UBER at SFO: GEO FENCE? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING GEO FENCE!

According to the SFO ruling granting temporary permits to the TNCs, "All TNC Vehicles not actively loading or unloading passengers shall be parked in the designated staging area ... TNC Vehicles may only enter enter the Airport terminal if carrying an Airport-bound passenger or if a ride request has been accepted from a customer at the Airport."

In addition, there is supposed to be a "GeoFence" around the "Polygon" or perimeter of SFO where the TNC Apps won't work – call it a TNC dead zone. This means that the TNC Apps should only work in the TNC staging area and not anywhere else in or near the Airport.

But, in fact, the SFO doesn't appear to be enforcing its ruling and, of course, Uber drivers are paying little or no attention to it. The following sequence took place on November 16, 2014 between 9:18 pm and 9:28.

Photo One Shows an Uber cruising at the lower level of SFO with its App open and seeking a ride.

Photo Two show that this Uber has accepted an order.

Photo Three show the Uber meeting its customer on the upper level of the International Terminal

Photo Four shows the customer climbing into the faux taxicab ... er... TNC.

This was not an isolated incident. Quite the opposite. These photos were taken by limo and cab driver Douglas O'Conner and he sees more Ubers either hiding out on the top level of SFO or cruising with the app open ever time he drives through.

12-14-2014 An Uber cruises with App available.

12-21-2014 An Uber cruises with the App open. The driver spent half an hour circling the upper level.

1-11-2015 An Uber hangs out on McDonnell Road after the driver spotted Doug following him.

1-22-2015 An Uber hangs out on the upper level of SFO.

For Uber watchers this is hardly shocking. If Uber has ever shown any indication that it intends to obey any rule or regulation I'm unaware of it. This, after all, is a venture-capitalized corporation that is run by a CEO that has never heard a lie that he didn't want to tell himself. This is a corporation that lies to every customer and driver that downloads their App, unaware that they're signed away their rights to collect liability in case of negligence. This is a corporation that refuses to fingerprint or train its drivers. This is a company that makes agreements simply to get regulators off it's back.

And, they've succeeded admirably at SFO. I drove around with Doug on December 14, 2014 and we saw dozens of Ubers hanging out at various places on both the upper and lower levels but we failed to see one single SFO cop checking to see if the Ubers were there.

I recently ran into an Indian cab driver who said that America had become the most corrupt country in the world. He's got a good argument. The Indian government shut down Uber and even issued an indictment against CEO Travis Kalanick. And, China chased them out of the country for not obeying the rules.

Here, in California, the powers-that-be reward them by lowering or eliminating safety standards – let the public be dammed – and Uber still doesn't bother to pay any attention to what weak and pathetic rules they have agreed to follow.

And why should they? Here the long arm of the local law reaches out, not with hand cuffs, but with palms up and wide open.

Airport Commission Rubber Stamps Sidecar, Uber & Lyft SFO Okay

Commissioner Crayton actually wasn't asleep during most speeches at the Airport Commission today but she might as well have been. When we finished speaking she said that the Commission didn't have any choice but to okay the rulings of the CPUC and allow the TNC'S into the airport.

If so, why did they need to vote on the issue?

There were some excellent speeches by Mark Gruberg, Barry Korengold, Mary Mcguire, Jeffery Rosen, Tara Houseman and others whose names I've forgotten or never knew.

To summarize, these points were made:

• TNC vehicles are not going to be inspected by the SFO – and should be.
• TNC drivers are neither given DOJ background checks nor fingerprinted – and should be.
• TNC vehicles and drivers are not properly insured – and obviously (to anyone but a government official) should be.
• All this endangers the public.
• Why should taxis and limos have to meet higher standards?
• SFO might be held liable for lowering their standards to oblige the TNCs.
• Pollution and congestion will increase at SFO because of the TNCs.
• SFO will be putting customers at risk.
• Allowing double stands is creating unfair competition for taxi drivers.
• Letting TNC's enter the airport could spell the death knoll for the taxicab business.

Cab driver and video maker John Han pointed out that all the drivers who buy new cars to use as TNC's are committing insurance fraud; and, if taxicabs are put out of business, the fraud would be massive.

Another speaker said that this was just the start of a war of the rich on the worker and that workers in every other business will soon be facing similar assaults on their professionalism and incomes.

Yet another speaker dissed the Commission for calling this a three month test period – the only purpose of which was to push the legalization of TNCs through without public comment.

Several drivers raised the likelihood of a massive strike. 

All blowing in the wind.

John Han thought that the speeches were good because they would be part of an official record.

So it's back to the CPUC ... for justice?

Just in case you've forgotten, I'm closing with an updated partial list of TNC attacks.

• The scary and ridiculous - like the Uber driver who locked a woman in his car  so he could steal her phone and give himself a five star rating.
• The creepy – like the Lyft driver stalking his passenger.
• The frightening – weird harassment.
• An alleged assault on a pedestrian by a Lyft driver.
• An alleged homophobic verbal and physical assault by an Uber driver.
• An Uber driver charged with fondling a customer in Chicago.
• An Uber driver arrested for sexual assault in Washington D.C.
• An alleged kidnapping and rape by an Uber driver in L.A.
• Another Uber driver arrested for raping a teenager  in Washington D.C.
• The Hammer attack
• Monday's Battery

And no – there is no comparable list for cab drivers.

The Airport Commission voted unanimously to let the TNCs operate at SFO.

Director of the Airport John L. Martin said that he would have liked to have the vehicles inspected and the drivers vetted but couldn't get it done for some reason. He's hoping that the standards will improve in the future.

Commissioner Larry Mazzola thought that this was a good first step to solving the problem of the TNCs. He pointed out that they'd been operating illegally for two years. He didn't say it but the next sentence should have been ... "at least this way we're getting paid."

The logic of a Mexican mayor "legalizing" a drug cartel.

BTW –  SFO sets the rules for us. They can certainly set the rules for anybody else who wants to operate in their domain. What Commissioner Crayton was in essence saying was, "We're just as corrupt as the CPUC."

This youtube video was sent to me as a comment but I'm including it here because it's a good summary of what we've been hammering on for the last two years. It's very well made.

Four Things You Wish You Never Knew About Uber.

The City vs Cab Drivers? A Micro History 1.

The issue in 1984 was putting more taxis on the street for the Democratic convention. However, as long as she was at it, then Major Dianne Feinstein decided to reform the cab business as well.

The problem was addressed by the Police Commission which regulated cabs at the time. They assigned a young police lieutenant (whose name I forget) to do a thorough study of the taxi industry including in-depth interviews with cab drivers.

What I don't forget is the interview. It turned out that instead of talking to drivers individually, the L.T. chose to meet a group of us in a room. I was a newbie but the rest of the drivers had been around many a block. We totalled about 140 years of cab driving experience. We were confident that we could give the man many insights into how the taxi business really worked and how to improve it.

The L.T. popped suddenly into the room and started to tell us what would be in his report without asking us one single question. He informed us that during his research at SFO he'd spend over two hours observing the situation during a Tuesday afternoon in April.

I raised my hand and politely suggested that he had a few details wrong.

"Well," he interrupted shouting, "I disagree! And, if it comes to a fight, the cops'll beat the cabbies!"

I kid you not. That was the in-depth interview.

Surprisingly, the report agreed exactly with Feinstein's analysis of the situation: namely that cab drivers were poor in quality but there should be more of them. The L.T. was praised by the Police Commission and promoted to Commander of the Taraval Police Station a few years later. Last I heard he was doing well with a private law practice.

His report had no lasting effects what-so-ever on the taxi business but it leaves me with an observation and a question.

Cab drivers were considered neither part of the public nor the working class.

The situation was officially framed by the press as Cab Driver Income vs Public Good but you didn't have to read too far between the lines to see that what they actually meant was Greedy Cabbies vs Us.

For me, the most startling aspect of the farce (I was a newbie remember) was that a gaggle of liberal democratic politicians didn't see us as workers. They treated almost us like a criminal class. Or, as Chris Hayashi's predecessor Heidi Machen once put it, cab drivers were "either criminals or soon would be."

 In 1984, the city actually set up a cab stand in the Sunset and assigned a policeman to make sure that a cab driver stayed on the stand to take radio calls.

This conception of cab drivers as future-cons was brought home to me a few years later when "left-wing liberal" Supervisor Carol Ruth Silver herded a bunch of us (apparently chosen at random) into the Board of Supervisor's chamber. I'm not sure why we were there but these were some of the best and most experienced cab drivers that I knew. I think Silver intended to include "Taxicab Reform" in her re-election package.

She shouted and snarled at us like a Drill Sergeant, had us line up standing at attention and demanded that we show her our identification. When I started to ask her why we were there, she screamed at me to, "Shut Up!"

She took our A-cards and IDs into another room - apparently to photocopy them. When she returned she told us that we'd better shape up by the next year.

"I wouldn't worry about that," I told her.

"Why not?" she demanded, incredulous at my temerity in speaking to her.

"Because we're going to vote you out of office!" I said ... well ...  I think I lost it and yelled.

In any case, it shut her up. She walked out of the room staring at me with hostility and confusion. It might never before have occurred to her that we were capable of reading a ballot much less voting.

She did lose the election but there probably were issues other than my vengeance involved.

What I take from this incident is the image of a woman who had been jailed in 1961 for fighting for the rights of Afro-Americans in the segregated South talking to us exactly like a bigot might have talked to a "N......" in the South of that same period.


Why didn't the L.T. actually interview us?

I mean,  he didn't make that decision by himself. Not this guy. His supervisors, the Police Commission, maybe Feinstein herself dictated his behavior. But why?

They'd already gone to considerable expense, they already had the cab drivers available, why not interview us? Why not try to understand the business? Why not have a real reform? Feinstein could've taken credit for it. Why not do it?

I've been pondering this question for a long time and the only answer I can come up with is that Feinstein thought that her ideas about the taxi business were THE TRUTH.

Another way of putting it, would be to say that Feinstein, and the other city officials, thought that cab drivers were either too stupid to understand their own business or that the business was so simple that any "educated person" could understand it, probably both.

This conception of "cabbies" as a semi-literate, future-criminal class would dominate city politics for the next twenty years.

Airport Commission Nixes Airport Plan

President of the San Francisco Airport Commission, Larry Mazzola, sent the Airport's plan to end shorts back to the drawing board after listening to airport and MTA spokesmen as well as seventeen members of the public.

Tyg McCoy, Deputy Airport Director, presented the plan saying that the airport had worked together with a committee of twelve people from all aspects of the taxi industry to formulate the plan which would pay cab drivers a minimum of $17 for all rides, pass $3 of the $4 airport fee back to the drivers, and eliminate shorts. He said that, although there were numerous ideas floated during the committee meetings, the "vast majority" of the drivers were behind the SFO plan.

Linda S. Crayton, Vice President of Airport Commission, asked him if he'd done a survey of the taxi drivers. He said that he hadn't but felt confident that the plan had a broad consensus in its favor.

Then, during public comment, all 17 of the  speakers trashed the plan. Medallion holder and advertising star Brad Newsham, even threatened to lead a strike against the SFO on February 5, 2010 if the plan went into effect on February 1st.

The opposition to the plan was not a case of one group organizing a protest but rather a true consensus of the real "vast majority" of the industry. Speakers against the airport's plan included: members of the United Taxicab Workers, the San Francisco Cab Drivers Association and the Medallion Holders Association as well as Marty Smith, who is a manager at Luxor Cab, and myself.

Among the reasons given for attacking the plan were:

• It would drastically reduce driver income.
• It would stop many drivers from working the airport.
• It would thus hurt service to the public.
• It would not stop cab drivers from racing.

President Mazzola, reading the writing on the wall, ended public comment after one hour and instructed McCoy (and presumably us) to come back with a plan that actually had the support of the drivers.

Even Javis Murray of the MTA, who spoke in favor of the plan, told me after the meeting that he and the MTA backed the plan primarily because it would end "time-based shorts." He added that he would back any plan that would stop dangerous driving on the part of cab drivers.

Both Barry Korengold of the SFCDA and medallion holder Murai, who were on the Airport Committee, told me that that the Airport's presentation was misleading.

It sounded, for instance, as if the plan called for a minimum of $17 plus a $3 charge back on the $4 airport fee which would equal $16 (17+3-4) to the driver.

Actually, the plan calls for the $17 figure to include the $3 charge back, meaning that the drivers would only get $13 (17-4). ($13 an hour is approximately how much is costs a cab driver to operate a taxi.)

The SFO also plans to move airport shuttles down to the same level as the cabs thus putting them in direct competition with the taxis. This wasn't mentioned during the presentation and is vehemently opposed by cab drivers.

Most of the people I talked with who attended the Airport Committee meetings felt that (with the exception of McCoy) SFO spokesman negotiated in bad faith and used the committee to create the illusion of a consensus. SFO officials pretended to listen to the drivers and then went ahead with basically the same plan that they started with in the first place.

Korengold and Murai also pointed out the Airport Committee had voted overwhelmingly to support a distance-based short system like they have in New York City - only to have the SFO shoot it down without further discussion.