GCLA Works To Spare Chauffeurs Wrath Of Sign Police

Posted on April 7, 2010 by LCT Staff - Also by this author - About the author

Quick action from lobbyists amends a proposed bill so that chauffeurs picking up clients at San Francisco International Airport won’t get busted for solicitation.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A proposed bill making its way through California’s state legislature now carries an amendment that makes sure chauffeurs who hold up signs for clients at San Francisco International Airport and answer questions about their services from curious passers-by don’t get charged with a misdemeanor for solicitation on airport property.

The amendment was added to the Assembly Bill (AB) 1885 during a hearing of the California State Assembly’s Public Safety Committee Tuesday after lobbyists from the GREATER CALIFORNIA LIVERY ASSOCIATION persuaded lawmakers to include the amendment.

At issue is an anti-solicitation rule at the San Francisco International Airport that bans anyone from selling and/or offering unauthorized products and services on airport property. Violators are charged with a misdemeanor, which carries a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine and/or six months in jail. The current law, however, exempts charter-party carriers, such as luxury limousine operators, licensed by the California Public Utilities Commission. SFO officials, who are sponsoring AB 1885, wanted to strike that exemption from the proposed bill.

The exemption itself has always been irrelevant since licensed legal operators and chauffeurs handle only pre-arranged transportation service that does not involve any selling or solicitous activity on airport property. The GCLA generally supports anti-solicitation measures since they deter illegal limousine operators trying to peddle their services on airport property.

But Gregg Cook, a lobbyist with Government Affairs Consulting of Sacramento, the firm retained by the GCLA, became concerned that the airport’s habitually over-zealous law enforcement would nevertheless find ways to charge legitimate chauffeurs with misdemeanor violations if the exemption were removed.

Without the exemption, airport law enforcement could potentially cite a chauffeur waiting for a client who holds up a sign with his company’s logo and the client’s name, claiming it is a form of advertising, hence solicitation, Cook said. A chauffeur also could potentially be cited for simply answering questions from curious travelers wanting to know about the chauffeur’s transportation services, and then handing out a business card.

The GCLA's concerns about such enforcement behavior have intensified since 2008 when a chauffeur working for a Bay Area-based operator was cited because of a sign he carried at SFO. The chauffeur, who was waiting for a client on a delayed flight, needed to use the restroom, so he leaned his sign bearing his company’s logo and the client name against a wall and went into the restroom. When the chauffeur emerged from the restroom, an airport police officer had torn the sign into pieces, claiming it was a form of illegal advertising and solicitation.

Given such concerns, Cook and his fellow lobbyists this week asked AB 1885’s author, Rep. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo County, to include the detailed language in the amendment that defines solicitation and then specifically exempts for-hire licensed charter-party carriers, such as chauffeured transportation operators. If not, Cook said the GCLA would oppose the bill and the lobbying team would line-up the votes to kill it. Hill agreed to the language.

The bill now must spend a few months going through another Assembly committee, a Senate committee, and then to the floors of both the Assembly and the Senate for final votes before being signed by the Governor.

— Martin Romjue, LCT Magazine

View comments or post a comment on this story. (0 Comments)

More News

Uber Appears To Be Losing A Big Case In Europe

Should the TNC be treated as a taxi service subject to the same safety and employment rules?

Drivers File Preemptive Labor Suit Against Uber Chiefs

The suit alleges disgraced ex-CEO Travis Kalanick and co-founder Garrett Camp advised the company to misclassify drivers.

Virginia Operators Fight TNC Bill And Unfair Tax

The Virginia Limousine Association gears up to repeal TNC registration relief and unfair vehicle tax advantage.

Inside Travis Kalanick’s Resignation As Uber’s CEO

At a Chicago hotel, two venture capitalists presented him with a list of demands, including his departure by the end of the day.

Push To Close Long Island TNC Sex Offender Loophole Begins

Uber and Lyft can start operating in Suffolk County on June 29th.

See More News

Facebook Comments ()

Comments (0)

Post a Comment



See More

LCT Store

LCT Magazine - July 2017 $12.95 COVER STORY: * Why These Titans Work So Hard to Give it Away * *


Experience the three annual industry events for networking for business, showcasing vehicles and products, and getting the tools for success.

Read About Your Region

What’s Happening Near You?
Click on any state to see the latest industry news and events in that region.

More From The World's Largest Fleet Publisher

Automotive Fleet

The Car and truck fleet and leasing management magazine

Business Fleet

managing 10-50 company vehicles

Fleet Financials

Executive vehicle management

Government Fleet

managing public sector vehicles & equipment


Work Truck Magazine

The number 1 resource for vocational truck fleets

Metro Magazine

Serving the bus and passenger rail industries for more than a century

Schoolbus Fleet

Serving school transportation professionals in the U.S. and Canada

Please sign in or register to .    Close