INDUSTRY IN REVIEW

By Don McCurdy

If only it were true.

A recent article in the Denver Post regarding the denial of a license for E.R. Express made me wonder why it isn't the same way for all industries.

Why is it that taxicab companies have to prove, in advance, that their services are needed in a community before being licensed? Why aren't all industries compelled to meet the same standards? If they were there would certainly be a lot of people looking for work today in industries that didn't exist prior to the company opening because those companies, perhaps, would not have met the "community needs" test.

These types of laws keep the taxi industry insulated from general business opportunities. Reports I have received indicate that the taxicab market in Denver is in decline. Not unlike a lot of cities, these types of legal restrictions are a contributing factor. While I am certainly not a proponent of deregulation, some reasonable method of entry into the taxi industry is necessary to keep the current players honest.

As long as the current paradigm exists companies already in the market can keep out those seekng an opportunity to run a new, more efficient enterprise. How exactly does this serve the needs and necessities of the Denver public? You'll have to ask the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. I can't explain it.

Currently the "limousine" companies in Denver are growing while the taxicab companies and taxicab businesses are shrinking. My prediction is that the more the Colorado PUC limits the number of hungry taxicab startups that are permitted to start a business the more this negative restrictive trend will continue.

Trial?

A recent BBC News article reported that CCTV (closed circuit television) cameras are being given a "trial" in Sheffield.

Trial? Cab cameras have been proven effective in reducing crimes against drivers in every city they've been tried, so why is it always a "trial"?

While initially I was skeptical regarding the use of cameras I found out quickly, after the company I managed installed cameras, that they were quite effective. What is it exactly that the city is trying to prove to themselves that is in question? I'm not quite old enough to remember, did they give seat belts a "trial" in each city before
mandating them?

The better mousetrap has arrived!

Recently a device called the "Taxi hailer" was introduced in London. Users of the device, a flashing orange light, report being able to get spotted by a cab in a crowd. More drivers are starting to notice users of the device as not only wanting a cab, but as frequent users of cabs.

The device seems to be quite popular with users, but quite unpopular with those not so well equipped. I wonder if this will replace the $10 bill as the best taxi hailer.

Well, it sounded good.

New York, source of most great taxi humor, has decided that vehicles that are wheelchair accessible or "clean burning" will be allowed on the street for five years instead of the standard three years. That's nice.

Does this mean that the three year rule doesn't really improve the safety of the vehicle or that we don't really care about the safety of the vehicle as long as it's wheelchair accessible or "clean burning"?

I know that for me personally it wouldn't matter if a cab with 600,000 miles on it that went out of control and ran over me was wheelchair accessible or "clean burning" or not. Didn't the city declare that vehicles over three years old were unsafe?

Taxi Commission Chairman Matthew Daus is quoted as saying the bill "represents a great opportunity to build on the work we have already done with the council". What would that be, the improved safety of wheelchair accessible and "clean burning" cabs?

If you want more wheelchair accessible or "clean burning" cabs how about a reduced license fee and grants to pay for conversion? Nah, that would actually cost something. It seems to me that the city is either admitting that a vehicle is safe for use for five years or that it's ok to drive an unsafe vehicle as long as it's wheelchair accessible or "clean burning". I can't help but wonder which it is.

Is it fixed yet?

In a recent column I mentioned the near riot involving the city planning a single provider of taxicab service at Cleveland's Hopkins airport. Well, some reporters from the Cleveland Plain Dealer tried out the taxicab service at the airport and reported that they "found none of the abuses with which the city has wrestled for more than a year".

Wow, you mean that by just talking about the issue it went away? Now there's a success story. I can't help but wonder if just maybe some well connected folks might have created an imaginary crisis to lock up the business for some well deserving citizens. Nah, I'm sure the city fathers and mothers only had the welfare of the good citizens of Cleveland at heart. Were I a skeptic I'd probably be looking hard at campaign contributions about now.

Are you putting me on?

Recently, a judge in Kingston, Jamaica sentenced two 16 year old boys to two years in a juvenile facility for murdering a cab driver. The judge is reported to have said that the boys would be "contaminated by older men in prison because of their age and size".

Huh? They murder a man and we should be worried about "contaminating" them? I guess I'm just not as civilized as they are in Jamaica.

Violent crime by teenagers presents an interesting question, at least to me. Why does the teenage offender's right to privacy (sealed criminal record) and special circumstances (age) outweigh the public's right to know and proper, just and timely prosecution of the offending teenage criminal in spite of his or her age?

As the father of two girls, that were formerly teenagers, wouldn't it be useful information for me to know that their boy friend stabbed his last girlfriend? Are we concerned that we might stigmatize the poor little murderers? Or possibly "contaminate" them? Perhaps some enlightened soul could share his wisdom on this issue with me so that I can understand why I shouldn't be informed that my daughter is dating a convicted drug dealer.

—dmc

© 2015 TLC Magazine Online, Inc.