New rule:
Any Gelato establishment with a sign that says:
"Due to hygienic reasons, it is not possible for us to let our customers taste the ice cream. Thank you for your understanding. The staff"
Well, such a place ought also to ban smoking, don't you think? I don't care if they do have a full bar, also. (Wait, why does a Gelato place have a full bar? And why is that sign only in English? Well, I'm guessing I can guess at the latter answer - only Americans expect the option, perhaps. But still...)
2012-04-15
Rauchfreizone
To all restaurants and the like who exist within a locality which has not banned smoking within such establishment (and to the localities: please do), yet which have a smoke free area:
First off, thank you for at least going part way on being smoke free.
Would you like a tip on making it even better, though? Since this is a mostly of one-way form of communication, I'll just hope you answered yes to that, and give you this suggestion:
If you make sure that all the critical sections of your establishment (and especially: entrance, cashier, and WC) are in the smoke-free zone, you'll surely make your non-smoking customers much happier, while costing little to your smoking customers.
Thanks.
- David, in Wien.
First off, thank you for at least going part way on being smoke free.
Would you like a tip on making it even better, though? Since this is a mostly of one-way form of communication, I'll just hope you answered yes to that, and give you this suggestion:
If you make sure that all the critical sections of your establishment (and especially: entrance, cashier, and WC) are in the smoke-free zone, you'll surely make your non-smoking customers much happier, while costing little to your smoking customers.
Thanks.
- David, in Wien.
Global transit passes
Imagine putting money on a card that you could then use at any transit system anywhere on the globe. Different fares would be deducted, depending on the system - and fares in different currencies would somehow have to be figured out. Perhaps disabled and age-based (youth, senior) fare flags could be applied on the card - and either just transfer that data, trusting any authority, or have the authority of one system at least give you a temporary use on a new system until such time as one could b re-certified locally.
And then, too, perhaps passes would automatically be granted on an as-useful basis: Ride once, pay one-ride fare. Ride again, a few hours later, pay again. Ride a third time in the day, pay a half fair (or whatever it happens to be) to upgrade you to unlimited-rides-for-one-day rate. Ride a couple times the next day, auto-upgrade to two-day unlimited. And then 7-day. And then monthly. And then yearly. Or not... Always paying the lowest possible fare for what you're actually using.
And maybe, just maybe, if you auto-upgrade in, say, Los Angeles on a Wednesday to a 7-day pass that started on Monday, and then you're in Berlin on Thursday, you'd pay at most the delta in weekly fares (as adjusted for US$ to € conversion) to get unlimited rides through Sunday.
Or maybe just have the TAP cards they use in LA actually work on all the buses in LA. I just had to pay a cash fare on a "big blue bus" #3 to the airport after using my TAP card just fine to board a Metro 33 to get to that 3. Sigh.
And then, too, perhaps passes would automatically be granted on an as-useful basis: Ride once, pay one-ride fare. Ride again, a few hours later, pay again. Ride a third time in the day, pay a half fair (or whatever it happens to be) to upgrade you to unlimited-rides-for-one-day rate. Ride a couple times the next day, auto-upgrade to two-day unlimited. And then 7-day. And then monthly. And then yearly. Or not... Always paying the lowest possible fare for what you're actually using.
And maybe, just maybe, if you auto-upgrade in, say, Los Angeles on a Wednesday to a 7-day pass that started on Monday, and then you're in Berlin on Thursday, you'd pay at most the delta in weekly fares (as adjusted for US$ to € conversion) to get unlimited rides through Sunday.
Or maybe just have the TAP cards they use in LA actually work on all the buses in LA. I just had to pay a cash fare on a "big blue bus" #3 to the airport after using my TAP card just fine to board a Metro 33 to get to that 3. Sigh.
2012-01-04
On Secular Tithing
Wow... How have I not talked about this before?
Let's start with a story, though:
Once upon a time, there was a guy who volunteered some of his time as a mentor at an organization called Youth In Focus. Youth In Focus, or YIF, as its regulars often call it, is an organization that teaches photography to underprivileged youth in the Seattle area -- to help keep them off the streets, to give them something fun to do, to teach them a marketable trade, and, perhaps most importantly, to help build their self esteem.
Well, one day, this guy found out that because one of the regular donors to YIF had not done their annual donation in a particular year, YIF was going to have to cut half of its program for several quarters. They'd run 3 classes, instead of 6. Oy! This guy was not thrilled with this idea. So he asked the Executive Director one day: What would it take, financially, to *not* have to run the program at only half capacity? The answer: $10,000. At first, he tried to get other mentors excited about doing some fundraising with their friends and contacts... But, for reasons we won't get into in this post, the guy was unsuccessful in getting anywhere close to $10,000 with this tactic. And that Spring quarter, they ran at half capacity. For summer, though, they were able to run full steam. Good thing. Fall, though, was still on the chopping block. And this was not OK with this guy -- it was putting him out of a job as a mentor, and putting a whole lot of kids out of having what he perceived as a very useful class.
But what could he do? He hadn't managed to get enough traction with the other mentors to make the difference. He wasn't working at the time, and couldn't just donate the funds himself... but... He did have some money around, and he had an idea for something he could do. And he did it: He gave YIF a directed matching donation of $5,000, with the expectation that YIF would use that as incentive to raise an additional $5,000, and run the program at full capacity. And they did raise that extra money, and they did run the program.
But wait, he's out of work, and he has $5,000 to kick around? How? Why?
Well, here's the thing. This guy had started something back when he was working that was the thing that made this all possible. He was doing a non-religious form of tithing. Any time he got a paycheck, he would take 10% of the gross amount, and put it in a separate bank account, set up especially for the purpose. Then, sometimes, he could give some of that money to some philanthropic cause. Youth In Focus was the lucky recipient of $5,000 from this account.
This story is true. And, as you've no doubt guessed, that guy was me. And I want more people to tithe in a secular way. I'm not alone... for example, the Atheist Activist website describes secular tithing as a way to "offer material support - our money and our time - to organizations that do good by advancing the values that atheists hold dear". Yeah, sounds about right. I just want more people to be doing it.
So, in hopes of promoting the idea further, I've created a facebook group. Not that facebook is the answer, but it was an easy way to get things started. I call it the World Secular Tithing Society, and I hope you might join. The idea is to spread this idea, and encourage others to tithe -- to their own accounts, and/or maybe at some point to some non-profit that's specifically set up for the purpose of managing the collection of funds from secular tithers and getting it to charitable organizations that serve secular needs in secular ways. Perhaps if some of you join the group, you'd be willing to help me create that non-profit, and make this thing a reality? Or just join... give my posts a "like" now and then, and maybe tell a friend or two. Or twelve. Or 10% of your friends. That might be fitting.
Anyway, one way or another, won't you help out? Join me in doing this, whether or not you join my group? I believe the world would be a better place if more of us did secular tithing. I hope you'll agree. Thank you for reading.
Addendum: Shortly after writing this post, I got to a message in my inbox that mentioned the Sustainable Path Foundation... which seems to be precisely the sort of thing I'm talking about: a secular organization that pools funding together to solve problems in the world. Isn't synchronicity fun?
Let's start with a story, though:
Once upon a time, there was a guy who volunteered some of his time as a mentor at an organization called Youth In Focus. Youth In Focus, or YIF, as its regulars often call it, is an organization that teaches photography to underprivileged youth in the Seattle area -- to help keep them off the streets, to give them something fun to do, to teach them a marketable trade, and, perhaps most importantly, to help build their self esteem.
Well, one day, this guy found out that because one of the regular donors to YIF had not done their annual donation in a particular year, YIF was going to have to cut half of its program for several quarters. They'd run 3 classes, instead of 6. Oy! This guy was not thrilled with this idea. So he asked the Executive Director one day: What would it take, financially, to *not* have to run the program at only half capacity? The answer: $10,000. At first, he tried to get other mentors excited about doing some fundraising with their friends and contacts... But, for reasons we won't get into in this post, the guy was unsuccessful in getting anywhere close to $10,000 with this tactic. And that Spring quarter, they ran at half capacity. For summer, though, they were able to run full steam. Good thing. Fall, though, was still on the chopping block. And this was not OK with this guy -- it was putting him out of a job as a mentor, and putting a whole lot of kids out of having what he perceived as a very useful class.
But what could he do? He hadn't managed to get enough traction with the other mentors to make the difference. He wasn't working at the time, and couldn't just donate the funds himself... but... He did have some money around, and he had an idea for something he could do. And he did it: He gave YIF a directed matching donation of $5,000, with the expectation that YIF would use that as incentive to raise an additional $5,000, and run the program at full capacity. And they did raise that extra money, and they did run the program.
But wait, he's out of work, and he has $5,000 to kick around? How? Why?
Well, here's the thing. This guy had started something back when he was working that was the thing that made this all possible. He was doing a non-religious form of tithing. Any time he got a paycheck, he would take 10% of the gross amount, and put it in a separate bank account, set up especially for the purpose. Then, sometimes, he could give some of that money to some philanthropic cause. Youth In Focus was the lucky recipient of $5,000 from this account.
This story is true. And, as you've no doubt guessed, that guy was me. And I want more people to tithe in a secular way. I'm not alone... for example, the Atheist Activist website describes secular tithing as a way to "offer material support - our money and our time - to organizations that do good by advancing the values that atheists hold dear". Yeah, sounds about right. I just want more people to be doing it.
So, in hopes of promoting the idea further, I've created a facebook group. Not that facebook is the answer, but it was an easy way to get things started. I call it the World Secular Tithing Society, and I hope you might join. The idea is to spread this idea, and encourage others to tithe -- to their own accounts, and/or maybe at some point to some non-profit that's specifically set up for the purpose of managing the collection of funds from secular tithers and getting it to charitable organizations that serve secular needs in secular ways. Perhaps if some of you join the group, you'd be willing to help me create that non-profit, and make this thing a reality? Or just join... give my posts a "like" now and then, and maybe tell a friend or two. Or twelve. Or 10% of your friends. That might be fitting.
Anyway, one way or another, won't you help out? Join me in doing this, whether or not you join my group? I believe the world would be a better place if more of us did secular tithing. I hope you'll agree. Thank you for reading.
Addendum: Shortly after writing this post, I got to a message in my inbox that mentioned the Sustainable Path Foundation... which seems to be precisely the sort of thing I'm talking about: a secular organization that pools funding together to solve problems in the world. Isn't synchronicity fun?
2011-07-13
Apple's Mac App Store: Licensing info: needs improvement!
This post is about something specific, but the concepts are general:
When presenting a license to an end user, make it fully accessible.
What does this mean? A couple things, at least:
There are probably more, too. And certainly Apple has other issues with the way they do licensing. For example iTunes. Every single time an update to iTunes comes out -- or at least it seems this way to me -- the user is forced to agree to a license again.
Presumably, the license has changed only a little bit, if at all. So why do I need to read pages and pages of license agreement each time?
Well, why do I, you may be asking? Because in theory, clicking "agree" means that I have done so. If they would provide me a summary of changes, this would be so much easier to do. Better yet, stop presenting it except when it's changed, and try not to change it often.
I could go on and on, and it's not just Apple... but Apple being a company that I'm a frequent customer of, and having some poor policies in my mind, they're the top of my list right now of annoying licensing practices.
Steve Jobs or someone: Please put some attention on this, and get your lawyers to work on making this more user-friendly. Don't worry, they won't mind too much: it's more work for them. :-P
When presenting a license to an end user, make it fully accessible.
What does this mean? A couple things, at least:
- Allow text to be selected. I'd like to be able to copy and paste either sections or the whole content to another format, for easier reading, making notes, bookmarks, etc.
- Make it easy to print. Sometimes, it's just easier to read things in hard-copy. Especially if one wants to take notes, read things somewhere quiet and distraction-free, or the like.
There are probably more, too. And certainly Apple has other issues with the way they do licensing. For example iTunes. Every single time an update to iTunes comes out -- or at least it seems this way to me -- the user is forced to agree to a license again.
Presumably, the license has changed only a little bit, if at all. So why do I need to read pages and pages of license agreement each time?
Well, why do I, you may be asking? Because in theory, clicking "agree" means that I have done so. If they would provide me a summary of changes, this would be so much easier to do. Better yet, stop presenting it except when it's changed, and try not to change it often.
I could go on and on, and it's not just Apple... but Apple being a company that I'm a frequent customer of, and having some poor policies in my mind, they're the top of my list right now of annoying licensing practices.
Steve Jobs or someone: Please put some attention on this, and get your lawyers to work on making this more user-friendly. Don't worry, they won't mind too much: it's more work for them. :-P
2011-01-20
Why skilled support staff is better than outsourcing
A lot of places are outsourcing support, these days, or so I keep hearing (and from time to time having evidence of).
And I just recently had a support experience where the software to support my on-line real-time chat was outsourced, even though the actual support person was not. But as it happens, the experience was problematic in other ways, that I won't bother going into -- another person at the company was able to clear things up quite nicely. My point of telling you all this, though, is just to point out why I came to the following conlusion:
Skilled support staff is better than non-skilled support staff
This probably especially applies to outsourced support staff, as I imagine they're most likely to be following a script, rather than actually understanding the problem(s) that customers are facing.
And here's the reason:
Someone who actually has a chance of understanding the customer in detail, is going to be achieving "habit 5" from the seven habits of highly effective people[1] -- and most importantly, in my mind, not even just the understanding part of it, but that the customer feels understood. Because feeling understood opens you up to then having a good interaction with someone, instead of just battling to try to get your point understood. (Granted, the customer can try to apply habit 5, but in my experience, it's really really hard to do with someone who's trying to read from a script.)
So yeah, to my mind, having scripted support (outsourcing or no) is a recipe for frustrated customers... which of course means customers who are that much more likely to become former customers, and that much less likely to encourage others to become new customers.
So, hire the best in your support staff, and train them well -- on the tech side and on communications. It's better for the customer, and, in the long run, better for your organization, as well.
At least that's how I see it.
[1] Note: I'm linking to the wikipedia article, instead of a direct link to the book, because, while I think Covey's material is great, I'd really prefer that you didn't buy his book. He's an active member of the LDS Church, which presumably means he tithes to (or otherwise financially supports) that organization, and I have a strong desire to avoid helping them out in any way (which is the subject of another post -- I'll try to remember to update this post with a link to it, if/when I ever write it).
And I just recently had a support experience where the software to support my on-line real-time chat was outsourced, even though the actual support person was not. But as it happens, the experience was problematic in other ways, that I won't bother going into -- another person at the company was able to clear things up quite nicely. My point of telling you all this, though, is just to point out why I came to the following conlusion:
Skilled support staff is better than non-skilled support staff
This probably especially applies to outsourced support staff, as I imagine they're most likely to be following a script, rather than actually understanding the problem(s) that customers are facing.
And here's the reason:
Someone who actually has a chance of understanding the customer in detail, is going to be achieving "habit 5" from the seven habits of highly effective people[1] -- and most importantly, in my mind, not even just the understanding part of it, but that the customer feels understood. Because feeling understood opens you up to then having a good interaction with someone, instead of just battling to try to get your point understood. (Granted, the customer can try to apply habit 5, but in my experience, it's really really hard to do with someone who's trying to read from a script.)
So yeah, to my mind, having scripted support (outsourcing or no) is a recipe for frustrated customers... which of course means customers who are that much more likely to become former customers, and that much less likely to encourage others to become new customers.
So, hire the best in your support staff, and train them well -- on the tech side and on communications. It's better for the customer, and, in the long run, better for your organization, as well.
At least that's how I see it.
[1] Note: I'm linking to the wikipedia article, instead of a direct link to the book, because, while I think Covey's material is great, I'd really prefer that you didn't buy his book. He's an active member of the LDS Church, which presumably means he tithes to (or otherwise financially supports) that organization, and I have a strong desire to avoid helping them out in any way (which is the subject of another post -- I'll try to remember to update this post with a link to it, if/when I ever write it).
2010-05-03
None of us are free, when one of us is chained
Last night, I witnessed a car accident. It was a minor accident, a so called (and literal) fender bender. A large black pickup truck, with Idaho plates, struck a Yellow Cab. My first form of witness was hearing a bang. I turned my head, and looked, and saw and heard a second bang. The cab was rear-ended. Twice, technically.
I was half a block away, waiting at a bus stop. I started walking towards the incident. The truck was clearly at fault, and I'm a believer in being the type of witness who will go and report what they've seen, to help out a wronged person, whatever the situation. So I walked closer, and got out my phone (the only camera I had with me at the time), and took a couple of pictures, and making mental notes of what had happened. I then switched to video mode, so I could also make some actual recorded notes, via speech, about what I'd seen. While I was recording, the driver of the pick-up truck drove away. It had just escalated into a hit-and-run.
I crossed the street, to check in with the cabbie (here's hoping that's not a derogative term -- I certainly mean it only as a description of their occupation at the time). I was received with an apparent wino, asserting that he'd just gotten a ride from down the block. I didn't realize at the time, but was later assured by another witness (my girlfriend, Laura), that this person had gotten out of the pick-up truck. I could go into the speculations we had about why the guy was picked up, but making assumptions about that would be wrong in ways only incidentally related to the main thing I want to talk about here.
I had photos. I had video. It had been a hit-and-run. Sadly, I did not have the license plate -- I didn't get a clear picture of it (though I did get an unclear picture of it -- I was trying), and I hadn't made any other note of it, other than a mental one of the state.
Meanwhile, the wino (there are assumptions here, too, but I'm going to go with that as the best description I can come up with at the moment for this person) was getting up in my grill, which was interfering with my ability to check in with the cab driver, which was my first priority. I told him I had no business with him, and to let me do my think. In clarity of hindsight, I wish I'd gotten more of his story, or perhaps even a photo of him. What I did do, though, was to move on to my 2nd priority: Calling the police.
So I dialed. 9-1-1. I described to the dispatcher what I had just witnessed. I answered some questions, gave some pertinent details to the "radio" person (i.e. someone actually dispatching details to police, rather than the operator I was initially speaking to), and then was told (by the original operator), after a few more questions, that a car would be at my location shortly.
And there was. A police officer (whose name and/or ID number, alas, I didn't think to get -- I'll freely admit that I'm not always the most prepared thinker in these situations, though hopefully I'm learning to be better as I go) arrived, talk to the cabbie, talked to me, talked to Laura, got IDs from each of us, looked at my video evidence, etc. Another officer arrived at one point, had a brief interaction, and then went off in the last-known direction of the offending vehicle.
Another cab driver, apparently (and later ostensibly) a friend to the one who had been struck, arrived on the scene. The police officer got into his cruiser and was making notes. He eventually came back out, gave Laura and I back our IDs, and let us know that we were free to go. The other cabbie at that point asked us where we needed to go, offering to take us, apparently in thanks for our assistance.
The first cabbie asked for our contact information, and it was agreed (I'm pretty sure -- hopefully the struck cabbie was actually in agreement with this plan; I never actually spoke with him terribly much, alas) that we'd give it to the other cabbie, as we drove. (Meanwhile, the police car raced off with lights going shortly after we pulled away. In pursuit of the driver, who had been caught by the other police car, I hoped... though really, I'm guessing that it's more likely that it was in response to an unrelated call. Who knows?)
And we did do that. Laura and I each wrote our names and numbers down on a piece of paper.
Which brings us, almost, to the real point of this story. This second cabbie (whose name I'll keep from reporting here, for reasons which will soon be apparent) and we had a little conversation in the cab, and he thanked us for our help, and we thanked him for his, and he dropped us off at home.
This morning, a phone call came in. I had stayed up late (for completely unrelated reasons), and so even a late-morning call was (literally) a wake-up call. An unknown number, and I was still half-asleep, so I didn't answer. A little while later, though, the same number called again. And then the same number called Laura. I was starting to be more awake at this point. Neither of us had answered, but clearly they were calling specifically for us, or they wouldn't have called those two numbers in such quick succession. So I sent back a text message, asking who they were, and saying to leave a message. And after sending that, it clicked: I know who this is -- at least roughly: It's either one of the cabbies, or someone from the police (but no, they'd have left a message), or someone related to that incident.
And so when the phone rang again, I answered it. And here's where the meat of the story comes in. It was the second cabbie, the one who had given us a ride home.
His English was imperfect, and so are cell-to-cell phone calls (I'd given him my home number, but that currently forwards to my cell phone), so it was a bit difficult to understand what he was saying. With some repetition and some effort on my part to understand him, though, I eventually figured out (and here's the crux of it):
He wanted me to not report anything further to the police, or, especially, to Yellow Cab. The other cabbie, he told me, had decided that he wanted to just handle it himself. He was unhurt, and it would be less expense and less hassle if this did not go on his record, did not get reported to the cab company, and did not get reported to his insurance. Even though he was clearly not at fault, if the cab company or his insurance found out about it, it would be points on his record, increased premiums, and the hassle of reports to fill out.
I believe this is wrong. Let me be more specific: I believe that this decision, upon the part of the cabbie, was understandable but unfortunate; I believe that the fact that he was motivated to make this decision -- by what I presume is the very real expectation that it would cost him time, money, and hassle -- is wrong. He should, I deem, have had very little if any reason not to give a full report, and various reasons to give such a report.
This is my assertion. To have an insurance company and/or a cab company that holds cab drivers (or any drivers) to account for an incident which can clearly be shown to not be their fault: this is an injustice. And this I am railing against, and hence the reason for this blog post.
And yet I feel somewhat trapped, as I genuinely do believe that if the incident was reported, that it would in fact do harm to the livelihood of this driver. So I don't want to say all I know. What I instead am doing, is writing this blog post. And I implore any readers of this, and I quite possibly myself will, contact yellow cab, and ask them to change their policies, such that incidents such as this one are not something that their drivers are inclined to keep quiet. Because whatever else may or may not be true, one thing is certain: There is a driver out there somewhere who fled the scene of an accident that he (and I did see that it was a he) was at fault for. And for a variety of reasons, this is unacceptable behavior. I don't know if this person was caught or not. I'm guessing not. There are a lot of turns one can make in the minute or two that at a very minimum had transpired between when he left the scene and when I got to the point of talking to the radio dispatcher, let alone however long it took to get the message out. Then again, radio signals travel faster than any vehicle, so there's some vague hope.
At any rate, I believe that a wrongness exists, and I've come to believe in the idea, from
Barry Mann et al, that "none of us are free, if one of us is chained". This cabbie is chained, figuratively, from the freedom of doing the right thing, and making a report about a wrong that was done. And so I will not take the action of "if you don't say it's wrong, then that says it's right." This is wrong. I encourage you to join me in efforts to "get the message, send it out loud and clear".
But really, Solomon Burke sings it so much more poignantly than I can write it:
None of us are free. Giving people reasons to avoid reporting wrongs is, itself, wrong. Make it stop.
I was half a block away, waiting at a bus stop. I started walking towards the incident. The truck was clearly at fault, and I'm a believer in being the type of witness who will go and report what they've seen, to help out a wronged person, whatever the situation. So I walked closer, and got out my phone (the only camera I had with me at the time), and took a couple of pictures, and making mental notes of what had happened. I then switched to video mode, so I could also make some actual recorded notes, via speech, about what I'd seen. While I was recording, the driver of the pick-up truck drove away. It had just escalated into a hit-and-run.
I crossed the street, to check in with the cabbie (here's hoping that's not a derogative term -- I certainly mean it only as a description of their occupation at the time). I was received with an apparent wino, asserting that he'd just gotten a ride from down the block. I didn't realize at the time, but was later assured by another witness (my girlfriend, Laura), that this person had gotten out of the pick-up truck. I could go into the speculations we had about why the guy was picked up, but making assumptions about that would be wrong in ways only incidentally related to the main thing I want to talk about here.
I had photos. I had video. It had been a hit-and-run. Sadly, I did not have the license plate -- I didn't get a clear picture of it (though I did get an unclear picture of it -- I was trying), and I hadn't made any other note of it, other than a mental one of the state.
Meanwhile, the wino (there are assumptions here, too, but I'm going to go with that as the best description I can come up with at the moment for this person) was getting up in my grill, which was interfering with my ability to check in with the cab driver, which was my first priority. I told him I had no business with him, and to let me do my think. In clarity of hindsight, I wish I'd gotten more of his story, or perhaps even a photo of him. What I did do, though, was to move on to my 2nd priority: Calling the police.
So I dialed. 9-1-1. I described to the dispatcher what I had just witnessed. I answered some questions, gave some pertinent details to the "radio" person (i.e. someone actually dispatching details to police, rather than the operator I was initially speaking to), and then was told (by the original operator), after a few more questions, that a car would be at my location shortly.
And there was. A police officer (whose name and/or ID number, alas, I didn't think to get -- I'll freely admit that I'm not always the most prepared thinker in these situations, though hopefully I'm learning to be better as I go) arrived, talk to the cabbie, talked to me, talked to Laura, got IDs from each of us, looked at my video evidence, etc. Another officer arrived at one point, had a brief interaction, and then went off in the last-known direction of the offending vehicle.
Another cab driver, apparently (and later ostensibly) a friend to the one who had been struck, arrived on the scene. The police officer got into his cruiser and was making notes. He eventually came back out, gave Laura and I back our IDs, and let us know that we were free to go. The other cabbie at that point asked us where we needed to go, offering to take us, apparently in thanks for our assistance.
The first cabbie asked for our contact information, and it was agreed (I'm pretty sure -- hopefully the struck cabbie was actually in agreement with this plan; I never actually spoke with him terribly much, alas) that we'd give it to the other cabbie, as we drove. (Meanwhile, the police car raced off with lights going shortly after we pulled away. In pursuit of the driver, who had been caught by the other police car, I hoped... though really, I'm guessing that it's more likely that it was in response to an unrelated call. Who knows?)
And we did do that. Laura and I each wrote our names and numbers down on a piece of paper.
Which brings us, almost, to the real point of this story. This second cabbie (whose name I'll keep from reporting here, for reasons which will soon be apparent) and we had a little conversation in the cab, and he thanked us for our help, and we thanked him for his, and he dropped us off at home.
This morning, a phone call came in. I had stayed up late (for completely unrelated reasons), and so even a late-morning call was (literally) a wake-up call. An unknown number, and I was still half-asleep, so I didn't answer. A little while later, though, the same number called again. And then the same number called Laura. I was starting to be more awake at this point. Neither of us had answered, but clearly they were calling specifically for us, or they wouldn't have called those two numbers in such quick succession. So I sent back a text message, asking who they were, and saying to leave a message. And after sending that, it clicked: I know who this is -- at least roughly: It's either one of the cabbies, or someone from the police (but no, they'd have left a message), or someone related to that incident.
And so when the phone rang again, I answered it. And here's where the meat of the story comes in. It was the second cabbie, the one who had given us a ride home.
His English was imperfect, and so are cell-to-cell phone calls (I'd given him my home number, but that currently forwards to my cell phone), so it was a bit difficult to understand what he was saying. With some repetition and some effort on my part to understand him, though, I eventually figured out (and here's the crux of it):
He wanted me to not report anything further to the police, or, especially, to Yellow Cab. The other cabbie, he told me, had decided that he wanted to just handle it himself. He was unhurt, and it would be less expense and less hassle if this did not go on his record, did not get reported to the cab company, and did not get reported to his insurance. Even though he was clearly not at fault, if the cab company or his insurance found out about it, it would be points on his record, increased premiums, and the hassle of reports to fill out.
I believe this is wrong. Let me be more specific: I believe that this decision, upon the part of the cabbie, was understandable but unfortunate; I believe that the fact that he was motivated to make this decision -- by what I presume is the very real expectation that it would cost him time, money, and hassle -- is wrong. He should, I deem, have had very little if any reason not to give a full report, and various reasons to give such a report.
This is my assertion. To have an insurance company and/or a cab company that holds cab drivers (or any drivers) to account for an incident which can clearly be shown to not be their fault: this is an injustice. And this I am railing against, and hence the reason for this blog post.
And yet I feel somewhat trapped, as I genuinely do believe that if the incident was reported, that it would in fact do harm to the livelihood of this driver. So I don't want to say all I know. What I instead am doing, is writing this blog post. And I implore any readers of this, and I quite possibly myself will, contact yellow cab, and ask them to change their policies, such that incidents such as this one are not something that their drivers are inclined to keep quiet. Because whatever else may or may not be true, one thing is certain: There is a driver out there somewhere who fled the scene of an accident that he (and I did see that it was a he) was at fault for. And for a variety of reasons, this is unacceptable behavior. I don't know if this person was caught or not. I'm guessing not. There are a lot of turns one can make in the minute or two that at a very minimum had transpired between when he left the scene and when I got to the point of talking to the radio dispatcher, let alone however long it took to get the message out. Then again, radio signals travel faster than any vehicle, so there's some vague hope.
At any rate, I believe that a wrongness exists, and I've come to believe in the idea, from
Barry Mann et al, that "none of us are free, if one of us is chained". This cabbie is chained, figuratively, from the freedom of doing the right thing, and making a report about a wrong that was done. And so I will not take the action of "if you don't say it's wrong, then that says it's right." This is wrong. I encourage you to join me in efforts to "get the message, send it out loud and clear".
But really, Solomon Burke sings it so much more poignantly than I can write it:
None of us are free. Giving people reasons to avoid reporting wrongs is, itself, wrong. Make it stop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
