Why Taxi News has no fear of Artificial Intelligence

A.I. doesn’t notice when common sense goes missing

Ontario policymakers may have been cautious about giving rideshare services too much of an advantage by also allowing taxis to adopt more flexible, cheaper insurance models. By maintaining separate insurance rules for taxis, the province sought to maintain some level of protection for the traditional taxi industry.

–ChatGPT

I know that thousands of Taxi industry members worry that Artificial Intelligence may put Taxi News out of business.

To be truthful, the number may be lower than that. Maybe hundreds are worried….OK, Peter Pellier might worry about this and I truly appreciate his concern for and commitment to this tenacious little publication. (Taxi News will celebrate its 40th Anniversary in 2025!)

As loyal readers know, I spent several weeks this fall trying to codify the precise differences between commercial insurance for Taxis (ranging in price approximately from $7,000 to $20,000, providing coverage 24 hours per day, 7 days per week) and time-phased insurance for Uber drivers (upfront premium quoted at $276 per year, daily “insurance and service fees” yet to be quantified. Stay tuned for that).

The comparison chart which resulted from that research can be found here.

Over many weeks, I pestered everyone in both the Taxi and insurance industries for the available details of their programs. I engaged in interminable email exchanges with Ontario government bureaucrats and media spokespersons; their knowledge of the file is so bleak, the final email I received read “I don’t know exactly where it is… in an archive somewhere I am sure…”

(The City of Toronto’s media team, I note again, does an incredibly quick and helpful job of answering questions and I am thankful for that.)

Because it’s 2024, I also posed the question to Artificial Intelligence platform ChatGPT. I watched in fascination as impressive paragraphs of text rolled out, line after line, quickly and copiously filling the screen with buzzwords, jargon and newspeak.

If you have the determination and the attention span to read the entire answer, provided below, I commend you for your persistence and your intestinal fortitude.

If you want to jump directly to the section which made me laugh out loud, it’s this one:

“Taxi companies have historically operated under stringent requirements in terms of licenses, insurance, and municipal oversight. Ontario policymakers may have been cautious about giving rideshare services too much of an advantage by also allowing taxis to adopt more flexible, cheaper insurance models. By maintaining separate insurance rules for taxis, the province sought to maintain some level of protection for the traditional taxi industry.”

“If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance,” W.C. Fields advised, “baffle them with bullshit.”

“Artificial Assurance,” maybe. “Artificial Intelligence”? Not so much.

*****

Taxi News’ question to ChatGPT:

“When Ontario re-wrote auto insurance regulations in 2016 to allow rideshare companies to use a time-phased approach to insurance, it excluded Taxis. Why did Ontario exclude Taxis?

ChatGPT said:

“Ontario’s decision in 2016 to exclude taxis from the time-phased insurance model that was designed for rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft was driven by several key factors. The time-phased model refers to different insurance coverage based on the stage a rideshare driver is in—such as being offline, waiting for a fare, or actively transporting a passenger.

Here are the main reasons taxis were excluded:

1. Regulatory Framework Differences:

Taxis operate under a highly regulated framework compared to rideshare services. Taxi drivers in Ontario are generally required to hold commercial insurance that provides 24/7 coverage, regardless of whether they are carrying a passenger or waiting for one. This full-time insurance requirement contrasts with rideshare drivers, who often drive part-time and need a more flexible approach, hence the time-phased insurance.

2. Level Playing Field for Taxis:

Taxi companies have historically operated under stringent requirements in terms of licenses, insurance, and municipal oversight. Ontario policymakers may have been cautious about giving rideshare services too much of an advantage by also allowing taxis to adopt more flexible, cheaper insurance models. By maintaining separate insurance rules for taxis, the province sought to maintain some level of protection for the traditional taxi industry.

3. Consumer Protection and Safety Concerns:

Taxi services are considered essential public transportation in many areas, especially urban centers. By requiring full commercial insurance, the province aimed to ensure passengers were covered in all scenarios. Policymakers may have believed that the complexity of taxi operations, including the volume of rides, justified a different level of coverage to ensure consistent protection for both drivers and passengers.

4. Municipal Influence and Lobbying:

Taxi associations and municipalities may have played a role in keeping taxis under a different insurance system. Many cities in Ontario regulate taxi fleets heavily, and they likely pushed back against any reforms that might blur the lines between taxis and ridesharing services. These groups have a long history of lobbying for more stringent insurance and regulatory requirements for taxis.

5. Insurance Industry Preferences:

The insurance industry was more accustomed to the risks posed by taxis, given their long history in Ontario. A time-phased insurance model for rideshare drivers was a new concept, and insurers may have been unwilling to extend that model to taxis due to differences in risk profiles, frequency of rides, and potential liability.

In summary, Ontario likely excluded taxis from this flexible insurance model due to their different regulatory requirements, a desire to protect consumers, and efforts to maintain fairness between the established taxi industry and emerging rideshare platforms.”