Hailing a cab can be tough in Denver -- but it used to be illegal

cabpic205.jpg
As anyone traveler to Denver stuck downtown at midnight knows, it's almost impossible to hail a cab. But not so long ago, it as actually illegal! The transportation scene has changed so much -- with new ride options like Uber and Lyft joining an increasing number of cab companies, and those companies adding their own on-demand apps, as Joel Warner relates in his recent "Street Fight" cover story -- it's almost impossible to remember what the streets were like a decade ago, when three cab companies had the market to themselves, and there were no pink moustaches on the road.

Leaving LoDo at night, you'd call for a cab, and cross your fingers. Or you'd hope you could find a driver who was ignoring the city's ban on hailing, which was considered a safety issue. "When I was a night bar-scene driver, I made about 50 percent of my gross totals on hails," says one driver. "Enforcement was never there. "

Why did Denver change its rules? The Democratic National Convention was coming to town, and a world-class city needs to have cabs available. So Denver City Council amended the city ordinances to allow hailing (cabs had to install flashing orange lights to indicate they were stopping in traffic to pick up a ride) and then-Mayor John Hickenlooper signed it into law in the summer of 2007 -- a year before the Democrats descended.

If the Republicans wind up bringing their convention here in 2016, they'll have plenty of ride options -- who knows how many more programs like Uber and Lyft will pop up in the next few years? But thanks to the Democrats, they'll also be able to hail a cab.

More from the Calhoun: Wake-Up Call archive: "A century and a half later, the wounds of Sand Creek are still fresh."

Have a tip? Send it to patricia.calhoun@westword.com.




Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
6 comments
RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

Zero mention of the meeting at which the State will announce its new offensive against medical cannabis; no interest in covering the likely fate of the $10,000,000 overage in the patient register fund; WW is focused on what's really important:  being able to hail a cab home from the bar when you're really wasted.


P.S. The attack on medical marijuana will be explained tomorrow, Friday, March 28, in the Old Supreme Court Chambers in the Capitol between 1-4PM.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase  ... so now you want help putting out the legal wildfire that YOU started via your personal political ignorance and myopic vanity during the A64 scampaign?


Priceless!

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay  Your accusation is utterly baseless and false.

Even if people don't care about cannabis, the fact that the CDPHE wants to define "employee" to mean "non-employee" should make anyone who cares about good government do a double-take; what clearer indication of their skullduggery could there be?  The lies to which successive heads of the CDPHE have been committed are so bald that it is incredible that anyone with a shred of personal integrity could sign onto them -- we are now supposed to accept the direct contradiction of the Constitution to open up access to the confidential register of patients to any designee of the Department of Health and the fantastic explanation that this will help ensure its confidentiality!  

Think
Think

@DonkeyHotay  64 has nothing to to with these requests. They stem from the awful mismanagement of the MMED over the last few years and the failed audit of the MMED. An audit they would have failed with or without 64 being passed.


We get it, you like to blame all the ills of the world on 64 - but you come across as a dense fool who can't look past his own blind hatred to the real truth of a matter. 


But keep blaming faceless 64 and "MMIG PIGS" for screwing over patients when the simple, sad, pathethic reality is looking you right in the face: this was caused by a failed government bureaucracy in action. 

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay You can't keep the two sections straight (or you are making a deliberately false insinuation -- hmm).  Section 16 does not compromise Section 14 or in any way harm medical cannabis; Steve King and the legion of prohibitionists controlling State government do threaten medical cannabis.  Have you confused the individual and collective actions of prohibitionists in positions of power with a provision of our Constitution?  What you write demonstrates that you intend to deceive.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@RobertChase


"I do not believe that there will be any fallout for medical cannabis [if A64 passes]"

 -- Robert Chase


" I need to acknowledge having previously misinterpreted subsection (3) (a) of the medical cannabis amendment. The specific phraseology of (a) does in fact permit entire law enforcement agencies to know a patient's status when a member stops someone." 

-- Robert Chase



Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...