Jamming the Streets with Lyft, Sidecar, Uber & the Illegals

Taxi Services investigator Eric Richholt invited me to ride with him and his partner Andres Martinez so I could photo & videograph the gridlock caused by a couple of thousand unregulated, fake cabs on the Friday and Saturday nights.

"You wouldn't believe it," he said. "People should see this."

"Is it worse than last time we went out?" I asked.

"Oh, yeah."

Seattle Council Unanimously Votes to Regulate & Limit TNC's

SUMMARY OF CITY OF SEATTLE ORDINANCE RELATED TO TNCS (TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANIES) 

-- PASSED BY FULL COUNCIL March 17, 2014
by
Anonymous

The Proposed Decision of CPUC Commissioner Michael R. Peevey

I think I've fallen behind a lot of people in that I'm just beginning to read the decision now. Thus, I'm in no position to make misleading comments on a subject I don't fully understand. In short, I'm not ABC or the Bay Citizen or the SF Weekly.

I can tell you that the item is targeted to appear on agenda 3321 for the Commission's Business Meeting on 9/5/2013 but it may appear later. A binding decision may be made then or later, and the Commission "may adopt all or part of it as written, amend or modify it, or set it aside or prepare its own decision."

We thus have until at September 5th to influence the final judgement. Best to read the document yourselves. Me being me, I'll probably be giving you my thoughts on this sooner than later.

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/SearchRes.aspx?docformat=ALL&DocID=73350686

CBS coverage at the Protest = halfway decent for a change.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/07/30/cab-drivers-hold-noisy-rally-at-san-francisco-city-hall-to-protest-rideshare/

The Media Catches Up With Lyft, Sidecar & Other Illegal, Faux Rideshares

Here are links to recent media articles concerning the hazards of riding or working for Lyft , Sidecar and other illegal taxicabs (see driver in photo). These posts are a welcome sight after a year of unabashed adulation by techie rags like TechCrunch and the local papers. Did I mention uncritical?  Most of the coverage could have been written by the marketing departments of the fake carsharing corporations. The less-than-intrepid reporters did little more than take down bogus statements of Lyft CEO John Zimmer & Sidecar CEO Sunil Paul et al like brain-washed groupies quoting their gurus.

(To read the articles click below)

WORKSHOP COMMENTS TO ORDER INSTITUTING RULEMAKING FILED BY BARRY KORENGOLD ON BEHALF OF THE SAN FRANCISCO CAB DRIVERS ASSOCIATON

Note - There have been some excellent arguments made on behalf of taxi drivers and the taxi industry at the CPUC hearings on "Rulemaking on Regulations Relating to Passenger Carriers, Ridesharing and New Online Transportation Services (NOETS)." In honor of these efforts I'm discarding my usual egotism and will be running some of them in my blog. This one is from Barry Korengold of the SFCDA. 

Opening Comments:

The San Francisco Cab Drivers Association (SFCDA) would like to register our strong objection to the biased and predetermined manner in which this proceeding is being conducted.  The stated goal of this proceeding was “to ensure that the law and the Commission’s safety oversight reflect the current state of the industry and these regulations are just and fair for all passenger carriers.”  Yet before the first round of comments to this proceeding were submitted or reviewed, the commission suspended its $20,000 citations and cease and desist orders to Uber and Lyft, giving both companies the go ahead to continue operating and advertising full steam ahead, regardless of existing law.  This action has allowed these companies to continue building their customer base at an rapidly expanded level, unfairly competing with law abiding taxicabs and charter party passenger carriers.  (Appendix A and B)

In taking this action, the Commission has ignored or neglected to consider the comments submitted by the Personal Insurance Federation of California which state clearly that vehicles operating for companies such as Lyft or Sidecar would not be covered by personal insurance policies, as they clearly operate on a “for profit” basis and are not “rideshare” services as defined in California Public Utilities Code Section 5353(h).  (Appendix C)

This action also ignores what the SFCDA pointed out in our initial comments, including the fact that although no “time based determination” may be cited in California Public Utilities Code Section 5360.5, it clearly states that charter party carriers of passengers shall operate on a prearranged basis, and that “prearranged basis” means transportation must be arranged by written contract or by telephone.  (Appendix D) At the time this was written, this was enough to ensure the intention of this law, which is the requirement of prearrangement.  Uber is now conflating the meaning of “by telephone” in this context, as being the same as “by smartphone”, which is actually a computer, with more processing power than was used by NASA to land a man on the moon.  

The use of a smartphone, which uses GPS and other technology that didn’t exist when this law was written, allows one to virtually see a vehicle around the corner or down the street and “hail” it for “on demand service”.  As we’ve already pointed out, Uber’s website even states their service is now “exclusively on demand”.  (Appendix E)  Given this context and the advancement of modern technology, we believe that in order to preserve the concept of prearrangement in the smartphone era, additional terminology specifying a minimum prearrangement time window is necessary.  We recommend a 30 to 60 minute advanced order requirement.

Thus far, the Commission has rewarded these rogue operations for defying the law.  It has become clear to those forced by necessity to participate in this proceeding that the outcome has been predetermined from the onset.

Should NOETS be regulated as taxicabs?

Absolutely.  As NOETS have been and continue operating as de facto taxicabs, they need to be regulated as such.  It is untenable to have different taxicabs, providing the same service, regulated by different entities and playing by different rules, simply because they label themselves something different.

The claim that NOETS such as Lyft and Sidecar are “rideshares” is completely false.  Whether the payment for rides are called “donations” or not, they are clearly “for profit” enterprises which provide taxi service. (Appendix F)  They are not merely providing transportation between home and work locations, nor to a destination incidental to another purpose of the driver, as specified in CPU Code 5353(h).

Lyft and Sidecar drivers spend hours on the road for no other reason than to pick up passengers and take them wherever they want for monetary compensation.  This behavior is encouraged and promoted actively by Lyft and Sidecar, despite contradictory claims to this commission.  These NOETS are not just “software companies” facilitating communication between individual drivers and people needing rides.  

Not only do they provide the means for payment and scheduling to these drivers, Lyft frequently hosts “Lyft Driver Hangouts” organized via a private Facebook page.  We have witnessed some of these “Hangouts” at SOMA Street Food and Mel’s Diner.  They even provide incentives to drivers who work during traditionally high taxi demand hours.  Unfortunately, since these are private pages, only registered drivers of these services are granted access to these pages.  

We have been able to obtain screenshots of some internal Lyft driver pages however, which mention these “Hangouts”. They also demonstrate these incentives and that drivers are working up to ten hour shifts. (Appendix G)

Other posts from Lyft drivers clearly indicate they see themselves as taxis and working “slow shifts”.  (Appendix H)

I personally had a passenger inform me that a Lyft driver told her she was able to quit her previous job now that she was driving for Lyft.  There are also these comments from Lyfts internal Facebook page: (Appendix I)

The suggested donation is not truly a donation, as there is a “suggested” amount, which does not just cover the cost of gas, bridge tolls and minor wear and tear of the vehicle.  Their suggested “donation” rates are clearly comparable to city regulated taxi fares, as demonstrated by this twitter from a Lyft administrator. (Appendix J)  The mere suggestions of these rates create substantial “peer” pressure to “donate”.  In fact, Lyft drivers are able to selectively avoid passengers who do not wish to “donate” enough. (Appendix K)

If a passenger neglects to actively input any payment amount to Sidecar, their credit card is automatically charged the “suggested donation”. (Appendix L)

Sidecar has also gone as far as providing a “heat map” of where potential taxi passengers are. (Appendix M)  

These drivers are unfairly competing with highly regulated and city permitted taxi drivers by not having to follow the same regulations and standards.  They are not required to carry the same insurance coverage, undergo the same level of background checks or partake in any required training.  Their vehicles are not required the same inspections or quality standards, they do not charge city standardized metered rates, nor do they follow any of the city’s Transportation Codes.

Public Safety:

As with most occupations, those who have not driven a cab for a length of time do not understand or appreciate the skills required to do it well.  Although most people can drive, a career driver who is on the road eight to ten hours a day, year after year, is a much safer driver than one who is not.  A professional driver is more skilled at hazard avoidance, knowledge of traffic laws and dealing with distractions, such as unruly and/or intoxicated passengers.  It is in the interest of public safety for cab driving to be a profession that retains skilled, knowledgeable career drivers, rather than one with low standards that attracts temporary workers with little to no experience spending their whole day on the road in city traffic.

If there are too many drivers vying for a limited number of passengers, this becomes a public safety hazard, as drivers get frustrated and race around looking for fares, jeopardizing pedestrians, bicyclists and other users of public rights of way.

Good drivers eventually quit and the quality of driver goes down.  If this happens, safety and service deteriorates even further for those who need it most (e.g., senior citizens and the disabled).

Should NOETS be regulated as passenger charter-party carriers?

No.  The CPUC does not have enough enforcement officers to ensure compliance and charter-party passenger carriers should only operate on a pre-arranged basis or they are essentially taxicabs.  Uber black car livery service should be regulated as a charter-party passenger carrier provided they are not operating on an “on demand” basis.

Public safety is better served when transportation for hire is regulated by local jurisdictions, as they have more resources for enforcement and a better ability to judge how those services should be regulated in the context of the local community.

Should NOETS represent a new transportation model requiring a Third Way regulatory approach?

No.  Taxicabs have been using smartphone apps for booking (and payments) before Uber, Sidecar, Lyft or Tickengo.  There is nothing new about using a smartphone app to hail a ride.  The NOETS are simply trying to avoid regulations required of legal taxicabs and charter-party passenger carriers.

If any new regulations were to be applied to NOETS operating as rideshares, the driver should have to post their intended destination with a departure time.  No more than the Internal Revenue Service business mileage standard plus any bridge tolls, divided by the number of passengers and driver, should be collected to cover the cost of the rideshare.  The 2013 IRS standard rate is 56.5 cents per mile. (Appendix N)

 A true rideshare should share the cost of each individual ride, not pay for the entire cost of vehicle ownership.  After all, these are personal vehicles, not primarily used for this purpose, as is a vanpool vehicle, defined in Section 5353(h).

Mitigating the costs of car ownership has been readily solved with services such as Zipcar.com and Citycarshare.org.  Lyft and Sidecar’s claims that they reduce congestion are in fact false, in that the riders that would normally take a different mode of transportation such as a taxi or mass transit are now in additional vehicles.  This causes the exact opposite effect and directly negates the positive impact of services such as Zipcar and Citycarshare.  Taxis that would normally be occupied are now driving around empty and cars that would normally be parked in a space or a driveway, are now constantly occupying transit only lanes and double-parked, either waiting for passengers or dropping them off.

Are NOETS either not subject to the CPUC’s jurisdiction, or is forbearance appropriate?

NOETS are absolutely subject to CPUC’s jurisdiction and forbearance is not appropriate, as Section 710(d) clearly does not exempt IP or VoIP’s from state or federal criminal or civil law, or any local ordinances:  

   (d) This section does not affect the enforcement of any state or federal criminal or civil law or any local ordinances of general applicability, including, but not limited to, consumer protection and unfair or deceptive trade practice laws or ordinances, that apply to the conduct of business, the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), local utility user taxes, and state and local authority governing the use and management of the public rights-of-way.

The CPUC should determine that the NOETS must either conform to existing state regulations regarding charter party carrier or be subject to local regulations regarding taxis.  If they are to fall under ride-sharing as defined by CPUC code they must be limited to having a destination entered into the app prior to accepting passengers with a similar destination.

By extension, it would not be legal to sell drugs or run a prostitution ring because you use a smartphone app.  Those who transport passengers for hire over the public highways must still comply with governing laws, smartphone app or not.

For Appendices click on Read more.

My Reply Comments to the CPUC on Lyft, Sidecar & Willie Brown

Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, representing Tickengo, has joined Lyft and Sidecar in their relentless attempts to square the circle of taxi and insurance regulations through the deliberate misuse and disingenuous re-definition of ordinary words. To give you some idea of what you’re in for if you read through Sidecar’s 25-page tome:

“ ... the ridesharing exemption does not apply if the ‘primary purpose of those persons is to make a ‘profit’ but there is no definition or any guidance on how to interpret the term ‘profit.’”

This reminds me of the old Bill Cosby routine where he dates a philosophy student who keeping asking him questions like, “What is air?”

The Facts

Lyft, Sidecar and Tickengo are commercial enterprises that profit (i.e. make money) from licensing phone apps to drivers and their customers. The way it works is that a customer uses an app to hail a driver. The driver accepts the hail, picks up the customer and takes him or her to a destination. The customer pays. The driver gets 80% and the companies get 20% of the payment.

Ten major auto insurers that I contacted, as well as the Personal Insurance Federation of California (PIFC), describe such business as either taxicab or livery services that are required to carry business or commercial insurance. The problem for Lyft, Sidecar and Tickengo is that they don’t want their drivers to have to pay commercial insurance rates and they don’t want to be regulated. Among the reasons why: 

1. Commercial insurance is more expensive. The rate on my 2009 4-door Camry with $150,000 - $300,000 personal liability is $580 every six months. The quote I got for business use was $1,480.
2. The California Highway Patrol's Motor Carrier Safety regulations require that charter party carriers, (i.e. cabs and limos, among other things), inspect and maintain the vehicles to ensure that they are in safe operating order.  (13 CCR § 1232.)  The CPUC requires charter-party carriers to maintain proper documentation of such inspections.  (CPUC Gen. Order 157-6 §4.02.) 

Since Lyft and Sidecar allow cars dating as far back as 2000, many of the vehicles would most certainly fail these inspections. This failure rate and the cost of these inspections, coupled with the high price of commercial insurance, would drastically reduce the available pool of drivers.

Denying that People Work for Money

Sidecar went into some detail on its strange concept of  “profit” with the following:

“By its enforcement actions and policy, the CPSD (Public Utilities Commission's Consumer Protection Safety Division) has apparently chosen to interpret essential and undefined terms such as “profit” as narrowly as possible. The CPSD’s position is that only “incremental” or “variable” profit (i.e., on a per-trip basis) should be considered; however ... a reasonable and practical construction of profit and a commercial enterprise is the total expenses of operation (i.e., the fixed and variable or aggregate costs). Simply put, there’s no profit where total costs exceed income ...”

Brilliant! Nobody has ever thought of that before.

Sidecar, then, is desperately trying to redefine “profit” into some murky arcane concept that nobody can understand. Common sense provides the obvious rebuttal to this self-serving re-definition . How many people would spend twenty or thirty hours a week running passengers here and there if they didn’t make money doing it?  

In addition, Lyft, Sidecar and Tickengo advertise for drivers by telling them that they will make money.   A Lyft ad says:

 "Make $22/hr With Your Car - Have A Car? Give A Lyft - lyft.me."  

The Sidecar driver application opens with:

"You drive every day. Why not get paid for it? Make extra cash and meet some awesome people by driving with SideCar! ... Some SideCar drivers are earning $22+ per hour."

Tickengo’s website is a little subtler and doesn’t mention money until the end of its driver page when it writes:

"Get Paid When you accept a ride, your passenger receives an electronic ticket with a PIN. Ask for this code once at destination to get paid. If the ride goes well, you'll get a good review, which means more requests and more money... Enjoy!"

Given that these are their own advertisements, no one should be surprised if the arguments that Lyft, Sidecar and Tickengo put forward to prove that their drivers don’t make a “profit” tend toward the esoteric.

The “Who Can Read Minds?” Denial

Sidecar writes:

"The ridesharing exemption under section 5353(h) provides for “[t]ransportation of persons between home and work locations or of persons having a common work-related trip purpose in a vehicle having a seating capacity of 15 passengers or less…and/or transportation that is “incidental to another purpose of the driver.... It is ... important that the phrase “the purpose of the driver” not be read too narrowly. A focus on driver’s state of mind would be so difficult to discern that it would create uncertainty and be impossible to enforce."

This was thought to be so profound that it was echoed by Willie Brown who wrote: 

“It would be impossible to read drivers’ minds and differentiate between people just helping out other people trying to recoup their vehicle expenses.”

Impossible to read drivers’ minds? Wouldn’t the fact that Lyft, Sidecar and Tickengo drivers transport customers for an average of $22 per hour be an indication of what’s going on in their heads?

“Work-related” means driving around while thinking about working.

Sidecar asks that the CPUC: 

“Clarify and ensure reasonable and practical guidance and commercially reasonable interpretations of certain vague and undefined ridesharing terms and phrases including “work-related” and “work locations.”  Such terms and phrases should not be construed narrowly based on outdated historical or traditional principles of an employer-employee relationship and a traditional “9-5” home- work commuting routine. ... Rather, the terms and phrases should be construed for the varied circumstances of the current California labor force and market. The CPSD has narrowly defined these terms through its enforcement policies and actions in a manner that is impracticable and unwarranted (i.e., suggesting that a driver or passenger must be an “employee” of an entity, thereby disqualifying independent contractors, freelancers, or full time moms/caregivers from the “work-related” element of the rideshare exemption).

If the rideshare exemption is not actually intended to refer to the act of sharing a ride between common destinations, as opposed to offering paid, on-demand transportation, and if the CPUC proves capable of accepting this kind of self-serving obfuscation of common language from the mouths of for-profit businesses -- from whom the CPUC is supposed to be protecting the public -- then I think I’ll start looking for housing in some neighborhood that is nowhere near a PG&E gas line.

Innocence by Association 

Willie Brown keeps lumping Tickengo together will a true, government-run ridesharing site, 511.org, in hopes that the reader will get the expression “ridesharing sites such as 511.org or Tickengo” stamped on his or her brain. In fact, Brown links Tickengo with 511.org at least seventeen times in eight pages.  But a quick glance at the 511.org website proves this connection a lie. Instead of advertising for drivers that get paid, a 511.org add says:

 “Carpooling can save you money by dividing the driving expenses between members of the carpool. You can split the costs evenly between people in the carpool or you can split expenses by how often you rotate driving duties. If everyone drives equally, no money needs to change hands. If you are strictly a passenger, you can pitch in your share for gas and other expenses.”

Indeed, in the carpooling situations that I’m familiar with, passengers usually will offer to pay a dollar for the bridge or the gas. The drivers certainly don’t make $22 per hour before or after expenses.

The Magic of Numbers

Lyft, Sidecar and Tickengo all propose that the AAA annual cost of vehicle ownership ($8,776 per year) be used as a standard to judge whether or not a driver should be considered to be doing ridesharing. In the words of Willie Brown: “It would be impossible to calculate the exact expense of every trip so this limitation guarantees that ridesharing drivers are not ‘driving for a living’ as commercial drivers.” Brown is saying, that until drivers make $8,776 a year they are doing ridesharing. Over that amount, they are considered cab or limo drivers.

What’s wrong with this sophistry?

The main thing wrong with Brown’s logic is that the law was set up for actual carpooling operations, not taxi or livery services that are pretending to be carpools like Lyft, Sidecar and Tickengo.  The purpose of the carpooling law was to help the environment by taking cars off the street, not by putting thousands more cars on it as Lyft, Sidecar and Tickengo are doing.

The figures being thrown around by Lyft, Sidecar and Tickengo bear no relationship to a real carpooling situation. Let’s look at what a real carpooling situation would look like, given that AAA estimates 2012 California driving costs for 2012 as $0.596 per mile driven, and using a real carpool ride from San Francisco to Oakland as an example:

  

1. For a 15-mile trip across the Bay Bridge, according the AAA standard, the mileage and toll costs to the driver per year would be $2974.
2.   This is a difference of $5802 from the AAA total annual vehicle costs.  If this is used by the CPUC as a measure of “ridesharing”: 

• This hard-working carpool driver, who goes into the office on every weekday of the year without taking a sick day or single state or federal holiday, can earn some extra income by driving up an additional 9,735 miles after work (about 185 miles per week, every week of the year, or about one standard taxi shift per week) driving people around with a pink mustache on the front of the car without violating the concept of “ridesharing”; or
• This carpool driver will have to collect $5.71 from every casual carpool “customer” to recoup their annual vehicle expenses at the AAA rate.  This is exactly $4.71 per person more than the going rate at every transbay carpool stand.

1. In a real transbay casual carpool, the passengers will sometimes (not always) contribute a dollar each toward the toll.  This custom only developed when the Bridge District recently started charging toll for use of the carpool lane.  This vehicle owner who drives to the City might hope, then, to collect $520 from two daily passengers.  In that case the difference between what this driver might collect and the proposed annual vehicle cost standard is $8256.

• This tireless hypothetical vehicle owner, by Sidecar, Lyft and Tickengo’s standards, is free to drive an additional two standard taxi shifts per week, every week of the year (266 miles per week) in order to earn back their vehicle expenses for the year.   

If Lyft, Sidecar and Tickengo drivers were to work eight hours per day with a 15 mile per hour average, vehicle expenses would be ($8.94 * 8 hours) or $71.52 per day. Using the AAA yearly limit of $8,776 as a measure, the illegal taxicabs of Lyft, Sidecar and Tickengo would be allowed to operate five days a week for twenty-four weeks (nearly six months per year), or half-time during an entire year before they reached their “ridesharing” limit.  At $22 per hour promised returns, these drivers would actually make $21,120, or $12,344 more than the cost of all of their annual personal vehicle expenses.  A free personal vehicle and $12,000 a year in cash for working  (i.e. “ridesharing”) part-time.  Not bad.

Now that is what I call a good working definition of the difference between illegal taxicabs like Lyft, Sidecar and Tickengo and a real carpool.

Another good definition of a real carpool would be a non-profit like 511.org that can't afford to pay Willie Brown $500 an hour to represent them.

The Bay Citizen & Bedbug Journalism

"The correct perception of a matter and a misunderstanding of the  same matter do not preclude each other."          Franz Kafka

Some time ago I quoted Kafka's bit of wisdom to Zusha Elinson, the writer of the Bay Citizen's Cab complaints climb in San Francisco. It was my way of having a heart to heart with a young reporter. I was trying to subtly let him know that he lacked a firm grasp of both subject matter and context in his pieces on taxicabs. He laughed but missed my message.

Not that Elinson's posts are unique. In my twenty-eight years of cab driving I've never read a good article on taxicab drivers or the cab business in a San Francisco publication. I've come across excellent work in New York papers and magazines but not in San Francisco. Here the writer comes up with a salable idea ("bad cabbies" usually get traction), calls around to get a few quotes verifying his or her theme, throws in a counter quote for balance, and pops out the piece without so much as a thought to furrow the brow.

The amount of misinformation that the public has been fed about taxicabs by local news outlets continually boggles my mind. Until now my favorite was a radio piece on the legislation to enable the sale of taxi medallions in 2010 by KCBS personality Barbara Taylor. Ms. Taylor inaccurately stated that the legislation would allow the medallions to be bought by cab companies. This was and is not true. The medallions can only be sold (or transferred) to working cab drivers.

I called up Ms. Taylor and told her that she had it wrong.

"That's your opinion," she said. "I'm busy."

"It's not my opinion,"I retorted. "It's in the legislation. I'll send it you."

"I don't have time to read," she said. "What I do is take opinions."

"But, if you'd just take five minutes to read it, you'd see that you were wrong."

"That's your opinion," she snapped and hung up the phone.

I didn't think it would be possible to top Ms. Taylor in willful negligence but Mr. Elinson's hatchet job gives her a run for her money. For instance:

1. San Francisco cab drivers take over 30 millions rides a year

In light of this, 1,733 complaints (or .0000577 of the trips) does not have much significance at all.  (See Kafka quote.) Certainly not enough to make make sweeping statements like the opening two paragraphs of Mr. Elinson's purple prose.

Given the small number of complaints you could just as well ague the opposite. Namely that this minuscule fraction is sign of how good the taxi service is.

Of course it could be argued that many people have complaints about cab service but don't bother to do anything about it.

To which I would counter by saying that I routinely have customers tell me how enjoyable or how wonderful it's been to ride in my taxi. I get a least a hundred of such comments a year. Furthermore, I'm not the only professional driver in the city. Conventioneers and other visitors frequently tell me that San Francisco has the friendliest and most knowledgeable cab drivers in the country and it's a reason why they like to come here.

These people don't call 311.

2. Moe's Cab is an illegal taxi

A reader could not have discovered the above fact from Elinson's article where he wrote,

"One patron reported that a cab driver allegedly stole his credit card number and used it to make purchases in Brazil."  

Then he repeated the accusation in more detail later on.

"One passenger said a driver took a credit card impression “the old-fashioned way.” The next day, the customer said he got a fraud alert about the card being used to make purchases in Brazil. His taxi receipt said it was for Moe’s Cab."

Indeed, from the context said reader would naturally assume that Moe was a San Francisco cab driver.

Now a sharp investigative reporter like Mr. Elinson could have easily discovered the truth on the Moe's Cab webpage. Hint - the fact that Moe has neither an address for his cab company nor a listing of operating hours is an indication that the service is illegal.

But, if this was too challenging for our intrepid reporter, he could simply have pulled down the Taxi page from the SFMTA website. The first listing under Information for Taxi Customers is a link to Licensed San Francisco Taxi Companies. Had Elinson bothered to read this he would've noticed that Moe's Cab is not a San Francisco taxicab and could have spared us his misleading and slanderous statements.

But it gets better. Mr. Elinson interviewed me, you see, before he ran his article. I told him that I'd never heard of Moe's Cab and suggested that it might be an illegal taxi. Despite this, Elinson did not bother to check his facts.

Did Moe's theft fit so nicely into his naughty "cabbie" thesis that Elinson didn't want to know the truth?

3. A Bedbug

Elinson opens his second paragraph by stating,

"Taxis infested with bed bugs ... were among the complaints."

Later in the piece he quoted "an anonymous National Cab driver" who called 311 "to report that some of the cabs had bed bugs."

"Me and other drivers are getting tons of bites," Mr. Anonymous said. "The management has been informed but they are doing nothing about the problem."

As it turned out the city's Department of Public Health found "ONE DEAD BED BUG" in One TAXICAB and "no active infestation."

Nonetheless, Elinson still chose to use "TAXIS INFESTED WITH BED BUGS" to start his second paragraph despite the fact that his own limited research proved his lead a lie.

Mr. Elinson devoted over 10% of his article to this subject. On the principle that "the exception proves the rule," a more responsible writer would not have included the beg bug in his piece at all.

4. Missing and Dubious Sources

Elinson apparently did not talk to Director of Taxi Services Chris Hayashi. Nor does he mention talking to MTA Investigator Eric Richholt despite the fact that I gave him Richholt's phone number.

Elinson did get a negative quote from Jordanna Thigpen who was the deputy director of the former Taxi Commission and who replaced by Hayashi. Elinson has previously told me that Thigpen intensely dislikes Hayashi. Thigpen also clearly thinks that taxi service would be better if she was still in charge.

In addition, I thought that the Bay Citizen didn't use anonymous sources? Judging by the one Elinson chose to quote, it sounds like a good policy. Had Elinson run his bed bug tale by me, I could have told him who Anonymous was. So could any number of other people familiar with the San Francisco taxi business.

Anonymous is a former National Cab Driver who was in an accident that a better driver probably could have avoided and keeps trying to sue National on variety of pretexts including the claim that National did not have insurance despite the fact that he collected Workers' Compensation for his accident.

A while back Anonymous, who has none of the mannerisms sometimes associated with homosexuals, told me that he'd been assaulted in the National Cab lot because he was gay. This seems unlikely. National Cab was managed by a cross-dresser for many years and several openly gay people work in either the office or as drivers.

Anonymous, who has zero credibility with people in the taxi business, has send me e-mails telling me how much he hates cab drivers. He sometime gives talks on the same theme at MTA Board meetings.

Given that in all my years of cab driving I've never come across, or even heard, of a cab with a bed bug in it, I think it's entirely possible that Anonymous planted the damn thing himself.

At any rate, Elinson fans will be comforted to know that Anonymous now drives for Sidecar.

5. So what is Elinson's article? A hit piece? A hatchet Job? Or, just good old fashioned yellow journalism?

Certainly it's one of most biased pieces I've read. There are some serious problems with with the industry and with some San Francisco taxi drivers (I'll deal with credit cards etc in the next post.) but the vast majority of us do a very difficult, low paying and dangerous job at a very high level. Instead of acknowledging this, Elinson uses a laundry list of mostly trivial incidents to trash every driver in the city.

Yes, of course, there should not be anybody slammed with a racial slur. But there are 7,000 cab drivers in this city and you can't expect them all to be saints. One example doesn't mean San Francisco cab drivers are racist. In fact, most San Francisco cab drivers themselves belong to racial or ethnic minorities. I've often thought the kind of hack attack that Elinson indulged himself in is based on its own racist assumptions.

Other than the racial insult, in over 30 million rides, the worst actions that Elinson could come up with is one driver who asked two friends to kiss each other and another driver who called up a customer for a date. There can be no doubt about it. As a criminal class that "routinely flout the law" we suck.

The truth is that if you ride in a San Francisco taxicab (with 99% certainty) it will be in fairly good shape and will not have bed bugs.  You will not be charged for bringing a baby along. If the driver hits on you, all you have to do is say "no." You will not be overcharged. You will be taken to your location by the best possible route. The driver will not you ask you to kiss your friend but I'd personally like to request that you try to keep you cloths on next Friday night. The cameras do not link to HBO. And please stop doing joints in my cab. Three people in San Francisco don't like the smell. If you're lucky enough to ride with me you might be able to listen en route to Beethoven's Third Piano Concerto, Tito Puente, old school rock or Kind of Blue. The choice is up  to you. And, yes, I take credit cards and love trips to the Sunset.

Supes Pass Watered Down Enforcement Against Illegal Cabs et al

At yesterday's Board of Supervisors meeting, the board unanimously voted to pass their watered down version of legislation making it a misdemeanor to operate illegal taxis or limos, or to solicit or accept payment for referral of passengers, or assignment of shifts or dispatched calls, or other illegal activities that suck money off of legitimate cab drivers and both cheat and endanger the general public.

The Supes voted to okay their own amended version of the ordinance that lessened the penalties that the police can give from $2,500 and $5,000 to $1,000.

A confused message: crime doesn't pay ... too much.

Whatever - as my mother used to say, "it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick."

The legislation will allow MTA investigators to issue tickets to illegal vehicles et al. Taxi Services Director Christiane Hayashi hopes to hire two full time investigators who can devote all their energy to enforcing the laws against illegal cabs, sticky palmed doormen and the like. This will mark the first time that anyone has seriously and systematically gone after these felons.

The Board of Supervisors also passed a resolution supporting Peak-Hour Taxi Permits.

How to Stop Illegal Taxis and Limos

Actually - it ain't that hard. I mean, it's not like the phony roadsters are difficult to find.

This is what you might call a classic illegal vehicle. Is it a cab? Is is limo? Or, is it both a cab and a limo?

Whatever - this one's been around for a couple of years, apparently unmolested by any form of enforcement or the police.

As the old saying goes, "where there is a will there is a way." But if there is no will, what you get are illegal limo/taxis.

Sometimes they actually look like cabs. But the one below is lacking the Yellow triangle and has a disconnected phone number.

Sometimes they just steal a name and splash on an approximate color.

Sometimes they don't try hard enough. This one stole Luxor's colors but gave it a generic name.

 If you look closely you can see 401 on the front door and 778 near the back.

"Yellow" is popular word for naming pseudo taxis but it covers a wide variety of sins.

Some of these vehicles might be legal in places like Marin.

Some are just plan ridiculous.

The phone number on the above faux taxi actually did work. The guy who answered wouldn't tell me what city he was in but he did say that he was no longer in the cab business.

Whatever their virtues or lack thereof, these illegal vehicles all have 3 things in common:

1. They don't pay business taxes - at least not in San Francisco.
2. They don't pay license fees in San Francisco.
3. Insurance companies void auto polices if the vehicles are used as taxis or for illegal activities. Therefore, people riding in these vehicles are not insured. 

The SFPD talks a good game when it comes to illegal cab and limo enforcement but the truth is that they're just too busy. In fact they are so busy that they can't seem to gave a ticket to an illegal vehicle unless they're paying themselves overtime.

In May 2010, Chief Murphy promised us a direct line that we could use to report illegal vehicles. As of this morning, nine months later, he still hasn't found the time to set up that phone number.

I checked with the police and you can call 311 to report an illegal taxi although the officer I spoke with thought that 311 was more for complaints about real taxis.

When you call 311 they are very polite and what they do is politely pass your complaint on to the "Taxi Commission" - which no longer exists.  

We cab drivers know either where the illegal taxis and limos are or where they are likely to show up. All we need are a few good men and women who have the will, the authority and a systematic plan to put these clowns out of business.

If the Board of Supervisors passes Taxi Services Director Christiane Hayashi's proposed changes in the transportation code on March 1, 2011, that's exactly what Taxi Services should be able to do.

Nat Ford Serves a Facial

It's official. As of Monday 9/21/2009, Taxis & Accessible Services became Administration, Taxi & Accessible Services under Director Debra Johnson.

Instead of having our own division within the MTA we are now lumped into a cat-call sub-division that looks like this:

• Equal Opportunity Contracting
• Human Resources
• Marketing and Customer Service
• Employee and Labor Relations (for MTA employees)
• Organizational Development and Training
• Taxis
• Accessible Services

Can't you just see the logic of the grouping?

Christiane Hayashi is still the head of Taxis but she's now Deputy Director who reports to Director Debra Johnson as well Executive Director Nathaniel Ford.

In practical terms, this means that Ms. Hayahsi has lost some of her freedom and power and will have to clear her actions with Debra Johnson before going ahead with them. As to whether this will effect her plans to crack down on illegal taxis and limos remains to be seen.

As to how this will effect the forthcoming Town Hall Meetings is also an open question.

One thing is certain: If Director Ford chooses to ignore the wishes of everyone in the Taxicab Business in going ahead with this change, it must be his way of telling us that:

• What we want doesn't matter.
• The Byzantine internal politics of the MTA are more important than the needs of the cab industry or the City of San Francisco.
• We are under his thumb.

Welcome to the MTA.

New York, New York: the Truth About Gypsy Cabs

Michael Spain, a board member of the MHA, recently claimed that there were no illegal taxis (or gypsy cabs) in New York City. According to him, what they have are "black cars" that are licensed only to take radio calls. Spain claims that New York's auction system has made cab medallions so valuable that the police immediately crack down on any cars, black or otherwise, that try to pick up flags without a proper license.

Since I haven't been in New York in over 25 years, I'll let others do the talking for me.

Answers.com defines a gypsy cab as "a taxicab that cruises for customers although it is licensed only to respond to calls." But maybe they haven't been to New York lately either.

A better source might be CitiDex New York City which has a section devoted to gypsy cabs on its main page. In an entry updated on July 3, 2009, the CitiDex has this to say about gypsy cabs:

"They are private cars that roam the city looking for fares. Gypsy cabs are run by individuals who use their own cars. In recent years, gypsy cab companies with radio dispatched drivers have begun operating. These services are illegal and you should avoid using them. The level of service is generally poor and getting into a gypsy cab can be dangerous."

And there also is this entry from a post titled "Perfectly Legal" in the blog NEW YORK HACK.

"As I waited outside the Delta terminal, there were about five or six car service drivers parked there, standing in front of the doors and soliciting people for rides to Manhattan. This, you should know, is totally illegal ... Car service drivers are, by law, allowed to respond only to radio calls ... And every time a car service driver breaks these rules, he not only breaks into our business (and therefore our incomes), he also depreciates the value of each and every medallion, making it a waste of money to buy or lease one."

The narrator then describes an argument she has with a gypsy driver where she threatens him by telling him that she belongs to the Taxi & Limousine Commission (TLC).

"He smirked and said, 'Why? You TLC?'"

"I said, 'Yes, I am. And you're lucky I'm not working right now.'"

"Of course," she says, "he didn't take me seriously at all. And why would he? The TLC certainly doesn't do much except ticket cabbies and cash in on corporate contracts ... . They don't give two shits if we lose money to these guys."

In sum, the illegal cab situation sounds like it's pretty much the same in New York as it is here - except that they don't have a Chris Hayashi who wants to "swoop down" on the bandit taxis, "pick 'em off one by one" and fine 'em.

Chris Hayashi on Illegal Taxi's Etc

I called Director Chris Hayashi of  the MTA'S Taxis and Available Services to find out when her Town Hall Meetings would resume but she couldn't give me an answer. Her office is swamped with numerous problems such as moving personal from the Taxi Commission and re-checking the qualifications of almost every driver who ever had dealings with Officer Makaveckas. It'll be at least a few weeks before she'll be able to plan the meetings.

She did say that soon after June 19th her office will start issuing the thirty or forty medallions that have been backlogged by the Proposition A changeover to the MTA. Most of the medallions come from either the deceased or revocations and will be handed out to drivers on the list ala Proposition K. 

Hayashi's department is also gearing up for a crackdown on illegal limos and taxis. They'll start by going after the cabs which she says are, "on the front burner right now." "The "initial stages" of the operation are already in planning. This entails a a lot of administrative detail. "The best work requires the best preparation ...  the groundwork is being laid so that we know when we do hit the ground that we are effective. I don't want to just chase them (the illegal taxis) around."

These preparations sound incredibly complex and include:

• Putting the Traffic Division under the control of the MTA which "will get more responsiveness from traffic cops on MTA issues and taxis is now one of those issues."
• Coming up an enforcement plan. "The airport has one," Hayashi said, "so we're going to do our own for downtown ... we want that before we turn the police loose because ... we want to make sure that we have what we need for the district attorney to prosecute."
• "We want to talk to the District Attorney's Office first, give them a heads up that these cases are coming , let his office know how important it is to prosecute these and find out what they need in order to make sure they can prosecute effectively."
• And of course they need to identify and find the addresses of the illegal taxis.

Hayashi's team is compiling a list of illegal cab - including four that I gave her. Drivers can help in this effort by sending their photos of taxicabs that they think are illegal to:  sftaxi@sfmta.com or they can call 415.701.4400 for with other information. 

Some things you might look out for are:

• A fleet of taxis with a 333-3363 phone number pretending to be yellow cabs. If would be helpful if the MTA knew exactly how many bogus taxis are in this fleet. So if you see any of these cabs try to photograph them. 
• Any location where you see illegal taxis parked - especially if it looks like a base address.
• Try to get license numbers, vehicle numbers, color schemes, phone numbers and any thing else that might help to identify the fake cabs. It might also be useful to take down the cross streets where and the time when you saw them.
• For now, focus only on the taxis. The limos are a more complicated issue so the MTA is going after them later.

One thing drivers should avoid, however, is any kind confrontation, vigilante action or citizens arrest. I can attest to the wisdom of this.  One limo driver I photographed last year threw a punch at me and another one tried to run me off the road with his limo. While I personally found these events entertaining, I sensed that my customers didn't. As Hayahsi puts it, "avoiding fist-fights is a good thing."

She would also like all drivers to check their brakes before starting a shift. San Francisco's cable car fleet is small.

Hayashi thinks that she can get $5,000 for every illegal cab she catches. She's looking forward to this "because the city needs the money." 

Once director Hayashi has "all my stuff in order ... it'll just be a matter of going out and mopping up the floor. We'll swoop down and pick 'em off one by one."