I was joking about the "convicted feline" sticker.
I recall the story of the driver who printed copies of the "Passenger's Bill of Rights" on one side with a notation at the bottom "See Reverse Side for the Driver's Bill of Rights."
On the other side at the top it said "Driver's Bill of Rights."
The rest was blank.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Wolf, I hope you are just joking and do take the new stickers seriously. These are the first of what I hope are many that tell the rider that we as drivers do indeed have rights. Perhaps we should come up with a taxi drivers bill of rights that we can post on our own to inform the riders that we aren't to be abused. The city has gotten so used to pushing us around that they think its ok for others to do so as well. In fact they welcome it so they can collect huge fines from us drivers when the guilty party complains about the innocent driver.
Besides the real enemy at city hall, our other enemies are .1% of our riders. Or in some extreme cases some nutcake that is just standing in the street and doesn't realize that some other motorist cut us off, we had to swerve to avoid an accident, and we were forced to go a little close to him. Njubas so called attackers might have thought twice if he had a red UTCC issued sticker. They had to know how to read since they passed a test administered by Uncle Sam. The sticker offers good value for the buck it cost to make it. Fatlu Hall.
Ps I do not know P Engers email but would like to forward this to him.
I am starting a new post above titled "Cabdrivers' Bill of Rights".
Feel free to add, improve, or steal whatever ideas that would help our fellow cabdrivers.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Wolf, I hope you are just joking and do take the new stickers seriously. These are the first of what I hope are many that tell the rider that we as drivers do indeed have rights. Perhaps we should come up with a taxi drivers bill of rights that we can post on our own to inform the riders that we aren't to be abused. The city has gotten so used to pushing us around that they think its ok for others to do so as well. In fact they welcome it so they can collect huge fines from us drivers when the guilty party complains about the innocent driver.
Besides the real enemy at city hall, our other enemies are .1% of our riders. Or in some extreme cases some nutcake that is just standing in the street and doesn't realize that some other motorist cut us off, we had to swerve to avoid an accident, and we were forced to go a little close to him. Njubas so called attackers might have thought twice if he had a red UTCC issued sticker. They had to know how to read since they passed a test administered by Uncle Sam. The sticker offers good value for the buck it cost to make it. Fatlu Hall.
Ps I do not know P Engers email but would like to forward this to him.
Wolf,
Okay, I admit it.
That was funny.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
How about:
"Warning: Your Driver May Be a Convicted Feline"
?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Mr. Enger,
Here are my suggestions for future stickers. Please feel free to implement any of them without reservation, as I am not worried about the "originality" of the ideas...only the improved impact.
(If Wolf Weiss or anyone else wants to accuse you of "stealing ideas" as I have often been the target of, just ignore him.)
First, abandon any mention of UTCC or any other non-govermental body. Whatever your intention was for placing UTCC on the stickers, it is irrelevant to the greater purpose. It only adds to the risk of ticketing by the City which should be avoided when possible.
Were you originally asking the City to put "UTCC" on the stickers? I hope not. Quite simply, there wasn't a legal reason to do so then or now.
I, and other cabdrivers, won't put a sticker advertising UTCC or anybody else inside or outside my taxicab, let alone a private vehicle. Would you be so concerned that UTCC gets credit that you would have some of us hesitate or refuse to affix the sticker?
Second, contemplate and provide instructions as to where the stickers should be affixed. The lack of uniformity, combined with a non-governmental group's advertising, doesn't add to the credibility of the message. It detracts from the credibility of the message.
I like the white print on a red background. I intend to mimic it with the stickers I produce. It is for this idea of "uniformity for the sake of credibility" that I have decided to put aside a different color scheme which could have been more distinctive.
There should be a sticker sized for interior display as well as one sized for exterior display. This practice of placing the current sticker on the bumper isn't as effective as it should be...the print is too small for that.
Cabdrivers should be warned to remove both the felony-awareness sticker and the surcharge placard from the plexiglass and advised to place them below that, ironically, as passengers have complained that the surcharge placard is obstructing their view.
Third, I went into the field and researched the stickers used by the CTA. Likewise, a Spanish translation of the message alongside the first in English would be appropriate.
Finally, a business card which warns cabdrivers that the DCS hasn't approved this sticker, but an assurance that you or somebody else, a specific person, not simply the "UTCC", will organize a defense of any ticketing by DCS against cabdrivers AS A GROUP, would help prevent any potential reaction from backfiring on your good intentions, and help convince others to participate.
Whether you call them "safety" or "felony-awareness" "stickers" "signs" or "placards", avoid continuing to refer to them as "UTCC" stickers. Otherwise, other groups may distribute their "own" stickers, which could help make a de-facto case for any objections by the City that these are really advertisments, with or without authorship included in print.
Pepsi is proud of the work they do. So is Coke. So is the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC).
None of them can ask cabdriver to place an unauthorized sticker with their name on it and assure them that the City of Chicago doesn't have grounds to formally object with a ticket.
Neither can the UTCC. A sticker with simply the relevant awareness information is much less likely to face a legal challenge.
I hope you consider these constructive criticisms independent of their source and the other issues I have with you and others, personal or professional.
There are other miscellaneous thoughts I have regarding these stickers. If you want to discuss them with me privately, the best way would be through e-mail: cco1@ymail.com.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
to all concerned:
the UTCC had four monthly meetings with the assistant commissioner of the Dept of Consumer Services, Shelly Riedle. we requested that the DCS issue these placards. we had no idea or inclination to issue them ourselves at the time, as we considered this a 'no-brainer' and a softball for the City to hit out of the park and take credit for and also to show us some good faith in their declarations of wantng to work with us in collaboration about issues affecting us cabdrivers.
after four meetings and no answer, we walked out of the meeting (this wasn't the only issue we had been raising with them, but we needed to make a point--cabdriver safety is important to us, all of us)
we then had an emergency meeting, decided to produce them ourselves, have a press conference and an action, and bring some publicity to the cause of driver safety. the article in the tribune was a great result of our strategy, to get the word of this new law out to the public, as it appeared next to Richard Roepers column, a prominent place in the paper.
in our original proposal, we did not have our contact information on the placard. but we want the drivers to know who had issued it. all our welcome, if it is an issue, to remove the portion that mentions who produced it. i will point out that ALL placards issued by the City contain 'advertisements' for the city org. that produces it--eithe the mayor, or norma reyes, etc. As does ones issued by orgs such as national safety council etc. there is nothng inherently wrong with informing the public of our doing good works. we are proud of the works we do.
we too have seen the placards all overt the city, and the drivers are expressing gratitude. good. it would have been even better if the City had taken the idea we gave them and the initiative to issue them themselves. perhaps they still will. we would appreciate it, as it would save us a lot more work in the future, and the headache we anticipate when they start ticketing drivers for displaying them. they should save themselves the embarassment and issue their own.
peter enger, secretary, UTCC
meow!
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Wolf,
Okay, I admit it.
That was funny.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
How about:
"Warning: Your Driver May Be a Convicted Feline"
?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Mr. Enger,
Here are my suggestions for future stickers. Please feel free to implement any of them without reservation, as I am not worried about the "originality" of the ideas...only the improved impact.
(If Wolf Weiss or anyone else wants to accuse you of "stealing ideas" as I have often been the target of, just ignore him.)
First, abandon any mention of UTCC or any other non-govermental body. Whatever your intention was for placing UTCC on the stickers, it is irrelevant to the greater purpose. It only adds to the risk of ticketing by the City which should be avoided when possible.
Were you originally asking the City to put "UTCC" on the stickers? I hope not. Quite simply, there wasn't a legal reason to do so then or now.
I, and other cabdrivers, won't put a sticker advertising UTCC or anybody else inside or outside my taxicab, let alone a private vehicle. Would you be so concerned that UTCC gets credit that you would have some of us hesitate or refuse to affix the sticker?
Second, contemplate and provide instructions as to where the stickers should be affixed. The lack of uniformity, combined with a non-governmental group's advertising, doesn't add to the credibility of the message. It detracts from the credibility of the message.
I like the white print on a red background. I intend to mimic it with the stickers I produce. It is for this idea of "uniformity for the sake of credibility" that I have decided to put aside a different color scheme which could have been more distinctive.
There should be a sticker sized for interior display as well as one sized for exterior display. This practice of placing the current sticker on the bumper isn't as effective as it should be...the print is too small for that.
Cabdrivers should be warned to remove both the felony-awareness sticker and the surcharge placard from the plexiglass and advised to place them below that, ironically, as passengers have complained that the surcharge placard is obstructing their view.
Third, I went into the field and researched the stickers used by the CTA. Likewise, a Spanish translation of the message alongside the first in English would be appropriate.
Finally, a business card which warns cabdrivers that the DCS hasn't approved this sticker, but an assurance that you or somebody else, a specific person, not simply the "UTCC", will organize a defense of any ticketing by DCS against cabdrivers AS A GROUP, would help prevent any potential reaction from backfiring on your good intentions, and help convince others to participate.
Whether you call them "safety" or "felony-awareness" "stickers" "signs" or "placards", avoid continuing to refer to them as "UTCC" stickers. Otherwise, other groups may distribute their "own" stickers, which could help make a de-facto case for any objections by the City that these are really advertisments, with or without authorship included in print.
Pepsi is proud of the work they do. So is Coke. So is the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC).
None of them can ask cabdriver to place an unauthorized sticker with their name on it and assure them that the City of Chicago doesn't have grounds to formally object with a ticket.
Neither can the UTCC. A sticker with simply the relevant awareness information is much less likely to face a legal challenge.
I hope you consider these constructive criticisms independent of their source and the other issues I have with you and others, personal or professional.
There are other miscellaneous thoughts I have regarding these stickers. If you want to discuss them with me privately, the best way would be through e-mail: cco1@ymail.com.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
to all concerned:
the UTCC had four monthly meetings with the assistant commissioner of the Dept of Consumer Services, Shelly Riedle. we requested that the DCS issue these placards. we had no idea or inclination to issue them ourselves at the time, as we considered this a 'no-brainer' and a softball for the City to hit out of the park and take credit for and also to show us some good faith in their declarations of wantng to work with us in collaboration about issues affecting us cabdrivers.
after four meetings and no answer, we walked out of the meeting (this wasn't the only issue we had been raising with them, but we needed to make a point--cabdriver safety is important to us, all of us)
we then had an emergency meeting, decided to produce them ourselves, have a press conference and an action, and bring some publicity to the cause of driver safety. the article in the tribune was a great result of our strategy, to get the word of this new law out to the public, as it appeared next to Richard Roepers column, a prominent place in the paper.
in our original proposal, we did not have our contact information on the placard. but we want the drivers to know who had issued it. all our welcome, if it is an issue, to remove the portion that mentions who produced it. i will point out that ALL placards issued by the City contain 'advertisements' for the city org. that produces it--eithe the mayor, or norma reyes, etc. As does ones issued by orgs such as national safety council etc. there is nothng inherently wrong with informing the public of our doing good works. we are proud of the works we do.
we too have seen the placards all overt the city, and the drivers are expressing gratitude. good. it would have been even better if the City had taken the idea we gave them and the initiative to issue them themselves. perhaps they still will. we would appreciate it, as it would save us a lot more work in the future, and the headache we anticipate when they start ticketing drivers for displaying them. they should save themselves the embarassment and issue their own.
peter enger, secretary, UTCC
it is good that the city did not agree and put the stickers in the cabs who would have paid for them?
The UTCC/AFSC paid for the current stickers and I am glad they did. Now I have a question for you Mr. Thom, Wouldn't it be wise to pay 1.00 for protection of this kind? The current surcharge sign isn't required by the city unless one wants to collect the surcharge. I remove mine for inspection. I haven't been cited for this as it is not mandatory. Neither was this sign to be mandatory. The UTCC just asked for permission it really didn't need. They tried to be nice with the devil.
The only mistake was to ask for permission. The answer from city hall is always no. We should have posted the signs without warning. If the city then said to stop we should go to the media. The King Richie Rich wouldn't like this.
I saw footage shot by an incab camera of a driver getting robbed. This happened in another city. I believe it was recently in Ohio. Fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy. The robbers fled. Now the police are trying to help. Trying to help. Trying to help. Get the idea? Lets put Norma in the front seat and we drop the noose over her neck and pull tightly. When we run away lets check the camera to see if it was effective. We could probably go to her funeral and not get noticed even with the fuzzy camera footage. Get the idea guys/gals? Camera are phony. The city is only not letting us use them so they can impose hybrid vehicles on us. They want to look green. The new Chevy Volt is selling for 40,000 My Crown Vic cost me 7,000. How much fuel can I buy for 33,000? How much is a new battery pack for the Volt? By the way the Volt can only drive 40 miles between charges. Hardly of any use for a cab. Lets go back to Thom.
All I have to say for you Thom is that you're probably one of the ones that would pay 1500.00 for a camera, throw away your shield and refuse to pay 1.00 for a sticker that informs the rider that YOU indeed have RIGHTS too. You already have paid for two signs that tell the rider to complain to the city about you. Once the guy complains you have to go and pay up hundreds at 400 W Superior and also have the fat man tell you that you are lucky to not lose your license. What a nice guy fat boy Stuart is. Why pay for a sign that tells the rider you have rights you ask? Maybe you would be a good number two man for the CC-0. Mike needs someone like you that doesn't have a clue as to what's going on here. Go Thom!
Error in the previous post. Ment to say the city is only letting us use cameras so they can impose hybrid vehicles on us that have no room for a real safety device. Hope this clears it up. Fatlu Hall.
