Taxi companies reverse on plan to pull service if camera requirement removed from bylaw

GlobalNews.ca
Feb. 9, 2017
Matthew Trevithick

London taxi drivers won’t pull their vehicles off city streets next week if city politicians pass a new taxi bylaw that doesn’t include a mandatory camera requirement for Uber vehicles, the London Taxi Association said Thursday.

City council will meet on Tuesday to vote on a new taxi bylaw, with the aim to have the new rules in place by the end of March.

The proposed bylaw includes a requirement that all vehicles for hire have cameras as a safety measure.

The city has accommodated the ride-booking company on most of its demands, including changes to fees and the allowance of surge pricing, but the camera requirement has elicited fierce pushback from Uber, which has threatened to leave the city if it isn’t removed, citing cost as a factor. The required cameras, Uber says, would cost over $1,000 per vehicle.

Council voted in favour of the regulation last week with a narrow 7-6 vote.

The taxi association has welcomed the camera requirement, arguing it makes drivers and passengers safer and creates a level playing field with Uber. Cameras have been mandatory in London taxis since 2010.

While cab companies had floated the idea of pulling service in protest if the requirement was removed, Roger Caranci, spokesperson and consultant for the London Taxi Association, said vehicles would remain on the roads regardless of the vote.

“When we first looked at making the announcement, we wondered ourselves how that would affect people who require emergency service, where they have to get to a doctor’s appointment or hospital… because we are the only service, really, that’s 24 hours a day. We thought that maybe that’s not going to be a good thing.”

The city’s four taxi companies received several calls from customers asking them to reconsider, in particular from customers who were elderly or had a disability, Caranci said. The taxi association didn’t want to repeat what some taxi companies have done in other cities and “hurt our own customers,” he said.

“We have other avenues that we could follow and we will look at those once the vote is done, but we would hope the city would do the right thing and support what was supported at the last council meeting,” he said.

Asked what those avenues might be, Caranci said he couldn’t comment, citing ongoing discussions.

“We are focusing on the meeting of the 14th, and hoping that council solidifies the decision they made at the last council and we go forward with that,” he said. “We are discussing amongst ourselves as to what our options are, and when we decide, we will let the media know as to what we’re going to do.”