|
|
INDUSTRY IN REVIEWBy Don McCurdyWhat’s next? Gloom and doom or taxicab Nirvana! That’s what is predicted for San Diego now that the permit cap has been removed. The usual hysteria ensued prior to the vote, but City Council voted to drop the cap anyway. The current permit holders have threatened a lawsuit and they may very well initiate one. Not being a lawyer I couldn’t even speculate on the outcome, but the industry will have growing pains either way. The effort to eliminate the permit cap was supported by both republican and democrat members of the council making it a bipartisan effort to give drivers the opportunity to truly be their own boss. Members of the council predicted that there will be pain in the industry for new and old medallion holders. Business of any kind has no guarantees unless you’re the owner of a permit in a closed system. For years permit holders have been the middle man between the city and the drivers. While some purchased their permits on the “gray” market others got them from the city for what turned out to be a small amount based on the return. Now, the city has killed the goose that laid the golden egg and everybody is going to have to adjust to their new roles. There is a role for the companies and permit holders, but their futures will depend on their ability to add value to the industry. Something they may or may not figure out how to do. Regardless, there will be observers on both sides of the open system debate waiting for the result.
An Uber executive is reported as suggesting digging up dirt on journalists that report negatively on Uber. Further, one of Uber’s investors is reported stoking the flames of such an idea by tweeting the idea that it wouldn’t be wrong to seek data on “shady” journalists. Shady journalists? What does that mean? Uber has long touted their technology as superior to the taxicab industry and such, but this was the first time their privacy policy has come into question. While Uber, and the NSA, can collect a lot of data both swear not to use it. Uh huh. Uber promises that it wouldn’t collect any data on where people go nor would they attempt to use any information their system collects to any nefarious purpose. So what Uber is saying is that they won’t use an editor’s Uber trips to his mistress’s as leverage to shut up a “shady journalist” or give information to their political allies regarding an investigative reporter’s destinations. Technology is a wonderful thing. Those primitive taxicabs only record their destinations on their trip sheets which may or may not be turned in to the company. The computerization of taxi trips, as in New York City, document only those Uber trips paid for by credit card. All the while Uber has every pickup and destination safely tucked away in their computer system. You can bet Bob Woodward wouldn’t have been taking Uber to see Deep Throat.
A recent article about the industry’s favorite topic, Uber, let me wondering why more industries haven’t taken the Uber tack. Uber CEO is reported as saying “But there’s been so much corruption and so much cronyism in the taxi industry and so much regulatory capture that if you ask for permission upfront for something that’s already legal, you’ll never get it. There’s no upside to them.” So, basically, it’s easier to just do it than to ask permission. I certainly can’t argue with that. The additional comments that Uber self regulates through customer feedback means it doesn’t need government supervision. Well, I can agree with that, to a point. Once the government has established that Uber’s insurance coverage, vehicle safety standards, driver safety standards and driver training are up to snuff that should be sufficient. But that’s not how it is for the taxicab industry. If Uber wants to compete in the vehicle for hire market, which despite its protestations it is, then the minimum public safety requirements should be demanded and met. If Uber wasn’t operating as a taxicab service why then is it cutting into the taxicab industry’s business? The idea that certain laws doesn’t apply, that they’re out of date because they are old presents other questions. Does free speech apply to the internet? It wasn’t invented when the law was passed. The article goes on to lament what might happen if the taxicab industry wasn’t regulated and Uber gained a monopoly. You’re kidding, right? The cracks are already starting to appear in the Uber model. Their plan to create a monopoly in an unregulated taxicab industry has about zero chance of happening. The reason Uber is as successful as it has been is because it deemed itself above regulation while the rest of the industry is heavily regulated. While Uber was utilizing licensed vehicles with licensed drivers and simply directing customers to those licensed vehicles I had no problem with their model. Now bringing amateur drivers in unlicensed vehicles with dubious insurance is not quite the same thing. Regulator’s basic function is to determine that the public safety is maintained. To say Uber can do that on its own and the taxicab industry can’t is an idea that I can’t quite get my head around.
One of the things my taxicabs could not have, even though they were allowed, was a sun roof. My reasons were more electrical than aesthetic. There simply wasn’t room for the top light and the glass roof. Well, that isn’t a problem with the Taxi of Tomorrow, that brainchild of the former czar of New York City. There’s plenty of roof space on the Taxi of Tomorrow, so let’s have a sun roof so our riders can view the New York City skyline from the unique perspective of a taxicab rear seat. Well, that didn’t turn out too well for some big city riders when the roof of the turkey of today cracked and rained glass down on them. Oops. Perhaps politicians should stick to picking our pockets instead of picking our taxicabs.
Well, it has been reported that it will be harder to get a livery car at night now that Fernando Mateo has “instructed” the industry to scale back its over night service due to driver attacks. Really? Could you report this with a straight face? During my tenure as a driver, (can drivers have tenure?), I had numerous wannabes claim to represent the drivers in this or that matter, but I never had one “instruct” me to cut back. In fact I’ve never had one instruct me to do anything, because they had neither the authority nor inclination to give orders to independent contractor drivers. Driver safety is a subject that is near and dear to my heart, being a recovering night driver and all, but let’s not pretend that the self appointed “czar” of the industry has the authority to “instruct” the industry to do squat. Kind of reminds me of the story of the gnat floating down the river on his back with an erection screaming to open the drawbridge.
Hickory North Carolina is discussing whether or not to increase the minimum taxicab fare. The companies are seeking $6 minimum which certainly doesn’t seem extreme to me. While the business traveler and more upscale clientele are utilizing smart phone apps, regular taxicab riders are still doing what they’ve always done, call a cab. If these trips are profitable for the provider of the service why wouldn’t they want to keep providing the service? Smaller volume containers of any commodity cost more per serving than the jumbo pack. Why should taxicab service be different?
Nevada has become an Uber free state. Apparently, the judge didn’t believe that providing on demand taxicab service with personal cars should go unregulated. Everyone is regulated in Nevada, even prostitutes. But the prostitutes aren’t trying to pretend they’re on demand wives. Providing a vehicle for hire is still providing a vehicle for hire, at least in Nevada.
Is it my imagination or does it appear that our elected officials are promoting rioting, looting and other civil unrest? How exactly does this ensure domestic tranquility? The obvious fact is that Eric Holder would have indicted Zimmerman or Wilson in a heartbeat if there was really an inkling that the case would be successful, but he did not. What about that Barrack? Instead we get members of congress holding up their hands pretending they’re part of some civil rights movement when what they’re really doing is exploiting a sad situation. Let’s all ask ourselves, what is the purpose of this demonstration by the congress members in question? Is it to promote healing in the community? Hardly. Inspire legislation to deal with the issues at hand? Not once. It’s to show their solidarity with the thieves and looters running amok in cities across the land. Showing solidarity with rioters ruining people’s businesses and livelihoods demonstrates exactly how we got into the situation we are now in. Exalting in the lives and deaths of these unfortunate but criminally oriented individuals should demonstrate to the people, who elected these political idiots, just exactly how stupid we, the voters, really are.
© 2015 TLC Magazine Online, Inc. |