71–80 of 88 posts
Personally, these kinds of articles always crack me up. New Yorkers know this. Transplants from CT, NJ or whatever cul-de-sac in Wisconsin you people are coming from lately, frankly you deserve whatever crap treatment you get from cabbies.
And don't complain to 311, you transplants complain to much as it is. Just hash it out in a nice little argument with the cabbie. It'll be cathartic and maybe it'll get you down enough to not buy that V-neck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the law is also to prevent discrimination. How does one know the true reason a cab might refuse to take you? Sex? Race? Age? What if a cab took a white guy (non-threatening looking) to a location, but refused to take a black guy (also non-threatening looking) to the same location? Yes, there are valid reasons like shift ending, etc, but perhaps they could have signs stating their hours.
It's almost always between 4:00 and 5:00 in the afternoon. If you need to catch a cab at that time in Midtown, it's time to find a hotel queue.
Good info, indeed. Personally, these kinds of articles always crack me up. New Yorkers know this. Transplants from CT, NJ or whatever cul-de-sac in Wisconsin you people are coming from lately, frankly you deserve whatever crap treatment you get from cabbies. And don't complain to 311, you transplants complain to much as it is. Just hash it out in a nice little argument with the cabbie. It'll be cathartic and maybe it…
Really? Guess what? Everyone in NYC is a transplant, at some point. And everyone has to learn just how things work, in detail, over time. It's a process, not a badge to brag about. Natives are the worst...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NYC might not own the yellow cabs, but they certainly dictate some of the rules governing them. The are extended that ability in exchange for the working agreement between the government of NYC and the yellow cabs. It is the exact same as "your boss... was hired by the person that owns the company to tell you what to do."
Of course they can make rules, but the rules they did make have simultaneously driven up cab fare and made the jobs much worse for the drivers/operators. What I am saying is that these rules are not well thought out rules.
The cabbies or cab companies are allowed by the city to operate, and that's a nearly steady stream of money, based on a limited number of medallions. The least the public can expect, is that any authorized cab will take them to where they want to go.
And yeah, I avoid the black car "limos" whenever possible. They're like vermin way-uptown (way, way too many of 'em), and they charge whatever they feel like charging. Always negotiate that fee before you get in.
I don't feel sorry for cabbies. It's not much more of a job than a shoe-shine boy with a driver's license, and some of these guys still shouldn't be behind the wheel.
It's also better, as a customer, once you learn the map yourself. I've had these guys deliberately take congested or longer, round-about routes, to jack up the price. Once you know the map yourself, you can sometimes insist on a certain route, within reason.
Tons of NYC cabbies were also recently busted leaving some kind of "outer borough surcharge" feature engaged on the meter, within Manhattan where it doesn't apply. Tell me how all the money they raked in over the years doing this, could ever be returned to the customers?
It's an adversarial relationship, IMO. I don't trust a single one of 'em, as far as I could throw his non-English-speaking, sweat-stinking a. To generalize.
I think it is fundamentally immoral to force someone to take part in a transaction that they don't want to, just because the law forces them to do it. You wouldn't point a gun at them and make them do business with you, why do you want someone else to do it.
Any idea why a cab driver would want to reject a journey? Is there some other bureaucracy that makes it hard for them to turn a profit if they abide by this? For example it is very common in England for "distance and a half" fares to be invoked when journeys are outside of a particular region. This is in place so that if a cab driver takes you to "Stixwich" they're not out of pocket on the drive back since there are…
The biggest issue is probably just trying to find a return fair. Late at night most people are going from Manhattan to one of the outer boroughs - not the other way around. The usually end up driving an empty cab back to Manhattan, so they are effectively getting a half-fare.
While it may technically be true that a cab has to take you anywhere within city limits, it seems to me that it is only polite to ask first before you ask to go someplace out of the way. On the occasions where I wanted to use a cab to go from Manhattan to Brooklyn or an airport, I always ask first. Most of the time, they say ok, and it's all good. Once in a while (maybe 1/4 of the time) the driver refused. I'm fine w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there were similar laws in my industry then I wouldn't have sympathy for myself. I knew the risks of my industry before I started the job. I made a decision to take it based on my salary/benefits vs the potential hazards. Cab drivers do the same. The law is in place to prevent people from being exploited by cab drivers. If my industry likewise needed further anti-exploitation rules, I wouldn't be opposed to them.…
Your last sentence confuses me. The way to change them is to first debate their merits and pitfalls. Your entire case seems to be "The law is the way that it is and thats final, anyone who doesn't like it just shouldn't be a cab driver". My argument is that "this system is inefficient and does more harm for the majority of consumers and cab drivers while benefitting the larger cab companies that can work their way to…
I don't appreciate how you've bastardized my argument and then really eloquently explained yours. But that doesn't matter because your argument is a wash.
Maybe the system is inefficient, maybe it's not. The law came out of people not offering rides based on race and destination. What is the point of a subjectively offered city service with no viable alternative?
I know you think you understand the system, but why do you claim to know the system is inefficient and does more harm to both consumers and cab drivers? Is it based on this article? The comments? Have you done or read studies on effects of official city taxis and how their destination rules impact the citizens and drivers?
I doubt you have. So this is my argument You're trying to impose what you think (with likely not enough information) on an entire industry and all of its consumers. If the industry was so terrible towards cab drivers, then the industry would change because no one would be a cab driver. But there are still more people willing to drive a cab than there are medallions available so this horrible injustice your claiming doesn't seem to impact drivers as much as you wish it did.
If there was a law that made my industry so inefficient it harmed me and my customers so much and benefited my boss to an outrageous extent then I would show my disapproval by changing industries (either permanently or temporarily via a strike). That is how changes to the status quo are made in a market. Reducing demand so suppliers have to change their offer.