How A Good Samaritan Was Arrested For Driving Drunks Home

[sciguy]

You will find more corrupt, crony-capitalist fucks in the taxi industry than almost anywhere else. In my town they raised a fuss about hotels that provided free shuttle vans between their hotel and the airport. It was exactly the same sort of nonsense that Phantasee has been trolling with; "They're not licensed, so they're not qualified to drive people around town in a van! It's only a matter of time before someone is raped and exploded by a deviant unlicensed driver and his poorly-maintained vehicle!" Of course, what they really meant was "we're sad that someone is providing a service for free when we would prefer to charge for it." Fortunately the hotel lobby turned out to be more powerful than the taxi lobby.

[Jub]

That, and when anybody cares to check, most cab companies are found to be running up fares faster then the law allows. My Mom did an investigation for our local news years back and they found that every cab company in the city was out of compliance. I'd be willing to bet that they still are.

[Phantasee]

I think the big issue here is that the way this is being handled reeks of government bowing to corporate pressure at the expense of the rest of the public, even if it is not necessarily the case. The big issue here is:

Was this man registered as a charitable organization?

Because if not, that is the tack that the local government should have taken. Even if they didn't have immediately applicable statutes, they could have easily taken the precedent of regulations regarding things like soup kitchens where a charitable service comparable to a business service is being run while figuring out a new statute to cover this instance. Instead, the local ordinances were changed to exclude the words 'for hire', which sets up an unsettling precedent. Now, the exact wording is not presented, but one could potentially read carpooling as someone running a taxi service if that was actually done, and I think that is what has people most up in arms against the Quincy government.

Should this man be licensed and regulated? Fuck yes, especially if he is receiving donations.

Should he be allowed to continue to provide his service as a properly regulated charity? Fuck yes, unless you want to argue that soup kitchens are unfairly taking business away from restaurants.

You're right, that is a much better way to go about it.

[Raw Shark]

As mentioned upthread, I drive a taxi.

Gypsy (ie: Unregistered) Cabs are a fact of life everywhere in this business. I see them as a form of competition like any other, with upsides and downsides like any form of personal transportation. On the upside, it's the fastest and cheapest means of entry to the business. On the downside, it's completely illegal and carries the occasional fine if you get caught. If somebody is willing to enter the business with no chauffeur's insurance then they are taking the risk of a passenger crippled in a drunken hit-and-run on themselves, not to mention the hassle inherent in driving people "for donations" who are fully willing to get violent with me over a legal fare clearly displayed on a government-programmed meter. You can get away with all kinds of shit until somebody gets hurt or decides to stuff your face in rather than pay you and the cops won't come; I see this as a fair trade-off for not paying the licenses and fees that I do.

On the passenger side: You are essentially hitch-hiking, with all that entails. A normal taxi tracks when and where you were picked up, and has a tracking device that can locate the vehicle down to about a half block if the guy decides to pull a Houdini with you. An unmarked private vehicle does not. Good luck with that.

Gypsy Cabs (and the people who ride in them) are damned fools, and deserve whatever happens to them.