There was a time when unwary customers were warned against the unmarked cab---the notorious gypsy cabs cruising NYC, Chicago and other big city streets, ready to take you for a questionable ride. Bringing us up to today, and with ride-share companies like Uber and Lyft taking the gypsies place, bad things are happening when passengers mistakenly step into cars posing as Uber and Lyft operators, resulting in robbery, rapes, and last week in South Carolina, murder.
What too often is occurring are confused ride-share customers unable to readily identify cars dispatched to them. And the major reason for this is a grand misunderstanding made by municipal, county and state officials and regulators when releasing app-based taxi-like transportation services upon the consumer public, not realizing they were de-professionalizing an entire industry. Not only is Uber now dealing with over 1200 serious complaints weekly but this new problem---ersatz Ubers and Lyfts patrolling the streets---related violations of all kinds have taken a serious turn, creating unanticipated havoc and mayhem.
While this problem continued to grow, there is a very simple solution: making TNC/ride-share vehicles as easily identifiable as taxis. The state of South Carolina is currently considering whether Uber and Lyft should have illuminated signage similar to taxis. I feel that is a start, along with external lettering displaying which company or services the operator is aligned with. In addition to that, a registered numbering system also seems necessary. It could work something like this.
Given Seattle/King County has over 28,000 Uber/Lyft operators, each owner would be required to register their vehicle and receive a car number, just like taxis currently do. Additionally, having the operator's name listed along the number would remove all possible confusion, your Uber app displaying that "car number 13,003 and proprietor John Smith" is your driver. Taking these measures would protect the public while professionalizing the ride-share industry, underlining the obvious fact that these independent operators are taxi drivers despite the Uber/Lyft moniker. You can be sure that everyone knows when they are approaching a taxi cab, tradition and regulation making it identifiable for what it is---a professional for-hire vehicle.
That this same requirement must be applied to Uber and Lyft is logical, commonsense telling us it is the answer to the problem of ride-share customers victimized by criminals. And like taxis, a City/County complaint number should be listed either in or outside the vehicle. That same number should also be listed on the app itself, Uber's rating system is not enough, passengers instead allowed to complain to an independent agency not sponsored by Uber or Lyft.
To all current Uber and Lyft drivers who might object, the response is simple. Do something else other than provide passenger transportation. If you can't recognize you are actually a type of cab driver and nothing else, then the fault falls upon you. You are a transportation specialist and both you and your vehicle must be recognizable. It is that basic. What else is there to be said?
RCW 46.61.055 (3)-(a)-(c)
During the first Mariners' home stand of the season, I was stopped by a SPD officer who claimed I ran the red light turning left from South Jackson Street (a 2-way street) onto 4th Avenue South (a 1-way street). While only giving me a verbal warning, he proceed to lecture me upon what I had done wrong and what I should do next time.
There was one very major problem with what he was saying: none of it was true, which truly has me wondering about the training SPD officers are receiving. He explained to me how a driver can proceed past the white line, safely entering the intersection before making your left turn. While that makes perfect sense, that is not what the law states, clearly wanting the driver to stay behind the white line until the way is clear.
As to running the red light from a 2-way to a 1-way, Washington States law does allow that turning maneuver unless there is a sign indicating otherwise. RCWs 46.61.005 & 46.61.235 (1) spell out the law and driver responsibility.
A few years back, when stopped by a U WA campus police officer, I told him to check it out, that I had made an allowable turn. First saying I was wrong, he later returned to my cab and apologized, saying he had verified my understanding of the rule. That I didn't correct the SPD officer in this most recent instance was due to his obvious emotion, sensing it was best to just agree and say little else.
My only request now is for SPD to be more thorough in its training. How hard is it to require that each officer memorize WA ST driving codes, rules and regulations? I am certain a WA State Patrol officer would not make the same mistake. Why? Because the State of WA makes sure they are prepared before graduating them to the highways. What does this say about the City of Seattle? I'll let you answer that, though the answer appears to be fairly obvious.
No comments:
Post a Comment