I read with interest an article from St Louis regarding drivers carrying handguns. Unofficial "estimates" place the number of drivers carrying concealed handguns around 30%. While no car service companies were named, the article stated that an unnamed Metropolitan Taxicab Commission official stated that "most companies ban their drivers from packing heat."
First, the idea that the commission doesn't ban weapons but the companies do does not ring true. A company claiming a driver to be an independent contractor would be exposing itself to potential lawsuits by surviving family members if a driver was attacked or killed and the company had banned the driver from carrying weapons to defend him or herself. Yes, maybe the company could win, but there is always the expense of defense.
Then there's that matter of how much control the company can exhibit over the driver and still claim independent contractor status. If the state allows a driver to carry, the city allows the driver to carry, the company would be remiss if it attempted to disallow a driver a right granted by the city and state.
A recent shootout in St Louis found a driver shooting back and saving himself and his passenger from a potentially fatal situation, so the need has already been established. While we can all claim some fisherman's job is more dangerous than driving a taxicab, fish rarely assault fishermen while taxicab drivers are assaulted every day with at least two or three killed every week.
Now, if the companies are willing to provide protection for the drivers, declare them employees and not independent contractors, then I would say they have a right control whether or not the driver has sufficient means of self-defense. Short of that, mind your own business. As always I'd prefer to be judged by twelve than carried by six and I'm certain a lot of taxicab drivers feel the same way.
Uber and Lyft are coming to Las Vegas! Now, I don't know what the rules will be for them, but I know some of the rules in Las Vegas defy logic. I've had drivers refuse to pick me up while they were stuck in traffic because they aren't allowed to load off the strip. Say what? Yep, he was standing still.
Now, I'm sure that some well meaning politician thought that rule up to protect the public from taxicab drivers just stopping in the street, like they do in every other city in the country, to pick up a flag. If it's your first trip and you don't understand the "rules" you would wonder what planet their taxicab drivers were from. Well, in an effort to "level the playing field" the time and geography restrictions are reportedly being removed.
So, one would wonder, what makes Nevada different than any other state? Well, taxicab drivers are employees in Nevada. That means they have collective bargaining, paid Social Security, and other driver benefits that Uber and Lyft don't offer. Now, I don't think that Uber and Lyft will have trouble getting drivers to move over, but I would suspect that better quality drivers aren't going to be willing to give up what they have for a part time gig. It will be interesting to see how this difference changes Uber and Lyft's entry into the market.
Not one to pass up a good idea, Pittsburgh Yellow Cab president Jamie Campolongo decided that surge pricing was a great one. Unfortunately the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission said that it would be too confusing. Really? How is taxicabs having surge pricing any different than Uber having surge pricing? The problem is regulation, as it often is.
Uber bursts on the scene with little or no regulation and everybody swoons while taxicabs have been under the regulatory thumb for decades going on centuries. Why is it that the PUC has to okay rates for Yellow Cab but not Uber? Supply and demand has been a price setter for generations on a variety of products. When demand is high and traffic volume is high it becomes more difficult to drive and drivers will often go home.
The older a trip becomes before a cab arrives the higher the potential that the passenger won't be there when the driver arrives. Given more difficult driving conditions and increasing no loads (passengers no longer waiting) it would only seem fair that drivers get compensated for putting themselves in less than ideal conditions to serve the public. Is that confusing?
New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito is reported to have received $27,000 in "campaign donations" from "yellow cab interests" prior to the vote to limit Uber to 1% growth next year. De Blasio is reported to have gotten $550,000 from "yellow cab interests" during his successful 2013 mayoral campaign. The Council Transportation Committee Chair Ydanis Rodriguez, who introduced the measure, is reported to have gotten $3,000 a week before the proposal was introduced. The absolutely hilarious part of the article is the comment from Dick Dadey who is reported to have said "When there's lot of campaign cash involved, it's hard to tell what's driving the motivations of elected officials."
Really? It seems pretty obvious to me. I will have to admit that city council speakers are certainly cheaper than mayors. How about a little income redistribution there mister mayor? Would now be a good time to point out that I don't believe in politicians regulating business?
While it is perfectly legal for citizens to make "campaign contributions" doesn't in behoove our elected officials to maintain some semblance of honesty? Doesn't anyone holding public office think this might just seem like a bunch of crooks are running the city? Could we wait until our politicians cast their vote before the bribes, er, donations start? In an interesting footnote to her sterling political career Mark-Viverito endorsed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. I guess they share the same moral values.
It's being reported that an Uber funded study found that Uber was faster and cheaper than a taxicab in low income neighborhoods. Ya think? The article stated as a matter of fact, without any kind of evidence, that " the heated debates around on demand ride hailing services company Uber is whether it acts as an antidote to the longstanding patterns of red-lining in the traditional taxi industry."
Now, if you know anything about the taxicab industry you would know that statement is absolutely false. The author of the article, Davey Alba, appears to be doing a hit piece on the taxicab industry while promoting Uber.
Davey doesn't point out that the taxicab drivers are required to go to these areas, accept cash payments and are not allowed to ask for payment up front, while Uber won't even show up unless you have a smart phone and a credit card on file.
Davey also fails to mention that the two main reasons taxicab drivers avoid "low income" areas, which often translates into high crime areas, is because of robbers and fare jumpers. Uber doesn't have fare jumpers because they require a credit card in advance and they don't have robbers because drivers don't carry cash.
So, what exactly is the cause of the poor service to these areas for regular taxicab drivers? Regulation! How can that be? Well, let's help you out there. Taxicab companies can't utilize some of the simple crime prevention techniques Uber uses as a matter of course. To robbers, taxicab drivers are rolling ATM machines while they can't even order an Uber vehicle because they don't have a credit card.
Flag trips are, undoubtedly, the most dangerous trips, but Uber doesn't do flag trips while taxicab drivers are penalized if they pass up flag trips. Companies in some states are required to send a vehicle even if the last person picked up at that address murdered the driver. Yeah, I'll bet cabs are slower in "low income" areas.
If you have any comments regarding this or any of my articles please feel free to contact me at don@mcacres.com.
—dmc
