Pedicab regulation bill passes, but industry inequalities remain

Photo by carryboo of flickr

Upon passage of Local Law 19 by the City Council this past August, the pedicab trade has been forced to make a few changes regarding how it does business in the city.  Most of the regulations mandated have been praised by officials, such as requirements for safety standards, insurance, registration, and driver conduct.  However, a few aspects of the law hinder the growth potential of an otherwise benign and promising industry and put them on an unequal footing with comparable vehicles in Manhattan.  

1. Pedicabs must have insurance (Sec 20-253)
A given.  Some may claim that if pedicabs must be insured, then so should individual cyclists.  However, there is a hierarchy of vulnerability that must be taken into account.  A pedestrian should not be required to get liability insurance for walking on the street because (if they also follow the rules of traffic; all bets are off for jaywalkers) they pose no harm to anyone.  An individual cyclist may collide with a pedestrian or vehicle, but it is always at their own expense.  They will inevitably hurt themselves and their vehicle if they ride recklessly.  A motorized vehicle ought to be insured because they are operating a two-ton machine that protects themselves—but not a victim or property in a collision.  Because car drivers are protected by the big metal cage, there is not the heightened awareness borne of self-preservation.  Responsibility towards the vulnerable must be achieved monetarily. Though I'm opposed to the license and registration of individual cycles, pedicab insurance is a necessity because the operators are providing a paid service and are therefore obligated to ensure a safe ride to their patrons--or face the consequences.  

2. Required equipment, safety mechanisms (Sec 20-254)
Another given.  To guarantee the safe ride that pedicab transportation services are obligated to provide, as well as establish an industry standard, pedicabs ought to be equipped with sufficiently functioning brakes, an emergency brake, signals, reflectors, lights, seat belts, etc.  

3. Registration plate (Sec 20-255)
In tandem, to help legitimatize their business, secure accountability, and ensure consistency of fare, prices and operator information must be posted along with an up-to-date registration plate.  Consumers have a right to their safety and to know if the service they are paying for is up to code.

4. Pedicab driver's license (Sec 20-257)
One does not NEED to know traffic law in order to ride a personal bicycle, but lack thereof exponentially increases the risk of injury and a traffic violation ticket.  A pedicab is a larger vehicle, however, and spends most of its time in traffic among vehicles who (arguably) are familiar with traffic law.  Again, to legitimize their trade and provide an ideally risk-free ride, pedicab drivers owe it to their passengers to identify the safest situations and circumstances for their transportation, which is best achieved by knowing and following the law.   If one follows the law as stringently as possible, there is less risk of injury and property damage, and the liability will rest on the other party.  

Knowledge of the law also increases awareness of one's rights as a cyclist and a vehicle.  It is highly recommended for all to know in order to avoid being taken advantage of, victimized, or marginalized when on the road.  

5. Restrictions (Sec. 20-259)
Most of the restrictions on pedicab conduct are to ensure maximum safety of the passengers and the operator, such as a passenger limit of three and adherence to officer instructions in exigent circumstances.  Pedicabs are also henceforth banned from all bridges, tunnels, bike lanes, and highways.  Given a pedicab's large stature potentially impeding cycles, and low maximum speed compared with fast-moving motor vehicles, this is fairly reasonable.

Where this well-intentioned provision goes wrong is twofold.  In Sections e-f, the law states that in exceptional circumstances, an officer may instruct a pedicab operator to move his or her vehicle, or restrict pedicab access to a certain street for a specified duration.  In most cases, such as an emergency assessment, parade, or demonstration, this is also reasonable, as pedestrians and other vehicles will also  be restricted from the area.  However, the law also allows for officials to restrict pedicabs in “unusually heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic.”  This means that pedicabs, which are vehicles under the law, will be subject to removal while other vehicular traffic is permitted to remain.  

Additionally, in section g, the new law states “Every affected community board may...conduct public hearings hereon and submit written recommendations (which) may include, but not be limited to, methods to address any impact this law may have on such community with respect to pedestrian and vehicle traffic flow.”  Again, there is a chance that pedicabs could be restricted while other comparable vehicles are allowed, a provision that could encourage discrimination against this legitimate, sustainable operation. 

6. Ban on motors (Sec 19-171.1)
Electric-assist motors are allowed on single-passenger bicycles.  Motors more powerful and more environmentally damaging are inherent in automobiles.  Pedicabs, the middle ground, are permitted neither, a pestilential provision in an otherwise benevolent law.  The ban on electric-assist motors does nothing to increase the safety of pedicab passengers or operators.  In fact, it actually increases their handicap when operating within traffic.  

Keeping in mind that a pedicab alone can weigh over two hundred pounds, when the weight of up to three passengers is added, it is a burden that can add up to almost 1,000 pounds.  As a lighter cab (ie, fewer passengers) is less profitable, to make a living, that pair of legs must propel that weight over an eight-hour day, as well as over umpteen hills.  Pedicabs are a more space-efficient and environmentally-favorable form of transportation—not to mention a source of employment and income for many—and should be given a break on this measure.  There is no reason why there should be a ban on an electrical-assist motor with the wattage of a hair dryer (about 250 watts, or 1/3 of a horsepower.  Some use 750, which is half the juice of an electric lawn mower), especially when the activation of the motor is contingent upon the pedaling in the first place.  

One major complaint against pedicabs is that they move too slowly for mainstream traffic, despite them nonetheless having an equal right to the road.  However, it's not as if traffic in Times Square or the East Village, or even Central Park, flows as quickly as it does on, say, the West Side Highway.  As long as pedicabs are in motion, they are not blocking traffic.  But when automobile drivers feel impeded, whether or not it is justified, the object of their ire is subject to harassment and threatened with a horde of impatient, impulsive motorists who do not always make the safest choices when upset.  Pedicabs and their passengers are subject to danger via the behavior of motorists.  They  ought to be allowed electric-assist motors to better keep up with the flow of traffic and increase their equality with other vehicles.

Regulation of the pedicab industry is ultimately a boon to safe, sustainable transit.  Requirement of drivers' licenses and increased personal accountability measures will help weed out unsafe and irresponsible operators.  There will be fewer pedicabs going the wrong way, driving on sidewalks, and careening down bridges.   However, it is essential that the pedicab industry also be given opportunity to grow and thrive on its own terms.  If they must obey the same code as motorists, they ought to be given equal access to streets and technology as well.