Ride sharing, a new app-aided phenomenon, may prove an existential threat to the taxi business. Ride sharing allows people who need rides with ordinary drivers willing to provide them. The drivers may do so when they have spare time and an empty car. But they are not taxis and are not regulated like taxis.
Here is a piece from LAist describing a protest by the city's taxi drivers against ride-sharing.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Taxi Drivers are oft-hated, and this time it's a crime
Yesterday, a film student (of all things) pleaded guilty to attempted murder as a hate crime on Tuesday for stabbing a New York City taxi driver in what prosecutors said was an anti-Muslim attack.
Michael Enright, 24, faces 9-1/2 years in prison when he is sentenced later this month.
After hailing a taxi in Manhattan one evening in August 2010, Enright asked the driver, Ahmed Sharif, whether he was a Muslim, according to prosecutors.
When Sharif replied that he was, Enright slashed Sharif's throat with a knife, stabbed at his face, arms and hands and yelled anti-Muslim comments, prosecutors said.
Sharif survived the attack, and later he appeared with Mayor Michael Bloomberg at a news conference where he said he believed he was stabbed only because of his religion.
While any crime of this nature is shocking, the hate behind it is not. Muslims are often held in contempt-- we know that. But so are taxi drivers, and they are often the victims of violence, far more than almost any other profession in American. Even good liberals who'd never say anything derogatory about an ethnic group often have little difficulty denouncing cab drivers.
At it's root is (a) some cabbies do provide bad service; and (b) people could have 19 good taxi rides, but if the 20ths is bad, that's the one they'll remember and talk about.
I've heard it again and again. It hurts them on the streets, and it hurts them in the courts.
At it's root is (a) some cabbies do provide bad service; and (b) people could have 19 good taxi rides, but if the 20ths is bad, that's the one they'll remember and talk about.
I've heard it again and again. It hurts them on the streets, and it hurts them in the courts.
Here is Reuters on the Sharif case.
For a discussion of how the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission actually encourages an irrational fear of of taxi drivers, click here and read pages 19-23
For a discussion of how the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission actually encourages an irrational fear of of taxi drivers, click here and read pages 19-23
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
NYC Can Give Apps a Try
On June 6 (the same day a the big decision on the outer borough taxi plan) a state appeals court cleared the way for a pilot program that would allow taxi passengers to use smartphone apps to hail cabs.
An earlier decision had blocked the plan, which will benefit venture capital rich companies like Hailo and Uber, both of which have systems that link taxi with waiting passengers. The lawsuit had was filed by the Livery Roundtable, Black Car Assistance Corp. and several car-service firms sued the TLC in February, claiming the program violates city codes and may let drivers discriminate against racial minorities based on their names or locations, as well as the elderly, who are less likely to own smartphones.
But as usual, the real issue is taxi turf. By tradition, and arguably by law, the right to accept a fare "by prearrangement" was the exclusive preserve of livery cabs. Yellow cabs could accept street hails, but were not allowed to accept radio calls or fares by phone. In their view, an app was just another way to call a cab and yellow taxis should not be allowed in that business.
The measure adopted by the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission in December would run for 12 months and exempt areas such as airports that have provisions for taxi lines. While all licensed city cab drivers would be eligible, participation would be optional.
It will be interesting to see what happens on the street. Will taxis pass by potential passengers with their hands in the on their way to pick up a guy with a smartphone three blocks away? If he does, can he be cited for refusing service to the customer he passes by? Will a cabbie who had accepted the hail by app blow it off if he sees a traditional hail closer at hand.
Gothamist coverage
The Wall Street Journal coverage
Bloomberg's Outer Borough Taxis Back In Business
On June 6, the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in NY state, unanimously upheld the Mayor Bloomberg’s plan to radically expand so-called street-hail taxi service beyond Manhattan, signaling a fundamental shift in New York City’s entrenched taxi culture.
The decision permits a plan, which had been held in violation of New York's "Home Rule" law, that will allow thousands of the newly designated taxis — painted green, rather than yellow — to accept street hails in the city's outer boroughs and in northern Manhattan.
The plan has been advertised as addressing an inequity by which that has existed for decades by which folks outside Manhattan were left without taxis. In fact, most of New York had cabs widely available. But these were livery cabs that had to be called or "pre-arranged." Only yellow taxis were permitted to accept street hails. For the classic take by Howard Husock on the City's Three-Tier Taxi System, click here.
While the legal wrangling focused on whether the new law could be enacted by the state legislature rather than the NYC City Council, the real issue involves a turf fight between taxi companies. Yellow cab owners figured that when they paid for a medallion, which can trade for as much as $1 million, they bought exclusive rights to accept street hails.
The Court of Appeals took the unusual step of accepting the appeal straight from the trial court without requiring an intermediate appeal. Its decision upsets the apple cart in a major way. It also ends a serious litigation losing streak for the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission.
For The New York Times story on the decision: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/nyregion/plan-for-expanded-taxi-hailing-service-reinstated.html?_r=0
The Village Voice http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2013/06/the_green_cab_i.php
New Orleans Cab Companies Denied Cert
On May 20, the Supreme Court denied cert in Melancon et al v. City of New Orleans, a case coming out of the 5th Circuit challenging a massive re-regulation of the taxi industry in the Big Easy.
The taxi companies argued that the ordinances constituted a taking without just compensation. They had prevailed in the District Court before Judge Fallon, who issued an injunction. But the Fifth Circuit largely reversed. With the Supreme Court denying the cert petition the case, which argued that the city's ordinances will likely wind up back in the district court, where some of the plaintiffs' factually specific claims still have some life.
The District Court decision is here: http://media.nola.com/politics/other/Doc%2044.pdf
The 5th Circuit Decision is here: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/12/12-30921-CV0.wpd.pdf
These ordinances banned the use of law enforcement vehicles, vehicles previously used as taxis in other jurisdictions, and "salvaged," "reconditioned," or "rebuilt" vehicles as taxicabs. More ominously, it declared that driver's permits and the wonderfully named Certificates of Public Necessity and Convenience ("CPNCs"-- akin to medallions) are privileges and not right. They required taxicabs to have a taximeter with Passenger Information Monitor (PIM) device, which generates detailed printed receipts and prohibits the use of handwritten receipts and they required all taxicabs to be fitted with global positions systems (GPS).
The taxi companies argued that the ordinances constituted a taking without just compensation. They had prevailed in the District Court before Judge Fallon, who issued an injunction. But the Fifth Circuit largely reversed. With the Supreme Court denying the cert petition the case, which argued that the city's ordinances will likely wind up back in the district court, where some of the plaintiffs' factually specific claims still have some life.
The District Court decision is here: http://media.nola.com/politics/other/Doc%2044.pdf
The 5th Circuit Decision is here: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/12/12-30921-CV0.wpd.pdf
Monday, June 10, 2013
TLC's Rate 4 Proof Rejected
Back in 2010, the TLC announced what it termed a major scandal. Taxi drivers were, according to then Chairman Matthew Daus, routinely ripping off passengers by pressing the “Rate 4” button on their meters, thus charging the higher out-of-town rate instead of the city rate.
Almost as soon as the TLC announced the scale of the crime—the TLC said it totaled $8.3 million—it doubled back. Most of the time, the TLC said, the Rate 4 button was pressed at or near the end of the trip, so there really was no overcharge.
But still, there were $1.1 million in overcharges left over, the TLC said, and it started a prosecution offensive, filing charges against hundreds if not thousands of taxi drivers. Many of these drivers were convinced to surrender their licenses. Others paid thousands of dollars in fines so they could keep driving.
But now, the basis for these prosecutions has been undermined and it appears that the TLC had no evidence to support its allegations. A ruling by the TLC Appeals Tribunal has held that trip sheet evidence—computer generated documents that show only where a trip started and commenced and that the Rate 4 button was pressed—was sufficient to establish a violation. The reason was that the driver might have pressed the button by accident, or he may not have charged the meter rate. The TLC never had any complaints by passengers; it had no other proof! Without some evidence that the driver deliberately charged an excessive fare, the charges had to be dismissed.
Even if the evidence was adequate, I believe it was gathered in violation of the Constitution because the TLC relied completely on GPS tracking using devices that drivers are required by law to keep in their cars. And the United States Supreme Court has ruled that GPS tracking is a search, which can only be used if the government has a search warrant.
While some drivers and their advocates (me included) questioned the basis for the TLC’s Rate 4 prosecutions from the very beginning, the TLC Tribunal did not rule with any certainty until March. That ruling came in a case brought against a long-time taxi driver named Hassan El-Nahal. El-Nahal, like many drivers could have paid a fine of $900 and gone back to work. But because he did not want to plead guilty to an offense he did not commit, he insisted on a trial.
At first, El-Nahal went to the TLC court without a lawyer, and he was convicted. I handled his appeal and the Appeals Board reversed his conviction because the TLC’s proof was inadequate. But the Board allowed the TLC to filed the charges again, not once, but twice. After El-Nahal was required to go to court a half a dozen times— with the TLC presenting the same trip sheets as its only evidence each time— the Appeals Board dismissed the charges outright. El-Nahal can now go back to work.
But the struggle wreaked havoc on his health and upset his relationship with his garage. Because his license was revoked several times before it was finally restored, the emotional and financial turmoil in him has been tremendous. But at least he is now back on the road. But what about all the drivers still facing charges?
And what happens to those who have been prosecuted and, for fear of permanent license revocation, reached a plea bargain with TLC prosecutors? I believe that charges still pending should be dismissed. And even plea deals can be rescinded because, in offering the deal, the TLC misled drivers and is guilty of a pervasive fraud on cabdrivers who agreed to a deal.
During the legal process, the TLC told drivers that they had good evidence, evidence that had been sustained in court in a case against a driver named Cheema. But the fact is, this evidence had never been challenged or ruled valid because Cheema became a fugitive. Also, the TLC had much more evidence against Cheema than it did against other drivers. So the Cheema case was unique, not a model for prosecuting hundreds of other drivers.
Thus, based on the El-Nahal case and the Constitution, the TLC should restore the licenses it revoked and return the fines that the cabbies were forced to pay.
Almost as soon as the TLC announced the scale of the crime—the TLC said it totaled $8.3 million—it doubled back. Most of the time, the TLC said, the Rate 4 button was pressed at or near the end of the trip, so there really was no overcharge.
But still, there were $1.1 million in overcharges left over, the TLC said, and it started a prosecution offensive, filing charges against hundreds if not thousands of taxi drivers. Many of these drivers were convinced to surrender their licenses. Others paid thousands of dollars in fines so they could keep driving.
But now, the basis for these prosecutions has been undermined and it appears that the TLC had no evidence to support its allegations. A ruling by the TLC Appeals Tribunal has held that trip sheet evidence—computer generated documents that show only where a trip started and commenced and that the Rate 4 button was pressed—was sufficient to establish a violation. The reason was that the driver might have pressed the button by accident, or he may not have charged the meter rate. The TLC never had any complaints by passengers; it had no other proof! Without some evidence that the driver deliberately charged an excessive fare, the charges had to be dismissed.
Even if the evidence was adequate, I believe it was gathered in violation of the Constitution because the TLC relied completely on GPS tracking using devices that drivers are required by law to keep in their cars. And the United States Supreme Court has ruled that GPS tracking is a search, which can only be used if the government has a search warrant.
While some drivers and their advocates (me included) questioned the basis for the TLC’s Rate 4 prosecutions from the very beginning, the TLC Tribunal did not rule with any certainty until March. That ruling came in a case brought against a long-time taxi driver named Hassan El-Nahal. El-Nahal, like many drivers could have paid a fine of $900 and gone back to work. But because he did not want to plead guilty to an offense he did not commit, he insisted on a trial.
At first, El-Nahal went to the TLC court without a lawyer, and he was convicted. I handled his appeal and the Appeals Board reversed his conviction because the TLC’s proof was inadequate. But the Board allowed the TLC to filed the charges again, not once, but twice. After El-Nahal was required to go to court a half a dozen times— with the TLC presenting the same trip sheets as its only evidence each time— the Appeals Board dismissed the charges outright. El-Nahal can now go back to work.
But the struggle wreaked havoc on his health and upset his relationship with his garage. Because his license was revoked several times before it was finally restored, the emotional and financial turmoil in him has been tremendous. But at least he is now back on the road. But what about all the drivers still facing charges?
And what happens to those who have been prosecuted and, for fear of permanent license revocation, reached a plea bargain with TLC prosecutors? I believe that charges still pending should be dismissed. And even plea deals can be rescinded because, in offering the deal, the TLC misled drivers and is guilty of a pervasive fraud on cabdrivers who agreed to a deal.
During the legal process, the TLC told drivers that they had good evidence, evidence that had been sustained in court in a case against a driver named Cheema. But the fact is, this evidence had never been challenged or ruled valid because Cheema became a fugitive. Also, the TLC had much more evidence against Cheema than it did against other drivers. So the Cheema case was unique, not a model for prosecuting hundreds of other drivers.
Thus, based on the El-Nahal case and the Constitution, the TLC should restore the licenses it revoked and return the fines that the cabbies were forced to pay.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)