INDUSTRY IN REVIEW

by Don McCurdy

Judge torpedoes mayor of yesterday’s proposal.

The “Taxi of Tomorrow” looks like it is just going to have to wait. It has been reported that a New York Supreme Court judge has shot down the plan stating it to be beyond the scope of the New York City's Taxi and Limousine Commission’s authority. This is the second court to rule against the program with a third suit pending from the handicapped community.

Gee, soon to be ex-mayor, how much is enough? There is really no reason for the change, it’s just policy, right? I know you’re a billionaire and all there, Mike, but it doesn’t follow that every idea you have is a good one or that everyone will be pleased to have to intervene in the taxi business to set your ideas straight. You have enough cash Mike, why don’t you just buy up all the medallions and put whatever vehicle you please on the street? Oh, yeah, that would be your money at stake. What was I thinking?

The truth comes out.

Reports are that Yellow Cab in Dallas exerted influence on the city council to rewrite their ordinance to exclude Uber. While it’s pretty much universally hated by its competitors and it has had its issues in the past with regulators, this attack on Uber appears to be the most concerted by a regulatory body.

The fact that it reportedly appears that Yellow Cab’s lobbyist initiated the onslaught has caused a bit of a stir at city hall. Well, not really city hall, but the newspapers. There’s so much plausible deniability being cast about that it makes one wonder if the “special investigator” will be bringing forth indictments or what?

The crackdown even included undercover agents posing as passengers ticketing drivers. All that is quite exciting and revealing, but what is really revealing is the statement attributed to the Yellow Cab attorney. It is reported that he said, “The $40,000 a month my client pays (the city) is too much given the lack of protection (from Uber) for this type of unlawful rogue behavior.”

Really? Protection? So, there you have it sports fans, regulation restricting entry and minimums on limousines are simply “protection” for the regulated. Let us wet our beak and we’ll make sure your competition acts in a “reasonable” manner, since we are all “reasonable” men. I told you regulating entry was a protection scheme, but now you’ve heard it from the attorney representing a taxicab company. Oops.

Let’s see what sticks!

Hard working DC taxicab drivers are reported to be suing the city, the mayor and the taxi commission for a variety of reasons. Some of them sound interesting, some a bit farfetched.

Let’s start with the funny stuff. They’re suing under the Americans With Disabilities Act because the switch for the dome light is outside the car and a disabled driver might have trouble reaching it. Hey, I didn’t write it.

The interesting one is the GPS capabilities of the “credit card” system. Apparently, it reports the vehicle’s location and meter "on" and "off" times. With that information the city can collect their 25¢ per trip fee which taxicab drivers see as a violation of their privacy.

There are several other “upgrades” the city is requiring in the name of “customer service.” All this leads me to believe some regulations are written simply because they can.

So, what does that mean?

Recent reports from San Francisco are that the method of operation is about to dramatically change, or not. It seems that some of the medallion scenarios currently in use are not legal and are now going to be even more illegal. Is that possible? Since the rules haven’t been enforced does this mean that suddenly they are going to be enforced or is the new rule going to fall to the same enforcement level as the old rule?

According to the news article, medallion leasing is not legal and new rules limit operating a medallion to medallion holders or taxi companies. What that statement would seem to indicate is that the only person who can operate a taxicab is the medallion holder or driver for a taxicab company.

Does this mean that a medallion holder cannot lease his, her cab to a relief driver? Doesn’t say. It would seem that the new rule certainly feels good to the regulators. It will simply require medallion holders to jump through a few more hoops to lease their medallions.

So, if I own a medallion will I be able to start a taxicab company with my medallion, sign up with Big Dog Dispatch and then lease my cab out to whoever will pay? Can I hire an agent to collect the money for me, like say Big Dog Dispatch? Yes, it all sounds good and it certainly feels good, but the results remain to be seen.

Regulating the willing.

Ride share companies have been given the green light to operate in California despite cities banning them. While they have had to jump through some hoops to keep from getting ticketed at LAX it appears that they are not going to have to do that much longer.

It is very interesting to me that the state will allow essentially the same service to be regulated differently. Why would it be necessary to review the criminal history of one set of drivers and not another? Why would it be necessary to inspect the vehicles of one type of transportation and ignore the vehicles of a similar service? If the purpose of regulation is, for the most part, to protect the public and industry members, then wouldn’t it follow that all methods of public transportation should require the same level of scrutiny?

Keeping the protection racket of taxicab regulation gets harder when you have the state regulating competing services in a less rigorous fashion. Almost makes that protection money not worth paying.

What about all this?

I have read numerous articles regarding Uber, SideCar, and Lyft services. Various cities have committed various regulatory atrocities to prevent, delay or eliminate these service with mixed results. If these services are using licensed vehicles in compliance with local ordinances I see no issue with how the public gets a ride.

That said, not having commercial insurance, not inspecting or licensing vehicles and drivers, and not enforcing existing laws is not an option. Writing new laws to exclude these services is also not a real option.

As far back as I can remember, taxicab companies have attempted to control their drivers on one hand and offer them up as independent contractors on the other. If a company punishes a driver for accepting business from Uber then they are not really independent are they?

In my opinion it shouldn’t matter how a licensed driver and licensed vehicle is dispatched as long as the customer is properly protected. Inadequate insurance, unlicensed drivers and unlicensed vehicles expose the public to hazards they may not even realize.

Regulators are tasked with recognizing those hazards and acting in a prudent manner in preventing them. Further, demanding regulated service of taxicabs while allowing others to set their own rules is unfair and counter productive. Regulators, companies and drivers need to get their act together and evaluate how these new players fit into the industry.

Speaking of my opinion…

As I write this the United States government has just been restarted from its “shutdown.” While every talking head will have already given you his or her opinion on who won, who lost, who's an idiot and such, I can’t pass up the opportunity to mention just a few things.

Number one is why is the United States government funded by a “continuing resolution” instead of a budget? Even the fools on the news were referring to the situation as a “budget battle.” It wasn’t a budget issue, it was a lack of a budget issue.

Well, we have not had a budget in years. The House of Representatives has passed a budget but the Senate has failed to pass one or even bring one up for a vote. Imagine then my surprise, okay so I wasn’t surprised, when the author of this idiocy, Harry Reid, got busy blaming someone else for the problem.

President Obama fails to own his share of the responsibility by allowing the “continuing resolution” fiasco to continue for his entire term. Finally, the go along to get along House of Representatives want’s to blame the Tea Party for attempting to reign in the financial disaster that is the United States government.

Well, here it is, the problem does stem from the republican party. Had they done as their voters wished in 2011 and forced the senate and the president to actually go through the budget process instead of allowing them to continue to play the "shut down the government and raise the debt ceiling" game of chicken, a game that the republicans have proven they cannot compete in successfully, none of the current “fiscal” crisis would be happening.

Your right, I am not an expert, I’m a voter. Not only that but I’m a voter that went through the public education system prior to it becoming the public indoctrination system.

My civics teacher taught me that the House passed a budget, the Senate passed a budget, the two were reconciled and voted on the budget and the president signed the result. If the president refused then the budget was reconciled again, voted on again and then signed.

Here’s my suggestion, no more continuing resolutions,” go back to the Constitutional budget process and do your jobs. Stop looking for someone to blame and do your jobs. Stop kicking the can down the road and do your jobs.

If you have any comments regarding this or any of my articles please feel free to contact me at dmc@mcacres.com. —dmc

© 2013 TLC Magazine Online, Inc.