Are the new ride-shares unsafe?

02.07.13 - 1:26 pm | Tim Redmond |

(8)

Interesting letter to sfist, which typically loves the new rideshare companies like Lyft and Sidecar. The writer, apparently a cab driver, makes clear why these unlicensed cabs are a problem:

Taxi drivers are professional drivers with hundreds of thousands of city miles under their belts, intensive knowledge of city streets and each vehicle is inspected twice a year by the government of San Francisco and the SFO Airport Authority. These inspections insure that the three GPS tracking units, full motion video cameras, radios and other safety equipment is functioning and that the car is in compliance with DOT rules and regulations.

Yes, some cabbies are assholes, and yes, some cabbies don't know their way to certain places in the city, and of course some cabbies drive like crazed maniacs. Sadly though the more Lyft and Sidecar operate and undercut the legitimate transportation services the more often this will happen. How would you feel if you had spent countless dollars and hours getting to do your job for crappy pay and to be treated like shit, only to have someone come in that didn't do what you had to to get your job and do essentially the same thing for less money... making it so you couldn't feed your kids, or pay your rent

Lyft and Sidecar are very dangerous for the city and the traveling public by putting un-licensed, uninsured, untrained, amateur drivers on the streets.

TIme to call these what they are -- taxis -- and make them get permits like every other taxi in the city.

Comments

I get in cars with other people and drivers all the time.

What next? Ban all passengers who pay towards gas?

Or is your real worry that this makes muni operators more dispensible and disposable?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 1:43 pm

Nope. Not buying that one at all, Tim. Sorry. Try again.

>"Lyft and Sidecar are very dangerous for the city and the traveling public by putting un-licensed, uninsured, untrained, amateur drivers on the streets."

Um....just curious...is there ANY basis for that statement or did you just try it out to see how much you can get away with?

Both Lyft and Sidecar review the DMV and insurance records of all drivers. And the concept that they put ANY driver on the streets makes no sense, if you think about it.

Nope....#fail. Try something else, Tim, that one was too obvious.

And...have you ever seriously considered the possibility that propaganda just isn't your thing?

Posted by Troll on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 4:26 pm

Do you even read this stuff before you Troll?

I was simply quoting a taxi driver, who made what I think are relevant points. It seems to me that if the city regulates cabs, it ought to regulate all cabs.

Posted by tim on Feb. 08, 2013 @ 3:36 pm

"How would you feel if you

"How would you feel if you had spent countless dollars and hours getting to do your job for crappy pay and to be treated like shit, only to have someone come in that didn't do what you had to to get your job and do essentially the same thing for less money... making it so you couldn't feed your kids, or pay your rent"

I'd get a different job. No one's forcing anyone to drive a taxi.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 08, 2013 @ 7:15 am

"How would you feel if you

I'd get a new job. No one's forced to drive a taxi.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 08, 2013 @ 7:19 am

yes, it's unregulated... so what?

Regulation does not make bad things good. Is there evidence that private drivers are bad? I think what's hard here is that Taxi's are simply losing business to these new companies. If you're a Taxi driver, you're probably not crazy about being displaced by a cheaper ("likely as good as") substitute.

Posted by Mark Rose on Feb. 13, 2013 @ 3:15 pm

I understand your favoritism

I understand your favoritism towards cab drivers, you made that a point years ago. But there is a real issue with cab drivers and cab companies in San Francisco that even the SFMTA will not address. Its not just about getting a cab or not, its the whole broken system of the industry. Changes have been made over the years that are directed at the cab drivers to take more money out of their pocket. If the cab industry would move more in the direction of the opponents model of having one driver per car that is a taxi (single operator, not sharing with other drivers), cut out the greedy cab companies, have a rating system for the cab drivers so the SFMTA could do their job more efficiently in reprimanding cab drivers who are doing a poor job. The industry would be more effective. They could sell those permits for 50K each and make a lot more money than charging 300k for a license that has no responsibility for the passenger or gates and gas drivers, and only benefits the medallion owner, cab companies, and city of San Francisco.

Face it City officials, cab companies and medallion owners are not responsible people. They were able to get the city of San Francisco to agree not to replace air bags in taxis when in a prior accident, and not even have to insure the driver behind the wheel anymore. Just to carry liability insurance. Tim I appreciate your stance but these other companies (Sidecar, Lyft, and Uber and anyone else who might enter the market) are better suited driving and carrying passengers around the city than a San Francisco Taxi Cab! The cab industry is obvious about not caring about the passengers or the cab drivers.

Posted by Dean Clark on Apr. 12, 2013 @ 2:23 pm

Gypsy cabs

Call them what they are, Gypsy Cabs!!!! The SFMTA is solely responsible for addressing this issue. Hijacking the cab industry to extort medallion fees in excess of 250k. Then allowing unregulated cabs to operate willy nilly. Real Gangsters offer Real protection for those who Pay ! Get with it SFMTA!!!! Medallions are being devallued everyday by your failure to act.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 22, 2013 @ 5:21 am