Regulating ride-hail not ‘outdated’

If we cut through the noise of Uber’s talking points parroted in a recent editorial — “old guard and new guard,” “innovation,” “supply and demand” — the ultimate point was that Bill 35 proposes “outdated restrictions” (“Allow innovation in for-hire rides,” Star- Advertiser, Our View, May 10).

So, which of the four elements of the bill, now under consideration by the City Council, is an “outdated restriction”?

>> City database. Uber represents that it has 5,000 drivers. What if within the next six months, it doubles or triples the number of drivers? What if, God forbid, it’s lying? Most importantly, how is the city to enforce existing laws without basic information such as drivers’ tax IDs or in-state driver’s licenses? Shouldn’t the city maintain its own records of the for-hire drivers plying our already congested roads?

>> Medical exam. Uber represents that it complies with all laws. Is the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) no longer a law in Hawaii? By my count, at least a dozen Uber drivers testified in front of Council that they work as Uber drivers because they can’t lift items. Really? Never mind the tourists — they can schlep their own 40-pound bags into the trunk — but what about our disabled and elderly community in collapsible wheelchairs and walkers? Are these drivers simply going to discriminate against the most vulnerable because drivers physically can’t help these folks?

>> Setting maximum fare. Setting aside for a moment that the state’s Motor Carrier Act mandates “fair and predictable pricing” (I know, another outdated restriction), Uber claims that its average surge is 140 percent of base fare. It also represents that it won’t surge during natural disasters. Aside from the question of how Uber defines “natural disaster,” what if it’s misrepresenting its fare rates; or if Uber and Lyft decides to increase their average surge to 280 percent of base fare once the remnants of the decimated taxis are no longer a threat? Already, Massachusetts state regulators are investigating Uber for surge pricing during a severe storm in violation of their state law.

As for Hawaii’s mandate for “predictable pricing”: Do people really think taxi fares were set by the city for half a century because taxi drivers didn’t want to take advantage of varying their prices based on supply-and-demand? No. It was to satisfy the state’s mandate for fair and predictable pricing so that the largest swath of the population (including the working poor and elderly on limited income) would have equal access to for-hire transportation. Another reason was to discourage “unfair and predatory pricing” among the many companies — which sounds familiar.

Bottom line is that transportation for the public, of which for-hire is an integral part, has always been the great equalizer between the haves and the have-nots. One has the same access and pays the same rate, whether rich or poor.

>> Vehicle identification. According to Uber, permanent identifiers are unnecessary because its app has created a safe mode of transportation. But based on numerous cases of sexual assault by “fake Uber drivers,” and more than 100 sexual assault allegations by “real Uber drivers” reported on the mainland, I‘d think many would disagree. Despite this, Uber drivers don’t want permanent stickers on the front and back bumpers on their car.

It’s easy to become jaded or to throw out capitalist concepts of supply-and-demand and market pricing, while worshiping at the altar of Adam Smith when one can afford any fare a company may decide to charge at any given moment. However, I firmly believe passengers such as the working poor, the disabled and the elderly deserve the protections afforded under reasonable regulations. After all, policy shouldn’t be established to simply accommodate one’s convenience.

David Jung is owner and general manager of Hawaii-based Eco-Cab and CityTaxi.