Hammer Time: Hey Taxi!

Georgia is now seriously considering House Bill 907, which opponents have dubbed the “Taxi Monopoly Protection Act.”

This would effectively ban ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft. While taxi companies are victims of the usurious rates they must pay to stay in business.

My solution to all of this would be politically tone deaf and probably DOA in GA. My particular interest is simply personal. I want to see better ideas work for the general public.

So here is my deep dive into the rabbit hole of government that balances one man’s freedom with another man’s fears.

The practicalities of using your own personal belongings to transport other people shouldn’t take too long. If i were King Governor of Georgia, that would be the way I would proceed.

1) Do not force taxi companies to pay medallions and other mandatory fees that have no other purpose than to inflict financial damage on these companies.

2) Requiring anyone who wants to run a taxi business (which Lyft and Uber are in practice) to pay for the insurance required to operate those businesses. If these companies want to pay themselves, that’s fine too. But I think the ground should be there, and your insurance company should be automatically notified if you decide to operate this type of business.

3) Anyone who wants to register to become a taxi driver must have their license run automatically on the DDS website each time their services are used to ensure they always have a valid license. The way it’s structured now, drivers can see their run history once and everything is fine after that.

It’s the kind of solution that doesn’t make anyone 100% happy. However, it represents the fact that we must allow government to become a catalyst for free enterprise. Instead of a perpetual conduit for special interests. It also represents the fact that there are some minor issues that should be addressed should this long shot materialize.

The first refers to people with disabilities.

It costs much more money to convert a new vehicle to a handicapped accessible vehicle. Given that the costs of serving this population are much higher (on the order of several thousand dollars per vehicle), should customers with disabilities pay more for these transportation services? Or should there be some kind of help somewhere to subsidize it?

The second problem concerns the inspection of vehicles.

Should they exist? And if so, who should pay?

Transport quality requires more than low prices and minimum standards. Very few of you are willing to spend a lot of money to be transported in a 22-year-old Corolla with no air conditioning (in Georgia), worn tires, and body odor permeating your nostrils. Should owner reviews and company monitoring address these issues? Or should there be some kind of government regulation that prevents the public from receiving poor service?

Finally, what about the children?

Are there certain child seats that must be used in these vehicles? Sometimes I’m tempted to go back to the 1970s style: “Put the kids in the back of the car!” However, the young human body is particularly fragile, and I believe that parents or the company should provide children with adequate protection. So pick one, pick neither, or pick both.

Adults with needs, cars with needs and children with needs. The current bill sponsored by 5 Republicans and 1 Democrat does not even pretend to serve their interests. But let’s say we live in a fictional world where the vested interests of both sides are dwarfs compared to the general welfare and collective powers of the electorate. Let’s be kings instead of pawns today and try to solve the world’s problems one car ride at a time.

How would you solve it?