one year ago. not a day has gone by when i didn't talk about taxis and challenges. 3.5% is a great compromise in terms of the rate. if it were me operating the cab, i would tell someone of course, but i prefer cash because they are sticking with 3.5%. when i heard that response i made a huge adjustment and tipped to make up for it. i think that if we are just more clear about what is going on here -- i appreciate the remarks about the corporations and credit-card companies being out of control, the director has a point. the reality is that we are in a lifestyle where a lot of people are paying cash out of convenience. so, we should accommodate that.

no one is forcing anyone to go to a credit card. i will always still fall back on the cash system. i also liked the perspective that it did not lock us up into a monopoly of new technologies that keep pushing diversity in technology. in terms of performance, when we get locked into these platforms, it is too bad we only have one other competing technology. congratulations for the compromise. >> sounds like we have a consensus. here is a motion on the amendment as -- >> you are out of order. you are out of order. you are out of order. >> as amended.

>> motion to approve as amended? >> any further discussion? all in favor of thema >> ye. -- all in favor? >> aye. >> the item is approved. next item? >> item number 12. amending transportation code sections to require that all taxi color schemes implement a system that generates electronic trip data or affiliate with a dispatch service that provides such a system, providing drivers with this data no longer a -- later than december 31, 2012. the >> would you call 13 as well? >> item 13. amending the transportation code to require that all taxi color scheme permit holders provide customers with a credit and debit card payment system that

is accessible to the visually impaired and that allows all tax to customers to swipe their own payment cards and choose their own tip amounts from the back seat of all taxicab giggles by december 31, 2012. >> staff report? let's hear from the public. >> charles laughbone. [inaudible] >> >> next speaker, please. >> well said. >> 12 to 13. >> that is it? >> good afternoon. cory lamb. i am in favor of electronic technology. i find that i spend, throwing

out my " completely, it is time- consuming. if you are trying to be compliant with all of that, it takes a considerable amount of time to get that taking care of. -- taking care of. in the long run, that is where we need to go anyway. achab working for themselves, not someone else. trying to remember what happened a few months ago. i think that with the hearing impaired portion, i actually like that idea. i do not know what it would take to be in a company like that. i do not know what that would take. but i think that that is a good start. in a taxi driver and that is very likely to happen, where someone could potentially be in my cab, not a person in a

wheelchair in the back, but may be a partner. allowing for more exit -- access is appropriate. >> thank you. next speaker, please? >> good afternoon, directors. items 12 and 13 are each no- brainers. item number 12, please support. i know that i represent usually at meetings as being right of the issue. i would even make sure to say that we need more accountability in those vehicles that the board of supervisors is currently tolerating, sedans and so forth. the gap of accountability is only going to be greater as we improve things. item number 13, please do not

support that. there is no reason to have two computers in the cab. i would like u2 -- if you are going to vote on it, do not do before then, but please look at the documentary that was released about me last wednesday. it is called the taxi composer. look at the atmosphere that i create in my cab, which is very casual, open, and there are no computers in people's faces saying pay me, pay me. my objection to the back seat terminal is that it is a work environment that i do not want to create. it is not the proper relationship between a cab driver and his passengers. you cannot do without machines in the front. why have two? it is the cab companies that

want to supply an extra one that need that extra 1.5%. if not, they are not paying for more and we do not need that item. >> next speaker, please. >> market grouper. -- mark grouper. >> thank you again, directors. i want to make some comments on behalf of green cabbage. as opposed to most other cab companies in this city, we do not charge for credit -- we do not charge the drivers for credit card transactions. if we are required to put in backseat units, this is going to be an additional expense on top of the expense that we have taken upon ourselves as a matter of principle, that the passenger should have the right to use a credit card without any

interference or resistance, or blow back from the driver. now we will have this additional cost placed upon us in a back seat terminal. because we bear the costs, be will have to ask them all to go get a smart phone, at their own cost, or be bill have to buy one for them so that we can comply with these backseat rules that are unnecessary, because we have a front seat terminal. also, the issue has been raised about the visually impaired. we already have an audio capability in that -- in our front seat terminal. that will tell the passenger but the fare is. so, the only difference here is so that the passenger will hand the card to the driver, rather than fumbling around and trying to swipe it themselves if they

are visually impaired. there is so little lost by this procedure compared to the burden that will be placed upon our company if we have to go and pay for this on top of credit card charges. it seems to me that for any company paying these charges, they should be exempt from these rules at the least. i do not like the back seat terminals at all and i do not think that they should be approved. >> thank you. >> first, i want to make it clear that items 12 and 13 are due tomorrow. this is absolutely a necessity. the push back from drivers, it is about accountability. drivers do not want records of their payments.

part of the problem in this industry, rates going up by 35% this year because we do not have risk-management and do not know who is behind the wheel. bling to to another person who may not even have a license. these bills create accountability, long necessary for any survivors in this industry on affordable insurance. secondly, i want to remind the board and the public who is actually paying for this. you put an incredibly high meter increase in recently to justify the 5% charge to drivers. it allowed me to put in backseat units and work out a contract to deploy this technology. now that this has been reduced to 3.5%, i do not know what i will do, because i have to cover those costs.

that 5% was appropriate and allowed me to put in the technology they were trying to put in today. now that we have gone down to 3.5%, i have to think about what i am going to do it as a company to meet these obligations. so, unfortunately, you had something that was great, ran it through the industry, everything was in place. now that it has been reduced, i am not sure what will be done, financially. you are all welcome to look at my books and i can tell you, it will be very difficult. i support these rules and it needs to be done now. >> [unintelligible] >> midafternoon, directors. i have been driving a cab in san francisco for 22 years. i am ok with electronics, what

ever. but this backseat terminal, the back seat customer did not like it. they did not want that. a lot of cabs are very small. there is very little room for them. it is too bright. the light is. even when i am driving at. i always turn off the light. i am one of the few people that accepts the credit cards, actually. a lot of people are telling me that cabdrivers to not accept that. even lowering the transaction fee, we are still going to have that problem. that can be solved.

people do not like to pay 3.5%. we are still going to have the argument with the customers. it allowed the cab -- cabdrivers to charge a minimum. they can charge $10, if they want to. please, we transitions. it is a fact of law. anyone they can find a cab, as far as i know, they can charge $10. it is a fact of law signed by president obama. >> richard wiener, patrick mccollum. >> good afternoon, again. in only speaking on 13. we support the customer being able to use a back seat

terminal. it says that the color scheme is responsible. we are happy to be responsible. 11 says that the driver can use his own terminal, which puts me as a tax manager in conflict. i required to let them use the back terminal, then someone said they had them using the front terminal. i think you started to address that this afternoon, but that was my concern. i am sure that it is not a big issue to get it converted by the end of the year. i'm sure that at least two- thirds of the cab's have backseat terminals. maybe more, but at least two- thirds. >> next speaker, please. >> patrick mccollum. i am one of the managers ats sf

green cab. we are run democratically. we resoundingly defeated the backseat terminal. we think that it takes up space in small vehicles. there is no point in it. we redeem them just like cash at the end of our shift. there is no point. we feel safer for carrying less money. electronic bills, i am very much in favor of it. i feel silly writing this down on paper. it feels like a completely unnecessary task. i occasionally -- occasionally miss rides because i am busy writing. it could even be a safety issue. thank you for your time. >> next speaker, please.

>> barry toronto, john kyl. >> mr. toronto >> i think that you have done an important job taking back the feedback from the town hall meetings. so, i urge you to pass that on the electronic data. no. 13 is a problem. it is a sunshine ordinance violations. you made a substantial amendment change to the previous item, which is related to this one by making the change that it is the customer's choice. you go into a lot of businesses today, you give them the credit card and a process it based on their needs. based on how they want to

process it. you are shoving down the throat in other places and forcing them on how they have to accept credit cards. in some places it is appropriate, safety. how, by making this requirement, yes, go ahead. the problem with some of these is, when you have a smaller vehicles, there is nothing in here that says what happens if there is passenger misuse or abuse of the equipment. does the driver get charged for that? there should be something in your documentation that says the driver will not get charged for damage to the equipment and how it is used. you get a drunk person. what happens if the passenger

vomits in the causes problems? or tries to get out of the vehicle and it gets dislodge? there are a lot of questions you're shoving down the throat of the driver without assurance that the driver will love be harmed by this. thank you. >> next speaker? >> amy lawrence. >> commissioners, thank you for letting me address you once again. quickly, i would like to address your issue of the 10%. drivers have a backup system. often is windy, rainy, a technical problem in running the card through, which is a system that everyone that pays from then on charges 10% on. a lot of times a driver will get in to find out that that is the

problem, because there is no cash. that is why there is a backup system. coming back to the issue of all of the electronics you are forcing these companies to buy, who do you think pays for it all? the driver. the driver has no pension, no dental plan, no unemployment insurance. he is paying for them all. you keep adding on more and more. one of the catholic -- one of the cab companies earlier was talking about the cost. i say that it is a lie. upas software programs online to charge fees, there is virtually no cost outside the software. all that they have to do is have one person monitor the computer. it goes right to your account.

the question is, who is selling you the software? some of these companies have people within them. they are selling industries with software and the taxi driver altman be paying for it. without a mental -- without a dental plan or unemployment insurance, which all of you have. thank you for your time. [applause] >> jon ham. >> in a cab driver. electronic waybills, was it not agree that as long as you do not keep an individual cabdrivers' income, it is just broad information? i never had much of an issue with them. whenever. on the back seat terminals, there are three kinds of passengers in san francisco regarding those. the kind that say that these are fantastic. technology in the back, cool.

the kind that says -- what is this and how do i turn it off? the kind that says that they are neither here nor there. i would urge you, on item 13, to overrule the staff recommendation on this. let this be a business decision of the cab companies. i do not think that this agency and honestly say that they are doing a public service by mandating bees' backs the terminals. there are essentially three kinds of writers with three kinds of responses. there is no overwhelming evidence or support for these terminals in the back seat. many of my passengers get in with this end -- anyway. even if every members here likes them, that does not mean that

there is an overwhelming majority of the public that like them. a lot of them do not like them. a lot of them do not really care. many say that it is no concern whatsoever to hand the credit card to this front seat. please say no to item number 13. >> next speaker? >> good afternoon. my name is barry korngold. john had a good point. it seemed to alleviate concerns over information because of confusion over being met with it or not. the audio in the backseat of these terminals, if there is any audio for the blind, it should

default to off instead of something that we have to turn off for every passenger. i am not saying that they are not out there, but the last time that i had one was over one year ago. i do not want to have to turn off the sound for every passenger for that one time i might have a blind person. if there is a switch that i could turnon so that they could hear the audio, that would be what i would want. and there have to be regulations on the sound and how bright the backsight -- backseat terminals are. some of them are huge. i have pulled up on the cap, it is so bright. your eyes are dilated, you have it right in your face. who wants that? the other thing you were saying in this item, we were not given

a chance to comment on this. i agree that it is a sunshine violation. you try to eliminate stress between the passenger and the driver. what do these people do when they go to a restaurant. do they give it to a waitress that goes to the next room? these are standard concerns. [applause] >> next speaker? >> good afternoon. my name is martin. i drive a green cabbage. just as far. i assumed that all of the privacy issues addressed about one year ago, they called it a slap to the face.

we can tell you, 10 years ago, at 3:00 in the afternoon -- i hope that this data is not stored forever. i think that time has come for the electronic waybills. i think it is slightly unnecessary equipment. you try to solve an issue like this, we have a credit card machine every time that works very good. there is a voice module attached to. there is so much equipment that is used that would make -- would not make any sense.

it would be an expense to the cab pilot to maintain. it seems like this is an issue only pushed by the manufacturer of the units. they think that they can make one sales call in 1500 of them? then they are convinced it is a good idea. thank you very much. >> brad knew some. >> i have been speaking to a lot of cabdrivers lately. a lot of them are not confident about coming here. many of them come from other companies -- other countries and did not start speaking his language. they say -- you americans, you grew up here, you have no idea of what it is like to be monitored by your government and have every movement monitored. that argument has really gotten

to me with regards to the electronic waybills. i agree that the industry needs data to move forward and unfold, let's make sure it is absolutely necessary and as impersonal as possible. it makes no sense to gather needless information. regarding the back seat terminals, abominable idea. i go to others it -- other cities in my first reaction is similar to that of people getting in the back of mind -- thank god you do not have one of those things back here. lots of people like them. some people are fine with them. it makes no sense to put them in every single cab. the list of objections is too long for two minutes. i think that that would be a crazy idea. >> edward healy.

>> one thing that i would like to comment on, the directors comment, it was locked, and until the mta starts giving tax services and enough money to enforce law, it does not make any difference what you say. the electronic waybills, i think that the compromise that was written had already taken on personal information. it was mostly other information. i think that these are excellent ideas. i think it would be a big help in getting rid of the legal sub- leases. as far as the back seat terminal, i am kind of a convert. i was driving a cab that granted

did not have one, and i drove one to test. i found that i actually liked them. my customers found me just as charismatic on or off. it had no affect whatsoever on the way that i interacted with customers. there were a few problems, however. people from new york really liked them. personally, i did not find anyone who really disliked it or did not know how to use it. i was able to train them pretty quickly. that said, i like the idea that the audio should default to off. and there should be more careful positioning with these things. i could see getting hit by the terminal or vice versa.