Unfair Driving Field

I am not a proponent of either Uber or Lyft. I see it for what it is: a way for an individual or small group of people to create a taxi company without having to pay for the license to operate in an area and pass all the costs and liabilities onto the operators and allthe profits onto the “owners.”

For a regular taxi company, they have to pay for a license to operate (livery license to be exact). Uber & lyft claim they do not have to because the drivers are “contract” drivers – they work only when the want to and not on a schedule. Unlike taxi drivers who work on schedules.

Then there are the fees. Taxi companies pay for the vehicles, insurance, gas, maintenance, inspection, tires, etc. They cover it all, including the wages and benefits (if any) for the drivers. Uber and Lyft pass all these operating costs onto the driver.

I've never been in a beat up cab. They always look nice. Can Uber or Lyft guarantee that the cars they want to have available will look decent? Probably not. An accident takes a taxi off the road until repaired. Will a car that was in a fender bender be able to operate under Uber or Lyft? I hit a deer with my car (a used Stratus) and had a cracked grille, taped over headlight, and a decent dent in the hood. Would I be able to operate?

And the drivers are screened before they are hired. Background checks and all. Uber and Lyft left cities in Texas when they required background checks on drivers.

Speaking of that, Uber and Lyf want to pass all the insurance costs onto the drivers. It can come out of the money they make driving around. Well, one accident will put an end to that. I have $100,000 per passenger & all the driving around I do for work has my insurance at $700+ every six months. (OK – I have hit more than one deer in my driving around WNY. I like driving in the country.) Taxi companies pay up to (and possibly over in some cases) $6,000 per car. Guess who wants to pay nothing And let it all come out of the drivers' pockets?

The NY Senate and Assembly are talking some pretty high insurance coverage amounts that would be required for the drivers to have if a passenger is in their vehicle. They are hammering out the plans for rates for when the app is on and the driver is driving and when a passenger is actually picked up. They (the Senate and Assembly) are hammering out the rates, which stretch from $300,000 to $1.5 million when there is a passenger in the car. That's pretty high and guess who doesn't want to pay anything towards it because it would cut into their profits?

And then there are the handicapped drivers. Taxi companies have to accommodate them. Uber & Lyft don't. Is this a form of discrimination?

And the companies only take electronic payment. No cash. So you need a smart phone and either a credit card or PayPal™ to use the service. So the poor are out of the equation. Guess who's stuck picking up those people? (Hint – the poor usually don't have money for tips, which help the drivers make ends meet.)

And then there are those rates. Taxi rates are regulated. Uber& Lyft want the ability to set their own rates, determined by demand, length of drives, etc.

Basically they want a “free” market to do whatever they want. And by this they mean they are free of oversight and regulation so that the company owners can make as much as possible while the taxi companies are heavily regulated and basically go out of business from unfair competition.

I might also add that there are unionized taxi services and (possibly) co-op taxi services. These people have worked and fought for fair wages and Uber & Lyft want to have the rules skewed in their favor against these groups that face many regulations that are designed to keep the drivers and passengers safe. (By doing so, the owners are much safer in operating the service.)

Lawmakers need to see Uber and Lyft for what they are: livery services / forms of taxis.

The drivers may set their own schedules and availability, but ultimately they are doing what taxis do.

Therefore, Uber and Lyft need to be regulated just like taxi services and treated like taxis.

After all, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is.

So if it looks like a taxi and operates like a taxi, treat it like a taxi – same rules and regulations.

It's that easy.

Legislative Sausage - Do you really want to know?

I don't know that the Buffalo News intended to do this, but they made an interesting choice of front page articles on Wednesday. (Yes, I know about all the other stuff that's been going on. This just struck me as being … something.)

Article #1: “Behind the scenes: How Albany really works.” An article on how NYS will have a new smoke detector law go into effect in January of 2017. All smoke alarms will have to have tamper proof batteries (basically, they can not be removed) that last for ten years. Sounds reasonable. After all, who remembers to change the batteries when they are supposed to and all those annoying “false” alarms – cigarettes, heat from cooking, steam, and other things that can trip the alarm. And then there are those annoying”chirps” that tell you that the battery is low. So what does any reasonable person do? Take out the battery and forget to replace it.

On the surface, a decent law, right? Not according to the battery manufacturers. (Duracell™, EverReady™, et al.) The battery technology isn't there yet and that would cut down on the profits from selling the batteries that nobody seems to remember to put in their smoke alarms.

And then there is NYC which already has a similar law on the books. What about them?

Remember that many new houses have the smoke detectors wired into the electrical system (driving up the electric bill), where the battery is a back up.

And then the cost of those things – along the lines of $25 each.

So deals were cut and the law has a full year to wait before going into effect. With special notes for certain circumstances.

Article #2: Or, was the Page Editor thinking when they put this here? Or were they tired and just wanted to go home or get on vacation.

“'Industry' helps rich avoid taxes.”

Yep. One article on how laws are made in Albany & the other on the same thing in Washington DC.

One deals with something that could make the country safer and the other is about how the rich are driving us into bankruptcy by writing the policies that enable them to avoid paying taxes. This goes for both supporters of the Republicans as well as the Democrats. (Any real socialist will tell you that they are two sides of the same coin.) Under President Bill Clinton the tax rate on the top earners was along the lines of 27%. Now it is down to 17%. And they want to drive it down lower.

The article makes a great point – The rich don't necessarily buy politicians. They buy policy. They give their money to people and organizations that work to write the policies that they want and then look to lobbyists to get that policy put into place.

The rich have come up with all sorts of ways to keep the wealth that the workers have made possible. Charitable trusts, off shore accounts, and a whole host of other tricks that they use to keep the tax man away from the money that they claim is theirs.

And what are they going to do when the people get sick of their tricks and put an end to it?

The day is coming. Like a spectre. Haunting.

Otherwise, it's like sausage. They really don't want you to know how it is made.

They just want you to eat it.

I'll pass.

And I'll welcome the spectre.