INDUSTRY IN REVIEW

By Don McCurdy

Criminal Background Checks.

A recent article from Hannibal, Missouri brought some questions to mind. The first is why does it take so long for a municipality to do a background check on a driver, in this case a taxi driver?

Back in the early 80's I drove a cab. During that time I was pulled over by the police on numerous occasions.

No complaint here, most were richly deserved. The police routinely "ran my ID" and were able to find out instantly everything I'd ever been accused of doing, except possibly, my ex-wife's claims about my alleged girlfriend, but we won't go into that. Point being, if the information is available to any police officer as a matter of course why does it take cities months to complete the same routine background check?.

Why the problem? The problem is that it's not important. Hannibal Missouri Police Chief Lyndell Davis says they'll be able to reduce the time to JUST a week. Way to go Chief! Just a week?

Government at any level rarely considers how its regulations affect business and, especially, people trying to make a living. It's just not important to them. You take a reasonable idea and you make it a show stopper by not considering how it will be implemented as well as with why it is being done. I have no problem with reasonable regulation, as long as the implementation is just as reasonable. I wonder how long it would take to conduct taxi driver background checks if the mayor owned the taxicab company?

Pink Cabs?

Several jurisdictions around the world have either allowed or are considering new "Pink Cabs". The new cabs will be driven by women, for women exclusively. It's not being called discrimination, since the stated purpose is to improve the industry's "safety" image. Sounds like a pretty good dodge to me.

I guess the next question is if the new service will require that "Pink Cab" licenses be issued from the current license pool with a new designation like any other new service might, or will additional new licenses be issued?

If you made me guess I'd say it's going to be new licenses. Just a political gimmick to introduce new licenses into the industry. I mean, really, who could be against improved safety for our women? It's a gimme.

In a tightly regulated industry you have no chance of entering the industry unless you have an angle. The recent startup of the "all wheelchair accessible" taxicab company in Sydney is an excellent example. To just start up a business with a few hundred medallions would have been laughed at by the regulators, but add "all wheelchair accessible" and it's a done deal. It just goes to show that there still are some inventive minds out there. Find a solution to a problem, real or imagined, and it's all good, or that what they want us to believe.

Sooner or later.

As a company manager I had to deal with all sorts of issues, including drivers not wanting to carry guide dogs. Since I knew the company would get their butt sued if a driver refused a blind customer with a guide dog it was a pretty easy call. Now it's not quite so easy.

The company has the potential of getting sued by the handicapped rider if it knowingly allows a driver to refuse a guide dog. The company has an equal chance of being sued for terminating a driver that refuses a blind passenger with a dog for religious reasons.

I don't recall a provision in the Americans with Disabilities Act that allows for refusing a guide dog for religious reasons, but then there is that "establishment clause" in the constitution. How does that fit? Well, it fits everything else having to do with religion, so why not? Either way, the company is in the cross hairs.

There is little doubt in my mind that the issue will end up in court, since both the handicapped and Muslims are privileged classes. I only have one question. If I fly into the Minneapolis airport will I have to prove that I'm not carrying alcohol or will they take my word for it? Would it be bad if I had pork chops for lunch?

Should they be mandatory?

There are stories in the news constantly about drivers being robbed, assaulted or murdered, along with the subsequent articles regarding the punishment of the assailant. I've been involved in numerous discussions regarding safety equipment and whether or not various items should be mandatory. I hope these two stories will help clear up my position on the issue.

• Birmingham, Alabama October 2, 2006. (AP)
  Authorities have identified the man who was shot and killed by a Yellow Cab Co. driver who said he was thwarting a robbery.
  
  
• Annnandale, Virginia October 5, 2006. (Washington Post)
  Passenger Is Found Guilty of Killing Annandale Cab driver. The jury will return to the courthouse this morning for the sentencing phase of the trial. Martin faces up to life in prison.
  

This brings up the question, should handguns be mandatory for all taxicab drivers? It's obvious that the situation in Alabama is preferable to the situation in Virginia. The innocent taxicab driver is still alive and the state is not saddled with the expense of keeping a violent felon locked up for ever. In business this would be called a win, win situation. Yes, I can see many reasons for requiring taxicab drivers to train in the use of firearms and be compelled to carry them. Unless, of course, they opt out for religious reasons.

Are you putting me on?

Police in Severn, Maryland have charged a man with robbery who left his ID in the cab after assaulting and robbing the driver. Minutes after the attack the police arrested the man at his home He was later identified by the driver. I wonder if the judge would consider a reduced sentence if the accused agreed to a vasectomy? After all, getting this genius out of the gene pool would have to benefit all of society.

—dmc

© 2015 TLC Magazine Online, Inc.