuine partnership between Manganese Bronze and Geely, early models suffered a variety of problems. To a certain extent this was to be expected in a completely new line, but as reliability has always formed a key requirement of black cabs and a key part of their image, it was far from ideal. Issues with engine fires resulted in a partial recall in 2008, and a number of other minor niggles and problems dogged the vehicle early on.
Although these issues were all ultimately resolved, the company’s position was weakened financially and it has failed to report a profit since – in August, the firm confirmed that it already had a £3.9m hole in its accounts. Indeed four years on from its launch and initial problems a new, more serious, issue with the TX4 emerged and proved to be the straw that finally broke the camel’s back.
In February 2012 the company switched to a new Chinese supplier for the steering boxes on the TX4. Over the following months a number of them failed, with drivers reporting a loss of power and steering control. Investigations began and at the start of October, Manganese Bronze was forced to announce the urgent recall of 413 TX4s built since the supplier change, and to freeze sales on new vehicles.
Whether the issue related to manufacturing problems, or the substitution by the supplier of unapproved part, ultimately didn’t matter. With no income from sales, and the cost of the recall now on the books, the company was forced to seek additional funding. Its failure to successfully find a new financial backer, or to negotiate a new funding agreement with Geely, finally led to administration.
In many ways, the story of the company’s decline is a familiar one, especially to watchers of the automobile world. They effectively established a monopoly position in their chosen market (London taxis) and then began to stagnate. They failed to recognise the need to change for some time and their eventual attempt to innovate their way out of trouble only met with limited success. With the company’s finances now fragile, what was likely an effort to save money by switching suppliers on a key part of the TX4’s design ultimately proved to be a fatal mistake.
The question for Manganese Bronze now is “what next?” The firm employs 288 staff (170 of whom work at its assembly plant in Coventry) and both the Unite Union and Manganese Bronze Chief Executive John Russell have been vocal in the media on the need for a buyout or Government rescue of some kind.
It’s fair to say that, despite its structural problems, the likelihood of a buyer emerging for the firm is quite strong. The London taxi market may be more diverse than it used to be, and about to expand again with Nissan’s NV200 now beginning testing on the streets of the capital, but with its problems fixed the TX4 would still a force to be reckoned with – doubly so if a buyer was able to push through managerial and modernisation changes within Manganese Bronze itself.
The NV200 on the streets of London, as spotted by a reader of Auto Blog. More details can be found on their website here.
The result of the administration announcement is most likely to be a full buyout by Geely themselves, who already own 20% of the company’s shares. Manganese Bronze are not Geely’s only investment in the western car world – they own Volvo as well – and with a good deal of the manufacturing work for the TX4 taking place in China already, a full buyout seems a natural step.
The likelihood, therefore, this this announcement will mark the shock demise of the “traditional” black cab is thus very low indeed. If Geely step up then it will largely be a case of “meet the new boss, same as the old boss” but (hopefully) with some shakeup of the structure and approach that caused Manganese Bronze to get into trouble in the first place – although this may not prove to be good news for the workers in Coventry as assembly would probably move entirely to China. If not, then the firm would prove a good purchase for a new player looking to buy their way into the London taxi world – a world that remains an attractive one for manufacturers, as the efforts of both Mercedes and Nissan in recent years prove.
Either way, the TX4 and its successors will almost certainly prove to be a feature of London’s streets for some time yet.
In true “Private Eye” style, one has to ask:
“Are they in any way related?”
Plan A – Range Extended Electric (REE) Metrocab taxi
&
Plan B – new plant to build 36,000 London taxi cabs a year ??
From a quick read of the articles, it would seem not, so that new Taxicabs for London are like buses – none for ages, the 2 or more come at once ….
Had an 08 TX4 until last year and couldn’t wait to see that back of it, was on its 3rd engine but I rented it so wasn’t out of pocket, it was just the hassle of tacking it to the garage every five minutes. Now have a TX4 Euro5 which I can’t fault. The most noticeable plus is the fuel economy, it’s incredible. If I fill the tank up and do a long 16 hour shift which would include a drive in from Essex I’ve still got half a tank left. (And yes I’ve had the fuel clock checked out) A very comfortable ride too. I vowed not to touch a the TX4 again but on advise from 3 friends I’m glad I did, like them a lot but then again it’s still a TX, will continue to rent until I pass the 150000 mile mark, we’ll see.
A possibly relevant story in yesterday’s Standard
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/mayor-plans-to-curb-number-of-minicabs-in-london-amid-drop-in-new-black-taxi-recruits-10252257.html
As at least some of the minicabs are hybrids, the average minicab must be greener than the hackney cabs.
Too many minicabs? Judging by how many black cabs I see ignoring this sign https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.501656,-0.112548,3a,37.5y,306.1h,92.95t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1shwwTKVebWWRKycduH_99RA!2e0!6m1!1e1 and lining up all the way back to Westminster Bridge Road waiting for fares, there is a significant excess of supply over demand.
Having the police actually cracking down on those cabbies who think they are above the law* would be a start
(*They are a minority but, like cyclists, it is the minority who get noticed)
There is no obvious connection between an increase of minicabs and traffic congestion, unless they are encouraging people to swop from public transport such as the Tube or even buses. Minicabs using Uber are presumably not cruising around like black cabs can often be seen doing. Before Boris launches into knee-jerk extra regulation he should make sure he’s got accurate data on congestion and its causes, not make a connection that probably isn’t there.
Do “pedicabs” (Trans: Rickshaws ) count as for-hire cabs?
Boris is apparently trying to get them removed from the roads …
See:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20723675
@ Fandroid – I am no expert on taxis / private hire in London. The London Assembly Transport Committee recently investigated a broad range of issues and concerns about the trade in London and published a pretty critical report. TfL are strongly criticised in the report as is the Mayor in respect of not setting out a strategic direction.
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Future%20Proof%20-%20Taxi%20%26%20PH%20Report.pdf
There are stats about the growth in private hire vehicles / drivers in the report. I know the Taxi trade is pleased with the report and the politicians who wrote it. TfL remains very much in the firing line if you read what pours out on Twitter from many taxi drivers who post there. I believe they’re going to lobbying at Mayor’s Question Time this week – last time they filled the entire “Living room” at City Hall. One of the priority questions relates to the Uber app so that’ll be one the cabbies will be interested in.
WW
Do I detect a very loud-voiced special interest group/s at work here, or is that just my prejudices showing?
The TfL committe are, quite rightly IMHO much concerned about the safety & availability of services for “the customer”.
Para 3.3 Notes the predominance of Private Hire in the suburbs & fringes, where Black Cabs are thin on the ground.
Section 5 (dealing with “the Knowledge”) is worth a careful read …
The overall impression is of a failure of communications, & in some areas of almost non-existent communications. Not a good prospect.
My own, of necessity limited & personal observations, suggest that some of the driving standards of the “private hire” section of the market leave a great deal to be desired ( I’ve seen far too many of the same, where the driver has been using a mobile phone, whilst in motion ).
Do Rickshaws count as “private hire vehicles? As far as I can see, these are not mentioned in the report at all, yet they are “for hire” & furthermore, they openly “tout” for business – which is recognised as a problem in section 7.
Re Greg
It isn’t just you that gets the feeling of a special interest group interests being very well represented in the policy…
Rickshaws are currently outside TfL’s remit and Boris want legalisation changed so TfL can have control (to ban them, which should probably speed up late evening or night buses so plenty of Tfl self-interest there).
However I would of though there is a fairly high probability that the number of passengers wanting Taxis from Heathrow post Crossrail opening could drop which could hit the trade hard as it is quite lucrative and the drop in (new) Taxi drivers might already be reflecting this?
I see no reason why the nature of the power plant should affect the rules on plying for hire. When the first hackney carriages powered by internal combustion were introduced, they were subject to the same rules as electric and horse powered ones – although it is a myth that taxi drivers have ever had to carry a bale of hay on board, even if the nature of the motive power was such that it might have been able to make use of it. (Section 51 of the 1831 Hackney Carriage Act was amended in 1976 to remove the prohibition on cabbies allowing their horses to graze, only hand-feeding being allowed)
“And be it enacted, That if any Proprietor or Driver of any Hackney Carriage shall stand or ply for Hire with such Hackney Carriage, or suffer the same to stand, across any Street or common Passage or Alley, or alongside of any other Hackney Carriage, or Two in a Breadth, or within Eight Feet of the Curbstone of the Pavement in any such Street or common Passage or Alley ; or if any such Proprietor or Driver, or any Waterman or other Person, shall feed the Horses of or belonging to any Hackney Carriage in any Street, Road, or common Passage, save only with Corn out of a Bag, or with Hay which he shall hold or deliver with his Hands; or if the Driver of any Hackney Carriage shall refuse to give way if he conveniently can to any private Coach or other Carriage, or shall obstruct or hinder the Driver of any other Hackney Carriage in taking up or setting down any Person into or from such other Hackney Carriage; or if any such Proprietor or Driver shall wrongfully, in a forcible or clandestine Manner, take away the Fare from any other such Proprietor or Driver, who, in the Judgment of any Justice of the Peace before whom any Complaint of such Offence shall be heard, shall appear to be fairly entitled to such Fare; every such Proprietor, Driver, Waterman, or other Person so offending shall forfeit Twenty Shillings. ”
Now reads
“If any proprietor or driver of any hackney carriage shall wrongfully, in a forcible or clandestine manner, take away the fare from any other such proprietor or driver who, in the judgment of any justice of the peace before whom any complaint of such offence shall be heard, shall appear to be fairly entitled to such fare; every such proprietor, driver, so offending shall forfeit at level 1 on the standard scale].”
To be honest if fewer people drove into central London (why on Earth people want to pay the congestion charge is beyond me) there would be much less congestion. And if there was less congestion the buses would actually be a viable alternative to the tube in central London because they would be able to move quicker. There are very few genuine exuses people can have for driving into London (I mean ordinary people going to work or just for a day out) such as going to the hospital or if you have a disability. Imo the western extension of the congestion charge should be reintroduced and it should go up to £20, exempting people who have a blue badge.
Greg,
The Mayor has multiple issues with Pedicabs from a transport perspective, a crime perspective and concerning the general impression it gives visitors.
One of the problem with Pedicabs is that they don’t “fit in” to either the legal framework or the enforcement mechanism. They are not classified as private hire and as such no criminal record check is made of the driver. Nor are they checked for roadworthiness. Consequently many drivers are rather dodgy characters from other countries and I think it is a matter of public record that many turn out to have committed serious crimes in their own country. Physically removing the pedicabs from the streets can be problematic as they are not taken to the car pound in the way that motor vehicles are.
I suspect that one of the reasons that the Mayor wants specific legislation is to, at the very least, ensure that the vehicles are roadworthy and the drivers “of good character” although he is reported to want to totally ban them.
Obviously one cannot give them a fixed penalty notice in the normal way with no registration plate so monitoring them remotely is not good enough. In any case the legislation involved was really not designed for this sort of situation and often enforcement officers have to resort to the 1839 Metropolitan Police Act section 54 which, when you read it, was clearly was originally drafted with horses in mind. Note that our old favourite of furious driving is present in sub-section 5
Every person who shall ride or drive furiously, or so as to endanger the life or limb of any person, or to the common danger of the passengers in any thoroughfare
The other problem is that many people regard these vehicles as endorsed by the Mayor (simply by their existence) or the premises outside which they are parked. Hamleys, for example, are fed up with their presence. In reality, whatever you may think of him, the Mayor has been very good at being concerned about the image London presents the rest of the world in order that people come to London either as tourists or the sort of people who enhance our economy by being here. He is decidedly of the opinion that pedicabs, as they currently are, do not enhance our image as a world city.
@Kingstoncommuter
The general perception seems to be that few people choose to drive into central London during weekday daytime. The congestion is mostly caused by vehicles which “have” to be there. If this is correct, then persuading some of the few “optional” drivers not to do so (whether by exhortation, or increasing the charge) will not make much difference to total congestion.
See, for an example of recent discussion on this site, Graham H’s comment about kerbside activities.
pedicabs, as they currently are, do not enhance our image as a world city.
I wonder whether TfL also object to “living statues” (and the associated crowds that curiously cannot find anything better to gawp at) clogging up pedestrian routes? I know they have been in London for some time now but they are a continental rash that needs to go, imo.
Taxis and Buses would seem to be ideally suited to being fully electric, with interchangeable battery packs. Spare batteries could be kept and recharged at bus stations and taxi ranks, and swapped several times a day using some sort of especially designed trolly gadget. Properly designed, this process could be made quicker and easier than filling a fuel tank. The vehicle would also have a super capacitor to soak up regenerative braking.
Unless they are somewhere like a station forecourt, street artists of any kind are no business of TfL. But on the more general point, if we (that is UK plc) want to attract tourists, then we have to put up with the things that tourists like. However much we may dislike them ourselves.
I admire a bit of enterprise. Perhaps especially when the enterpriser appears to be putting in quite a bit of hard work, as do some street performers, and indeed some pedicab drivers.
Obviously there are real concerns, such as PoP mentions, about possible criminality and public safety issues. But I am not looking forward to a world in which no-one can do anything unless they have filled in all the forms and got a licence for it.
The Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 is still in force and Section 7 stipulates that
“If any unlicensed hackney carriage plies for hire, the owner of such carriage shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds for every day during which such unlicensed carriage plies. And if any unlicensed hackney carriage is found on any stand within the limits of this Act, the owner of such carriage shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds for each time it is so found. The driver also shall in every such case be liable to a like penalty unless he proves that he was ignorant of the fact of the carriage being an unlicensed carriage.
Any hackney carriage plying for hire, and any hackney carriage found on any stand without having such distinguishing mark, or being otherwise distinguished in such manner as may for the time being be prescribed shall be deemed to be an unlicensed carriage.”
Section 4: “Hackney carriage” shall mean any carriage for the conveyance of passengers which plies for hire within the limits of this Act* (other than a stage carriage [omnibus] or tramcar)”
* defined in Section 2 as the Metropolitan Police area and the City of London.
So a pedicab is a Hackney carriage within the meaning of the Act and requires a licence like any other.
The London Cab Order 1934 (with subsequent amendments) distinguishes between motor cabs and horse cabs, but makes it clear that “horse” means any animal used to draw a cab. Pedicabs would not have to comply with certain provisions of the Order specific to motorcabs (notably the requirement for a taximeter) and arguably not those specific to horse cabs (even if you consider “animal” to cover humans, the rider is not “drawing” the cab) , but most of the provisions cover all cabs, whether motor, horse, or neither.
@timbeau – “So a pedicab is a Hackney carriage within the meaning of the Act and requires a licence like any other”. That would depend on how, or indeed, whether, “carriage” is defined, I fear. I suspect that there is no generic definition of carriage in any earlier legislation on which the Draftsman could have drawn, and almost certainly neither the 1869 nor the 1934 Acts envisaged manpower traction. [BTW, I am pretty confident that “animal” doesn’t include “men” not least because humans have a legal persona that animals do not.]
@Graham H
Your suspicions are unfounded
Local Government Act 1888, Section 85(1)
“bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes, and other similar machines are hereby declared to be carriages within the meaning of the Highway Acts”
(later amended to include unicycles, and any two wheeler propelled by muscle power)
PoP
Given that the Rickshaws ([snip PoP]) “Ply for hire” AND that they “tout” for business, why & how are they outside the remit (so to speak)?
Did some aspect of “the legislation” change a few years back, which allowed them to appear (all of a sudding, so to speak)?
Could not “Obstructing the Public Highway” be utilised?
I note your last sentence, which suggests that BoJo, you & I are in some measure of agreement on this subject ( pause for universe to implode … )
… which leads to timbeau’s comment that the Metropolitan Carreiage Act 1869 applies ( & other subsequent comments.)
IF this is the case – & it appears from this discussion that it is so, then … why are the Rickshaws still there, rather than impounded &/or crushed?
Or are we all missing something?
Greg,
The problem is and has always been that it is not enough to ply for hire. It needs to be a motor vehicle or horse (or other animal) powered vehicle. Nothing has changed.
A while back some of the pedicabs became power-assisted using a battery. Unfortunately for their drivers the output exceeded the threshold of dispensation allowed for bicycles. This made them a motor vehicle which brought them into a whole new set of regulations. The power-assistance was quickly ditched.
For “Obstructing the Public Highway” you really need to prove that you were preventing people or vehicles passing rather than just being a bit inconvenienced. Hence the attraction of the 1839 Metropolitan Police Act which is much more prescriptive as to what you can and can’t do on the pavement. The various Road Traffic Acts and Highways Acts don’t really cater very well for the issue of parking a bicycle (and by extension a tricycle) on a road. As I say, the problem is that none of the legislation to do with roads in the last 100 years or more really took the possibility of pedicabs into account.
On the subject of what pedicabs do to the image of London, I really don’t want a digression onto this topic. I pointed out the Mayor’s views because it was relevant as to why he wants to ban them.
This article refers to a licencing system for human-powered spot-hired transport
http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/a-short-history-of-sedan-chair.html
I wonder if that law was ever revoked?
Or have I spotted a business opportunity?
@poP
“It needs to be a motor vehicle or horse (or other animal) powered vehicle. ”
Where does it say that? The Act simply says “any carriage for the conveyance of passengers which plies for hire”
There are particular rules that only apply to motor-cabs or to horse-drawn cabs, but nothing to say that these two types are the only ones covered by the more general rules, which presumably apply to cabs whether powered by mechanical means, animals, people, sails, or the power of thought.
timbeau,
I don’t think a tricycle is regarded as a carriage. A carriage used to be pulled by something external (e.g. a horse or a railway engine). As the motor car came arrived on the scene it was accepted that it too would fall within the definition of a carriage (hence the expression “horseless carriage”). I think you are stretching words to mean what you want them to mean rather than accept their generally understood use.
@timbeau – yes, yes, but for what purpose? As it currently exists – and it has been heavily amended by the RTA 1930 – the clause is an “orphan”, without obvious cross-reference, unless it to the Highways Acts. If – and it’s unclear – that is so, then the reference won’t cover the 1869 Act and its purposes because that isn’t a Highways Act; the 1888 Act would, if it were to be applied to the 1869 Act have to say so specifically, unless there is a Highways Act dated between 1869 and 1888 which could do the job instead. There seems to be a great deal of ambiguity about the whole thing, alas.
A propos sedan chairs, they clearly survived much longer in rural Cheshire, where Mrs Gaskell refers to them in “Cranford”. (Whether watch committeess outside London had any licensing pwoers for them, I don’t know).
I have now read through the entirety of the 1869 and 1888 Acts, and I do not find any definition of carriage. Certainly, there is a definition of a stage carriage and a hackney carriage, and in the latter case it’s interestingly defined only in terms of not being a stage carriage or a tramcar. That still seems to leave open what can be said positively about what a carriage actually is. It clearly can’t be just any old sort of conveyance which can ply for hire – note the exclusion of trams – nor does it seem to cover in actual practice, for example, waterborne conveyances, which do (or did) ply for hire in “public places”, even though the wording of the Act is so vague.
There is a generic problem with much Victorian legislation of this sort, as the draftsmen of the day rarely included definitions that were watertight. The most famous recent example relevant to this forum was the use of the word “flush” in the 1870 Tramways Act in relation to laying rails in the surface of the road. The ambiguity there was used by an anti-tram campaigner in Sheffield to pursue the current installation; the case came to naught because the lawyers concluded that the provision was “ambulant”, which means that the definition changes over time depending on contemporary useage of the words in question, and can only really be settled case by case. I suspect “carriage” is another such. Plenty of scope therefore for litigation, which is why, no doubt, TfL have stayed silent on pedshaws…
@Graham H
Point taken, a pedal cycle is only defined as a carriage for the purposes of certain legislation (intended to keep cycles off the footways and on the carriageways). However, PoP’s point is interesting
@poP
“A while back some of the pedicabs became power-assisted using a battery. This made them a motor vehicle which brought them into a whole new set of regulations .”
So it seems that with power assistance they were deemed to come within the definition of a motor cab, i.e. a motorised carriage plying for hire. Doesn’t this establish a precedent? Surely you have to do more than remove the motor from a motorised carriage before it stops being a carriage?
But legal definitions are tricky things. Is this a carriage within the meaning of the Act?
http://watermarked.heritage-images.com/1151063.jpg Would it depend whether the passengers rode on the same vehicle or in a trailer?
PoP
Of course one reason why quite a few people object to the Rickshaws is that they are (or are percieved to be) an “Obstruction”. They certainly seem to get in the way of pedestrians, other cyclists, taxi & bus drivers.
But, unless some ingenious person can find an appropriate clause or two in the existing legislation, it seems we are, presently, stuck with them?
@timbeau – Yes, don’t expect legislation to be nice and neat and tidy: the draftsmen struggle to keep up with ever-changing twists on the original concepts, let alone the new. How long did it take for trolleybuses to be recognised*, let alone defined even in subsidiary legislation? [Not helped there by a power struggle/turf war carried on by the Railway Inspectorate]. Sometimes, the thing is too difficult to do by modifying existing legislation and requires a fresh approach- eg the Hovercraft Act. I suspect that the DUKW tours operated in a slightly grey area, too.
Sometimes this works to hard-pressed bureaucrats’ advantage – the Isle of Scilly, not being part of any administrative county used to cause great problems with the allocation of grant as they were too small to qualify for funds (distributed on a variety of factors such as population, and crucially surface area) . They were given grant by being “deemed” to have an enormous surface area -usually the size of Canada – and leading to ludicrous discussions with the lawyers: “How big would you like the Isles of Scilly to be this year?”
*Answer: never in public legislation and about 15 years in private and subsidiary legislation, after several false starts.
Well,….
Ive read posts on this forum which stretched way back quite a few years commenting on build quality of cabs and rickshaws (I don’t use the term pedicab) and drivers have given all manner of views on subjects, but the current meltdown of the trade in business terms because of licensing failings coupled with emissions targets and we now have the beginning of the end to the long established London (and country) Taxi trade.
If any taxi driver actually thinks our business is loosely blowing in the wind then they are sadly deluded as it is all part of a long decided plan covertly decided to pull our teeth from us one at a time and any plan of an electric vehicle to revolutionise our trade is like holding a carrot on a stick to a dead donkey….
It it clear, Quality has been systematically eroded from society and replaced with “cheapness” when it comes to getting around or getting home and being squashed in the rear of a saloon car and driven to your destination by someone who neither knows how to get there (and uses an instrument of electrical direction) as well as poor language communication….. all for cost savings.
We, as London taxi drivers, Have always attracted admiration from envious foreign visitors on both our vehicles and our knowledge but are now attracting different opinions on the subject of costs (which is sadly the whole point these days) and we must rise to the occasion to defeat the tilted argument but this argument will not accommodate an initial vehicle set up cost of £50, 000 ……so forget it as cheap is now so obviously king,…. let our new taxis fall into that category so we can afford to by one to compete or it is doomed to failure … and so are we.
I don’t think anyone is disputing the cost of running a taxi and that the result is a premium fare. What is killing the taxi trade is that they are not offering a premium service to go with the premium fare. Perhaps if the level of service improved then the demand for a premium service would also increase.
The other point I take issue with is the assertion that high quality service provision has somehow been eroded from society. This is clearly not correct given the vast number of businesses that prosper from providing high quality goods and services. There have also been an awful lot of new start up businesses offering services or products at the more expensive end of the market. They may well be vulnerable if there is a sharp economic downturn but that comes with the territory for every business. The point is that these businesses have spotted a niche, how to be distinctive and how to offer excellent service. They are not relying on being a protected trade that wants its monopoly protected. I also doubt those businesses are reluctant to embrace new ways of working and new technology even if there is a cost involved. Regrettably life moves on for all of us and many people move on too and adapt, others don’t and end up left behind or at the “road side”. And I say that as someone who is not exactly brilliant at embracing change. I don’t like it but I can’t ignore it or pretend it’s not happening.