INDUSTRY IN REVIEW

by Don McCurdy

What's it all about?

Uber is under attack! Yeah, well, I thought as much might happen. While regulators talk a good game about new technology like, rear seat advertising screens, when real new technology comes along they run from it. Regulation is as much about providing rules to provide safety to the public as it is to control the industry and protect the interests of the participants.

I understand the lords of the industry trying to stop, delay, or derail Uber. It's their cash cow that could lose some grazing rights. In numerous cities throughout the country drivers are virtual slaves to the dispatch services holding the permits or medallions. Colorado is one such slave labor camp. Mile High Cab is one clear example of a company that, not only had to fight their competition, but had to fight the government bureaucracy to even exist.

Regulators seldom have answers for existing problems, such as how to keep more of the fleet on the street when it is busy, but get huffy when someone else has a solution. Let's see, prepay in advance with a credit card, has any driver ever had a jumped fare? Been robbed? Drivers are citizens too. Is the Colorado Public Utility Commission doing anything to protect them from exorbitant fees charged by taxicab companies? No, simply stated the good citizens of Colorado don't need the protection of the government they need protection from the government.

But wait, there's more!

DC regulators are reported to feel so helpless, helpless, helpless, heeellllples (sorry Neil) to do anything about Uber charging an "automatic" tip on fares. It seems that Uber announced the "automatic" charge on their website and therefor it isn't "mandatory," which would be illegal. Wow, and people think we don't need lawyers. Keeping in mind these are the same regulators who exempted Uber, and other sedan services from fare regulation. Where have all of the warm fuzzies gone?

Meanwhile at a taxicab company nearby . . .

Taxicab drivers and companies in DC are complaining about the new regulations and 50 cent surcharge to pay for smart meters while Uber and other sedan services get a free ride. The surcharge was to pay for the smart meters but the contract was botched on reported corruption charges. What? Corruption? DC? Who made that up? DC drivers want to know how come they're collecting the surcharge and are expected to pay for the smart meters while the city gets the cash from the surcharge. Come on guys, good government costs money. Let's chip in there. Other costly "upgrades" were also mentioned as sticking points on the road to taxi Nirvana.

While in the land of little sodas . . .

Reports are that the Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade, the organization representing the yellow taxi fleets in New York City, is getting involved in a lawsuit with the City, on the City’s side. The lawsuit (Petitioners v. the City are the livery drivers coalition and Black Car Bases) seeks to block the "pilot" program initiated by the City to allow yellow cabs to accept "hails" from smart phone app companies which the board supports. Considering the number of lawsuits the board has filed against the city it must be interesting for them to be on the same side.

I wonder if their cooperation will give the other side insight into strategies in other
ongoing suits. Perhaps, they're working on resolutions to those suits as we speak now that they’re all buds and all. Yeah, right.

When is a limo not a limo?

When it's "impersonating" a taxicab. At least that is the gist of the article from Ann Arbor over the police ticketing limos acting as taxicabs. It seems that some of them are actually utilizing "top lights" to inform potential customers that they are available.

Has anybody ever seen a limousine with a top light? Over the decades the line between limousines and taxicabs has become somewhat blurred, especially in regards to luxury sedans and SUV's operating as limousines. One of the distinct differences continues to be the on demand aspect of taxicab service which luxury sedans operating as limousines seem to ignore. The problem isn't unique to Ann Arbor, but kudos to them for compelling all participants to obey the same set of rules.

Reports are that taxicabs pay $4500 per year in regulatory fees while limousines, regulated by the state, pay only $1800. So why would anyone want to pay more to be regulated more? The legal sticking point, at least from the Great Lakes Limousine Association, is that the city doesn't have the authority to ticket limousines under state law. I'll bet that's wrong. The city has the right to regulate taxicabs, so vehicles not licensed to be taxicabs that are "impersonating" taxicabs should be a no brainer. Yeah, but so is "shall not be infringed."

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.