Against AB 2763: Against Changing the Definition of a "Private Vehicle" to Include Leasing

The following is a letter I send to the State Senate opposing the above rule change.

Hon. Ben Hueso, Chair Senate Energy, Utilities& Communications Committee State Capitol, Room 2209 Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Chair Hueso,

AB 2763, presented by Assembly Member Gatto, changes the definition of a “Personal Vehicle” in 5431 to mean the opposite of the ordinary meaning of term “Personal Vehicle.”

Instead of being a vehicle that is owned by a ‘Participating Driver” to use “in connection with a transportation network company’s online-enabled application or platform to connect with passengers”;” a “Personal Vehicle” becomes any vehicle that is “owned, leased, rented, or otherwise authorized for use for any period of time by the participating driver … that is not a taxicab or a limo.”

Thus “Personal” comes to mean “any or all.”

The Phantom Responds to Lyft's Whining About having to Inspect Their Vehicles Like Everyone Else Does

REPLY COMMENTS OF ED HEALY RE: COMMENTS OF LYFT, INC. RE: PROPOSED DECISION ON PHASE II ISSUES & RESERVING ADDITIONAL ISSUES FOR RESOLUTION IN PHASE III

2. VEHICLE INSPECTIONS

LYFT STATES,

“…Lyft is not aware of any evidence in the record indicating that vehicles used by Lyft drivers – which are predominantly used for non-commercial purposes – present any greater risk of equipment failure than other personal vehicles with which TNCs share the road, which are not subject to any inspection requirements under California law.

My Reply,

The argument is beside the point. The mere fact that the vehicle is transporting people presents a greater risk to them thus making the inspections necessary.

NEW LOGOS, SAME DRIVERS: FOR A SAFE RIDE TAKE FLYWHEEL TO SB 50

Sunil Paul, John Zimmer and the Art of the Lie

While Sunil Paul (photo, left) certainly deserves credit for creating the original lies, imaginary factoids and false advertising that helped peddle his product to a misinformed public, it would be remiss of me not to give Lyft President John Zimmer (photo, below) his share of the credit for fraudulent marketing – especially in light of the fact that Zimmer appears to be succeeding where Paul failed.

Indeed, it's hard to draw a precise line where one high-tech shyster starts and the other leaves off. If one of them came up with new scam, the other would soon borrow and use it himself. In the end, they both have imperiled the public with similar bogus claims.

Paul rightly takes the credit for:

• spuriously using the word "rideshare" to describe his faux taxi service.
• falsely calling Sidecar's fares "donations" then blackballing any passenger that didn't donate.
• being among the first to redefine a "sharing community" as being an anonymous group where one person keeps all the profits while others in the community take all the risks and pay all the bills.
• Inspecting vehicles to be used as Sidecars by having the new drivers upload a photo of their vehicle.
• taking the lead in Greenwashing by claiming that putting out thousands of taxicabs with no emission controls would help reduce green house gases.
• creating a smokescreen (deliberate bad pun) by joining numerous environmental organizations to hide the fact that his company was a major polluter.
• telling the local mainstream media's "journalists" that SideCar carried a "Million Dollar Guarantee" so that these dedicated, in-depth "investigators" wouldn't bother to investigate and thus discover that Sidecar actually carried no insurance at all.
• telling his own drivers that they didn't need to carry commercial insurance on their own SideCar vehicles which meant that they would be uninsured in an accident – as of course would their customers. 

John Zimmer aped most of Sunil's spins and added a few twists of his own.

SideCar Bites the Dust

SideCar CEO Sunil Paul (photo) left the vulture capital scene with a significant quote,

"We are the innovation leader in ridesharing ..." said Paul.

What makes this statement significant is that, even while going down the tubes, Paul couldn't turn off his hype machine.

He was not and is not an "innovation leader" in "ridesaharing." Not SideCar nor Lyft nor Uber have had (or have) anything to with "ridesharing" except to use the word for the purposes of double-talk, false advertising and fraud – fields in which Sunil Paul has indeed excelled as an innovator.

Ridesharing Explained

As far as I know the only real ridesharing company in California is 511.org which is a government run non-profit. The dual purpose of 511.org is fight pollution by taking vehicles off the street and allow drivers to save money by sharing the costs of a trip with their riders. In their ads for drivers to use the service, 511.org writes:

“Carpooling (i.e. ridesharing) 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.”

Contrast this with a SideCar ad for drivers,

"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.”

The difference between a true "rideshare" company, then, and SideCar is that a rideshare company is a non-profit and SideCar is a for-profit company - or was trying to be. 


Some Advantages of Being a Non-Profit:

• Don't need to pay taxes.
• The numbers of cars wouldn't be regulated.
• Drivers would not need to be vetted.
• Cars wouldn't need commercial insurance.
• No responsibility for the welfare of their driver.
• No responsibility for the welfare of their passengers.
• Sidecar would not need to provide insurance for riders, drivers or vehicles.

Sunil Paul's Attacks on the Legal Definition of a Non-Profit

I was going to just summarize Paul's duplicitous career as high-tech charlatan but the arguments that his lawyers gave in an attempt to expand the definition of "non-profit" at the 2013 California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) hearing are too rich not share with my gentle readers. Sidecar argued:

• “ ... 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.’”
• “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 …”
• "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."
• My Note: Does "Work-related” means driving around while thinking about working? Or, conversely, does "non-profit" mean driving people for pay while thinking about your kids?
• 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).

I'm glad that's clarified.

For more in this vein see: My Reply Comments to the CPUC on Lyft, Sidecar & Willie Brown 

These argument turned out to be too obtuse, arcane and asinine even for the CPUC to swallow. They chose to regulate SideCar, Lyft and Uber anyway. However, in categorizing them as TNCs, the CPUC effectively deregulated them by putting them under the control of the State of California instead of the cities because the state had neither the personal nor the means nor the will to regulate them.

Next: Sunil and the thrill of false advertising.

Note: How the civilized world deals with charlatans who put the public at risk.

Uber’s No-Holds-Barred Expansion Strategy Fizzles in Germany

HopSkipDrive & Shuddle: Transporting Minors – Safe or Not?

HopSkipDrive and Shuddle are recent venture capitalized startups that specialize in giving rides to unaccompanied minors.

HopSkipDrive claims to be founded by 3 mothers and actually was.

Founder and CEO Joanna McFarland has an MBA from Stanford, a BS from Wharton, has worked for 15 years in product and general management, and has two kids.

Along with the other founder mothers she claims to be part of,

 “A team that cares as much for your kids as they do theirs.’’

To an extent this appears to be true. Unlike Uber or Lyft, HopskipDrive has its drivers fingerprinted and favors Trustline , Live scan  and other safety measures for background checks.

Shuddle's CEO, on the other hand, is Nick Allen who was a co-founder of Sidecar where he clearly worked on his bs – as you can hear in this interview where he claims that Sidecar "really isn't a taxi service at all"...

Like Uber and Lyft, Shuddle formulates long and arcane arguments against using background checks like Trusline and Live scan – which are the standards for child care safety. It's unclear whether Shuddle uses fingerprinting or not. Some places they say they do. In others, they don't mention it.

OOPS - Nick Allen is out at Shuddle. Apparently the company isn't doing too well.

In any case, I would certainly favor HopSkipDrive over Shuddle. Unfortunately, they have a waiver of liability (which is normally used for dangerous activities like parachute jumping or traveling in a war zone) hidden in their Terms where they refuse to guarantee the safety of your kids after all.

I haven't had the luck to have children myself (at least not yet) but I'm advising my numerous cousins, nieces and nephews not to use either service until or unless they get rid of the waivers and guarantee the safety of the children who they transport.

For more detail you can read from my Reply Comments to the CPUC on Unaccompanied Minors below.

Note: The Austin, Texas City Council voted to require Uber and the other tncs to fingerprint their drivers.  In this they join San Antonio, Las Vegas, Portland, most of Europe and China among other places.

Remember the days when San Francisco was the leader in consumer protections and social and political innovations? Now we wonder when the Neanderthals who currently run this city and this state will catch up with the rest of the world?

FLYWHEEL TAXI SUES THE CPUC

Flywheel taxi filed a lawsuit in Federal Court last week against the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for unfair business practices.

The main complaint is the "uneven manner" in which the CPUC is regulating "e-hail taxi companies (i.e. Uber, Lyft & Sidecar). "The CPUC," the complaint asserts, "in-behind-the-door negotiations allowed these services to obtain a state license that they have since used to circumvent all established municipal taxi rules"

"Flywheel Taxi’s suit seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against the CPUC for the CPUC’s assertion of jurisdiction over e-hail taxi companies, which has prevented municipal agencies from applying the same rules to e-hail taxi companies that are applied to traditional taxi companies, resulting in an unfair two-tier system of regulation that has created an unlevel playing field for on-demand transportation companies."

Hansu Kim (photo), President of Flywheel Taxi, said,

“Calling these new taxi services ‘ride-sharing’ is the height of irony. It’s a type of Orwellian doublespeak intended to make people feel good about them. I mean, who is against sharing? But there isn’t any sharing going on. These are venture capital backed commercial businesses trying to skirt regulatory requirements. This lawsuit is intended to make sure everyone gets to compete while playing by the same rules.”

In a telephone interview, Kim clarified this by saying, 

"Taxicabs are being treated unfairly in terms of rules that we have to follow compared to the e-hail taxi companies ... regulators either have to treat us equally under the law – where we all are regulated similarly – or, if they want to deregulate the industry, then they have to deregulate all of us." 

Flywheel is not suing for money but rather a change in laws.

"All we're asking for," Kim says, "is to be able to compete on an even playing field. ... If we have that I know we can succeed. ... I'm not afraid of technology or new services or competition – I'm all for it. This is about making sure that they have the same costs and provide the same insurance and standards of safety that we do. Even a company like ours that is incredibly innovative and progressive is not going to thrive in an environment where the competition is allowed to endanger the public with cut rate insurance, 3rd rate background checks, phantom vehicle maintenance and zero driver training."

Regulate all or regulate none," Kim concluded, "but don't regulate some."

For a list of regulatory differences between e-hail taxis and real taxicabs, and a copy of the suit – click below.

Uber & Lyft's Attacks on Fingerprinted Background Checks

Uber made the SF Examiner last week for being against fingerprinted criminal background checks. As usual the venture capitalized corporation (VCC) is being given too much credit. Its VCC rival, Lyft, is also against fingerprinting – maybe even more so than Uber.

In any case, the arguments that Uber & Lyft made against fingerprinting before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) hearings for regulating TNCs are almost identical.

I had intended to take part in the latest hearing but I wasn't able to do get my comments together in time. Instead I'll make my arguments here.

Since my favorite TNC attorney is Lyft's General Council Kristin Svercheck (Photo 2012 ), I'll mostly be using her reply comments from the CPUC proceeding (1) for my own comments.

Why Fingerprinting?

Fingerprinted background checks are considered to be the best practice by law enforcement agencies throughout the world including: the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, the US Department of Homeland Security and INTERPOL.

Why? From One Standard for All, “A fingerprint-based check is the only way to verify a person's identity and ensure that criminal records found (if any) are for the right person."

Why? From The History of Fingerprints,  "Fingerprints offer a reliable means of personal identification. That is the essential explanation for fingerprints having replaced other methods of establishing the identities of criminals reluctant to admit previous arrests."

Why? From an INTEERPOL forensic symposium,  "Since a person’s fingerprints are unique and do not change during the course of their life, they can be used to quickly and efficiently confirm or disprove a person’s identity ..."

The main exceptions to this are few rare diseases that affect only a few extended families word wide. The odds are over 3 million to one against a person having these diseases. 

The simple truth is that the best, quick way to know that a person is who they claim to be is fingerprinting.

Lyft's Arguments Against Fingerprinting

According to Councilor Svercheck

"Fingerprinting is not necessary to ensure public safety."

Just to clarify: What she is saying is that the technique that is considered the best way to identify people with criminal pasts – especially people convicted of sexual, violent or dangerous driving crimes –  by the FBI, INTERPOL et al is a waste of time.

If one is going to undermine or disprove a method that has been shown to be effective millions of times by the world's leading experts in identification, one would think that one would have to come up with very strong evidence. You know –  statistics, body count comparisons, etc. 

So what does Lyft give us?

"There is no evidence that ... current TNC background check requirements are not adequate and effective."

A double negative? This is the kind of argument used by attorneys on Law and Order when they are defending the Mafia.

Once again, it should be up to Svercheck to prove that TNC background checks are as effective a deterrent to crime as fingerprinting – not the other way around.

On the other hand, I never suspected the General Council of having sense of humor. I stand corrected for, when it comes to proving that Uber and Lyft's methods don't ensure public safety, the evidence is seemingly endless. It's hard even to know where to start?

How about the Uberx driver with the reckless driving record who killed Sophia Liu? 

Or, the City of Houston's investigation into Uber & Lyft's back ground checks by the FBI which found "several drivers with prior criminal histories including indecent exposure, DWI, prostitution, fraud, battery, assault, robbery and aggravated robbery?"

The investigation was started after an Uber driver who raped an intoxicated passenger was found to have spend 14 years in federal prison. "Houston said that the driver would never have passed its fingerprint-based background check conducted by the FBI."

Or, the Uber driver who exposed himself to a female passenger and was found to have numerous past crimes and traffic violations?

Unfortunately, I could go on and on.

Instead of fingerprinting, Lyft uses "privately administered background checks based on Social Security numbers."

Svercheck spends a lot of time explaining a complicated process but I don't feel the need to waste much ink listing her arguments. Instead,  here's a quick listing of the weakness of name and social security based checks from Mentor – a national mentoring partnership.

• A person can provide a false name and social security number. Over 1% of the 45 million individuals in the FBI criminal database have used over 100 aliases and false Social Security numbers.
• People can have two or more different last names if they have been married more than once. You can miss a criminal record if you only have one name.
• Criminal databases can have mistakes in the spelling of person's name or other relevant information.
• You can have "false positives" where a person appears to have a criminal record because of a crime committed by another individual.

Mentor goes on to say that "A fingerprint-based check is the only way to verify a person's identity..."

In addition, of course, we all know that that social security numbers are constantly being hacked and stolen in various ways. What I didn't know until today was that there are websites to help people create fake social security numbers and identities.

Finally, we have an Uber driver explaining how to get around background checks in ValleyWag,

“[Uber's] background check is done through a third party called Hirease. It consists of filling out your name, address, DL & SSN online. That's it. Every taxi company I worked for required drug screening and livescan fingerprinting at the local police department before being issued a taxi driver permit. … One person could fill out all the info and hand off the approved account to another person. You can't do that in the taxi world ….”

I wonder if it would be possible for a person to file off his or her fingerprints and get job at Lyft? Judging by my own experience of applying to drive for Lyft I think so. One could wear gloves during the 3 minute personal interview. Si, no problema.

This is turning into a bigger project than I anticipated. Council Svercheck apparently thinks than an accumulation of bad arguments will somehow equal one good one. We shall see.


Notes:

(1) REPLY COMMENTS OF LYFT ON ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING AMENDING THE SCOPING MEMO AND RULING FOR PHASE II OF PROCEEDING OF RULEMAKING 12-12-011
June 8, 2015

Uber Hypocrisy at SFMTA Meeting: or, the First Casualty of Venture Capital is truth

Speaking at the SFMTA hearing on the Vision Zero plan for a Safer Market Street, Mark Gruberg of the San Francisco Taxi Workers Alliance spoke to the "hypocrisy of Uber" being in Sacramento claiming that they should be "exempt from commercial vehicle" registration at the same as they were in San Francisco wanting "the privileges" of commercial vehicles.

This seemed to become a moot point when both Uber and Lyft speakers later backed the plan.

However, their endorsement for a Safer Market Street really was yet another demonstration of their posturing and mendacity because they primarily gave their support for two reasons: they realized that they were not going to be allowed to use transit lanes in any case and it gave them a chance to undermine the taxi industry.

Why People Use Flywheel & Taxis Instead of Uber or Lyfts: Part II or No Small Print

In my last post, I left out one obvious reason why people are leaving Uber & Lyft for Flywheel and that is  price-gouging or "surge-pricing" as they euphemistically call it.

One former Uber customer who switched to Flywheel told me that he thought the so-called formulas that Uber uses to raise the prices are, "Bullshit! They just do it because they can," he said.

"You know," a businessman explained, "you just get used to doing something and you keep on doing it. Then, suddenly it gets to be too much ... One Friday night I went from the Marina to North Beach. When we got there, I learned that they'd charged me 3X. Three times the normal rate – almost $30 to go a mile and a half. That was it. It's taxis from now on."

But back to the businessman who said that taxi drivers have gotten better while TNC drivers have gotten worse.

Why People Use Flywheel & Taxicabs Instead of Ubers or Lyfts

Customer response to the Flywheel taxicab app have been overwhelmingly positive. The number of people using the app grew 6X over the last year despite limited funds for advertising.

This fact has been ignored by all forms of media so I thought I'd write about it myself.

I've gotten most of my information from talking with over a hundred of my taxi and Flywheel customers. The following ideas and comments come from these ad hoc interviews.

A major reason why Flywheel is becoming more popular ...

Thoughts on Flywheel/Desoto

Desoto is changing its name to Flywheel and within two months the old blue & white Desotos will all look like the above pic. The first cabs are already on the street.

Flashier, no?

Brilliant, yes!

The new color scheme acts as an advertisement for the app and the app is advertisement for the company.

However, a bit of confusion and hostility surrounds the change.

First the Confusion

Drivers at other companies who use the Flywheel app are apparently worried about losing rides. They shouldn't be.

Part of the agreement between Flywheel management and Desoto Owner Hansu Kim is that that orders will continue to be dispatched in the same way that they always have – the ride goes to the closest cab regardless of company.

What Desoto is counting on, according to part owner Matt Gonzales, is an "upsurge of advertising" that will cut into the TNC's market share and hopefully spread the wealth to everyone.

There some evidence that this is already happening. According to former Flywheel manager Sachin Kansel, the number of Flywheel orders has gone up six times over the last year. 

Flywheel also has recently picked up several investors and a new CEO Rakesh Mathur who intends to use the money to advertise and expand the Flywheel brand across the country.

In addition, former Uber and Lyft customers are coming back to Flywheel because the TNC drivers are generally inept and don't know where they are going. The refusal of Uber and Lyft to fingerprint their applicants or train their drivers guarantees a continued flow of thugs and incompetents into the future. 

As Flywheel becomes a more widely known brand we'll be getting more and more riders back – plus new riders who can now get cabs because of Flywheel in neighborhoods where they couldn't before.

In addition, Hansu Kim says that Flywheel is working on a new version of the app that will do things that Uber and Lyft apps can't. A current example of that is the ability to make advance airport reservations.

Now the Hostility

Luxor and Yellow Cab companies don't like it. Well ... of course they don't. The idea is bold, innovative and creative. As the leading dinosaurs of the taxi industry, John Lazar of Luxor and Nate Dwiri of Yellow have been doing everything they can to help themselves, and the industry, become extinct.

They are the ones who killed Open Taxi Access over four years ago. As you might recall, the SFMTA had allocated $405,000 to set up a universal app in all the taxis and John Lazar reputedly went backdoor to his former school mate and then buddy, Major Ed Lee, causing the measure to mysteriously disappear from the MTA's agenda.

At the same time, Yellow was feverishly holding back radio orders so that they could petition for more cabs. Let me spell this out: They were deliberately giving bad service so that the City would give them more medallions.

When Uber et al attacked and the dinos finally realized that taxi apps were the future, instead of embracing Flywheel as the de facto universal app, Dwiri had a relative design a Yellow app (that works about as well as the old Yellow dispatching system – that is to say, badly), and Luxor continued to back Taxi Magic – a dinosaur in its own right.

Even to this day, when Yellow can't begin to fill its shifts, they still keep drivers waiting two or three hours to start work so that Yellow can extort more money in tips. That there might be a relationship between their treatment of their drivers and the dwindling numbers of same has apparently never occurred to Yellow management.

Whatever – If it hadn't been been for the geniuses at Luxor and Yellow, Uber and Lyft would never have taken the market-share that they have.

BTW – Uber came out with a "study" that saying they did $500 million in business in San Francisco last year while the taxi industry only took in $140 million. But Flywheel calls this bullshit (don't blame me for the crudeness. I don't use such words – in print.) The actual figure should be $400 million for the taxi business.

A Few Problems

One is that the Flywheel paint job does not make it clear that the taxi also takes flags and credit cards. In addition, the cabs I've looked at don't have the advertising space on top. That space could be used as part of a campaign for Flywheel/Desoto and against Uber – could be much effective than a bus because taxies go more places.

Another is that Flywheel has a website and blog that is slick and up to date but, as an advertising tool,  could be more effective.  The contrived pic in the blog makes it look a little too much like Lyft light.

There are also continuing problems with the driver support system such has holding drivers off the app for various minor reasons. I personally am not sure what all their rules concerning accepting orders and cancellations are.

Sachin Kansal and Steve Humphrey have moved on ("happily" they say – Humphrey upped his investment in Flywheel). Therefore, it seems a good time for the new management to meet with the drivers and take a look at some of the policies that might be changed, clarified or improved.

SF Taxi Drivers Stage SFO Protest

Monday night from 9 to 11 pm, Taxi drivers protested the San Francisco Airport's decision to allow Uber, Lyft and Sidecar to pick up and drop off at SFO.

Hundred of taxis bypassed the taxi lot, rolled horn-honking around the staging areas and, eventually, picked up customers without paying the $4 SFO fee.

The drivers were and are angry because the Airport is slamming them with the wrong end of a double standard that is economically disadvantageous to them and dangerous for the public.

San Francisco taxicabs are:

1. Required to carry $1 million commercial livery liability insurance policies that are in effect 24/7.
2. Inspected by by SFO's Ground Transportation Unit – under the supervision of the San Francisco Police Department.
3. Required to have drivers who have have passed a week-long training course and a DOJ background check where they are fingerprinted.

Uber, Lyft and Sidecar:

1. Vehicles are insured for $1 million some of the time, as little as $50,000 other times, and totally uninsured the rest of the time.
2. Passengers in these vehicles are never completely covered for liability because they sign away their rights to collect compensation in case of negligence on the part of the drivers or the companies.
3. Vehicles are NOT INSPECTED by SFO or any outside agency. The TNC's offer no proof of inspecting their vehicles at all – except their word (of honor?).
4. Unlike taxi drivers, TNC drivers are not required to have a special permit or license to operate.
5. TNC drivers are not given given a fingerprinted background check. The TNC's give no proof of vetting their drivers at all – except their word (of honor?). 
6. In fact, the SFO police themselves have run several stings showing TNC drivers who did not have drivers licenses, drivers other than the person who was supposed to be driving the TNC vehicle, and several with bad driving or criminal records including one with a sexual assault conviction who had been scheduled to pick up a 22 year old woman traveling alone.

The higher standards of public safety that taxis rightly live up to are much more expensive than the deregulating regulations of the TNC's. This allows Uber, Lyft and Sidecar to temporarily undercut prices. Temporarily – because if they reach their goal of destroying the taxicab business Uber and Lyft and sidecar will, no doubt, price gauge all the time.

Cabs not picking up?

For a period of about 45 minutes passenger were indeed not getting rides. But this was not because the drivers were boycotting customers.

This problem was that the SFO police wouldn't let the taxis pick the customers up. Squad cars with flashing lights and motorcycle cops kept the cabs from stopping at the passenger pick up areas. And the SFO starters would not let customers get into the cabs that did try to pick up.

Then, the cops stopped harassing the protesting cabs, but the drivers still didn't pick up for awhile – probably because they were uncertain as to whether they should try to put the customers in their taxis or not.

After all, there is a $5,000 fine for picking up without paying the fee – a fine that has never been imposed against a TNC despite the fact they've been picking up illegally for two years.

Many customers became frustrated and went in search of other forms of transportation including the white haired businessman below who said that he was taking an Uber for the first time.

When the leaders of the San Francisco Taxi Workers Alliance SFTWA (who staged the protest) realized what was going at the terminals they talked the protesting drivers into picking customers up again and the cops into letting them do it.

The metadata on my photographs shows that the customers were still being picked up at 9:10 pm and were being picked up again by 9:53 pm

SWTWA board member Barry Korengold said that they had intended for the drivers to pick up from the start. In fact, one point of the protest was to have the taxi drivers get rides without paying the fees like the TNC's have been doing for the last two years.

This YouTube link shows taxi drivers picking up customers at 9:59 pm followed by Jeffrey Rosen of the SWTWA giving a succinct explanation of the reasons behind the protest.