New York Warns Taxi Drivers Not To Use Their Phones To Find Fares — Even When They're Stopped
What’s so unreasonable about using smartphones to arrange a taxi ride? Uber, an application which allows prospective riders to arrange rides with “black car” sedans or conventional taxis using their iPhones, arrived in New York this week — but the city bureaucrats have already fired a warning shot across Uber’s bow.
The New York Times stated this week that Uber’s application might break up to eleven different rules of the city’s taxi code. Now, the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission has formally warned taxi drivers not to use the Uber app.
Is this yet another head of the distracted-driving-fad Hydra? Not at all. This time, it’s money, not safety, at risk:
Existing contracts the TLC has with fare payment processors prohibits the use of apps to pay taxi and livery fares. The contract is set to expire in February. The TLC is, however, looking at ways to improve hailing and paying for taxis.
The TLC submitted a request for proposal in March of this year. According to the RFP, the TLC wants “a software developer that will create a smartphone application for use in for-hire vehicles. In the past, developers have created stand-alone apps without coordination with service providers or regulators. The TLC aims to take a new approach by contracting with a developer to create an app with one or more functions that would enhance the city’s for-hire vehicle services and improve both customer and driver experiences.”
Why go through the trouble of paying to have a taxi-hailing application developed when there are already companies begging to provide the service? Well, in New York, anything is possible when profit is at stake. Remember, this is the city that decided to make a vaporware Nissan the Taxi Of Tomorrow. Just don’t try to use the iPhone of today to hail it.
More by Jack Baruth
Latest Car Reviews
Read moreLatest Product Reviews
Read moreRecent Comments
- Dartman EBFlex will soon be able to buy his preferred brand!
- Mebgardner I owned 4 different Z cars beginning with a 1970 model. I could already row'em before buying the first one. They were light, fast, well powered, RWD, good suspenders, and I loved working on them myself when needed. Affordable and great styling, too. On the flip side, parts were expensive and mostly only available in a dealers parts dept. I could live with those same attributes today, but those days are gone long gone. Safety Regulations and Import Regulations, while good things, will not allow for these car attributes at the price point I bought them at.I think I will go shop a GT-R.
- Lou_BC Honda plans on investing 15 billion CAD. It appears that the Ontario government and Federal government will provide tax breaks and infrastructure upgrades to the tune of 5 billion CAD. This will cover all manufacturing including a battery plant. Honda feels they'll save 20% on production costs having it all localized and in house.As @ Analoggrotto pointed out, another brilliant TTAC press release.
- 28-Cars-Later "Its cautious approach, which, along with Toyota’s, was criticized for being too slow, is now proving prescient"A little off topic, but where are these critics today and why aren't they being shamed? Why are their lunkheaded comments being memory holed? 'Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.' -Orwell, 1984
- Tane94 A CVT is not the kiss of death but Nissan erred in putting CVTs in vehicles that should have had conventional automatics. Glad to see the Murano is FINALLY being redesigned. Nostalgia is great but please drop the Z car -- its ultra-low sales volume does not merit continued production. Redirect the $$$ into small and midsize CUVs/SUVs.
Comments
Join the conversation
Welcome to the next Detroit.
"As always [s]This time[/s], it’s money, not safety, at risk" Back in the day, TTAC would proofread before they posted. HTML doesn't work anymore?