Hacking All Over

A while back I linked to an article about Baltimore's unlicensed cabs. Now here's one about the jitneys of Pittsburgh.

Comments

[kevrob]

I can recall a piece on the Pittsburgh jitney gypsies in one of the first issues of Reason I ever read, in the ...early 80's?.. I think? Some things don't change much. There is also the battle over the unlicensed "dollar commuter vans" in New York City that Institute for Justice took up.

Kevin

[Ricky]

Is there a semi-reasonable reason why cabs are regulated?

[Highway]

I'm not an expert on cab licensing, but there are plenty of semi-reasonable reasons that are used to defend cab regulations. These include minimum safety standards for vehicles, vetting of drivers, and allowing an avenue of recourse against fraudulent drivers (who would, say, drive you around where you aren't going or other things). However, the form the regulations end up taking becomes more of a protection scheme for the cab companies and drivers who are already in it, due to the limitations on licensing that are usually enacted. Thus, the regulations present a severe (if not insurmountable) barrier to entry by new companies and independents, which is probably just the way the people in the business want it.

[Douglas Fletcher]

I think the only regulation that's really needed in any town's cab industry is a requirement for insurance. Any sane insurance company would require that the driver is fit, safe and sane, and that the car receive regular safety inspections.

Any regulation needed beyond that would be strictly minor, dealing with things like meter calibration & the like -- all stuff a cab operator could probably take care of in just a few hours every year.

Highway is probably right that the regulations usually turn into a protection scheme for existing companies -- New York City's medallion system being a prime example.