How A Good Samaritan Was Arrested For Driving Drunks Home

[Serafina]

That problem could also be solved by having decent public transportation.

Actually no it would not be, because using public transportation while intoxicated is public drunkenness in the vast majority of the US. In other words you cannot even walk home drunk.

Seriously? No wonder that drunk driving is a severe problem then. And this also applies to just walking home? That would outright force people to drive home drunk. What are you supposed to do then - not get intoxicated outside of your home at all? Might as well forbi serving alcohol altogether then.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

That problem could also be solved by having decent public transportation.

Actually no it would not be, because using public transportation while intoxicated is public drunkenness in the vast majority of the US. In other words you cannot even walk home drunk.

Seriously? No wonder that drunk driving is a severe problem then. And this also applies to just walking home? That would outright force people to drive home drunk. What are you supposed to do then - not get intoxicated outside of your home at all? Might as well forbi serving alcohol altogether then.

It really is quite amazingly stupid. Here's the kicker, in a lot of small towns like mine, you're more likely to be arrested for "drunkwalking" than for drunk driving, because walking at night "looks suspicious," in a way that driving doesn't.

[General Zod]

So how do I know the guy offering free rides isn't going to just take me to a stretch of highway, mug me and leave me stranded in the middle of nowhere? Ignoring the whining about taxis making money, safety is the biggest issue I'd have with this.

If you don't trust him, then don't use his help. Making it illegal to be a designated driver is fucking stupid.

This isn't really the same as being a designated driver. Someone who's really drunk isn't going to have the best judgment about who they should or shouldn't trust.

[Phantasee]

The article says the guy has a bus. That's a lot of fares, and the taxi drivers have to look at this guy driving off with all these people (free or not) and think about all the work they as to do to get licensed (in Alberta at least, it's a higher class of license to operate taxis, and higher still to operate a bus), their taxi license, all the testing, studying, the maintenance they have to do on their cars to keep it in service, and this guy just does it without any of that headache.

Unless this guy is prepared to take home every drunk in town for free, and maybe drive people around all day, the taxi industry in this town needs to be protected from "Good Samaritans" that undercut them to the point of maybe driving them out of business? Ask Raw Shark how much his business depends on drunks. And don't tell me these people wouldn't get a cab anyway, who would if you know you could score a free trip?

[Gunhead]

The article says the guy has a bus. That's a lot of fares, and the taxi drivers have to look at this guy driving off with all these people (free or not) and think about all the work they as to do to get licensed (in Alberta at least, it's a higher class of license to operate taxis, and higher still to operate a bus), their taxi license, all the testing, studying, the maintenance they have to do on their cars to keep it in service, and this guy just does it without any of that headache.

If he has a bus and a license to drive it, he's about as qualified to transport people in that bus as anyone who does get paid for it. How and where he got the license is not relevant. Illinois doesn't require safety inspections on vehicles, and as far as I could tell this includes taxis too. At no point has the condition of the vehicle been in question anyway, but if he floats the costs to keep his bus in road worthy condition I don't see a problem. Well he does ask for donations which is not permitted where I live. You go on about all the licenses taxi drivers must have to operate and yet you don't seem to get that this guy is just as qualified.

Unless this guy is prepared to take home every drunk in town for free, and maybe drive people around all day, the taxi industry in this town needs to be protected from "Good Samaritans" that undercut them to the point of maybe driving them out of business? Ask Raw Shark how much his business depends on drunks. And don't tell me these people wouldn't get a cab anyway, who would if you know you could score a free trip?

Yes we must all jump in defense of the poor poor taxi people and above all else defend the right of private companies to dictate what we do with our vehicles on our own time. I'll cry a river next time I'm sitting in the last train home after boozing and certainly when I'm asked to take a friend somewhere in my car I'll tell him to get a taxi. Because otherwise he's stealing from the taxi companies.

Fuck, if the cab companies in the area are so financially unsound that a single guy with a single bus can put them under, I won't shed a single tear for any of them.

-Gunhead

[Phantasee]

I'm glad one guy's passion for transporting drunks is more important than the need to eat of all the taxi drivers of Quincy.

[Crazedwraith]

Yeah, I'm sure this one guy is going to put every taxi driver in the city out of business.

[Grumman]

Yeah, I'm sure this one guy is going to put every taxi driver in the city out of business.

Even if he did somehow do it... if the only way their businesses can survive is through crony capitalism, good riddance to them.

[amigocabal]

Yeah, I'm sure this one guy is going to put every taxi driver in the city out of business.

Even if he did somehow do it... if the only way their businesses can survive is through crony capitalism, good riddance to them.

It is posts like these that make me wish Wong would put a like/dislike feature for forum posts.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I'm glad one guy's passion for transporting drunks is more important than the need to eat of all the taxi drivers of Quincy.

Oh please. You have completely ignored people's posts regarding the fact that he probably caters to a different demographic entirely: people too cheap to call a cab who would otherwise drive drunk.

One of the local college bars I frequent (often as DD) kicks people out at 2 AM, and I have never once in 4 years seen a taxi come and pick up the drunken undergrads. I have also seen police arresting people for leaving the bar drunk (get arrested before they so much as get in their cars). They dont call a cab. Hell, the rates for a taxi in this area are prohibitive.

It would be wonderful if there was a free bus service (like there is at ASU in the university environs) that ran 24 hours and could be there for the benefit of drunks. Many fewer deaths.

Your argument is identical to the RIAA saying that every downloaded file is a lost sale. It is completely bullshit. On the logic of your argument, we might as well ban designated drivers because they take away money from cabbies.

Fuck you.

But here, I will deal with your other argument to.

The article says the guy has a bus. That's a lot of fares

Two conditions:

1) If there are enough taxis to meet demand after last call.
2) If all those same people would otherwise have called a cab.

Both of those conditions must be true in order for your argument to be valid. The existence of drunk drivers proves that one or both of these conditions is false. Therefore, your argument is invalid.

Unless this guy is prepared to take home every drunk in town for free, and maybe drive people around all day, the taxi industry in this town needs to be protected from "Good Samaritans" that undercut them to the point of maybe driving them out of business?

This statement does not make sense. This guy cannot possibly do that. At best, his bus might be able to stake out one bar a night. Unless there is a HUGE fleet of taxis, there wont be enough of them to transport that many people home. So how does he actually harm busines?

Ask Raw Shark how much his business depends on drunks. And don't tell me these people wouldn't get a cab anyway, who would if you know you could score a free trip?

See above. I addressed this. Twice.

[Sea Skimmer]

I'm glad one guy's passion for transporting drunks is more important than the need to eat of all the taxi drivers of Quincy.

I run a landscaping business, someone helping someone blow leaves or plant a tree is costing me money, should the government impose a law specifically to protect my business model? Do you have any idea how idiotic this line of reasoning is?

[Jub]

I'm glad one guy's passion for transporting drunks is more important than the need to eat of all the taxi drivers of Quincy.

If one guy with a bus is enough to threaten their livelihood maybe they should find a new line of work. It isn't as if cabs don't gouge you left and right as it stands.

[Zwinmar]

Where I live anyways all the cab companies (2) close before last call because they do not want to transport drunks, they might puke.

[Phantasee]

A different demographic, Alyrium? How big is this "demographic" (the word you're looking for is market segment btw) before and after the availability of free trips home? His price is better than anyone else's (free!), what makes you think people willing to pay a taxi fare before are willing to pay one after?

It's not that the taxi company will go bankrupt, it's that the people that abided by the rules and regulations of the municipality and state are now being undercut by another person providing the same service, who apparently doesn't have to put up with the same overheads because you say he's a better person than the rest.

Let him get the appropriate licensing, training, insurance, equipment, and the rest, and then he can keep doing it all he likes. I'm sure he can find donors willing to cover that for him. That he thinks his cause is so noble he doesn't need to worry about little things like regulations, so important that he doesn't need to abide by orders to stop until he clears it up with the authorities, it frustrates me.

[Phantasee]

Man, the logic Aly used to "invalidate" my argument is so much horseshit. The existence of drunk drivers isn't proof every person on that bus wouldn't pay a fare for a cab.

[Phantasee]

Where I live anyways all the cab companies (2) close before last call because they do not want to transport drunks, they might puke.

Cool story, do you live in Quincy? No? Then shut the fuck up. Your anecdote is useless to this discussion. That the taxi company felt it was necessary to complain to the town council shows they probably do pick up drunks after last call.

[Zwinmar]

Why should the cab companies be the only ones who can legally take a drunk home? That is a slippery slope that could eventually outlaw even the designated driver. In my experience, cab companies charge too much for a simple ride across town especially when they are condescending because they passenger is drunk. That is where my point comes in, they will not even run here for drunks.

How about the possibility that they are complaining just over a perceived loss of business without proof that each person that takes this bus would not rather just walk than take their 'service.' Last I checked no one is required to take a cab, even if they are conveniently parked in the cab only parking spot outside the bar.

If the person who is driving the bus has the proper licenses the cab company can go shove it. Losing money? Odds are they are going to lose more as people no longer wish to take their uncomfortable cabs with an asshole in the front.

[Academia Nut]

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.

[Gandalf]

Seriously? No wonder that drunk driving is a severe problem then. And this also applies to just walking home? That would outright force people to drive home drunk. What are you supposed to do then - not get intoxicated outside of your home at all? Might as well forbi serving alcohol altogether then.

Force is a pretty strong word, considering that drinking alcohol (especially to the point of intoxication) is entirely optional.

[Napoleon the Clown]

So I'm just wondering....

How many people actually read all of the article? Specifically the part where he applied for the licensing he was supposed to have? He tried to do it by the new law.

[Kamakazie Sith]

That problem could also be solved by having decent public transportation.

Actually no it would not be, because using public transportation while intoxicated is public drunkenness in the vast majority of the US. In other words you cannot even walk home drunk.

Actually in the vast majority of the US public intoxication is an arrestable offense when you're intoxicated and a danger to yourself or others. Some states have no public intoxication laws.

Utah's public intox law is fun sometimes because you can be arrested for public intox inside your own home.

[Grumman]

Was this man registered as a charitable organization?

Because if not, that is the tack that the local government should have taken.

That's even more stupid than Phantasee's argument. A charitable organisation is under no obligation to register as a charitable organisation, unless it wants the specific perks of registration.

[Hillary]

I'm glad one guy's passion for transporting drunks is more important than the need to eat of all the taxi drivers of Quincy.

This assumes that transporting drunks is the overwhelming income stream for taxi drivers in Quincy. Sure, it will be a decent money-spinner for them, but you're suggesting that all of the drivers will be out of work without it. That's a fairly big claim to make.

I entirely agree that he should meet the same safety standards and licencing rules as the taxi drivers but, assuming he does, I don't see why he shouldn't do what he does.

A question for you - if cheap public transportation became available that time of night, would you have a problem with this?

[Gunhead]

A different demographic, Alyrium? How big is this "demographic" (the word you're looking for is market segment btw) before and after the availability of free trips home? His price is better than anyone else's (free!), what makes you think people willing to pay a taxi fare before are willing to pay one after?

He means, which is pretty obvious, people who wouldn't call a taxi in the first place because it's too expensive. If those are the people the guy is targeting his services to, taxi drivers aren't affected.

It's not that the taxi company will go bankrupt, it's that the people that abided by the rules and regulations of the municipality and state are now being undercut by another person providing the same service, who apparently doesn't have to put up with the same overheads because you say he's a better person than the rest.

Let him get the appropriate licensing, training, insurance, equipment, and the rest, and then he can keep doing it all he likes. I'm sure he can find donors willing to cover that for him. That he thinks his cause is so noble he doesn't need to worry about little things like regulations, so important that he doesn't need to abide by orders to stop until he clears it up with the authorities, it frustrates me.

Same overheads? If he pays by donation + himself the cost of his operation and keeps his vehicle in working order, he's paying all the costs he needs to pay. You still yammer on about licensing and so forth. This has been covered. He has the license needed to transport people, he has to have insurance by law, he has the vehicle he uses and all of these check out. What more is required? Oh yea.. the blessing of the private taxi companies.
In simple crayon terms: This guy is a private citizen using his vehicle to haul people around on his own time and paying for it by himself and donations it seems. The bare minimum to do this is: a driver's license, a registered vehicle, insurance. Now the taxi companies lobbied a law that says this isn't enough, which means anyone using their own car for it's intended purpose could be seen as breaking this new law. If you can't see how unbelievably stupid this is, you'll make a great politician someday.

-Gunhead

[loomer]

Where I live anyways all the cab companies (2) close before last call because they do not want to transport drunks, they might puke.

Cool story, do you live in Quincy? No? Then shut the fuck up. Your anecdote is useless to this discussion. That the taxi company felt it was necessary to complain to the town council shows they probably do pick up drunks after last call.

Are you generally in favour of protectionism, or only for transportation services?