Los Angeles City Council Mulls Fighting Sacramento for Not Protecting Taxi Monopolies

Driving in "regular cars" is a public safety hazard!


Some of them might even be compacts. Compacts!

At least one Los Angeles City Council member thinks the very idea of people being able to pay whomever they want to drive them to wherever they want is fundamentally insane. And even the California's Public Utilities Commission "legalizing" ride-sharing services by putting them under its regulatory authority isn't enough for him. He wants the city to fight it. The Los Angeles Times reports:

Councilman Paul Koretz is pushing for his colleagues to appeal a recent decision by the Public Utilities Commission allowing companies such as Lyft and SideCar to operate with regulation at the statewide level. The council is set to meet Friday behind closed doors to discuss the idea with city lawyers.

Passengers using ride-sharing services schedule their trips using the companies' mobile phone apps, and almost always pay a fare lower than those charged for taxis. The drivers are frequently private citizens using their own cars.

Koretz said that arrangement makes them "21st century bandit cabs" and argued that companies like Lyft, whose drivers adorn their cars with pink mustaches, are a threat to public safety.

"They're not regulated the way taxis are, so we don't really know what their background checks are like, or whether we can count on them," he said. "We don't know what conditions their vehicles are in. I see crummy cars with mustaches all over town—just people in their own regular cars, driving."

Just people driving around like they own the place! In their regular cars! Does Koretz even realize how he sounds by describing what millions of Americans do every single day as a threat to public safety? That probably every single ride-share user probably has at least a half-dozen horror stories about dealing with those "safer," "regulated" taxis — problems that helped drive them off into the arms of Uber and Lyft in the first place — is probably not a concern to him.

Read the whole story here.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

NEXT: NYPD, Bloomberg Have Banksy in Their Crosshairs

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So let me get this straight: carpooling to save Mother Gaia from the rape of man is great and in fact is even incentiveized by the state in the form of carpool lanes.

    But as soon as money is exchanged it becomes…immoral? Evil? Exploitative?

    1. You make it sound so sexual.

      1. And a pink moustache ride isn’t?

    2. Donating a kidney is good and moral and just and brony-rific! But selling a kidney only leads to the dark side. Only the government can keep you safe from unlicensed cabs and organs.

      1. The money to be made from carpooling will induce innocent poor people to RENT THEIR CAR OUT to STRANGERS.

        Can you imagine, allowing a perfect stranger to paw all over your upholstery, and manhandle your steering wheel, even potentially changing the settings on your radio?

        They might even vomit or worse in the back seat. Think of the shame!

  2. Taxi regulations are probably a good thing. Unregulated cabbies are more likely to have older polluting cars, drive less safely, and probably commit crimes against people. I am all for SENSIBLE deregulation, but this is definitely a smart thing for the government to be doing to keep us safe.

    1. Unregulated cabbies are more likely to have older polluting cars

      As do lots of people. Why not go after them?

      drive less safely

      Citation needed. Pretty sure the incentive not to wreck your car is just as strong, if not stronger, when someone is paying you to drive them.

      and probably commit crimes against people

      Such as? Robbery? Rape? I honestly don’t see what you’re getting at.

      1. Crimes like not collecting the city clean air fee, for instance.

        1. You’d rather have worse smog?.

          1. Speaking of smog, who keeps farting?

            1. That’s not smog, that’s Teabaggins’s smug.

    2. … that’s sarcasm, right?

      It’s just that it’s really hard to tell, anymore.

      1. Look, I get that you republicans would just love to have an unregulated world so that you can keep all your money, but the reqlity is that a lot of people can’t afford to protect themselves without the government from unscrupulous people like rogue taxi drivers.

        1. “You Republicans”?

          Who, exactly, is it talking to?

          1. You can pretend you aren’t republicans all you want, libertarians are just republicans who like to smoke weed. nothing mroe, nothing less

            1. Dude, it’s GOT to be Almanian.

            2. I’s surprised you’ve kept a straight face this long, well done.

            3. This is SugarFree. I’m calling it.

            4. Oh goodie, a new troll.

              I just got here, is he a newbie or a retread?

              1. we feel spoofer.

              2. Oops, two comments in and I going with teh sock.

            5. I don’t smoke weed. I don’t even smoke tobacco. Besides, I’m not really a “libertarian”. I’m more of a “leavemealoneatarian”.

              And I’m awesome.

              So, in your face.

            6. If you click its name, then you get to see Leonard Nimoy singing about Bilbo Baggins.

        2. you republicans

          See, right there you lost all credibility.

          protect themselves without the government from unscrupulous people like rogue taxi drivers.

          The most unscrupulous people I know are car salespeople and politicians. I’m supposed to rely on the biggest sociopaths around to protect me from foolishly making my own decisions about what is best for me?


          1. That’s ugly, Pantsfan. Retards usually don’t choose to be that way. Anarcho-Teathuglijihaddists most certainly do.

    3. Unregulated cabbies are more likely to have older polluting cars, drive less safely, and probably commit crimes against people.


      Those “brown people” are evil man! REGULATE THEM INTO SUBMISSION!

      1. Who said anything about race. Typical republican, obsessed with race!

        1. “Unregulated cabbies”

          You did, everyone can see what you really meant there, Unregulated=undocumented=illegal aliens.


          1. Does that mean anyone who complains about things being unregulated is racist? Maybe we can do the same thing for undocumented guns, too.

    4. This is SIV testing TFT. Stop responding to him. Or don’t. Your choice really.

      Damn libertarian philosophy getting in my way of telling others what to do.

      1. Quit imposing your fucking liberty on me.


        1. Shhh. Don’t summon it, dammit.

        2. You’re interfering with his right to force you to do things.

    5. Right, because any cabbie who’s not paying into the local politician’s bribe pool obviously has a death wish, so customer safety won’t be their main concern.

      Fuck you.


  3. -A medical researcher from Columbia University, Dr. Perry Hudson, made the skid row alcoholics in Lower Manhattan an offer: If they agreed to surgical biopsies of their prostates, they would get a clean bed and three square meals for a few days, plus free medical care and treatment if they had prostate cancer.

    It was the 1950s, and Dr. Hudson was trying to prove that prostate cancer could be caught early and cured. But he did not warn the men he was recruiting that the biopsies to search for cancer could cause impotence and rectal tears. Or that the treatment should cancer be found ? surgery to remove their prostates and, often, their testicles ? had not been proven to prolong life.

    As more than 1,200 men living in flophouses on the Bowery signed up for Dr. Hudson’s study in the 1950s and ’60s, neither his academic peers nor the federal officials overseeing his grants criticized his ethics, but times have changed. Two papers published on Thursday in the American Journal of Public Health and the Bulletin of the History of Medicine prompted medical historians to denounce this largely forgotten chapter in the history of government-financed medical research on vulnerable populations.…

    1. Speaking of terrible acts in the name of research, I was just at a medical conference last week, where most topics of new treatments were limited to 90 minutes, but this lecture was allowed 2 1/2 hours:

      From Tuskegee to Trayvon: Black Men, Social Injustice and
      Implications for Mental Health

      I had a conflict so couldn’t attend this presentation, but I was intrigued because of the apparent canonization of Trayvon (which of course, has been happening all over, not just in this conference). So now somehow he is held on the same level as the poor airmen who were abused in the name of “science”? It’s probably a good thing I didn’t go, because I’m sure during Q and A I would have asked something about the Trayvon case that would have led the no-doubt PC crowd there to become, let’s say, intolerant of my opinions.

      1. So now somehow he is held on the same level as the poor airmen who were abused in the name of “science”?

        The speaker thought the Tuskegee Airmen were refused adequate syphilis treatment for 40 years? That is a new twist on the tragic story of impoverished sharecroppers being jacked over by the US Public Health Service. Worst I heard before this is the myth that they were intentionally infected for the study.

        Let me guess, the speaker is a tenured professor with federal research grants out the ass.

        1. With regard to Tuskeegee,
          not only were they not infected with syphilis, they were asymptomatic and there was no cure for it.

          The Health Service just didn’t tell them and kept tabs on their health to see if any symptoms popped up later in life.


    The Seahawks are going to kill the Cardinals.

    1. They should outlaw cupcake games in the NFL.

      1. And who determines what will be a cupcake game until it’s over?

        1. ’twas a joke dude

          1. I was hoping for a jokey answer dude…I should have been more obvious.



                1. I think I saw this movie…

        2. Vishnu?

          1. See?!? jesse got it!

            1. I had to make some contextual guesses about the definition of “cupcake” game.

  5. This is just wrong. I’ve been told countless times that it’s free market capitalism tat cauzez teh menopoleeez and teh robbur bayrunz!

    1. It does! If it weren’t for the government preventing unregulated competition, then the cab industry in California would soon be consolidated into one giant cab corporation!

      1. too cold.
        Need somewhere around 22C* year round.

        (Translated to American: that’s about 72F)

        1. Thank you for checking your metric privilege

          1. I know how you struggle with modern weights and measures.

            1. Eh, why would I change the way I measure things just because the French got uppity and wanted to change EVERYTHING. Even they couldn’t hang with their “rational” decimal calendar. We did surprisingly well with a largely duodecimal system prior to the advent of calculators.

              I say bring back duodecimal! For freedom from French cultural interference!

              1. My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that’s the way I likes it.

        2. Meh. I live in Montana. This is as close as I can get in the southern hemisphere. It’s the one of the only places in Chile, at that latitude, that’s not a rain forest as it’s on the east side of the Andes. I’d prefer Argentina for the climate/topography, but they are straight up socialists.

          So when it all falls apart here, I want a place like MT that has some semblance of a free market economy.

        3. San Diego, CA, but the tradeoff is that you’d be living in California…


      2. also a one-way ticket is just over a grand.

  6. Arizona hanging in there

  7. wait.
    are vests a thing again?
    /1993 redux

    1. Hipsters, whatcha gonna do?

      Also they were a thing in 1993?

      1. They were on the way out by then already

  8. When it comes to female masturbation, the CW is not master of their domain

    The pilot for 16th century-based castle drama Reign featured a steamy masturbation scene in the version that was sent to advertisers and media after the show made the network’s schedule last May. But the final cut of the episode that was recently sent to critics and will air on the network this week has been toned down.
    In the sequence, the Queen of Scottland (Adelaide Kane) has joined her teenage ladies-in-waiting in France and attend a wedding. After the ceremony, they secretly spy on the newlyweds’ “bedding ceremony” ? where the couple has sex before a group of elders who are present to ensure the marriage is consummated (more on this practice below).
    The bedding is actually not the raunchy part. The moment that raised eyebrows among reporters at press tour this summer is what happens next: The aroused handmaidens scatter around the castle to find relief among various paramours. One of them, Kenna (Caitlin Stasey), assures she’s alone in a secluded stairwell, hikes up her gown, reaches under and starts ? yep. Her self-pleasure is unexpectedly interrupted by none other than the King of France (Alan van Sprang), who smugly offers his assistance (“May I?”) and takes over.

    As the article notes, you can show a beheading but not masturbation.

    1. how a beheading but not masturbation.

      y not both at once?

    2. Well, if they cut that scene I don’t think I’ll bother watching the show.


  9. Need some offbeat music, vibrant color schemes, and wacky characters in your life?

    Here’s the trailer for the newest Wes Anderson film

    1. love me some Wes Anderson films.

  10. There are a lot of hipsters complaining how the Red Sox stole their beards.

  11. “They’re not regulated the way taxis are, so we don’t really know what their background checks are like, or whether we can count on them,” he said. “We don’t know what conditions their vehicles are in.

    Er, online reviews? Feedback?


    “These sellers aren’t regulated the way retailers are! We don’t really know if they will actually send you the goods! We don’t know hwat condition they are in! All we have are these photos to look at!”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.