INDUSTRY IN REVIEW

By Don McCurdy

It quacks like a duck.

The regulatory world is in an uproar. Coast to coast cities are attempting to deal with the Uber, Sidecar and Lyft phenomenon with marginal success. While you could argue the point that Uber is simply dispatching licensed vehicles the others are not.

The warm fuzzy of the fist bump aside, an unlicensed driver in an unlicensed vehicle providing on demand transportation already has a name, gypsy cab. You can put a pink moustache on it, or lipstick for that matter, but that really doesn't change what it is.

Recently, the grand pooba of the California Public Utilities Commission, Michael Peevey, is reported to have informed Los Angles that the PUC was in charge of these services since they considered them "limousine" services. The city says nope, they're taxicabs and the three ' ride sharing' services say no we're not. Well, it would be simple enough to simply impound the vehicles and jail the drivers until the courts figured it all out, but that's just how I'd handle it.

The state's power play simply exacerbated the city's problem giving the services an out to keep them operating in the city. Can't get enough good government.

Meanwhile, in San Francisco, the airport authority is reportedly citing and arresting ride share company drivers that attempt to drop off or pick up at the airport. Fist bump. The PUC is attempting to "regulate"
the ride sharing companies and is instituting some regulations to protect the public and, of course, allow the state to wet its regulatory beak.

Okay, let's pretend. Let's pretend that these ride sharing operations are ride sharing. To "share" a ride with someone I have to be going in that direction. If not, I am a transportation provider. This model exists already, it's called Super Shuttle. They are a "ride sharing" transportation provider. Sorry, the only "innovation" here is that Lyft and Sidecar are using cars not vans. Well now, isn't that trendy? The real difference is that that Lyft and Sidecar don't want to pay their dues. Oops. Fist bump.

Uber, while swerving off of its original course to attempt to compete with the outlaw "ride share" crowd, is a horse of a different color. If they stick to dispatching licensed vehicles I don't see where there's a bone of contention with the regulators.

I have heard stories about companies threatening drivers with "firing," ooh that's such a bad word, if they're caught taking Uber trips, but I don't see how that stacks up to an independent contractor driver situation. If nothing else, the entire affair has been interesting to watch.

While some simply want to be able to compete in the marketplace, others want to cheat. If you're sending an unlicensed vehicle, with an unlicensed driver (to provide transportation) to pick up a passenger you are cheating. You can claim all the "innovation" and "technological improvements" you want, but you're just cheating.

Drivers and companies pay enormous sums of money to license their vehicles, train their drivers and provide the logistical support to serve their communities. Simply figuring a way to pretend the regulations don't apply to a special group isn't innovation, its fraud. Pretending that normal automobile insurance is going to cover passengers or even other vehicles once the carrier finds out that the vehicle is used for commercial purposes isn't innovation, its insurance fraud.

There is certainly a mess here, but government entities fighting over who is in charge isn't helpful, especially when it's obvious that none are.

Meanwhile on the east coast.

Miami Dade taxicabs could face some interesting changes if local politicos get their way. While the issues are fairly routine, high leases for permitted taxicabs, drivers refusing short trips, drivers not taking credit cards, etcetera, the cure seems to be very innovative: eliminate the cap on sedans.

The situation is being driving by Uber wanting to dispatch the sedans via their mobile ap. Reports are that the county's last offering for taxicab medallions went for 400k plus so there's more to the story than those poor suffering riders complaints. Who wants to kill the county's medallion scam?

The taxicab drivers make the same tried and true arguments they do in every city, we'll go broke if you change anything. Have I ever mentioned that taxicab drivers hate change?

The entire area is an outstanding example of regulations stifling the industry. I don't expect they'll find a solution, since their golden goose is in the mix and upsetting their cash flow is not a politician's first priority.

Maybe the next day.

The Taxi of Tomorrow may have to wait a couple more weeks. Reports are that another lawsuit has been filed to prevent Mayor Napoleon from forcing the taxicab industry to purchase a vehicle they don't want. The Greater New York Taxi Association is reported to have brought the suit in an effort to forestall the implementation of the Taxi of Tomorrow. Perhaps, they're looking for it to be the Taxi of The Next Century.

Whose rights are these anyway?

Reports are that Austin taxicab driver Akbar Amir-Akbari is suing the city and the Austin Police Department for a fairly common practice of dumping drunks into taxicabs instead of taking them in to an establishment or a police precinct. Mr. Amir-Akbari did not take kindly to a drunk dumped into his cab assaulting him. Underlying this problem is that, by 'shuffling the problem under the table', we cause the problem an intoxicated person may have with alcohol to perpetuate the problem.

All that the feel good boys will be doing is kicking the can down the road, nothing more. Their actions only delay the day when the problem drinker has to face his consequences. Allowing the problem to fester "undetected" for a few extra months or maybe years allows the problem to become worse, not to mention the danger to taxicab drivers and other citizens.

It is not the job of the police to decide which laws will be enforced, but simply to enforce the laws that exist. Not enforcing the laws on the books has brought us the issues we currently experience in our country's immigration policies. The importance is obvious.

Danger ahead if Danger elected!

It has been reported that mayoral candidate Bill Thompson thinks Anthony "Carlos Danger" Weiner doesn't get the picture when it comes to the outer borough taxicab plan. Thompson claims the entire city is in danger of losing its ability to flag a cab if Weiner gets elected. Meanwhile, the comedians union has donated their entire retirement fund to the Danger campaign. Okay, I made the last part up.

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.